Skip to open disputes • skip to newest thread • (purge cache)

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.

Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

Do you need assistance?

Would you like to help?

Request dispute resolution

If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.

This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.
The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.

If you need help:

If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

Become a volunteer

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

Volunteers should remember:

Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 with no other edits.

Open/close quick reference

To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
German influence on the Soviet space program	In Progress	SchmiAlf (t)	25 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	15 hours
2023 Manipur violence	In Progress	Tms369 (t)	17 days, 16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 18 hours	Chaipau (t)	6 hours
Football Season articles and football results articles	New	PicturePerfect666 (t)	10 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 16 hours	PicturePerfect666 (t)	6 hours
Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting	New	Happieryet (t)	4 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	15 hours
Historical reliability of the Gospels	New	Tgeorgescu (t)	3 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 2 hours	Jenhawk777 (t)	2 days, 15 hours
Allan R. Bomhard	Closed	2603:6080:7200:BD6D:B120:E5A:26B:EB7C (t)	1 days, 11 hours	NotAGenious (t)	3 hours	NotAGenious (t)	3 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 18:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237

If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes.
Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

Current disputes[edit]

German influence on the Soviet space program[edit]

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by SchmiAlf on 08:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

German influence on the Soviet space program (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

SchmiAlf (talk · contribs)
Ilenart626 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Since several weeks I'm trying to improve the article for a more balanced discussion of the German contributions for the Soviet rocketry development. There were reverts back and fourth and lastly I tried to find a starting point with a proposal for mutual agreement for a more balanced approach not denying controverse options of space historians (unanswered for more than a week). My last edit was reverted again although it was restricted to additional information and facts (together with many sources), improved structuring and several documented corrections. I clearly object the talk's statement that my edit "contradicts both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH or is pushing a WP:Fringe theory that is not supported by credible articles."

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:German_influence_on_the_Soviet_space_program#Reverted_SchmiAlf‘s_contraversial_edits

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Review my last change of the article (16:35, 2 September 2023) whether it was a fair approach of improving Wikipedia and whether it has any issue with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH or WP:Fringe. Also I'm interested in opinions and guideline whether this is a case for the Administrator's noticeboard.

Summary of dispute by llenart626[edit]

When I created this article I was aware of an alternative viewpoint that overstated the German influence on the Soviet space programme, refer to this comment by DonPMitchell in 2009. Therefore I developed the Historical Analysis section of the article that contain both views, which adequately states the alternative viewpoint. The mainstream view is provided by Siddiqi’s Challenge to Apollo: The Soviet Union and the Space Race, 1945-1974 which is described in Siddiqi’s Wikipedia article as “…widely considered to be the best English-language history of the Soviet space program” in print and was identified by The Wall Street Journal as "one of the five best books" on space exploration.” Siddiiqi view, which is supported by many other references, states on page 84 of Siddiqi 2000:

“On the other hand, the available evidence suggests that Korolev and his team made very little use of German expertise, at least after 1947. Their influence over the direction of the Soviet balistic missile program was marginal at best”

I have summarised the above into the following statement in the Lead of the article:

“However, after 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet space program was marginal.”

Over the last 12 months I have been engaged in multiple discussions with SchmiAlf on the Talk page over his views of the German influence in the Soviet space programme, refer Joint work of Korolev and Gröttrup from 1945 to 1950 and Translation for German source. I have accepted a number of changes that SchmiAlf has made to the article, however his latest changes here, here, here and here have changed the mainstream view of Siddiqi and is basically pushing the alternative view. I have reverted these changes as they are based on his own research and conclusions, which contradicts both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Refer to Talk:German influence on the Soviet space program#Reverted SchmiAlf‘s contraversial edits for details of the discussion. Note the number of times SchmilAlf’s reasoning is based on his own conclusions (ie reasons for Soviet’s visiting Gorodmlya) or combining various statements from Siddiqi, CIA reports and other sources to support his conclusions. In other words SchmiAlf is contravening both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in their arguments. In SchmiAlf‘s latest edit he is highlighting actions that the Germans undertook in 1948 and 1949 whilst ignoring the conclusion of Siddiqi and other sources; that the Soviets made very little use of this work and their influence was marginal, as summarised in the Historical Analysis section of the article. In addition, SchmiAlf’s latest edit is relying on a primary source, plus he has made changes to the Lead which do not reflect the underlying article, in contravention of WP:MOSLEAD. Ilenart626 (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

German influence on the Soviet space program discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Soviet space)[edit]

Please read DRN Rule D. We will be under this set of rules because the space programs in question were in Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic because discussions sometimes refight either World War Two or the Cold War. The German rockets were used in World War Two, and were adapted for Soviet use in the Cold War. Please indicate whether you agree to moderated discussion subject to the rules.

It isn't clear from the introductory statements whether the editors are requesting moderated discussion or a Third Opinion. If a Third Opinion is desired, I will put this case on hold while the Third Opinion is requested at that noticeboard, and then either close this case or open this case.

The filing editor also writes: Also I'm interested in opinions and guideline whether this is a case for the Administrator's noticeboard. Is this an article content dispute, a conduct dispute, or some of each? Sometimes if an article content dispute can be addressed, any related conduct issues may be set aside. It is a good idea to read the boomerang essay before filing at WP:AN or WP:ANI. If you aren't sure whether this is a conduct dispute, it is a good idea to try to resolve the content issue first.

The discussion at the article talk page is lengthy. If the editors want moderated discussion, we need to identify exactly what parts of the article are in dispute. Each editor is asked to make a concise statement of what material in the article you want changed, or what you want left the same that the other editor wants changed. It is not necessary at this time to explain why you want those changes.

So:

1. Do you want moderated discussion?
2. Do you want a Third Opinion from the Third Opinion noticeboard?
3. What specific changes do you want (or not want) in the article?

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zeroth statements by editors (Soviet space)[edit]

Hi Robert, can you note that most of SchmiAlf's latest edits have been removed due to copyright violation, "refer Deletion log 17:22 Diannaa talk contribs changed visibility of 2 revisions on page German influence on the Soviet space program: content hidden ‎(RD1: Violations of copyright policy: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/gorodomlya.html)" Not sure how this changes this dispute resolution, will leave to SchmiAlf to respond. Ilenart626 (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Ilenart626, I need to redo my last edit because it was completely removed. The use of quotation marks in some of Anatoly Zak's statements will not change the main reason of our dispute which I summarize as follows:

The Siddiqi-based statement "However, after 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet space program was marginal.” is a perspective of available information in 2000. It is not even a neutral paraphrasing of Siddiqi who talked about the "influence over the direction of the Soviet ballistic missile program" (which is a completely different aspect, not related to technical achievements). Since then, there is newer information: Matthias Uhl's comprehensive study of Soviet documents in Stalins V-2 (2001), Anatoly Zak's Russian Space Web (last updated in 2012), relevant CIA documents (RDP80-00810A001800090003-0, RDP80-00810A003300530005-2) released in 2010, and the Russian 70 Years of Swesda 1946-2016 document (2016) from Gorodomlya (quoted in the talk). Therefore the Siddiqi-based statement is biased in the Lead of the article and was deleted (not from the Historical Analysis section!, not even intended to do). The rest of my changes did not touch the controversary aspects at all, just improved the structure of the article and added several documented facts without presuming any interpretation. DonPMitchell's comment in 2009 has some good arguments and should be considered together with the Russian document Background to the creation of the RD-107/108.

My point of view is not that the Germans invented or built the R-2, the R-5 or R-7. However, there is some evidence that they contributed basic ideas and design concepts. As with many inventions, the final result cannot be reliably attributed to specific individuals or teams, because its implementation requires an on-going refinement of ideas and breakthroughs (which is most of the challenging work). Denoting my edits as WP:Fringe theory is downgrading my honest contribution which is based on more than five years of research in the history of Soviet rocketry, also including analysis of Helmut Gröttrup's inheritance which was handed over to the (public) archive of the Deutsches Museum (NL281) in 2017 (another unknown to Siddiqi). SchmiAlf (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert, in reply to your specific questions:

- agree to moderated discussion subject to DRN Rule D

- Q 1 and 2 agree with moderated discussion

- Q 3 that the exist wording of the article is not changed.

Ilenart626 (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First statement by possible moderator (Soviet space program)[edit]

Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your statements to the moderator, who represents the community. After we establish what the article content issues are, I will provide a space for back-and-forth discussion.

One editor has not stated that they agree to moderated discussion (which is voluntary). That editor also has not answered my question about what changes they want to make to the article. Reliable sources are essential in Wikipedia, but my usual opening question is not about the sources, but about the body of the article, which should reflect what the sources say, but it is the body of the article that a reader will read.. If you want to make multiple changes to the article, to reflect what their sources say, please be concise and list no more than three parts of the article that you want changed.

After we have identified what the proposed changes to the article are, then we will know better how to continue this discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First statements by editors (Soviet space program)[edit]

First statement by SchmiAlf — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchmiAlf (talk • contribs) 07:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Q1: I agree to moderated discussion

Q2: I agree to third opinion

Q3: I want to apply the following improvements and changes:

Delete the last sentence "However, after 1947 [...] was marginal." in the lead (as justified by my arguments in the previous discussion). Siddiqi's statement may remain in the Historical analysis section.
Improve the structure of the Work in the USSR section by sub-sections (as within my reverted/deleted edit of 16:35, 2 September 2023‎):

1) until end of 1947 for launching V-2 and support of R-1;

2) in 1948 and 1949 for design sketches of long range missiles;

3) activities at OKB-456 (the current Glushko ... paragraph commingles independent OKB-456 and NII-88 activities);

4) from 1950 to 1953 reduced cooperation on special topics;

5) Return to Germany (already existing).

Add details based on Ustinov's report (1951) and other sources without prejudicing the level of German influence on later Soviet development.

Add a section under Historical analysis describing the reasons of a controversary view (as drafted in the talk of 11:53, 25 August 2023):

- fundamental interest of Soviets in German designs with visits in 1949;

- conical shape of G-4 and similarity to R-7 boosters;

- proposal of German engineers to use 4x 25 tons engines instead of 1x 100 tons engine;

- reduced thrust/weight ratio of 1.2 to 1.4 (instead of 2.0);

- system for simultaneous emptying of both tanks;

- quote Russian 70 Years of Swesda 1946-2016.--SchmiAlf (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First statement by ilenart626

The section of the Lead that summarises the “Historical Analysis” section is detailed below. The section SchmiAlf wishes to delete is underlined:

The involvement of German scientists and engineers was an essential catalyst to early Soviet efforts. In 1945 and 1946 the use of German expertise was invaluable in reducing the time needed to master the intricacies of the V-2 rocket, establishing production of the R-1 rocket and enable a base for further developments. However, after 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet space program was marginal.

SchmiAlf has stated that “Siddiqi's statement may remain in the Historical analysis section.” I assume SchmiAlf is referring to the following:

However, due to a combination of reasons, including secrecy requirements due to the military nature of the work, political considerations and personal reasons from some key players, from 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists. They were effectively frozen out from ongoing research and their influence on the future Soviet space program was marginal.

As per WP:MOSLEAD I believe the statement underlined above should remain in the Lead as I believe this wording, and the preceding section, appropriately summarises the conclusions in the “Historical Analysis” section.

SchmiAlf proposed other changes I cannot comment on as I am unsure of the specifics of these changes, particularly as:

changes 1-5 relate to SchmiAlf edit of 16:35, 2 September 2023‎, which has been deleted due to copyright violation;
uncertain where and what details of “Ustinov's report (1951)” SchmiAlf wants to add; and
SchmiAlf draft in the talk of 11:53, 25 August 2023 has over 1,000 words.

Ilenart626 (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The copyright violation was in fact missing several quotation marks.

Details of "Ustinow's report (1951) include a structured overview of the German tasks in USSR from 1946 to 1951 with some more relevant details as compared to the current description in the article for 1948 to 1950. His final conclusion "The German specialists who have worked in the field of reactive technology have given considerable aid in restoring and reconstructing the German designs, especially in the first period. Their individual theoretical, design, and experimental work was used in designing Soviet models." supports the controversary view.

My lengthy argument (more than 1000 characters) was due to the complete deletion of my edit which I could otherwise have referred to. SchmiAlf (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second statement by possible moderator (Soviet space program)[edit]

Schmialf has proposed three changes to the article:

Delete the last sentence of the lede paragraph: "However … was marginal."
Expand the "Work in the USSR" section.
Expand the "Historical analysis" section by adding a section.

The main issue appears to be whether German influence on the Soviet space program after 1947 was marginal or was significant. The second and third proposed points will discuss in more detail what the influence after 1947 was. So I am asking both editors whether the article content issue has to do with whether there was significant post-1947 German influence on the Soviet space program. I am also asking what sources describe the post-1947 German influence, and whether those sources are considered reliable, and whether the coverage is considered significant. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, are there any other issues besides the extent of post-1947 German influence? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second statements by editors (Soviet space program)[edit]

Second statement by ilenart626

I believe “whether there was significant post-1947 German influence on the Soviet space program” is the key issue in this content dispute.

The main sources that describe the post-1947 German influence are Siddiqi 2000, Chertok (2005) Ley (1969), Russians Space Web, Mick (2003) and Neufeld (2012). Siddiqi, in particular, on page 84 states the following:

“On the other hand, the available evidence suggests that Korolev and his team made very little use of German expertise, at least after 1947. Their influence over the direction of the Soviet balistic missile program was marginal at best”

The other sources support the above, for example:

Chertok - “…the Germans had little influence and the R-7 rocket that propelled the Sputnik 1 to orbit was "free of the "birthmarks" of German rocket technology"

Ley - “In reality, the Germans did not build anything for the Russians, did not “supervise" the firings, and did not introduce innovations”

Russian Space Web - “As it often happens in history, the truth might lie in between…”

Mick & Neufeld - “As a gross generalization, one can say that the initial transfer of Third Reich knowledge, both in the eastern occupation zone and in the USSR, was a success, but afterwards the value of most of the German teams quickly diminished as a result of the Stalinist policy of isolation and secrecy, compounded by linguistic difficulties, differences in engineering cultures, rivalry and resentment from indigenous engineers and scientists, and the inefficiencies and disin- centives of the planned economy.”

I believe all these references are considered reliable, particularly Siddiqi (Siddiqi’s Wikipedia article describes Challenge to Apollo: The Soviet Union and the Space Race, 1945-1974 as “…widely considered to be the best English-language history of the Soviet space program in print and was identified by The Wall Street Journal as "one of the five best books" on space exploration).

I believe the coverage is significant for all these references, particularly Siddiqi (appears he devotes about 50 pages of his 1,010 page book to German involvement, including a 5 page section called “The End of the Road for the Germans” pp 80-84).

I’m not sure if there are any other issues besides the extent of post-1947 German influence, will leave it to SchmiAlf to respond. Ilenart626 (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second statement by SchmiAlf

The first key issue is “whether there was significant post-1947 German influence on the Soviet space program” in the lead as it violates the neutral point of view. The second key issue is that additional information supporting the controversary view have been reverted several times.

