Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: AGK (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Coren (Talk) & Newyorkbrad (Talk)

Evidence Length[edit]

Just wanted to double-check that the 1000 words and 100 diffs is a maximum for the contribution by a single user, not for each assertion by each user. That is, in the Evidence presented by Habap section, there should be only 1000 words, 100 diffs, regardless of how many assertions I wish to make. --Habap (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also appreciate clarification of this. If Habap is correct, that limitation would affect Communicat far more than anyone else. Edward321 (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Habap's interpretation is correct; it's 1000 words/100 diffs for each person submitting evidence. (A thousand word for each assertion would be far more than even arbitrators could stomach!) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main Case Page[edit]

I provided evidence there, both of Communicat's actions and refuting his charge against me. Do I need to repost that again at the Evidence page or will it be considered without reposting? Edward321 (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious about the same issue and, also, if after I initially write my assertions and evidence, can I change them? That is, I would bring over each of my four points and begin modifying them, adding diffs to make the statements more specific. --Habap (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no prohibition against copying points over from the request stage to the evidence stagse, and it is not good practice to assume arbitrators re-read the initial presentation of the case (though they should). If you want more room to say things in the evidence stage you can refer back to the request stage with a diff, or you can use the time and space afforded by an evidence page to (within the limits provided) give a better presentation of what was said at the request stage. Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would remind the parties that, when cases are opened, the preliminary statements made at the case request stage are often redacted or shortened before being posted to the case decision page at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II. If you wish to refer to your preliminary statement at any point, you should do so by linking to the full copy, which is at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II#Request phase statements, or even to the most recent oldid of the initial request, which is at [2]. AGK 12:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. In some cases a link to a specific section talk or noticeboard page would be better at providing context for previous discussions and easier to read than linking individual differences. Is that allowed? Edward321 (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, the context can help, but please give us a brief explanation of what we're looking for in the discussion(s) to help us understand why you feel the link was important. Shell ^babelfish 09:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Since Nick-D has already linked to the appropriate sections, I think I will leave the specific differences I have already posted. Edward321 (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

filing party's queries[edit]

I have three queries/requests for guidance relative to evidence I intend presenting:

Is it possible to retrieve article text, discussion and edit histories of an article that was AFD'd, and if so, how is retrieval done?
Is it possible to perform a keyword search of archived edit history pages, and if so, how is that done?
Am I correct in surmising that the number of assertions by each party is limited to just two assertions as reflected on the evidence form?

Thanks. Communicat (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) If necessary for purposes of the case, a deleted article can be undeleted temporarily (as long as it's not a BLP with defamatory information or the like) so that a party can consult it to present evidence. If you need this done, please let one of the arbitrators know and we can consider it.

(2) If the page has actually been archived (to an archive page), it should show up in a word search the same as any other page. If the page has been "arhived to history," i.e. a given thread is no longer on a live page, then I don't know how one would search for it, although perhaps someone else does.

(3) No, there is no such limit. Each party should limit himself or herself to a reasonable number of assertions, or the case will never finish, but there is no limit of two.

I hope this is helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to point 2, wikiblame is able to run keyword searches in page histories. This sounds like what you are looking for. Regards, Woody (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Communicat (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That article was not deleted. The result of the Afd was reversion to the name and contents it had before Communicat edited it. Looking at the Western Betrayal article's edit history, Communicat's version seems to be here.[3] Edward321 (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Communicat (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence phase timing[edit]

When this case was opened, the drafters set a target date for presentation of evidence within one week, that is, by Tuesday, December 7th. We want to keep the case moving, so parties and others are requested to submit their evidence by that time. If anyone needs more time, please post here briefly explaining why and how much more time you would like. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of this case has broadened very considerably since the time of drafting and lodging my statement. The original application concerned essentially NPOV, partisan editing. The current scope has become dominated by the single issue of user behaviour. It seems I now have to spend an inordinate amount of time responding to the multiple stated allegations of misconduct and miscellaneous personal attacks through innuendo.

An extra week might be sufficient, if not longer, for me to prepare individual rebuttals of all the allegations. An extention will also allow georgewilliamherbert time to recover and perhaps make a statement here, since he was involved in some of the goings-on. What might be the maximum permissable time extention period if request for extention is granted on the above grounds? Communicat (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence provided by Habap, Edward321 and myself is in line with the statements we made when you lodged a request to open this case (which were focused on your conduct), and several members of ArbCom noted that all parties' conduct would be considered, so I don't see a case to grant an extension because you didn't anticipate this. I'd like this to be over as soon as possible, and if the case is delayed now it's likely to run into even longer delays as a result of the Christmas and New Year period. Nick-D (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D states that he'd like this to be over "as soon as possible". Curiously, however, when I requested mediation several months back, Nick-D prevented a decisive outcome by refusing to consent to mediation. Mediation would at that time probably have resolved the dispute satisfactorily, long before it was allowed or encouraged to escalate to currently unmanageable proportions (viz., unmanageable for me, considering the vast number of individual and largely unfounded allegations made by the respondent parties, and which in any event tend to obscure the core issue of NPOV raised by this case).

