Talk:Bend, Not Break
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Tokyogirl79 on 15:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview There is a back & forth over the article's content. One user says things are incorrect and non-neutral, but other than giving vague answers as to what's wrong, doesn't actually seem to be offering any true suggestions in my opinion. The original argument by VanHarrisArt was to redirect to the article for Ping Fu, but he's since capitulated on this. Now it's essentially a back and forth between him and I where nothing is really getting accomplished. It's really just me saying that his actions seem to be more white knighting than editing since he's more worried about how the bullies might twist things around to suit their purposes than really suggesting improvements and him saying that I'm making accusations. Now I want to stress that neither or us are really being nasty. Both of us are civil, but it is heated and getting ever more so over time. We really need someone to mediate and to help wade through everything. It's gotten really off topic and there's not really any real suggestions on how to fix anything. It's turning into pretty much a mud slinging competition on both sides. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've brought it up to the 3rd opinion board and to be fair, ran it through AfD since so many people were trying to get it deleted in one fashion or another. How do you think we can help? Mediation, primarily. We need some third voices to come into the thread and get things back on track, as well as help suggest alternatives to the issues. I'm taking this here before bringing it to the admin board. Opening comments by VanHarrisArtThe last thing I wrote on the talk page before she opened this DRN was "Keep - If this article is maintained subject to WP:WikiProject_Books/Non-fiction_article template, I think it's possible to keep it from being a WP:Content Fork from Ping Fu. The article still needs work, though." There is no impasse. No reversions. No content dispute. At least not yet. This DRN was premature. As were the AfD and the Third Option she opened -- both of which were procedurally closed as a result. VanHarrisArt (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Hell In A BucketI think this is a case that can be solved via tags for the time being. Van Harris Art leaves rather lengthy responses (there's nothing wrong with this!) and has a strong opinion (also nothing wrong with this) but I don't see edit warring, or P.A. This doesn't mean that third opinions or more eyes aren't needed either but I think that the state of the article as is can be developed over time. Mediation doesn't always have to be negative either but in this case may be a tad premature. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Talk:Bend, Not Break discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hello, I volunteer here at the DRN board. This doesn't mean I have any special powers but will simply try mediate the discussion and provide and outside view. Once all parties have contributed their opening statements we can get started. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 16:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I know TokyoGirl is currently busy with her RfA but I sense that this dispute is all but resolved. If no one has any further comments I'll be closing it within 24 hours. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 10:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
|
User talk:Timtrent#Please_fix_your_signature...
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Timtrent's signature is unnecessarily confusing and he refuses to fix it. He claims to be "Fiddle Faddle" which in NO way resembles "Timtrent". His basis for refusing is "Pot/Kettle." This is invalid because my signature of "T13" does resemble "Technical_13". Have you tried to resolve this previously? I requested he change it on his talk page, and he actively refuses. How do you think we can help? Explain to him that there is no grandfather clause ("has been the same since I started editing Wikipedia") on signatures and his signature is not "100% in accordance with policies and guidelines." Opening comments by TimtrentThe complainant is being disruptive by both posting on my talk page and then by opening this case. The sole participation I will have in this case to to state that you can judge me by my editing record. I have no interest in this topic at all. Pointless wikilawyering is aggravating. The opening of this case is bizarre at best. I was going to assume good faith of this editor, but this behaviour means I am unable to. I will have no further interaction with them, nor have I had any previous interaction. Perhaps someone would point them in the direction of decent conduct. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC) User talk:Timtrent#Please_fix_your_signature... discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Iambic Pentameter, Sonnet, Cat (Disambiguation)
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Last January 16-21, I tried to post a worthy example of a free modern iambic pentameter sonnet which I wrote and is freely available but an editor said it is unworthy self-promotion which doesn't seem fair to me since there is no reason there should be a modern example. He also didn't like my special definition in Cat (Disambiguation). I don't see why authors like me who have written quality material can not make submissions as well as other editors. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I just tried to repost my submissions but he kept deleting them. How do you think we can help? Maybe someone else could repost them so it isn't ME the author of the works who is adding them. They could also add my post or something similar anywhere in the Poetry section itself. Even one link would be fair. Opening comments by BKonradPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Iambic Pentameter, Sonnet, Cat (Disambiguation) discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Microsoft Office 365
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by ViperSnake151 on 19:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview There have been numerous disputes and an edit war involving multiple IP editors (who have only edited the Office 365 page, and are presumed to be the same person over whether the service can be considered "software as a service" via POV pushing and edit warring. After a semi was granted, Dogmaticeclectic reverted the edits again after a discussion with the IP users. Dogmaticeclectic has been also involved in numerous and highly uncivil edit wars on several Microsoft-related pages over the last few days. Multiple sources use the term SaaS to describe the service, but they have all been rejected by the IP user as being a marketing term and allegedly inaccurate. One of the IP editors also changed the SaaS page to remove Office 365 in order to push this POV. Have you tried to resolve this previously? We went through a BRD cycle, and a semi was given to the article in question. How do you think we can help? Just... do something. Also possibly investigate potential sockpuppetry too. Opening comments by 70.56.59.36Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by 71.208.21.121Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Talk:Microsoft Office 365 discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Organizational Logos
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview On List of trade unions in the United Kingdom, FTSE 100 Index and a number of other pages, editors have obstructed the use of organisation logos. These logos are fair use by law (for instance, see this Financial Times page, using all company logos here ). See the pages before intervention eg here or here. The dispute is whether the more restrictive Wikipedia policies WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3 & WP:NFCC#8 are affected, and what can be done to allay these concerns. The best result must be that Wikipedia can use logos. This isn't obviously a matter of "corporate advertising" (as has been one suggestion, because this is also useful for trade union pages, or pages with public bodies (eg List of largest United Kingdom employers). The argument that it breaches WP policies are mistaken because there are no free equivalents (#1), the use is minimal (#3), and use significantly increases readers understandings (#8) in the same way that use of logos does on ordinary company pages (eg. in the infobox of Royal Dutch Shell). It has been argued that company names are enough for the lists for people's understanding, etc - but if that were true, we'd have to get rid of logos for all individual pages as well, because the same arguments could be made there. Accordingly I'd kindly like to request support for using the logos. I'm very happy to concede we may need to put appropriate copyright disclaimers on the image pages, though once again, it is clear that everything is indeed fair use. Help much appreciated, Wikidea 16:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? The talk page, and discussion opened on Wikipedia:Non-free content review#FTSE 100 Index How do you think we can help? Clarify Wikipedia policy on copyrighted image use. It's important that use which enhances understanding continues. Opening comments by DrmiesPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Black KitePlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by KwwPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by WeriethPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Organizational Logos discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
List of sopranos in non-classical music
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by 68.44.138.213 on 02:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview I attempted to delete a factually erroneous inclusion of Laura Branigan's name under this page. I did not have any verifiable sources to back such up, only the facts about female vocal ranges. An editor named Liz exhibited un-objective partiality, a lack of neutrality, and fierce territoriality over my daring to question one of the sources cited: The New York Times. She acted as though I had committed a transgression and will not use reason or common sense, going so far as to defend the Times against any questioning or criticism. In her eyes, the Times can do no wrong whatsoever. This behavior is not permitted by Wikipedia. The fact is that Laura Branigan's name does not belong on this list because she was not a Soprano vocalist, but a Contralto. I provided Liz with all of the facts about female vocal ranges to back up my assertion, but she will not budge, claiming that I need nothing less than a verifiable source with which to counter the inclusion of Miss Branigan's name. Unfortunately, I am not able to locate any verifiable sources which correctly state Miss Branigan's correct vocal range. That, however, doesn't make the New York Times correct. I've learned that disagreeing editors are supposed to form a consensus for challenging the removal of information if there is no verifiable source, but Liz did not do that; she punished me by stating that the New York Times is not to be challenged and that Miss Branigan's name would remain on the list. Common sense dictates that just because something is verifiable doesn't automatically make it accurate enough to warrant inclusion, let alone emphasis. While reliable sources are indeed a necessary condition for asserting something, they are not a sufficient condition by themselves. And while "truth" may not be 100% sufficient, it is completely necessary. Liz, unfortunately, has shown no common sense and has completely lost sight of this. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I attempted to discuss this issue with Liz several times, using facts to back it up. She would not budge. I then e-mailed Wikipedia's Information Team on February 20th, who told me that they do not resolve editing disputes by e-mail. Instead, they pointed me to several options, including this page, which is why I am filling out this form. This is the first option I chose to pursue. How do you think we can help? Inform Liz that her behavior is against Wikipedia's policies. She is not being objective, impartial, or neutral. She believes that the New York Times is infallible and not to be challenged; that right there is blatant partiality. By rigidly sticking to the rules, she has lost sight of the big picture. She has exhibited a stunning lack of common sense and cannot reason that everyone makes mistakes, even a "known, reliable source subjected to strict editorial guidelines" like the Times. Opening comments by LizFLPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
List of sopranos in non-classical music discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Ex-gay movement, LGBT rights at the United Nations, Justice
Closed discussion | ||
---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview There are multiple disputes over these three articles. The Justice dispute resolves around the violation of WP:Lead and inserting information claiming to be fact, when it isn't established as such. The Ex-gay movement dispute is about the overuse of quote marks, It makes the lead difficult to read and ridiculously biased. You can read about the dispute at LGBT rights at the United Nations from the edit summaries and talk page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Just a lot of discussion on the talk pages and edit summaries. How do you think we can help? There's been a lot of discussion around these articles and we can't come to an agreement so others are needed to decide. Opening comments by ScientiomUser:Govgovgov has been moving around from article to article pushing his POV, has been making blatant personal attacks, and has been blatantly stalking and harrasing me. I have left a note about his behaviour here with evidence: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Problematic_editor. These serious problems should be sorted out and solved as first priority. The harassment is making me very uncomfortable editing here on Wikipedia. --Scientiom (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Ex-gay movement, LGBT rights at the United Nations, Justice discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Jan z Jani
