The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
There has been an ongoing dispute for about 2 years now regarding the participating sources during the
Defense of Sihang Warehouse and more recently a dispute regarding the subsection covering the same event's subsection on the
Battle of Shanghai Article. As the battle seems to have been of little significance in Japanese history, most of the known Japanese sources are un-detailed reports from the Japanese military itself or contemporary news reports. Japanese sources state the participating forces were a reinforced battalion and some artillery companies of the Japanese
NAVAL landing forces.
[1] Contemporary Japanese newspapers also state the Warehouse was captured by naval landing force units.
[2] Likewise, contemporary English news reports support this, noting the participation of the Japanese Naval Landing Forces or "marines."
[3]
[4] When the warehouse was occupied by the Japanese, it was repeated in a major China-based English newspaper that the "Special Naval Landing Party" were the ones who had taken it.
[5]
However several newer English-language sources assert it was the Japanese ARMY's 3rd Division. These assertions not only contradict primary Japanese-language sources and contemporary news reports, but also an academic English-language essay authored by reputable historians which documents the IJA 3rd Division as being outside of the city attempting to cross Suzhou River (while the Defense of Sihang Warehouse took place). [6] A look into the references shows this essay was based largely on primary sources authored by the Japanese military. Other editors have understandably taken issue with the use of Japanese primary sources for the Japanese Order of Battle and have disputed them with several English language sources. The main English sources being used to assert the IJA 3rd Division's involvement are as follows:
TLDR: Japanese primary sources and contemporary newspapers state X force was engaged in the battle, newer English sources generally with few or no citations assert Y force was engaged in the battle, academic English source notes Y force as not being present in said battle. I am requesting a comment on the reliability of the four English sources in question and additional comments on any of the other sources mentioned would be greatly appreciated too.
|
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Brunswick
Are New Brunswick counties a former entity synonymous with the municipal governments abolished in 1967? G. Timothy Walton ( talk) 16:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC) |
I would like to seek a third opinion regarding this subject matter. The user @
Wahreit has been quite attached to the narrative of the IJA 3rd Division's involvement in this battle, asserting it with a number of low quality cherry-picked generally non-academic sources which often do not provide citations for their claims. As seen above and many times before I have tried to explain in detail why these sources do not hold up and conflict with more reliable sources. In spite of this they have been frequently overriding my edits and also trying to interpret Japanese sources which it seems they can't understand and are unwittingly asserting false claims with them. I have been trying to correct these incorrect changes but I want to avoid edit-warring.
This dispute is not limited to this page but also the Defense of Sihang Warehouse page as well, where the disputed matter is largely the same. As I see it, the Japanese sources clearly demonstrate this notion of the IJA 3rd Division's participation to be incorrect. Regardless of being primary sources, I don't see how there is room to assert this claim when the actual participating units are well documented in Japanese. I have been simply translating records and using zero synthesis to reach my conclusions. It is documented that the IJA 3rd Division was at the bank of Suzhou River trying to cross it when this happened. It is documented that the IJN's Special Naval Landing Forces were the ones involved in the attack on Sihang Warehouse. The only counterclaims @Wahreit has provided are western sources in which 5/6 did not even provide citations for their claims (and half had no citations at all!). It would be great if someone else can offer their opinion, especially if they can read Japanese sources. I know the heavy use of primary and Japanese language sources is far from ideal on my side as well. Best Regards, Adachi 2024/07/16 Adachi1939 ( talk) 21:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
When data provided by
Gaza Health Ministry is mentioned in prose should Gaza Health Ministryhave a qualifier such as Hamas-runor Hamas-controlled? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 12:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC) |
Dispute over whether this article is promoting fringe theories. The information being covered is contentious, and hardly available in the English language. Most historians being cited are South Korean. One user alleges the South Korean historians have reason to be biased (and per tag, promoting fringe theories), and that more Western historians are needed. 211.43.120.242 ( talk) 00:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC) |
Per discussions above, these suggestions have made for a new Mughal dynasty lead:
Kindly, state the preferred options below. PadFoot ( talk) 12:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC) |
George Lenczowski in “Russia and the West in Iran, 1918-1948” (1949) page 160 says the Nazis declared Iranians as Aryans without citation and has been cited himself by many authors repeating this statement, Motadel and Ansari in “Perceptions of Iran” (2013) pages 135 and 145 say they didn’t, that Lenczowski was incorrect, and cite primary source documents, but have not been widely cited by other authors on this particular subject. Which can be considered correct for use in this article and others? See Talk:Germany–Iran relations#Nazis declaring Iranians Aryans/Hitler personally saying so for further discussion. Nosam89 ( talk) 07:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC) |
Abraham Wyner, a professor of statistics, wrote in The Tablet that the Gaza Health Ministry casualty figures were "faked". There has been a number of discussions disagreeing about what can be included. Four academics who have entries on Wikipedia including two of statistics have dismissed the article but only one has written an analysis and that of only the first argument. Should comments which don't include analysis be included? The latest discussions are at WP:NPOVN#Gaza Health Ministry, Talk:Gaza Health Ministry#Revisiting Wyner, Talk:Gaza Health Ministry#One of the worst abuses of statistics I've ever seen, Talk:Gaza Health Ministry#Wyner, Talk:Gaza Health Ministry#Wyner summary, Talk:Gaza Health Ministry#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2024, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 431#Tablet (magazine) and article by Wharton statistician. NadVolum ( talk) 22:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity
Ten years have passed since the last discussion
[1]. The appearance of new sources merits a new discussion.
