Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:06, 17 June 2013

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

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.

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 07:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Talk:Race and genetics

Despite good-faith efforts by all involved, no agreement was reached. Suggest filing a Request for Comment to determine consensus. Guy Macon (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Deadbeef (talk · contribs)
• Greengrounds (talk · contribs)
• Ozhistory (talk · contribs)
• Hcc01 (talk · contribs)
• IronMaidenRocks (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is an ongoing dispute over the validity of the sources used in the article, as well as the content therein. This dispute is between Greengrounds and (primarily) Ozhistory, who is joined by IronMaidenRocks, with Hcc01 getting tangled in the dispute as well. Greengrounds favors precedence to be given to Albert Speer, Richard Carrier and John Toland as sources, each supporting that Adolf Hitler held Catholic beliefs in his adult life. Ozhistory prefers to lend precedence to Alan Bullock, Ian Kershaw and the Encyclopedia Brittanica, who suggest that Hitler was fundamentally opposed to Christianity. This has been continuing for over a month now, and as is noted in the most recent talk page section, the article has suffered as a result.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

At the start of this dispute, I attempted to mediate this issue myself by crafting a draft of the introductory paragraph (where the dispute was contained at the time, and primarily is now) that would attempt to placate both sides. However, it was never fully agreed upon, and eventually slipped back into a battleground.

How do you think we can help?

Independent third parties are needed to evaluate the sources and decide what gets into the article as fact and what gets in as an aside. This may simply become a matter of consensus, where more editors become involved and weigh into the issue until it becomes clear how each side of the coin will be presented. If that fails, or becomes eroded again, this will likely head to RfM.

Opening comments by Greengrounds

I am prepared to accept responsibility for my actions, though I hope to see just application of Misplaced Pages standards for both parties involved in this dispute. If you look at the talk page on Religious views of Adolf Hitler as well as mediator User:Deadbeef, we had reached a consensus on talk, whereby Deadbeef had finally asked whoever does NOT agree with the lead as written, please speak up. Neither of us spoke up, inferring an agreement. When I checked back a few weeks later, Oz had totally bit by bit rewritten the lead to suit his POV, without a single time referring to the talk page. Note, I have been using the talk, though I may have come across as aggressive at times, which could be construed as personal attacks. But at least I was willing to talk, and willing to stick with initial mediation rulings. Oz was not, and he is as a part of this ongoing dispute as well, despite his desire to paint himself as an innocent victim. Here is basically my complaint against him, plus the previously mentioned bypassing the mediation process we had already gone through, should be considered quite unethical.

Ozhistory (talk)In your edits on Adolf Hitler you have received a citation for edit warring, HERE and I see you are currently involved again on the The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany in reverting other user's edits. Many of your recent edits, specifically on the latter article violate the policy of Citing sources. Proper citations should be used, and other users should be respected when they ask for citations. On both of the articles in question you have been accused by multiple users of Violating Misplaced Pages's Point of View Policies. Please keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is a community, and you do not own the articles, nor do you have the right to impose your POV on Misplaced Pages articles. Specifically, Avoid stating opinions as facts. Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. Please pay close attention to article structure and Due and Undue Weight, Balance, Impartial tone, and Words to watch. Also you have completely ignored previous mediation agreements in whichUser:Deadbeef was the mediator, and even tried to lie on Deadbeef's talk page denying that he was even involved in the initial edit war. Furthermore, though others will paint themselves as victims of personal attacks I too have been victim of that repeatedly by Ozhistory including slander, false accusations of vandalism and anonymous editing, abuse of my talk page, etc. Again, I am I am prepared to accept responsibility for my actions, though I hope to see just application of Misplaced Pages standards for both parties involved in this dispute. In light of these issues, I volunteer to stay away from the two articles as long as Ozhistory stays away. This could be for a specified amount of time or indefinitely. Clearly with the POV disputes involved and the history of the two editors, this is a rational option, and one that was even recommended by Hcc01. I was willing to accept this. Ironically Ozhistory was not been willing to accept this and has even recently continued to make edits on the lede of the Adolf Hitler Religious views wiki which other editors have had to revert, given the current situation. Greengrounds (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Ozhistory

Thanks for opportunity to discuss. I would summarise the current crux of dispute a little differently to Deadbeef. Following his initial involvement, I went to the original sources proposed for citation in our lead. I found that the proposed text did not match the authors' works closely enough. Speer for example, could almost have been read in our lead as having believed that Hitler did not have disputes with the churches, when a full reading of his text indicates quite the contrary - similarly Toland, was not as clear cut as our lead wanted to imply. I also gathered further sources. For the information of reviewing editors:

This was the "work in progress" intro text that stood around 22 May:

Adolf Hitler was raised by a sceptic, anticlerical father and a devout Catholic mother; he ceased to participate in the sacraments after childhood. Though never formally expelled from the Catholic Church, he later had "no attachment to it" and became hostile to its teachings. Contradictory accounts exist about Adolf Hitler's adult religious views, including his relationship to Christianity and the Catholic church.

According to Hitler's architect, Albert Speer, amid political associates, Hitler made "harsh pronouncements against the church", yet conceived of it as as a potentially "useful instrument" and around 1937, amid an exodus of Nazis from the Catholic fold, he ordered his chief associates to remain members of the church. According to transcripts edited by Hitler's private secretary Martin Bormann, in the 1940s, Hitler spoke of Christianity as "absurdity" and "humbug" founded on "lies" with which he could "never come personally to terms."

Hitler biographers John Toland, Ian Kershaw and Alan Bullock all noted that Hitler was anticlerical. Toland wrote that Hitler saw Pope Pius XII as "no friend", but said that in 1941 Hitler was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite his detestation of its hierarcy". While noting that under Pius XII the church saved more Jews from the Nazis than all other rescue organizations combined, Toland drew links between Hitler's Catholic background and his antisemitism. Toland also wrote that some who met Hitler were convinced that he was a committed believer. To Kershaw, Hitler was a secretive figure, able to disguise his inner beliefs, yet he clearly held radical instincts on the "Church Question" in Germany, evidenced by "frequent outbursts of hostility" towards them. According to Bullock, Hitler was a rationalist and materialist who did not believe in God - and saw Christianity as a religion "fit for slaves", and against the natural law of selection and survival of the fittest. Though Hitler had respect for the 'great position' of the Catholic church, he became hostile to its teachings.

