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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Survivor: Worlds Apart#Names (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Katanin (talk · contribs)
• Gloss (talk · contribs)
• 108.6.38.122 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is an attempt to resolve a dispute over names of contestants of the show. The users revisions insist that only the nicknames are used for the page when the source (CBS) provides the full name of each contestant. The two users either are working together but have dismissed any attempt to post the full names on the page as "original research" even though it's clear the names are on the source. They even want to have the page protected as if someone is fabricating the list of contestants which is not true.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempted to use the talk page, but only one user has responded and the other just reverts and posts a generic warning.

How do you think we can help?

• Explain why only the nickname are to be used on the article while the sources use their full names. If the source discloses their full names then it can't be original research.
• Allow the article to post the full name per WP:COMMONNAME.
• Nip a potential edit war in the bud.

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.

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting#How much "Background" is appropriate? (edit | subject | history | links | "Background"_is_appropriate? watch | logs)

Users involved

• Curly Turkey (talk · contribs)
• Gamebuster19901 (talk · contribs)
• MoorNextDoor (talk · contribs)
• Abductive (talk · contribs)
• PuffinSoc (talk · contribs)
• Zup326 (talk · contribs)
• Yug (talk · contribs)
• Vice regent (talk · contribs)
• Sayerslle (talk · contribs)
• Prhartcom (talk · contribs)
• Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk · contribs)
• Epicgenius (talk · contribs)

(The following users appended to the list by MoorNextDoor)

• Shabeki (talk · contribs)
• AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs)
• FormerIP (talk · contribs)
• Legacypac (talk · contribs)
• Liftarn (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A dispute has arisen over whether certain background content should be added to Charlie Hebdo shooting. Some parties believe it's important context to the events; others believe it's irrelevant, misleading, WP:OR, or WP:SYNTH. The dispute has been acrimonious.

I added this text after finding this kind of background info in numerous news sources. It quickly went through several edits by others—some adding things, others deleting things—and it was moved several times: into a separate demographics section, and finally deleted. It has since been editwarred over several times and discussed several times on the talk page, quite acrimoniously, and accusations have been made that it is Original Research or WP:SYNTH, and that it implies the Muslim community is to blame for the attacks.

The current version agreed upon by those is one that honed by Gamebuster19901—one of those originally opposed to the paragraph. He re-added his version of the paragraph, and it immediately was reverted again, with reiteration of the same accusations on the talk page. Despite numerous requests to demonstrate (a) where WP:OR has taken place; (b) where WP:SYNTH has taken place; or (c) where the paragraph implies blame on any group—no such evidence has been forthcoming.

The discussion is deadlocked, and despite an open RfC, few seem to want to wade into it—I imagine due to the level of acrimony, despite an attempt on my part to reboot the discussion with the understanding that we would: (1) Assume Good Faith (2) Back up all assertions with evidence. (3) Focus on the argument, not the arguer, and avoid rehashing older disputes. All three of these guidelines were quickly broken.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Numerous other discussions (now archived) on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

By—

• determining if the accusations are legitimate
• determining what concerns are relevant to a consensus
• determining what the consensus actually is
• (pipe dream?) diffuse the acrimony in the discussion and get all parties to consider each others points

Curly Turkey combined material from multiple sources (WP:SYNTH) while the event was still unfolding, hours before the suspects were killed and the other related hostage crisis (WP:RSBREAKING). The only explanation he gave as to why such a paragraph should be included was and still is: ".. so that it is not surprising that a Muslim might speak perfect French". I honestly believe that he is genuinely surprised that a French Muslim could speak perfect French, but is that a good enough reason to include such nonsense in the article, especially now that we know that Al-Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the attacks and that access to reliable secondary sources is easily achieved ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Article became unworkable due to hardline reading of wikipedia rules. "Sources need" converted into "all without direct word-by-word source is deleted". Sum of facts leading to logical deductions were deleted. The linkage of the attackers being geographically from well known poor areas (sourced), and linked this background with well know social tensions in is area (2005 & 2007 Paris unrests, sourced), this linkage and both statements were systematically delete since 2 sources were there, but no source word-by-word linking the attacker to a harsh socio-economical context. Sourced sensationalism increased in visibility, while logical deduction and common sense, even summarizing other sourced wikipedia articles, were deleted. It was thus impossible to write a balanced neutral section in urgency and then dig for sources, sensationalism won. Yug (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The material in question is basically a collection of relatively disparate facts presented as a set of sociological antecedents to the Charlie Hebdo murders. It is contentious among editors, not neutrally presented, not adequately sourced (although the sourcing has been improved over progressive versions) and does not appear factually accurate. The main problem, though, is that it is really editor commentary, which is never appropriate in a Wikipedia article. If it is useful to have this type of sociological analysis in the article, it should present a range of views found in reliable sources, clearly relate them to the subject of the article and attribute them. Formerip (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

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.

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Template talk:Infobox Olympics Kosovo#STOP REMOVING ALBANIA! (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• PjeterPeter (talk · contribs)
• FkpCascais (talk · contribs)
• CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs)
• IJA (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

"FkpCascais", an editor that is highly depended on nationalistic issues, has been constantly violating the following Wikipedia page.

The flag of Albania should be included in the infobox for the following reasons:

1. Following Kosovo's independence and the IOC's resistance to recognise Kosovo, athletes born there, decided to participate under the flags of Serbia and Albania. Therefore, if the Serbian flag stays in the infbox, the Albanian one should as well, as those were the official other-related appearances of Kosovo's athletes (and let's not forget that the basic rule of the Olympics is that the competition is about the athletes, not their countries of origin).

2. If the Albanian flag is removed from the infobox, because *apparently* you can't add athlete's personal choices' countries, then you should remove Serbia as well, because de facto Kosovo was not part of Serbia since February 2008 (before the 2008 Summer Olympics)

3. This case is similar to the Independent Olympic Team appearance. Basically if athletes from one country can't participate for their country (like Kosovar athletes for Kosovo), they participate under ANOTHER flag, in this case the IOP; and if the IOP flag is added to the infobox, the Albanian one should as well. Majlinda Kelmendi was qualified in judo in the 2012 Olympics but was UNABLE to participate for Kosovo, so she participated for Albania as her only solution; this means that the Albanian flag must stay in due to the fact she was qualified but couldn't compete for Kosovo.

Another thing to keep in mind, is once again the Serb athletes. Basically they decided to participate for Serbia because Kosovo was not in the Olympics but was independent since the 2008 Olympics; and if the Albanian flag is removed just because it was Majlinda's choice; it's an absolute simple thing to know that it's the same for Serb athletes. they CHOSE Serbia, that's why the Serbian flag is there.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried explaining in the template's talk page, my talk page and his as well. He seems not to understand the basic idea behind the page. We have had a similar discussion with another editor, and User:IJA has also backed the fact that the Albanian flag must remain in the infobox; together with the Serbian one as the athletes (rule 1 of the Olympics) chose to represent.

How do you think we can help?

The only suitable solution is by keeping the Albanian flag in the infobox; because it refers to a Kosovo-athlete participating under that flag DESPITE being qualified for Kosovo; but was unable due to the resistance by the IOC to recognise Kosovo.

Let's keep in mind the IOC flag. If athletes from a country are not allowed to participate under their national flag, they participate under the IOC flag. Same for Kosovo, Majlinda Kelmendi was qualified for the Olympics but was UNABLE to partipate.

Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page can be used for that purpose or a custom-written note. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days, this listing will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

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.

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Meghan Trainor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lips Are Movin (talk · contribs)
• MaranoFan (talk · contribs)
• Winkelvi (talk · contribs)
• SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs)
• Joseph Prasad (talk · contribs)
• Atomic Meltdown (talk · contribs)
• Livelikemusic (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A dispute has arisen as to whether Meghan Trainor is a singer-songwriter. Various reliable and notable sources have been noted on the talk page supporting Trainor as a singer-songwriter that directly call her by the title of "singer-songwriter":

• The Atlantic
• The Independent
• The Guardian
• Billboard
• USA Today
• Yahoo
• Spin
• Marie Claire
• Bellingham Herald
• National Post
• Glamour

On the singer-songwriter article it states: "Singer-songwriters often provide the sole accompaniment to an entire composition or song, typically using a guitar or piano" She regularly performs acoustic and accompanied by her ukelele [1][2][3] And is pictured in professional photo shoots that are published by reliable sources with her ukelele in the vein of an acoustic singer/singer-songwriter[4][5]

The article states Singer-songwriters' lyrics are personal, but veiled by elaborate metaphors and vague imagery, and their creative concern was to place emphasis on the song rather than their performance of it. Most records by such artists have a similarly straightforward and spare sound that placed emphasis on the song itself. - See the All About That Bass (which is considered as a protest song) and Title (EP) (where she was compared to other singer-songwriters Jenny Lewis and Neko Case) articles which entirely back this up.

The argument against her not being a singer-songwriter in the dispute seems to be solely based on the fact that she also sings pop music and is not "folk". However, the singer-songwriter article states that singer-songwriters do in fact sing popular music and not solely folk. Taylor Swift, Jason Mraz, Alanis Morrissette are a few of such singer-songwriters for example.

On the singer-songwriter article it states 'Singer-songwriters often provide the sole accompaniment to an entire composition. It also states: "Singer-songwriter" is used to define popular music artists who write and perform their own material, which is often self-accompanied generally on acoustic guitar or piano.[3] Such an artist performs the roles of composer, lyricist, vocalist, instrumentalist, and often self-manager.[4] Trainor in fact has done this with all her three self-released self-produced albums[6] and just last month with her Christmas song "I'll Be Home"[7] and in October with her Thanksgiving Special[8]. And in the liner notes of her Title (EP) she is credited as a songwriter, composer, instrumentalist and executive producer for every single song. The very same singer-songwriter article lists Jagged Little Pill as an example yet the entire album was not entirely produced and composed by Morissette alone but in collaboration with Glen Ballard - very much like Trainor has done with Kevin Kadish for her Title (EP) & Title (Meghan Trainor album) releases recently. All my aforementioned points support Trainor as a singer-songwriter per the the Wikipedia definition and as stated in the number of reliable sources that call her by that title.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensively discussed across two topics on the talk page, the same issue was also discussed on the talk page less than a month ago.

How do you think we can help?

No consensus is being reached, and it would be appreciated if an editor who is unbiased and civil can resolve the dispute fairly, taking all facts by the users considerably involved with the page's development into mind.

Hello! I was a co-nominator for the article's GA. I have also been involved with most of the page's construction and discussions related to it. I happened to stumble upon an edit-war today and decided to resolve it. I went to the article's talk page and wanted to know if there was a way the GAN wouldn't be failed. But it was failed. I haven't edited the article since (or even during) the dispute. I believe that Trainor is a singer-songwriter due to all the reasons provided above and her first two albums she wrote/produced/composed alone. [9] [10] Marano ^fan 08:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The article has experienced edit warring over the term singer-songwriter vs. singer, songwriter. Common sense in addition to the actual definition of what constitutes a singer-songwriter (as opposed to a singer and songwriter) appears to dictate keeping the article from putting Trainor put in the singer-songwriter category. I stand firm for the use of singer, songwriter (or singer and songwriter) but not singer-songwriter.

I wasn't really involved in the edit war, but did link to an RfC on the use of "singer-songwriter" in hopes that it would resolve the content dispute. Apparently it wasn't enough, and the arguments kept coming. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I only reverted twice, but there was a lot of edit warring on a dispute of singer-songwriter and singer AND songwriter, and I slightly contributed to that, but I have said to discuss on talk page. I'm not that familiar with her career and had to ask other editors for assistance to put her in that category, I just recently started editing this and came on to the dispute. The constant edit war dispute has gone on for quite a while with no consensus. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, these fanboys are the reason why this is still going on. We can all agree that Trainor is in fact a Singer and a Songwriter. And there examples of Taylor Swift and Drake Bell, those are people they like too. One more thing from me and that's it, singer-songwriter only applies to acoustic musicians not Trainer who is a pop artist and those two acoustic albums you bring up are nowhere to be found online or on her page. (Atomic Meltdown (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC))

As someone who stumbled upon the article, and noticed the brief edit-war between editors over singer-songwriter vs singer and songwriter, I went to the page of a singer-songwriter, and per definition, it appears Trainor does not fall under that headline; upon changing, I was reverted. I opened a talk page discussion to gain consensus, and was reverted once again, despite opening of talk discussion. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority outside of DRN or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes.

There is one thing that I need everyone involved to understand right from the start; DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves any user conduct issues. Do not talk about other editors. If your summary of dispute statement contains anything that talks about other users in any way, please go back and edit it so that it only talks about article content. If you are unwilling to do that, I will warn you on your talk page and if that does not work I will remove part or all of your statement as allowed in Wikipedia:Mediation#Control of mediation.

If anyone has a problem with any of this, you have a couple of options. You can choose to not participate with no negative consequences, or you can ask me to turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer.

Right now I am waiting for everyone to edit their their statements so that they don't talk about other editors before opening this up for discussion. While we are waiting for that, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Lips ^{are movin} 09:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I am reviewing the article and talk page history now and plan on opening the discussion sometime this afternoon (PST). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of marking the case as open/in progress. I hope that is helpful. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon and Keithbob, this request for dispute resolution assistance seems to have fallen through the cracks. I'd be interested to know why. Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon and Keithbob: It seems this has stalled, and as a result a consensus has been made on Talk:Meghan Trainor that she is a singer-songwriter and that we should use the endless amount of WP:RS that state her as such, instead of the "Wikipedia definition". However, the article has now been unlocked and User:Winkelvi who received a warning from WP:3RR last night, and has been reported regarding 6 different issues on WP:ANI has decided to edit war on the article again and insists there is no consensus when it is merely him who disagrees with the consensus in the dispute. An urgent resolution is needed ASAP. Thank you. - Lips ^{are movin} 07:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon and Keithbob: An indefinite Topic ban on Winkelvi for Meghan Trainor should suffice. Marano ^fan 07:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator's Note: Guy Macon, who has been the lead volunteer on this case, has had to withdraw due to real world health issues. A replacement volunteer has been requested on the DRN talk page. Please discontinue all further discussion here until if and when a new volunteer takes the case. Discussion may continue, of course, at the article talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