With regard to the sources mentioned above I have the following comments:

Chertok (Russia 1996) is deemed mostly reliable, but he has major issues in neutral description of Soviet/German relationships. As an example he claims that Korolev had never been on Gorodomlya (p. 49) - in fact he was there in 1948 and 1949. His view is driven by the Soviet (and Stalin's) mania that all rocketry development was done by Soviet engineers only, a fatal dilemma which he addressed several times (pp. 46-49, 57-58, 65, 68-69). In addition, he claims that Korolev was unable to listen to German proposals. Gröttrup's and Magnus' retrospection is different, without any reservation from Korolev and his staff as long as the ideas and concepts supported his target and Ustinov's respect. Therefore his central statement that "R-7 had no German birthmarks" must be challenged: If R-5 had German birthmarks and R-7 was partially based on R-5 ...
Siddiqi (2000) is deemed mostly reliable, but his findings were never updated to later publications, such as secret CIA reports from 1952 to 1956 (released in 2010), Matthias Uhl's Stalins V-2 dissertation (2005), publications of Gröttrup (1958), Magnus (1993), Albring (1991) - all of them in German only. Also newer Russian documents are missing
Russian Space Web (last updated on 5 August 2012) is deemed reliable and neutral (and I can agree with Zak's statement: “As it often happens in history, the truth might lie in between…”.)
Mick, Neufeld (2012) are deemed neutral (but less relevant in this context)
Ley (1969) may be right in some assumptions, but his limited view during the Cold War can't be taken as a serious argument.
Dmitry Ustinovs (1951) report is very valuable at it outline his detailed targets for the use of German scientists. It is a neutral view because he had to explain Lavrentiy Beria why so much money was spent for the German team (for sure, not for gardening etc.) and discuss when they might return to Germany under the risk of reporting Soviet progress of rocketry to Western secret services
Encyclopedia Astronautica is useful especially in technical matters (also supporting some of my controversary findings, but I do not want to restart the talk on that article).

ilenart's edit of Soviet space program on 4 July 2022 shows a strange approach. He claimed to move essential arguments into the new German influence on the Soviet space program (see diff and deleted them. But they never showed up in any version of his new article. So the new article disposed of some controversary arguments instead of challenging their content. In part, these arguments match with the content of my dispute. As a summary, IMHO the current version of this article is biased and does no apropriately reflect the controversary view.

I have restored a new version of my reverted and deleted edit as a sub-page, see here the difference to the currently published version. It does not yet include an update for the Historical analysis section. --SchmiAlf (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Third statement by moderator (Soviet space program)[edit]

Be concise. Long statements are often not needed, and sometimes do not clarify the issues. I will be more or less repeating my questions.

It appears that there is really one multi-part issue, which is whether the German influence on the Soviet space program was marginal after 1947, or whether the statement to that effect should be deleted, and replaced by specific statements as to what the post-1947 German influences were. Is it correct that is the main issue? Please restate whether you wish to leave the marginal after 1947 statement in place, or whether you wish to delete it.

Does the issue of German influence on the Soviet space program after 1947 have to do with the reliability of sources? If so, please state which sources you are questioning the reliability of, and we can submit an inquiry to the reliable source noticeboard.

Please state concisely whether there was significant German influence on the Soviet space program after 1947, and what sources describe or dispute that influence. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Third statements by editors (Soviet space program)[edit]

Third statement by SchmiAlf

I wish to delete "the marginal after 1947 statement" in the lead as it is not plausible at all for what happend during 1948 and 1949.

My concerns about the reliability of the sources (Chertok; Siddiqi) addressed in my second statement are very specific and come up when comparing their conclusions with other sources which became accessible later. We must also consider the circumstances that Soviet (and later Russian) official statements kept German participation secret and denied it. But there is lot of plausible evidence that there was "more than marginal influence of German ideas" on the later Soviet developments, as follows:

Several high-ranking visits to Gorodomlya in 1949 (documented by Siddiqi & Zak, proving the fundamental interest of Soviets in German ideas and designs far beyond V-2);
Retaining most of the Germans in Gorodomlya until mid of 1952 and pay them high salaries even after most of the V-2 technology transfer had been completed by end of 1947 (the most plausible reason is that they knew too much about the advancements of Soviet rocketry);
Conical shape of G-2 and G-4 (documented by 1953 CIA interrogation (item 50) and the similarity to the R-7 boosters (documented by comparative drawing);
The use of pressure-stabilized balloon tanks based on thin-walled self-supporting structures (<2 mm) to reduce weight (documented by 1953 CIA interrogation (items 6a,10b,26-33), Uhl (p.177-178) and applied for R-7)
Optimized thrust/weight ratio of 1.2 to 1.4 (instead of 2.0) (documented by 1954 CIA interrogation (item 25) and applied for R-7's Sputnik shot with a value of 1.4);
System for simultaneous emptying of both tanks as described by Ustinov's 1948 task "fuel level sensor in the rocket’s tanks" (documented by 1954 CIA interrogation (item 25), Russian Tank emptying system and Chertok (p. 292, Vol 2);
Arrangement of the oxygen tank ahead of the fuel tank to improve the center of gravity position (documented by 1954 CIA interrogation report (item 21) and applied for R-5 and R-7).

The CIA documents provide details of German concepts and analysis long before data of Soviet and US missiles became publicly available. It is highly improbable that they got them from the Soviets who were eager to keep their secrets on their own.

IMHO the most neutral position is provided by Russian Space Web: "As it often happens in history, the truth might lie in between: Germans did not design Sputnik or its rocket, however the ideas and concepts developed by Gröttrup’s team on Gorodomlya did influence Soviet designers and thus accelerated their efforts. 'The work of the captive German scientists and technicians served as a yardstick against which Soviet accomplishments could be measured, and the Soviets were capable of extracting those developments useful to their program and of discarding others which they had already surpassed,' concluded a US historian [Ernest Schwiebert]." --SchmiAlf (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Third statement by ilenart626

I wish to retain the “marginal after 1947” statement in the Lead.

I question the reliability of any source that uses the Encyclopedia Astronautica website. For the discussion about its reliability refer to 1 - the Talk page on the article about the website, 2 - this discussion on Valentin Glushko’s Talk page and 3 -this reference.

There was no significant influence on the Soviet space program by German specialists after 1947. The main sources that confirm this are:

Siddiqi 2000 on page 84 - “On the other hand, the available evidence suggests that Korolev and his team made very little use of German expertise, at least after 1947. Their influence over the direction of the Soviet balistic missile program was marginal at best”

Neufeld (2012) on page 58 “The Germans played a central role in that process, including the further development of the missile and its rocket engine, but after 1948 they were increasingly frozen out and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used.”

I agree that the “marginal after 1947” statement in the Lead is the main issue. However, as SchmiAlf has now provided details of their proposed edits in their 2nd statement here, I can now advice that I disagree with many of these changes. Ilenart626 (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Back-and-forth discussion is permitted only in the section where it is permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be very helpful for unblocking our dispute (taken aside the disputed lead statement) to outline the reasons in detail why you "disagree with many of my changes", not just as a general statement. SchmiAlf (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am replying to the Moderator ie “Be concise” and “ Is it correct that (marginal after 1947) is the main issue?” Also note that the Moderator has also stated “Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your statements to the moderator, who represents the community.” Hence I have not made any comments on your statements. Ilenart626 (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fourth statement by moderator (Soviet space program)[edit]

"Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion" means do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. However, I am providing a section for back-and-forth discussion, which should be civil.

It appears that SchmiAlf wishes to delete the "marginal after 1947" statement, and to expand two sections describing later German influence. It appears that Ilenart626 disagrees, and wishes to retain the statement, and does not want the two sections added.

Ilenart626: Do you question the reliability of any of the sources provided by SchmiAlf? If there is a question about the reliability of sources, we will refer the issue to the reliable source noticeboard. If there is a different reason for disagreeing, or a different issue, please state what the issue is.Robert McClenon (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fourth statements by editors (Soviet space program)[edit]

Fourth statement by SchmiAlf

Robert's statement is correct. For the section Work in the USSR of my proposed edit I'm willing to discuss plausible and well-founded objections by ilenart626. --SchmiAlf (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fourth statement by ilenart626

As detailed in my third statement above, I question the reliability of SchmiAlf’s sources from the Encyclopedia Astronautica website. I agree with refering the website to the reliable source noticeboard.

The main reason I disagree with SchmiAlf’s changes is that they have failed to provide reliable sources that support “that German specialists had a significant influence on the Soviet space program after 1947”. Note that I do not disagree that the German specialists carried out studies during 1947-50; the “Work in the USSR” section of the article already contains details of this work. However as Neufeld (2012) states on page 58 “…after 1948 they were increasingly frozen out and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used.” In other words, these studies were ignored and the German specialists had little to no influence on the Soviet space program after 1947.

The only source that SchmiAlf has provided that supports his view is the statement provided by Schwiebert at the end of his third statement at Russian Space Web. However note that this statement is from Schwiebert’s “USAF's Ballistic Missiles - 1954-1964; A Concise History. Air Force & Space Digest” published in 1964. As SchmiAlf has already advised in his Second statement regarding a 1969 source - “Ley (1969) may be right in some assumptions, but his limited view during the Cold War can't be taken as a serious argument.” I agree with SchmiAlf that we should disregard sources from the cold war. My recommendation is to rely on sources after 1991 and the Dissolution of the Soviet Union and Glasnost that have accessed Soviet records, for example Siddiqi 2000, Chertok (2005), Mick (2003) and Neufeld (2012).

None of the other sources that SchmiAlf has provided clearly states that “German specialists had a significant influence on the Soviet space program after 1947”. SchmiAlf’s Third statement lists 7 dot points that he describes as “…there is lot of plausible evidence that there was "more than marginal influence of German ideas" on the later Soviet developments…”. Not a single one of these points provides a source that clearly states “German specialists had a significant influence on the Soviet space program after 1947”. They consist of his own analysis and synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves, in other words, not complying with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

In contrast, the existing statement in the Lead - “…after 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet space program was marginal.” is clearly supported by the sources, for example:

Siddiqi 2000 on page 84 - “On the other hand, the available evidence suggests that Korolev and his team made very little use of German expertise, at least after 1947. Their influence over the direction of the Soviet balistic missile program was marginal at best”

Neufeld (2012) on page 58 “The Germans played a central role in that process, including the further development of the missile and its rocket engine, but after 1948 they were increasingly frozen out and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used.”

Hence I believe the existing statement in the lead “…after 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet space program was marginal.” should remain. Ilenart626 (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fifth statement by moderator (Soviet space program)[edit]

Before I ask the Reliable Source Noticeboard for an opinion on the reliability of any of the sources, I need to ask whether the question is really about the reliability of the sources, or about whether the sources are being interpreted correctly. If the question is about whether the sources are being interpreted correctly, we should discuss that here.

So, please specify whether you are questioning the reliability of the sources listed at the Encyclopedia Astronautica web site, or whether you are questioning the interpretation of the sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fifth statements by editors (Soviet space program)[edit]

Fifth statement by ilenart626

I am questioning the reliability of information contained in the Encyclopedia Astronautica web site. Errors on the site have been identified as far back as 2006 but they have never been fixed. The site is no longer maintained and has never been peer reviewed, so these errors are never going to be fixed. Note that this space historian made the following comment in 2006:

"Mark Wade's online Encyclopedia Astronautica has become a popular Internet source for space history. Unfortunately, while it contains a great deal of information, not all of it is correct. Space historians have noticed a variety of factual problems, and unfortunately these problems have not been consistently repaired. Since this is not a peer-reviewed source and historical errors are not always fixed, this cannot be considered a reliable source, despite its impressive appearance." - Critical Issues in the History of Spaceflight, (2006) pp. 484–485

I also note the following comments about the reliability of Encyclopedia Astronautica that was posted by another editor here in 2009 on Valentin Glushko’ Talk page, which is also relevant to this discussion:

“I urge some caution with regard to the biography on Encyclopedia Astronautica, because it toes the line of a particular nationist German historian who claims that all of Russian rocket inventions were made by captured Germans. There is no documentary evidence at all that Germans designed the KS-50, ED-140 or RD-105 engines or had anything to do with the R-7 packet rocket design. This is just stated without proof in the articles and books by this historian and parroted on the astronautix.com site. Russian documentation multiple eyewitness accounts all claim that the Germans worked on the R-1 project and were completely isolated from more advanced missile projects, for security reasons. The Germans who worked in the Soviet Union were almost all debriefed by the CIA and some by von Braun. Yet none of these claims about inventing later rocket and engine technology appeared until the 1990s, after technical details of those missiles were made public by Russian sources. I fear these conspiracy theories will be dragged into wikipedia, and we will never hear the end of it. I recommend looking at articles on Soviet rocket engines by the American engineer George Sutton, and articles and books by Asif Siddiqi. For a scholarly treatment of the German work in USSR, look at Michael Uhl's book "Stalins V2" (in German).”

Ilenart626 (talk) 04:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fifth statement by SchmiAlf

The reliability discussion on Encyclopedia Astronautica is a side aspect here only and not an elementary basis of my arguments (just a reference for technical concepts). With a similar argument, the work of Siddiqi, Mick, Neufeld (and many other authors) may be challenged if there is new relevant information since their publication date, no peers have fundamentally reviewed their findings and their work has not been updated accordingly.

I completely disagree that Siddiqi's and Neufeld's (based on Mick) statements can be summarized as ilenart626 does. He paraphrases Siddiqi (p. 84, see above) as "After 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet space program was marginal" (let me call it the 1947 proposition). One may even dispute whether Siddiqi's original term "influence over the direction of the Soviet balistic missile program" is sufficiently considered herein. With mentioning Neufeld and Mick that they support the 1947 proposition, he clearly exceeds the tolerable zone of interpretation. Neufeld/Mick have stated: "After 1948 they were increasingly frozen out and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used". This statement significantly differs from ilenart626's 1947 proposition. My previous edits were mostly consistent with Mick when unterstanding it in such a way that 1949 was a transition period between major involvement and being frozen out (from 1950) (as is agreed by most space historians). The 1947 proposition is completely overused when referencing to Neufeld and Mick as he does in Wikipedia's Soviet rocketry and Soviet space program (here even in conjunction with Anatoly Zak whose Myth and Reality statement is clearly opposite. This approach is not compliant to WP:SYNTH.

We cannot expect that we may find official Soviet documents which clearly determine the German influence on Soviet rocketry. In spite of high efforts in investigating Soviet/Russian archives, Uhl and Przybilski could not find the "smoking gun" of such proofs, just several chains of evidence. This is because the Soviets (most likely) have destroyed all German drawings and calculations after translating them (or at least have hidden them in a still secret location), not even German documents of the V-2 were retrieved. The most relevant document is Ustinov's 1951 report to Beria (Uhl, p. 259-260).