Closed discussion | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Article named "Jan de Jani" was proposed to be moved to Jan z Jani" which is polish spelling. In following discussion, several persons without knowledge about subject of spelling names in correct way took part of the discussion, dismissing spelling as "french" and ignoring my explanation that it is latin sonce Jan z Jani lived around year 1400 so in documents it is written in latin. Furtheremore, I explained how polish names from medieval time could be spelled in proper english. If we do not spell in latin then the name should clearly be changed to "Jan of Janie". I also wrote reference note to the spelling in the article. The art have been moved to "Jan z Jani" and my reference and explanation to the name in the art. have been removed. I would like to forward this issue to be overviewed by poeple that are more familiar with this subject and also know that in year 1400 it was not french that was inuse but latin. I would rather say that refering to french spelling disqualify those that voted. I would also like to reach consensus in question of spelling such names so we can spell then in one way and not in several different. If we use spelling "Jan z Jani" then we sgould also make changes in all other articles. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I communicated with Piotrus that astarted this issue and explained for him the situation. By his suggestion, I wrote a reference note about the spelling and I also suggested to move the art to "Jan of Janie". No negative responce of Piotrus but no change or conclusions from his side. How do you think we can help? I would like You to review this question and be part of the discussion. When decision is made, we would then agree on spelling although I cannot understand any other spelling (except latin) than english. Since it is english wiki and not polish. There are many medievalnames spelled with of and of what I can see, it is pretty common to do so. Otherwise we will have to change all the names with "of" to polish "z" or "ze". All polish scientiests and consultants say "Jan of Janie" or latin spelling. Opening comments by BDDI would strongly suggest this thread be closed. It's too simple a matter for DRN. One editor opposed the outcome of an RM; he or she should use MRV if the result is felt to be procedurally inappropriate, or a later RM with new information if it is felt to be substantially inappropriate. This is premature. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by PiotrusCamdan makes some good points, but he made them after the RM has started and was near its finish. Much of his argumentation was also at Wikipedia_talk:POLAND#Jan_de_Jani_vs_Jan_z_Jani and worse, User_talk:Piotrus#Thoughts, neither of which is read by all parties of the RM. Because I got a lot of comments over the past few days on my talk page (I am teaching a course and have ~20 newbie students posting on my talk regularly now, sigh) I also missed his request that I move the article few days ago, which I guess led to this DRM. (@Camdan, I have not ignored your request on purpose, I simply missed it). If Camdan wants to start a new RM, go ahead and start it. I may consider not opposing the "of" version, although I doubt I can support it as I am afraid it still suffers from the WP:OR/WP:COMMONNAME problem. Personally, I wish Camdan good luck in his wiki editing, we had a good discussion, but I think he needs to reread OR/COMMONNAME, and he probably misunderstands how RM and this board operate. If, as I suspect, this is closed with no action, I encourage him to either present sources that use his preferred spelling, or drop this issue until such a time they are present, and focus on writing about a more document topic.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by ColonelHenryPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Volunteer MarekPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by OhconfuciusPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments byPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Jan z Jani discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)
- Bbb23 (talk · contribs)
- BDD (talk · contribs)
- Stepheng3 (talk · contribs)
- Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs)
- TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs)
- Tvoz (talk · contribs)
- Yworo (talk · contribs)
- Bus stop (talk · contribs)
- Little green rosetta (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Verified to multiple reliable source content was removed. A discussion occurred between 27FEB2013 and 3MAR2013, regarding whether the content should remain excluded from the article space or reincluded. Those opposed to to inclusion pointed towards UNDUE and POV as issues as to why the content should be excluded. Those opposed to exclusion disagreed that the content had undue weight, and did not find POV issues with the content. Majority of editors agreed with inclusion, and content was re-added on 4MAR2013, at which point it was removed again.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Per CANVASS#Appropriate notification I notified all WikiProjects that have tagged the article, in order to get the largest number of editors involved in the discussion as to create the strongest consensus. An RfC was not created for the discussion, given that more than half a dozen active editors have been involved in the discussion.
How do you think we can help?
Perhaps a non-involved volunteer can assist involved editors in reaching a compromise, or uphold or strike down current consensus.
Opening comments by Bbb23
Preliminary statement. Since I initially removed the material and all hell broke loose, I haven't been involved in the discussion. It would be helpful if in the Overview above, RCLC could be a little clearer as to what they want now. In these kinds of instances, the devil is in the details, and I prefer concrete proposals. One basis for removal of the material is WP:BLPCRIME (a misdemeanor is generally considered a crime, albeit, depending on the misdemeanor, a low-level one), although editors would probably argue interminably how well known Vargas is. As for RCLC's statement that a "majority" of editors agree that it should be included, that has one big problem and possibly another. First, consensus doesn't depend on a majority ("consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)"), and, second, I haven't counted to see if RCLC is even correct. Finally, as an overarching issue, this is an article about a living person and should be held to a very high standard when it comes to negative information.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by BDD
I'll monitor this discussion intermittently, but I really just treated this as an RfC. I saw a dispute, offered my opinion as a third party, and didn’t watch or further participate in the discussion further. Looking over it, it would appear that there is consensus for the general position espoused by RightCowLeftCoast, which I supported. I think some of the suggestions for a more concise explanation of the events would be more appropriate for the article, however. --BDD (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Stepheng3
I dislike conflict and do not wish to be involved further in this dispute. Whatever the outcome is, I trust it will be satisfactory to me. Please permit me to bow out of this process. —Stepheng3 (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Nomoskedasticity
This is the edit in question. It's a friggin' traffic stop. It completely violates WP:UNDUE. It is part of LCRC's long-standing campaign to add negative content to this BLP (e.g. this one, using Michelle Malkin's website as a source). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by The Red Pen of Doom
The content as originally added and then restored is not acceptable for many reasons: undue weight to a minor event / that may have received a lot of coverage during one news cycle but no indication of lasting impact or coverage / whose inclusion is intended to lead the reader to draw conclusions that the sources covering the incident do not make / which is especially problematic in an article about a living person. If there is evidence of continued coverage and analysis by reliable third parties that make explicit any importance of the incident, then perhaps a much scaled back version with analysis/commentary appropriately attributed might be acceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Tvoz
I agree 100% with the statement above by TheRedPenOfDoom and could not have said it better. There are indeed multiple reasons why the wording that had been added was totally unacceptable, and no evidence has been presented of any reliably sourced continuing coverage of this incident to make it even remotely appropriate to be included in the article in any form at this time. Should that change - should this incident become notable somehow - there will be plenty of time to include a neutrally worded short sentence. But that is not the case at present. The only conceivable reason for adding this now is to cast a negative light on the subject of this article - which the article history will show has been tried before, as Nomoskedasticity points out - and that is not acceptable. As Bbb23 says, this is a BLP, and we need to adhere to the highest standards regarding negative material. Finally, I question this move to dispute resolution, especially with a misleading and incorrect opening comment, which for example, neglects to mention that BLP was a major reason for editors opposing adding the content the OP added. I was asked to comment here, but I am not committing to active participation - I will monitor any ongoing conversation, but I am not going to engage in a back-and-forth repetitive exercise here. Tvoz/talk 19:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Yworo
The OP is misrepresenting the situation. There may be support for the addition of a single neutral sentence to the article, as proposed by Bus stop. There is not support for the re-inclusion of the full paragraph that the OP is trying to re-insert. Yworo (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Bus Stop
The suggested wording is too noisy and too busy. It contains irrelevancies. No one cares what college he was speaking at or the name of the jail he was brought to. We don't need to know about the Obama administration or whether or not Vargas fits into a "priority category for detention". Sorry but this is irrelevant to this biography. These details impart an aura of criminality to the biography. Yes, he is an illegal immigrant. But his driving without a license is merely a consequence of lacking the documentation that any citizen would have or could easily obtain. There are clearly opinions held by editors. The question is which wording is most neutral. I suggested the following:
"Vargas was arrested and briefly detained by officials in Minnesota for driving without a valid driver's license in October 2012. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were contacted but Vargas was released without any immigration charges being filed."[1] Bus stop (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Little Green Rosetta
Driving on a suspended license in of itself isn't notable. What is notable is that the subject has been an advocate for undocumented persons and that he specifically stated that obtaining a drivers licesne is difficult for the undocumented. The fact that his license was revoked because of his admission, and the fact that he was detained hammers home his point. We don't need to craft text that is undue, but we should craft something little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 20:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas discussion
Hello, I volunteer here at DRN and will be happy to try mediate this dispute. I'm having a read through the content and I have some thoughts but I will waiting until all editors involved have presented an opening statement. Once that has happened we can begin the discussion. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 09:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, seems like everyone has commented. Now, to me, the original version of the text did put undue weight on a small incident. It provided no critical commentary on the incident just a lot about the incident itself. A cut back mention of the incident was proposed on the talk page and that seems like the best solution. It's still mentioned but not to the extent that it currently is. How do people feel about that? Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 09:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Although I understand the temptation to compromise in these situations. Even the short sentence proposed by Bus Stop is more than is warranted. As TRPoD states, there isn't enough at this point to justify putting it in. That said, I'm not strongly opposed to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I can see it is relevant to the individual since he is an active campaigner in that area of rights, which is one of the reasons it was covered in news to begin with. Thus it's notable and relevant enough for a mention but not all the details (if the reader is particularly interested in the details they can click through to the source) Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 16:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I understand the argument, Cabe, and don't necessarily disagree with it, to a point. How do you resolve the WP:BLPCRIME issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I am not opposed to compromise as an ideal either, but it is not always the best solution. I do not think inclusion is warranted at present, for all the reasons stated above. And there being no continuing mention of this incident in reliable sources demonstrates its insignificance to this biography of a person's life and career, which is what this article is. Bbb23's question about BLPCRIME is well taken. Tvoz/talk 18:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Regardless of the outcome of Vargas' encounter with the law the results of that encounter are intrinsically of interest. It doesn't matter that this event was minor. Its interest and noteworthiness is intrinsic because he recently declared publicly that he is "undocumented"/"illegal" as concerns his relation to the US. Thus whether his encounter (with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) was consequential or inconsequential, the results are the same from an editorial point of view. What we should not want to do is "spin" this into something that it is not. Thus I think that the bare mention of the incident is justified. Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I see no reason to resolve this issue via compromise. If that's the way things are going to go, then the way to get a piece of WP:UNDUE into an article is to write something long and detailed in expectation that it will get in by virtue of being cut down to essence. The truth is, the essence here is trivial, and I do not agree that there is any need to cover a traffic stop in the article at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- (e/c) Without a third party specifically commenting about the relation of the incident to Vargas' campaigning, our plopping the incident in the article to promote such a connection is in violation of WP:SYN. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Regardless of the outcome of Vargas' encounter with the law the results of that encounter are intrinsically of interest. It doesn't matter that this event was minor. Its interest and noteworthiness is intrinsic because he recently declared publicly that he is "undocumented"/"illegal" as concerns his relation to the US. Thus whether his encounter (with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) was consequential or inconsequential, the results are the same from an editorial point of view. What we should not want to do is "spin" this into something that it is not. Thus I think that the bare mention of the incident is justified. Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I am not opposed to compromise as an ideal either, but it is not always the best solution. I do not think inclusion is warranted at present, for all the reasons stated above. And there being no continuing mention of this incident in reliable sources demonstrates its insignificance to this biography of a person's life and career, which is what this article is. Bbb23's question about BLPCRIME is well taken. Tvoz/talk 18:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I understand the argument, Cabe, and don't necessarily disagree with it, to a point. How do you resolve the WP:BLPCRIME issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I can see it is relevant to the individual since he is an active campaigner in that area of rights, which is one of the reasons it was covered in news to begin with. Thus it's notable and relevant enough for a mention but not all the details (if the reader is particularly interested in the details they can click through to the source) Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 16:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Although I understand the temptation to compromise in these situations. Even the short sentence proposed by Bus Stop is more than is warranted. As TRPoD states, there isn't enough at this point to justify putting it in. That said, I'm not strongly opposed to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- The traffic stop might have been minor but Vargas was "questioned by agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement"[2] and he "was released ... with no immigration charges being filed."[3] Can we consider the following:
- "In October 2013 Vargas was questioned by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after a traffic stop but was released shortly thereafter with no immigration charges being filed."[4] Bus stop (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, that NYT report is an outlier - no other reports of this incident say that he was questioned by ICE; in fact all the others say just that ICE was informed, but declined to pursue immigration charges. Which, again, makes this no different from all of the other times he has been brought to their attention - his writing, his testimony, his public appearances - and they declined to pursue immigration charges. Which is also what he meant - and we include - about being in limbo since his NYT revelation. Tvoz/talk 04:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Please see the discussion on the talk page which this dispute occurred at. I had shown that the event received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, I had shown that the event was followed up and given additional significant coverage after the initial event occurred. So WP:NOTNEWS doesn't really apply. As I said in the discussion on the talk page, I am willing to compromise due to wording, but to exclude it entirely is improper IMHO given the significant amount of significant coverage that the event received.
- I can agree to Bus stop's reduced wording, but it should use all the reliable sources I have provided, so that the reader can see the details of the event if they so choose. To not provide the multitude of sources we have been able to find regarding the event would be a disservice to the reader.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, that NYT report is an outlier - no other reports of this incident say that he was questioned by ICE; in fact all the others say just that ICE was informed, but declined to pursue immigration charges. Which, again, makes this no different from all of the other times he has been brought to their attention - his writing, his testimony, his public appearances - and they declined to pursue immigration charges. Which is also what he meant - and we include - about being in limbo since his NYT revelation. Tvoz/talk 04:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Regarding WP:BLPCRIME, it refers to a situation when a person has been accused of a crime not a situation where they were involved with the police. If a person was accused of X but nothing had been confirmed/denied then BLPCRIME could apply, if after they are declared innocent in a court of law AND if the act of the accusation itself was noteworthy then we can mention it in the article as long as we are clear that they were innocent.
So far I see at least one source (the NYT source) that has critical commentary on the event, are there others? Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 09:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I retract my support for inclusion of any material related to the incident of October 2011. With chagrin I admit I had not seen this source, which shows that the failure of the authorities to act at the October 2011 incident is probably unremarkable. The traffic incident-related encounter with "U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement" was probably no different from the year of inaction on the part of "U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement" that is alluded to in that source. I concede that it would constitute undue weight to include in our article any mention of the traffic incident-related encounter with "U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement". Bus stop (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- If we look at the sources, there were two crimes of which Vargas was only charged with violating one of them.
- 1)Driving with out a drivers license due to the State of Washington revoking his license plate after he admitted to being an "undocumented immigrant" (Vargas' preferred term), charged.
- 2)Being an Alien within the United Sates without authorization, not charged.
- Vargas was arrested due to the first charge, was arrested, and then released after ICE chose not to charge Vargas with the second crime. This event received significant coverage from a multitude of reliable sources.
- The event received continued significant coverage from at least three reliable sources regarding the outcome and the background behind the first crime. I provided the links to that continued coverage in the talk page where the dispute originated.
- WP:BLPCRIME
does not applywas followed, and I would argue, strictly. Vargas is well known, and had pleaded guilty to the crime charged. There was no contradictory judgement and no "pithy descriptors" are used. The content was added after Vargas pleaded guilty, so presumed innocence does not apply. - I admit, the content should have reflected the guilty plea, but that is something that can be added, as it has been verified.
- What can be verified was the following:
- A)Vargas' license issued by the State of Washington was revoked sometime he admitted he was a "undocumented immigrant".
- B)Vargas was in Minnesota to speak at Carlton College
- C)Vargas was stopped by authorities, arrested and charged due to driving without a license, held until ICE did not charge Vargas, then released.
- D)Vargas pleaded guilty to the charge of driving without a license.
- A neutrally and briefly worded well referenced sentence could be added to the article, without it out weighing the multiple paragraphs that already exist in the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sigh, I have to start over because I missed the guilty link above (it would have been nice had you included that source initially). That now rules out WP:BLPCRIME. There's no indication, however, that Vargas was arrested for being an undocumented immigrant. That's WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS. The mere fact that ICE was called doesn't support that. Although the legal issues are unfortunately complicated, states generally arrest people for state crimes and then, depending on the circumstances, may contact ICE. In any event, it's a red herring as is this entire push to put the material into the article. I've gone round and round with you before on this article, and I'm tired of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- This source shows us that the failure of immigration resources to act on Vargas' "illegal" status at the time of the traffic stop in October 2011 was not special and not noteworthy. The source shows that numerous opportunities existed for such governmental agencies to take action against Vargas aside from the one opportunity documented in the context of the traffic stop. The traffic stop in and of itself is not significant enough to be mentioned in the article, in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Including on at least two occasions - Obama's Las Vegas speech on immigration reform and Senate committee hearings - sitting in close proximity to, and talking to, Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security who is in charge of ICE. Adding this minor traffic matter is an attempt to smear the subject with allusions to criminal activity, which is unacceptable in a BLP, regardless of whether the details of BLPCRIME specifically apply. Tvoz/talk 22:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I did not say that Vargas was arrested for being an "undocumented immigrant", the reliable sources verify that he was arrested for driving without a driver license, at least one reliable source verifies that the driver license that Vargas had was one issued by the State of Washington that was revoked. The reliable sources further verify that he was held by authorities while ICE was contacted, and was released after ICE did not charge Vargas with any immigration law violations. Again, all this is verified, there is not SYNTH or OR.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- We now have greater clarity that what is at issue here is an extremely minor issue connected with driving. WP:UNDUE in spades. I really think we're done -- no-one but RCLC is arguing it should be included. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- In all fairness, that's not quite accurate. By my tally, there are five editors who believe nothing should be included (TRPoD, Tvoz, Bus Stop, you, and me) and three editors who support some mention of the incident (RCLC, BDD, and lgr).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to flip-flop but upon reconsideration I think the sliver of a statement, "In October 2013 Vargas was questioned by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after a traffic stop but was released shortly thereafter with no immigration charges being filed,"[5] warrants inclusion. There is no implication of criminality in the mention of a mere traffic stop, the general notion of no legal action being taken despite clear interaction with legal authorities is conveyed, and the New York Times is certainly a very good source. I think we should want to include this because this minor incident illustrates what seems to be an immigration policy of not pursuing Vargas, at least at this time, on immigration charges. A headline at the New York Times such as "No Immigration Charges Filed Against Activist in Traffic Stop" attests to this small incident's noteworthiness. Bus stop (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- if there were any explicit commentary on its importance and relevance by a reliable source, I would be fine with the short summary's inclusion. But WP:SYN we cannot place items in articles to explicitly lead readers towards some conclusion or analysis that is not directly stated in the source. While we may personally come up with understandings about what headline writers intended readers to infer, we cannot place that inference into the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- and the fact that no one seems to have thought "hey what a great example to use!" when Vargas has been so publicly visible at recent Senate hearings et al, just goes to confirm its non notableness. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- What synthesis do you see in the statement that I suggested for inclusion in the article? There is no WP:SYN in this statement: "In October 2012 Vargas was questioned by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after a traffic stop but was released shortly thereafter with no immigration charges being filed."[6] WP:SYN arises when two (or more) supported assertions are used to support an assertion which is really original research because the derived assertion lacks a source. But in the wording that I am suggesting all assertions are wholly supported by a good quality source. Bus stop (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- we cannot state nor imply something that is not explicitly stated in the reliable source. including an insignificant traffic stop would be implying that there is something important about it which none of the sources that I had seen including, the NYT piece, have actually said. The closest I have seen is the NPR piece that RCLC included below. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- You say "we cannot state nor imply something that is not explicitly stated in the reliable source."[7] The source I've provided contains the following paragraph:
- we cannot state nor imply something that is not explicitly stated in the reliable source. including an insignificant traffic stop would be implying that there is something important about it which none of the sources that I had seen including, the NYT piece, have actually said. The closest I have seen is the NPR piece that RCLC included below. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- What synthesis do you see in the statement that I suggested for inclusion in the article? There is no WP:SYN in this statement: "In October 2012 Vargas was questioned by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after a traffic stop but was released shortly thereafter with no immigration charges being filed."[6] WP:SYN arises when two (or more) supported assertions are used to support an assertion which is really original research because the derived assertion lacks a source. But in the wording that I am suggesting all assertions are wholly supported by a good quality source. Bus stop (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to flip-flop but upon reconsideration I think the sliver of a statement, "In October 2013 Vargas was questioned by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after a traffic stop but was released shortly thereafter with no immigration charges being filed,"[5] warrants inclusion. There is no implication of criminality in the mention of a mere traffic stop, the general notion of no legal action being taken despite clear interaction with legal authorities is conveyed, and the New York Times is certainly a very good source. I think we should want to include this because this minor incident illustrates what seems to be an immigration policy of not pursuing Vargas, at least at this time, on immigration charges. A headline at the New York Times such as "No Immigration Charges Filed Against Activist in Traffic Stop" attests to this small incident's noteworthiness. Bus stop (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- In all fairness, that's not quite accurate. By my tally, there are five editors who believe nothing should be included (TRPoD, Tvoz, Bus Stop, you, and me) and three editors who support some mention of the incident (RCLC, BDD, and lgr).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- We now have greater clarity that what is at issue here is an extremely minor issue connected with driving. WP:UNDUE in spades. I really think we're done -- no-one but RCLC is arguing it should be included. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- This source shows us that the failure of immigration resources to act on Vargas' "illegal" status at the time of the traffic stop in October 2011 was not special and not noteworthy. The source shows that numerous opportunities existed for such governmental agencies to take action against Vargas aside from the one opportunity documented in the context of the traffic stop. The traffic stop in and of itself is not significant enough to be mentioned in the article, in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sigh, I have to start over because I missed the guilty link above (it would have been nice had you included that source initially). That now rules out WP:BLPCRIME. There's no indication, however, that Vargas was arrested for being an undocumented immigrant. That's WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS. The mere fact that ICE was called doesn't support that. Although the legal issues are unfortunately complicated, states generally arrest people for state crimes and then, depending on the circumstances, may contact ICE. In any event, it's a red herring as is this entire push to put the material into the article. I've gone round and round with you before on this article, and I'm tired of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- If we look at the sources, there were two crimes of which Vargas was only charged with violating one of them.