I will be taking over as the volunteer moderator for discussion of the dispute about the article on Meghan Trainor. I have no special knowledge, and no authority. I don't know anything about Trainor except that one of her songs has topped the charts. My job is to try to facilitate discussion. Please do the discussion here, because I may ignore any discussion on the article talk page. My first question is: Is anything about the article in dispute other than whether to identify her as a singer-songwriter? Is it agreed that she is a singer and a songwriter, and is the only item of disagreement whether to give her that particular designation? If there are any other matters of dispute, what are they? Those who say that she is a singer-songwriter should explain why. Those who say that she is not a singer-songwriter should explain why not. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Second, would the participants in this dispute agree to have whether to call her a singer-songwriter decided by the Wikipedia community by a Request for Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

From what I see on Talk:Meghan Trainor there has been consensus to use the endless reliable and reputable sources that call Trainor a singer-songwriter, as apposed to the "Wikipedia definition" argument. On a side note, Trainor co-writes all her music and self-produced and wrote her first three self-released albums, and has production and several instrument credits on her major label debut Title (Meghan Trainor album), and frequently performs acoustic style accompanied by her playing the ukulele - also pointed out on the talk page. - Lips ^{are movin} 08:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add. The summary provided by JosephPrasad below is perfect and I agree with it. There is consensus and sources on the article's talk page. As such, I am pretty sure that this is already resolved. MaRAno ^FAN 08:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, my thoughts on whether Trainor should be listed as a singer-songwriter do not stem from the Wikipedia article definition of singer-songwriter. My thoughts on this are based on tradition as well as who is and has been listed in the singer-songwriter category. It's also based on what actual singer-songwriters have to say about the subject. As already stated above (it appears to have been either dismissed or missed, not sure which): To quote Dire Straits founding member David Knopfler on what a singer-songwriter truly is, "It's simply about the song" [11]. The title singer-songwriter isn't about the artist, it's about what they are producing and performing. It's about music as true art defining the singer-songwriter genre/classification, not about cranking out pop hit after pop hit (which is what Trainor does). "Singer-songwriter" is about art that lasts and remains timeless and defining. Trainor's music does not fit into that category at all. Especially so early in her career.

With the saturation of music on the internet and the knowledge of who the true singer-songwriters are and have been (Harry Chapin, Bob Dylan, Gordon Lightfoot, Elton John, Carole King, Carly Simon, James Taylor, Paul Williams, Randy Newman - to name only a few) I think most people today don't really know the true definition of "singer-songwriter" in comparison to "singer and songwriter". Trainor is a singer, a performer, an entertainer, and she has written songs. She's not a singer-songwriter. I think it's easy to see that she is not of the same caliber as those in the list above, those who fit the true definition of singer-songwriter. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to say that the singer-songwriter article, the definition is outdated, not many go in the acoustic, solo fashion, and usually perform with bands for back-up vocals and instruments. So really, anyone since like, the 90s beyond would not be a singer-songwriter. Many sources have been provided on Trainor, and they were reliable, yet reverted. Many other discussions go about on other articles, and the main argument is sources. If there is a consensus and there is sources, it should be accepted. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The most obvious difference is whether to refer to Trainor as a singer-songwriter. Some of you have already said that she should be so described. I will ask the other participants whether there is any disagreement with calling her a singer-songwriter. If there is agreement, then that dispute can be resolved. If anyone objects, then please state the objection. (I haven't seen any disagreement as to her being a singer-songwriter, so, if there is disagreement, please say so.) If there is not agreement to use the word "singer-songwriter", then the most reasonable way forward would seem to be a Request for Comments on the Trainor talk page. Does anyone object to an RFC on the Trainor talk page? (If there is agreement that she is a singer-songwriter, then the RFC is not needed.)

I will suggest, partly outside this issue, that if editors think that the definition of singer-songwriter in that article is too restrictive, then it should be revised. If there is disagreement about revising that definition, then either another RFC or another moderated dispute resolution thread are in order.

Also, are there any other areas of dispute about the Meghan Trainor article, or is it limited to whether she is a singer-songwriter?

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

We have one editor saying that she is not a singer-songwriter, and other editors saying that she is a singer-songwriter. Are the parties to this dispute willing to rely on an RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Are there any other issues requiring moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm dubious about an RfC, simply because I think most people today don't really know the true definition of "singer-songwriter" in comparison to "singer and songwriter". Because of that, I'd rather see this go through an RfC at a music-related project appropriate to the topic (if that's even possible). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

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.

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Battle of Nanking (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• CurtisNaito (talk · contribs)
• Yaush (talk · contribs)
• TH1980 (talk · contribs)
• Miracle dream (talk · contribs)
• MtBell (talk · contribs)
• Carrotkit (talk · contribs)
• Cwek (talk · contribs)
• Happyseeu (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The article on the Battle of Nanking contains one section on the Nanking Massacre. Most seem to want to include some sort of estimate range here for how many people were killed during the massacre but we can't decide which estimates are worth including or what range to use.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive talk page discussion but it doesn't seem like we are reaching consensus.

How do you think we can help?

I'm looking for advice on that matter. Maybe a group of neutral users, after evaluating both points of view, should suggest a good solution. For instance, a fair compromise advocated from the outside might be more likely to attract consensus. I've been putting forward some ideas for compromise on the talk page, but they haven't garnered much discussion yet and I want to discuss more options to reach agreement.

I, the primary contributor to the Battle of Nanking article, was proposing that, for the purposes of this article, 40,000 to 200,000 massacre victims is the primary range of death toll estimates we should use because that is the current scholarly consensus on the issue. To quote Bob Tad Wakabayashi, a expert historian on the subject of the Nanking Massacre, "an empirically verifiable, scholarly valid victimization range is from over 40,000 to under 200,000." When reviewing Wakabayashi's edited volume, James Leibold concurred that 40,000 to 200,000 constitutes "the most careful and thoroughly empirical analysis of the death count to date". By contrast the large majority of scholars who have put forward numbers outside this range are non-specialists who have never revealed how they calculated their estimates. Even historians in China privately acknowledge that the death toll of the atrocity was between 40,000 and 150,000. The alternative range being put forward by other users is 40,000 to 300,000 but this range is based on an unusual synthesis which I would definitely say is not appropriate by Wikipedia standards. This range was composed by combining the scholarly consensus of 40,000 to 200,000 with several other sources of dubious validity which gave numbers between 200,000 and 300,000. It seems wrong to me to create a new estimate range by randomly combining the scholarly consensus with a couple of larger numbers explicitly rejected by the scholarly consensus. For further proof and information on the situation, see the extended version of my statement at the bottom of this post which summarizes the posts I have made in the talk page.

However, if the clear scholarly consensus of specialist historians is not alone enough, the possibilities for compromise that occur to me are the following...

-stating in the article that "Today historians estimate that roughly 40,000 to 200,000 Chinese POWs and civilians were massacred by the Japanese in total,(cite Wakabayashi and Leibold here) but higher and lower estimates also exist.(insert footnote here)" Then tack on a very lengthy footnote with more estimates.(Note that currently Kaz Ross is cited in the body of the text, but the range given by Ross is actually 40,000 to 150,000 so if we create a footnote we can move the Ross citation down there rather than sticking it together with the sources which give a 40,000 to 200,000 range.)

-stating in the main body only that estimates vary and then inserting a lengthy footnote with ALL estimates listed in order of size from smallest to greatest, plus maybe an additional note that 40,000 to 200,000 has been described as the "empirically verifiable, scholarly valid victimization range".