As a second opportunity, we have the CIA interrogations of Germans returned from Gorodomlya in 1952 and 1953. The comprehensive 1953 CIA interrogation and 1954 CIA interrogation are the most comprehensive reports, the first is (at least partly) based on Konrad Toebe's, the second on Helmut Gröttrup's interrogation in January 1954 after he and his family had fled to West Germany in December 1953 (backed by personal documents in his inheritance). These detailed statements of contemporary witnesses who were deeply involved in the German efforts for the Soviet rocketry are not biased by intentions of propaganda or embellishment during the Cold War. As the reports were released by the CIA in 2010 only, they were not known or considered by any of ilenart626's favorite sources. As the isolation of the German team from Soviet achievements (only one-way information flow!) was predominant after 1947, these documents are the most reliable source in this dispute of the German influence on Soviet rocketry. By the way, only a small portion of 10 (?) German returnees was debriefed by the MI6 and CIA with Helmut Gröttrup as an "important defector" and the "best-informed Dragon Returnee" (see Paul Maddrell, Spying on Science: Western Intelligence in Divided Germany, 1945-1961, p. 87, 205-109, 221-227). This 2006 document includes comprehensive analysis of the German work in Gorodomlya based on MI6 and CIA knowledge. It is not a conspiracy theory or WP:FRINGE.

When leaving the USSR, the Germans had to sign a secrecy agreement with the KGB (Uhl, p. 205-207). Therefore public contemporary information is very rare in the West, none in the East. We find several private memoirs reporting on the Gorodomlya operations, among them Irmgard Gröttrup's Rocket Wife (1958), Kurt Magnus' Raketensklaven (1993), Werner Albring's Gorodomlia (1991), and Boris Chertok's Rocket and People (1995/2005). All of them provide additional insight into Gorodomlya's activities from a German or Soviet view and can be used for plausibility checks, but require cautious interpretation. --SchmiAlf (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sixth statement by moderator (Soviet space program)[edit]

Please provide me with as much information as you can for the Reliable Source Noticeboard about any sources that you are questioning, including the Encyclopedia Astronautica, and any sources available from it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sixth statements by editors (Soviet space program)[edit]

Sixth statement by ilenart626

Refer to my comments above in my fifth statement regarding reliability issues with the Encyclopedia Astronautica website. Also note the following additional comments about Encyclopedia Astronautica's reliability on various Talk pages:

Talk:Martin Summerfield#Encyclopedia Astronautica reference questionable “ The Martin Summerfield biography referenced from astronautix.com contains a great deal of misinformation crediting Summerfield with developments first made by engineers at other companies.”

talk:Kvant-1#Kvant mass? Highlights the Encyclopedia Astronautica still showing mass as 83,000kg. NASA gives the correct mass of 20,000kg

Note the comment here about Encyclopedia Astronautica being a WP:UGC site Talk:Apollo command and service module#Requested move 26 November 2018 - to lower/sentence case "sources" we should not be using at all, like Encyclopedia Astronautica, a WP:UGC site

Talk:Aerojet General X-8#What a well written and documented page should achieve“…such as Mark Wade's Encyclopedia Astronautica, which I have foud clear errors.”

Ilenart626 (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sixth statement by SchmiAlf

The main dispute is about Asif Azam Siddiqi's monumental history Challenge to Apollo, a NASA publication in 2000, in chapter 3 "Stalin and the rocket", pp. 69-84. This section concludes by the statement (p. 84): "On the other hand, the available evidence suggests that Korolev and his team made very little use of German expertise, at least after 1947. Their influence over the direction of the Soviet balistic missile program was marginal at best." As there is significant other reliable information contradicting it, Siddiqi's work is questioned as unrealiable, at least on his conclusions on pp. 83-84, and the rating of German contributions from 1948 until 1950 where it is incomplete.

In itself, chapter 3 already includes several of his own statements weakening his final conclusion:

p. x (Preface): "Russian historians have never adequately addressed the use of German expertise in the immediate postwar period. They have generally minimized the German role as extremely peripheral. On the other side. the popular press in the West has had a tradition of dismissing early Soviet successes as merely an extension of German work."

p. 58: "On June 4, 1947, NII-88 Director Maj. General Gonor hosted another meeting to discuss the long-range goals of the German specialists affiliated with the institute. At the meeting, Gröttrup, the leading German rocketry specialist in the Soviet Union, proposed the development of a new missile designated the G-1 (later to be confusingly called the R-10) as a successor project to the R-1. Not surprisingly, there was as much resistance on the part of Soviet engineers to any German proposal that was competitive with their own plans. In this case, the G-1, with a range of 600 kilometers, had capabilities and design elements very similar to Korolev's R-2. The latter was particularly stubborn in his opposition to the G-1 plan."

p. 63: "Korolev and his engineers returned from Kapustin Yar to Kaliningrad in time to hear the revised report by the German engineers on their G-1 study. On December 18, 1948, the members of the Scientific-Technical Council of NII-88 gathered to make a final decision on the German proposal. [...] After a long and sometimes acrimonious session, punctuated for the first time by a discussion of the political implications of using German expertise, the council formally terminated the parallel approach of work on the R-2 and the G-1, which had been continuing for close to two years by then."

p. 72: "The three successes [i.e., launch of R-1, R-2, R-2E until September 1949] did, however, instill sufficient confidence in Soviet capabilities to eliminate any doubt about terminating work on the German G-1 concept, with which the R-2E shared many performance characteristics."

p. 81: "On April 4, 1949, Minister of Armaments Ustinov personally visited the Gorodomlya facility with a proposal to the Germans to design a missile that could carry a three-ton warhead a distance of 3,000 kilometers. The specifications were identical to those for the Soviet R-3 missile, and Ustinov's proposal was quite likely a means to augment the R-3 effort by absorbing as many technical innovations as possible from all sources. This new German missile project, called the G-4 (or R-14), reinvigorated the energies of Gröttrup's team, which was given only three months to complete a preliminary draft plan on the missile. Given the circumstances, what they came up with was no less than astounding. The G-4 was a single-stage, cone-shaped, twenty-five-meter-long vehicle with a single 100-ton-thrust engine."

p. 81: "On October 1, 1949, Ustinov sent NII-88 Director Maj. General Gonor, Chief Engineer Pobedonostsev, and Chief Designer Korolev to Gorodomlya to be briefed on the G-4 missile. It was a rare interaction between the latter and the Germans, and it was probably Korolev's last visit to the island. The Soviets returned to Kaliningrad with the product of the German team's work; the Germans themselves were given no explanation and heard little about the project ever again. Some minor redesign effort on the G-4 was continued until February 1950, but by that time, a formal decision [i.e., termination] on the R-3 had already been taken by NII-88, and presumably the Soviets saw little use in having the Germans continue with their parallel project."

p. 82: "Work on the G-4 and G-5 projects coincided with a marked decrease in work among the Germans. In April 1950, the Ministry of Armaments formally decided to terminate further work on long-range missiles at Branch No. I at Gorodomlya. Also, by order of the ministry, on March 29 of that year [1950], all access to classified materials was denied to the Germans. Despite the order, the Soviets continued to ask advice on technical matters well into 1951. [...] In early 1951, groups of young Soviet engineers migrated to Gorodomlya ostensibly to be taught by the experienced Germans at these excellent facilities. It was the last time that the Soviets would make active use of German expertise in the postwar years."

p. 83: "The almost eight years of involvement of the German scientists in the Soviet rocketry program clearly proved to be an essential catalyst to its further advancement. During the existence of the USSR, Soviet historians rarely, if ever, mentioned the use of German expertise in the postwar years, but the collaboration was real and extremely pivotal in furthering Soviet goals."

p. 83: "Western historians have debated much on the role of the "German factor" in the postwar development of ballistic missiles in the Soviet Union. The most common interpretation has been one very generous to the Germans - that is, that they had a significant influence over early Soviet developments. One author [James Harford], writing in 1995, argued:

For years Soviet space leaders put down the contribution that captured Germans and their V-2 technology made to the Soviet ballistic missile and space programs. 'Not significant,' they would say, 'we got mostly the technicians. The Americans got von Braun and his top team. We sent our Germans back after a few years.' That explanation is no longer the Party line. In fact, it is now acknowledged that German rocket technology was bedrock to the USSR, just as it was to the US."

[In the following paragraphs, Siddiqi does not provide a traceable explanation why he puts aside this statement for his own differing conclusions.]

p. 84: There is compelling reason to believe that the USSR might have floundered for years before moving ahead to such ambitious concepts as the R-3 had it not been for mastering the design and manufacturing technologies of the A-4 rocket.

In addition, for the period of 1948 to 1953 significant information is missing as several relevant documents were unknown to Siddiqi or released after 2000:

Matthias Uhl's Stalins V2 dissertation (2005) on the "Technology Transfer of German Missile Technology in the USSR and the Buildup of the Soviet Rocket Industry 1945 to 1959" with many details of research in Russian archives, pp. 132-216
The Soviet Minister of Armament Dmitry Ustinov with his 1951 report to Beria including a comprehensive overview of the German work in 1947 to 1950, with his conclusion:

"The German specialists who have worked in the field of reactive technology have given considerable aid in restoring and reconstructing the German designs, especially in the first period. Their individual theoretical, design, and experimental work was used in designing Soviet models."

Reports of CIA interrogations on returnees from Gorodomlya, such as 1953 CIA interrogation and 1954 CIA interrogation (released in 2010) which provide many details of technical concepts and calculations later found in Soviet missiles
Missing information of the German tasks in Valentin Glushko's OKB-456 for the development of rocket engines, e.g., as reported by Olaf Przybilski The Germans and the Development of Rocket Engines in the USSR (2002) and Paul Maddrell in "Spying on Science - Western Intelligence in Divided Germany" (pp. 225-227) (2006)

There are the following errors in Siddiqi's work:

p. 82: "The last remaining eight German scientists, including Grottrup, were given permission to leave the Soviet Union on November 22, 1953. Within a week, they were all gone, ending the seven-year existence of NII-88's Branch No. I.

[In fact, it was a group of 24 retained German scientists CIA report RDP80-00810A002000690002-2 (August 1953) who eventually returned in November 1953. See also RDP80-00810A000400020001-7 report of June 1952

p. 82-83: "Dr. Waldemar Wolf[f], one of the few who remained behind in the Soviet Union after 1953, lived in Moscow for many years before also returning to Germany. In his remaining years in the Soviet Union, he had no contact with the ballistic missile program."

[Wolff already returned to Germany in June 1952 as reported by Encyclopedia Astronautica and Stadtwiki Dresden

p. 83: "Compounding Korolev's personal resistance toward cooperation with the Germans was a much more imposing political imperative one that was grounded in xenophobia and distrust."

[This is an unsupported generalization of Boris Chertok's quote on p. 58 and does not take into account the Soviet-German contacts until 1951 with "groups of young Soviet engineers migrated to Gorodomlya ostensibly to be taught by the experienced Germans" (p. 82).]

With the above quotes, missing information and errors, Siddiqi's Challenge to Apollo is deemed incomplete and unreliable for the chapter 3, pp. 62-84, especially his conclusions on p. 84.

The dispute of the reliability of Encyclopedia Astronautica is of secondary relevance only as none of my essential arguments is founded on this database, which is used as a compendium for easier understanding and visualization of design concepts. --SchmiAlf (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seventh statement by moderator (Soviet space program)[edit]

See comment at RSN: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&diff=1175954925&oldid=1175953387

Each editor is asked to make a short additional statement at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert, was it meant to be here (as suggested below) or in the RSN? SchmiAlf (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seventh statements by editors (Soviet space program)[edit]

Seventh statement by SchmiAlf

I completely agree with the statement: "I would think it marginally reliable, but that better sources are suggested. I doubt it should be used for controversial details that are in opposition to more academic, or more up to date works."

There are similar issues with any publication (incl. Siddiqi's work which was published in 2000) that it may be outdated and contain uncorrected errors. Without getting to (or understanding) the (original) roots of an information and its subjective (potentially biased) view any secondary analysis should be treated with caution and weighed by the plausibility and consistency with other sources. --SchmiAlf (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seventh statement by ilenart626

Was a comment from only one editor, however in the context of this dispute I believes his remarks are relevant. However, considering the number of issues with the Encyclopedia Astronautica website identified in my fifth and sixth statements above (which are only a sample) I believe the reliability issues with this website are not just related to the dispute with the "German influence in the Soviet space programme" but affect all of Wikipedia. Therefore I would suggest that a WP:RFC be held to obtain more viewpoints and reach consensus on whether the site is:

Option 1: Generally reliable
Option 2: Additional considerations
Option 3: Generally unreliable
Option 4: Deprecate

and the results be published on WP:RSP.

There are plenty of reliable sources out there that can be used to reference space history, why bother with one that is unreliable? Ilenart626 (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Back-and-forth discussion (Soviet space program)[edit]

Question to ilenart

Ilenart626, any suggestion for a revised neutral lead which is compatible to Zak, Neufeld and other sources?--SchmiAlf (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies for the delay in replying, has been a busy week.

To revise the Lead the first issue is that as per MOS:INTRO “The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.” So any new items we add to the lead have to be significant and covered in the main body of the article.

Neufeld (2012) main contribution to the article (from page 58) is “ In the rocket sector, Stalin ordered that Soviet teams begin by copying the V-2...The Germans played a central role in that process, including the further development of the missile and its rocket engine, but after 1948 they were increasingly frozen out and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used.” This is pretty similar to the “essential catalyst” section in the lead, but it could be used.

I was also thinking that that the issue that Siddiqi 2000 flagged on page 84 “Such an argument conflates two clearly distinct issues: the use of recovered German technology and the use of the actual German scientists” could also be highligted better in the article and the lead.

An additional source that is not currently used in the article is Siddiqi (2009) “Germans in Russia: Cold War, Technology Transfer, and National Identity”. Note that in this essay Siddiqi uses recently accessible Russian archival sources in his analysis, including Dmitry Ustinov’s 1951 report. In this essay Siddiiqi delves into how and why German specialist were not used. This highlights further reasons as to why the Soviets ignored German expertise, including secrecy requirements, Zhdanovshchina and Korolev’s conviction as an enemy of the state. The following section of the essay highlight some of these issues.

”Given Zhdanovshchina’s various dimensions, Korolev was forced to take great care in his actions. In addition to regulating his behavior to conform to prevailing party dictates, he had to steer clear of the Germans since they represented a foreign influence; yet, he had to account for the possibility that their help was essential to the success of his work, as mandated by Stalin. Negotiating all of these concerns required a delicate dance from all three constituencies—the bureaucrats, the Soviet engineers, and the German specialists. The bureaucrats (Ustinov, Gonor, and others) needed to satisfy Stalin’s whims to build long- range ballistic missiles, a goal that would fail, they believed, without the help of the Germans; they sought to give the Germans the resources they needed but recognized that parallel and independent work by Germans and Soviets was financially untenable. The designers (Korolev, Mishin, and others) needed to avoid the kind of behavior that would get them fired, purged, or worse, especially given the pressures to reinforce a new nationalist tenor in Soviet science in the early cold war years; they did not want to be working for the Germans or having the Germans work for them… A solution to this Gordian knot was found through complex gymnastics that left the one constituency who had little or no power, the Germans, out in the cold. Taking advantage of the vigilant need for secrecy, industrial managers such as Ustinov and Gonor effectively slowed down German work on the G-1 missile until the Soviets matched the German quality of work. Once the Soviet side had eclipsed the Germans, the perceived utility of the latter plummeted.”

