Talk:Axis powers and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-01 Sveta Gera: Difference between pages

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Sveta Gera
Status	open
Request date	12:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Admiral Norton (talk · contribs),; Eleassar (talk · contribs),; Yerpo (talk · contribs),; Zenanarh (talk · contribs),; Imbris (talk · contribs)
Mediator(s)	Vassyana
Comment	Posing questions. Getting things underway.

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:03, 12 October 2008

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab active cases|Sveta Gera]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Sveta Gera]]

Request details

Who are the involved parties?

Admiral Norton (talk · contribs),
Eleassar (talk · contribs),
Yerpo (talk · contribs),
Zenanarh (talk · contribs),
Imbris (talk · contribs)

What's going on?

The dispute concerns the title of the article. The article has been moved several times already. Sveta Gera aka Trdinov vrh is a disputed territory. Zenanarh tries to prove the article should be named Sveta Gera on the basis of the historical sources he has found. Yerpo disputes their relevancy and reliability. Eleassar (me) tries to prove Wikipedia should not take part in the dispute and should choose the most frequent name, which he assumes is Trdinov vrh. Admiral Norton disputes that as he believes Sveta Gera is the most common name.

The dispute has become uncivil and some users have expressed their inability to assume good faith any further.

What would you like to change about that?

I would like to ensure Wikipedia retains neutral position in the dispute and that Wikipedia policies and guidelines (especially WP:NPOV, WP:NCON and WP:NCGN) are taken seriously.

Mediator notes

Administrative notes

Discussion

What is the origin of the dispute? How are the different names typically used in the real world?
How does new organizations and textbooks (both generally good indicators of conventional naming) name the subject and treat the naming dispute? Can you provide some examples?
Are any of the proposed names especially common in reliable sources? Can you provide some examples?
Are any of the proposed names especially obscure in reliable sources? What sort of sources tend to use that name? Can you provide some examples?