-including no estimate of the death toll at all.

-taking the scholarly consensus range of 40,000 to 200,000 and extending it upwards and downwards to reach 10,000 to 400,000. (Incidentally though, the widest possible range would be zero to ten million.)

My read on this dispute is that no one is disputing the lower figure, 40,000. The dispute is over the higher figure, with CurtisNaito arguing for 200,000 and some other editors arguing for 300,000. It seems clear to me that CurtisNaito is much more familiar with the specialist literature on the casualty count than the other editors, who base their entire argument for 300,000 on non-specialist sources or on Chinese sources.

I agree with CurtisNaito on the unreliability of the non-specialist sources. Dorn, in particular, was a U.S. Army staff officer, not a historian. I have a copy of his The Sino-Japane3se War: 1937-1941 and it is clear he is opinionated, tendentious, and unreliable. He's also a bit of a plagiarist, in my opinion, since his book (published in 1973) shows remarkable parallels with the official Chinese history (published in 1971) but lists this work nowhere in his bibliography. The IMTFE estimates came much too close to the events in question, and -- do not mistake this for any kind of assertion that Japan did not engage in a clear pattern of war criminality; I regard the destruction of the Japanese Empire as a blessing to mankind -- not particularly impartial. The other authors quoted by the proponents of the 300,000 figure are nonspecialists uncritically repeating these estimates.

That leaves the Chinese scholars, and so the whole issue revolves around whether these scholars have the freedom to publish honest estimates. We now know with something like certainty that Soviet historians of the Second World War had no such freedom, based on research postdating the opening of the Soviet archives. It seems not at all implausible to me that Chinese historians on the mainland also have no such freedom. We have scholars claiming that Chinese historians have privately admitted as much to them. This is of course problematic; there are very good reasons why all such admissions would be anonymous, but that anonymity makes them impossible to independently verify. But it seems that none of these scholars ever publishes an estimate less than 300,000, which to me has the stink of a forced consensus.

I would be interested in knowing what the situation is with scholars from Taiwan, who presumably work in a different political milieu. There may be reasons why they also feel they do not have the freedom to publish figures less than 300,000, but I would like to know what figures they do publish and under what circumstances.

40,000 to 200,000 massacre victims is the scholarly consensus for Nanking, but I believe some lower estimates and some higher estimates can be included separately.TH1980 (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

At first,I know this noticeboard discussion was created by User:CurtisNaito. I just have one question. Why did he put all users who agree with him above than who disagree with him. The first three are all users who agree with him. Then remaining are who disagree with him. I think he can simply use the alphabetical order.
Actually,there are 2 month discussion, Talk:Nanking_Massacre/Archive_8, which more than 10 users involved. At last, the consensus used in this discussion is the death toll will be from 40,000 to over 300,000.
Estimation by International Military Tribunal of the Far East: "its vicinity during the first six weeks of the Japanese occupation was over 200,000. That these estimates are not exaggerated" That means the estimation number by IMTFE is larger than 200,000.
Estimation by Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal: the death toll is over 300,000.
International Military Tribunal of the Far East and Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal are no doubt to compliant with WP:RS
Then based on neutrality rule, wiki should neutrally cite the reliable sources no matter where the sources from. English, Japanese and Chinese sources are all acceptable, However, User:CurtisNaito reject all Chinese sources. Moreover, he also reject the figures from International Military Tribunal of the Far East and Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal
Two New York Times articles [12], [13]. The first one cited 150k as the lower bound, the 2010 article cited 200k as lower bound, and 40k is not mentioned by either. However,300,000 is cited by the first article. Actually I can accept 40k as lower bound because I accept all reliable sources based on the neutrality rule of wiki
I checked the previous discussion and find some table offered by other users in that discussion. In previous discussion, users: snorri offered a table. It includes the estimation from American, Japanese, Chinese and Taiwanese scholars who support range from 200,000 to 300,000.

In previous discussion, User: Remotepluto provide several qualified scholarly summary of death toll numbers from review articles describing previous researches. This is the excerpts from their work:

First, there are two scholars who summarized different school of thoughts by Japanese authors.

Yamamoto, Masahiro (2000, Praeger), Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity. ISBN: 978-0275969042. Page 254, Chart 7.1. (Note that Japanese names are written in a family-name first, given-name second manner.)

Chart 7.1 Rape of Nanking Controversy in Japan: Schools and Their Opinions
School	Number of Victims	Personalities
Extreme Traditionalists	300,000 or more	Honda Katsuichi
Moderate Traditionalists	150,000 - 300,000	Hora Tomio, Fujiwara Akira
Traditionalist Centrists	38,000 - 42,000	Hata Ikuhiko
Revisionist Centrists	10,000 - 20,000	Itakura Yoshiaki
Moderate Revisionists	50 - 7,000	Editors of Kaiko series
Extreme Revisionists	50	Tanaka Masaaki

05:56, 31 December 2014‎ Miracle dream (talk)

estimate varies

Dear fellow Wikipedians, please allow me one more day to complete the summary. Thanks.

"scholarly consensus" or a minority view?

avoiding original research

avoiding unreliable source and fringe view

CurtisNaito cites an "anonymous survey among Chinese university researchers in Nanjing" by Kaz Ross, in purpose of excluding any any publication by Chinese scholars. However, I verified with Professor Zhang Lianhong who received Ross' visit in 2006. He replied by email that the so called "interview" never occurred. CurtisNaito's claim "Chinese scholars privately favor 40K-150K", which is based on Ross' non-existent survey, is a mere fabrication or at least misrepresentation.

Ross' claim is not only unreliable but also a fringe view, for it receives no support from any other publication. She gets little renown in Nanjing Massacre studies (she is not even a historian). Being a view of tiny minorities, the so called "interview" by Ross should not be included at all according to WP:NPOV. It's a pity that CurtisNaito attempts to use this non-existent survey to exclude any views on which he disagrees.

all majority views should be included

conclusion and proposal for compromise

A user is attempting to delete a claim supported by reliable sources regarding the death toll of the battle. He claims that all Chinese historians disagree with this number in private. He cited a "peer-reviewed research" conducted by an unknown Japanese historian, who denied conducting a such research. After I pointed out the fact that there is not a such research, he stop discussing the matter with me. I have suggested offering the readers with claims by both sides, but this user ignored and insisted his nonsense idea that "all Chinese historians disagree with this claim" with that non-existent "research".--Carrotkit (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor: @Carrotkit and @CurtisNaito; It is the responsibility of the filing editors to notify all the participants that a dispute resolution process has been requested. You may place a notice both on the relevant article Talk page and the individual Talk pages of the involved editors. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

All editors have been notified. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC) (DRN coordinator)