An extention might also be in order to allow time for an outcome, if any, to emerge from community participation in a current Rfc thread at WP:RS/N relating directly to issues of partisan editing and NPOV sources, which were expected by me to form the substance of this Arbcom case. Communicat (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that were somehow to resolve the NPOV dispute, that would not affect the assertions in regard to your behaviour. --Habap (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will consult with the other arbitrators about the timing. Since this is the first request for an extension and the length requested is not unreasonable, a short extension will likely be granted. However, the case will not be allowed to drag out unduly, either, so everyone should please proceed with compiling your evidence and any workshop proposals as soon as possible. I'll post by tonight regarding any revised deadline. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I started the thread on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard at 13:45 November 28[4] On October 26, Communicat claimed “I shall be glad to provide a point-by-point, substantiated refutation on an evidence page, if or when this application is admitted.”.[5] Now Communicat is expecting the bulk of his case to come from a thread I initiated 5 hours before he filed this RfAr?[6]What happened to all the evidence he said he had over a month ago? Edward321 (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Communicat's request, we will extend the deadline for submitting evidence until Friday, December 17. I trust this will provide ample time for everyone while still allowing a timely decision. We expect that will be the first and last extension, unless there is an unanticipated development. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I did not actually file a request for extention. I was just fishing around for some idea as to what might be the maximum permissible period if extention was requested and granted. I think you have answered my question, but IMO an extra three days is insufficient, taking into consideration the scope and magnitude of user-conduct evidence that still needs to be assembled. I've mentioned this already in my evidence submitted. So, it's quite okay with me if you want to revert the deadline back to Tuesday. I've already used up my 1000-word allocation. Thanks. Communicat (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward321 might note that there is no evidence to suggest I expect "the bulk" of my case to come from a thread he initiated 5 hours before I filed this RfAr. His hectoring tone is inappropriate. Communicat (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you reread that last paragraph of your 11:20, 5 December 2010 post. Edward321 (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My posting, which you're attempting to denigrate, states clearly that the current Rfc thread at WP:RS/N relates to "issues of partisan editing and NPOV sources, which were expected by me to form the substance of this Arbcom case." My posting does not state that Edward321's particular issues were/are intended exclusively to form the the bulk of this Arbcom case. You are not all that important in the bigger scheme of things.

Meanwhile, thank you for your recent apology for and retraction of your false innuendo / aspersion at abovementionedWP:RS/N discussion to the effect that I am incompetent at correctly attributing sources. Communicat (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Communicat is the subject of evidence presented by several other parties, we will allow him a reasonable additional length if he wishes to present further evidence in response, on matters he has not yet covered. Such evidence should still be presented by the extended deadline of December 17th. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the now extended deadline, (which I've only just noticed), and given the fact that I exhausted my 1000-word evidence limit while still under the impression that the deadline was set for UCT midnight 6 December, what should I do now about evidence length? Can I obtain an extention of the limit to evidence length?

Apart from sheer physical overload, I'm faced with the onerous task of replying to about 5000 words of allegations and accusations while at the same time being limited to a mere 1000 words with which to not only present my own case but also to rebut all the allegations, innuendos etc that serve effectively to deflect attention from the core issue of this case, namely systematic and systemic POV-bias. Communicat (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, it looks like I wasn't clear above. When I wrote that we would allow a reasonable additional length, I meant length of evidence (word limit) as well as the 10-day extension of time. "Reasonable" should still be the watchword, please. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To provide fairness to the other parties (1000 words is a bit short given how long this has been going on for, though I appreciate the neccessity), can you please define a set number of words for Communicat? An undefined "reasonable" is a bit of a licence to write a lot. Nick-D (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. Reasonable people know what "reasonable" means, (notwithstanding the fact that this extention has so far served only to overload the filing party with a flood of further allegations which I'm apparently expected to address at "reasonable" length within a "reasonable" period of time). Go figure. Communicat (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for my additions. I could remove the COPYVIO from the Evidence page and deal with it in the individual articles instead. I was really stunned when I noticed it, though I think that understanding where the material came from does help explain how things ended up getting so sticky. --Habap (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have nothing to apologize for. The Committee has granted an extension to the evidence deadline, and everyone participating in this case is well within their rights to continue presenting evidence up until the new date. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that a 10-day extension of time has been granted. It is also true this extention of time has resulted in a flood of additional allegations from the involved and other parties. It is further true that, even before this flood of additional allegations arrived, I stated that it would require an extention of at least one month if fairness and proportionality are to apply to this case. The consequent flood of additional allegations has not eased my position. As for (text) length of evidence, a fair and reasonable allotment of length would be that which is proportionate to the combined length of all the submissions made by the involved parties in particular and the others in general. That length already runs into several thousand words. Communicat (talk) 10:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another question[edit]

The offsite comments that Communicat feels are evidence against me also lump me together with several other users. Would it be acceptable to inform them of this ARC, or would that violate Wikipedia rules on canvassing? Edward321 (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Communicat's request, I had already notified Arnoutf, Parsecboy, Binksternet, Paul Siebert, Moxy, and White Shadows. White Shadows and Binksternet said they prefer not to be involved, but will be monitoring. The others have not commented. --Habap (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Habap's statement has nothing to do with any of the users I am asking about. Depending on when and how the Arbiters answer my question, I made need to request an extension on this ARC. Edward321 (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this [7] and the request from Communicat that I notify the editors listed above, I would assume that alerting others to this notice is not considered canvassing. --Habap (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite possible that you are correct, but I'd prefer to hear ArbComs' views on the matter. Edward321 (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is mentioned in evidence (or in another stage of the case) a polite note to let them know they've been mentioned is fine. Asking them to come give evidence against a certain person or lend weight to your opinions isn't a good idea. Does that help? Shell ^babelfish 15:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editors are mentioned in a external site Communicat linked to in his preliminary statement, but those editors were not specifically mentioned by Communicat, nor has he relinked the site on the evidence page. Based on that, informing them of this ARC does not seem appropriate at this time. Thank you for the clarification. Edward321 (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the purpose of the arbitration[edit]

I haven't followed this from the start, but the evidence presented by Fifelfoo struck a strong chord with me, so I have a question to any of the arbitrators.