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Medcabstatus
-{{talkheader}}
+<!-- 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.   -->
-{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
+|status = open
-{{WikiProject Germany|class=B|importance=top|nested=yes}}
+|article = [[Sveta Gera]]
-{{WikiProject International relations|nested=yes}}
+|requestor = [[User:Eleassar|'''Eleassar''']] <sup>[[User talk:Eleassar|my talk]]</sup> <!-- Don't touch this -->
-{{WPMILHIST
+|date = 12:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC) <!-- Don't touch this -->
-|class=Start
+|parties = {{User|Admiral Norton}},<br />{{User|Eleassar}},<br />{{User|Yerpo}},<br />{{User|Zenanarh}},<br />{{User|Imbris}}<!-- Put other user's names here in the format {{User|USERNAME}}/{{Useranon|IP ADDRESS}} -->
-|Japanese-task-force=yes
+|mediators = [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]]
-|German-task-force=yes
+|comment = Posing questions. Getting things underway.
-|WWII-task-force=yes
-<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
-|B-Class-1=no
-<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
-|B-Class-2=yes
-<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
-|B-Class-3=yes
-<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
-|B-Class-4=yes
-<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
-|B-Class-5=yes|nested=yes}}
-{{WPJ|class=B|nested=yes}}
-{{WP Italy|class=|importance=|nested=yes}}
-{{WikiProject Hungary|class=|importance=|nested=yes}}
-{{WPRA|class=|importance=|nested=yes}}
-{{WPBG|class=|importance=|no-todolist=yes|nested=yes}}
-{{WikiProject Yugoslavia|class=B|importance=high|nested=yes}}
-{{WikiProject Thailand|class=|importance=|nested=yes}}
 }}
+<!-- The comment section above is used by mediators to briefly state the status of the case, which shows up on the case list. -->
-{{to do}}
-{{archive box|
-*[[Talk:Axis Powers/Archive1|– July 2006]]
-*[[Talk:Axis Powers/Archive2|August 2006 – September 12. 2006]]
-*[[Talk:Axis Powers/Archive3|September 14.  2006 – September 20. 2006 (The case of Denmark/edit war)]]
-*[[Talk:Axis Powers/Archive 4|September 20. 2006 - November 2007]]
-*[[Talk:Axis Powers/Archive 5|2008 — ]]
-}}
-== Finland ==
-Everyone has been discussing Japan but there's been no mention of Finland, which, while a co-belligerent against the Soviet Union, was never a member of the Axis powers or an ally of Germany (as noted in the article itself). I believe an alteration to that map is in order, as it is heavily misleading regarding Finnish participation in the war against the Soviets.[[Special:Contributions/74.47.87.231|74.47.87.231]] ([[User talk:74.47.87.231|talk]]) 08:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
-:::Agreed. Though contributor it's etiquette here to sign your posts. But definately agree with you. Where were we when Stalin violated 5 of his Neutrality Pacts invading neutral neighbours like Finland? If I recall correctly, Bulgaria did not declare war on the USSR and in fact was used twice by Stalin to ask Hitler for surrender terms. I also believe I recall that Churchill actually wanted to go to Finland's aid even if it meant marching through then-neutral Norway and Sweden to do it.
-:::But Bulgaria attacked Yugoslavia even a day before Germany (April 5th 1941)[[User:Megaribi|Megaribi]] ([[User talk:Megaribi|talk]]) 20:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
-:::It's disappointing enough these Wikipedias don't have to take down statements they can't prove or even dis-proven, but that our historians continue to lazily just repeat 60 year old propoganda rather than cop to the truth finally. The same people who criticise the Japanese history books lie in theirs too. I believe Finland history books portray 2 separate wars in what we call one ww2.[[User:AthabascaCree|AthabascaCree]] ([[User talk:AthabascaCree|talk]]) 09:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
-== The author can show no document signed by Japan, Germany and Italy with the title "Axis" in it. ==
-<br />
-Therefore he is just repeating wartime propaganda, not historical fact that can be proven.
-The term "Axis" was coined first by Italian General Gombos, who had died in October 1936,
-describing any future alliance between Berlin and Rome which lay on the same longitudinal axis.
-'''Again, the author can NOT show any document signed by the three agreeing to "FORMALLY" rename the Tripartite Pact as the Axis Pact.'''
-The author is incorrect in labelling the Anti-Comintern Pact as making Germany and Japan 'allies' as it was not a military alliance. See quotes discussion on Tripartite Pact page the Oxford Companion to WWII quotes. It was not even a defensive pact, merely a sharing of information on communist party activities.
-As already mentioned, since there was NO signed document by Japan, Germany and Italy agreeing to the term 'Axis' to represent the Tripartite Pact, the part declaring Japan as the Principal Axis power in Asia is obviously false as well.
-Japan's first major action was in fact in 1931 when right-wing militarists disobeyed direct orders from Tokyo and invaded Manchuria, not 1937 as stated.
-Again, there is NO signed document including Thailand claiming it a member of any 'Axis Pact'. The author's bias shows again by refusing to point out why Thailand allied itself with Japan. It was because of a series of unfair territorial concessions forced upon her by France backed by Britain and the United States costing her 3 provinces.
-'''By Wikipedia's own rules and guidelines, this article is so full of untruths that it should be removed altogether.'''
-[[User:AthabascaCree|AthabascaCree]] ([[User talk:AthabascaCree|talk]]) 08:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
