Jonah House and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-12 Battle of Britain: Difference between pages
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Medcabstatus |
|||
'''Jonah House''' is a faith-based community centered around the concept of "Nonviolence, resistance and community". Founded in 1973 by a group that included [[Philip Berrigan]], a [[Holy Orders|Catholic priest]], and [[Elizabeth McAlister]], formerly a Catholic nun, Jonah House has grown to be situated on a 22 acre area of land in [[Baltimore, Maryland]] situated encompassing St. Peter's Cemetery, caring for the grounds. |
|||
<!-- Mediator, please change from new to open when accepted, to status closed when the case is closed. Remember to remove the mediation request message from the article talk page when closing. --> |
|||
|status = open |
|||
|article = [[Battle of Britain]] |
|||
|requestor = [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] ([[User talk:Vassyana|talk]]) <!-- Don't touch this --> |
|||
|date = 14:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC) <!-- Don't touch this --> |
|||
|parties = {{User|Minorhistorian}}, {{User|Dapi89}}, {{User|Kurfürst}}, {{User|Rlandmann}} |
|||
|mediators = {{user|Vassyana}} |
|||
|comment = Opening case. Getting things started. |
|||
}} |
|||
<!-- The comment section above is used by mediators to briefly state the status of the case, which shows up on the case list. --> |
|||
=== Request details === |
|||
''Jonah House'' has been specifically regarded as a prime example of a [[Catholic Worker Movement|Catholic Worker House of Resistance]]. |
|||
==== Who are the involved parties? ==== |
|||
<!-- List the names of those parties involved in this dispute --> |
|||
* {{User|Minorhistorian}} |
|||
* {{User|Dapi89}} |
|||
* {{User|Kurfürst}} |
|||
* {{User|Rlandmann}} as an active member of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation|WikiProject Aviation]] willing to assist in the mediation process. |
|||
==== What's going on? ==== |
|||
==Nonviolence== |
|||
Disagreements at [[Battle of Britain]]. Further disagreements spanning across [[Supermarine Spitfire operational history]], [[Aircraft of the Battle of Britain]], [[Supermarine Spitfire]], [[Messerschmitt Bf 109]]. There is some concern that article quality has suffered during the course of the dispute, leaving the articles in less-than-ideal states even during periods of calm. |
|||
{{Main|Plowshares Movement}} |
|||
Much of the non-violent resistance direct actions undertaken by Jonah House have taken the form of [[Plowshares Movement|Plowshares actions]]. Additionally non-violence is practiced in the community both as a way of thought and action. Education of the injustice present in violence is contemplated. |
|||
==== What would you like to change about that? ==== |
|||
==Food pantry== |
|||
* Find a [[WP:CONSENSUS|lasting agreement]]. |
|||
Donates food and clothes to persons in need. |
|||
* Bring article quality back up to GA or better standards. |
|||
=== Mediator notes === |
|||
==Sister communities== |
|||
<!-- For mediator use --> |
|||
=== Administrative notes === |
|||
Jonah House is part of a network of individuals and communities along the east coast that calls itself “[[Atlantic Life Community|The Atlantic Life Community]]". |
|||
<!-- For mediator use --> |
|||
Opening case file, contacting parties, asking some initial questions. [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] ([[User talk:Vassyana|talk]]) 14:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
=== Discussion === |
|||
The [[Pacific Life Community]] is a similar organization encompasing the west coast of the United States of America, Pacific Islands and East Asia. |
|||
<!-- You can discuss you problem with the mediator and other users under this heading, or at the involved article's talk page --> |
|||
Some opening questions: |
|||
* What have been the strongest points of dispute? |
|||
* What other disagreements should be noted? |
|||
* What are the greatest failings of the articles in their current form? |
|||
* What needs to be done to bring the articles up to solid levels of quality ([[WP:GA|GA]] or [[WP:FA|better]])? |
|||
Let's start by focusing on identifying the disputes and laying out a rough roadmap for article improvement. [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] ([[User talk:Vassyana|talk]]) 14:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Focusing on the latest disagreement, a sentence on German bomber losses was added to the ''Aftermath'' section: |
|||
Jonah House is also a sister community with [[Dorothy Day Catholic Worker House]] (in [[Washington, D.C.|D.C]]) [[Viva House Catholic Worker]], and The [[P. Francis Murphy|P. Francis Murphy Justice/Peace Initiative]]. |
|||
<blockquote>In losses of aircraft and experienced aircrew, the battle was a blow from which the ''Luftwaffe'' never fully recovered. It had significantly fewer bombers at the start of [[Operation Barbarossa]], some 929 machines, because of losses sustained over Britain.<ref>Bergström 2007, p. 129.</ref></blockquote> |
|||
A long discussion about these facts and figures ''Losses and the Luftwaffe after the Battle of Britain'' created a lot of heat but not much light and, after a series of revisions and counter revisions, resulted in this mess: |
|||
==External links== |
|||