This essay could be used to update the article and important points included in the lead.

Summarising the above points, and incorporating some of your changes, I came up with the following draft of the lead. In the interest of reaching a consensus I have also deleted most of the references to years in the lead:

During World War II Nazi Germany developed rocket technology that was more advanced than that of the Allies and a race commenced between the Soviet Union and the United States to capture and exploit the technology. Soviet rocket specialist were sent to Germany in 1945 to obtain V-2 rockets and worked with German specialists in Germany and later in the Soviet Union to understand and replicate the rocket technology and develop concept studies for long-range and intercontinental ballistic missiles.

The use of Nazi Germany rocket technology and involvement of German scientists and engineers played a central role to early Soviet efforts. The use of German expertise was invaluable in reducing the time needed to master the intricacies of the V-2 rocket, establishing production of the R-1 rocket and enable a base for further developments. However, due to a combination of security and political requirements, by the end of the 1940’s the Soviets had frozen out the German specialists and made very little use of their expertise and their future influence on the Soviet space program was marginal.

Ilenart626 (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMHO, the last sentence "However, due to a combination of security and political requirements, by the end of the 1940’s the Soviets had frozen out the German specialists and made very little use of their expertise and their future influence on the Soviet space program was marginal." is not neutral enough for a consented lead. The "end of 1940's" is less precise than possible and the "future influence .. was marginal" statement at the end of the lead might be mistaken as covering the whole work of the German specialists (even if smoothed by the word "future"). The question of whether (and when) the German expertise was marginal should be discussed in the Historical analysis section where I do not expect that the controversary discussion would ever reach a consensus.

Therefore I propose the following sentence at the end of the lead section:

"However, due to a combination of security and political requirements, the Soviets froze out the German specialists after 1949 and made little use of their expertise for the Soviet space program."

I'm asking why the Soviet space program is referenced here. The absolute focus of German concept studies was missile technology (or Soviet rocketry), with Minister of Armaments Dmitry Ustinov as the driver who forced both Sergei Korolev and the German collective into a partly competitive situation (which eventually paid off). Even Korolev could not dare to openly promote space projects. But this is a side aspect only and I leave it up to your preference. --SchmiAlf (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In reply to your specific points:

To specify “1949” you would need a specific source that actually states this, do you have one? If you don’t want to use "end of 1940's" then Siddiqi (2000) specified “1947” and Neufeld (2012) specifies “1948”. Therefore “…after 1947-48…” is supported by these sources and can be used.
For the end of the sentence Neufeld (2012) states “…they were increasingly frozen out and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used.” Siddiqi (2000) states “On the other hand, the available evidence suggests that Korolev and his team made very little use of German expertise, at least after 1947. Their influence over the direction of the Soviet balistic missile program was marginal at best”. I would suggest a combination of the two would be “… they were excluded and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used. After this date the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their future influence on the Soviet space program was minimal.”
Regarding including “the Soviet space program”, as this article is called “German influence on the Soviet space program” I would suggest that it is included.

To summarise the above my suggestion for the lead is:

During World War II Nazi Germany developed rocket technology that was more advanced than that of the Allies and a race commenced between the Soviet Union and the United States to capture and exploit the technology. Soviet rocket specialist were sent to Germany in 1945 to obtain V-2 rockets and worked with German specialists in Germany and later in the Soviet Union to understand and replicate the rocket technology and develop concept studies for long-range and intercontinental ballistic missiles.

The use of Nazi Germany rocket technology and involvement of German scientists and engineers played a central role to early Soviet efforts. The use of German expertise was invaluable in reducing the time needed to master the intricacies of the V-2 rocket, establishing production of the R-1 rocket and enable a base for further developments. However, due to a combination of security and political requirements, after 1947-48 they were excluded and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used. After this date the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their future influence on the Soviet space program was minimal.

Note that, as I have outlined above, to comply with MOS:INTRO to include this new lead we would also have to add to the main part of the article:

highlight the issue that Siddiqi 2000 & 2009 flagged regarding :two clearly distinct issues: the use of recovered German technology and the use of the actual German scientists” in the article.
adding to the article Siddiqi’s (2009) further reasons as to why the Soviets ignored German expertise, including secrecy requirements, Zhdanovshchina and Korolev’s conviction as an enemy of the state.

Ilenart626 (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition some remarks to Siddiqi (2009). Beyond the more detailed description of the political background it does not provide updated information (or analysis) of the potential German technical involvement (and Soviet interest) in 1949 for the G-2 and G-4 designs based on Ustinov's 1951 report and Uhl's Stalins V-2 (except quoting them). It still suffers from the same errors and incompleteness as detailed above in the reliability discussion. --SchmiAlf (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree! My reading of Siddiqi (2009) is that he uses Ustinov's 1951 report, Uhl's Stalins V-2 and other sources to support his conclusions. Note the following “In this essay, I use recently accessible Russian archival sources to reconstruct the experience of German rocket scientists forcibly relocated to the Soviet Union during the early cold war.” Yes it does not support your assertion that “It still suffers from the same errors and incompleteness as detailed above in the reliability discussion”. As I have already said a number of times, I believe your assertions in the reliability discussion above are based on your own opinions and synthesis of a variety of sources.

I also note that the majority of your arguments are supported by primary sources where all my sources are secondary sources. Suggest you review WP:PST and how you need to utilise secondary sources. Note in particular “ All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.”

Ilenart626 (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eighth statement by moderator (German influence on Soviet space program)[edit]

An RFC on the reliability as a source of Encyclopedia Astronautica is a good idea. I will take the lead within 36 hours.

Back-and-forth discussion in the section for back-and-forth discussion may continue, but we also need to address the main issue.

The primary issue had been whether the article should say that German influence on the Soviet space program after 1947 was marginal. Has there been agreement either to accept that statement, or remove that statement, or include a different statement in its place? If there has not been agreement, we will use an RFC. Participants will choose between leaving the statement in and removing it, unless there is also a different statement proposed.

Please answer concisely whether there has been agreement, and whether there is an alternative statement to consider. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment 8.1 by moderator[edit]

The RFC on the reliability as a source of Encyclopedia Astronautica is now running at RSN. Please participate in it. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eighth statements by editors (German influence on Soviet space program)[edit]

2023 Manipur violence[edit]

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Tms369 on 05:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

2023 Manipur violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

The editors active on that page have ignored my request to edit the lines "The hill regions are noted by scholars as forming part of Zomia inhabited by "non-state" peoples. They came to be administered only after the Kuki rebellion of 1917–19,[50] by British administrators without the involvement of the Meitei state.". I have brought several pieces to the talk page showing that it is factually wrong, but they have fallen on deaf ears. They have also deleted a topic on the talk page without settling the dispute.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

[1]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Deleting the lines or replacing it with "After the Anglo-Manipur war of 1891, the administration of Manipur was taken over by the British. They continued to administer the hill areas directly even after establishing a form of native rule in 1907. They justified this hill-valley administrative divide on their plea that the peoples were different. Scholars believe this divide had far-reaching effects on the relation of the hill-valley peoples.".

Summary of dispute by Kautilya3[edit]

The page is on 2023 Manipur violence which started on 3 May and is still ongoing even after four months. The line that the filing party disputes is taken from a journal article written by a well-recognised JNU scholar, Thongkholal Haokip, with a long record of high-quality scholarship. Contrary to their claim, the filing party did not bring forward any sources that proved it to be "factually wrong". I am happy to participate in the dispute resolution discussion, provided the original disputing party Roman3141, and the editing party Chaipau also participate. (I am not sure why Roman3141 has not been invited here. If they do not dispute the content any more, they need to say so, either here or on the talk page.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Summary of dispute by Chaipau[edit]

Kautilya3 has stated the situation correctly. In addition, Haokip's claim is supported not just by his scholarship but also by a pattern of valley-hills relationships in Assam, Manipur and Southeast Asia that has been widely reported in scholarship and has support across multiple academic disciplines. Thus any objection has to very specifically show academic support that the Kuki/Naga regions were not part of this pattern. Though the issue was raised by Roman3141 they have not cited any reference to support the objection. Tms369, on the other hand, has cited some references. u:Kautilya3 has addressed each of the citations, and found no support for the objection. Also, u:Kautilya3 has cited additional references that support Haokip's claim. Furthermore, I have found that the material cited by u:Tms369 conversely supports Haokip instead.

If this DR process is instituted, I will participate.

Chaipau (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2023 Manipur violence discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Manipur)[edit]

User:Kautilya3 says that they will participate in moderated discussion if User:Chaipau and User:Roman3141 participate. All editors have been notified. Roman3141 has not edited in ten days. Participation in moderated discussion is voluntary.

Please read DRN Rule D. We can begin moderated discussion with the editors who have responded, or we can close this case with instructions to resume discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zeroth statements by editors (Manipur)[edit]

I am ok to participate without Roman3141, assuming they have no further interest. I think it would be best to start with understanding the perceived issues with the version of the content on the page. Can the filing party state what is "factually wrong" about it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issues Kautilya mentioned have been discussed at length on the article's talk page. One of the topics which I put up has unfortunately been taken down. I am now ready to start moderated discussions with the parties who have responded. --Tms369 (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First statement by moderator (Manipur)[edit]

Please read DRN Rule D again. This is the rule that is used when the topic is contentious, and this dispute is about a state in India. Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your answers to the community, and to the moderator, who represents the community. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so I am asking each of the editors what they want to change in the article, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. It is not necessary at this time to explain why you want to make a change; we can discuss reasons after we know what language in the article is being disputed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First statements by editors (Manipur)[edit]

I am to reiterate that I want either the removal of the lines "The hill regions are noted by scholars as forming part of Zomia inhabited by "non-state" peoples. They came to be administered only after the Kuki rebellion of 1917–19,[50] by British administrators without the involvement of the Meitei state." or replacement of it with more factually correct statements that we can all come to an agreement upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tms369 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am satisfied that the line is fine as it is. But I am open to be persuaded otherwise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am satisfied that the line reflects the academic consensus at this point based on the evidence provided by the objectors and additional readings. I am open to be persuaded, and I shall seek reconciliation of new findings with the current findings. Chaipau (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second statement by moderator (Manipur)[edit]

The article content in question is in the Background section, in the second paragraph, and reads:

The hill regions are noted by scholars as forming part of Zomia inhabited by "non-state" peoples. They came to be administered only after the Kuki rebellion of 1917–19, by British administrators without the involvement of the Meitei state.

User:Tms369 wishes to rewrite these sentences to read:

After the Anglo-Manipur war of 1891, the administration of Manipur was taken over by the British. They continued to administer the hill areas directly even after establishing a form of native rule in 1907. They justified this hill-valley administrative divide on their plea that the peoples were different. Scholars believe this divide had far-reaching effects on the relation of the hill-valley peoples.

Is this rewrite agreeable to the other editors? If not, please either explain why that is not acceptable, or discuss how to rework it in the section that I am providing for back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second statements by editors (Manipur)[edit]

Kautilya3

In the first place, we normally include in the "Background" section of a page only those aspects of the background that are mentioned in the reliable sources on the main topic. (That is the case for the current line.) Consulting disparate sources and constructing our narrative of what the background is, is considered WP:OR.

The filing party's proposal is very much of this kind. It talks about Manipur getting taken over by the British, then something about 1907, and then blames the British for creating a "hill-valley administrative divide". No doubt some scholars blame the British, but this is not a consensus view, because the fact that the hill people and valley people have separate histories, cultural norms and administrative/social structures is well-recognized. The cited source says, rather, that an "intractable hills-valley divide" has been created in this decade by the valley people's attempts to erase the constitutional protections granted to the hill people and the hill people's opposition to these measures. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment from Chaipau[edit]

The alternative statement is not acceptable for the following reasons:

There is no counterpart for the sentence "The hill regions are noted by scholars as forming part of Zomia inhabited by "non-state" peoples." This sentence is attributed to a WP:RS and there is no reason to drop it.
The first sentence in the alternative text "After the Anglo-Manipur war of 1891, the administration of Manipur was taken over by the British." is a generic statement, that ignores the valley and hills distinctions. Since 2023 Manipur violence is about violence between the Meitei people (from the valley) and the Kuki people (from the hills), it is important to show the distinctions, if any. The British became a power in Manipur after the First Indo-Burma war in 1825, and installed Gambhir Singh in power who was very friendly, whereas they considered the Kuki in the south as "hostile"—before the 1891 uprising.^[1]
The second sentence in the alternative text "They continued to administer the hill areas directly even after establishing a form of native rule in 1907." is inaccurate. Though the British had nominally occupied the hills area, they did not administer it, as is clear from the quote submitted by u:Tms369 himself which I had pointed out here. The British preferred to leave the Kukis alone, which they did till the Kuki uprising.
The next two sentences are also inaccurate. They argue that there was no difference between the valleys and the hills and that they were divided by the British. There is extensive literature on the ethnic/social/cultural/structural differences between the valley and hills and within the hills themselves (Naga/Kuki).

References

^ Keen, Caroline (2015). An Imperial Crisis in British India: The Manipur uprising of 1891. London, New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

Third statement by moderator (Manipur)[edit]

It appears that each editor disagrees with the other's preferred language for the Background section. I have previously asked the editors not to engage in back-and-forth discussion, but I think that back-and-forth discussion will be useful at this point to see if a compromise wording can be reached. So please discuss in the section for that purpose, for two or three days. If compromise wording cannot be agreed on, we will give the community a choice between the two versions above via a Request for Comments, but we should try to compromise first. So please discuss in the section for back-and-forth discussion. Be concise. Overly long statements are not useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to clarify, I agree with Kautilya3's characterization: I agree that current line is backed by WP:RS, as I have explained in point #1; and I agree that the filing party's proposal is WP:OR, which I explain in points #2, #3, and #4 above. The disagreement is between Kautilya3 and I on one side and Tms369, the filing party, on the other.