In his book Mein Kampf and in public speeches Hitler often made statements that affirmed a belief in Christianity. Prior to World War II Hitler had promoted "positive Christianity", a movement which purged Christianity of its Jewish elements and instilled it with Nazi philosophy. In religious policy in office, Hitler instigated an all-out persecution of Jews - based on racial rather than religious grounds - and permitted or encouraged varying degrees of interference, harassment and persecution of Christian churches.

Prior to the March 1933 vote for the Enabling Act, Hitler promised the Weimar Parliament that he would not interfere with the rights of the churches. With power secured in Germany, Hitler quickly broke this promise. He dishonoured a concordat signed with the Vatican and permitted a persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany. He attempted to Nazify German Protestants in a Reich Church, under the anti-Semite Ludwig Muller and the Deutsche Christens. The attempt backfired with the formation of the anti-Nazi Confessing Church. He instigated an aggressive persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses because of their religious objection to military service and pledges of allegiance to the state.

Bullock and Kershaw wrote that Hitler intended to eradicate Christianity under a Nazi future. Many historians have written that Hitler had a general covert plan, which some say existed even before the Nazis' rise to power, to destroy Christianity within the Reich, which was to be accomplished through control and subversion of the churches and to be completed after the war. The Encyclopedia Britannica states that Hitler intended to replace Christianity with a "racist form of warrior paganism" and shared his deputy Martin Bormann's view that Christianity and Nazism were "incompatible". Historian Michael Phayer wrote that by the latter 1930s, church officials knew that the long term aim of Hitler was the "total elimination of Catholicism and of the Christian religion".

This was the text Greengrounds reverted to on 23 May:

Contradictory accounts exist about Adolf Hitler's religious views, including his ties to Christianity and the Catholic church. According to Hitler's chief architect, Albert Speer, Hitler remained a formal member of the Catholic church until his death, and even ordered his chief associates to remain members; however it was Speer's opinion that "he had no real attachment to it." Biographer John Toland wrote that Hitler was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite his detestation of its hierarchy" and drew links between Hitler's Catholic background and his antisemitism. Conversely, the Encyclopedia Britannica states that Hitler believed Christianity and Nazism were "incompatible" and intended to replace Christianity with a "racist form of warrior paganism". Additionally, biographer Alan Bullock wrote that, though raised Catholic, Hitler was a rationalist and materialist, who saw Christianity as a religion "fit for slaves", and against the natural law of selection and survival of the fittest. Though Hitler had respect for the 'great position' of the Catholic church, Bullock wrote he became hostile to its teachings.

Adolf Hitler was raised by a sceptic father and a devout Catholic mother; he ceased to participate in the sacraments after childhood. In office, Hitler agreed a Concordat with the Catholic Church, and briefly sought to unify Germany's Protestant churches under the Nazi aligned Deutsche Christen movement, which rejected the Hebrew origins of the Gospel. Hitler routinely violated his treaty with the Vatican and failed in his effort to Nazisfy German Protestantism.

In his book Mein Kampf and in public speeches he often made statements that affirmed a belief in Christianity. Prior to World War II Hitler had promoted "positive Christianity", a movement which purged Christianity of its Jewish elements and instilled it with Nazi philosophy. According to the controversial collection of transcripts edited by Martin Bormann, titled Hitler's Table Talk, as well as the testimony of some intimates, Hitler had privately negative views of Christianity. Others reported he was a committed believer. Many historians say that Hitler had a general covert plan, which some say existed even before the Nazis' rise to power, to destroy Christianity within the Reich, which was to be accomplished through control and subversion of the churches and to be completed after the war.

Following the above reversion, and after a series of consultations on talk page, this was the last revision of an introductory paragraph proposal by me in (it is still too long, and in need of more work, but conduct issues have slowed progress on collaboration):

Adolf Hitler was the son of an anticlerical father and a practicing Catholic mother. Though remaining nominally Catholic, Hitler was anticlerical, and became generally hostile to the church's teachings. In office, the Hitler regime sought to exterminate Judaism (on racial rather than religious grounds), and persecuted various Christian groups and organisations. Many historians have written that Hitler had a long term plan to destroy Christianity within the Third Reich.

Differing accounts of Hitler's views on religion exist. According to Speer, Hitler made "harsh pronouncements against the church", but conceived of it as as a potentially "useful instrument" and important conservative force. Amid church-state tensions in 1937, he ordered chief associates to remain members, and did so himself - though having "no attachment to it". In the transcripts of Hitler's Table Talk, edited by Martin Bormann, numerous harsh pronouncements against Christianity and the churches are attributed to Hitler. Toland drew links between Hitler's Catholic background and his antisemitism and wrote that, while Hitler saw Pope Pius XII as "no friend", he was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite his detestation of its hierarcy". According to Domarus, Hitler had jettisoned the last of his Catholic beliefs by 1937, believing thereafter in a new and warlike German "god". According to Bullock, Hitler retained respect for the 'great position' of the Catholic church, but was a rationalist and materialist who did not believe in God - and saw Christianity as a religion "fit for slaves", and against the natural law of survival of the fittest. Hitler convinced some that he was a committed believer. To Kershaw, Hitler was a secretive figure, who disguised his inner beliefs, yet clearly held radical instincts on the "Church Question", evidenced by "frequent outbursts of hostility".

In Mein Kampf (1925-7), Hitler used language affirming the existence of God, and significance of religion, but criticised Political Catholicism and the lack of racism in the churches. Campaigning for office, he courted the Christian vote and benefited from fear of atheist communism. In public speeches he often affirmed a belief in Christianity. Prior to the March 1933 vote for the Enabling Act, Hitler promised the Weimar Parliament not to interfere with the churches. With power secured in Germany, he quickly broke this promise. He dishonoured a concordat signed with the Vatican and permitted a persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany. In his early political career, Hitler promoted "positive Christianity", a Nazi aligned movement which rejected the Apostles Creed and denied the Jewish origins of Jesus and Christianity. In office, he attempted to Nazify German Protestants in an apostate Reich Church, under the anti-Semite Ludwig Muller and the Deutsche Christens. The attempt split the church, with the formation of the Confessing Church. He instigated an persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Encyclopedia Britannica states that Hitler intended to replace Christianity with a "racist form of warrior paganism" and shared his deputy Martin Bormann's view that it was "incompatible" with Nazism. There is some scholarly debate over the ultimate intentions of Hitler towards the Christian churches.