- (edit conflict)Not notable? I would highly disagree, please look at the the multiple major reliable sources that reported on Vargas' arrest. I shouldn't have to post them again here, as I had already done that on the talk page, but here it is: ABC, New York Magazine, MinnPost, Huffington Post, NYT, Politico, The Atlantic Wire, Star Tribune, Minnesota Public Radio, Los Angeles Times, Associated Press hosted by Fox News, Philippine Daily Inquirer, ABS-CBN News, Philadelphia Daily News, another Politico story, and on, and on..
- This is significant coverage, given this, and other content, it could would meet WP:EVENT & as I have shown there was coverage after the initial event with some depth. Even after all this there are those who say a sentence or two is undue weight?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- that is just an example of 24 hour news cycle coverage. the only one that covers the incident outside of the breaking-news-recent-event-that-happened sphere is this one :" Despite the fact that Vargas revealed his status in a most public way, Immigration and Customs Enforcement never came for him. Vargas' first brush with ICE came on a trip to Minnesota two months ago when he was pulled over as he drove to give a speech at Carlton College. ICE did not detain him." If you can come up with something encyclopedic out of that, I would be amenable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- The brevity of the incident is precisely the point: "no immigration charges … [were] filed."[8] We need not be concerned that this incident was not reported on for longer. There was nothing more to report. This incident had a total duration of about 4 hours. It is an important incident as evidenced by the numerous reliable sources listed above. This incident relates to much of what lengthy commentary in many sources refer to in relation to Vargas. His non-citizenship and his involvement in immigration issues is almost always mentioned in any source speaking about Vargas. Virtually every source mentions his immigrant status. His encounter with Immigration and Customs Enforcement is entirely on the topic that is most often mentioned in association with Vargas. Bus stop (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- but see, YOU are the one making that analysis about this traffic stop fits into "the big picture". without quoting a third party making the analysis and commentary and connections, Wikipedia cannot be creating "examples" to do so, particularly about living people in relation to criminal acts/run ins with "the law". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- The brevity of the incident is precisely the point: "no immigration charges … [were] filed."[8] We need not be concerned that this incident was not reported on for longer. There was nothing more to report. This incident had a total duration of about 4 hours. It is an important incident as evidenced by the numerous reliable sources listed above. This incident relates to much of what lengthy commentary in many sources refer to in relation to Vargas. His non-citizenship and his involvement in immigration issues is almost always mentioned in any source speaking about Vargas. Virtually every source mentions his immigrant status. His encounter with Immigration and Customs Enforcement is entirely on the topic that is most often mentioned in association with Vargas. Bus stop (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Can you please tell me where you find "analysis" in the wording I've suggested for inclusion? This again is the wording that I am suggesting for inclusion:
- "In October 2012 Vargas was questioned by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after a traffic stop but was released shortly thereafter with no immigration charges being filed."[9] Bus stop (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- As had been posted earlier, here are the articles which I had used to show that the event had continued coverage, and thus did not fall under WP:NOTNEWS.
- This makes four articles that give significant coverage to the event after the initial news reporting period.
- Although I agree that the content should be as brief as possible and neutrally worded, I believe it would be best to indicate the revocation of the Washington state drivers license, the stop, the traffic arrest, the release due to no ICE charges, and the subsequent guilty plea. All this can be done in one, or two sentence.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Should I suppose that WP:SILENCE applies, as it has been several days since others have posted, that at minimum Bus Stop's summarize version is acceptable, and at most a slightly longer sentence containing all which lead up to, and ended this series of events (license revocation, stop/arrest, release, guilty plea) be included?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- No. If you add it, I'll revert it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Why?
- It can't be a verification issue,
- It can't be a issue with the multiple reliable sources that have been provided here, and on the talk page,
- It can't be a an issue of accusing a living individual with a crime, as Vargas already pleaded guilty to the crime.
- So again, why? FYI, Because it isn't a positive event in Vargas' life isn't an appropriate answer.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- No. If you add it, I'll revert it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm the DRN thread reaper. I get called in when a DRN thread has gone on so long that it's just plain embarassing that informal resolution has not produced a solution. I've looked at the paragraph in question. I do concur that there's probably over presentation of this "crime" therefore I'd like to float a compromise
- Vargas was arrested and released in Wisconsin in October 2012 for driving with a cancelled licence HUFFPO REFERENCE, which had been revoked shortly after the New York Times essay ABS-CBN NEWS REFERENCE .
This does 2 things. It tightens up the information into a reasonable length for the article and does point out how his immigration status has been a concern going forward. RCLC, this work for you? Other disputants, this work for you? Hasteur (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for offering a "concrete proposal". I don't agree with it. But I think Bbb23 is correct up above when they say "In these kinds of instances, the devil is in the details, and I prefer concrete proposals." Your wording fails to mention "immigration". The "cancelled license" and the fact of "arrest" is not called for. The objection that many of us are raising is the implication of criminality. Let's keep two things separate. The man has violated immigration laws, but he is not of a criminal nature. He is not a scofflaw. Anything but. He is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who has led an exemplary life by most standards. Therefore his breaking of the laws on immigration are a topic that can be delved into in the article. But his driving with a cancelled license is not in character. I think talking about that in our article raises an issue of WP:UNDUE. My personal feeling is that we should be apprising the reader of a well-reported encounter with immigration authorities after a traffic stop. I recommend this wording: "In October 2012 Vargas was questioned by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after a traffic stop but was released shortly thereafter with no immigration charges being filed."[10] Bus stop (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Random break (Jose Antonio Vargas)
- I believe that Hasteur's wording is a good start, I believe that Bus stop's compromise is better than nothing but leaves out a lot of what can be verified. Bus stop's version leaves out the license revocation, leaves out the arrest, leaves out the guilty plea. These are all factual.
- How about this:
The addition wording is questioned by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Later Vargas pleaded guilty to the charge of driving on a revoked license. This merges some of what Bus stop proposed, Hasteur proposed, and some of my own wording. We can use the Huff Post, NYT, ABS-CBN News, and Phil Star references and the content will be about a brief two sentence paragraph.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Vargas was arrested, questioned by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and released in Wisconsin in October 2012 for driving with a revoked licence, which had been revoked shortly after the New York Times essay. Later Vargas pleaded guilty to the charge of driving on a revoked license.