-The Tripartite Pact is considered by most historians to be an expansion of the Rome-Berlin Axis to include Japan.  The Tripartite Pact's nickname was the "Axis Pact". There are many sources which describe Japan as an Axis member. In this source found at Google Books, Japan became a conditional member of what the article calls the "Axis Powers".[http://books.google.com/books?id=uEMsAAAAIAAJ&q=japan+axis+powers&dq=japan+axis+powers&pgis=1] A book written in 1941, called the "New International Year Book" calls the Tripartite Pact the "Axis Pact".[http://books.google.com/books?id=c9obAAAAIAAJ&q=japan+axis+pact&dq=japan+axis+pact&pgis=1] The book called the Folly of War by Donald E. Schmidt calls the Tripartite Pact the "Axis Pact".[http://books.google.com/books?id=pRRAdajkwycC&pg=PA147&dq=japan+axis+pact&sig=ACfU3U3fkUTniXiq_g6y6Fn9mR8eygey2g] The book "World War II" by Loyd E. Lee calls the Tripartite Pact the "Axis Pact".[http://books.google.com/books?id=Akz0H1zGFwoC&pg=PA49&dq=japan+axis+pact&lr=&sig=ACfU3U0zeEW2QsAeekU1pscyH4-MBY62-w] The book "The Axis Alliance and Japanese-American Relations, 1941" by Paul W. Schroeder.[http://books.google.com/books?id=USZyAAAAIAAJ&q=japan+axis+pact&dq=japan+axis+pact&lr=&pgis=1]. The book "Diplomacy of Aggression" speaks of the "Berlin-Rome-Tokyo Axis. The book "The World Since 1919" by Walter Consuelo Langsam cites the "Berlin-Rome-Axis". The Google search Japan+"Axis Pact" results in 311,000 results.[http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=japan+%22axis+powers%22&meta=] Thus it is common that the Tripartite Pact is seen as the "Axis Pact" or the "Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis". The term Axis Powers is used to generally refer to all those countries and autonomous entities that were united in alliance particularly with Germany or Italy that were at war with the "Allied Powers". If this is an inappropriate title, I suggest that administrators be contacted to review whether the title and article is biased.--[[User:R-41|R-41]] ([[User talk:R-41|talk]]) 23:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
+=== Request details ===
-:::R-41 you've just proved the point that the term is a propaganda title, not an actual historical diplomatic treaty. By your reasoning Elvis is still alive just because enough people say he is. Your comment is proof America's learnt nothing from Hearst and his yellow journalism. The same sensible research method that proved Iraq, forget Alquaeda, was responsible for 9/11 and had weapons of mass destruction on the verge of mushroom clouds in the United States.
+==== Who are the involved parties? ====
+{{User|Admiral Norton}},<br />{{User|Eleassar}},<br />{{User|Yerpo}},<br />{{User|Zenanarh}},<br />{{User|Imbris}}
+==== What's going on? ====
-:::Gee, for years we had Bush and Blair getting everyone to call Iraq, Pakistan and North Korea as the 'Axis of Evil'. Then, more of these sources of yours who speak on behalf of their foes, switched Pakistan with Iran. Then your people took Iraq out of the Axis by occupying it. Then your people took North Korea out of the Axis after they proved they did have the bomb. Genius, Iraq was part of the Axis because it had the bomb, eventhough it didn't; and North Korea is no longer part of the Axis because the do have the bomb, eventhough enough sources like yours said they didn't.
+The dispute concerns the title of the article. The article has been moved several times already. Sveta Gera aka Trdinov vrh is a disputed territory. Zenanarh tries to prove the article should be named ''Sveta Gera'' on the basis of the historical sources he has found. Yerpo disputes their relevancy and reliability. Eleassar (me) tries to prove Wikipedia should not take part in the dispute and should choose the most frequent name, which he assumes is ''Trdinov vrh''. Admiral Norton disputes that as he believes ''Sveta Gera'' is the most common name.
+The dispute has become uncivil and some users have expressed their inability to assume good faith any further.
-:::By your logic, courts should listen only to your ex's lawyer and witnesses in your divorce, not yours. Truth by gossip, what a great sense of reliability.[[User:TheBalderdasher|TheBalderdasher]] ([[User talk:TheBalderdasher|talk]]) 07:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
+<!-- What has been happening in the article to cause this dispute, mention usernames and be detailed, but please stay civil and refrain from personal attacks! If you yourself have done something wrong, mention that as well :-) -->
+==== What would you like to change about that? ====
-== Change the article style ==
+I would like to ensure Wikipedia retains neutral position in the dispute and that Wikipedia policies and guidelines (especially [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:NCON]] and [[WP:NCGN]]) are taken seriously.
-To make this article more consistent to Allies article, please prepare chronology of joining to Axis forces with small flags.[[User:Megaribi|Megaribi]] ([[User talk:Megaribi|talk]]) 20:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
+<!-- What do you want to be done about this problem? Remember that mediators cannot force other users to participate, nor issue judgments -->
-:Pratically impossible as Axis membership has never been as clear case as with Allies, especially then we add all those puppet states, so such chronology would only cause never ending disputes.--[[User:Staberinde|Staberinde]] ([[User talk:Staberinde|talk]]) 09:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
+=== Mediator notes ===
-== Remove "Axis autonomous territories"? ==
+<!-- For mediator use -->
-In my opinion, those areas did not have neither enough practical(as independent axis members) nor official(as axis puppet states) independence to be included in this article.--[[User:Staberinde|Staberinde]] ([[User talk:Staberinde|talk]]) 09:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