@FelixRosch and TransporterMan: CurtisNaito's summary has exceeded 10,000 characters. If he really wants a fair discussion, he must reduce his comments to the 2,000 characters limit. --MtBell 21:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved user; @MtBell, The 2000 characters is a guideline and it appears that @Curtis has hatted a large part of that summary. At the present moment, everyone seems to be waiting for all the editors to make their summaries before a volunteer can offer to take the dispute. If you need to hat any material important to you in your summary, then you should be able to do so within reason at this preliminary stage. FelixRosch (TALK) 21:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The cap is 2000 characters not words: "Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible". If the it's not compulsory, I will also leave a long comment. --MtBell 01:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved user; @MtBell, @Carrotkit, @CurtisNaito, @Miracle Dream and other editors. My mistype above of intro summary size is corrected to 2000 characters. All editors should note that these summaries are often used in order to indicate that the editors are ready to start and are not meant for extensive detail. At this point @Biblioworm has kindly indicated that he might start things moving forward now that both sides of the dispute have registered their summaries above. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'll consider taking this case after all the users make their statements. --Biblioworm 21:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• Note: I'm currently reviewing all the arguments. Once I'm finished, I'll officially open the case. (This is pretty complicated [probably the most complicated one I've ever taken], so be patient, please!) --Biblioworm 02:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Suggestion: @CurtisNaito, Yaush, TH1980, Miracle dream, MtBell, and Carrotkit: Before formally opening this, let me offer a compromise in hopes that this can be resolved before we begin a long, drawn-out case. Based on the ranges I'm seeing, you could put something like this: "Today, historians estimate that roughly 40,000 to 200,000 Chinese POWs and civilians were massacred by the Japanese in the entire Nanking Special Administrative District, although some other estimates are between 10,000 to 300,000. However, some have described the 40-200,000 estimate as the one most likely to be accurate."
  Thoughts? --Biblioworm 03:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I personally think that this is about as good as we are going to get and endorse it. I'm afraid of proposing any changes to your wording for fear of breaking your delicate compromise, but if I was to change anything with your wording, I would change "300,000" to "400,000". Sun Zhaiwei has proposed an estimate of 400,000 and Tien Wei Wu and the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal both made estmates well in excess of 300,000. While 300,000-400,000 is definitely a minority viewpoint, it's no more a minority viewpoint that 10,000 is. Therefore, if we mention the extended range of 10,000 to x, I would make 400,000 the upper bound in order to include a broader range of individuals.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

At first, I suggest people should read the previous 2 month long discussion Talk:Nanking_Massacre/Archive_8 and the consensus. Then I collect lots of data which support range from 200,000 to over 300,000 from different scholars who have different background. It is really hard to say only "some other estimates are 10,000 to 300,000".In December 2007, newly declassified U.S. government archive documents revealed that a telegraph by the U.S. ambassador to Germany in Berlin sent one day after the Japanese army occupied Nanking, stated that he heard the Japanese Ambassador in Germany boasting that Japanese army killed 500,000 Chinese people as the Japanese army advanced from Shanghai to Nanking. [15] I previous thought we should neutrally accept all figures to make a consensus so I accept range from 40,000 to 300,000 in discussion Talk:Nanking_Massacre/Archive_8. However, it seems the range 40,000 to 100,000 is really a minority viewpoints. I suggest to exclude the figure 40,000 and put 100,000 as the lower bound of the primary viewpoint. Actually, I previously thought the figure in article Nanking Massacre is good enough to contain minority and majority viewpoint to avoid dispute. Now I am thinking about removing the minority viewpoint 40,000.

Moreover, it is really hard to say International Military Tribunal of the Far East and the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal is the minority viewpoint. It is the same as we say Nuremberg trials is minority viewpoint when we research Holocaust.The first one put range over 200,000 (for IMFTE court exhibits, figure will be 260,000) and the second one put the figure 300,000. Wiki is not the place for academic seminar. If we use our opinion to deny Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal, it is kind of original research. It likes we use wiki research to deny the result of Nuremberg trials. However, we can say Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal put the estimation figure 300,000 but some Japanese historian thought it is too exaggerated. We should have no opinion on the description of Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal. It would be really silly to say that it's excellent for Wikipedia editors to read some sources from some publications to deny two years' investigation by International Military Tribunal of the Far East and the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal, but that it's impossibly bad to keep the description of result from these two trials. Amateurs are not always better than professionals, especially when it comes to evaluating something technical. Wikipedia neutrally accept all reliable sources even these sources are conflict between each others. The investigation from International Military Tribunal of the Far East and the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal are simply more compliant with WP:RS than others. 08:52, 2 January 2015‎ Miracle dream (talk)

I think that Biblioworm's phrasing basically covers what needs to be covered. There are too many estimates to include all of them in this article and it seems to me that the estimates made by scholars are more valuable for the purposes of this article than trial transcripts created back in the 1940's. Also, for the record, the IMTFE made several estimates of the death toll, including one of "upwards of 100,000", so it's impossible to cite any one estimate of the postwar war crimes trials as being definitive. One of the big advantages of mentioning the 40,000 to 200,000 range is that it is not a range crafted by Wikipedians, but rather, is a range calculated by leading scholars in order to establish "an empirically verifiable, scholarly valid victimization range". We know that some estimates go down to 10,000 and others go up to 400,000, and for this reason such estimates are perhaps worth mentioning briefly, but on the other hand a simple range of "10,000 to 300,000/400,000" suffers somewhat from the fact that it was a range developed by Wikipedians, not scholars. Developing our own original range, such as stating "100,000 as the lower bound" as you suggest, is not as good of an idea because trying to create our own unique range in this manner will ultimately be more controversial than simply quoting the "scholarly valid" range. In consideration of this, I would say that Biblioworm's proposal is a good, concise way of presenting the basic facts on death toll estimates. If we do decide to say anything more, probably a footnote would be a better place for it.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Biblio. I have a question here, I think we are not required to respond this discussion everyday,right? Everyone has his own job or study in real life. I also have some busy works, Can I and other users make responses per two or three days? I don't think I have enough time to respond this topic everyday. I am very sorry if I made some trouble for this inconvenience. Thank you very much.18:27, 2 January 2015‎ Miracle dream (talk)

You're under no mandatory obligation to participate in the case every day, although I'd have to extend the archiving date. --Biblioworm 16:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

If we cannot come to a simple resolution soon, I will formally open the case. @Miracle dream: Would you settle for the 10-400,000 estimates to be mentioned on the side as I have in my compromise, or do you want something different? Surely, we cannot include every estimate, can we? --Biblioworm 16:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Biblio. My personal proposal is "The death toll has been actively contested, with typical estimates ranging from 100,000 to over 300,000. Other viewpoint including U.S. government archive documents revealed that a telegraph by the U.S. ambassador to Germany in Berlin sent one day after the Japanese army occupied Nanking, stated that he heard the Japanese Ambassador in Germany boasting that Japanese army killed 500,000 Chinese people as the Japanese army advanced from Shanghai to Nanking. Some historical revisionists considered this massacre was wholly fabricated for propaganda purposes"

However, I can also accept the compromise used by article Nanking Massacre and Talk:Nanking_Massacre/Archive_8 which are "During this period, between 40,000 to over 300,000 (estimates vary) Chinese civilians and disarmed combatants were murdered by soldiers of the Imperial Japanese Army." or "The death toll has been actively contested among scholars since the 1980s, with typical estimates ranging from 40,000 to over 300,000." Actually this compromise by article Nanking Massacre includes the figures from International Military Tribunal of the Far East, Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal and other historians' estimations. However, this range does not contain the estimation from historical revisionists who considered it as fabrication or death toll from 1000 to 5000. It also excludes the estimation by some historians or documents which are 400,000 or 500,000. If you want, you can mention this or you can simply ignore these. I can accept either. I will not insist the estimation by revisionists or large number like 400,000 or 500,000. 19:37, 4 January 2015‎ ‎Miracle dream (talk)