The present text in the article stands: "Nikola Tesla was born an ethnic Serb in the village of Smiljan, within the Military Frontier, in the Austrian Empire (present-day Croatia)" The sources provide additional context which describe the birthplace "at that time"
The RfC questions are:
|
Should the first sentence continue to read "Thomas Niedermayer [...] was kidnapped by the Provisional IRA" or be reverted back to "Thomas Niedermayer [...] was kidnapped and killed by the Provisional IRA"? 78.147.140.112 ( talk) 14:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC) |
Which of the following images should serve as the infobox picture for
Hermann Göring?
|
Which sources are more reliable for the etymology of the word 'shakshouka'?
Current article sources:
Proposed alternative sources:
|
Should the introduction of this article mention or address Zionism? إيان ( talk) 07:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Titles of European monarchs
In the absence of a need to disambiguate, how should we title the articles of European imperial and royal monarchs?
If you support multiple options, please rank your preferences to assist the closer in identifying consensus. 22:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
Is it okay to add "Rust prevention technology of Terracotta army", to the article list?... the reverted edit dif 08:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
How should the modern National Rally be described in the infobox?
Looking to establish consensus. Thank you! KlayCax ( talk) 03:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC) |
Should the "Fancy Dutch religion and Anglo-American prejudice" section contain a quote from 1903 in which the Fraktur typeface is used instead of the standard Wikipedia font? Thanks in advance to all those leaving their comments. Vlaemink ( talk) 17:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
Should the section Spanish Civil War contain the below paragraphs? For details and arguments exchanged, please see above |
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
There has been an ongoing dispute for about 2 years now regarding the participating sources during the
Defense of Sihang Warehouse and more recently a dispute regarding the subsection covering the same event's subsection on the
Battle of Shanghai Article. As the battle seems to have been of little significance in Japanese history, most of the known Japanese sources are un-detailed reports from the Japanese military itself or contemporary news reports. Japanese sources state the participating forces were a reinforced battalion and some artillery companies of the Japanese
NAVAL landing forces.
[1] Contemporary Japanese newspapers also state the Warehouse was captured by naval landing force units.
[2] Likewise, contemporary English news reports support this, noting the participation of the Japanese Naval Landing Forces or "marines."
[3]
[4] When the warehouse was occupied by the Japanese, it was repeated in a major China-based English newspaper that the "Special Naval Landing Party" were the ones who had taken it.
[5]
However several newer English-language sources assert it was the Japanese ARMY's 3rd Division. These assertions not only contradict primary Japanese-language sources and contemporary news reports, but also an academic English-language essay authored by reputable historians which documents the IJA 3rd Division as being outside of the city attempting to cross Suzhou River (while the Defense of Sihang Warehouse took place). [6] A look into the references shows this essay was based largely on primary sources authored by the Japanese military. Other editors have understandably taken issue with the use of Japanese primary sources for the Japanese Order of Battle and have disputed them with several English language sources. The main English sources being used to assert the IJA 3rd Division's involvement are as follows:
TLDR: Japanese primary sources and contemporary newspapers state X force was engaged in the battle, newer English sources generally with few or no citations assert Y force was engaged in the battle, academic English source notes Y force as not being present in said battle. I am requesting a comment on the reliability of the four English sources in question and additional comments on any of the other sources mentioned would be greatly appreciated too.
|
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Brunswick
Are New Brunswick counties a former entity synonymous with the municipal governments abolished in 1967? G. Timothy Walton ( talk) 16:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC) |
I would like to seek a third opinion regarding this subject matter. The user @
Wahreit has been quite attached to the narrative of the IJA 3rd Division's involvement in this battle, asserting it with a number of low quality cherry-picked generally non-academic sources which often do not provide citations for their claims. As seen above and many times before I have tried to explain in detail why these sources do not hold up and conflict with more reliable sources. In spite of this they have been frequently overriding my edits and also trying to interpret Japanese sources which it seems they can't understand and are unwittingly asserting false claims with them. I have been trying to correct these incorrect changes but I want to avoid edit-warring.