Elements of the above have already been incorporated into current article lead, and I am not entirely sure what Greengrounds current objections to further inclusions may be. His only consistent objection has been that he wants the lead structured so as to give weight to a view that Hitler was either "a devout Catholic" or a "believing Christian" and statements of that sort. Such statements are not widely found in sources, though there are some who go some way to making the claim - as my text confirms above (see Toland statement). If I understand him correctly, Greengrounds believes that the Catholic Church (in particular) was essentially hand in glove with National Socialism in almost every respect; and he wants wikipedia articles on related topics to present this unhistorical view as the current and actual historical consensus.

My preference at this point is to shorten the above - so any advice from qualified editors would be gladly received. The sourcing attached to it is wide-ranging and useful - it would be a pity to lose it. Ozhistory (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

References

1. John Toland; Hitler; Wordsworth Editions; 1997 Edn; p 9-10
2. Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; 2008 Edn; WW Norton & Company; London; p. 5
3. William L. Shirer; The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich; Secker & Warburg; London; 1960; p234
4. ^ Alan Bullock; Hitler, a Study in Tyranny; HarperPerennial Edition 1991; p219" Cite error: The named reference "Hitler p219" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
5. ^ John Toland; Hitler; Wordsworth Editions; 1997 Edn; p 16 Cite error: The named reference "John Toland p 703" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
6. Albert Speer. (1997). Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs. New York: Simon and Schuster, p. 96.
7. Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; 2008 Edn; WW Norton & Company; London; pp. 373 & 295-297
8. Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, Cameron & Stevens, Enigma Books pp. 59, 342, 343
9. *Sharkey, Word for Word/The Case Against the Nazis; How Hitler's Forces Planned To Destroy German Christianity, New York Times, 13 January 2002 *The Nazi Master Plan: The Persecution of the Christian Churches, Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion, Winter 2001, publishing evidence compiled by the O.S.S. for the Nuremberg war-crimes trials of 1945 and 1946 *Fischel, Jack R., Historical Dictionary of the Holocaust , p. 123, Scarecrow Press, 2010: “The objective was to either destroy Christianity and restore the German gods of antiquity or to turn Jesus into an Aryan.” *Dill, Marshall, Germany: a modern history , p. 365, University of Michigan Press, 1970: “It seems no exaggeration to insist that the greatest challenge the Nazis had to face was their effort to eradicate Christianity in Germany or at least to subjugate it to their general world outlook.” *Wheaton, Eliot Barculo The Nazi revolution, 1933–1935: prelude to calamity:with a background survey of the Weimar era, p. 290, 363, Doubleday 1968: The Nazis sought to "to eradicate Christianity in Germany root and branch."
10. Bendersky, Joseph W., A concise history of Nazi Germany, p. 147, Rowman & Littlefield, 2007: “Consequently, it was Hitler’s long range goal to eliminate the churches once he had consolidated control over his European empire.”
11. ^ Encyclopedia Online - Fascism - Identification with Christianity web 20 Apr 2013
12. The Response of the German Catholic Church to National Socialism, by Michael Phayer published by Yad Vashem
13. Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; 2008 Edn; WW Norton & Company; London p.661
14. Alan Bullock; Hitler, a Study in Tyranny; HarperPerennial Edition 1991; p219"
15. Albert Speer. (1997). Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs. New York: Simon and Schuster, pp. 95-96.
16. Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, Cameron & Stevens, Enigma Books pp. 59, 342, 343
17. John Toland. (1976). Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography. New York: Anchor Books, p. 703 & 760.
18. John Toland; Hitler; Wordsworth Editions; 1997 Edn; p 594
19. [Max Domarus (2007). The Essential Hitler: Speeches and Commentary. Wauconda: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, p. 21.
20. Alan Bullock; Hitler, a Study in Tyranny; HarperPerennial Edition 1991; p216"
21. Cite error: The named reference Toland was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
22. Michael, Robert (2008). A history of Catholic antisemitism. New York: Macmillan, p. 111.
23. Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; 2008 Edn; WW Norton & Company; London; pp. 373 & 295-297
24. William L. Shirer; The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich; Secker & Warburg; London; 1960; p234
25. Hitler, Adolf (1999). Mein Kampf. Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner Books, pp. 65, 119, 152, 161, 214, 375, 383, 403, 436, 562, 565, 622, 632-633.
26. Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; pp.495-6
27. Baynes, Norman H., ed. (1969). The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939. New York: Howard Fertig. pp. 19-20, 37, 240, 370, 371, 375, 378, 382, 383, 385-388, 390-392, 398-399, 402, 405-407, 410, 1018, 1544, 1594.
28. Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; 2008 Edn; WW Norton & Company; London; p.281-283
29. Alan Bullock; Hitler: a Study in Tyranny; HarperPerennial Edition 1991; p146-149
30. Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; 2008 Edn; WW Norton & Company; London p.295
31. William L. Shirer; The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich; Secker & Warburg; London; 1960; p238-39
32. Steigmann-Gall, Richard (2003). The Holy Reich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 13-50, p. 252.
33. ^ Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; W. W. Notron & Co; 2008 Edn; pp.295-297
34. Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; pp.495-6

Opening comments by Hcc01

The article is certainly currently a shambles after the recent disputes, as noted on its talk page, and Greengrounds has been referred as a cause for concern as a result of some of his behaviour. The current situation is that I have offered to rewrite it from scratch and a neutral observer - Taigei - has created a sandbox page for me and/or other editors to do so without further damaging the article. I haven't yet responded to this opportunity because I am very busy at the moment, but I am willing to do so. As noted above, I have suggested that everyone take a break from editing it for a while afterwards to allow feelings on all sides to cool down, but as Ozhistory has pointed out, on Misplaced Pages such a request is unenforceable. If it could be temporarily protected after a rewrite, that might help.