I don't think that we should bother with the 500,000 figure for two reasons. Firstly, no historian has ever endorsed that number. It only comes from a single diplomatic document. Secondly, the document refers to killings between Shanghai and Nanking. Leaving aside the fact that this number likely includes military casualties, it at least definitely does include deaths in Shanghai which are not normally considered part of the Nanking Massacre. I still feel that we should at least mention the scholarly consensus of 40,000 to 200,000.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Ranges like "100,000 to 300,000" or "40,000 to 300,000" are ranges developed by Wikipedians and I actually view them as something almost akin to distortion. Historian Sven Saaler who reviewed Wakabayashi's book noted that Wakabayashi's 40,000 to 200,000 range "summarizes views on the victim tally presented in several contributions" and in writing his conclusion Wakabayashi says "At the present stage of research, victimization estimates of under 40,000 and over 200,000 push the limits of reason, fairness, and evidence." In other words, leading historians strongly reject figures below 40,000 and above 200,000, and given this it seems to me to be inappropriate and misleading to create a unique range of estimates by taking the scholarly consensus and then arbitrarily messing with it by adding extra numbers onto it which the consensus explicitly rejects. As controversial as this issue is, I can't help but think that the least controversial thing to do is simply to directly quote the range given by the latest scholarship. I can't help but think that inventing our own range will sooner or later prove more controversial than simply quoting the basic 40,000 to 200,000 range. As I said, it's reasonable to include some estimates outside of the consensus, but I doubt that it's a good idea to glue them on directly, as is the case of the 40,000 to 300,000 range. We should mention them separately, and not try to directly modify the consensus range.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

TH1980.I agree with Biblioworm's suggested compromise. It is a fair summary of all the diverse figures for Nanking and its aftermath.TH1980 (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd hate to mess up the compromise, but let me propose another version of it: "Today, historians estimate that roughly 40,000 to 200,000 Chinese POWs and civilians were massacred by the Japanese in the entire Nanking Special Administrative District, although 300,000 is also a somewhat common estimate among scholars. Other less common scholarly estimates range from as low as 10,000 to as high as 400,000, while the Japanese Ambassador boasted that 500,000 had been killed. However, some have said that the 40-200,000 estimate is the one most likely to be accurate."
Feel free to improve this if you can, but I don't think we will ever reach an agreement unless we include something along these lines. Pinging CurtisNaito, Miracle dream, and TH1980. --Biblioworm 22:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm mostly fine with it, except I strongly disagree that we should include "while the Japanese Ambassador boasted that 500,000 had been killed". That statement only comes from one obscure document. Few historians have analyzed the document, and no one has ever said that they agreed with the estimate as being the total killed in the massacre. The Japanese ambassador to Germany did not say that all the killed were massacre victims, but even if they were all massacre victims he did explicitly say that this figure included deaths in Shanghai. Considering that Shanghai is 300 kilometers from Nanking, I think we are on very dubious ground including deaths in Shanghai as being part of the "Nanking Massacre". Furthermore, the IMTFE's definition of the Nanking Massacre states that the massacre lasted from December 13 1937 to early February 1938. The document in question is dated to December 14 1937. In other words, if we were to use the IMTFE's definition of the massacre (admittedly not the only definition available), the figure of 500,000 represents only one day of the massacre, not the entire thing. I approve of the rest of the compromise proposal though.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

All right, then. This is the current proposition: "Today, historians estimate that roughly 40,000 to 200,000 Chinese POWs and civilians were massacred by the Japanese in the entire Nanking Special Administrative District, although 300,000 is also a somewhat common estimate among scholars. Other less common scholarly estimates range from as low as 10,000 to as high as 400,000. However, some have said that the 40-200,000 estimate is the one most likely to be accurate." @CurtisNaito, Yaush, TH1980, Miracle dream, MtBell, and Carrotkit: Have we reached an agreement? --Biblioworm 23:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

That version sounds fine to me.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to reply so late. I am too busy these days. For my opinion,there are many problems. At first, it is really hard to say "historian estimate 40,000 to 200,000".Actually, there is no historian's consensus for this. Different historians offered different estimations. I listed lots of estimations from historians which put the range over 200,000 or even 300,000 in my summary. From what I see, the first problem is the 40,000 is not the lower bound of primary estimation by many historians. I see lots of media cited 100,000 as the lower bound. Major judgement International Military Tribunal of the Far East and the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal (the same status with Nuremberg Trials) all put the estimations over than 100,000. Media like New York Times also cited figures 100,000 as lower bound [16], [17]. Then 300,000 is one of the common estimation not "somewhat common estimation". It was at first supported by major judgement Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal, then was supported by many scholars who I listed before. Then it is largely cited by different media. Lots of document video used this figures. It was also used by New York Times [18]. Hence, it was supported by judgement, some scholars and lots of media. Actually, the figure over 300,000 was even cited by the book "Old World Encounters: Cross-Cultural Contacts and Exchanges in Pre-Modern Times" [19]. This books is a history textbook which was used by hundreds or 1000 Universities or High schools in United States. It is weird to say 300,000 is minority view while so many universities or high school used this figures in its history education. Actually, I have mentioned these suggestions before but it seems these suggestions were ignored. Then if you want to notices all users listed in this discussion, I guess we should also notice @Happyseeu: 19:31, 8 January 2015‎ ‎ ‎Miracle dream (talk)