This dispute is not limited to this page but also the Defense of Sihang Warehouse page as well, where the disputed matter is largely the same. As I see it, the Japanese sources clearly demonstrate this notion of the IJA 3rd Division's participation to be incorrect. Regardless of being primary sources, I don't see how there is room to assert this claim when the actual participating units are well documented in Japanese. I have been simply translating records and using zero synthesis to reach my conclusions. It is documented that the IJA 3rd Division was at the bank of Suzhou River trying to cross it when this happened. It is documented that the IJN's Special Naval Landing Forces were the ones involved in the attack on Sihang Warehouse. The only counterclaims @Wahreit has provided are western sources in which 5/6 did not even provide citations for their claims (and half had no citations at all!). It would be great if someone else can offer their opinion, especially if they can read Japanese sources. I know the heavy use of primary and Japanese language sources is far from ideal on my side as well. Best Regards, Adachi 2024/07/16 Adachi1939 ( talk) 21:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
When data provided by
Gaza Health Ministry is mentioned in prose should Gaza Health Ministryhave a qualifier such as Hamas-runor Hamas-controlled? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 12:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC) |
Dispute over whether this article is promoting fringe theories. The information being covered is contentious, and hardly available in the English language. Most historians being cited are South Korean. One user alleges the South Korean historians have reason to be biased (and per tag, promoting fringe theories), and that more Western historians are needed. 211.43.120.242 ( talk) 00:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC) |
Per discussions above, these suggestions have made for a new Mughal dynasty lead:
Kindly, state the preferred options below. PadFoot ( talk) 12:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC) |
George Lenczowski in “Russia and the West in Iran, 1918-1948” (1949) page 160 says the Nazis declared Iranians as Aryans without citation and has been cited himself by many authors repeating this statement, Motadel and Ansari in “Perceptions of Iran” (2013) pages 135 and 145 say they didn’t, that Lenczowski was incorrect, and cite primary source documents, but have not been widely cited by other authors on this particular subject. Which can be considered correct for use in this article and others? See Talk:Germany–Iran relations#Nazis declaring Iranians Aryans/Hitler personally saying so for further discussion. Nosam89 ( talk) 07:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC) |
Abraham Wyner, a professor of statistics, wrote in The Tablet that the Gaza Health Ministry casualty figures were "faked". There has been a number of discussions disagreeing about what can be included. Four academics who have entries on Wikipedia including two of statistics have dismissed the article but only one has written an analysis and that of only the first argument. Should comments which don't include analysis be included? The latest discussions are at WP:NPOVN#Gaza Health Ministry, Talk:Gaza Health Ministry#Revisiting Wyner, Talk:Gaza Health Ministry#One of the worst abuses of statistics I've ever seen, Talk:Gaza Health Ministry#Wyner, Talk:Gaza Health Ministry#Wyner summary, Talk:Gaza Health Ministry#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2024, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 431#Tablet (magazine) and article by Wharton statistician. NadVolum ( talk) 22:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity
Ten years have passed since the last discussion
[1]. The appearance of new sources merits a new discussion.
The present text in the article stands: "Nikola Tesla was born an ethnic Serb in the village of Smiljan, within the Military Frontier, in the Austrian Empire (present-day Croatia)" The sources provide additional context which describe the birthplace "at that time"
The RfC questions are:
|
Should the first sentence continue to read "Thomas Niedermayer [...] was kidnapped by the Provisional IRA" or be reverted back to "Thomas Niedermayer [...] was kidnapped and killed by the Provisional IRA"? 78.147.140.112 ( talk) 14:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC) |
Which of the following images should serve as the infobox picture for
Hermann Göring?
|
Which sources are more reliable for the etymology of the word 'shakshouka'?
Current article sources:
Proposed alternative sources:
|
Should the introduction of this article mention or address Zionism? إيان ( talk) 07:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Titles of European monarchs
In the absence of a need to disambiguate, how should we title the articles of European imperial and royal monarchs?
If you support multiple options, please rank your preferences to assist the closer in identifying consensus. 22:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
Is it okay to add "Rust prevention technology of Terracotta army", to the article list?... the reverted edit dif 08:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
How should the modern National Rally be described in the infobox?
Looking to establish consensus. Thank you! KlayCax ( talk) 03:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC) |
Should the "Fancy Dutch religion and Anglo-American prejudice" section contain a quote from 1903 in which the Fraktur typeface is used instead of the standard Wikipedia font? Thanks in advance to all those leaving their comments. Vlaemink ( talk) 17:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
Should the section Spanish Civil War contain the below paragraphs? For details and arguments exchanged, please see above |