- Re to Bus stop The mention of the New York Times essay (which is just a short while above) ties the issue of the driver's licence being cancelled because of the immigration status. Therefore I don't think we need to rub the readers nose in the issue again. I would strongly suggest that we drop the "Later Vargas pleaded guilty" because that's a mundane pleading and not really enough to warrant inclusion. The fact that the licence was revoked because of his self revelation is signficant. Hasteur (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- You say "The fact that the license was revoked because of his self revelation is significant." No, it is relatively insignificant. I find this in a source: "After the traffic stop, he was taken to the Hennepin County jail, where he was questioned by agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the federal agency known as ICE. He was released Friday afternoon with no immigration charges being filed. [paragraph break] 'Mr. Vargas was not arrested by ICE nor did the agency issue a detainer,' said Gillian Christensen, an agency spokeswoman."[11] We should tell the reader that Vargas was in the custody of ICE but was released without immigration charges being filed. We should not be talking about the driver's license at all. We mention the traffic stop simply to satisfy the reader's curiosity as to what led up to Vargas' encounter with ICE. The issue of driving with a revoked driver's license is largely unrelated to the issue of being an illegal immigrant. My suggested wording: "In October 2012 Vargas was questioned by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after a traffic stop but was released shortly thereafter with no immigration charges being filed."[12] Bus stop (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The X-Files (season 3), The X-Files (season 4), The X-Files (season 5), The X-Files (season 8), The X-Files (season 9)
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview I was working on this TV series' ratings and this user reverted all my edits, claiming stuff like "The ratings refs are totally screwed up and wrong" and "Someone was just being obnoxious with these ratings refs". This is disrespectful. I don't wanna start an edit war so I'm already reporting this situation. I found this very offensive because I'm not trolling and I spent nearly 3 hours working on those articles, therefore I was obviously careful. It's just lazy, you know, because I checked the sources again (seasons 3-5) and everything seems fine. Keep in mind the articles for seasons 1 and 2 use this newspaper's ratings as source and that doesn't seem to bother the user. The ratings references for seasons 8 and 9 were a little bit messy and once again the user reverted my edits. I was just simplifying, using a single source that was being used for a few episodes only. I know this user will keep reverting my edits. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Not much, because the user did it in many articles. I only did one reversal. How do you think we can help? I hope you keep in mind all my work and the time I spent doing this. What I'm asking is very simple: make this user stop reverting edits like that in those articles. There's nothing wrong with my edits. Otherwise, I wouldn't be here asking this. Opening comments by Gen. QuonI was quite surprised that I got a notice about a "dispute". I would've responded to a message on my talk page... First, I will apologize for being rude. I've dealt with a lot of unnecessary vandalism with ratings references, so I assumed this was another case. I didn't assume good faith, and this is my bad. When I mentioned the refs being screwed up, I was referring to their effect on the page List of The X-Files episodes. I'm sorry to say it, but the edits did actually screw up the page, but I left out some info, so again, my bad. OK, here's why I reverted them. The reference that you have added to the other pages is simply "'Nielsen Ratings'. USA Today (Gannett Company, Inc.). 1995. p. D3. Retrieved March 9, 2013." I assume that the refs link to a PDF with the ratings info. The problem with this is two fold. First, this reference is a conglomeration of newspaper articles, many of which are missing their titles. When I went through season 1 and 2's Nielsen Ratings, I had to use my college's database to find the title of many of them, as well as the date they were published (for instance, for many of these articles, the title is NOT merely "Nielsen Ratings). Also (like I just mentioned), the date of publication is important for these, as a lump reference is sloppy. The second problem with this is that it is utterly redundant. See the "U.S. viewers (millions)"? There is a ref right beside it that covers the entire season, with info taken directly from Brian Lowry's book Trust No One: The Official Guide to the X-Files. This is true from season 3-5. There is no reason to add a second citation for information we have already cited, other than overkill. The reason seasons 1 and 2 have unique ratings for each point is because the book that covers season 1 and 2 does not include viewership numbers, but rather household numbers. Thus, I had to go out and find the information. You claim that you were "simplifying [and] using a single source that was being used for a few episodes only", however, this actually complicates the page, because the page goes from 1 source for the ratings to about 5. I'm very sorry you spent three hours working on these, but we already had the information present in the article, and from a high-quality, independent third party source, so it was entirely redundant. As for season 8. The way I originally had it, several of the ratings points were backed up by reliable newspaper sources (see the right hand column here), but the editor removed them and replaced them all with a single source to TV Tango (which I add for some of the other episodes that were missing the ratings). TV Tango is obvious a lesser reliable source (although still reliable, IMO, because of its founder/editor being reliable and trustworthy) than a newspaper article, so it makes more sense to include the newspaper articles before the website. The same is true for season 9's page; some higher quality sources (newspapers, books, etc.) were replaced by the (still reliable, just not as much) website. One reason why I was frustrated and acted quickly is because I've been working on this project for about a year now, and the edits goofed up the way the references for "List of The X-Files episodes" read; there were a few reference errors, but they've been fixed now. Basically, what I'm saying is that there is no reason to re-cite the rating points for season 3-5, since they are already covered by book citations. To be fair, I went and added the book cite individually to all of season 3-5 episodes' spaces. Season 8 and 9 use a smattering of newspaper and book citations, as well as a website, but "cleaning them up" (in the manner that was done) is problematic, because it replaces the best references (books, newspapers) with lesser quality references. The highest-quality references should always be used in cases like this. I'm sorry if I came off as rash and mean. I just thought I was dealing with another vandal, as this major over-haul messed up several references in the before-mentioned List of The X-Files episodes article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC) The X-Files (season 3), The X-Files (season 4), The X-Files (season 5), The X-Files (season 8), The X-Files (season 9) discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview In the intro there is a dispute if the subject should be described as "nonpartisan think tank" vs. "neoconservative think tank." It original said nonpartisan but some user changed it and its evolved it to a persistent dispute that's been discussed previously and seemed closed. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Started discussion on talk page and added more and better sources. Suggested leave "neoconservative" on the criticism section where it is currently and has always been. How do you think we can help? Picking which word is more accurate and best cited or rewording intro to reflect a NPOV. Opening comments byPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Foundation for Defense of Democracies discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAPS International High
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview I nominated an article for deletion because notability was not established. Other users vote to keep and claim that high schools are inherently notable and this is established consensus. I have repeatedly asked for clarification on where this consensus was reached, and why it is not reflected in guidelines. I have compiled a list of quotes from project pages that indicate my position is the accepted one: User:Atlantima/No Exceptions to Notability. The users voting Keep are attempting to reverse the burden of proof for notability, make discouraged arguments and are avoiding discussion of the actual article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried reminding the other users to address this specific article's topic and avoid making WP:ATA. I have asked for link to the alleged consensus. I have quoted policies and guidelines. All of this while remaining calm and open to compromise such as userfication. How do you think we can help? I want uninvolved parties to take a look at the applicable policies and guidelines and determine whether notability can be inherent, or whether it should be proven. Opening comments by TerriersFanPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by NecrothespI'm afraid I cannot understand why this has been brought to dispute resolution. It's not a content dispute. The proper place for discussion about an article which has been proposed for deletion is on the appropriate AfD page, where it is already being discussed. Attempts to circumvent this are not productive. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by SjPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAPS International High discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Adolf Hitler
Closed discussion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Filed by Mystichumwipe on 10:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview I suspect that a synthesis of published material is occurring in the lead concerning a specific sentence. I have tried to engage with editors in asking for the sources of the information. Such sources have not been supplied as far as I can see. Opposing editors in the dispute outnumber me. Therefore I am asking for help as I am seeing an infringement of the core wiki policy of 'verfiability', which the four or five editors opposing my view, do not agree is occurring. I specifically asked for the source for "systematically murdered" in relation to the 'eleven million' figure given. And I have also previously asked for the source attributing fifty million deaths to Hitler's "policies". [13] Here is the disputed sentence: "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in the systematic murder of eleven million people, including an estimated six million Jews, and indirectly and directly caused the deaths of an estimated 50 million people during World War II." Have you tried to resolve this previously? Engaging in discussions on the talk page, I specifically asked for verfiable sources. None of the sources editors replied with state ALL these 'eleven million' deaths were the result of "systematic murder". And I have provided sources that contradict this. None of the sources opposing editors provided claim all fifty million deaths were the result of Hitler's policies, and I have provided sources that contradict this also. How do you think we can help? By venturing an opinion on 1. whether synthesis IS occurring and 2. whether the disputed aspects of the sentence have been verfiably sourced (i.e. can be verifiable). [One user] has argued previously: "Hitler's ambitions and policies alone led to WWII". All involved seem to agree that [this] statement is not correct. Yet I have argued that the disputed sentence still infers what [was] falsely stated. No other reason is given for the cause of so many deaths other than Hitler's policies, so what else are we inviting the reader to understand? PLUS The alleged source for this we all agree is supposed to be R.J. Rummel's 'Death by Government'. But the legacy section summarises him thus: "...the Nazi regime was responsible for the... killing of an estimated 21 million civilians and POWs." etc. Even then it doesn't state the regime was responsible for ALL these 50 million deaths. The disputed intro sentence presumably reaches this 50 million figure by adding the total from this sentence "...29 million soldiers and civilians died as a result of military action in the European theater of World War II." But again that is not being ascribed to "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies". Thus I am arguing that the disputed sentence is an incorrect synthesis that has no verifiable source. [14] Comment about another editor removed. Please talk about article content, not about user conduct. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by BritmaxA quick remark between RL commitments. Stick to the sources, leave out the "systematic" as not all of them were or can be proved to be, and make it clear that the deaths resulted from the war that grew from the policies that Hitler advocated rather than blaming him for the deaths of fifty million people. I'm not a fan of his but it's more complicated than that. Finally keep any breakdown to two or three major examples or editors will start "listing". Britmax (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by DiannaaPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
The numbers at Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 53#breakdown of 40 million deaths mentioned in Legacy section? are well sourced and very chilling. I was doing some research yesterday for a different article and one source points out that Hitler expected 30 million Russians to starve to death the first winter after the German invasion, and that is how they would get their Lebensraum (Longerich [2012], The Holocaust, page 181). People starved to death in the camps; that does not mean they were not systematically murdered, as their deaths were planned and intentional, whether they were starved or shot or gassed. Are we expected to analyse each death and say that a death counts because the person was gassed but Anne Frank does not count because she died of typhus? The numbers listed in this article have been checked and re-checked by myself and other editors who specialise in Nazi Germany and we believe that they're reasonable estimates based on reliable sources. More sources: Snyder, Timothy (2010). Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin says that the Nazis expected 30 million Russians to die of starvation during the first winter after the invasion of the Soviet Union. Longerich says the same (Snyder, p 416; Longerich, The Holocaust, p 181). Snyder (p 416) gives an estimate of 10 million systematically murdered in the area contained within this map. To that we must add the following victims who were killed outside the geographical area discussed in his book:
That's an additional 1.6 million victims for a total of 11.6 million. So this this information, collated from three different sources, gives us a similar number of systematically murdered as to what appears in the article. To draw information regarding the victims from a number of sources is not OR or synthesis in my opinion. In fact for important articles like this one it should be self-evident that we would draw on a number of different sources. Similarly the 50 million total war dead has been collated from a couple different sources and this number is also accurate imo. Suggested new wording: Britmax has a good idea that the wording could be altered. Suggestion: Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in the murder of eleven million people, including an estimated six million Jews.[2][3][4] An estimated 50 million people lost their lives during World War II.[5][6] Opening comments by KierzekPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
This really has been discussed at length by an assortment of regular and knowledgeable editors weighing in on the subject over time. Cites have been given in the discussion and through consensus, the final sentences have been placed into the article. As Kershaw simplify states (e.g.): Hitler made it clear he believed the Jews brought on the war so they should be "the first to feel the consequences". p. 694; thereafter, with the surrender on 9 May 1945, "Hitler's war was over." p. 963; "Hitler was the main author of a war leaving over 50 million dead..." p. 969. "Hitler: A Biography" (2008). Kierzek (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by MalljajaPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
I first would like to note that the list of users invited for comment here should also include Kierzek. He has been a major contributor to the entry in question. Second, I do not see evidence for synthesis as alleged by the user requesting this DR. WP advises, "...synthesis of published material to advance a new position, [...] is original research," yet the statement in question does not advance a new position—as is expected from the text in the lead, the sentence in question summarises content given elsewhere (in the Legacy section of the entry). Third, as can be seen from the extensive history of the pertinent discussion on the talk page, the discussion on the issue of inclusion or exclusion of the sentence in question became very unproductive. In the long discussion on the talk page, I have not seen any credible evidence emerging that would contradict the notion that Hitler's policies were responsible for the death of millions of people. It is amply supported by the literature written by scholars of this part of history (eg, by Ian Kershaw who is regarded very highly in the field). As far as I can tell, two issues concern the exact number of victims and the use of the word systematic. Dianna has provided an excellent summary identifying multiple sources (listed in detail on the talk page and included in the entry) that place the number of victims between 5–21 million people, so the 11 million figure represents a conservative estimate. Lastly, the word "systematic" is very commonly used to characterize the nature of the killing methods used (see eg, here), which included direct methods, such as systematic executions and death in gas chambers, and indirect methods intended to induce death by starvation and disease, such as forced labour and organized settlements into ghettos. [A]s can be seen from the editing history of this entry, all editors who have made major recent contributions—including revising the Legacy section and the lead section in question—have used different sources and pursued many individual approaches aimed at improving the entry both in terms of sourced content and overall length. These efforts have independently converged on a consensus as represented in the current version. It thus represents the result of mutual peer review of different editors rather than a concerted effort of synthesis as alleged by this user. Malljaja (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC) This opening is over by 200 characters, but within the accepted overage as established by consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by MystichumwipeI do understand the frustration and the complaint: "we've done this". I really do. And yet ...still no-one has supplied what I have been asking for and which wiki policy requires as a basic compulsory requirement. A previous problem that I would like us here to avoid, is that of personal opinion (presented as fact) being given as a reply to my request for a source. BASIC and CORE Wiki policy is that articles are about verifiability NOT truth. So instead of us repeating over and over again what we as individual editors personally feel is 'true', it would finish the discussion once and for all if editors would provide a verifiable source that EXPLICITLY states exactly what the disputed sentence claims. If editors could do this, the conversation would be over. If editors still can't do that simple thing - and after so much discussion, - then I respectfully suggest that this is proof that the sentence is the result of unverifiable synthesis. Finally, I have provided reliable, verifiable sources that contradict the sentence; sources which have been consistently ignored. I think it would help conclude this, if someone could address this aspect of the discussion also. As I am arguing that not only is the sentence the result of unverifiable synthesis, it is also contradicted by cited verifiable, reliable and authorative mainstream sources. SUMMARY. The disputed sentence as I see it, infringes wiki policy in numerous different ways: 1.) it is unverifiable, 2.) as it is the result of synthesis so is therefore 3.) original research, and 4.) it can and has been contradicted so it can be argued is verifiably wrong.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Nick-DPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
This has been discussed extensively (and very civilly) on the article's talk page, with many experienced editors with knowledge of this topic commenting and providing sources. The consensus is that the sentence is basically OK. This appears to be a case of one editor being unable to drop the stick and move on. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Paul Barlow
Opening comments by Paul SiebertPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
If I understand Mystichumwipe correctly, his main objections are: (i) that no sources exist that say that 11 million people were systematically murdered according to Hitler's policy, and (ii) no sources exist that claim Hitler's policy lead to 50 million deaths. I think serious discussion of the thesis (i) is tantamount to the Holocaust denial: in addition to concentration camps, Hitler ordered to create death camps, where systematic murder of people was being perpetrated in industrial scale (in contrast to, e.g. Gulag, which was not an extermination camp), the extermination through labour program was also a systematic murder. I don't think it makes sense to develop a discussion in this direction. Regarding (ii), as Kierzek correctly noted, Kershaw says essentially the same, namely that Hitler was a major author of the war leading over 50 million deaths. Obviously, only politicians can be an author of a war, and they do that by conducting a certain policy. That Hitler's policy was supremacist and racially motivated is obvious, and that is consistent with what Kershaw writes. Therefore, the main idea of this author has been correctly transmitted in this sentence, so we cannot speak about any synthesis here. Opening comments by STFX1046190Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by TheTimesAreAChangingSince Rummel doesn't explicitly link the war death toll with Hitler's racially supremacist ideology, the sentence does appear to be engaging in synthesis.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Woogie10wI am no longer involved in this discussion--Woogie10w (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Adolf Hitler discussion Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to read the Guide for participants at the top of this page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC) I would also add that this is a topic where emotions can run high and interpersonal conflicts can flame up, so everybody here needs to take the following from the guide for participants at the top of this page seriously:
All discussion must be about article content, not user conduct. Comments about other users will be closed or removed, and if the problem persists you may be asked to leave the discussion. If you see such a comment do not respond. Leave it for one of the dispute resolution volunteers to deal with. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Adolf Hitler discussionDiscussion is now open. I am now opening this up for discussion. before we proceed, I want to clarify a few things. First, yes we are serious about the following rule: What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. You are free to discuss other editors on the article talk page as long as you don't violate WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA but not here. Second, yes, we all know that a large number of editors have one opinion and a small minority another. There is no need to point this out. the minority freely admits it. If we determine that no policies such as WP:SYNTHESIS are being violated, then we have a consensus and that settles it. So please focus on the question of whether any policies are being violated. Another thing about a bunch of editors agreeing is that they usually are right about policy, but not always. The policies are there so that we don't end up with a Third, please slow down, make your comments short and to the point, and give others plenty of time to respond. We are here because this issue keeps coming up again and again on the article talk page, and we want to put it to bed forever (or at least until someone shows that there is new evidence that deserves another look -- unlikely with a historical figure). Finally, look over your comments before hitting save and see if you can improve them. Closed DRN cases are often linked to, and the clearer your arguments are now, the less problems Wikipedia will have over this topic in the future. A calm, cool conversation with plenty of citations to reliable sources and discussion about the specific wording of various policies will win the day. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
It is clear that the question before us is not what the numbers are or whether it is OK to add numbers from different sources, but rather what those sources are counting. It is also clear that the sources don't have to be in he lead, but they do need to be somewhere in the article. Let's start with the first part of the disputed statement: If you want to say "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in..." then every source you add up has to say exactly that. If a single source says the equivalent of "Hitler's policies resulted in..." you have to either exclude that source from the count or drop the "supremacist and racially motivated". So, for those of you who support "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in...", please list the sources you are counting up and quote the exact wording where you think each source says "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in..." Note that not everything in racist. On could argue that ordering Jews to be killed is clearly racist but ordering the handicapped to be killed is not (being handicapped is not a race). If instead you want to say "Hitler's policies resulted in..." then you should have an easier time showing that all the sources you are adding together say exactly that. A source saying that it is counting Jews sent to death camps would qualify. A source saying that it is counting deaths in the ghettos or work camps also qualifies (death is a predictable result of putting people in those conditions). POWs shot trying to escape would not qualify, but Hitler ordering them all to be lined up and shot would. If the source says it is counting German war dead, then we need to talk about whether "world war two resulted in" is more correct -- otherwise we are saying that every American death was the result of Roosevelt's policies. At this point I don't need full citations or the actual numbers. We can check those later once we establish what we are measuring, and I doubt that anyone is making stuff up. I just want the wording in the sources that supports the "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in..." Then we can move on to the next part of he disputed statement. --Guy Macon (talk)
I just saw that Nick-D beat me to it, so I apologise for the repetition, as he and I are essentially making the same point: Guy, I appreciate your use of the devil's advocate position, but I do not think it applies the concept of synthesis correctly. The sentence in question is in the lead. As per its main function, the lead succinctly summarises content given elsewhere in the entry. Accordingly, were we to strictly apply the definition of synthesis to this section, as far as I can tell, much of the content in the lead in this and other entries probably would have to go. The Legacy section contains the content (which clearly delineates statements and sources) the lead sentence refers to, with detailed sources provided, and the lead sentence summarises this content; it does not reach a conclusion. This means that the rule, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion [emphasis mine] not explicitly stated by any of the sources." does not apply here. Now, one could argue that this lead sentence "slips in" an angle or position that is new or even contradicts content, but this is not the issue here—the broad consensus has been that this sentence appropriately reflects the content in the main body of the article. Malljaja (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I would like to start by thanking Guy for volunteering your time to try and solve this. I think you expressed and pinpointed the nature of this discussion very succinctly so I repeat it here "the question before us is not what the numbers are or whether it is OK to add numbers from different sources, but rather what those sources are counting." To answer the initial opening arguments ( I number them for ease of reply):
I answer briefly that Snyder's book on pg 421 makes no mention at all of any deaths planned or otherwise, that I could see. Nor mentions "systematic murder". (Perhaps that page number was given incorrectly). Also, Longerich's The Holocaust, p 181 also DOES NOT say anyone was "systematically murdered" nor were planned to be so. He in fact writes that the 30 million projected lives at risk were expected to either die or "emigrate to Siberia". And in context, Churchill enforced a a blockade against Germany from 1939 that resulted in death by starvation and disease of many in mainland Europe and particularly in Poland. He also implemented racist and supremacist ideologies and policies in his execution of war (e.g. "I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes.") His policies resulted in the death by starvation of 3 - 5 million Indians in the Bengal famine of 1943 (Madhusree Mukerjee, Churchill's Secret War, etc). Anyone is free to believe that Churchill's racist and supremacist ideologies and policies resulted in the "systematic murder" of all those people in Poland and Bengal, etc. But if they want to write that in the Churchill wiki page and to compile lists of numbers of those dead victims, they obviously have to provide a reliable source that states exactly what they write. The situation is exactly the same here on the Adolph Hitler page. So, as another editor has written: "keep any breakdown to two or three major examples or editors will start 'listing'."