Exactly what is the purpose. Is it 1. To examine the behavior of the parties to this arbitration? or is it 2. To investigate if there is an inherent and systematic bias in the WWII project? Or is it both 1 & 2?

If it is 2 then I have to say that this arbitration hardly will be enough, as it seems to be dominated by personal accusations; what is needed is a working group that provides a proper introspective analysis of the situation, perhaps using the WWII article as subject. As an example of what I see as a problem is the use of "euphemisms". E.g. the word "forced labor" or "slave labor" is correctly used for that of the Nazis, but when the Allies use forced labor it is retitled "Allied use of involuntary labor", despite pointing to an article with "forced labor" in its title. But this is to be expected by an article probably both written and read by people lacking proper academic sources.

Missrepresentation by Omission: A more serious aspect, in my view, is the risk of important omissions due to the use of one-sided sources, i.e. if the articles are based on sources with a cultural or national bias that can only become only apparent if you compare it against literature from other cultures or other countries that discuss the same topic.

If I take the liberty to take an example from just after WW-II: Take for example the article First Indochina War. Compare it with this analysis:

""...it appears that misrepresentations by omission are a fairly frequent phenomenon. Just for the purpose of illustration, three episodes are mentioned below; they have been selected on a much longer list because of their similarity with the present case."

"The ﬁrst example consists in the accounts made by French veterans and historians of the war in Indochina (1946-1954). Even in fairly detailed accounts such as the 5-volume history by Lucien Bodard (1972-1973), there is almost no mention of the role played by the United States. Yet, just by browsing through the articles published in the New York Times one quickly becomes convinced that this role was both massive and crucial. (i) Almost all the war material was provided by the United States (ii) French tactical plans had to be approved by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff (iii) American military advisers were present at French headquarters (iv) French troops were often transported in American planes piloted by US airmen (more details on all these points can be found in Roehner 2007, p. 137-143). It is of course easy to understand the rationale of such omissions. For French military it would be fairly unconfortable to recognize a subordination of this kind; for US advisers it would be equally embarrassing to mention their role, all the more so because the whole campaign ended in disaster at DienBienPhu. Similarly (and for the same kind of reasons) the role of US Forces in the civil war between Nationalists and Chinese Communists is down played in most American accounts."[8]

What does the Vietnamese Wikipedia article say on the topic? If it is based on Vietnamese sources then perhaps is presents, on this topic, a more full and accurate picture than the English language Wikipedia? If Professor Roehner is correct, then many Wikipedia articles will run the risk of being systematically slanted, although the slant will make them very much in line with "common perceptions" of both editors and (western) readers, so no-one will react.

I once found in an obscure book a reference to a unusual opinion poll. I checked it, and it turned out the figures given in the book were accurate. In my eyes this should have been quite notable, but western writers seem not to have picked up on it. I haven't found reference to it anywhere else. Perhaps it was too uncomfortable? Since this was during the start of the Cold War I would presume that Russian sources would have picked up this quite revealing poll to show how "fascist" the west was. I do know they made a big show out of pictures of American farmers pouring gasoline on potatoes (to keep prices up) while there at the same time was near famine in parts of Europe after the war. Maybe the Russians picked up on the poll, maybe they did not, but since I don't speak Russian I wouldn't know, and wouldn't be able to find it. Unpleasant items such as this poll, that perhaps received a thorough analysis in cultures/nations without a stake in the matter, will slip through the cracks if we are too one-sided in the literature. That will mean that Wikipedia will misrepresent events. You can check the source for a fact. But how do you check the source for a missing fact that you do not know is missing? How to fix it I wouldn't know, but the first step in solving a problem is usually to raise awareness that the problem might actually exist.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 21:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the scope presented by the opener is 1 and 2, but who knows how far down the rabbit hole the arbitrators will need to go - it's a little early to say. IMO the entire point of all of the evidence and arbitrators looking into it is to find out the scope of the problem before deciding what to do about it. (Hohum ^@) 02:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom traditionally stays away from content issues such as NPOV disputes. They examine conduct only. If a group of editors were acting improperly to promote a POV, that would count as a conduct issue. If editors are following policy but still have an unresolvable content disagreement, it's supposed to be handled through community processes like content RFC's. Those have failed miserably for some perennial religious and nationalistic battles, but for this particular topic it is probably a reasonable approach once the conduct issues are sorted. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the question raised by Stor stark7 is quite legitimate: the discussion of the editor's behaviour should be separated from the discussion of the issue raised by him. If I am not wrong, Communicat requested for arbitration to establish if some inherent and systematic bias existed in the WWII project. In connection to that, let me point out that numerous evidences presented here demonstrate only that Communicat's behaviour is inappropriate and (s)he can be considered a problem or even disruptive editor. However, that would be insufficient to conclude that the WWII project is not biased.