I think it looks like Kautilya3 and I are disagreeing because we had written our second statements independently without either of us knowing what the other has written. I encountered an edit conflict when I was publishing my statement, but I did not check Kautilya3's statement successfully publishing mine at the second attempt. Chaipau (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Third statements by editors (Manipur)[edit]

Back-and-forth discussion (Manipur)[edit]

I suggest that the current phrasing "The hill regions are noted by scholars as forming part of Zomia inhabited by "non-state" peoples. They came to be administered only after the Kuki rebellion of 1917–19, by British administrators without the involvement of the Meitei state." be retained. I agree with Kautilya3 that this is attributed by WP:RS. I suggest we reject the alternative text since it is WP:OR, as suggested also by Kautilya3. Chaipau (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administration

I will try to be as concise as possible:

After the Anglo-Manipuri war of 1891, the hill areas were brought under British rule and the hill administration became the personal responsibility of the political agent. (Sitlhou, pp 71)^[1](Kshetri, p4)^[2]

In 1893, the hill areas were divided for the first time into five sub-divisions. The sub-divisions were looked after by lamsubedars and lambus. (Dena, p82)^[3](Kshetri, p4)^[2](Sitlhou, pp 72)^[1]

Even after the institution of Native Rule in 1907 under raja Churachand Singh, the hill areas continued to be administered by the British. (Dena, p60)^[3](Kshetri, p4)^[2]

The British justified the exclusion of the hill administration from Native Rule on the plea that the peoples were different. This was a "divide and rule" policy (Dena, p75)^[3](Sitlhou, pp 72)^[1]

I had already submitted these to the editors but they have ignored it, deleted the topics it was presented in (including the one linked in this talk page) without settling the issue, and are now accusing these suggestions as being original research. Tms369 (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Listed below are the administrative changes after the Kuki Rebellion of 1917-1919 for the reference of the community and the moderator:

State durbar for administration of the hill areas was continued but there were improvements in the system;
President of the durbar became responsible for the administration of the entire hill areas on behalf of the raja;
Administrative headquarters were set up in Ukhrul, Tamenlong and Churachandpur. But the rest continued to be administered from Imphal by the President of the durbar;
A separate budget for the hill areas was set aside for the first time.

(Sitlhou, pp 72)^[1](Dena, p83-84)^[3](Kshetri, p5)^[2]

All these show there was a re-organisation in the prevailing administrative system of the British - which is in contrast to the current narrative of the line in the article. Tms369 (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tms369, you have given four bullet points with individual citations and four other bullet points with bundled citations. But it is not clear what these points are about. If they are supposed to be support for your version of the main article passage, I am afraid they still constitute WP:SYNTHESIS (WP:OR) as indicated by your phrase: "all these show". You are drawing your conclusions from disparate sources which are at best tangential to the present topic, viz., 2023 Manipur violence.

Note that Lal Dena, whom you have cited several times, has written a magazine article this month, explaining the relevance of the history to the present topic. In it, he unequivocally states:

In the pre-colonial period, the hill people lived as independent and sovereign nations in their respective chiefdoms, free from any external control.^[4]

Given that Lal Dena is a highly notable historian and he is writing directly on the present topic, this observation should receive very high weight, and should be incorporated in the narrative.

A case can be made that the references to "1917–1919" should be replaced by "1891", because at least some hill administration came into being in that year. But many scholars say that it was not substantial. For example, Kshetri, whom you have cited several times, says, the British rule [introduced in 1891] did not bring any marked change in the hill administration save for certain changes at the organisational level. So we have to say that this claim does not have scholarly consensus. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The individual citations are to specify the page numbers only. Administration before the pre-colonial period, i.e. pre 1891, is a separate discussion. Let's keep it on-topic. Tms369 (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What exactly is the "topic"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administration of the hill areas by the British, post colonialisation i.e. post Anglo-Manipur war of 1891. Lets not go off track and dilute this noticeboard with off-topic discussions. Tms369 (talk) 03:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This call that this discussion be limited to the post-1891 period---I am seeing here for the first time. It seems an arbitrary limit, and I see no justification for it. Lal Dena, in his Outlook article on the violence and referenced above, begins with:

Two immutable factors inevitably created a cyst of social incommunicability between the Meiteis, who lived in the valley, and the tribal people, who lived in the hill territory — the Kangleipak kingdom was mainly confined to the valley of about 700 square miles (Sushil Kumar Sharma, 2017:17), and, to add to its exclusivity, it adopted Hinduism at the beginning of the 18th century.

This reiterates the claim that the hills were unadministered before 1826 which is the moment when the colonial period started---the British established Gambhir Singh, one of the claimants to the throne of the Kangleipak kingdom, instituted a political agent, and made the kingdom a protectorate. 1891 is not the beginning of colonialism in Manipur, and this arbitrary limit makes no sense. Chaipau (talk) 11:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the Zomia reference:

The article the other editors are referencing, i.e. Mr. T. Haokip's, cites J.C. Scott.

According to J.C. Scott, Zomia includes "all the lands at altitudes above 300 meters stretching from the Central Highlands of Vietnam to northeastern India".^[5]^[6]

As per his definition, the Imphal valley is very much a part of the Zomia landmass. Manipur is in northeastern India and lowest elevation of the Imphal Valley is 746m above MSL.^[7] The current line "The hill regions are noted by scholars as forming part of Zomia" is therefore misleading at best, since it implies exclusion of the Imphal Valley. Tms369 (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am afraid that the definition you have provided for Zomia, is not standard---it must be your own. The definition of Zomia, as given in a WP:RS, is given in terms of an elevation, yes, but it has also a human component, where his elevated regions are inhabited by minority groups:^[8]

...the Southeast Asian Massif, the highland social space where the minority groups being studied here dwell. This area encompasses a large portion of what van Schendel has arguably named Zomia and equates roughly to what Scott, following van Schendel, terms eastern Zomia. These highlands spread over a transnational domain that, most of the time, are situated above 500 metres elevation...it encompasses the high ranges extending southeast from the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau, and all the monsoon high country drained by the lower Brahmaputra, the Irrawaddy, Salween, Chao Phraya, Mekong and Red Rivers and their tributaries.

Thus, the regions Northeast India does constitute a part of Zomia. Whether the Imphal valley too is a part of Zomia, Wikipedia is not equipped to decide---and so far I have seen no WP:RS claim that it is. But we have seen examples of the Kuki and the Naga people being claimed as Zomia. In fact, the Zo in Zo people, of which the Kuki are a part, is the Zo in Zomia, as also given in the Wiktionary definition of wiktionary:Zomia.

That the Zomia conceptual frame is now deeply entrenched in the study of Northeast India is given by this quote:^[9]

In the case of Northeast India, political scientist Sanjib Baruah (2005; 2007) has, for example, applied Scott’s term “nonstate spaces” in a compelling way to make sense of the ongoing political turmoil in the region. Others have followed him, and today it seems hard to think of Northeast India outside of Scott’s conceptual framework.

And the sentence which you object to is also cited to WP:RS. It cannot be dropped on the basis of a Wikipedia editors personal definition of Zomia, and since there is an extensive academic literature backing it up. Karlsson does not agree that Zomia is misleading---rather scholars have found that the Zomia framework illuminates the issues in Northeast India. Chaipau (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC) (edited) 22:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are free to retort but please don't put words in my mouth. "Karlsson does not agree that Zomia is misleading": I merely said that your use of Zomia in that particular line is misleading because it goes against its very definition. And so far all you've done is brought another definition which emphasises my point. Tms369 (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The current sentence "The hill regions are noted by scholars as forming part of Zomia inhabited by "non-state" peoples." is attributed to Haokip (2015) and specifically it is a fair paraphrase of this part of the article:^[10]

On the other hand, the hill areas of the present-day Manipur had been a free hill country and largely unadministered even during the British rule till the Kuki uprising (1917–19). It is treated as 'illegible space' (Scott 2000) and a separate sub-cultural zone within the larger region known as 'Zomia' and the people regarded as 'non-state peoples' (Scott 2009: 23).

If you are claiming that Haokip's claim is misleading then I would like to ask you to present WP:RS that specifically challenges Haokip on this point and we can discuss how to reconcile the two sources. But if you are claiming the paraphrase is wrong and does not represent Haokip's claim, we can discuss how we can rephrase the sentence to better represent Haokip's claim. Chaipau (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read my above points and references. Tms369 (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your references do not specifically contradict Haokip. Nor do they support your other claims on administration of the hills before 1917, as Kaurilya3 has pointed out. Chaipau (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please state clearly why you consider the sentence to be misleading. It is unclear what the references are supporting. Chaipau (talk) 11:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Sitlhou, H. (2015). Confronting the State: Land Rights Discourse in the Hills of Manipur. Economic and Political Weekly, 50(30), 70–77
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Kshetri, R. (2006). District Councils in Manipur
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Dena, L. (2014). British policy towards Manipur, 1762-1947, Third Edition
^ Lal Dena, Lal Robul Pudaite, Colonial Divide In Manipur: Tracing The Journey Of State Between 1835 And 1947, Outlook, 4 September 2023.
^ https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-battle-over-zomia/
^ https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300169171/the-art-of-not-being-governed/
^ https://ijrar.org/papers/IJRAR19L1645.pdf
^ Michaud, Jean (2009). "Handling mountain minorities in China, Vietnam and Laos: from history to current concerns". Asian Ethnicity. 10 (1): 25–49.
^ Karlsson, Bengt G (2013). "Evading the State Ethnicity in Northeast India through the Lens of James Scott". Asian Ethnology. 72 (2): 321–331.
^ Haokip, Thongkholal (2015). "The Politics of Scheduled Tribe Status in Manipur". Society and Culture in South Asia. 1 (1): 82–89. doi:10.1177/2393861714550952.

Fourth statement by moderator (Manipur)[edit]

It appears that back-and-forth discussion is not getting closer to resolution. So back-and-forth may continue in the section for the purpose, but I will also ask the editors to resume answering my questions.

First, is the only area of disagreement the Background section about the historical context concerning the cultural differences between the valley people and the hill people? Knowing nothing of northeastern Indian history, I am deeply skeptical of any claim that there was no difference between the hill people and the valley people before the conquest by the British. There are always cultural differences between hill culture and valley culture, reflecting geography, and they are usually significant. Conquerors, including European colonialists, exploited (and often worsened) existing differences much more often than they created differences. The question should be what the differences were and who is a mutually acceptable source. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

However, second, if the editors cannot agree on what to say about the historical differences between the hill culture and the valley culture, can we agree either to a vague handwave, or to saying nothing?

Third, am I correct that it is two-to-one in favor of retaining the current language or something close to the current language?

Fourth, if there is no agreement, an RFC will be used, and each editor should be ready to propose the wording that they would like to be a choice in the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fourth statements by editors (Manipur)[edit]

Tms369

Robert, first, the disagreement is about the historical context of British administration in the hill areas. All sources point to the start of it being 1891 but the current narrative is 1919.

Second, I have no objection about the cultural differences. There are cultural differences even between the hill tribes themselves. The materials cited claim, and as you have pointed out, the administrative setup of the colonials created a big chasm by widening the divide.Tms369 (talk) 04:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chaipau

My reply to the four queries/observations from the moderator:

Yes, there are major cultural difference between the valley and the hills. There are differences not just in culture but in form of governance, society, etc.
In the given context, we need to just mention the past differences that are relevant to the present conflict---as pointed out by reliable scholars.
Yes. Kautilya3 and I favor retaining the current language (or close to the current language).
Yes, I am agreeable.

Chaipau (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fifth statement by moderator (Manipur)[edit]

Two editors want to use the existing wording. The filing editor wants to change the wording about the Background. The other editors have said that the proposed revised wording is original research. The filing editor can either agree that they are in the minority, in which case this dispute will be closed, or they can explain how their proposed wording is directly based on sources. It may be directly based on primary, secondary, or tertiary sources, but it must be based on the sources, or it is synthesis. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fifth statements by editors (Manipur)[edit]

Tms369 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tms369 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My proposed wording is based on the three sources I referenced in the back-and-forth section. I will put the references here again:

After the Anglo-Manipuri war of 1891, the hill areas were brought under British rule and the hill administration became the personal responsibility of the political agent... In 1893, the hill areas were divided for the first time into five sub-divisions. The sub-divisions were looked after by lamsubedars and lambus... Even after the institution of Native Rule in 1907 under raja Churachand Singh, the hill areas continued to be administered by the British.^[1]^[2]^[3]

The British justified the exclusion of the hill administration from Native Rule on the plea that the peoples were different. This was a "divide and rule" policy ^[1]^[3]

Kshetri, R. (2006) made no mention of the "divide and rule" policy, but all three sources agree on the start of British administration at 1891. Tms369 (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

Kautilya3

I beg to differ with the moderator about the issue of "OR". When we discuss the content that should go into the "Background" section of a page, the term is often used to label disparate facts that editors want to bring which do not have an impact on the main topic. WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT would be better policies to consult for this purpose.

The filing party's excessive focus on 1891 and on what happened between then and 1919 seems intended to suggest that the British took over the hill areas in 1891 and separated it from the valley. It completely ignores the fact that prior to 1891, the valley's rulers had not administered the hill areas. The hill areas were "independent and sovereign" in the words of Lal Dena, a senior professor of history who studied the British policy in Manipur. So, if the British instituted different administration for the hills and the valley, it was not a new division that they created. That division was already present.

Kshetri, a professor of public administration, states that whatever administration was introduced in 1819 was not substantial....the British rule did not bring any marked change in the hill administration save for certain changes at the organisational level.Stlhou, who is summarising Kshetri and Dena, writes, The colonial officials adopted a paternalistic attitude towards the hill people, which was merely confined to the formal recognition of tribal chiefs. So, Haokip (the cited source) is right to ignore the 1891 changes and mention only the administration introduced in 1919.

In any case, whether it was 1891 or 1919, the main point is that it was only the British that introduced state administration into the hill areas. Prior to that it was a "free country" (in the words of Haokip). So, as a compromise, I am fine to replace the references to 1917–1919 by 1891 in the present text, and add Lal Dena's current magazine article^[1] as the support for it. I don't see any need for additional changes in the text regarding times that are long gone. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, the new text would be something along the lines of

The hill regions are noted by scholars as forming part of Zomia inhabited by "non-state" peoples. They came to be administered only after 1891 by British administrators without the involvement of the Meitei state.^[2]^[1]

References

^ ^a ^b Lal Dena, Lal Robul Pudaite, Colonial Divide In Manipur: Tracing The Journey Of State Between 1835 And 1947, Outlook, 4 September 2023.
^ Haokip, Thongkholal (2015), "The Politics of Scheduled Tribe Status in Manipur", Society and Culture in South Asia, SAGE Publications, 1 (1): 82–89, doi:10.1177/2393861714550952

Chaipau

I agree with u:Kautilya3's suggested text, with some minor changes (given below in bold).

The hill regions are noted by scholars as forming part of Zomia inhabited by "non-state" peoples. They came to be administered in effect only after ~~1891~~ 1917-19 by British administrators without the involvement of the Meitei state.^[1]^[2]

I am suggesting these changes because of the direct quote of Haokip (2015) that is cited. The quote is "largely unadministered even during the British rule till the Kuki uprising (1917–19)".

The year mentioned in the reference is 1917-19, not 1891.
The hills were largely unadministered till 1917. The British excluded the hills from any contact with the valley but they left it alone. This is also supported by Lal Dena. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaipau (talk • contribs)

I think Lal Dena would not agree that there was no administration prior to 1917-19. He mentions lambus, lam-subedars and pothang during that period. There was certainly some measure of state administration, however unsatisfatory it might have been, which was cause for grievances and the eventual rebellion during 1917-19. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The claim is not that they had no administration, but that they were largely unadministered. Soon after 1891, Lal Dena writes---"This officer, who was already over-burdened with his duty in the durbar failed to keep himself in touch with the people in the hills. As a result, the British officers failed to get in touch with the hill tribes...".