<blockquote>According to one theory, losses of aircraft and experienced aircrew in the Battle may have been a blow from which the ''Luftwaffe'' never fully recovered. Supporters of this theory argue that only 929 bombers took part in [[Operation Barbarossa]]<ref>Bergström 2007, p. 129.</ref> out of 1,511 level bombers available to the ''Luftwaffe'' on 21 June 1941; this latter figure was was significantly higher (1,711) on 11 May 1940.<ref name="Murray p. 80" />, showing a drop of 200 from May 1940<ref name="Murray p. 80">Murray 1983, p. 80.</ref><ref name="de Zeng p. 10">de Zeng et al Vol. 1, 2007, p. 10.</ref><ref>De Zeng gives a different figure of 247 fewer bombers(de Zeng et al Vol. 1, 2007, p. 10.)</ref>{{note label|Note9|i|i}} Records of bomber strengths however reveal the ''Luftwaffe'' possessed 1,380 level bombers on 29 June 1940, prior to the Battle, and 1,423 level bombers on 2 November 1940,<ref>Murray 1983, pp. 53–55.</ref> at the end of the daylight phase of the bomber offensive, which British historians traditionally identify as the end of the Battle. Just prior to Barbarossa. In a similar manner, it is also claimed that inadequate production levels in German factories also were a factor, with an average 250 single-engined and 64 twin-engined fighter aircraft produced ''per'' month during early 1941.<ref>Irving 1974, p. 163.</ref> As a result, it is claimed, that the number of German front line aircraft was declining, a problem which would not be resolved until early 1942, with a huge effort to expand production, reaching 1,200 by March/April.<ref>Irving 1974, p. 142.</ref> Conflicting reports of front line status should be noted with totals cited of 1,107 single- and 357 twin-engined fighters on strength prior to the Battle on 29 June 1940, compared to 1,440 single-engined fighters and 188 twin-engined fighters on 21 June 1941;<ref name="Murray p. 80" /> <ref name="Murray p. 53">Murray 1983, p. 53.</ref> but the existence of the new night fighter arm - which had 263 aircraft in addition - that was created from existing single-and twin-engined fighter units, should also be noted.)<ref name="Murray p. 80" /></blockquote> |
|||
* [http://www.jonahhouse.org/jhbrochure.htm Jonah House site] |
|||
To which I have since added {{tl|Original research}}{{tl|Synthesis}}, explaining my reasons for doing so on the talk page. To anyone who has a general interest in the battle this presents a bewildering array of conflicting statistics and dates and it would seem that there is some sort of theory being thrown "debunked". It does nothing to improve the article. If no agreement can be reached as to the meaning of the statistics being used then it would be better that they were not used at all. [[User:Minorhistorian|Minorhistorian]] ([[User talk:Minorhistorian|talk]]) 23:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==References== |
|||
* [http://prop1.org/protest/catholic_workers/cathwork.htm Plowshare Events] |
|||
* [http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-20547571.html Jonah House under siege: convicts of strong conviction] |
|||
* [http://www.no-nukes.org/viapacis/feb03/feb03phil.html Praise for Philip Berrigan and Jonah House as central to the Atlantic Life Community and the Plowshares Movement] |
|||
* [http://www.citypaper.com/bob/story.asp?id=10582Best Do-Gooders] |
|||
::"But the people of Jonah House, part of the Catholic Worker movement founded by Dorothy Day more than 72 years ago, have done much more than that. They’ve served years in prison for nonviolent acts of civil disobedience. Almost every arrest, every sentence, has come for actions seeking to abolish nuclear weapons." |
|||
The mess is a result of constant revisions by Kurfurst. I have the book he is using to imply a general decline took place as a result of the Battle of France, despite the fact heavier losses of German bomber units were incurred over Britain. On top of that Murray (the source) does not say that bomber losses declined as a result of the French Campaign. This particular editor has been inserting this implication into cited sentences to prove this was the case. |
|||
[[Category:Christian pacifism]] |
|||
[[Category:Peace organizations]] |
|||
I have had enough of him in particular and I hereby refuse to respond to him directly on this page as it will lead to more erroneous screatching on his part. |
|||
[[Category:Nonviolence]] |
|||
[[Category:Anti-nuclear weapons movement]] |
|||
I agree with Minor. I can say now no compromise will forthcoming with this editor, so the entire section might just as well be deleted. [[User:Dapi89|Dapi89]] ([[User talk:Dapi89|talk]]) 15:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[Category:Civil disobedience]] |
|||
[[Category:Activism]] |
|||
[[Category:Anti-Iraq War activists]] |
|||
[[Category:Catholic Workers]] |
|||
Revision as of 15:57, 13 October 2008
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Battle of Britain |
| Status | open |
| Request date | 14:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Parties involved | Minorhistorian (talk · contribs), Dapi89 (talk · contribs), Kurfürst (talk · contribs), Rlandmann (talk · contribs) |
| Mediator(s) | Vassyana (talk · contribs) |
| Comment | Opening case. Getting things started. |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab active cases|Battle of Britain]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Battle of Britain]]
Request details
Who are the involved parties?