I have a copy of the book "Old World Encounters: Cross-Cultural Contacts and Exchanges in Pre-Modern Times" and for the record I can't see where it mentions the Nanking Massacre. As you can see from its description on Amazon the book "examines cross-cultural encounters before 1492". It does not refer to events after that date. Furthermore, there's no reason to include the estimates made by the postwar war crimes trials in this article because these estimates have since been supplanted by better scholarship. There are other articles in which mentioning these estimates might be appropriate, but since this is not even an article specifically on the Nanking Massacre, here we ought to stick largely to newer scholarship rather than old primary sources from the 1940's. To give you just one example, Bob Wakabayashi notes in "The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38" that both the IMTFE and the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal included in their estimates 112,000 corpses which are now known to have never existed. Wakabayashi notes that the latest scholarship suggests in fact that the tribunals inflated their estimates by 152,000 victims. Granted, the tribunals also failed to include victims in the remote rural areas of the Nanking Special Administrative District which many historians nowadays do include, but the fact is that the postwar war crimes tribunals did make major mistakes in their calculations. We absolutely should not mention their unreliable estimates in this article unless we also mention that these estimates are now known to be off by at least 112,000 victims. Miracle dream again cites a New York Times article by film critic Stephen Holden but I don't see why Holden is such an important authority on the Nanking Massacre. As I pointed out before, if we examine the works of specialist scholars and exclude less reliable sources like movie reviews by film critics, it becomes clear that the large majority of historians are within the 40,000 to 200,000 range. Even if one or two users on this particular day do not accept the scholarly consensus, sooner or later I'm certain that ignoring the scholarly consensus will ultimately prove more controversial than using it. I think Biblioworm created a reasonable compromise on January 6 and I still think we should go with that.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito & Miracle dream: Sorry for sort of abandoning this. I've been busy with other wikiThings. :) Anyway, it seems like a simple compromise will not happen, so it's time to get down to the details. First, I want to ask you this question: What is the most extreme compromise that you would accept? (For example, would you only go as low as 20,000, as high as 350,000, etc.?) --Biblioworm 00:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, if it will end this debate I suppose I can accept a simple range of 10,000 to 400,000. That includes the large majority of scholars, including the below-40,000 and above-200,000 fringe. If it's possible though, I still think that we should also mention the scholarly consensus of 40,000 to 200,000. The reason why I proposed that in the first place is because I still think that in the long run the scholarly consensus will be less controversial than cobbling together our own Wikipedia-made range. I think people will eventually wonder why we are using fringe estimates in an article which is not even specifically about the Nanking Massacre. Granted the lowest estimate ever put forward by a credential historian is zero and the highest estimate ever put forward by a credential historian is ten million. I suppose, if it will end this debate, I would also be willing to use the range of zero to 10 million.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that this case is too complex to be handled in a reasonably short period of time, as is ideal for the DRN. There are too many editors involved, and too many different opinions. I'll give Miracle dream another week to respond to my question, and if there is no response, I'll close this as stale. If this case is closed, I recommend an RfC or MedCom. --Biblioworm 04:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Biblioworm: Sorry that I am really busy these weeks and unable to respond in time. After reading your proposals for compromise, I have two suggestions. First, the compromise can not deny the existence of the Massacre, so the range as low as 10 or several thousand is not worthy of consideration. Second, the compromise should treat all scholars equal, for NPOV suggests that all majority views must be included and fairly presented. --MtBell 20:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If we limit ourselves to "all majority views" then there is no sense in including anything other than the well-established scholarly consensus of 40,000 to 200,000. If we include some figures outside the consensus we might as well go down as low as 10,000 since there are plenty of prominent researchers who go at least that low. There were plenty of individuals in the 2001 Shokun magazine survey of Nanking Massacre researchers who gave figures around that level, and there is also Minoru Kitamura and Yoshiaki Itakura at around that level. It's true that they represent a minority, but no more so than those above 200,000. The point is that if we are bothering to delve into the above 200,000 fringe, then we should also mention the below 40,000 fringe.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If a government officer, a TV presenter and right-wing activists are "prominent researchers", I would rather call you a genius. --MtBell 23:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Minoru Kitamura is the author of a book and a number of papers on the Nanking Massacre. He is a Phd holding professor who teaches Chinese history at Ritsumeikan University. Yoshiaki Itakura is also the author of a book and numerous peer-reviewed papers on the massacre. His book was described by leading historian David Askew as "an impressive summary of the work of someone who devoted his life to researching the Nanjing Incident." It's true that these individuals are a minority, but they have considerably more credibility than anyone advocating figures above 200,000.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And I do agree with you that the estimates around 10K you mentioned above are minority views. Remembering that all proposals here are no more than two sentence long, according to NPOV, the views of minorities should not be included at all in such a short statement. MtBell 00:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@MtBell: So, what do you feel is the majority view, and what do you personally think should be included? --Biblioworm 16:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Biblio.Sorry to replay late. For this figure range, the most extreme compromise case I thought is from as low as 100,000 and as high as 400,000. It means the extreme upper bound is 400,000 and the extreme lower bound is 100,000. I prefer to the range from 100,000 to over 300,000. However, I can also accept the range from 100,000 to 400,000.

For high school or university test book, I am sorry the book name is "Traditions & Encounters: A Global Perspective on the Past" which mentioned Nanking Massacre. I am pretty sure the figure used in this book is 400,000. The amazon link of this book is here[20]. This book was picked as the best book of 2014 in Amazon and used as textbook in hundreds or thousands university or high school. ‎ 05:32, 25 January 2015‎ Miracle dream (talk)

Unfortunately, it seems that this dispute is too complicated to handle in the amount of time considered to be ideal at the DRN. As a result, I'll close this, with the recommendation that you start an RfC or go to MedCom. Thanks, and feel free to contact me on my talk page. --Biblioworm 20:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

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.

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Mounir Majidi (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Tachfin (talk · contribs)
• Chewbakadog (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In the article Mounir Majidi I have objected to an edit because:

• It removed multiple references (user alternatively argued that the links are dead, not in English therefore shouldn't be used or because "wikileaks' diplomatic cables were not "official statements", but informal communications between US agents.").

• It removed a section titled "controversy". This section only contained a reference to a corruption allegation case. Supported by two references.

• It removed a navigation template and the external link in the external links section and placing instead a "this section is empty" template

• Changing the date format to month first (MOS:DATETIES, MOS:DATERET)

• Changing the birth date despite this being referenced to an official document from the Luxemburg company registry. (Apparently without bothering to check that ref)

• Removing positions from the infobox and changing the predecessor/successor or the office start date without any explanation.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on talk, reminding of the relevant WP policies related to dead links and references.

How do you think we can help?

By explaining some policies such is those related to references, dead links, date format, deletion of supported statements.

Thank you for taking the time to review this dispute. Let me briefly sum up the situation :

• I suggested a new version to the Mounir Majidi page with fresh facts --> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mounir_Majidi&oldid=641378607
• user Tachfin, very involved on all Morocco-related pages, and with a strong bias on all of his contributions, undid everything, despite the freshness and addition of value my version provided. He doesn't accept an ounce of my version, but rather discards it bluntly, with a very agressive attitude
• user Tachfin argues that I am removing a negative sentence sourced with Wikileaks cables, but it's actually a positive sentence (Majidi is in the top 3 most influential people of his country, that's pretty flattering if you ask me). I don't mind the source (Wikileaks dead link), but there is no need to flatter the guy this way, mostly in the intro.
• Regarding the controversy, my argument is as follow : Majidi was accused by one journalist, who seems to be an opponent to the regime (Bemchemsi), in the opinion section of one national newspapers. The other source is a deadlink ([21]). According to WP:SOURCE, If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, and then Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. We have here the point of view of one person (Bemchemsi) published in the opinion section of one newspaper, which is a WP:YESPOV and needs to be removed. Also, a "controversy" section is created merely for this YESPOV, which is WP:UNDUE and needs to be removed.
• Tachfin's arguments that I removed the external links section, that the dates weren't properly formatted, that I removed a source for the birth date even though there is no conflict on his birth date, or about the infobox (and I followed his advice in the latets version of my version [22]), all those arguments do not justify undoing my edits.

Overall, I am accusing Tachfin of WP:ATTACK : Tachfin is agressive, has the attitude of WP:BULLY, only accepts his own version of the page. He is full of accusations regarding Majidi, but doesn't bother to justify them. I did a bit of research and found that Tachfin created the pages Zakaria Moumni (a moroccan kickboxer accusing Majidi of torturing him of something), Yassine Mansouri, head of Moroccan CIA (where he puts a link to Majidi's page for no significant reason), Ali Anouzla (page with accusations of corruptions by Majidi)... If I didn't know any better, I would say that he has a personal thing against that Majidi guy... Thank you for hearing my POV. --Chewbakadog (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a DRN volunteer. I'd like to start this discussion with Wikipedia's guidance on criminal allegations. Please try to confine discussion to the specific topic. Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Is but no trial was brought against him in Morocco accurate? Is but no criminal charges have been filed against him in Morocco also accurate?