In one sense I think this is less about the content of the article than about the context of Ratzinger's/Dawkins' spat on the subject a couple of years ago. Since then the historical debate about whether or not, and to what extent, the Third Reich was 'Christian' in any meaningful sense of the word has been more or less a public slanging match, and this article appears to be collateral damage. Of course, I may be underplaying the public impact of Steigmann-Gall's research on the subject, which certainly provoked quite a heated debate among historians. However, current historical research seldom filters through to public debate, and as the more sensible reviewers noted, all RSG really did was move the start of the secular phase of Nazism by five years, whereas the New Atheist movement now needs for ideological reasons to expunge it altogether. It's unfortunate, but there we are. Hcc01 (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by IronMaidenRocks

I feel that both users Greengrounds and Ozhistory are applying some level of bias to the article that does not belong. Both users are lobbying based on their personal beliefs, and it has tainted the talk page. For the most part, the article well reflects the contradictory nature of Hitler's personal beliefs. There's no reason to interject a one-sided viewpoint. Greengrounds has a history of belligerence in the talk page, along with plying his POV to the article. I've seen Ozhistory make at least one recommendation which appeared to be in line with his own POV.

I would recommend the article for peer review. I don't think there's any reason to favor either user here, as they both seem to have a personal interest in the article and how its presented. Users are drawing battle lines, which is worrying, and perhaps a good sign that frequent editors need to take a break or get off the project. But there is an influx of users trying to promote an agenda for either 'atheism on the march' or deflection of blame toward religion. Users such as Greengrounds and some of the sources they've added to the article imply there's an active conspiracy to disassociate Hitler's religious views with Christianity. On the other hand, I have noted a worrying amount of users going in the opposite direction to imply that Hitler was wholly motivated by religion; a view not supported by several of the sources mentioned in the article.

User:HectorMoffet suggested splitting the article between Hitler's 'views' and 'policies', which may helpful. It could be that some users are trying to wind Hitler's political actions into his personal beliefs, or vice verse. For example, I believe that the extensive discussion of Nazi reaction to the political activities of churches, like the Confessing church, has little to do with the personal beliefs of Adolf Hitler, and could be construed as apologist deflection. Of course, Hitler's struggles with such groups does have to do with his lifetime of activity with religions, etc.

Users should be more inclined to work together without agenda, though for some agenda is the whole reason why they're editing the article. I do have a concern that the article may become a matter of 'read between the lines to see a debate which is not actually mentioned herein'. A debate which has no place in the article, because both sides are politically constructed and opposed to historical truth.

--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler discussion

Pre-opening observations and requests: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am not either "taking" this request or opening it for discussion at this time. The guidelines for this noticeboard make it clear that this venue is for content, not conduct disputes, and it is well established here that we will not deal with conduct disputes or allow discussion of conduct to interfere with discussion of content. As framed by the listing editor this is indeed a content dispute, but a great deal of what is said in the opening statements, especially those of Greengrounds and Ozhistory, is conduct-related. With that understanding:

• @Greengrounds: Your opening statement, above, is nothing more than conduct allegations. If you wish to participate in this process, I would ask that you strike out or remove what you have said there and replace it with an opening statement substantially setting out your positions about the content which is at issue. Until you choose to make an opening statement which substantially addresses content, rather than conduct, the discussion of this request is not really going to be ripe to be opened.
• @Ozhistory: The volunteers here are not, with a few exceptions, administrators and we will not address the conduct issues mentioned in your opening statement, such as your suggestion of a topic ban. I would ask that you, too, strike out or remove the portions of your opening statement which have to do with conduct.
• @Other involved editors: Conduct is much less a part of your opening statements, but in keeping with the foregoing I would ask that you also review your statements and strike out or remove comments about conduct. Also to everyone, it would help to encourage a DRN volunteer to take this case if the content issues could be illustrated (and preferably circumscribed) by diffs.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

International Churches of Christ

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• International Churches of Christ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• JamesLappeman (talk · contribs)
• Nietzsche123 (talk · contribs)
• JamieBrown2011 (talk · contribs)
• TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a source that has been used to reference the ICOC. It is the foundational source for the disputed section (http://en.wikipedia.org/International_Churches_of_Christ#Members.27_personality_changes). Lengthy debate on the reliability has dead ended without resolution. Both those in favor of the source and those against it have strong opinions on its reliability hence the deadlock.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

After a lengthy debate on the talk page ] It was posted on the Reliable Source Noticeboard but there was no success. "TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom", who is a more experienced editor than myself, suggested that we put it forward for dispute resolution given the circles that we have talked.

How do you think we can help?

Please review the source and our cases in order to help us resolve the issue as to whether this is a reliable source.

Opening comments by Nietzsche123

Flavil Yeakley's CV may be found here: CV. He has a BA in psychology, an MA in speech communication, and a PhD in speech communication. Yeakley was an associate professor at the University of Tulsa from 1974-1984 and a professor and researcher at Harding University since 1984. Amongst other things, he has published three books and nine journal articles, all of which concern psychological matters and are published in scholarly journals. In 1988 the ICOC asked Yeakley to administer the MBTI to its members in order to clear its name from criticism it was then receiving. The hope was that the testing would reveal that its church members showed no personality change. But when Yeakley's research showed the opposite--that over 900 of its church members changed their MBTI type--the ICOC distanced itself from Yeakley, leaving Yeakley to publish his research using the COC's own publishing house. While there is some controversy over the use of the MBTI as a reliable indicator of personality change, it's still the most widely used tool available. The MBTI is used in church and other circles. Moreover, recent scholarly research vindicates the use of the MBTI as a reliable measurement of personality change. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by JamieBrown2011

Yeakley:

• Is unqualified for publishing research on the complex issue of personality change. He has a bachelors degree in Psychology. His advanced degrees have nothing to do with this subject matter, but are in the area of communications.
• Consequently the methodology used in his book is faulty. Meyers-Briggs is a popular personality test, but is HIGHLY unreliable in the test-retest area, with between 39% and 71% of people having different personality profiles upon retesting. No professional psychologist would use MBTI tests to research personality change.
• In Fortune Magazine, May 15th, 2013, an article on the test entitled "Have we all been duped by the Meyers-Briggs Test", had this to say:

  "The interesting -- and somewhat alarming -- fact about the MBTI is that, despite its popularity, it has been subject to sustained criticism by professional psychologists for over three decades. One problem is that it displays what statisticians call low "test-retest reliability." So if you retake the test after only a five-week gap, there's around a 50% chance that you will fall into a different personality category compared to the first time you took the test."

  The consequence is that the scores of two people labelled "introvert" and "extrovert" may be almost exactly the same, but they could be placed into different categories since they fall on either side of an imaginary dividing line.