I will not focus on the Communicat's behaviour in this post: obviously, (s)he meets many problem editor's criteria. However, let me remind you that he initiated several discussions that lead to significant improvement of, e.g., WWII article (the lede and the Aftermath sections). Of course, that has been done mostly by other editors, and Communicat's efforts were hardly helpful during this work, however, we all must remember that initial impetus to this work was given by Communicat.

Going back to the issue #2 (using the Stor stark7's classification), I have to say that the actual situation is more complex than it seems to be. On the first glance, there is no signs of any bias in the WWII project: most articles are written based on English language sources that meet all RS criteria, and the edits as a rule correctly reflect what the sources say. However, some recent works demonstrate that during the Cold War era the WWII historiography was significantly affected by anti-Soviet and anti-Communist propaganda, so most Cold war era sources, as well as many post-Cold war book and articles are full of standard cliches and, therefore, that the majority of English sources is more or less biased. Let me remind you also, that, by contrast to many other projects, English Wikipedia is a global project, and, therefore, it cannot rely upon the sources written by the American, British or Australian scholars (which, as a rule, takes place).

However, to reject what the mainstream American or British sources say would be against the WP policy. In other words, we have a dilemma: from one hand, most Western sources written in 1970s-1990s tend to focus on the Western war efforts and are significantly affected by the German POV (a rare example when the history was being written by a looser, not a victor), but, since they meet RS criteria we simply cannot ignore what these sources say; from the another hand, more recent (as well as earlier) reliable sources draw quite a different picture, and, importantly, some of them explicitly state that the Cold war era sources as whole are biased. It would be interesting to know your opinion on what should we do in this situation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A problem is that quite often there is quality material available, but in my experience - restricted my "hobby topics" - it is in some cases overwhelmed by material containing self-perpetuating stereotypes, theese stereotypes can unfortunately be deeply ingrained in our editors too. This historian is surprised and has to rethink all his stereotypes after doing an independent review of diaries.[9] He should not have been surprised; there is quality material out there that he could have read before he did his research. Unfortunately he, as many others, was ingrained either because he had been reading literature by sub-standard historians, and/or was living in a culture where the crap stereotypes had permeated culture (TV/magazines etc). At least he managed to publish, one more lonely voice against the crap.

Unfortunately there can also be a bias that hinders quality literature from ever being published. This is another path to the "miss-representation by omission" that I mentioned before. If there is a culture where authors know that if they write about - or even mention - certain topics, then they are much less likely to be published, this will lead to self-censorship, in addition to the already existing systemic censorship that ensures that if they do write about the topic then it will quite likely be a one-copy book. This academic, apparently one of the very few who didn't self censor on one particular topic, should not have been surprised that writing about rapes committed by American soldiers was going to be a very difficult sell to editors. American rape is obviously un-American, and should be forgotten.[10], [11].

Tony Vaccaro is a photografer and soldier who took thousands of pictures during the invasion of Germany. One of them was of a stabbed German woman who had been raped by 3 US soldiers as she lay dying. None of his pictures was published in the US until 2001. His explanation was that "The Americans are interested in hero-imagery. I had no images of heroes. Americans are like Russians. They love flags and great poses."[12] This could explain a certain bias in the related issue of what pictures are available, and which ones are not.

A recent article in Spiegel seems to make all war literature from before 2009 very suspect. Can we any longer respect the sources? What other, so far unrevealed, omissions do they contain?

Beevor frequently quotes from personal memoirs of Allied soldiers that have been available to historians for years. But could it be that they were ignored by them until now because they didn't support the image of the "greatest generation," the term that Americans have liked to use to describe their victorious soldiers from 1945? It would seem that no shadows were to be cast on the war that gave the Americans, in particular, the moral right to have a say in shaping Europe's postwar future as well as creating the practical conditions for it to do so.[13].

Please don't mistake this for a rant, the links just come from the topics I've mucked around with, I'm sure you can find similar items in any area. Bottom line is: if we are too one-sided in literature we might get a very well sourced, and very miss-representative encyclopedia. We risk helping to cement stereotypes and misrepresentations, all the while following policy, collecting medals, and feeling proud of ourselves and our achievements.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 22:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point of view, but unfortunately Wikipedia must reflect what mainstream reliable source say, so we have to observe a balance between presenting what the Cold war era sources (which, by and large, are considered RS) say, and new (as well as pre-Cold war) sources that present the evidences that these "mainstream" sources are in actuality biased. Currently, the balance seems to be shifted towards the formers, and we have to decide how, and in what extent should we fix that. This issue is more important than the Communicat's behaviour (although it per se is hardly acceptable).--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether this is the appropriate place to comment on the issue, but as a Korean War topic editor who has access to US, Commonwealth, South Korean and Chinese sources, User:Stor stark7's comment outlined one of my worse obstacles in countering systematic biases in Wikipedia.

As I tried to present the four drastically different POVs and academic traditions into a single narrative, I found out that the three core policies of Wikipedia, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:RS in practice has serious limitations in accommodating non Anglo-American POVs and sources. If one only has to work with only Anglo-American sources, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:RS work together since most of the high quality sources repeats after each other, editors only repeat the sources' consensus and assign weights according to their prominence in the Anglo-American world views. But when one tires to work with both Anglo-American and non Anglo-American high quality sources, then what we have here is that high quality sources and standard reference works are often contradict each other (with few swipes that the others are lying). We do not know which one's opinion is more reliable due to language/political/cultural/education barriers, and we are prevented to assign weights to those different interpretations because WP:OR prevents us from critically analyzing the the differences between the POVs.