The questions are i.) what are the sources for the numbers specified PLUS ii.) whether there is a synthesis of those numbers with uncited allegations of causation, responsibility and motivation for the deaths. 5. Two editors argued that this source: "Hitler was the main author of a war leaving over 50 million dead..." supports the disputed sentence. But it DOES NOT state that Hitler and his "racist, supremacist policies" were responsible for over 50 million dead, but that the resulting war was. Also by stating Hitler was the "main author" infers he was only one "author" among others. So this actually argues against the disputed sentence and confers responsibility for all these deaths on ALL the "authors", not just Hitler. The article we are contributing to is about Adolf Hitler, NOT about the war (WW2). That concludes my reply to the opening arguments.
Regarding the fifty million figure: [15] "...how inadequate is our traditional way of understanding it [WW2]. It is not enough to to portray the war as a simple conflict between the Axis and the Allies over territory... Some of the most vicious fighting was not between the Axis and the Allies at all, but between local people who took the opportunity of the wider war to give vent to much older frustrations... Given that the Germans were only one ingredient in this vast soup of different conflicts, it stands to reason that their defeat did not bring an end to the violence. In fact the traditional view that the war came to an end when Germany finally surrendered in May 1945 is entirely misleading: in reality their capitulation only brought to an end one aspect of the fighting. The related conflicts over race, nationality and politics continued for weeks, months and sometimes years afterwards." (Savage Continent by Keith Lowe, p.366. Publication Date: 5 April 2012. ISBN-13: 978-0670917464). Please note this part: "the Germans were only ONE ingredient in this vast soup of different conflicts". Therefore we can NOT infer by cobbling together different sources that Hitler and his policies were responsible for all those deaths as the disputed intro sentence incorrectly does (AND does without providing a verifiable source). Regarding the eleven million figure: [16] What is the source for the eleven million systematically murdered? I am assuming this is a composite of six million Jews plus another five million. Is it? (If so see The Eichmann trial by Deborah Lipstadt. Pgs. 8, 9 and 10. Also The holocaust in American life by Prof. Peter Novick. Pg.225). 7. To avoid arguing over non-contested aspects, maybe it will help if I state that I accept that of course Hitler's policies were racist and supremacist; of course millions of people died in camps; of course he was one of the main authors of a war that resulted in more than fifty million deaths; of course some civilians were systematically killed. The problem is way the sentence adds all that together to form a new position to these uncontested aspects.
I think we all agree that the numbers being used can NOT be attributed soley to Adolf Hitler, which is what the article should be about. I assume we agree that none of the cited sources we are using attributes all these deaths to Hitler alone, nor to his policies. The current unspecific citations used at present of "Yad Vashem, 2008" and "Holocaust Memorial Museum" I suggest are not adequate as a verifiable citation. I myself and one other editor see no need to have this sentence at all in the lead unless it is to try to attribute deaths to Hitler. The difficulty with this is that then we have a complex numbers problem that we then have to over-simplify. We already say in the lead: "Hitler was at the centre of Nazi Germany, World War II in Europe, and the Holocaust." I suggest that is enough. The details can be in the appropriate sections. So we don't really need this disputed sentence in the lead, and it will likely always be an inaccurate over-simplification because of the complexity of the numbers issue. For all the above reasons I suggest and request that we delete the sentence under discussion immediately and suggest we do not replace it with anything, if we do at all, until this discussion here is resolved and an agreeable solution is reached. What do you think, Guy?.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 06:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Guy, you had struck out all of Paul B's and part of my opening comments because they contained views on user conduct. I completely understand your reasoning. In the interest of fairness and a productive outcome of this discussion could you please apply the same principle to Mystimwipe's comments? Many of his comments focus on user conduct, not on sources (eg., among others: "Previously, editors have refused to discuss on the talk page as they said they do not want to waste their own time." and ˇeditors refused to engage by arguing I was a lone voice"). Thank you. Malljaja (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Adolf Hitler discussion 2
Hitler's main centrepiece of most of his political speeches was that "the Jews" (and "Jewish Bolshevism") were responsible for Germany's misfortunes, including the loss of World War I and economic post-WWI calamities. He and other high-ranking Nazi officials couched this in terms of race, and the intended acquisition of "living space" for "Germanic" (or "Aryan") people was predicated on his view that these area were inhabited by "inferior races" (i.e., Poles and Slavs). Kershaw's two books "Hubris" and "Nemesis" contain ample probing and discussion of the origin of Hitler's views and how he used them to gain popular support and how they eventually got enshrined in policy. In short, there's strong evidence for scholarly consensus that Hitler's policies were racially motivated. Malljaja (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't have access to the various sources Mystichumwipe claims support his position, but his claim that Heinz Peter Longerich argues that there weren't any plans for the systematic murder of Jews is, to be frank, not at all true. See Longerich's expert report to the Irving vs Lipstadt trial for instance, in which he concludes that "there is clear evidence that he [Hitler] was deeply involved in the anti-Jewish policy during the war, particularly when it reached a murderous stage" and "It can be ruled out that the massive preparations for the systematic murder of European Jews in extermination camps in Poland, undertaken in Spring and Summer of 1942, were taken without his consent or his [Hitler's] knowledge".
Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree - the comments in regards to Churchill are totally wrong and reflect a fringe viewpoint (there was mass starvation in Poland due to the Nazi occupation policies, and not because Churchill was racist towards Poles - see Commission for Polish Relief for a discussion of this issue). Nick-D (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I think that simple arythmetic is not original synthesis. Take 6 million killed Jews, 5 million killed Soviet POWs and you're already near the figure, add also 15 million killed Soviet civilians.--Anixx1 (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Britmax which as yet have not been commented upon: "Stick to the sources, leave out the 'systematic' as not all of them were or can be proved to be, and make it clear that the deaths resulted from the war that grew from the policies that Hitler advocated rather than blaming him for the deaths of fifty million people. ...Its more complicated than that."--Mystichumwipe (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Adolf Hitler discussion 3If the issue is the mention of Racism and murder for the total sum then just call it from "policies" that caused "deaths". This shouldn't be that difficult unless I am missing something major here. Some editors want accuracy and they are correct in asking for that but other editors are not wrong in wanting to summarize totla amounts of people who suffered and died by the policies that were set in place by Adolf Hitler. I have to agree with the latter and suggest that we just drop the mention or racsim and maybe replace it with "bigoted" as the term would indeed be verifiable and replace the word "murder" with "deaths". This seems to be encyclopedic in value and is not down grading or diminishing anything.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The Q.was "If the issue is the mention of Racism and murder for the total sum then just call it from "policies" that caused "deaths". This shouldn't be that difficult unless I am missing something major here. I suggest that we just drop the mention or racsim and maybe replace it with "bigoted" as the term would indeed be verifiable and replace the word "murder" with "deaths". Does anyone have a good reason why we shouldn't do this? Yes I do. I think Amadscientist is missing something major. Viz. that what is being attempted to be simplified into one sentence is a way more complex and nuanced topic than he (and the sentence) conveys (as myself, Britamx, Timestheyareachanging, STFX1046190 and even Woogie10w have argued). Quick answer.: Mention of Racism and murder is not the problem. This proposed slightly amended sentence would STILL remain an innaccurate imprecise oversimplification via synthesis from beginning to end. Because the numbers are and have been disputed. Because the causation and responsibilty for the deaths would remain unsourced so would still remain a result of unverifiable sythnthesis. Because WE DON'T EVEN NEED THIS SENTENCE as the details can be in the appropriate sections, and we are already saying in the lead that Hitler was at the centre of WW2, the holocaust, etc., etc. Long answer. 1. Mention of Racism and murder is not the problem. The whole sentence is about attributing deaths to Hitler, as was made clear by the title of a previous discussion. Even in that discussion, the the numbers of deaths that could be attributed to Hitler were disputed. The article is about Hitler not about WW2. So we should not and can not fairly attribute ALL the total of deaths in WW2 to him. Its way more complex than that, as I and Britamax maintain, and as Liddel-Hart, Keith Lowe, Professor Scheck, A.J. Taylor and other historians have stated. 2. The problem with this solution still remains that a synthesis is being made to attribute all deaths in WW2 to Hitler and a new unsourced word 'bigoted' is being used. 3. ALL the deaths from starvation are being applied to Hitler and his "policies" with a description of "systematic" and "murder". And then a disputed figure of 11 million is being slapped in there with no verifiable source. As I have shown Hitler was only one of the main authors of the war, and that is according to the cited source Kershaw. (I.e. the sentence is contradicted by the very source it is citing). The deaths from starvation in Poland were ALSO a direct result of the policies of Churchill, as I have demonstrated with as yet unconstested sources. So ALL the starvation deaths can NOT be attributed just to Hitler's policies, racist, bigoted or otherwise, plus we have no verifiable source stating that they can be. YES, Hitler had racist policies, there is no argument abou that. But there is a difference of opinion whether all the deaths from his racist policies can be ascribed to an intended and systematic plan (intentionalism) or were an unintended outcome of the developement of war (functionalism). The sentence should not push a point of view on this difference, which it does at present PLUS does so without even the basic required verifiable sources to back it up. I will provide a suggestion of a replacement sentence using verifiable sources later (I also have limied time at my disposal;). I agree this much with those arrayed against me , this is a complex topic and so it requires editors well versed in the topic who have an understanding of the broader issues and context (i.e. not just are well-versed in Hitler's policies and actions alone in isolation from the actions of other players/leaders)--Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I posted a suggested wording last night but put it in the wrong place. I am going to modify it slightly after reviewing some of the above material. My suggested wording now is "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in the deaths of at least eleven million people, including an estimated six million Jews. An estimated 50 million people lost their lives during World War II." The following sources show that the figure of eleven million is the bare minimum, and if anything is too low.