I think it's accurate, I don't see any trial mentioned anywhere... --Chewbakadog (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

What relevance does the guidance provided at WP:CRIMINAL, specifically Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. have to this article and how the material is to be presented? --Bejnar (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

No court of law has pronounced majidi guilty of anything. Our issue is that one journalist made accusations on a french national newspaper, but no court (at least that I know of through multiple google searches), whether it be in France or in Morocco, has ever made him guilty of anything. --Chewbakadog (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

In the context of corruption charges can the book, Graciet, Catherine; Laurent, Eric (2012). Le roi prédateur: Main basse sur le Maroc. Paris: Seuil. ISBN 978-2-02-106463-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help), review here, be considered to be a reliable source? --Bejnar (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, I've never read it... However, the review doesn't mention anything criminal about majidi. --Chewbakadog (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

In the context of corruption charges can the magazine Demain, Soundouss, Badr (11 February 2014). "Mounir Majidi veut censurer les critiques sur Youtube". Demain (in French)., be considered to be a reliable source? --Bejnar (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Demain is a satyrical newspaper, kind of like Charlie Hebdo in France... --Chewbakadog (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

In the context of corruption charges can the Moroccan weekly economic review Challenge (Casablanca), and its 31 May 2012 article "Roi du Maroc et du business" (no electronic copy available) be considered a reliable source? See, e.g. the 15 May 2013 Lakome newspaper article "Justice : la contre-offensive de Majidi" here. --Bejnar (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I am unable to answer this, as I have no access to this article. --Chewbakadog (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Although the information on Wikileaks can be considered a primary source, does its reporting in secondary media such the newspaper El País and the magazine Yabiladi [here, alter the contention? --Bejnar (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure it is a reliable source: there's an acknowledgement at the end of the article confessing that readers need to be cautious with the info from this Wikileaks cable because it has not been double-checked by the editorial team. --Chewbakadog (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Do either of you have the title or the date of the article that appeared in the Lakome newspaper that is currently a deadlink at FN11? --Bejnar (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't, but on wikileaks.org, we find this ([23]) :

Authenticity and Modernity, Mohamed Mounir Al Majidi who is the head of the King's private secretariat, and the King himself. "To have discussions with anyone else would be a waste of time"

and :

ONA's VP reportedly told his interlocutors that Morocco's major investment decisions were effectively made by three individuals: the King, Fouad El Himma the former Deputy Minister of Interior who now leads the Palace-backed Party of Authenticity and Modernity, and Mohamed Mounir Al Majidi, who is the head of the King's private secretariat and his principal financial advisor.

I don't find it really noteworthy, because not backed up by any concrete example ... --Chewbakadog (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

How does the Wikipedia policy on living public figures, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, specifically: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. apply in this case? --Bejnar (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that was my primary argument, there is only one journalist making the allegations of corruption, in an opinion section of a newspaper. --Chewbakadog (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Is Mounir Majidi's date of birth still an issue? --Bejnar (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It's never been for me... The french wikipedia page says 19th january (fr:Mounir_Majidi), but a lot of sources say January 10th ([24]), so I guess we can go for 10th. --Chewbakadog (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Does the template {{Mohammed VI}} belong at the end of the article? Please cite appropriate Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia guidelines or even Wikipedia essays that support your position. If you have no cited Wikipedia support for your position, please state the philosophical/encyclopedic basis for your position. --Bejnar (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we can keep this template, I had not even noticed that I had removed it in my version. --Chewbakadog (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Does the fact that Majidi is seen by some diplomats (and possibly others) as highly influential (3rd most influential ...) contribute towards his notability? --Bejnar (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Majidi seems to have a lot of influence in Morocco, but I think that all the press about him is a more reliable notability ranking factor than anonymous diplomats. --Chewbakadog (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

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.

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Carmel, Har Hebron (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Carmel, Har Hebron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ashtul (talk · contribs)
• Nishidani (talk · contribs)
• Huldra (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The article is about Carmel, Har Hebron a Jewish settlement in the West Bank. A user have placed there two quotes that mention Carmel but are obviously about the nearby Palestinian village umm al-Kheir, Hebron.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We had some discussion on the talk page but only editors who participated were pro-Palestinian who see this as an outlet to push awareness of Palestinian hardness (I'm being gentle). I have been blocked for 1RR as it part of I/P conflict.

How do you think we can help?

Someone objective with fresh eyes can judge whether those quotes are WP:relevant to Carmel page or can they be move to Umm al-Kheir new page.

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.

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Malik-Shah I (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• HistoryofIran (talk · contribs)
• Qara xan (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Qara xan keeps removing sourced information! it is really getting annoying now and i am surprised that no one have seen it yet. He keeps removing the Seljuq statesman Nizam al-Mulk out of mention during the campaign of the Seljuq ruler Alp Arslan in Caucasus in 1064, when the source i added clearly says that he took part in the campaign;

Alp Arslān was quick to resume his military activity. In Rabīʿ I, 456/February-March, 1064, he undertook a campaign in the northwest which resulted in significant gains at the expense of Byzantine Armenia; Neẓām-al-molk and the sultan’s son, Malekšāh, operated separately during part of the campaign, each taking a string of fortresses. They rejoined the sultan to take Sepīd Šahr and Ānī.

And when he runs out of words, then he suddenly keeps accusing me of being uncivil. I seriously don't know what to do anymore. I have created over 320 articles and expanded even many more, and tried to expand the Malik-Shah I article too, but sadly he is stopping my progress.

By the way, I have left him a note so he can participate in this.

Sorry if my English sounds kinda bad right now, i am tired and frustrated.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Yes, but i am unable to do anything when he denies what a reliable source says.

How do you think we can help?

By telling him that what he is doing is wrong, since he ignores what i say and randomly accuses me of being uncivil because he has nothing more to say. He have done that several times in several articles now, which is tiring me very much, so therefor i decided to hopefully end this issue by taking it over here.

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.

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Sexism (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Soundofyellow (talk · contribs)
• everyone else on the talk page (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

in the sexism page under the section "objectification" the opening sentence is "objectification is treating a person, usually a woman, as an object". this violates the NPOV policy by stating a pov as a fact in the voice of Wikipedia. the statement has a citation to a reliable source which contains the same sentence verbatim however the title of the article in the citation is "objectification in feminist theory" so it is only meant to express the pov of feminism. but on the Wikipedia page this pov is being represented as fact even though the article only makes this assertion but has no objective data to back it up so doesn't directly support stating it as a fact. according to the rules of Wikipedia, POV statements should be attributed to the author or group endorsing them in the text. so with that in mind I suggest either striking "usually woman" part, or rephrasing the sentence so it does not come across as an objective fact (as currently it is not verifiable as a fact), or we could even rename the subsection "objectification in feminist theory" since that is what that article actually covers anyway. the article in the citation (far from having objective data on the matter) actually goes on to admit that objectification itself is difficult if even possible to define in a universal sense. so representing that opening phrase as an absolute fact and w/o in-text attribution to feminism it is absolutely an unverifiable statement.

at any rate the overwhelming consensus is against me on the talk page but I feel the wiki guidelines are not being adhered to. some input from impartial sources would be great, as I am concerned about the bias of the other editors affecting their judgment.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

repeated discussion which admittedly has not been productive at all. but I can only articulate something so many ways before people get annoyed. never the less there is a neutrality issue there.

How do you think we can help?

need outside impartial editors to review the dispute. all the text should still be under the talk page and I can rejoin the discussion if needed.

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.