The current community approaches in incorporating non Anglo-American POVs and sources are either to present equal validity for all POVs (with a "he say/she say" article section or POV fork article), judging the validity of sources according to the political backgrounds (how free the people can speak independently, etc), or to interpret non Anglo-American POVs using studies conducted in Anglo-American POV. The first approach is completely against the WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. The second approach is more of an obstacle than an improvement, since it is a classic association fallacy. The finally approaches is better than the previous two options, but it still has draw backs. The first draw back is that not all important areas of human knowledge has been interpreted by Anglo-American POVs, and second of all even high quality non biased Anglo-American studies tend to distort non Anglo-American POVs. To illustrated my point on distortions, during my research of Chinese/South Korean military history during the Korean War, a majority high quality American/British sources started with the disclaimer "no Chinese or South Korean sources consulted, but it is not our fault".

The inability of the WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:RS to incorporate non Anglo-American POVs in practice can be extremely frustrating for new editors on Wikipedia. Imagine the frustration when an editor looks at an article, which is labeled high quality, completely ignores non Anglo-American POV. Then imagine when that editor tries to correct POV problems by adding the non Anglo-American POVs with non Anglo-American sources, other editors questions the source reliability due to lack of understanding on the academic culture of another country, or better yet, dismissing the academic value of the source completely because the source's country does not fit a particular political/media/education model. And even if that editor managed to clear the RS obstacle, other editors can still challenges the addition of non Anglo-American POVs on WP:OR grounds because there are no Anglo-American scholars bothered to interpret/include it in the subject. From my observations on Chinese nationalist vandals on Wikipedia, a large number of them became vandals because they are disillusioned with the project through a process like this.

My analysis here is by no means a defense for disruptive behaviors, and as one popular essay put it: People who have the insatiable need to retaliate for perceived wrongs should be removed from the project as quickly, but gently, as possible. But I do hope that my frustrations with countering systemic bias on Wikipedia, which is also the frustration of many POV vandals that used to hold the project in high regards, can be heard in an arbitration case about systemic bias. Jim101 (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I generally agree with what you are writing, you seem to oversimplify the issue, because in this particular case it is not the "Anglo-American vs Non-Anglo-American" dilemma, but "Cold War Era Anglo-American vs other English language sources (including Anglo-American)". Under "Cold War Era Anglo-American" I mean also those sources that were written later, but, nevertheless, that inherited most Cold War Era cliches.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, its common for reviewers of articles nominated for A class reviews under the military history project to check that the article draws on a sources which cover all the relevant national perspectives. More generally, professional historians typically go to great lengths to ensure that their work reflects the full range of perspectives and sources, so there seems to be no reason to assume that history books reflect the national perspective of their author. This is the case at times, of course, but it's impossible to make any sweeping statements. Generally speaking, newer sources are also better than older ones as they build on the scholarship up to that point in time. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation wasn't that there is bias due to editors using the sources they have available (for the English wikipedia this will largely mean mainstream English language books), the accusation was that certain editors are actively pushing their own agenda and suppressing others. Does anyone see any evidence of that? (Hohum ^@) 12:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many NPOV/RS references were provided by me and then rejected/reverted/obstructed by involved parties. "Uninvolved" administrator Georgewilliamherbet, in his intervention four months ago, claimed: If this were purely about historical disputes and you had provided adequate high quality references and resources to the dispute we would not be here. In reply, I then posted a list of NPOV and highly reliable reference sources from a wide spectrum, which had by that time been submitted either as supporting text references in various contexts and/or in support of various relevant discussion topics with a view to suggested textual changes, improvements etc. All of these below (not in alphabetical or order of importance) were rejected out of hand. (To save time and possibly more wasted effort, ISBNs and page nrs are not shown but are available if necessary):

Stewart Richardson (ed.),The Secret History of World War II: Wartime Letters and Cables of Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill, New York: Richardson and Steirman, 1986,
Tom Bower, Blind Eye to Murder: Britain, America and the puging of Nazi Germany, London: Andre Deutsch 1981
Christopher Simpson, Blowback: America's Recruitment of Nazis and Its Effects on the Cold War, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson 1988,
Richard Harris Smith, OSS: Secret history of the CIA, Berkeley: University of California Press 1972,
EH Cookridge, Gehlen, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1971
Philip Snow, The Fall of Hong Kong: Britain, China, and the Japanese Occupation, Yale University Press: 2003.
Association of Asian Studies, "Anti-Japanese Movements in Southeast Asia during World War II". (1996) Abstract
Yoji Akashi, "MPAJA/Force 136 Resistance Against the Japanese in Malaya, 1941-1945".
Association of Asian Studies. Abstract (1996) Abstract
Frank Kitson, Low Intensity Operations: Subversion, Insurgency and Peacekeeping, London: Faber, 1971.
Spenser Chapman, The Jungle is Neutral, London: Chatto and Windus, 1948;
Ian Trenowden, Operations Most Secret: SOE, the Malayan Theatre, London: Wm Kimber, 1978
Bradley F Smith and Elena Agarossi, Operation Sunrise: The Secret Surrender. New York, 1979.
R Harris Smith, OSS, Berkely: University of California Press, 1972, pp.114-121
Y Larionov, N Yeronin, B Solovyov, V. Timokhovich, World War II Decisive Battles of the Soviet Army, Moscow: Progress 1984,
Gar Alperovitz, "How Did the Cold War Begin?" in Walter LaFeber (ed.) The Origins of the Cold War 1941-1947, New York: John Wiley 1971;
Alexander Werth, Russia at War 1941-1945, New York: Avon 1965:
Norman Davies, Europe at War 1939-1945, London: Macmillan 2005;
DF Fleming, The Cold War and Its Origins: 1917-1960, New York: Random 1961
Mao Zedong, Guerrilla Warfare (online link to US Military Corps archive of previously banned books).
Bruce R Kuniholm, Origins of the Cold War in the Near East, Princeton: Princeton University Press 1980
LS Stavrianos, "The Greek National Liberation Front (EAM): A Study in Resistance, Organisation and Administration", Journal of Modern History, March 1952.