Yeakley's Publisher, "Gospel Advocate":

• Is unqualified to publish books of this nature. They are essentially a husband and wife publisher for the Churches of Christ, producing predominantly Sunday School curriculums, along with a religious periodical and some christian books. They have no visible editorial board (according to their website) and no experience in publishing Psychological research.

Despite these glaring problems, Yeakley research features prominently on the ICOC page.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

Sorry for the delay in responding, I have been away.

I do not particularly care one way or the other how this specific content inclusion discussion washes out and I am willing to follow the consensus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by JamesLappeman

25 years ago, before the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) was formally recognized as a completely separate new church (from the Churches of Christ), a minister from the mainline Churches of Christ (Flavil Yeakley) conducted a Myers-Briggs Type Indicator personality profile on members of the Boston Church of Christ. His tests weren't externally verified, nor have they been redone or used in the study of psychology. His findings showed that the ICOC was changing the personalities of its members. This research alone is unreliable to substantiate such a major claim (please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Mbti#Criticism and http://en.wikipedia.org/Mbti#Reliability and http://en.wikipedia.org/Personality_changes#Inconsistency_as_a_trait). The results were only published by a mainline Church of Christ family business publishing house (Gospel Advocate see http://stores.homestead.com/GospelAdvocateCompany/Page.bok?template=about ) with no apparent editorial board and no authority or experience in the field of psychology or personality change. This research is being used in two sections of the ICOC page as encyclopedic quality information (http://en.wikipedia.org/ICOC#Discipling and http://en.wikipedia.org/ICOC#Members.27_personality_changes). Is this regarded as a reliable source on the ICOC considering Wiki Rules (WP:RS, WP:QS, WP:USEBYOTHERS, WP:SPS etc..) and the weight of the claims being made?

References

1. Yeakley, Flavil (1988). The Discipling Dilemma: A Study of the Discipling Movement Among Churches of Christ. Gospel Advocate Company. ISBN 0892253118
2. A Dictionary of Psychology, entry on Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Oxford.
3. Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, entry on Carl Jung. Oxford.
4. Capraro, Robert (2002). "MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR SCORE RELIABILITY ACROSS STUDIES: A META-ANALYTIC RELIABILITY GENERALIZATION STUDY". Educational and Psychological Measurement. 62 (4): 599. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
5. http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/15/myers-briggs-problems/

International Churches of Christ discussion

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm a regular volunteer here. It appears to me that the ultimate question here is whether Discipling Dilemma by Yeakley is or is not a reliable source as defined by Misplaced Pages and that what you're really looking for is an opinion on that point. I'm of the opinion that it is not, due to the fact that its publisher, Gospel Advocate Company, does not have the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" required by Misplaced Pages policy, at least in connection with the type of psychological material for which the source is being used. Since the material about Yeakley's work reflects upon living persons, it would appear to me that the policy set out in WP:BLPGROUP suggests that Misplaced Pages needs to be particularly careful when dealing with controversial material such as this so that any doubt about sourcing ought to be resolved against inclusion unless high-quality sources can be found. Though my opinion would be the same even without WP:BLPGROUP, that policy further convinces me that the source is inadequate. That does not necessarily mean that Yeakley's research cannot be referenced in the article, but it does mean that a third-party source which is Misplaced Pages-reliable and high-quality needs to be found for it. In the alternative, if it can be shown that Yeakley's research (not the book in general, since there appears to be material in the book other than Yeakley's research) has been referenced or discussed approvingly or relied upon in high-quality reliable sources then that too may be an indicator of reliability sufficient to allow the book to be used directly. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It does make sense that "Gospel Advocate" would not be regarded as a reliable source/publisher for such material.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

TransporterMan, Yeakley's research is referred to by at least three high-quality sources: (1) Michael Langone's (1994) article "The Group Psychological Abuse Scale: A Measure of the Varieties of Cultic Abuse" (published in the Cultic Studies Journal, volume 11, pp. 88-117), (2) Langone's (1995) chapter in "Recovery from Cults" called "Helping Cult Victims: A Historical Background" (published by WW Norton pp. 22-50), and (3) Paul Martin's (1995) chapter in "Recovery from Cults" called "Post-Cult Recovery: Assessment and Rehabilitation" (pp. 203-231). While I agree the mere fact that "The Discipling Dilemma's" is published by Gospel Advocate is worrisome, I believe that we must also keep in mind the fact that the ICOC asked Yeakley to conduct the study. Shouldn't Yeakley's research be included based on this fact alone? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

@Nietzche123: To answer your last question, no it should not. Nothing can go into a Misplaced Pages article merely because of its significance or importance to the topic; it must be verifiable via a reliable source. (You may be thinking of the concept of notability, which determines whether or not a subject is significant enough to have its own article but, as the notability policy says, not only does notability not have anything to do with article content but is itself determined by looking at whether or not there is sufficient coverage of the topic in reliable sources.) @Everyone: While the direct answer to Nietzsche123's question is no, if the Yeakley study can be reliably sourced — and the sources he's cited above may or may not be enough to do that (and I'd like your comments on that subject) — it certainly seems to me on first blush (and thus subject to additional consideration and discussion) to be significant enough to the topic of the article to be included if, again, it can be reliably sourced. Please understand that its significance cannot be attacked through your analysis of the study's accuracy or reliability. Misplaced Pages policy does not allow editors to analyze or interpret what's said in reliable sources, but only to summarize it. In order to include in an article criticism of what is said in a reliable source, another reliable source must be found which makes that criticism. It is true that verifiability through reliable sources is only a threshold for the includability of relevant material, but once material has been shown to be relevant and verifiable then the question becomes only whether the material is so weakly relevant, so trivial, or so much outside of the mainstream academic view that it would give it undue weight to include it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

User:JamesLappeman seems to know more about the Anti-cult movement than I do, but I know they have been thrown out of court cases because of how FRINGE they are. The new references Nietzche123 is providing don't seem to be much better than "Gospel Advocate". See below:

In their 2009 book, Cults and New Religions: A Brief History, sociologists Douglas Cowan and David Bromley describe ICSA (Same organisation as "Cultic Studies Journal" mentioned above). They point out that the ICSA provides no indication of how many of their so-called characteristics are necessary for a group to be considered "cultic." The checklist creators do not adequately define how much of certain practices or behaviors would constitute "excessive," nor do they provide evidence that any of the practices listed are innately harmful. Finally, Cowan and Bromley criticize the ICSA list as being so broad that even mainstream organizations such as Evangelical Protestantism, the Roman Catholic Church, Buddhism and Hinduism fall within the criteria.