The lambus were just "interpreters, process servers and peons" (Dena, Pudaite, 2023). They were not exactly administrative officers who administered the hills.
In 1891, the British just formalized the authority of the tribal chiefs.^[3] So both Dena and Sitlhou agree that nothing much changed in 1891.
The division of the hill districts happened in 1893. Shakespeare's administrative bandobast excluded the hills (Sitlhou 2015, p72). So there was a very slow creep in administrative control that eventually gave rise to 1917-1919.
It was only after the 1917-1919 that there were serious administrative changes in the hills, and even then village administration was left to the chiefs (Sitlhou 2015, p72).

So, to avoid any WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH, it is best to stick to a direct quote from a WP:RS with a date. If there is any other direct claim on administration with date, other than Haokip, we could use that instead after considering WP:DUE. Chaipau (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want a direct quote, you can use Gangmumei Kamei: After the British conquest of Manipur in 1891, the Hill Areas came under the rule of the British Political Agent who acted on behalf of minor Raja Churachand Singh.^[4] I don't see any scholar pin-pointing the difference in administration before 1919 and after 1919, other than the fact that more British officers were appointed. So, it seems pointless hair-splitting to me, for something that is of no consequence to the main topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since we are claiming the hill people were "non-state" a date (or a range of dates) that correctly defines when external administration was imposed, and in what form, is definitely relevant in the background. If you would not like to split hair, then we should just let the current year stay, which is 1917-19, and not change it to 1891. Chaipau (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

^ Haokip, Thongkholal (2015), "The Politics of Scheduled Tribe Status in Manipur", Society and Culture in South Asia, SAGE Publications, 1 (1): 82–89, doi:10.1177/2393861714550952
^ Lal Dena, Lal Robul Pudaite, Colonial Divide In Manipur: Tracing The Journey Of State Between 1835 And 1947, Outlook, 4 September 2023.
^ Sitlhou (2015): "officials adopted a paternalistic attitude towards the hill which was merely confined to the formal recognition of tribal chiefs."
^ Gangmumei Kamei, Hill Area Committee (HAC) of Manipur Legislative Assembly : An assessment, Part 1, e-pao.net, 12 December 2012.

Tms369

It seems user Kautilya3, through my sources and through his own research, seems to be warmer to my suggestion. We seem to agree that administration did start in 1891. We may differ on some areas and the sources used. He suggests adding Lal Dena's magazine article (dated 7 Sep 2023), but I prefer what Dena's textbook and the other peer-reviewed sources I presented say, since Dena's current magazine is not peer-reviewed and is co-written by some unknown. I think we can work something out ultimately. But user Chaipau seems to not have budged. What should be the way forward, Robert? Tms369 (talk) 05:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sixth statement by moderator (Manipur)[edit]

If the progress is between two editors but not a third, the content dispute will have to be resolved by a Request for Comments. It will be simpler if the RFC gives the community two choices on the Background wording. So the two editors who are about to reach agreement should continue to try to reach agreement on "their" version. Each editor may provide "their" version of the Background material in the space for sixth statements. Back-and-forth discussion, especially to arrive at agreement between two editors, may take place in the section below for back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sixth statements by editors (Manipur)[edit]

Tms369

My preferred statement, which I believe will be more in-line with Kautilay3's, would be along the lines of the following:

The hill tribes, whose administration had largely been left to the respective chiefs known as Khullakpa by the Meitei Kings, came to be administered by the British after the Anglo-Manipur war of 1891. The British continued to administer the hill districts directly until 1947.^[1]^[2]^[3] Scholars believe the colonial administration employed the "divide and rule" policy which widened existing divide between the peoples.^[1]^[3]^[4]

I'll give my thoughts on why references on J.C.Scott's Zomia should be avoided in the new back-and-forth section. Tms369 (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chaipau

I do not agree with the characterization of u:Tms369. The only issue that needs to be sorted out between u:Kautilya3 and I is whether to use the year 1891 or 1917-19. Both of us agree that we should retain the reference to Zomia and the rest of the wording. I am agreeable to the moderator's suggestion that if Kautilya3 and I are unable to come to an agreement on the year, then we will have to go to an RFC on this point. Chaipau (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

Kautilya3

I am revising my proposed text in the light of Chaipau's objections:

The hill regions are noted by scholars as forming part of Zomia inhabited by "non-state" peoples. They came to be administered only after 1891 by British administrators without the involvement of the Meitei state, which was made more substantial after the Kuki Rebellion of 1917–1919.^[1]^[2]^[3]

References

^ Haokip, Thongkholal (2015), "The Politics of Scheduled Tribe Status in Manipur", Society and Culture in South Asia, SAGE Publications, 1 (1): 82–89, doi:10.1177/2393861714550952
^ Gangmumei Kamei, Hill Area Committee (HAC) of Manipur Legislative Assembly : An assessment, Part 1, e-pao.net, 12 December 2012.
^ Lal Dena, Lal Robul Pudaite, Colonial Divide In Manipur: Tracing The Journey Of State Between 1835 And 1947, Outlook, 4 September 2023.

The rationale for the adjustment is bascially the WP:NPOV policy. There is no consensus among scholars about the date when the administration became effect. Some say 1891 and others 1919. So we are trying to cover both the viewpoints. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More back-and-forth discussion (Manipur)[edit]

I suggest completely dropping references to J.C.Scott's Zomia in relation to discussion of North-East India. As A.L.Kamei states^[1]: However, Scott's central thesis of a valley-hill binary in the Northeast region is historically hard to sustain. Wouters (2012, 55) argues that in the Northeast, "the history of state-formation in the valleys was, to an extent, a history of nonstate peoples expanding their sway downwards, in the process of co-opting or scattering former rulers". More recent scholarship has suggested that Scott might have overstated his case of hill tribes as remnants of state evading population from the plains (Lieberman 2010, Aung-Thwin 2011, Wouters 2012).

In its stead, I have suggested mentioning that the tribes were largely left to be self-administered through their respective chiefs/Khullakpas in the pre-colonial era. I hope this is agreeable to both the other editors. Tms369 (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have provided no WP:RS in support of your demand that the Zomia word should be dropped. The use of the word Zomia is specifically attributed to Haokip. And I have given other references that show that there is wide use and acceptance in scholarship on the application of Scott's framework of Zomia.^[2] Chaipau (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addendum: You have used the quote above selectively. The author himself admits that the framework is widely used. The only specific example Kamei provides is the lack of support in the valley, which is not being claimed here at all. That it is not applicable in the hills as well, is his opinion, which is FRINGE. Chaipau (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

^ Kamei, A. L. (2023). Governmentality: Power and Counter Conduct in Northeast India’s Manipur and Nagaland. Taylor & Francis
^ Karlsson, Bengt G (2013). "Evading the State Ethnicity in Northeast India through the Lens of James Scott". Asian Ethnology. 72 (2): 321–331.

Football Season articles and football results articles[edit]

– New discussion.

Filed by PicturePerfect666 on 21:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Football Season articles and football results articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

Dispute regarding the use of Wikipedia tables or a Wikipedia template to display the results of football matches.

There is an ongoing discussion which has reached an impasse. It is claimed on one side that only Wikipedia tables are acceptable for of displaying football results. On the other side, other users are saying it is perfectly acceptable and fine to use a Wikipedia template to display the results.

The template in question is Template:Football box.

It is getting very circular and is ink by the barrel style contributions. Some editors claim this or that policy or guideline supports their preferred version.

There are claims of 'consensus' existing already but this has not been shown by those claiming such a consensus. It is claimed this RfC following a previous dispute resolution, established a consensus, There was also this discussion which is cited but it expressly is resolved as ‘No consensus to move from the template’, other non-consensus discussions are also referenced to try and support the table only position and the scrapping of the use of templates.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

There needs to be fresh input, opening up to the widest possible audience and uninvolved editors to look at this without having a side in this. This is needed as it is currently preventing actual progress from being made on the articles. it is bogging down in the process and not building an encyclopaedia. Fresh eyes, a wide audience & definition here greater than just the local consensus which is not known about and widely unenforced except by a few in a few circumstance. It's the only way out.

Summary of dispute by Stevie fae Scotland[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Basically, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons was changed without discussion. I reverted based on previous consensus (the links are in the discussions listed above and here). I had thought this was settled based on this RfC following a previous dispute resolution but I guess not. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Summary of dispute by PeeJay[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Due to disagreements about the format that football club season articles should take, discussions took place at WT:FOOTY to help codify a consistent format. This format can now be found here. User:PicturePerfect666 seems to be of the opinion that because we haven't been able to roll out that format across the several thousand articles it should apply to, we should simply accept that we're never going to be able to stamp out the other format and allow for both in the MOS. Considering discussions took place in order to standardise these articles, I don't see why we should simply give in to those who are unwilling to accept the agreed-upon format (or are unaware of it). – Pee Jay 23:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Summary of dispute by Govvy[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Style guide should be able to show alternatives, I don't know why you would remove one. There is no direct consensus, but as per stated in conversation, overall usage does suggest there is a degree of consensus by usage. One can not enforce their will on others and one should not enforce their will on others. And frankly, I am more bothered that some people are using Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons as a BATTLEGROUND. Per page history, but it's a shitshow, Stevie fae Scotland broke 3RR, and now PeeJay is playing enforcer, but for what. Something that doesn't exist. I haven't seen much competence around this issue. Using WP:ACCESS for removal is just an excuse. Govvy (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Summary of dispute by Seasider53[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Football Season articles and football results articles discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Zeroth statement by moderator on football season articles[edit]

This appears to be a content dispute that is not about one article but a large number of articles. DRN is usually for content disputes about one article, or occasionally a small group of articles. There has been discussion at WikiProject Football. There should be more discussion there. If this were one article, I would probably start moderated discussion here. If there should be moderated discussion, I am willing to act as a moderator at WikiProject Football, the association football talk page.

First, while we are here, I would like to identify the issues. Is the main issue whether to use wikitables or a template as the primary means to display results? Both are reasonable uses of the wiki software. Is there a reason why we cannot allow a choice? Are there any other issues? Are some editors being obstinate?

Please read DRN Rule A. I would like each editor to make a one-paragraph statement as to what they think the issues are. Do not reply to the statements of other editors. Be civil and concise. After I read the statements, I will decide whether to have continued discussion here or whether to open new moderated discussion at WikiProject Football. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zeroth statements by editors on football articles[edit]

The main issue for me was that the style guide was edited without discussion. That really should've triggered WP:BRD when I reverted it particularly as it says Please discuss any changes on the talk page before editing this page. If I'm honest, I don't think further discussion is needed as this was discussed at length in the previous dispute resolution process (my thoughts haven't changed and the issues I would raise again are all there) and the RfC resulted in a consensus. I don't think another discussion would result in a different consensus. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The claims you make in the discussions though do not reflect the outcome of the discussions. There has been no resolution to this ongoing issues which has rumbled for years looking at it. The claims of previous discussions reaching any consensus one way or the other are laughable. There must be more than this being pushed down the road again and again. It’s time to grasp the nettle and settle this. No more bogus claims of no existent consensus, no more just a few editors at a wiki project seemingly imposing their preferred version over others who are roundly using a different version. I would also like to point out only club season articles are affected as it seems nationalteams get templates exclusively.

time to sort this once and for all with a truly wide audience and truly substantive discussion not relying on other discussions or similar distractions. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First statement by moderator on football season articles[edit]

I thought that my previous statement was clear, but maybe it wasn't. When I said Do not reply to the statements of other editors., I meant not to reply to the statements of other editors, but only to my questions. I should have said, one more time, to discuss edits, not editors, and to comment on content, not contributors. So I am saying that again. When I asked what the issues were, and whether the issue was whether to use a template or a table, I was not asking for complaints about history, or about who edited the style guide. If the issue is about style, the question should be what the style guide should say. Do not discuss previous consensus that has been ignored. It is probably best to start over and form a new consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is the main issue whether to use wikitables or a template as the means to display results? If so, is there a reason that we cannot allow a choice?

Please read DRN Rule A again. I would like each editor to make a one-paragraph statement as to what they think the style or content issues are. Do not reply to the statements of other editors. Do not tell me who did what in the past. Be civil and concise.

I have asked a question, which is whether the issue is the template or the table. I have also asked what the style and content issues are. After the questions are answered, we can decide where further discussion can take place. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First statements by editors on football articles[edit]

PicturePerfect666[edit]

Simply put there is a move by a small number of editors at Wikiproject Football to require the use of tables to show match results on club season articles and prevent the use of the template. There is no reason both cannot be used, and the style guide should reflect that it is openly acceptable for both to be used. I would like to make clear National Team Season articles, use the templates, and most (I am talking the vast majority) of Club Season articles for modern seasons (which are edited by the vast majority of new and casual users), use the template. If anything there is little reason to keep using the table in my opinion, it is complicated to edit for the uninitiated, and clunky on a page. The Template is what you see is what you get (WYSIWYG), plug-and-play style. However, I am happy to compromise that both are as acceptable as the other and for this to be reflected in the style guide and disseminated widely that both are acceptable. This however is a compromise and in my opinion, the clear use case is for the template as it is considerably easier. The compromise is for the acceptance that the Template and the Table are fine. There are bizarre claims of; MOS:Collapse, and MOS:ACCESS in particular a roundly ignored section on how to design tables, being violated, this is not supported in any way and is the worst kind of strawman wikilawyering. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stevie fae Scotland[edit]

The footballbox does not meet MOS:ACCESS, specifically WP:DTT so should not be used in articles which list match results. If editors prefer using a template, Template:Football result list is available and is fully compliant with ACCESS. I would be happy to create additional templates in a similar style that would work on club articles if that would be an acceptable compromise. That would then allow editors a choice, make converting articles easier as many of the parameters are the same and ensure that we comply with Wikipedia policy. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second statement by moderator on football season articles[edit]

Do not edit Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons. It is the article (or project space page) under discussion, and one purpose of dispute resolution is to avoid edit-warring. Also, when I said to be civil, I also meant to be civil in edit summaries and to Assume Good Faith. One editor is casting aspersions in edit summaries.

It appears that one issue is that there is a template that does not satisfy accessibility guidelines, but that there is another template that does satisfy those guidelines. It then seems that the most reasonable compromise is to allow either a table, which is access-compliant, or the template that is access-compliant. Is that correct? Is there any reason that cannot be done? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second statements by editors on football articles[edit]

Stevie fae Scotland[edit]

Yeah, that is correct. I have no issues with the access-complaint template's use and would be happy if it was incorporated into the style guide. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PicturePerfect666[edit]

As far as I am aware there are no genuine access issues with the template and if those issues apply to the template then they apply equally to the table, I assume the colour is one of the access issues. The template is also widely used in a whole host of articles over 24,000 and to come along now and say there are access issues sounds like phishing for a problem which doesn't exist. If genuine access issues can be shown and not the weird rule on collapse, and not the weird MOS on how to do tables (which is widely ignored and enforcing it only here would be ridiculous) then I am happy to engage. Until then I have not seen or been shown any genuine access issues with the table. I would like to point out that there have been discussions of National Team results and there were no such concerns on the use of the same template there which resulted in the template not being used, infact the template on those articles is nigh on the exclusive presentation of results.