To the above list can be added the following more recent and incomplete list, which were among some of the subsequently and similarly reverted, deleted, rejected or otherwise obstructed in one way or another by involved parties Edward321 and Habap:

Anthony Cave Brown, Dropshot: The United States Plan for War with the Soviet Union in 1957, New York: Dial Press, 1978,
John Lewis Gaddis, Strategies of Containment, New York: Oxford University Press,
Walter LaFeber, America, Russia and the Cold War 1945-1966, New York: John Wiley, 1968,
Christopher M Woodhouse, The Struggle for Greece 1941-1949, London: Hart-Davis 1976,
Lawrence S Wittner, “How Presidents Use the Term ‘Democracy’ as a Marketing Tool”, online link Retrieved October 29, 2010
Dennis Wainstock, Truman, McArthur and the Korean War, Greenwood, 1999,
Jon Halliday and Bruce Cumings, Korea: The unknown war, London: Viking, 1988,
Edward Grant Meade, American military government in Korea,: King's Crown Press 1951,
A. Wigfall Green, The Epic of Korea, Washington: Public Affairs Press, 1950,
Walter G Hermes , Truce Tent and Fighting Front, Washington DC: US Army Center of Military History, 1992,
James M Minnich, The North Korean People's Army: origins and current tactics, Naval Institute Press, 2005
Mohamed Amin and Malcolm Caldwell (eds.), The Making of a Neo Colony, London: Spokesman Books, 1977, footnote, p. 216
Sigured Hess, "The British Baltic Fishery Protection Service (BBFPS) and the Clandestine Operations of Hans Helmut Klose 1949-1956." Journal of Intelligence History vol. 1, no. 2 (Winter 2001)
Tom Bower, The Red Web: MI6 and the KGB, London: Aurum, 1989,
Tom Bower, The Paperclip Conspiracy: Battle for the spoils and secrets of Nazi Germany, London: Michael Joseph, 1987,

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Communicat (talk • contribs) 13:30, 19 December 2010

To the extent that there's systemic bias in the WW2 article (and I'm sympathetic to the idea that there is some), I don't have any reason to believe that it comes from any type of conspiracy, cabal, or obstruction on the part of the editors. Rather, this being the English-language Wikipedia, it tends to be written by English-speaking editors who are most familiar with the types of sources written in English-speaking countries. Those countries have an obvious commonality of POV. Even when those editors examine sources from other POV's, their interpretations are coloured by the stuff they're familiar with. So the article becomes biased without any ill intentions on anyone's part. If an editor were to come along with a fresh perspective to contribute, neutrally summarized from high quality sources of whatever nationality, and accurately cited including page numbers, I have every reason to expect that their contributions would be welcomed, or at least accepted without fuss. Unfortunately, Communicat's contributions have been anything but neutral, accurately cited, etc. That puts us where we are now. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except editors ought to reference the standard historiography and major accademic accepted non-standard historiographies when writing articles, particularly in terms of structure and sourcing base. "Writing from what you know" is the first step to a major SYNTHESIS violation by failing to examine the full variety highest level academic overviews. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Wikipedia relies on the historians who write the reliable sources we draw on to follow academic historiography principles, otherwise we will need content and historiography experts in order to make historical articles, which isn't what wikipedia is about. (Hohum ^@) 13:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Communicat's claims in regards to me[edit]

Blablaaa[edit]

I have not used my admin tools in relation to Communicat and/or their edits. As such, his or her allegation that I've been missusing the tools seem to be irrelevant to this case.

Nevertheless, I have a policy of responding to any complaints concerning my conduct as an admin and the nature of the allegations is consistent with Communicat's general conduct, so I'd like to make the following points:

My blocks of Blablaaa (talk · contribs) were as an uninvolved admin, and not a participant in the disputes. As with the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Workshop#Participation of Georgewilliamherbert in this case Communicat is seeking to portray the actions of an uninvolved admin as them engaging in a "NPOV dispute". It is a very serious matter to allege that admins are using their tools in disputes they're involved with and, as with their claims about Georgewilliamherbert, Communicat does not provide any supporting evidence.
I blocked Blablaaa for making personal attacks on other editors and engaging in disruptive editing (I posted explanations and the relevant diffs on Blablaaa's talk page following each block). Blablaaa had also been blocked for this conduct on several occasions when he or she was editing via IP accounts before they registered the Blablaaa account. During the periods between these blocks I also provided him or her with advice about how to behave appropriately (including on several occasions when Blablaaa posted on my talk page asking for advice).
My fifth and indef block of Blablaaa was overturned following this discussion at WP:AN, during which I agreed that I should have sought other admins' opinion before implementing the block. From memory, this is the only one of the many blocks I've implemented during my almost three years as an admin to have been overturned (some have also been cut short when the editor apologised for their conduct via the request for unblock process).
Following the unblock in April Blablaaa continued to make personal attacks on other editors and engage in disruptive editing. I did not intervene in response to this behavior given that one of the conclusions of the discussion at WP:AN was that I should have asked other admins to look into matters. He or she was eventually blocked in August for an indefinite period by Jehochman (talk · contribs) on the basis of the evidence concerning their disruptive conduct presented at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Blablaaa. Only one other editor endorsed Blablaaa's statement alleging widespread anti-German editing during this RfC/U.
As such, Communicat has also confused the response to long-running unacceptable conduct by an editor with systematic 'bias'
I find it interesting that Communicat quotes Deskana (talk · contribs) as part of his or her claim alleging that I have a "record of policy-breaching conduct" but ignores that Deskana concluded their statement in the RfArb Communicat links to by stating that "Although I have said I find Nick-D's fifth block to be inappropriate, I am not accusing him of abusing his administrator tools. I also have no doubt in my mind that his actions were taken with the intent of improving Wikipedia. I want to make this perfectly clear." This is typical of Communicat's use of references.