Rummel's chart is the only place I have found so far that collects all the information together into one place, so here's a collection of other sources that give a breakdown of the deaths:
Total: 11.8 to 12.6 million people, based on multiple estimates drawn from multiple reliable sources. -- Dianna (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Adolf Hitler discussion 4I know Rummel is already used. We are here discussing what is the verifiable source for this "the systematic murder of eleven million people". If we must have a sentence attributing deaths to Hitler, here is my suggestion with the appropriate sources. You will see I am using Rummel’s figures for consistency: "Hitler is considered the principle antagonist for the outbreak of World War II which left over fifty million dead*. In the execution of that war, his ideology of racial purity, Aryan superiority combined with his anti-semitic policies resulted in the deaths of over five million Jews*."
Regarding the inherent difficulty of dividing up responsibility for deaths, in Raul Hilberg's book ‘The Destruction of the European Jews’, he estimates 5.1 million Jews died during the Holocaust of whom "over 800,000" died from "Ghettoization and general privation"; 1,400,000 were killed in "Open-air shootings"; and "up to 2,900,000" perished in camps. Hilberg estimates the death toll in Poland at "up to 3,000,000". So if we accept Rummel as our source for democide figures then we have to accept this from him also: “…food blockades that cause the indiscriminate death of civilians is democide, as was the largely British Blockade of the Central Powers during and after WWI. As Article 14 to Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions affirms, “starvation of civilians as a method of combat is prohibited.” --Death by Government by R. J. Rummel. Pg 40 Put that together with the quotes from the British General Staff’s report (Churchill inspired ) and the letter of Hoover regarding Churchill’s democidal starvation policy against Poland and you can see how complex and nuanced this topic of attributing responsibility for wartime deaths is in reality. Which is why I advocate not having this sentence, as we already have the sentence "Hitler was at the centre of Nazi Germany, World War II in Europe, and the Holocaust" We instead detail these subtleties in the article, with the appropriate sources previously cited here in this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystichumwipe (talk • contribs) 15:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the alternative version suggested by Mystichumwipe uses some wrong word choices. I've attempted to write a cleaner copy of his suggested wording, but he hasn't responded yet. And I'm not altogether sure whether this alternative wording is really the way to go. The alternative phrasings are somewhat wordier than the current sentence. It the object is to indicate that the 50 million war deaths are those in the European theatre only, one could simplify this to, "Hitler's policies and strategy of aggression led to the outbreak of World War II, which left over fifty million dead in Europe alone." (I've changed "war of aggression" to "strategy of aggression," because "war" is a form of aggression.) In regards to the second sentence, I believe that "racially motivated" more appropriately describes the intent of Hitler's policies than "Aryan superiority" and "racial purity" since the latter two sound more like the vernacular the Nazis themselves used to describe their programme objectives. I'm happy to follow consensus on this, but I'd caution against phrasing that has the potential to attract additional concerns further down the road. Malljaja (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The figure as I cited way back in my opening statement was really "over" 50 million (but I can agree to the present sentence as Diannaa suggests); cited to Kershaw in either of his works, "Hitler: A Biography" (2008) p. 969 or "Hitler: Nemesis", p. 841. Hitler's foreign policy was clearly a desire to enact long held racial and territorial expansion goals; with opportunistic action and reaction over time, as to events. I agree there were conflicts which occurred during the 1930s, which along with the Great Depression gave rise to the atmosphere which culminated in the overt act of the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany on 1 Sept. 1939; the fact remains that the majority of main stream historians place the start of World War II in Europe on that overt act which was ordered by Hitler. See: Glantz, "When Titans Clashed", pp. 13-17; Gerwarth, "Hitler's Hangman", pp. 138, 139; Snyder, "Encyclopedia of the Third Reich", p. 157; to name a few. Therefore, the 50 million number should remain, in proper context; which I thought from reading the comments above had already been agreed to (and which has been present in the article lede, all along). Kierzek (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Adolf Hitler discussion 5In order to help those who are following along to evaluate the progress we are making, could each of you please post what you believe to be the wording that should go in the article along with a direct quote from the citation or citations that support it? Please put any commentary in a followup comment; I just want to see what the person reading the article will see. Example: Article wording: "Adolph Hitler is best known for his role in the hit show "Hitler on Ice." Other than that little is known about him." Quote supporting the above: "I like your approach, now let's see your departure." Source: http://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 06:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC) CLARIFICATION: I was hoping for direct quotes from the sources so that the reader can easily identify any WP:SYNTHESIS problem such as adding the numbers from a source that says that 100,000 people watched his "Hitler on Ice" show in Europe and another source that says that 50,000 people watched him skate in the US without specifying the show and claiming that 150,000 people watched the "Hitler on Ice" show. This of course would miss Hitlers performance in the Ill-Fated July 4th Death Valley Winter Olympics and overstate the numbers for the "Hitler on Ice" show. And no, the sources don't have to be cited in the lead. Anywhere in the article will do. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Adolf Hitler discussion 6If there's no reason to exclude Rummel's calculations there's no reason to exclude the higher-end calculations either. Here is my latest suggested wording: "Hitler's aggressive foreign policy is considered the main factor led to the outbreak of World War II. His antisemitic policies and racially motivated ideology resulted in the deaths of between 5.2 and 6 million Jews and millions of other people deemed racially inferior." – Dianna (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
– Dianna (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Adolf Hitler discussion 7I believe per WP:NPOV, there has been shown what the majority view of current main-line historians is, as stated with citations above in answer to your queries, Mystichumwipe. Please keep in mind, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. Now we have made, I believe, some progress for these lede sentences, lets work towards continuing that and move forward. Kierzek (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
To avoid a possibly unnecessary RfC, perhaps Diannaa and Kierzek can confirm whether they regard McDonough - and his 2011 panel, whose essays he has collected together - as expressing 'fringe' views or not. A concise 'yes' or 'no' would suffice.
The proof of the accuracy of my quote from Prof. McDonough is that even Snyder and Richard Evans are themselves not totally in agreement [[30]]. Here is Evans discussing Snyder:
Regarding the reliability of these authors themsleves, Evans starts his review of Snyder's book 'Bloodlands' with a quote attributed to Hitler, stated as if accurate, but which has been the subject of much controversy. [31]
The difference of view of American historian Francis L. Loewenheim and Richard Evans over the German historian Andreas Hillgruber is another indication of the fierce disputes over this WW2 history:
Hillgruber argued that World War II began with the Anglo-French declarations of war on Germany on 3 September 1939 and NOT with the German actions on 1st September 1939. (Hitler, König Carol und Marschall Antonescu: die deutsch-rumänischen Beziehungen, 1938-1944 by Andreas Hillgruber). Hillgruber also acknoweledged that Hitler had believed that he could retake German territory acceded to Poland in the Treaty of Versailles in 1939 without provoking a war with Britain and France, and was surprised by the British declaration of war. In the 1980's there was what has been called the Historikerstreit ("historians' quarrel") about all this. Evans wrote his 1989 book In Hitler's Shadow to publicise his views on this Historikerstreit. Ernst Nolte, Joachim Fest, Andreas Hillgruber, Michael Stürmer, Hagen Schulze, Imanuel Geiss and Klaus Hildebrand were historians/academics who disagreed with Evans. In other words there HAS been ceaseless wrangling over all of this. From Liddel-Hart, and A.J.P.Taylor in the 60's, with the Historikerstreit in the 80's and even to more recent times.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Hitler's own stated view does not belong in the lead paragraph, which should be a concise summary of what the majority of academics believe. It could be used lower in the article (properly attributed of course) -- that's an editorial decision that should be decided by consensus. You cannot shoehorn all possible complexities and controversies into the lead of an encyclopedia article. Some things need to be expanded on in the sections below. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Adolf Hitler discussion 7Getting back to the question at hand, it appears that at least some of you are converging on this wording:
I am satisfied that the above does not violate WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR. Other than that I don't care what wording is chosen. Mystichumwipe, would you be so kind as to post the exact wording you prefer, keeping as much of the above as you are comfortable with? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
"Hitler's aggressive foreign policy is considered the main cause for the outbreak of World War II in Europe. In the execution of that war, his ideology of racial purity and Aryan superiority combined with his antisemitic policies resulted in the deaths of millions of people deemed racially inferior including over five million Jews."
CLOSING It appears that we have pretty much gone as far as we can go within the constraints of DRN. I am going to wait another 24 hours and then close this as "failed". The good news is that we have settled the synthesis issue and now the matter can be decided by consensus. To determine what to do next, please see WP:DR. Finally, I would like to thank all of you for being so cooperative and for focusing on content and citations. It has been a pleasure working with you. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
|