Until the so-called access issues are shown to be genuine and something universally (or genuinely widely and not selectively) enforced then I cannot get behind this sideshow argumentation and reject it as not genuine.

Any compromise about modifications to the existing template or even worse creating a new template in relation to meet these ludicrous and non-enforced so-called access requirements are totally and utterly spurious and should be left in the garbage from where they were dredged up from.

TL;DR - Access issues are a red herring and a total non-issue. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PicturePerfect666, would you consider using either VoiceOver (Mac) or NonVisual Desktop Access to navigate both the wiki table and template-generated table? Depending on your operating system, you should be able to use one of them at no cost. The template-generated table is considerably harder to understand. For example, the template's "round" parameter appears visually as the leftmost column. In the HTML, it comes after the date and is not placed within a semantic column but within "small" tags. In this version of the page[2] I hear "Round: first round" read from the wiki table and just "one" with no context at all following the date in the template-generated table. Hope that gives some insight on the issues with the template, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mistaken. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The above comments are noted as being left but are not being responded to and no action will be taken on their substance as there is a strict rule here not to reply to others as set out by the moderator. Please adhere to that rule. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second statement by moderator on football season articles[edit]

I have requested neutral opinions on this accessibility issue at two accessibility forums. I have not yet received an answer that is clearly from either forum, but we have a comment by User:Rjjiii. I would like to ask User:PicturePerfect666 to clarify their comment: Access issues are a red herring and a total non-issue. Does this mean that they do not intend to pay attention to the guidelines in the MOS? Do they mean that they should be ignored? Why are they a red herring and a total non-issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second statements by editors on football articles[edit]

Second statement by PicturePerfect666[edit]

Access issue claims[edit]

It does not mean I intend to pay no attention to the guidelines. It is just a guide and not a policy. It is clear a consensus by use has formed (which is grounded in the policy of consensus).

I simply have not seen any evidence to suggest that the access issues raised are anything other than total red herrings. The claims being made are not genuine as far as I can see or at best are disputed. Some people are screaming screenreaders this and that while others are going the template causes zero screen reader issues.

There is no specificity in the parts of the guideline which are being violated. As such I am unable to make any comment on the specifics, as there are no specifics being raised.

Other users on the original discussion have weighed in to raise similar opinions as myself but have not commented here. There needs to be significant and greater detail than, "It is this guideline", this guideline and this guideline." What in those guidelines is the issue and how does it relate to the template? Where are the specific repeatable examples?

As for the comments by Rjjiii, I have no idea what they are talking about with HTML and other such things. In short, they are talking like a textbook written in a foreign language. For example, I have no idea what they mean by "semantic column". These issues if they were genuine would have been raised in a serious manner before, and the templates use in 24,000 or so articles, would have been curtailed a long time ago. The issues they raise are non-issues as far as I am concerned. I firmly believe the comments are not serious (although I do not doubt their good faith nature) with the line "The template-generated table is considerably harder to understand", which is 100% codswallop. From an editing point of view, the table is a minefield and disaster waiting to happen which requires one to be an expert in wiki-syntax. Whereas the template is WYSIWYG plug-and-play style.

In conclusion, the accessibility guideline is just that a guideline. It is clear, even if the issues are genuine, that the guide is not being followed by the majority of editors. Common sense dictates that consensus by use is occurring. The policy of consensus through editing as set out at WP:EDITCON clearly applies here, and the use in over 24,000 articles by a considerable number of varied and different editors shows consensus by use is clear.

TL;DR:

Are the access issues genuine?
What are the specific issues, not just shotgun posting of claimed violations of the guideline?
Why have these issues not been widely raised before?
Why is a guideline being used to attempt to trump a policy and overrule a consensus which has formed through use?

PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template v Table[edit]

Moving to other so-called issues raised, which are a complete fop, in particular the detritus claims of violations of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, of which no specifics are given as to how that is violated. It is clear the template is nothing of the sort. Couple that stance with the claims of 'irrelevant information' that has been roundly rejected previously in a previously widely participated discussion. Shows the substantive claims which are being synthetically generated are not genuine (even if they are made in good faith). The discussion in question is here. The discussion sets out specific criteria for moving from the template to the table which have been roundly ignored by those advocating for the discontinuation of the template in favour of the table. As a result nigh on all national team results use the collapsible template, which seems to hold no meaning to those pushing the 'template should be binned' position. (Also on an aside of irony here the question posed at that discussion is the mediator of this discussion.)

Moving to the to the table itself, there is so little information included and it is laied out so illogically, that it renders it a complete mess. For example, own goals scored for the opposition are not included. Only goals for the club the season article is for are included. The temas are not listed in a way which is done commonly in football, with the home team first when recording results. It always lists the subject of the article first. Why it is like this? I have no idea, but never have I seen a result of a football match not include the goals scores for both sides or not list the result as home and away. The table contents are so limited in value as to be completely useless to the casual or uninformed (on the subject) user of Wikipedia. The above discussion exhausted both sides of this discussion.

There are claims of internal discussion on the wikiproject, setting the consensus, which expressly violates

WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles. A WikiProject is fundamentally a social construct: its success depends on its ability to function as a cohesive group of editors working towards a common goal.

- As found at WikiProject Function.

As such, such claims must be ignored when they try to make out that the issue is already settled.

TL;DR:

Issues around the template violating the claimed elements of Wikipedia have been discussed and shown to be complete rubbish not supported by the wider community;
There have been discussions which have come to a result on the use of the template v the table, resulting in the template being exclusively used on national team articles, and exhausting the arguments being made by both sides on this issue;
The table in and of itself is a completely illogical mess coupled with insufficient information to be useful to the causal or new reader of the articles in question, and no changes have been made to try and fix the issues raised by the previous discussions;
Wikiproject discussions cannot impose their will on the wider community.

PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second statement by Rjjiii[edit]

I found out about this issue via Robert McClenon's request on MOS:ACCESS; I didn't think to announce that with my first comment. My initial observations were and will be technical because I am trying to provide feedback needed to address issues in the template. These issues are inherently somewhat technical.

To more clearly address the accessibility question: Template:Football box collapsible and Template:Football box both have minor accessibility issues. Neither one complies with MOS:ACCESS. Both templates generate lists that do comply with the accessibility guidelines. Both templates generate tables that do not comply with MOS:DTAB. Template:Football box is much closer to compliance. As these templates appear on tens of thousands of pages, I would imagine the most realistic course of action is to improve them.

Since my initial post, I tested out pages with each template. Here are notes on several accessibility issues with quotes from the Manual of Style:

"Data tables should always include a caption." The event parameter does not produce a caption element. (Perhaps to visually keep the event name above the time in Template:Football box.)
"it is necessary for the column headers and row headers to uniquely identify the column and row respectively" Each template handles headers differently. The collapsible template just seems to omit them. Template:football box uses column headers for the teams (good), the score (?), and penalties across three columns. An easy improvement there would be to make use of scope to address the complexity. The score should not be a header.
"Do not solely use formatting, either from CSS or hard-coded styles, to create semantic meaning (e.g., changing background color)." See my above comment on the round parameter.
"Avoid using tables for visual positioning of non-tabular content." This is an issue with Template:Football box collapsible (which packs the time and location information into table cells), but not Template:Football box (which only uses a table element for the center table). This is also why the collapsible template scrunches up on narrow mobile screens.
MOS:COLLAPSE is a stylistic concern. Scrolling causes accessibility issues for screen magnifiers, but collapsible content does not. I was able to access the full table on screen readers, with screen magnifiers, on printouts, with JavaScript off, and on Internet Explorer.
MOS:COLOR is mostly fine. Viewing the tables in grayscale and simulated deuteranopia, I don't see major issues. The background color information is also displayed in the score, so this is fine. Some of the little icons are harder to distinguish, but not impossible.

Question: Template:Football box has fewer and easier to resolve accessibility issues compared to Template:Football box collapsible. Why is there a preference for adding the collapsible version to the Manual of Style?

Feel free to ask questions about any of that, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second statement by Stevie fae Scotland[edit]

My feeling has always been that the style guide should be an aspiration for all applicable articles to meet. That's why I advocate for the table because it meets MOS:ACCESS. It would be pointless having a style guide if it didn't live up to the standards that the community has set out with the MOS.

The proposal to add footballbox collapsible to the style guide is, I think, a good faith assumption based on usage. For list articles, the footballbox is WP:INDISCRIMINATE because it includes absolutely everything about a football match that is possible to include. The collapsible version allows a lot of this extra information to be hidden while still showing the key information (date, score, competition + opposition) so I think that condensed nature is why it has become prevalent in these articles. The issue with that though is that it goes against MOS:COLLAPSE (as well as the other above-mentioned ACCESS violations).

I think the footballbox has a place on Wikipedia, particularly for major tournaments where matches are more notable and individual matches which are deemed notable enough to have their own articles. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Third statement by moderator on football season articles[edit]

I have a few questions for User:PicturePerfect666, and a few questions for all the editors. First, for all the editors, is the main issue whether to use the table or a template for match results? Will each editor please state what they want in that regard. Second, am I correct that there are multiple templates for match results? If so, do all of the templates have accessibility issues, or only some of them? Third, if there are accessibility issues with one or more templates, can they be fixed, and is there a plan to fix them in the near future?

User:PicturePerfect666 writes: Why is a guideline being used to attempt to trump a policy and overrule a consensus which has formed through use? What policy are you saying is being trumped by a guideline? What is the consensus that was formed through use? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will have more questions after I read the answers.

Third statements by editors on football articles[edit]

Stevie fae Scotland[edit]

I don't mind using a template. I personally prefer the table format but I understand other editors will have different preferences. There are templates which can be used which don't have the ACCESS issues mentioned above eg- New Zealand men's national football team results (2020–present) uses a template to produce an ACCESS-compliant results list. The footballbox is a more complicated template so I don't know if the issues can be fixed, I'll leave that to Rjjiii or someone with better knowledge. As far as I am aware though, there aren't any plans to fix it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Third comment by Rjjiii[edit]

Second question above:

Template:Football box has some minor and fixable accessibility issues.
Template:Football box collapsible has many minor accessibility issues that are not easily fixable.
Those two templates each appear in over 20,000 articles each. I don't know if any other templates mentioned are widely used.

Third question above:

It looks like the same folks have worked on both templates. They have previously accepted accessibility improvements that do not affect the visual appearance of the template. The largest issue with Template:Football box could be resolved by using the scope attribute, which does not affect visual output. I don't know if they are aware of the remaining accessibility issues to work on them. I'm not sure that there is an easy fix for Template:Football box collapsible.

Regards, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Third statement by PicturePerfect666[edit]

I am not commenting on the access issues as that is not something I pay attention to. There are plenty of others who seem to look out for that so I shall not be giving my uninformed lay opinion on the subject as I have no idea on the subject and nor do I have much if any interest in the subject.

To answer the direct question at me. The consensus through use is the use of the template by multiple editors over multiple years on thousands of articles of the template. Where the wikiproject keeps having discussions which are simply not known about or are ignored. The mass use by a mass of editors is consensus by use, this is a clear use case of consensus as set out in WP:EDITCON.

Moving to the broader question:

I have no issue with compromising to a template of the style of Template:Football box as used at New Zealand men's national football team results (2020–present) but not until the issue surrounding the content of that template is addressed. It is illogical and does not contain enough information to be completely useful. These examples are previously set out above. Why is there no listing of the results home-away, why are only goals for one team listed? These and the other issues listed, particularly those at the previously listed discussion, must be overcome. Until the issues with the content are sorted then it cannot be used as it goes against commonsense and basic football reporting of results.

I personally prefer the logical and succinct layout of Template:Football box collapsible and so it would seem through use do the vast majority of editors on Wikipedia.

To be blunt the table is a hot mess of wiki-syntax which the casual and new user has no interest in wasting time trying to decipher. The table is also a hot mess of user preferences which do not reflect the common reporting of match results and provide little or no benefit whatsoever in the grand scheme of things.

The collapsible template is plug-and-play and contains all of the information you would expect to find in the reporting of match results. Both teams' scorers, own goals, major match events (yellow cards missed penalties etc.), and penalty shootout scorers. All that is logically and commonly reported and expected. All of this is included in the collapsible template, and none of this is in the table.

The collapsible template also allows for a quick result hit and if you want more information you can get that by expanding the box.

The non-collapsible template needs the content issues sorted.

PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting[edit]

– New discussion.

Filed by Happieryet on 11:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Happieryet (talk · contribs)
Ianmacm (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A reliable source says that the perpetrator of the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting, Adam Lanza, posted on Wikipedia under the alias Kaynbred. Older reliable sources say that police were looking into the connection between said user and Lanza, but stop short of authoritatively stating he was the user. The issue had been discussed in the past on the article talk page, but no editor had previously provided a source that makes an authoritative claim that Lanza was Kaynbred on Wikipedia as I did. Since there was already a lack of consensus, I did not edit and instead brought this reliable source to the Talk page, laying out why I believed it was reliable and thus verifiable. Since, I have been involved in a long winded dispute with another user who, as I understand it, does not believe the source makes a verifiable claim that Lanza was Kaynbred. My understanding of this user's argument may be incorrect, and my attempts to clarify have not been fully illuminating for me. I requested a third opinion, and the user who responded to it agreed that the source was reliable. However, discussion seems to have stalled again.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Kaynbred_Wikipedia_Account:_Reliable_Source_Found

We have extensively discussed on the talk page. I also requested a third opinion.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

As a newbie, I'm not entirely sure. I would like to build consensus, but I'm struggling to know where to go from here, as I don't feel much progress toward consensus has been made. I also would like more clarity regarding the other editor's position. More opinions on the matter would definitely be appreciated! Thank you.