'Blind reverts'[edit]

In their evidence Communicat claims that I reverted an edit to the World War II article "without engaging in any discussion" in August and "blindly reverted" their edits in September and October. These claims can easily be proven false:

In regards to the August reversion, I included a descriptive edit summary noting that Communicat's changes were POV and had been wrongly labeled as 'minor' in their edit summary [14] and provided a detailed description of the problems with Communicat's changes a few days later: [15], so it is not true to say that the reversion wasn't explained or I didn't engage in discussion on the topic. Communicat's edit also needs to be seen in the context of the ongoing discussions about the problems with their actual and proposed edits at the time which involved a number of editors (which actually make up most of Talk:World War II/Archive 39 and Talk:World War II/Archive 40) and his or her post seeking comments on the reversion in question was very rude [16] (for instance, "I'm happy to work productively and co-operatively but have neither the time nor the inclination to get involved in puerile and unproductive editing wars with evidently disruptive administrators. Do well-intentioned people really have to go through all this $h1t in order to improve an article?").
In regards to claim that I "blindly reverted" an edit in September, Communicat's edit inserted quite different text to a section of the article in which new wording was being drafted on the article's talk page, which included claims regarding the status of Korea which clearly didn't gain support when Communicat proposed them on the talk page (see Talk:World War II/Archive 42#New aftermath section), I explained my rationale in the edit summary [17] and posted an explanation on the talk page ten minutes later: [18]
In regards to the October revert the diff Communicat provides clearly shows that I included an edit summary which explains why I reverted the edit [19]. I also provided a detailed explanation for this revert on the article's talk page immediately prior to reverting the edit: [20]. This and the September reversions are the exact opposite to 'blindly' reverting an edits given that I made it clear why the edits had been reverted, and these actions were supported in the resulting discussions on the article's talk page.

I'd argue that these clearly false claims are good examples of Communicat's disruptive conduct which Edward321 focused on at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Evidence#Communicat misrepresents other users edits Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communicat's list[edit]

Communicat’s has provided an impressive list of books, but his claims are unsupported by any evidence.

As I already showed in my evidence, Communicat is the one who rejected:

Dennis Wainstock, Truman, McArthur and the Korean War, Greenwood, 1999,
A. Wigfall Green, The Epic of Korea, Washington: Public Affairs Press, 1950

These sources were removed because they were part of Communicat’s plagiarism of Winer:[21][22]

David Fraser, And We Shall Shock Them: The British Army in the Second World War, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1983,
Bruce R Kuniholm, Origins of the Cold War in the Near East, Princeton: Princeton University Press 1980
Y Larionov, N Yeronin, B Solovyov, V. Timokhovich, World War II Decisive Battles of the Soviet Army, Moscow: Progress 1984,
Christopher Simpson, Blowback: America's Recruitment of Nazis and Its Effects on the Cold War, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson 1988,
Richard Harris Smith, OSS: Secret history of the CIA, Berkeley: University of California Press 1972,
Anthony Verrier, Through the Looking Glass: British Foreign Policy in the Age of Illusions, London: Jonathan Cape, 1983

Contrary to Communicat’s claims, these sources are still in the article:

Mohamed Amin and Malcolm Caldwell (eds.), The Making of a Neo Colony, London: Spokesman Books, 1977, footnote, p. 216
Tom Bower, The Red Web: MI6 and the KGB, London: Aurum, 1989,
Tom Bower, The Paperclip Conspiracy: Battle for the spoils and secrets of Nazi Germany, London: Michael Joseph, 1987,
Anthony Cave Brown, Dropshot: The United States Plan for War with the Soviet Union in 1957, New York: Dial Press, 1978,
John Lewis Gaddis, Strategies of Containment, New York: Oxford University Press,
Walter G Hermes , Truce Tent and Fighting Front, Washington DC: US Army Center of Military History, 1992,
Jon Halliday and Bruce Cumings, Korea: The unknown war, London: Viking, 1988,
Sigured Hess, "The British Baltic Fishery Protection Service (BBFPS) and the Clandestine Operations of Hans Helmut Klose 1949-1956." Journal of Intelligence History vol. 1, no. 2 (Winter 2001
Walter LaFeber, America, Russia and the Cold War 1945-1966, New York: John Wiley, 1968,
Edward Grant Meade, American military government in Korea,: King's Crown Press 1951,
James M Minnich, The North Korean People's Army: origins and current tactics, Naval Institute Press, 2005
Stewart Richardson (ed.),The Secret History of World War II: Wartime Letters and Cables of Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill, New York: Richardson and Steirman, 1986,
Lawrence S Wittner, “How Presidents Use the Term ‘Democracy’ as a Marketing Tool”, online link Retrieved October 29, 2010
Christopher M Woodhouse, The Struggle for Greece 1941-1949, London: Hart-Davis 1976,

The following don’t appear to have ever been in Communicat’s version of the page in the first place:[23]

Association of Asian Studies, "Anti-Japanese Movements in Southeast Asia during World War II". (1996) Abstract
Association of Asian Studies. Abstract (1996) Abstract
Yoji Akashi, "MPAJA/Force 136 Resistance Against the Japanese in Malaya, 1941-1945".
Gar Alperovitz, "How Did the Cold War Begin?" in Walter LaFeber (ed.) The Origins of the Cold War 1941-1947, New York: John Wiley 1971;
Ralph Bennett, Ultra and Mediterranean Strategy 1941-1945, London: Hamish Hamilton, 1989
Tom Bower, Blind Eye to Murder: Britain, America and the puging of Nazi Germany, London: Andre Deutsch 1981
Spenser Chapman, The Jungle is Neutral, London: Chatto and Windus, 1948;
Norman Davies, Europe at War 1939-1945, London: Macmillan 2005;
Basil Liddell Hart, History of the Second World War, London: Cassell 1965,
Albrecht Kesselring, Memoirs, London: Greenhill 1988
Frank Kitson, Low Intensity Operations: Subversion, Insurgency and Peacekeeping, London: Faber, 1971.
Ian Trenowden, Operations Most Secret: SOE, the Malayan Theatre, London: Wm Kimber, 1978
Bradley F Smith and Elena Agarossi, Operation Sunrise: The Secret Surrender. New York, 1979.
Philip Snow, The Fall of Hong Kong: Britain, China, and the Japanese Occupation, Yale University Press: 2003.
Alexander Werth, Russia at War 1941-1945, New York: Avon 1965:
Mao Zedong, Guerrilla Warfare (online link to US Military Corps archive of previously banned books). Edward321 (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the reason there was opposition to Communicat’s actual and proposed changes was the fringe interpretation of events they frequently pushed and the fact that the references he or she provided frequently turned out to not support the cited text. Since this arbitration case began it's since been demonstrated that the material was actually taken - often without any changes to the text - from unreliable sources and then falsely attributed to reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two of you can engage in denial, distortion, blame-shifting and tendentious reasoning to your hearts' content. My side of the story is on record, both here in this Arbcom case and in the approx 65,000 words of public domain discussion at WW2 and various other Wikipedia Rfc, AN/I, COI etc forums. Independent writers/researchers, on the basis of all this verbiage, are free to analyse and interpret all of it in forming their own, impartial conclusions. I can say with some certainty that I know of at least one book-length academic case-study of the Communicat saga, which is already at an advanced stage of preparation. Sue me. Communicat (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communicat, your statement that these sources were obstructed or reverted does not have any diffs that substantiate the claim. You wrote in September 2010:

As for my failure to provide diffs for mediation / arbitration purposes regarding offensive reverts without offending party allowing discussion, don't worry; I have all the relevant diffs. Where I come from, my understanding is that complainant first states grievance, responding party then replies and indicates whether h/she agrees or disagrees, if the latter, then complainant files evidence, (i.e. would be diffs in case of wiki).[24]

Now it's 3 months later and you've finally got the arbitration case you repeatedly requested. The last stage of dispute resolution and the moment you've been waiting for. If you have any relevant diffs, this is the time to produce them. There is nothing after this. It's now or never. I'm willing to be proved wrong, but my good-faith belief right now is that you haven't produced the diffs because you don't have them, and you don't have them because the reversions and rejections of the sort you allege simply did not happen. The claim of yours I investigated at that time[25] is a microcosm: yes, your edit was later reverted, but not only did its citations fail to verifiably back up its content, the edit was reverted by none other than yourself. Without diffs, your claims have basically no credibility, and I'd recommend that the arbs treat them that way. (Edited slightly) 67.117.130.143 (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question for arbitrators: Where are we?[edit]

What "phase" is this arbitration now in? What's next? What likely timescales are involved? (Hohum ^@) 12:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding isthat we're still in "evidence and workshop" but are past the date where the arbs are supposed to wait for more evidence before starting to write a proposed decision. When they put up a proposed decision, we go to the "voting" phase, which really isn't much different (workshop comments keep happening, and adding more evidence isn't forbidden if you find something important). Arbs are volunteers, this is the holiday season, etc.; there aren't firm deadlines and schedules tend to slip depending on the arbs' workload on and off wikipedia. Could be days to weeks before a proposed decision goes up; discussion about it might last a week or so, then there's a motion to close which iirc is supposed to stay open for 24 hours minimum; then a final vote and the case closes. Past cases are at wp:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests if you want to compare other cases. This is a fairly simple case so shouldn't be compared with the very messy ones. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I anticipate that a proposed decision should be posted within the next few days. The parties have provided all the input that is needed, and we are reviewing it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that this case has (very sensibly) been put on hold over the Christmas and New Year period. Is there a new estimated date for the proposed decision? Nick-D (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume everyone has noted by now that there is a proposed decision posted and being voted on. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]