JamieBrown2011 (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

TransporterMan – thanks for the help, as I see Misplaced Pages policy – the problem with using anti-cult publications would be the following:

• The basis of Yeakley’s research is the supposed psychological personality changes that he apparently observed. WP:USEBYOTHERS would require his findings to be published in notable psychology journals (like Journal Of Applied Psychology and Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) and not just in the anti-cult publications Nietzsche123 mentioned.
• The anti-cult institution has been heavily criticized by mainstream sociologists of new religions and is WP:FRINGE theory which does not make their journals reliable in such a weighty claim. This is discussed in: http://en.wikipedia.org/Anti-cult_movement#Controversies and http://en.wikipedia.org/Anti-cult_movement#Responses_of_targeted_groups_and_scholars and http://en.wikipedia.org/International_Cultic_Studies_Association#Criticism.

The fact that the mentioned anti-cult publications would themselves use Gospel Advocate as a primary source sheds light on the above points.JamesLappeman (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's not get sidetracked. The three sources I cited meet Misplaced Pages's criteria of high quality sources: their publishers have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". While a minority of sociologists, sometimes referred to as 'sociologists of religion', do criticize ICSA and the Cultic Studies Journal, that's besides the point. (Sociologists of religion get their fare share of criticism from other scholars, too.) Let's also not refer to scholarly works as 'anti-cult movement', or 'cult apologists', for that matter. Using such language does nothing but cause animosity. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The Recovery from Cults book is published by W W Norton, a highly respected publisher. If what's said in there (and most or all of it can be viewed either through Google Books or through the "Look Inside" feature at Amazon) is sufficient to support the text that editors wish to introduce into the article I certainly would think that would be a reliable secondary source and would avoid directly using the Yeakley book as a source in the article at all. Someone might, however, want to also consider the "methodological cavats" discussed by Langone in regards to research in this area, specifically including Yeakley, at pp. 35-36 of that book. As for the Cultic Studies Journal, this discussion from the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about that Journal's successor would seem to say that it is probably reliable, but must be carefully used. While I believe those may provide reliable sources for this material, I'm less certain that the references to the Yeakley book in them are sufficient to allow that book to be used directly. That's because all of those references come from or through the work of one person, Langone. Before I'd be willing to unreservedly bless Yeakley's work in his own book on the basis of the "multiple references in high-quality reliable sources" test, I'd like to see at least one, and preferably a couple of additional references, which do not involve Langone as the author or editor. If however the secondary sources are sufficient to include the material without referring directly to Yeakley's work, that's a better choice under Misplaced Pages principles to begin with. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

TransporterMan (TALK) Help me understand your point on the "methodological caveats"? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Never mind, I read the page. I agree.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the Langone and Martin sources mentioned previously, Yeakley's research is referred to by at least two other high quality sources: (1) Lewis Rambo's (1995) article "Congregational care and discipline in the San Francisco Church of Christ: A case study" (published in Pastoral Psychology 43:4, pp. 283-298) and (2) Irene Gasde and Richard Block's (1998) "Cult Experience: Psychological abuse, distress, personality characteristics, and changes in personal relationships reported by former members of Church Universal and Triumphant" (published in Cultic Studies Journal 15:2). -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I go on leave for 10 days beginning tomorrow and won't be able to comment on this board during this time. However it would seem, given the very low quality of the source document (Yeakley's research having no peer review and his publisher having no editorial board), we would be looking for multiple endorsements of his research rather than just mentions of it.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

@JamieBrown2011: About the caveats: Langone expresses some reservations about the research he and others use in that book, including (but not soloing out) Yeakley. I'm not saying that those reservations do or do not bear on the way in which Yeakley is to be used in the article, but if they do bear on it then some brief, proportionate mention of them might be apropos in the article as well. Care must be exercised, however, not to engage in original research or synthesis.

@Everyone: As for Jamie's last point, above, "mentions" may be enough if the study is mentioned or listed as a source on which the author of the reliable source relies. I've not been able to find a full copy of the Rambo article mentioned by Nietzsche, but the Gasde one seems firm enough. At Misplaced Pages "multiple" generally only means "more than one", so with that Gasde reference, I'm of a mind that the Yeakley material can probably be used directly as a reliable source in the article, though use of discussions of it in reliable third party sources (especially the Norton one) would be preferred if they cover enough territory. With that, and with Jamie going to be out, I'd like to close this DNR listing and kick this back to the article talk page for consideration of how and how much to incorporate the material into the article. If you get stuck on that, then you can relist here with a newly-focused request. I'll leave this open for a couple of days in case anyone wishes to object, in which case we can discuss further. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help TransporterMan, we really have struggled here and needed your assistance. Due to the nature of the discussion leading up to this point I think we are going to need help reaching a compromise on the nature and weight of the section as you mentioned above.

Before closing, please could you give a thought to two points:

• The current wording in the disputed section (http://en.wikipedia.org/International_Churches_of_Christ#Members.27_personality_changes). You’ve kindly reflected on the material already and I would like to request your input on possible rewording in light of this discussion (baring in mind the weight of the claim to source-strength ratio as well as the fact that the research was done in 1985 which was before the Boston Church of Christ became independent from the Churches of Christ and was a single congregation (http://en.wikipedia.org/Churches_of_Christ#Separation_of_the_International_Churches_of_Christ).
• Would it make sense to remove the quotes from Yeakley’s book that don't have anything to do with the reliably published sourced material (e.g the article quotes Yeakleys later edition "editors update" saying:

  “Psychologists who specialize in treating cult victims have reported that in several cities they are now treating more people from these discipling congregations than from all other groups put together. These professional counselors are unanimous in their judgment that the Boston-led hierarchy of discipling churches is a dangerous cult"

This is not referenced elsewhere other than in the Gospel Advocate version.

The Gasde journal says:

Yeakley (1988) gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to members of the BCC. He asked them to respond to each item one time as they would have responded before their conversion, a second time as they perceived themselves at the time the study was conducted, and a third time as they imagined themselves answering in five more years after discipling. Nearly all respondents tended to change their psychological type scores across the three versions. According to Yeakley, the direction in which these changes occurred was towards the personality of the leader.