-:No, this is not the right decision to make. The [[Military Administration of Serbia]] is an important instance where non-state autonomous political entities established by the Axis Powers played a role. Getting rid of this section will start another fiery edit war over whether Serbia should be considered just "occupied territory" or a "puppet state". Furthermore, Albania was a protectorate to Italy just as Bohemia and Moravia was to Germany. Albania was run by Italian governors which intended the area be colonized by Italians just as Bohemia and Moravia was run by German governors to be done with Germans. Still, these two autonomous entities allowed Germany and Italy to rally people of the dominant ethnicity to fight for them. The reality was that it was a joint German-Serb political entity run by German governors along with a Serbian civil government which called for Serbs to support the government. I am afraid that scrapping "Axis autonomous territories" will start a fiery edit war, especially among Balkan editors as nationalistic Croat, Serb, and Albanian users will fight over Serbia's and Albania's positions in the war. I've seen these kind of vicious edit wars start, please don't let another one start. Keep this section so that
+=== Administrative notes ===
-==Norway==
+<!-- For mediator use -->
-it is really easy to belive that Norway was a suporter of Nazi-germany. There is no section abouth Norway, and the map dosent help much
-:The reason there is no section on Norway is because Norway in no way ''was'' a supporter of Nazi Germany. Norway was neutral until it was [[Operation Weserubung|invaded by German forces]] in April 1940, after which it joined the [[Allies of World War II|Allies]] and [[Norwegian Campaign|defended itself against the Germans]] until mainland Norway was [[Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany|fully occupied]] in June. After this, Norway was under occupation, but the [[Johan Nygaardsvold|legitimate government in exile]] always considered Norway to be an Ally under enemy occupation. The Germans never attempted to create an Axis puppet state in Norway either (as they did in Greece, Croatia, Slovakia and several other occupied countries, as this article will tell you), they merely occupied the country. Norwegian collaborators existed, of course, there were plenty of them, but that does not make Norway more of an Axis powers than other Axis-occupied states with legitimate governments in exile, such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, etc. So despite how easy you might think it is to believe Norway supported Nazi Germany, it has nothing to do with reality and has no place in this article or on the map. [[User:96T|96T]] ([[User talk:96T|talk]]) 18:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
-::I've edited the map caption slightly to make it clear that it shows the extent of occupied territory.  It's a good map, but we could do with a more sophisticated one.[[User:Macguba|Macguba]] ([[User talk:Macguba|talk]]) 17:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
-==Soviet Union==
+=== Discussion ===
+<!-- You can discuss you problem with the mediator and other users under this heading, or at the involved article's talk page -->
-This was incorrectly placed in "Controversial cases" so I have moved to "Co-belligerents" where it should have been in the first place.  There is no controversy - historians agree that Germany and the USSR cooperated in the invasion of Poland, thus making the USSR a co-belligerent of Germany.  (I suspect the para should be called "USSR" rather than "Soviet Union".) [[User:Macguba|Macguba]] ([[User talk:Macguba|talk]]) 17:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
+* What is the origin of the dispute? How are the different names typically used in the real world?
-:It's true that they supported each other in 1939-41, and that both countries invaded Poland (but they did not fight together), but can you point out some reliable sorces that define the Soviet Union and Germany as co-belligerents? Because if you can't, you can not make such changes. You should also beware that there have been some pretty heavy discussions on this in the past, where the consensus has always been to leave the Soviet Union in the "Controversial cases" section. [[User:96T|96T]] ([[User talk:96T|talk]]) 12:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
+* How does new organizations and textbooks (both generally good indicators of conventional naming) name the subject and treat the naming dispute? Can you provide some examples?
-::Nonsense. At best the inclusion of the Soviet union in the Axis powers is "controversial", though the country is probably more characterized as ''The'' Allied Power of WWII. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">[[User:DIREKTOR|<font color="DimGray">DIREKTOR</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<font color="Gray">TALK</font>]])</sup></font> 13:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
+* Are any of the proposed names especially common in reliable sources? Can you provide some examples?
-::::WTF?  I can't believe I'm reading this.  Please explain to me why invading Poland in cooperation with Germany is not being a co-belligerent. [[User:Macguba|Macguba]] ([[User talk:Macguba|talk]]) 14:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
+* Are any of the proposed names especially ''obscure'' in reliable sources? What sort of sources tend to use that name? Can you provide some examples?
-::There was no "cooperation" between Axis and Soviet forces during the Soviet intervention in Poland. In any case, this is most certainly controversial and belongs in the "Controversial" section. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">[[User:DIREKTOR|<font color="DimGray">DIREKTOR</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DIREKTOR|<font color="Gray">TALK</font>]])</sup></font> 15:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)