Summary of dispute by Ianmacm[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

It was known in 2013 that Adam Lanza might have been User:Kaynbred. This was rejected by Wikipedia at the time because the edits were too old (2009-10) to have a log of the IP addresses used to make them.[3] There are only twelve edits made by this user. The Hartford Courant has consistently stated/suggested that Lanza was Kaynbred, although this would be difficult to prove outright. In 2018 they obtained the spreadsheet that Lanza had compiled detailing his fascination with mass shootings.[4] This shows some points of similarity with the Wikipedia edits, but the spreadsheet on its own does not show that Lanza was Kaynbred. The other problem is the wording of the 2018 story which says that "the posts appear to have started in 2009".This suggests that the Courant may have inferred that Kaynbred was Lanza without actually being able to prove it. WP:OUTING aside, I have never had a problem with saying that Lanza may have been Kaynbred, but there has never been knockout evidence in any of the stories that the Courant has published.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Sandy Hook)[edit]

Please read DRN Rule D, and indicate whether you are willing to comply with the rules provided. This is a contentious topic because it involves gun control. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. I have two related questions at this point. First, is the main issue whether to say that Adam Lanza may have been User:Kaynbred? Second, exactly what do you (each editor) want to change in the article, or to leave alone that another editor wants to change? The purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the article, so please specify what part of the article is in dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zeroth statements by editors (Sandy Hook)[edit]

This isn't about gun control, it has never been mentioned at all. The question is whether the article should say without any doubt that Adam Lanza edited Wikipedia in 2009-10 with the username Kaynbred. The longstanding position of Wikipedia is that it would be impossible to prove this. What the Hartford Courant seems to have done is to infer this because he had undoubtedly done similar things elsewhere. To save time arguing about this, I am going to go along with the suggestion on the talk page of the article, which is to say that "An article in the Hartford Courant stated Lanza edited Wikipedia with the user name Kaynbred."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First statement by volunteer (Sandy Hook)[edit]

Is there agreement then that the article will say that the Hartford Courant stated that Lanza edited Wikipedia as User:Kaynbred ? That seems like the right answer, attributing the linkage of pseudonym and of human identity to a reliable source, since that linkage will not be made in Wikivoice because it will not be made by Wikipedia Checkusers. Can we attribute that connection to the Hartford Courant, which is a reliable source?

If that is agreed to, I will close this case as resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First statements by editors (Sandy Hook)[edit]

Historical reliability of the Gospels[edit]

– New discussion.

Filed by Tgeorgescu on 22:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Historical reliability of the Gospels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs)
Jenhawk777 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The rub is The scholarly consensus is that they are the work of unknown Christians and were composed c.68-110 AD.^[1]^[2]

I have given multiple WP:RS/AC-compliant WP:RS written by authors on the both sides of the dispute. The other editor claims that Ehrman is too controversial and that the Holman bibles are unscholarly. Neither is she convinced by Witherington, who shares her POV, but actually agrees with my WP:RS/AC claim (in respect to the Gospel of Matthew).

The list of WP:RS "on my side" is available at User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3. Hint: this discussion does not concern the works of Smith and Valantasis c.s.

Evidence of notification: [5]. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

^ Valantasis, Bleyle & Haugh 2009, p. 19.
^ Smith 2011, p. 7.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Talk:Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels#Reference_problem https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Talk:Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels#Arbitrary_break

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Give an opinion whether my WP:RS/AC claims are good or bad. Since it is a content guideline, and if the WP:RS are good enough for it, it should be applied. If sources are bad, that no longer holds.

Summary of dispute by Jenhawk777[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

My complaint is with two things: the claim that there is "scholarly consensus" and the source for that claim. The source which makes the claim, is itself sourced to a self-published work, and neither has any data, or support, or even a cited discussion, of a scholarly consensus actually existing. It looks like a baseless claim in a heavily biased source.

This is not about the veracity of the claim concerning authorship itself, which the talk page discussion kept veering off into. This is purely - imo - an issue with the claim there is such a thing as consensus concerning it. This is a big claim, and as such, it needs a better more reliable source, or imo, the claim should be removed.

I am tired of asking that personal points of view not be discussed, since whether I personally agree or not is completely beside the point, and I have repeatedly stated that. I have an unwavering commitment to practicing neutrality. There's an essay on my user page on it. It's not about which individual scholars agree or don't or which "side" they are on. That doesn't prove consensus. For me, it is just about whether the claim of consensus is well sourced. If it isn't, then it should go until a better source for it can be found. That's it. That's all.Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Historical reliability of the Gospels discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Question by volunteer about historical reliability of the Gospels discussion[edit]

Is the question primarily about the reliability of sources? If so (and it appears that it is), the parties might get a better answer at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now using verbatim quotes instead of summaries: she claims that Ehrman is self-identified as biased toward the anti-Christian view and that the Holman bibles are not a good example of scholarship of any kind. Neither is she convinced by Witherington and others. By WP:RS/AC claims I mean WP:RS stating "most scholars" (6 RS), "most modern scholars" (1 RS), "most critical scholars" (4 RS counting 3 Holman bibles), "historical critical scholars deny ... today, these persons are not thought to have been the actual authors" (1 RS), "historical-critical scholarship massively doubts that" (1 RS), and "majority [of modern scholars]" (1 RS). There are other implicit WP:RS/AC claims, e.g. The New Testament : a historical introduction to the early Christian writings by Ehrman (2004) and Lüdemann (2000). She claims that most WP:RS listed at User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3 are not enough for those WP:RS/AC claims (there are four or five sources which I added later to that list, and were not discussed previously). So of course, I do not want to preserve the word consensus, "most scholars" or "most critical scholars" would do.

There are sources from Cambridge, Harvard, and Oxford University Press. B&H Publishing Group, InterVarsity Press, Wipf & Stock, Westminster John Knox Press, Presbyterian Publishing Corporation, Pickwick Publications, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Abingdon Press, and Paulist Press are Christian publishers. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert McClenon For me, yes. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, then we will take it to WP:RSN. But I warn you that RSN is more merciless than DRN. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

tgeorgescu Thank you for your concern. I don't require mercy. If they decide it's a good source, or if they don't, all that matters to me is that the standards of the encyclopedia are maintained. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allan R. Bomhard[edit]

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Filed by 2603:6080:7200:BD6D:B120:E5A:26B:EB7C on 10:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Allan R. Bomhard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Warrenmck (talk · contribs)
David Eppstein (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Nature of dispute: I have had a biographical entry on Wikipedia going back at least to 2004. Once that entry got finalized, it remained essentially unchanged for the better part of two decades. That is to say, for the better part of two decades, no one questioned my scholarly credentials or the content of my biographical entry. Then, for no apparent reason, my biographical entry recently got changed. The earlier version was a short, FACTUAL description. The current version, however, is no longer factual. Instead, it is a rather biased, unflattering OPINION. I have requested that the earlier version (with some minor updates) be RESTORED. For details, please see the lengthy “talk” section associated with the entry, which appears to have reached an impasse. Consequently, I am resorting to the dispute resolution process to resolve this issue. I feel that this is important, not only for restoring the factual content of my own biographical entry, but also for Wikipedia itself. If this can happen here, it can happen elsewhere and to others, thus affecting the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole and raising the question as to whether Wikipedia can still be seen as a reliable, unbiased resource. Thank you. Allan R. Bomhard.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Talk:Allan_R._Bomhard

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By removing the current version of my biographical entry and restoring the factual content.

Summary of dispute by Warrenmck[edit]

A few of us working on the article have, repeatedly, asked the user in question to provide citations for some of the content which was added. The "factual" version in question is wholly uncited, and I've tried making it quite clear that editors are willing to work with a connected contributor if they're willing to provide citations and suggestions for specific improvements (same diff as "repeatedly"). At no point has the editor in question provided citations, instead engaging in personal attacks, accusations of malfeasance, blanking the talk page (including my comments) and apparently opening a dispute resolution because we won't restore an uncited, criticism-free puff article.

Warrenmck (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And just as a quick follow up for the submitter: the reason the article was changed after being static for so long was in the aftermath of a failed AfD (by me, to be clear) where multiple editors worked on bringing the article up more to Wikipedia’s standards. The iteration that is being objected to is not the work of a single editor, but rather a collaborative effort following a spotlight being shone on the article during the AfD process. Just because an article remains unchanged for a long time does not mean that’s the best version of the article possible. Warrenmck (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Summary of dispute by David Eppstein[edit]

I have informed the poster on talk that his preferred version cannot be used because it makes unsourced claims in a BLP, in Talk:Allan R. Bomhard#Request to restore original entry. I am not averse to including more biographical details if they can be adequately sourced. That is my sole recent contribution to the article. It is my understanding that Bomhard also wants the reliably-sourced criticism of his scholarship removed from the article, but I have not participated in recent discussions of that aspect of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, please spell my name correctly. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spelling of sometimes misspelled surname corrected by man with often misspelled surname. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allan R. Bomhard discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Allan R. Bomhard)[edit]

I've notified all the parties of the discussion. From reading the talk page discussion, I assume that you've edited both without logging in (like you did when you posted this request) and logged in as User:Arbomhard. You're asked to confirm this, log on to your account and continue this discussion being logged in.

This case will be held under Wikipedia:DRN Rule A, which editors are expected to follow. I've fixed both user links on the case heading. Best, NotAGenious (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NotAGenious I've edited my own reply to conform more fully to Rule A, but I do think there's a slight sidebar here: I've had a full ANI post ready to go about this situation, but was waiting until I'm no longer on vacation to post it. I just want it to be clear that this has been written and ready to go since before this and I still intend to follow through with an ANI after this is concluded due to some specifics of the situation which a dispute resolution will not address but which I won't bring up here per Rule A unless I'm otherwise allowed to. Warrenmck (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Warrenmck: Thank you for letting me know. DRN is voluntary process. If you still decide to participate, you shouldn't post the ANI report until consensus has been reached here (or the case has been closed otherwise).

Due to the nature of the case & the evidence provided by Warren, could @Robert McClenon as an experienced volunteer to offer a second opinion on can this case be closed and moved to ANI? Thanks. NotAGenious (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marked on hold per above. Still waiting for a more experienced mod to review. NotAGenious (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zeroth statement by second volunteer (Allan R. Bomhard)[edit]

I will comment on what forum is most appropriate for the discussion of the dispute about the biography of a living person of Allan R. Bomhard. But first, I will ask Allan R. Bomhard whether there is a reason why they filed this request logged out, or was that simple negligence. If you have an account, and you do have an account, either log in, or use the option to stay logged in. Second, as noted, DRN is voluntary, but filing a complaint at WP:ANI is also voluntary. Once a complaint is filed, it belongs to the community. So, it is up to User:Warrenmck whether they file a complaint at WP:ANI. My usual preference is to use a content forum first, in the hope that it might solve the problem without the need for administrative action. Third, however, the best forum to discuss concerns about biographies of living persons, especially issues raised by the subjects of the biographies, is the biographies of living persons noticeboard. So my recommendation is that User:Arbomhard should file a case at the BLP noticeboard, and then any volunteer here can close this case as pending at BLPN. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I apologize -- I should, indeed, have logged in, as I am now. Arbomhard (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As requested, I have re-posted this complaint to the BLP noticeboard. Thank you for your help. Arbomhard (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. Closing here. Thanks everyone for your help NotAGenious (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] Keen, Caroline (2015). An Imperial Crisis in British India: The Manipur uprising of 1891. London, New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

[sitlhou-2] Sitlhou, H. (2015). Confronting the State: Land Rights Discourse in the Hills of Manipur. Economic and Political Weekly, 50(30), 70–77

[kshetri-3] Kshetri, R. (2006). District Councils in Manipur

[dena-4] Dena, L. (2014). British policy towards Manipur, 1762-1947, Third Edition

[5] Lal Dena, Lal Robul Pudaite, Colonial Divide In Manipur: Tracing The Journey Of State Between 1835 And 1947, Outlook, 4 September 2023.

[6] ttps://www.chronicle.com/article/the-battle-over-zomia/

[7] ttps://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300169171/the-art-of-not-being-governed/

[8] ttps://ijrar.org/papers/IJRAR19L1645.pdf

[9] Michaud, Jean (2009). "Handling mountain minorities in China, Vietnam and Laos: from history to current concerns". Asian Ethnicity. 10 (1): 25–49.

[10] Karlsson, Bengt G (2013). "Evading the State Ethnicity in Northeast India through the Lens of James Scott". Asian Ethnology. 72 (2): 321–331.

[11] Haokip, Thongkholal (2015). "The Politics of Scheduled Tribe Status in Manipur". Society and Culture in South Asia. 1 (1): 82–89. doi:10.1177/2393861714550952.

[sitlhou-12] Sitlhou, H. (2015). Confronting the State: Land Rights Discourse in the Hills of Manipur. Economic and Political Weekly, 50(30), 70–77

[kshetri-13] Kshetri, R. (2006). District Councils in Manipur

[dena-14] Dena, L. (2014). British policy towards Manipur, 1762-1947, Third Edition

[Dena_Paudaite-15] Lal Dena, Lal Robul Pudaite, Colonial Divide In Manipur: Tracing The Journey Of State Between 1835 And 1947, Outlook, 4 September 2023.

[16] Haokip, Thongkholal (2015), "The Politics of Scheduled Tribe Status in Manipur", Society and Culture in South Asia, SAGE Publications, 1 (1): 82–89, doi:10.1177/2393861714550952

[17] Haokip, Thongkholal (2015), "The Politics of Scheduled Tribe Status in Manipur", Society and Culture in South Asia, SAGE Publications, 1 (1): 82–89, doi:10.1177/2393861714550952

[Dena_Paudaite-18] Lal Dena, Lal Robul Pudaite, Colonial Divide In Manipur: Tracing The Journey Of State Between 1835 And 1947, Outlook, 4 September 2023.

[19] Sitlhou (2015): "officials adopted a paternalistic attitude towards the hill which was merely confined to the formal recognition of tribal chiefs."

[20] Gangmumei Kamei, Hill Area Committee (HAC) of Manipur Legislative Assembly : An assessment, Part 1, e-pao.net, 12 December 2012.

[sitlhou-21] Sitlhou, H. (2015). Confronting the State: Land Rights Discourse in the Hills of Manipur. Economic and Political Weekly, 50(30), 70–77

[kshetri-22] Kshetri, R. (2006). District Councils in Manipur

[dena-23] Dena, L. (2014). British policy towards Manipur, 1762-1947, Third Edition

[andrew-24] Kamei, A. L. (2023). Governmentality: Power and Counter Conduct in Northeast India’s Manipur and Nagaland. Taylor & Francis

[25] Haokip, Thongkholal (2015), "The Politics of Scheduled Tribe Status in Manipur", Society and Culture in South Asia, SAGE Publications, 1 (1): 82–89, doi:10.1177/2393861714550952

[Kamei_2012-26] Gangmumei Kamei, Hill Area Committee (HAC) of Manipur Legislative Assembly : An assessment, Part 1, e-pao.net, 12 December 2012.

[Dena_Paudaite-27] Lal Dena, Lal Robul Pudaite, Colonial Divide In Manipur: Tracing The Journey Of State Between 1835 And 1947, Outlook, 4 September 2023.

[andrew-28] Kamei, A. L. (2023). Governmentality: Power and Counter Conduct in Northeast India’s Manipur and Nagaland. Taylor & Francis

[29] Karlsson, Bengt G (2013). "Evading the State Ethnicity in Northeast India through the Lens of James Scott". Asian Ethnology. 72 (2): 321–331.

[FOOTNOTEValantasisBleyleHaugh200919-30] Valantasis, Bleyle & Haugh 2009, p. 19.

[FOOTNOTESmith20117-31] Smith 2011, p. 7.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Current events Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards