Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-05-28/World War II Casualties

Where is the dispute?
The dispute is on the World War II Casualties Talk Page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_War_II_casualties

Who is involved?

 * User:Woogie10w
 * User:Jabberwok2010

What is the dispute?
The issue is that user:Jabberwok2010 is attempting to contribute to the article World War II casualties, but has found that the primary editor user:Woogie10w is unwilling to engage in open debate and has misrepresented sourced data posted on the talk page by user:Jabberwok2010 to third parties. user:Woogie10w has also engaged in unwelcoming behavior such as falsely accusing user:Jabberwok2010 of puffery and commiting synthasis.

What would you like to change about this?
I would appreciate it if Woogie10w would not misrepresent or post only partial copies of the data Jabberwok2010 has posted and that the general enviroment was altered to allow for more than one editior on that topic.

How do you think we can help?
By either establishing or reestablishing conduct guidelines that will actually be followed, or providing for more participation by editors other than the one currently in complete control.

Mediator notes
Willing to help but let me try something below... Hipocrite (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
In a nut shell User:Jabberwok2010 proposed the addition of 300,000 war dead in Rwanda during WW2 at Talk:World War II casualties. The user presented this source to support the argument. Catherine Newberry's The Cohesion of Opression: Clientship and Ethnicity 1860-1960 P157-158

''During World War II the colonial authorities called upon Rwandans to make significant contributions to the war effort.The Conditions of the League of Nations mandate prohibited the recruitment of Africans in the territory for military service. Instead the Belgian Administration required Rwandans to provide cheap food and cows for slaughter to assure supplies for the industrial centers in the Congo where stepped up production was seen as crucial to the war effort''

''In these conditions, people migrated in larger numbers to Uganda, leaving behind (in some areas) mainly old people and children. The prolonged drought, labor migration, “harassing corvees which caused a loss of time” and the “fleau de profiteurs de gurerre” were the key elements in the Ruzagayura famine that struck Ruanda in 1943. Relief supplies from the Congo were not brought in until the end of 1943, during the course of this food crisis, which lasted two years, at least 300,000 people died. Like the Gakwege famine of the 1920’s, the 1943 famine gave rise to intensified impositions on the population. ''

The author does not attribute these deaths to the war. I pointed out that to include these 300,000 deaths with WW2 casualties would be a synthesis of the author’s material. The author stated that the famine was due to a drought and an on ongoing Belgian Colonial policy going back to the 1920’s. This was a local famine that occured during the war. This famine cannot be compared to those actually caused by the war in countries that were occupied or when normal food supplies were cut off.

I pointed out that the figure of 300,000 dead needs to be verified. It represents 16% of the population, more than the USSR and Poland lost in WW2. These deaths have never been included with WW2 Casualties by any other source.

I made the point to User:Jabberwok2010 that we cannot include these deaths with WW2 casualties because the argument was a synthesis of the authors material and original research.

I also made the point that we do not include deaths in industrial accidents in the US during WW2 even though they were related to the war effort--Woogie10w (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if I should be adding myself as an involved party, but I agree with Woogie10w's interpretation of the material in question - no strong link is made in the text that this disaster was due to World War II (several other causes are identified). Moreover, the allegations made against Woogie10w are unjustified - all he's doing is making a conservative interpretation of the source in question, something which is standard in Wikipedia and particularly important in articles on topics such as this one where there are a lot of different figures floating around. I have always found Woogie10w to be civil and willing to enter into constructive discussions over the article. Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Jabberwok, has a point - I found a scholary source that compares this to the Bengal famine. The case of Rwanda is not usually included in WW2 casualties, however we can mention what the sources are reporting and let the readers decide. --Woogie10w (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, well that changes things a bit - good researching! Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears the problem is that some of you want to include only deaths due to direct action, while yet others would like to include deaths that might be one step removed. In liew of opening an entire case, which I'll do if I'm an acceptable mediator to all of you, could we include a statement something like "xxx,xxx famine deaths over the next two years in Rwanda partially due to (x y and z), to make it clear what the discrepency between this and the other data is/are? Hipocrite (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless Jabberwok2010 would like to comment, it appears that this dispute may now be over as Woogie10w found a reference which made a reasonably direct connection between these deaths and the war and added the figures to the article. Nick-D (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue has been resolved, the Rwanda famine deaths are now on WW2 Casualties page.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)