- Minorhistorian (talk · contribs)
- Dapi89 (talk · contribs)
- Kurfürst (talk · contribs)
- Rlandmann (talk · contribs) as an active member of WikiProject Aviation willing to assist in the mediation process.
What's going on?
Disagreements at Battle of Britain. Further disagreements spanning across Supermarine Spitfire operational history, Aircraft of the Battle of Britain, Supermarine Spitfire, Messerschmitt Bf 109. There is some concern that article quality has suffered during the course of the dispute, leaving the articles in less-than-ideal states even during periods of calm.
What would you like to change about that?
- Find a lasting agreement.
- Bring article quality back up to GA or better standards.
Mediator notes
Administrative notes
Opening case file, contacting parties, asking some initial questions. Vassyana (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
Some opening questions:
- What have been the strongest points of dispute?
- What other disagreements should be noted?
- What are the greatest failings of the articles in their current form?
- What needs to be done to bring the articles up to solid levels of quality (GA or better)?
Let's start by focusing on identifying the disputes and laying out a rough roadmap for article improvement. Vassyana (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Focusing on the latest disagreement, a sentence on German bomber losses was added to the Aftermath section:
In losses of aircraft and experienced aircrew, the battle was a blow from which the Luftwaffe never fully recovered. It had significantly fewer bombers at the start of Operation Barbarossa, some 929 machines, because of losses sustained over Britain.[1]
A long discussion about these facts and figures Losses and the Luftwaffe after the Battle of Britain created a lot of heat but not much light and, after a series of revisions and counter revisions, resulted in this mess:
According to one theory, losses of aircraft and experienced aircrew in the Battle may have been a blow from which the Luftwaffe never fully recovered. Supporters of this theory argue that only 929 bombers took part in Operation Barbarossa[2] out of 1,511 level bombers available to the Luftwaffe on 21 June 1941; this latter figure was was significantly higher (1,711) on 11 May 1940.[3], showing a drop of 200 from May 1940[3][4][5]i Records of bomber strengths however reveal the Luftwaffe possessed 1,380 level bombers on 29 June 1940, prior to the Battle, and 1,423 level bombers on 2 November 1940,[6] at the end of the daylight phase of the bomber offensive, which British historians traditionally identify as the end of the Battle. Just prior to Barbarossa. In a similar manner, it is also claimed that inadequate production levels in German factories also were a factor, with an average 250 single-engined and 64 twin-engined fighter aircraft produced per month during early 1941.[7] As a result, it is claimed, that the number of German front line aircraft was declining, a problem which would not be resolved until early 1942, with a huge effort to expand production, reaching 1,200 by March/April.[8] Conflicting reports of front line status should be noted with totals cited of 1,107 single- and 357 twin-engined fighters on strength prior to the Battle on 29 June 1940, compared to 1,440 single-engined fighters and 188 twin-engined fighters on 21 June 1941;[3] [9] but the existence of the new night fighter arm - which had 263 aircraft in addition - that was created from existing single-and twin-engined fighter units, should also be noted.)[3]
To which I have since added {{Original research}}{{Synthesis}}, explaining my reasons for doing so on the talk page. To anyone who has a general interest in the battle this presents a bewildering array of conflicting statistics and dates and it would seem that there is some sort of theory being thrown "debunked". It does nothing to improve the article. If no agreement can be reached as to the meaning of the statistics being used then it would be better that they were not used at all. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
The mess is a result of constant revisions by Kurfurst. I have the book he is using to imply a general decline took place as a result of the Battle of France, despite the fact heavier losses of German bomber units were incurred over Britain. On top of that Murray (the source) does not say that bomber losses declined as a result of the French Campaign. This particular editor has been inserting this implication into cited sentences to prove this was the case.
I have had enough of him in particular and I hereby refuse to respond to him directly on this page as it will lead to more erroneous screatching on his part.
I agree with Minor. I can say now no compromise will forthcoming with this editor, so the entire section might just as well be deleted. Dapi89 (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- ^ Bergström 2007, p. 129.
- ^ Bergström 2007, p. 129.
- ^ a b c d Murray 1983, p. 80.
- ^ de Zeng et al Vol. 1, 2007, p. 10.
- ^ De Zeng gives a different figure of 247 fewer bombers(de Zeng et al Vol. 1, 2007, p. 10.)
- ^ Murray 1983, pp. 53–55.
- ^ Irving 1974, p. 163.
- ^ Irving 1974, p. 142.
- ^ Murray 1983, p. 53.