Irene Gasde and Richard Block's (1998) (published in Cultic Studies Journal 15:2)

This doesn't include Gospel Advocate only published material and doesn't project the actual findings beyond the borders of the articles limits. Would you suggest we just quote this as is? JamesLappeman (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

1948 Arab–Israeli War

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• 1948 Arab–Israeli War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ykantor (talk · contribs)
• pluto2012 (talk · contribs)
• Nishidani (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I will appreciate your advice, concerning what can be done if Misplaced Pages rules are offended. The section British_diplomacy_in_support_of_the_Arabs was deleted by user:pluto2012. In my opinion , this deletion is offending these 2 rules:

• Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages.

• do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone.

I have complained at Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard but no one is taking care. The offender does not find errors in the removed section, but claims for a lack of other views. In my opinion there is no other view, but even if it would exist, it should be added to the section rather than deleting it.

What can be done in order to enforce the Misplaced Pages rule?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have asked him to add his view to the article, rather than deleting the section

How do you think we can help?

to convince user: pluto2012 to obey Misplaced Pages rules, and add his view to the article, rather than deleting the section

Opening comments by pluto2012

• Regarding the dispute, I find that the best answer is the one of user Nableezy : "As to the question, I largely agree with Itsmejudith's comment on the talk page, that being The section as it was relied far too much on Karsh 2002. The reliability of that source has been questioned, with someone arguing that it is not a scholarly history but a popular work. That question needs to be resolved before any material is restored. Accusations of vandalism should be preceded by the person first reading WP:VANDALISM, and accusations of edit-warring shouldnt be made by a user restoring material over the objections of the majority of the talk page participants. Other than that, keep the discussion here on topic please, that topic being if the material violates NPOV. nableezy - 15:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)"
• Regarding the content, everything has been said on the talk page of the article.

Pluto2012 (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Answer to smileguy91 :

To write this section, it must be agreed what to write in. A discussion has started : on the talk page and it is clear that it will take some time because it is a complex topic but it is not possible to discuss with Ykantor : who refuses any discussion. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Nishidani

Several editors objected to kantor's insistance on reinserting a dubious blob of text, tagged as unsatisfactory 2 years ago, into this article. He has singled out here one editor. The judgement of that editor, a wiki expert on the period, was supported by several other editors (Federico,Itsmejudith, Zero, myself ). Kantor is supporting WP:OR, violating WP:NPOV, ignoring WP:Undue, and not listening.

• Kantor's text has taken one source, notable but notably partisan, and used it to promote a minority thesis, involving highly contentious conclusions, in wikipedia's neutral voice. At glance at what is going is will reveal the problems. I.e.

• • (a)Britain, which at the time was one of the major powers in the Middle East, supported the Arabs. (source:Karsh)

• • (b)it was an article of faith for most British policy-makers that most Jews were Communists (source:Karsh)

• • (c)the British in the months before May 1948 did their best to encumber and block partition (source:Karsh)

• • (d)It appears to me that H.M.G.'s policy is now simply to get out of Palestine as quickly as possible without regard to the consequences in Palestine

• • (e)British officials regarded the prospect of an Arab invasion favorably as offering an excellent chance to overturn the UN partition resolution and cut Israel "down to size". (source:Karsh)

• • (f)British launched a sustained diplomatic offensive to have the United Nations recognize all of the areas taken by the Arabs as belonging to those Arab states, especially Jordan and to reduce the borders of Israel to being more or less what the Peel Plan of 1937 had advised (source:Karsh)

• • (g)In the early days of the war, the British delegation at the UN blocked all efforts at a ceasefire (which was felt to hurt the Arabs, who winning the war at this point more than the Israelis) (source:Karsh)

• • (h)The British changed position on the ceasefire in the spring of 1948 when the Arab armies were in possession of substantial chunks of Palestine with the Egyptians holding much of the Negev and the Jordanians holding a large section of central Palestine (source:Karsh)

• • (i)Finally as part of the diplomatic effort to support the Arab war effort, the British supported an arms embargo, which was felt to favour the Arabs more than the Israelis (source:Karsh)

• • (j)The British reasoning behind the arms embargo was that as long as it was in place, the United States would be prevented from supplying arms to Israel, and if the embargo were lifted the United States could supply vastly greater number of weapons to the Israelis than the British could supply arms to the Arabs (source:Karsh)Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by A.S. Brown

I am not familiar with these procedures, but I think that is where I should be posting my comments here. If I am not, mea culpa and please remove to a better spot. As the author of the content that is in dispute, I suppose that makes me a participant. If I understand the rules of Misplaced Pages correctly, Misplaced Pages is supposed to present the consensus viewpoint of the majority of the relevant savants in one field the article is about. Thus, the article on Earth should say that the Earth is the round, not flat. It is common in the field of history for historians to be in dispute in their interpretations of various events, and thus in many areas of historiography there is no consensus viewpoint to summarize. The historiography of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war is an area where there are starkly differing and incompatible viewpoints by various historians. I do admit that writing an entire section using one historian might had made things a bit slanted, but the same can be said about countless other articles in Misplaced Pages, so I see no reason why my work should be singled out in this fashion. I propose as a solution that the content in question be restored to the article, but then expanded by taking into account the views of different historians and explain where their interpretations differ. It is rather awkward and cumbersome to do things that way, but it seems the most fair solution. --A.S. Brown (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Zero

To answer Smileguy91's question: the section hasn't been rewritten yet because it's a complex topic and needs time. Also, some of the possible writers, such as myself, dislike writing under fire. To reply to A.S. Brown, nobody is arguing against the inclusion of Karsh's opinions. However Karsh is on the edge of the debate and is widely regarded as an activist; moreover his 2002 book is not a scholarly text but a popular book of a polemic nature, full of black and white statements about grey events. (That is, I do not agree that the section was well sourced.) Karsh's place in the section should be a few sentences that are sourced to his scholarly works, and most of the space should be given to mainstream historians. So I do not think that restoring the section first is on the path towards a good section. Zero 02:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

1948 Arab–Israeli War discussion

Hello, I am Smileguy91, a dispute resolution volunteer. I have pored over the old revisions, and, though the section was well sourced, it did seem biased. But, as already stated in WP:NPOV, the section should be rewritten to reduce bias. I would like an explanation of why the section hasn't been neutrally rewritten yet. Regards, smileguy91 16:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

As for your question "why the section hasn't been neutrally rewritten yet" my reply is that unfortunately the section is kept deleted and there is no access to it. Anyway, I would like to summarize some points:

• None of the offenders have provided an error or biased point of Karsh. Thus, Karsh is not the issue. The issue is whether to add more views to the section.
• The offenders claim that they are exempted from Misplaced Pages rules (do not delete but re-write, majority of the talk page participants are not necessarily right). Unbelievable.
• It is better to avoid lies, half truth and misleading information, like the writing here of the main offender. ( a lot of such cases can be highlighted if asked for)
• I suggest to add a different section: "British policy within Palestine" to the current section: "British Diplomacy in support of the Arabs". May I explain why? Ykantor (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You're evidently unfamiliar with some simple procedures. The section is 'accessible'. Go to the history page, click on a version in the past containing the section, copy it, and either remove it thus, repasting, to the talk page or work on it downloaded at home.Nishidani (talk) 07:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I provided several 'biased points' above. Karsh's position is a minority view. You have summarized his minority position as though it were a fact. The section, on a minority view, would occupy at a minimum 8% of the article's length (WP:Undue). It might warrant two or three lines at most. Nishidani (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

"lies, half truth and misleading information" — this is a fine illustration of Ykantor's way of writing about other editors, from his/her own mouth. Zero 03:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If you are interested, I will write a list of those "lies, half truth and misleading information". Since it is preferred not to over write here, will you accept this writing in your user talk page? Ykantor (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor,

All these contributors know me and know that I don't say "lies, half truth" or provide "misleading information".

On your side, you have been warned on your talk page to stop making insinuation on others : but you deleted it : and reiterated your accusations : .

You was also already informed of the principle of WP:AGF : .

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: The editor who offered his opinion at NPOV/N stated that he agreed with talk page comments: "The section as it was relied far too much on Karsh 2002.", "The reliability of that source has been questioned, with someone arguing that it is not a scholarly history but a popular work. That question needs to be resolved before any material is restored." - I will not be getting involved beyond this post at this stage. -- Nbound (talk)

It is a strange situation. On one hand, "The reliability of that source has been questioned. On the other hand, the section is kept deleted so there is no way to add more sources. However, before it was deleted (against Misplaced Pages rules)I have already added 6 parallel sources to the 15 initial Karsh based citations, and more parallel sources are queuing in the talk page. Anyway, no one has found any Karsh error. Ykantor (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

To repeat, there is a way to add more sources. Make a copy from the earlier version available on the history archive page, and work on it. You really should listen more closely. No one found any Karsh error=the Karsh material is not 'factual' but interpretative. Karsh's generalizations are his opinions, to which he is entitled. Whether or not they deserve a full section, being eccentric to the mainstream, is another matter.Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The book in question The Palestine War 1948 is strictly speaking not a scholarly work, but it is meant to be a summary of the subject written by a prominent historian in less than 100 pages. The section is based upon the records of the British Foreign Office. If material from works by other historians supporting the same conclusions were brought in such as books, articles, etc were brought in, might that improve the section. I not believe that it is the case that viewpoint expressed by Karsh, namely that British supported Jordan against Israel in 1948 (anybody heard of Glubb Pasha commanding the Arab Legion?) is an "eccentric" thesis outside of the mainstream. This debate might be helped by more specifics of what is alleged to be wrong with this section. --A.S. Brown (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

In response to mine: "no one has found any Karsh error", Nishidani wrote: "No one found any Karsh error=the Karsh material is not 'factual' but interpretative". This is not correct. e.g. :

• Karsh has 7 quotations (British staff memo, Troutbeck, Trygve Lie, Alan Cunningham, Burrows, Bevin, Campbell) in this page. No one claims that something is wrong here.
• Karsh has plenty of factual sentences, but no one have challenged them. for instance:

1. ...British policy-makers that most Jews were Communists
2. Ernest Bevin assured the Jordanian Prime Minister Tawfiz Abu al-Huda of British support for a Jordanian invasion
3. In the early days of the war, the British delegation at the UN blocked all efforts at a ceasefire (which was felt to hurt the Arabs,

• It is not easy to understand how come that Karsh is so bad, when there is not even one problem with his writing. Ykantor (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The problems of Karsh are even explained in wikipedia : Praise and Criticism : he focuses on minor points and disregards main evidences and he is biaised (a revisionnist zionist, read : right-wing). In wikipedia there is a policy to take care of this : WP:WEIGHT and the problem of giving 'undue weight' to some points is critical. That's why contributors must be opened to gather different points of views on a topic and introduce all them (whatever their own opinion) and not to come and defend one precisely. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems that indirectly you agree that Karsh is accurate , but is missing some points. Is it possible for you to be specific about those supposedly missing points? (note that the issue is "British diplomay" and not "British policy inside Palestine") Ykantor (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It's hard not to be accurate if you quote sources. That is not in dispute. What mainstream historians criticize is Karsh's interpretation, which highlights the cherrypicked quotes, and ignores everything that counters them, the 'everything' that mainstream historians use to contextualize these same comments, and to draw conclusions diametrically opposed to Karsh. This is an elementary principle in evaluating historical books. We simply accept the mainstream scholarly judgement on Karsh, and on his theory. It is marginal, and cannot be exploited, per WP:Undue, to tilt the article with an additonal ballast of 8% devoted to a pet theory. You consistently fail to see this, and you wish to make a potentially huge thread discussing this pet theory. Editors aren't obliged to engage in this if the opposing editor signals that she is not au fait with key policies like WP:Undue. Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:American Dad!

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:American Dad! (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Doniago (talk · contribs)
• AmericanDad86 (talk · contribs)
• DarthBotto (talk · contribs)
• Darkwarriorblake (talk · contribs)
• CTF83! Alt (talk · contribs)
• Kww (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A discussion regarding whether it's appropriate to include the parental rating for the show is being complicated by an editor's frequent reliance on arguments not pertinent to the dispute.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I opened an ANI case that was closed with a recommendation to bring the matter here as a content dispute.

How do you think we can help?

I believe the editor making the non-relevant arguments should be advised to focus on content, not their fellow editors.

Opening comments by AmericanDad86

Opening comments by DarthBotto

Opening comments by Darkwarriorblake

Opening comments by CTF83! Alt

Opening comments by Kww

Talk:American Dad! discussion

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution