This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Closed for two reasons. First, the filing unregistered editor has not notified the other editor of this filing. That omission could be corrected by notice to JamieBrown2011. Second, this filing appears to be mainly a conduct complaint, that the other editor is deleting the comments of other editors and exercising article ownership. This noticeboard does not discuss conduct. If the filing editor wishes to discuss the conduct of User:JamieBrown2011, they may do so at WP:ANI (and will be required to notify them of that filing). If the filing editor wants to discuss article content, they may resume that discussion on the article talk page for another 24 hours, and can file a new request here that is about article content, not conduct. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filing IP blocked. NotAGenious ( talk) 13:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
Closed. There are at least two problems with this filing. First, the unregistered editor who has filed this request has not taken part in discussions about the article, at least not while logged out. If they have taken part in the discussions while logged in, they should request DRN while logged in as a registered regular user. Second, the filing editor has not notified the other editors. If you have an account, log in to it for any further discussion. Resume discussion at the article talk page. A new request can be filed here if discussion is lengthy and inconclusive. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
As in my last DRN, this concerns the plot summary. I felt the summary was overlong (barely under 700 words for a book w/ notability barely established) and written in a "breathless, exciting" fashion which was not properly encyclopedic. I shortened it drastically and was reverted twice by the other editor. The other editor insisted the extensive context and detail were necessary to understand the plot and that the tone was not unduly "fanboyish." We do not see eye to eye and I do not feel further talk page discussion will be fruitful.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
/info/en/?search=Talk:Maske:_Thaery
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Maske%3A_Thaery&diff=1171815810&oldid=1171773870
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Maske%3A_Thaery&diff=1171731850&oldid=1171725101
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Please consult the editors' respective versions of the summary (diffs provided above) and advise which summary, if either, is more appropriate per WP policy.
Science fiction usually requires context, as the author has frequently created an alien environment or society. And Jack Vance is particularly noted for doing just that. JACU has so stripped their version of the synopsis of it you can barely tell it's even science fiction. It only surfaces once, in the sentence "He follows Ramus to the tourist world Eiselbar and learns that he is trying to raise money to purchase a space yacht." Other than that (and the villain being transformed into a tree, which could just as easily be fantasy), it could be a spy novel set on Earth. As I stated before, it's like 2001: A Space Odyssey being described as: A five-man ship's crew goes on long voyage. An equipment malfunction results in the deaths of all but one. The sole survivor undergoes a transformative experience. It's just as context-free and just as uninformative. As for the allegation that it is "written in a 'breathless, exciting' fashion", where? Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Please read the ground rules. Please state whether you are willing to engage in moderated discussion subject to the rules. If so, we will begin moderated discussion. The moderator will ask the questions, and the editors will address their answers to the moderator and the community. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. You have already tried that, and it was lengthy and inconclusive.
I see that one issue is the plot summary. One editor thought that it was too long, and shortened it. The other editor thought that the shortened version was too short, and restored the long version. Are there any other issues besides the plot summary? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
There was a previous notability issue, where I had redirected the article due to its being an unsourced "book report" article, i.e. just a lengthy plot recap and character list. That issue has since been resolved, as Clarityfiend has added the required two reviews to satisfy the notability requirement. The remaining present issue concerns the length and tone of the plot summary. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 20:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
That's the only issue so far. Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
It appears that the only issue is the plot summary. Since there has been some editing of the plot summary, I will ask each editor to provide their preferred version of the plot summary. You may engage in back-and-forth discussion in the section for the purpose, preferably to try to compromise on the plot summary. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Proposed Summary by JACU
Jubal Droad goes on "Yallow," a rite of passage into adulthood, traditionally spent doing public works. As part of his Yallow, Droad spends several weeks repairing a trail. One day, the arrogant noble Rampus Ymph ignores Jubal's warning to not use the still unfinished trail, causing it to collapse and seriously injure Droad.
When Jubal recovers, he arrives in the city of Wysrod for the examination of Ramus Ymph for the high office of Servant. Jubal recognizes his nemesis. He informs Nai the Hever, the senior Servant, of Ramus's illegal activities. This results in Ramus being rejected.
Nai the Hever offers Jubal a seemingly lowly position as Sanitary Inspector in unit D3. Jubal reluctantly accepts and learns that D3 is actually the intelligence service. He is now a secret agent in training. Jubal's first assignment is to discover what Ramus is plotting. He follows Ramus to the tourist world Eiselbar and learns that he is trying to raise money to purchase a space yacht.
Back on Maske, Cadmus off-Droad, Jubal's illegitimate brother, murders Trewe, head of the clan, asserting that he had been robbed of his rightful place. The clan gathers and brings Cadmus down. However, Cadmus's masked chief accomplice escapes and Jubal is certain that it is Ramus.
Ramus sails across the ocean to meet with the Waels, a people known for their spiritual connection to trees. Jubal takes Ramus' fiance, Mieltrude, into custody and sets off in pursuit. During the voyage, Mieltrude informs Jubal that her engagement to Ramus was a subterfuge to aid her father's investigation of Ramus.
Jubal finds Ramus negotiating with the Waels for the use of part of their land for much-needed food and other resources. Jubal, disguised as a Wael, gets him to admit that he plans to construct tourist resorts on the land. The Waels reject his proposal. They insist that Shrack and Jubal take him away. When they reach Wysrod, Ramus transforms into a tree. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 07:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Proposed summary by Clarityfield
It's what is currently in the article (598 words):
A religious group seized part of the isolated planet Maske from earlier colonists and named it Thaery. One dissident faction was driven off and became the Waels of Wellas. Another was exiled and became the Glints. The Glints became notorious bandits, but were eventually subjugated. However, they are still looked down upon as coarse and belligerent. Some Glints became "Sea Nationals", claimed sovereignty over the ocean. To maintain their religious purity, travel to other worlds was banned.
Jubal Droad, a young Glint man, goes on Yallow, a rite of passage into adulthood, traditionally spent wandering and doing public works. He spends several weeks repairing a trail. One day, a man leading a group of soldiers ignores Jubal's urgent warning not to use the unfinished trail. He and his men cause it to collapse and seriously injure Jubal.
When he recovers, his uncle Vaidro gives him a letter of introduction to Nai the Hever, one of the most powerful men of Thaery. He arrives in the city of Wysrod and encounters Nai's elegant adult daughter Mieltrude and her beautiful friend Sune Mircea. He accompanies them to the examination of Ramus Ymph for the high office of Servant. Jubal recognizes his nemesis. He informs Nai the Hever, the senior Servant, of his investigation of Ramus's activities: he secretly and illegally went off-world. This results in Ramus being rejected.
Nai the Hever offers Jubal a seemingly lowly position as Sanitary Inspector in unit D3. Jubal reluctantly accepts and learns that D3 is actually the intelligence service. He is now a secret agent in training. Nai the Hever is D3's head, and Vaidro had been a valued agent.
Ramus has Mieltrude, his fiancée, sign a warrant to subject Jubal to physical punishment. Jubal escapes with the assistance of Shrack, a Sea National ship captain, and procures a warrant against Mieltrude. Nai the Hever persuades him to not serve it.
Jubal's first assignment is to discover what Ramus is plotting. He follows Ramus to the tourist world Eiselbar and learns that he is trying to raise money to purchase a space yacht.
Back on Maske, Cadmus off-Droad, Jubal's illegitimate brother, murders Trewe, head of the clan, asserting that he had been robbed of his rightful place. The clan gathers and brings Cadmus down after fierce fighting. However, Cadmus's masked chief accomplice escapes; Jubal is certain that it is Ramus. Without proof, however, Nai the Hever refuses to antagonize the powerful Ymph clan. In fact, Jubal has become an embarrassment to him.
Ramus sails across the ocean to meet with the Waels, a peculiar people living in a barren land who have developed a deep spiritual connection with trees. Jubal takes Mieltrude into custody and sets off in pursuit. During the voyage, their mutual disdain begins to weaken. Mieltrude informs Jubal that her engagement to Ramus was a subterfuge to aid her father's investigation of Ramus. Ramus's mistress, Sune, had forged Mieltrude's signature to the warrant.
Jubal finds Ramus negotiating with the Waels for the use of part of their land for much-needed food and other resources. Jubal, disguised as a Wael, gets him to admit that he plans to construct tourist resorts on the land. (Ramus tried to lease Droad land for the same purpose.) The Waels reject his proposal. They do something to Ramus which leaves him mute and subdued, and insist that Shrack and Jubal take him away. During the return voyage, Ramus sprouts bark and leaves. When they reach Wysrod, Ramus runs off the ship, plants his feet in the soil, raises his arms, and essentially transforms into a tree.
Two versions of the plot summary have been written. The one by Clarityfiend is longer. Do you want me to offer an opinion, or do you want me to remain neutral? I will only offer an opinion if both editors want an opinion. If I do offer an opinion, the choices will then be to accept it, or to ask the community to resolve the issue by RFC. If you want me to remain neutral, then I encourage you to engage in back-and-forth discussion to try to compromise. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I'd be interested in hearing your opinion, but what happens if the other editor doesn't respond timely? Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 18:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
One editor has agreed to having me offer a Third Opinion. The other has not. I do not intend to offer an opinion unless both editors agree, because then if one editor does not accept my opinion, I will not be able to be neutral. If the other editor does not respond, or if they do respond but do not want me to provide an opinion, the next step will be a Request for Comments, which will let the community decide. I may express my opinion then, but only as one voice among others. If User:Clarityfiend does not either agree to have me offer an opinion or raise other issues, I will formulate a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The draft RFC is available for your review at Talk:Maske: Thaery/RFC on Plot Summary. If there are no further questions, I will activate the draft RFC and it will run for thirty days. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes. That's on purpose. The RFC is a draft, and is on a temporary subpage. There is no link on the article talk page because I will copy the RFC to the article talk page and activate the stray code when it is time to begin the RFC. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
The RFC is currently running. Please make your statement in the Survey. You may discuss in the Discussion section. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Responding to your comment on the talk page, the backstory is unnecessary to understand the immediate events of the plot. It's a big chunk of fat that could be cut and nothing would be lost except about 75 or so words. If you find it necessary for the reader of this summary to know that off-world travel is prohibited, simply say, "Off-world travel is prohibited" and leave it at that. Boring? Dull? Flat? Yes, but fully encyclopedic. Using a paragraph of backstory to explain this simple fact betrays a certain sentimental attachment to the material. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 07:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
Closed as declined. The editor who disagrees with the filing editor on content has declined to take part in DRN with inexperienced editors. Participation in DRN is voluntary. The filing editor may resume discussion on the article talk page, or may use a Request for Comments. An RFC establishes consensus, and so is binding. Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay, but do not edit disruptively. The content dispute may be resolved by discussion or by RFC. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as apparently declined. Three editors are listed, and were notified more than 48 hours ago, and have not responded. One of those editors has not edited in ten days, but two of those editors are currently editing, and are assumed to have declined to take part in moderated discussion. Continue normal discussion at the article talk page, Talk:Dominic Ng. Continue normal editing, but do not edit-war, and slow-motion edit-warring is edit-warring. If normal discussion is inconclusive, a Request for Comments is better than continued slow-motion edit-warring. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Closed as not really resolved. We don't have an agreement on whether the article should be tagged, but tagging disputes are mostly stupid, because the purpose of tagging should be to ask for improvement of the article. This article appears to have been tagged "drive-by", without intention to discuss. In my opinion, the article does need rework, but if no one volunteers to do the rework, the tag will stay off. Do not tag the article unless you are willing to discuss improving it. |
Closed discussion |
---|
Moved to WP:BLPN. NotAGenious ( talk) 18:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as premature. There has been no discussion on the article talk page. Discuss on the article talk page; that's what it's for. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new case can be filed here. The filing editor is strongly advised to register an account. It is very hard to keep track of shifting IPv6 addresses. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as resolved. The current version of the article states what the username was, and attributes it to the Hartford Courant. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
Since several weeks I'm trying to improve the article for a more balanced discussion of the German contributions for the Soviet rocketry development. There were reverts back and fourth and lastly I tried to find a starting point with a proposal for mutual agreement for a more balanced approach not denying controverse options of space historians (unanswered for more than a week). My last edit was reverted again although it was restricted to additional information and facts (together with many sources), improved structuring and several documented corrections. I clearly object the talk's statement that my edit "contradicts both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH or is pushing a WP:Fringe theory that is not supported by credible articles."
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:German_influence_on_the_Soviet_space_program#Reverted_SchmiAlf‘s_contraversial_edits
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Review my last change of the article (16:35, 2 September 2023) whether it was a fair approach of improving Wikipedia and whether it has any issue with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH or WP:Fringe. Also I'm interested in opinions and guideline whether this is a case for the Administrator's noticeboard.
When I created this article I was aware of an alternative viewpoint that overstated the German influence on the Soviet space programme, refer to this comment by DonPMitchell in 2009. Therefore I developed the Historical Analysis section of the article that contain both views, which adequately states the alternative viewpoint. The mainstream view is provided by Siddiqi’s Challenge to Apollo: The Soviet Union and the Space Race, 1945-1974 which is described in Siddiqi’s Wikipedia article as “…widely considered to be the best English-language history of the Soviet space program” in print and was identified by The Wall Street Journal as "one of the five best books" on space exploration.” Siddiiqi view, which is supported by many other references, states on page 84 of Siddiqi 2000:
I have summarised the above into the following statement in the Lead of the article:
Over the last 12 months I have been engaged in multiple discussions with SchmiAlf on the Talk page over his views of the German influence in the Soviet space programme, refer Joint work of Korolev and Gröttrup from 1945 to 1950 and Translation for German source. I have accepted a number of changes that SchmiAlf has made to the article, however his latest changes here, here, here and here have changed the mainstream view of Siddiqi and is basically pushing the alternative view. I have reverted these changes as they are based on his own research and conclusions, which contradicts both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Refer to Talk:German influence on the Soviet space program#Reverted SchmiAlf‘s contraversial edits for details of the discussion. Note the number of times SchmilAlf’s reasoning is based on his own conclusions (ie reasons for Soviet’s visiting Gorodmlya) or combining various statements from Siddiqi, CIA reports and other sources to support his conclusions. In other words SchmiAlf is contravening both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in their arguments. In SchmiAlf‘s latest edit he is highlighting actions that the Germans undertook in 1948 and 1949 whilst ignoring the conclusion of Siddiqi and other sources; that the Soviets made very little use of this work and their influence was marginal, as summarised in the Historical Analysis section of the article. In addition, SchmiAlf’s latest edit is relying on a primary source, plus he has made changes to the Lead which do not reflect the underlying article, in contravention of WP:MOSLEAD. Ilenart626 ( talk) 13:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Please read DRN Rule D. We will be under this set of rules because the space programs in question were in Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic because discussions sometimes refight either World War Two or the Cold War. The German rockets were used in World War Two, and were adapted for Soviet use in the Cold War. Please indicate whether you agree to moderated discussion subject to the rules.
It isn't clear from the introductory statements whether the editors are requesting moderated discussion or a Third Opinion. If a Third Opinion is desired, I will put this case on hold while the Third Opinion is requested at that noticeboard, and then either close this case or open this case.
The filing editor also writes: Also I'm interested in opinions and guideline whether this is a case for the Administrator's noticeboard.
Is this an article content dispute, a conduct dispute, or some of each? Sometimes if an article content dispute can be addressed, any related conduct issues may be set aside. It is a good idea to read
the boomerang essay before filing at
WP:AN or
WP:ANI. If you aren't sure whether this is a conduct dispute, it is a good idea to try to resolve the content issue first.
The discussion at the article talk page is lengthy. If the editors want moderated discussion, we need to identify exactly what parts of the article are in dispute. Each editor is asked to make a concise statement of what material in the article you want changed, or what you want left the same that the other editor wants changed. It is not necessary at this time to explain why you want those changes.
So:
Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Robert, can you note that most of SchmiAlf's latest edits have been removed due to copyright violation, "refer Deletion log 17:22 Diannaa talk contribs changed visibility of 2 revisions on page German influence on the Soviet space program: content hidden (RD1: Violations of copyright policy: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/gorodomlya.html)" Not sure how this changes this dispute resolution, will leave to SchmiAlf to respond. Ilenart626 ( talk) 22:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your statements to the moderator, who represents the community. After we establish what the article content issues are, I will provide a space for back-and-forth discussion.
One editor has not stated that they agree to moderated discussion (which is voluntary). That editor also has not answered my question about what changes they want to make to the article. Reliable sources are essential in Wikipedia, but my usual opening question is not about the sources, but about the body of the article, which should reflect what the sources say, but it is the body of the article that a reader will read.. If you want to make multiple changes to the article, to reflect what their sources say, please be concise and list no more than three parts of the article that you want changed.
After we have identified what the proposed changes to the article are, then we will know better how to continue this discussion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
First statement by SchmiAlf — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchmiAlf ( talk • contribs) 07:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Q1: I agree to moderated discussion
Q2: I agree to third opinion
Q3: I want to apply the following improvements and changes:
First statement by ilenart626
The section of the Lead that summarises the “Historical Analysis” section is detailed below. The section SchmiAlf wishes to delete is underlined:
SchmiAlf has stated that “Siddiqi's statement may remain in the Historical analysis section.” I assume SchmiAlf is referring to the following:
As per WP:MOSLEAD I believe the statement underlined above should remain in the Lead as I believe this wording, and the preceding section, appropriately summarises the conclusions in the “Historical Analysis” section.
SchmiAlf proposed other changes I cannot comment on as I am unsure of the specifics of these changes, particularly as:
Ilenart626 ( talk) 13:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Schmialf has proposed three changes to the article:
The main issue appears to be whether German influence on the Soviet space program after 1947 was marginal or was significant. The second and third proposed points will discuss in more detail what the influence after 1947 was. So I am asking both editors whether the article content issue has to do with whether there was significant post-1947 German influence on the Soviet space program. I am also asking what sources describe the post-1947 German influence, and whether those sources are considered reliable, and whether the coverage is considered significant. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Also, are there any other issues besides the extent of post-1947 German influence? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Second statement by ilenart626
I believe “whether there was significant post-1947 German influence on the Soviet space program” is the key issue in this content dispute.
The main sources that describe the post-1947 German influence are Siddiqi 2000, Chertok (2005) Ley (1969), Russians Space Web, Mick (2003) and Neufeld (2012). Siddiqi, in particular, on page 84 states the following:
The other sources support the above, for example:
I believe all these references are considered reliable, particularly Siddiqi ( Siddiqi’s Wikipedia article describes Challenge to Apollo: The Soviet Union and the Space Race, 1945-1974 as “…widely considered to be the best English-language history of the Soviet space program in print and was identified by The Wall Street Journal as "one of the five best books" on space exploration).
I believe the coverage is significant for all these references, particularly Siddiqi (appears he devotes about 50 pages of his 1,010 page book to German involvement, including a 5 page section called “The End of the Road for the Germans” pp 80-84).
I’m not sure if there are any other issues besides the extent of post-1947 German influence, will leave it to SchmiAlf to respond. Ilenart626 ( talk) 20:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Second statement by SchmiAlf
The first key issue is “whether there was significant post-1947 German influence on the Soviet space program” in the lead as it violates the neutral point of view. The second key issue is that additional information supporting the controversary view have been reverted several times.
With regard to the sources mentioned above I have the following comments:
ilenart's edit of Soviet space program on 4 July 2022 shows a strange approach. He claimed to move essential arguments into the new German influence on the Soviet space program (see diff and deleted them. But they never showed up in any version of his new article. So the new article disposed of some controversary arguments instead of challenging their content. In part, these arguments match with the content of my dispute. As a summary, IMHO the current version of this article is biased and does no apropriately reflect the controversary view.
I have restored a new version of my reverted and deleted edit as a sub-page, see here the difference to the currently published version. It does not yet include an update for the Historical analysis section. -- SchmiAlf ( talk) 11:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Be concise. Long statements are often not needed, and sometimes do not clarify the issues. I will be more or less repeating my questions.
It appears that there is really one multi-part issue, which is whether the German influence on the Soviet space program was marginal after 1947, or whether the statement to that effect should be deleted, and replaced by specific statements as to what the post-1947 German influences were. Is it correct that is the main issue? Please restate whether you wish to leave the marginal after 1947 statement in place, or whether you wish to delete it.
Does the issue of German influence on the Soviet space program after 1947 have to do with the reliability of sources? If so, please state which sources you are questioning the reliability of, and we can submit an inquiry to the reliable source noticeboard.
Please state concisely whether there was significant German influence on the Soviet space program after 1947, and what sources describe or dispute that influence. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Third statement by SchmiAlf
I wish to delete "the marginal after 1947 statement" in the lead as it is not plausible at all for what happend during 1948 and 1949.
My concerns about the reliability of the sources (Chertok; Siddiqi) addressed in my second statement are very specific and come up when comparing their conclusions with other sources which became accessible later. We must also consider the circumstances that Soviet (and later Russian) official statements kept German participation secret and denied it. But there is lot of plausible evidence that there was "more than marginal influence of German ideas" on the later Soviet developments, as follows:
The CIA documents provide details of German concepts and analysis long before data of Soviet and US missiles became publicly available. It is highly improbable that they got them from the Soviets who were eager to keep their secrets on their own.
IMHO the most neutral position is provided by Russian Space Web: "As it often happens in history, the truth might lie in between: Germans did not design Sputnik or its rocket, however the ideas and concepts developed by Gröttrup’s team on Gorodomlya did influence Soviet designers and thus accelerated their efforts. 'The work of the captive German scientists and technicians served as a yardstick against which Soviet accomplishments could be measured, and the Soviets were capable of extracting those developments useful to their program and of discarding others which they had already surpassed,' concluded a US historian [Ernest Schwiebert]." -- SchmiAlf ( talk) 10:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Third statement by ilenart626
I wish to retain the “marginal after 1947” statement in the Lead.
I question the reliability of any source that uses the Encyclopedia Astronautica website. For the discussion about its reliability refer to 1 - the Talk page on the article about the website, 2 - this discussion on Valentin Glushko’s Talk page and 3 - this reference.
There was no significant influence on the Soviet space program by German specialists after 1947. The main sources that confirm this are:
I agree that the “marginal after 1947” statement in the Lead is the main issue. However, as SchmiAlf has now provided details of their proposed edits in their 2nd statement here, I can now advice that I disagree with many of these changes. Ilenart626 ( talk) 11:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Back-and-forth discussion is permitted only in the section where it is permitted.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 07:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
|
---|
|
"Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion" means do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. However, I am providing a section for back-and-forth discussion, which should be civil.
It appears that SchmiAlf wishes to delete the "marginal after 1947" statement, and to expand two sections describing later German influence. It appears that Ilenart626 disagrees, and wishes to retain the statement, and does not want the two sections added.
Ilenart626: Do you question the reliability of any of the sources provided by SchmiAlf? If there is a question about the reliability of sources, we will refer the issue to the reliable source noticeboard. If there is a different reason for disagreeing, or a different issue, please state what the issue is. Robert McClenon ( talk) 07:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Fourth statement by SchmiAlf
Robert's statement is correct. For the section Work in the USSR of my proposed edit I'm willing to discuss plausible and well-founded objections by ilenart626. -- SchmiAlf ( talk) 13:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Fourth statement by ilenart626
As detailed in my third statement above, I question the reliability of SchmiAlf’s sources from the Encyclopedia Astronautica website. I agree with refering the website to the reliable source noticeboard.
The main reason I disagree with SchmiAlf’s changes is that they have failed to provide reliable sources that support “that German specialists had a significant influence on the Soviet space program after 1947”. Note that I do not disagree that the German specialists carried out studies during 1947-50; the “Work in the USSR” section of the article already contains details of this work. However as Neufeld (2012) states on page 58 “…after 1948 they were increasingly frozen out and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used.” In other words, these studies were ignored and the German specialists had little to no influence on the Soviet space program after 1947.
The only source that SchmiAlf has provided that supports his view is the statement provided by Schwiebert at the end of his third statement at Russian Space Web. However note that this statement is from Schwiebert’s “USAF's Ballistic Missiles - 1954-1964; A Concise History. Air Force & Space Digest” published in 1964. As SchmiAlf has already advised in his Second statement regarding a 1969 source - “Ley (1969) may be right in some assumptions, but his limited view during the Cold War can't be taken as a serious argument.” I agree with SchmiAlf that we should disregard sources from the cold war. My recommendation is to rely on sources after 1991 and the Dissolution of the Soviet Union and Glasnost that have accessed Soviet records, for example Siddiqi 2000, Chertok (2005), Mick (2003) and Neufeld (2012).
None of the other sources that SchmiAlf has provided clearly states that “German specialists had a significant influence on the Soviet space program after 1947”. SchmiAlf’s Third statement lists 7 dot points that he describes as “…there is lot of plausible evidence that there was "more than marginal influence of German ideas" on the later Soviet developments…”. Not a single one of these points provides a source that clearly states “German specialists had a significant influence on the Soviet space program after 1947”. They consist of his own analysis and synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves, in other words, not complying with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.
In contrast, the existing statement in the Lead - “…after 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet space program was marginal.” is clearly supported by the sources, for example:
Hence I believe the existing statement in the lead “…after 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet space program was marginal.” should remain. Ilenart626 ( talk) 14:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Before I ask the Reliable Source Noticeboard for an opinion on the reliability of any of the sources, I need to ask whether the question is really about the reliability of the sources, or about whether the sources are being interpreted correctly. If the question is about whether the sources are being interpreted correctly, we should discuss that here.
So, please specify whether you are questioning the reliability of the sources listed at the Encyclopedia Astronautica web site, or whether you are questioning the interpretation of the sources. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Fifth statement by ilenart626
I am questioning the reliability of information contained in the Encyclopedia Astronautica web site. Errors on the site have been identified as far back as 2006 but they have never been fixed. The site is no longer maintained and has never been peer reviewed, so these errors are never going to be fixed. Note that this space historian made the following comment in 2006:
I also note the following comments about the reliability of Encyclopedia Astronautica that was posted by another editor here in 2009 on Valentin Glushko’ Talk page, which is also relevant to this discussion:
Ilenart626 ( talk) 04:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Fifth statement by SchmiAlf
The reliability discussion on Encyclopedia Astronautica is a side aspect here only and not an elementary basis of my arguments (just a reference for technical concepts). With a similar argument, the work of Siddiqi, Mick, Neufeld (and many other authors) may be challenged if there is new relevant information since their publication date, no peers have fundamentally reviewed their findings and their work has not been updated accordingly.
I completely disagree that Siddiqi's and Neufeld's (based on Mick) statements can be summarized as ilenart626 does. He paraphrases Siddiqi (p. 84, see above) as "After 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet space program was marginal" (let me call it the 1947 proposition). One may even dispute whether Siddiqi's original term "influence over the direction of the Soviet balistic missile program" is sufficiently considered herein. With mentioning Neufeld and Mick that they support the 1947 proposition, he clearly exceeds the tolerable zone of interpretation. Neufeld/Mick have stated: "After 1948 they were increasingly frozen out and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used". This statement significantly differs from ilenart626's 1947 proposition. My previous edits were mostly consistent with Mick when unterstanding it in such a way that 1949 was a transition period between major involvement and being frozen out (from 1950) (as is agreed by most space historians). The 1947 proposition is completely overused when referencing to Neufeld and Mick as he does in Wikipedia's Soviet rocketry and Soviet space program (here even in conjunction with Anatoly Zak whose Myth and Reality statement is clearly opposite. This approach is not compliant to WP:SYNTH.
We cannot expect that we may find official Soviet documents which clearly determine the German influence on Soviet rocketry. In spite of high efforts in investigating Soviet/Russian archives, Uhl and Przybilski could not find the "smoking gun" of such proofs, just several chains of evidence. This is because the Soviets (most likely) have destroyed all German drawings and calculations after translating them (or at least have hidden them in a still secret location), not even German documents of the V-2 were retrieved. The most relevant document is Ustinov's 1951 report to Beria (Uhl, p. 259-260).
As a second opportunity, we have the CIA interrogations of Germans returned from Gorodomlya in 1952 and 1953. The comprehensive 1953 CIA interrogation and 1954 CIA interrogation are the most comprehensive reports, the first is (at least partly) based on Konrad Toebe's, the second on Helmut Gröttrup's interrogation in January 1954 after he and his family had fled to West Germany in December 1953 (backed by personal documents in his inheritance). These detailed statements of contemporary witnesses who were deeply involved in the German efforts for the Soviet rocketry are not biased by intentions of propaganda or embellishment during the Cold War. As the reports were released by the CIA in 2010 only, they were not known or considered by any of ilenart626's favorite sources. As the isolation of the German team from Soviet achievements (only one-way information flow!) was predominant after 1947, these documents are the most reliable source in this dispute of the German influence on Soviet rocketry. By the way, only a small portion of 10 (?) German returnees was debriefed by the MI6 and CIA with Helmut Gröttrup as an "important defector" and the "best-informed Dragon Returnee" (see Paul Maddrell, Spying on Science: Western Intelligence in Divided Germany, 1945-1961, p. 87, 205-109, 221-227). This 2006 document includes comprehensive analysis of the German work in Gorodomlya based on MI6 and CIA knowledge. It is not a conspiracy theory or WP:FRINGE.
When leaving the USSR, the Germans had to sign a secrecy agreement with the KGB (Uhl, p. 205-207). Therefore public contemporary information is very rare in the West, none in the East. We find several private memoirs reporting on the Gorodomlya operations, among them Irmgard Gröttrup's Rocket Wife (1958), Kurt Magnus' Raketensklaven (1993), Werner Albring's Gorodomlia (1991), and Boris Chertok's Rocket and People (1995/2005). All of them provide additional insight into Gorodomlya's activities from a German or Soviet view and can be used for plausibility checks, but require cautious interpretation. -- SchmiAlf ( talk) 10:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Please provide me with as much information as you can for the Reliable Source Noticeboard about any sources that you are questioning, including the Encyclopedia Astronautica, and any sources available from it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Sixth statement by ilenart626
Refer to my comments above in my fifth statement regarding reliability issues with the Encyclopedia Astronautica website. Also note the following additional comments about Encyclopedia Astronautica's reliability on various Talk pages:
Ilenart626 ( talk) 02:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Sixth statement by SchmiAlf
The main dispute is about Asif Azam Siddiqi's monumental history Challenge to Apollo, a NASA publication in 2000, in chapter 3 "Stalin and the rocket", pp. 69-84. This section concludes by the statement (p. 84): "On the other hand, the available evidence suggests that Korolev and his team made very little use of German expertise, at least after 1947. Their influence over the direction of the Soviet balistic missile program was marginal at best." As there is significant other reliable information contradicting it, Siddiqi's work is questioned as unrealiable, at least on his conclusions on pp. 83-84, and the rating of German contributions from 1948 until 1950 where it is incomplete.
In itself, chapter 3 already includes several of his own statements weakening his final conclusion:
In addition, for the period of 1948 to 1953 significant information is missing as several relevant documents were unknown to Siddiqi or released after 2000:
There are the following errors in Siddiqi's work:
With the above quotes, missing information and errors, Siddiqi's Challenge to Apollo is deemed incomplete and unreliable for the chapter 3, pp. 62-84, especially his conclusions on p. 84.
The dispute of the reliability of Encyclopedia Astronautica is of secondary relevance only as none of my essential arguments is founded on this database, which is used as a compendium for easier understanding and visualization of design concepts. -- SchmiAlf ( talk) 12:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
See comment at RSN: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&diff=1175954925&oldid=1175953387
Each editor is asked to make a short additional statement at this point. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Seventh statement by SchmiAlf
I completely agree with the statement: "I would think it marginally reliable, but that better sources are suggested. I doubt it should be used for controversial details that are in opposition to more academic, or more up to date works."
There are similar issues with any publication (incl. Siddiqi's work which was published in 2000) that it may be outdated and contain uncorrected errors. Without getting to (or understanding) the (original) roots of an information and its subjective (potentially biased) view any secondary analysis should be treated with caution and weighed by the plausibility and consistency with other sources. -- SchmiAlf ( talk) 20:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Seventh statement by ilenart626
Was a comment from only one editor, however in the context of this dispute I believes his remarks are relevant. However, considering the number of issues with the Encyclopedia Astronautica website identified in my fifth and sixth statements above (which are only a sample) I believe the reliability issues with this website are not just related to the dispute with the "German influence in the Soviet space programme" but affect all of Wikipedia. Therefore I would suggest that a WP:RFC be held to obtain more viewpoints and reach consensus on whether the site is:
and the results be published on WP:RSP.
There are plenty of reliable sources out there that can be used to reference space history, why bother with one that is unreliable? Ilenart626 ( talk) 14:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Question to ilenart
Ilenart626, any suggestion for a revised neutral lead which is compatible to Zak, Neufeld and other sources?-- SchmiAlf ( talk) 16:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
IMHO, the last sentence "However, due to a combination of security and political requirements, by the end of the 1940’s the Soviets had frozen out the German specialists and made very little use of their expertise and their future influence on the Soviet space program was marginal." is not neutral enough for a consented lead. The "end of 1940's" is less precise than possible and the "future influence .. was marginal" statement at the end of the lead might be mistaken as covering the whole work of the German specialists (even if smoothed by the word "future"). The question of whether (and when) the German expertise was marginal should be discussed in the Historical analysis section where I do not expect that the controversary discussion would ever reach a consensus.
Therefore I propose the following sentence at the end of the lead section:
I'm asking why the Soviet space program is referenced here. The absolute focus of German concept studies was missile technology (or Soviet rocketry), with Minister of Armaments Dmitry Ustinov as the driver who forced both Sergei Korolev and the German collective into a partly competitive situation (which eventually paid off). Even Korolev could not dare to openly promote space projects. But this is a side aspect only and I leave it up to your preference. -- SchmiAlf ( talk) 08:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Ilenart626 ( talk) 14:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
In addition some remarks to
Siddiqi (2009). Beyond the more detailed description of the political background it does not provide updated information (or analysis) of the potential German technical involvement (and Soviet interest) in 1949 for the G-2 and G-4 designs based on Ustinov's 1951 report and Uhl's Stalins V-2 (except quoting them). It still suffers from the same errors and incompleteness as detailed above in the reliability discussion. --
SchmiAlf (
talk) 13:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
An RFC on the reliability as a source of Encyclopedia Astronautica is a good idea. I will take the lead within 36 hours.
Back-and-forth discussion in the section for back-and-forth discussion may continue, but we also need to address the main issue.
The primary issue had been whether the article should say that German influence on the Soviet space program after 1947 was marginal. Has there been agreement either to accept that statement, or remove that statement, or include a different statement in its place? If there has not been agreement, we will use an RFC. Participants will choose between leaving the statement in and removing it, unless there is also a different statement proposed.
Please answer concisely whether there has been agreement, and whether there is an alternative statement to consider. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
The RFC on the reliability as a source of Encyclopedia Astronautica is now running at RSN. Please participate in it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Eighth statement by SchmiAlf
Based on ilenart's reply in the back and forth discussion there is no agreement. Therefore I agree to Robert's proposal for an RFC. My position is to delete the last sentence of the lead section: "However, after 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet space program was marginal."
My alternative proposal (disagreed by ilenart626) was: "However, due to a combination of secrecy and political requirements, the Soviets froze out the German specialists after 1949 and made little use of their expertise for the Soviet space program."
Siddiqi 2000 states non-marginal activities during 1948 into 1950 contradicting his isolated conclusion ("After 1947 influence ... only marginal", p. 84) as I already mentioned in my sixth statement. In April 1949, Ustinov urgently ordered the German specialists to work on G-4 (R-14) and G-5 designs (see also Ustinow 1951) with results reviewed by Soviet managers and specialists in October 1949 who ordered "minor redesign efforts until February 1950" (Siddiqi, p. 81), and "the Soviets continued to ask advice on technical matters well into 1951. [...] In early 1951, groups of young Soviet engineers migrated to Gorodomlya ostensibly to be taught by the experienced Germans at these excellent facilities. It was the last time that the Soviets would make active use of German expertise in the postwar years." (Siddiqi, p. 82).
The "marginal" statement substantially lacks plausibility because the majority of the German team was released back to Germany only in June 1952 due to secrecy reasons. Why should they remain in the USSR if knowing not more than all details of V-2 (and its Soviet "copy" R-1) and some ideas for the elongated R-2? Anatoly Zak (2012), Russian Web Space, described the situation of 1949/1950 as follows:
-- SchmiAlf ( talk) 15:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I think that the choice comes down to between the existing wording, which is:
However, after 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet space program was marginal.
or the alternate wording, which is:
However, due to a combination of secrecy and political requirements, the Soviets froze out the German specialists after 1949 and made little use of their expertise for the Soviet space program
Are those the choices? Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
A draft RFC is in draft at Talk:German influence on the Soviet space program/RFC on last sentence of lede. Please review it and indicate whether it states the issue correctly. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Ninth statement by SchmiAlf
For clarity, I'd like to add the word thereafter to my preferred version:
-- SchmiAlf ( talk) 10:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Ninth statement by ilenart626
Would also suggest in addition to options A and B an additional option C, which is the last alternative I suggested that ScmilAlf rejected, with slight modifications.
Have updated Talk:German influence on the Soviet space program/RFC on last sentence of lede. Ilenart626 ( talk) 11:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Closed as moved to BLPN. I have notified the other editors, but am now closing this thread because BLPN is a better forum for the issue, which has to do with allegations that a living person was involved in the murder of another person. The filing editor is requested to file at WP:BLPN, and the other editors are requested to check BLPN. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Closed for two reasons. First, the filing unregistered editor has not notified the other editor of this filing. That omission could be corrected by notice to JamieBrown2011. Second, this filing appears to be mainly a conduct complaint, that the other editor is deleting the comments of other editors and exercising article ownership. This noticeboard does not discuss conduct. If the filing editor wishes to discuss the conduct of User:JamieBrown2011, they may do so at WP:ANI (and will be required to notify them of that filing). If the filing editor wants to discuss article content, they may resume that discussion on the article talk page for another 24 hours, and can file a new request here that is about article content, not conduct. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filing IP blocked. NotAGenious ( talk) 13:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
Closed. There are at least two problems with this filing. First, the unregistered editor who has filed this request has not taken part in discussions about the article, at least not while logged out. If they have taken part in the discussions while logged in, they should request DRN while logged in as a registered regular user. Second, the filing editor has not notified the other editors. If you have an account, log in to it for any further discussion. Resume discussion at the article talk page. A new request can be filed here if discussion is lengthy and inconclusive. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
As in my last DRN, this concerns the plot summary. I felt the summary was overlong (barely under 700 words for a book w/ notability barely established) and written in a "breathless, exciting" fashion which was not properly encyclopedic. I shortened it drastically and was reverted twice by the other editor. The other editor insisted the extensive context and detail were necessary to understand the plot and that the tone was not unduly "fanboyish." We do not see eye to eye and I do not feel further talk page discussion will be fruitful.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
/info/en/?search=Talk:Maske:_Thaery
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Maske%3A_Thaery&diff=1171815810&oldid=1171773870
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Maske%3A_Thaery&diff=1171731850&oldid=1171725101
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Please consult the editors' respective versions of the summary (diffs provided above) and advise which summary, if either, is more appropriate per WP policy.
Science fiction usually requires context, as the author has frequently created an alien environment or society. And Jack Vance is particularly noted for doing just that. JACU has so stripped their version of the synopsis of it you can barely tell it's even science fiction. It only surfaces once, in the sentence "He follows Ramus to the tourist world Eiselbar and learns that he is trying to raise money to purchase a space yacht." Other than that (and the villain being transformed into a tree, which could just as easily be fantasy), it could be a spy novel set on Earth. As I stated before, it's like 2001: A Space Odyssey being described as: A five-man ship's crew goes on long voyage. An equipment malfunction results in the deaths of all but one. The sole survivor undergoes a transformative experience. It's just as context-free and just as uninformative. As for the allegation that it is "written in a 'breathless, exciting' fashion", where? Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Please read the ground rules. Please state whether you are willing to engage in moderated discussion subject to the rules. If so, we will begin moderated discussion. The moderator will ask the questions, and the editors will address their answers to the moderator and the community. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. You have already tried that, and it was lengthy and inconclusive.
I see that one issue is the plot summary. One editor thought that it was too long, and shortened it. The other editor thought that the shortened version was too short, and restored the long version. Are there any other issues besides the plot summary? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
There was a previous notability issue, where I had redirected the article due to its being an unsourced "book report" article, i.e. just a lengthy plot recap and character list. That issue has since been resolved, as Clarityfiend has added the required two reviews to satisfy the notability requirement. The remaining present issue concerns the length and tone of the plot summary. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 20:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
That's the only issue so far. Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
It appears that the only issue is the plot summary. Since there has been some editing of the plot summary, I will ask each editor to provide their preferred version of the plot summary. You may engage in back-and-forth discussion in the section for the purpose, preferably to try to compromise on the plot summary. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Proposed Summary by JACU
Jubal Droad goes on "Yallow," a rite of passage into adulthood, traditionally spent doing public works. As part of his Yallow, Droad spends several weeks repairing a trail. One day, the arrogant noble Rampus Ymph ignores Jubal's warning to not use the still unfinished trail, causing it to collapse and seriously injure Droad.
When Jubal recovers, he arrives in the city of Wysrod for the examination of Ramus Ymph for the high office of Servant. Jubal recognizes his nemesis. He informs Nai the Hever, the senior Servant, of Ramus's illegal activities. This results in Ramus being rejected.
Nai the Hever offers Jubal a seemingly lowly position as Sanitary Inspector in unit D3. Jubal reluctantly accepts and learns that D3 is actually the intelligence service. He is now a secret agent in training. Jubal's first assignment is to discover what Ramus is plotting. He follows Ramus to the tourist world Eiselbar and learns that he is trying to raise money to purchase a space yacht.
Back on Maske, Cadmus off-Droad, Jubal's illegitimate brother, murders Trewe, head of the clan, asserting that he had been robbed of his rightful place. The clan gathers and brings Cadmus down. However, Cadmus's masked chief accomplice escapes and Jubal is certain that it is Ramus.
Ramus sails across the ocean to meet with the Waels, a people known for their spiritual connection to trees. Jubal takes Ramus' fiance, Mieltrude, into custody and sets off in pursuit. During the voyage, Mieltrude informs Jubal that her engagement to Ramus was a subterfuge to aid her father's investigation of Ramus.
Jubal finds Ramus negotiating with the Waels for the use of part of their land for much-needed food and other resources. Jubal, disguised as a Wael, gets him to admit that he plans to construct tourist resorts on the land. The Waels reject his proposal. They insist that Shrack and Jubal take him away. When they reach Wysrod, Ramus transforms into a tree. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 07:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Proposed summary by Clarityfield
It's what is currently in the article (598 words):
A religious group seized part of the isolated planet Maske from earlier colonists and named it Thaery. One dissident faction was driven off and became the Waels of Wellas. Another was exiled and became the Glints. The Glints became notorious bandits, but were eventually subjugated. However, they are still looked down upon as coarse and belligerent. Some Glints became "Sea Nationals", claimed sovereignty over the ocean. To maintain their religious purity, travel to other worlds was banned.
Jubal Droad, a young Glint man, goes on Yallow, a rite of passage into adulthood, traditionally spent wandering and doing public works. He spends several weeks repairing a trail. One day, a man leading a group of soldiers ignores Jubal's urgent warning not to use the unfinished trail. He and his men cause it to collapse and seriously injure Jubal.
When he recovers, his uncle Vaidro gives him a letter of introduction to Nai the Hever, one of the most powerful men of Thaery. He arrives in the city of Wysrod and encounters Nai's elegant adult daughter Mieltrude and her beautiful friend Sune Mircea. He accompanies them to the examination of Ramus Ymph for the high office of Servant. Jubal recognizes his nemesis. He informs Nai the Hever, the senior Servant, of his investigation of Ramus's activities: he secretly and illegally went off-world. This results in Ramus being rejected.
Nai the Hever offers Jubal a seemingly lowly position as Sanitary Inspector in unit D3. Jubal reluctantly accepts and learns that D3 is actually the intelligence service. He is now a secret agent in training. Nai the Hever is D3's head, and Vaidro had been a valued agent.
Ramus has Mieltrude, his fiancée, sign a warrant to subject Jubal to physical punishment. Jubal escapes with the assistance of Shrack, a Sea National ship captain, and procures a warrant against Mieltrude. Nai the Hever persuades him to not serve it.
Jubal's first assignment is to discover what Ramus is plotting. He follows Ramus to the tourist world Eiselbar and learns that he is trying to raise money to purchase a space yacht.
Back on Maske, Cadmus off-Droad, Jubal's illegitimate brother, murders Trewe, head of the clan, asserting that he had been robbed of his rightful place. The clan gathers and brings Cadmus down after fierce fighting. However, Cadmus's masked chief accomplice escapes; Jubal is certain that it is Ramus. Without proof, however, Nai the Hever refuses to antagonize the powerful Ymph clan. In fact, Jubal has become an embarrassment to him.
Ramus sails across the ocean to meet with the Waels, a peculiar people living in a barren land who have developed a deep spiritual connection with trees. Jubal takes Mieltrude into custody and sets off in pursuit. During the voyage, their mutual disdain begins to weaken. Mieltrude informs Jubal that her engagement to Ramus was a subterfuge to aid her father's investigation of Ramus. Ramus's mistress, Sune, had forged Mieltrude's signature to the warrant.
Jubal finds Ramus negotiating with the Waels for the use of part of their land for much-needed food and other resources. Jubal, disguised as a Wael, gets him to admit that he plans to construct tourist resorts on the land. (Ramus tried to lease Droad land for the same purpose.) The Waels reject his proposal. They do something to Ramus which leaves him mute and subdued, and insist that Shrack and Jubal take him away. During the return voyage, Ramus sprouts bark and leaves. When they reach Wysrod, Ramus runs off the ship, plants his feet in the soil, raises his arms, and essentially transforms into a tree.
Two versions of the plot summary have been written. The one by Clarityfiend is longer. Do you want me to offer an opinion, or do you want me to remain neutral? I will only offer an opinion if both editors want an opinion. If I do offer an opinion, the choices will then be to accept it, or to ask the community to resolve the issue by RFC. If you want me to remain neutral, then I encourage you to engage in back-and-forth discussion to try to compromise. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I'd be interested in hearing your opinion, but what happens if the other editor doesn't respond timely? Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 18:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
One editor has agreed to having me offer a Third Opinion. The other has not. I do not intend to offer an opinion unless both editors agree, because then if one editor does not accept my opinion, I will not be able to be neutral. If the other editor does not respond, or if they do respond but do not want me to provide an opinion, the next step will be a Request for Comments, which will let the community decide. I may express my opinion then, but only as one voice among others. If User:Clarityfiend does not either agree to have me offer an opinion or raise other issues, I will formulate a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The draft RFC is available for your review at Talk:Maske: Thaery/RFC on Plot Summary. If there are no further questions, I will activate the draft RFC and it will run for thirty days. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes. That's on purpose. The RFC is a draft, and is on a temporary subpage. There is no link on the article talk page because I will copy the RFC to the article talk page and activate the stray code when it is time to begin the RFC. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
The RFC is currently running. Please make your statement in the Survey. You may discuss in the Discussion section. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Responding to your comment on the talk page, the backstory is unnecessary to understand the immediate events of the plot. It's a big chunk of fat that could be cut and nothing would be lost except about 75 or so words. If you find it necessary for the reader of this summary to know that off-world travel is prohibited, simply say, "Off-world travel is prohibited" and leave it at that. Boring? Dull? Flat? Yes, but fully encyclopedic. Using a paragraph of backstory to explain this simple fact betrays a certain sentimental attachment to the material. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 07:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
Closed as declined. The editor who disagrees with the filing editor on content has declined to take part in DRN with inexperienced editors. Participation in DRN is voluntary. The filing editor may resume discussion on the article talk page, or may use a Request for Comments. An RFC establishes consensus, and so is binding. Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay, but do not edit disruptively. The content dispute may be resolved by discussion or by RFC. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as apparently declined. Three editors are listed, and were notified more than 48 hours ago, and have not responded. One of those editors has not edited in ten days, but two of those editors are currently editing, and are assumed to have declined to take part in moderated discussion. Continue normal discussion at the article talk page, Talk:Dominic Ng. Continue normal editing, but do not edit-war, and slow-motion edit-warring is edit-warring. If normal discussion is inconclusive, a Request for Comments is better than continued slow-motion edit-warring. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Closed as not really resolved. We don't have an agreement on whether the article should be tagged, but tagging disputes are mostly stupid, because the purpose of tagging should be to ask for improvement of the article. This article appears to have been tagged "drive-by", without intention to discuss. In my opinion, the article does need rework, but if no one volunteers to do the rework, the tag will stay off. Do not tag the article unless you are willing to discuss improving it. |
Closed discussion |
---|
Moved to WP:BLPN. NotAGenious ( talk) 18:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as premature. There has been no discussion on the article talk page. Discuss on the article talk page; that's what it's for. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new case can be filed here. The filing editor is strongly advised to register an account. It is very hard to keep track of shifting IPv6 addresses. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as resolved. The current version of the article states what the username was, and attributes it to the Hartford Courant. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
Since several weeks I'm trying to improve the article for a more balanced discussion of the German contributions for the Soviet rocketry development. There were reverts back and fourth and lastly I tried to find a starting point with a proposal for mutual agreement for a more balanced approach not denying controverse options of space historians (unanswered for more than a week). My last edit was reverted again although it was restricted to additional information and facts (together with many sources), improved structuring and several documented corrections. I clearly object the talk's statement that my edit "contradicts both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH or is pushing a WP:Fringe theory that is not supported by credible articles."
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:German_influence_on_the_Soviet_space_program#Reverted_SchmiAlf‘s_contraversial_edits
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Review my last change of the article (16:35, 2 September 2023) whether it was a fair approach of improving Wikipedia and whether it has any issue with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH or WP:Fringe. Also I'm interested in opinions and guideline whether this is a case for the Administrator's noticeboard.
When I created this article I was aware of an alternative viewpoint that overstated the German influence on the Soviet space programme, refer to this comment by DonPMitchell in 2009. Therefore I developed the Historical Analysis section of the article that contain both views, which adequately states the alternative viewpoint. The mainstream view is provided by Siddiqi’s Challenge to Apollo: The Soviet Union and the Space Race, 1945-1974 which is described in Siddiqi’s Wikipedia article as “…widely considered to be the best English-language history of the Soviet space program” in print and was identified by The Wall Street Journal as "one of the five best books" on space exploration.” Siddiiqi view, which is supported by many other references, states on page 84 of Siddiqi 2000:
I have summarised the above into the following statement in the Lead of the article:
Over the last 12 months I have been engaged in multiple discussions with SchmiAlf on the Talk page over his views of the German influence in the Soviet space programme, refer Joint work of Korolev and Gröttrup from 1945 to 1950 and Translation for German source. I have accepted a number of changes that SchmiAlf has made to the article, however his latest changes here, here, here and here have changed the mainstream view of Siddiqi and is basically pushing the alternative view. I have reverted these changes as they are based on his own research and conclusions, which contradicts both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Refer to Talk:German influence on the Soviet space program#Reverted SchmiAlf‘s contraversial edits for details of the discussion. Note the number of times SchmilAlf’s reasoning is based on his own conclusions (ie reasons for Soviet’s visiting Gorodmlya) or combining various statements from Siddiqi, CIA reports and other sources to support his conclusions. In other words SchmiAlf is contravening both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in their arguments. In SchmiAlf‘s latest edit he is highlighting actions that the Germans undertook in 1948 and 1949 whilst ignoring the conclusion of Siddiqi and other sources; that the Soviets made very little use of this work and their influence was marginal, as summarised in the Historical Analysis section of the article. In addition, SchmiAlf’s latest edit is relying on a primary source, plus he has made changes to the Lead which do not reflect the underlying article, in contravention of WP:MOSLEAD. Ilenart626 ( talk) 13:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Please read DRN Rule D. We will be under this set of rules because the space programs in question were in Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic because discussions sometimes refight either World War Two or the Cold War. The German rockets were used in World War Two, and were adapted for Soviet use in the Cold War. Please indicate whether you agree to moderated discussion subject to the rules.
It isn't clear from the introductory statements whether the editors are requesting moderated discussion or a Third Opinion. If a Third Opinion is desired, I will put this case on hold while the Third Opinion is requested at that noticeboard, and then either close this case or open this case.
The filing editor also writes: Also I'm interested in opinions and guideline whether this is a case for the Administrator's noticeboard.
Is this an article content dispute, a conduct dispute, or some of each? Sometimes if an article content dispute can be addressed, any related conduct issues may be set aside. It is a good idea to read
the boomerang essay before filing at
WP:AN or
WP:ANI. If you aren't sure whether this is a conduct dispute, it is a good idea to try to resolve the content issue first.
The discussion at the article talk page is lengthy. If the editors want moderated discussion, we need to identify exactly what parts of the article are in dispute. Each editor is asked to make a concise statement of what material in the article you want changed, or what you want left the same that the other editor wants changed. It is not necessary at this time to explain why you want those changes.
So:
Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Robert, can you note that most of SchmiAlf's latest edits have been removed due to copyright violation, "refer Deletion log 17:22 Diannaa talk contribs changed visibility of 2 revisions on page German influence on the Soviet space program: content hidden (RD1: Violations of copyright policy: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/gorodomlya.html)" Not sure how this changes this dispute resolution, will leave to SchmiAlf to respond. Ilenart626 ( talk) 22:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your statements to the moderator, who represents the community. After we establish what the article content issues are, I will provide a space for back-and-forth discussion.
One editor has not stated that they agree to moderated discussion (which is voluntary). That editor also has not answered my question about what changes they want to make to the article. Reliable sources are essential in Wikipedia, but my usual opening question is not about the sources, but about the body of the article, which should reflect what the sources say, but it is the body of the article that a reader will read.. If you want to make multiple changes to the article, to reflect what their sources say, please be concise and list no more than three parts of the article that you want changed.
After we have identified what the proposed changes to the article are, then we will know better how to continue this discussion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
First statement by SchmiAlf — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchmiAlf ( talk • contribs) 07:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Q1: I agree to moderated discussion
Q2: I agree to third opinion
Q3: I want to apply the following improvements and changes:
First statement by ilenart626
The section of the Lead that summarises the “Historical Analysis” section is detailed below. The section SchmiAlf wishes to delete is underlined:
SchmiAlf has stated that “Siddiqi's statement may remain in the Historical analysis section.” I assume SchmiAlf is referring to the following:
As per WP:MOSLEAD I believe the statement underlined above should remain in the Lead as I believe this wording, and the preceding section, appropriately summarises the conclusions in the “Historical Analysis” section.
SchmiAlf proposed other changes I cannot comment on as I am unsure of the specifics of these changes, particularly as:
Ilenart626 ( talk) 13:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Schmialf has proposed three changes to the article:
The main issue appears to be whether German influence on the Soviet space program after 1947 was marginal or was significant. The second and third proposed points will discuss in more detail what the influence after 1947 was. So I am asking both editors whether the article content issue has to do with whether there was significant post-1947 German influence on the Soviet space program. I am also asking what sources describe the post-1947 German influence, and whether those sources are considered reliable, and whether the coverage is considered significant. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Also, are there any other issues besides the extent of post-1947 German influence? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Second statement by ilenart626
I believe “whether there was significant post-1947 German influence on the Soviet space program” is the key issue in this content dispute.
The main sources that describe the post-1947 German influence are Siddiqi 2000, Chertok (2005) Ley (1969), Russians Space Web, Mick (2003) and Neufeld (2012). Siddiqi, in particular, on page 84 states the following:
The other sources support the above, for example:
I believe all these references are considered reliable, particularly Siddiqi ( Siddiqi’s Wikipedia article describes Challenge to Apollo: The Soviet Union and the Space Race, 1945-1974 as “…widely considered to be the best English-language history of the Soviet space program in print and was identified by The Wall Street Journal as "one of the five best books" on space exploration).
I believe the coverage is significant for all these references, particularly Siddiqi (appears he devotes about 50 pages of his 1,010 page book to German involvement, including a 5 page section called “The End of the Road for the Germans” pp 80-84).
I’m not sure if there are any other issues besides the extent of post-1947 German influence, will leave it to SchmiAlf to respond. Ilenart626 ( talk) 20:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Second statement by SchmiAlf
The first key issue is “whether there was significant post-1947 German influence on the Soviet space program” in the lead as it violates the neutral point of view. The second key issue is that additional information supporting the controversary view have been reverted several times.
With regard to the sources mentioned above I have the following comments:
ilenart's edit of Soviet space program on 4 July 2022 shows a strange approach. He claimed to move essential arguments into the new German influence on the Soviet space program (see diff and deleted them. But they never showed up in any version of his new article. So the new article disposed of some controversary arguments instead of challenging their content. In part, these arguments match with the content of my dispute. As a summary, IMHO the current version of this article is biased and does no apropriately reflect the controversary view.
I have restored a new version of my reverted and deleted edit as a sub-page, see here the difference to the currently published version. It does not yet include an update for the Historical analysis section. -- SchmiAlf ( talk) 11:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Be concise. Long statements are often not needed, and sometimes do not clarify the issues. I will be more or less repeating my questions.
It appears that there is really one multi-part issue, which is whether the German influence on the Soviet space program was marginal after 1947, or whether the statement to that effect should be deleted, and replaced by specific statements as to what the post-1947 German influences were. Is it correct that is the main issue? Please restate whether you wish to leave the marginal after 1947 statement in place, or whether you wish to delete it.
Does the issue of German influence on the Soviet space program after 1947 have to do with the reliability of sources? If so, please state which sources you are questioning the reliability of, and we can submit an inquiry to the reliable source noticeboard.
Please state concisely whether there was significant German influence on the Soviet space program after 1947, and what sources describe or dispute that influence. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Third statement by SchmiAlf
I wish to delete "the marginal after 1947 statement" in the lead as it is not plausible at all for what happend during 1948 and 1949.
My concerns about the reliability of the sources (Chertok; Siddiqi) addressed in my second statement are very specific and come up when comparing their conclusions with other sources which became accessible later. We must also consider the circumstances that Soviet (and later Russian) official statements kept German participation secret and denied it. But there is lot of plausible evidence that there was "more than marginal influence of German ideas" on the later Soviet developments, as follows:
The CIA documents provide details of German concepts and analysis long before data of Soviet and US missiles became publicly available. It is highly improbable that they got them from the Soviets who were eager to keep their secrets on their own.
IMHO the most neutral position is provided by Russian Space Web: "As it often happens in history, the truth might lie in between: Germans did not design Sputnik or its rocket, however the ideas and concepts developed by Gröttrup’s team on Gorodomlya did influence Soviet designers and thus accelerated their efforts. 'The work of the captive German scientists and technicians served as a yardstick against which Soviet accomplishments could be measured, and the Soviets were capable of extracting those developments useful to their program and of discarding others which they had already surpassed,' concluded a US historian [Ernest Schwiebert]." -- SchmiAlf ( talk) 10:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Third statement by ilenart626
I wish to retain the “marginal after 1947” statement in the Lead.
I question the reliability of any source that uses the Encyclopedia Astronautica website. For the discussion about its reliability refer to 1 - the Talk page on the article about the website, 2 - this discussion on Valentin Glushko’s Talk page and 3 - this reference.
There was no significant influence on the Soviet space program by German specialists after 1947. The main sources that confirm this are:
I agree that the “marginal after 1947” statement in the Lead is the main issue. However, as SchmiAlf has now provided details of their proposed edits in their 2nd statement here, I can now advice that I disagree with many of these changes. Ilenart626 ( talk) 11:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Back-and-forth discussion is permitted only in the section where it is permitted.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 07:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
|
---|
|
"Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion" means do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. However, I am providing a section for back-and-forth discussion, which should be civil.
It appears that SchmiAlf wishes to delete the "marginal after 1947" statement, and to expand two sections describing later German influence. It appears that Ilenart626 disagrees, and wishes to retain the statement, and does not want the two sections added.
Ilenart626: Do you question the reliability of any of the sources provided by SchmiAlf? If there is a question about the reliability of sources, we will refer the issue to the reliable source noticeboard. If there is a different reason for disagreeing, or a different issue, please state what the issue is. Robert McClenon ( talk) 07:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Fourth statement by SchmiAlf
Robert's statement is correct. For the section Work in the USSR of my proposed edit I'm willing to discuss plausible and well-founded objections by ilenart626. -- SchmiAlf ( talk) 13:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Fourth statement by ilenart626
As detailed in my third statement above, I question the reliability of SchmiAlf’s sources from the Encyclopedia Astronautica website. I agree with refering the website to the reliable source noticeboard.
The main reason I disagree with SchmiAlf’s changes is that they have failed to provide reliable sources that support “that German specialists had a significant influence on the Soviet space program after 1947”. Note that I do not disagree that the German specialists carried out studies during 1947-50; the “Work in the USSR” section of the article already contains details of this work. However as Neufeld (2012) states on page 58 “…after 1948 they were increasingly frozen out and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used.” In other words, these studies were ignored and the German specialists had little to no influence on the Soviet space program after 1947.
The only source that SchmiAlf has provided that supports his view is the statement provided by Schwiebert at the end of his third statement at Russian Space Web. However note that this statement is from Schwiebert’s “USAF's Ballistic Missiles - 1954-1964; A Concise History. Air Force & Space Digest” published in 1964. As SchmiAlf has already advised in his Second statement regarding a 1969 source - “Ley (1969) may be right in some assumptions, but his limited view during the Cold War can't be taken as a serious argument.” I agree with SchmiAlf that we should disregard sources from the cold war. My recommendation is to rely on sources after 1991 and the Dissolution of the Soviet Union and Glasnost that have accessed Soviet records, for example Siddiqi 2000, Chertok (2005), Mick (2003) and Neufeld (2012).
None of the other sources that SchmiAlf has provided clearly states that “German specialists had a significant influence on the Soviet space program after 1947”. SchmiAlf’s Third statement lists 7 dot points that he describes as “…there is lot of plausible evidence that there was "more than marginal influence of German ideas" on the later Soviet developments…”. Not a single one of these points provides a source that clearly states “German specialists had a significant influence on the Soviet space program after 1947”. They consist of his own analysis and synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves, in other words, not complying with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.
In contrast, the existing statement in the Lead - “…after 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet space program was marginal.” is clearly supported by the sources, for example:
Hence I believe the existing statement in the lead “…after 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet space program was marginal.” should remain. Ilenart626 ( talk) 14:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Before I ask the Reliable Source Noticeboard for an opinion on the reliability of any of the sources, I need to ask whether the question is really about the reliability of the sources, or about whether the sources are being interpreted correctly. If the question is about whether the sources are being interpreted correctly, we should discuss that here.
So, please specify whether you are questioning the reliability of the sources listed at the Encyclopedia Astronautica web site, or whether you are questioning the interpretation of the sources. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Fifth statement by ilenart626
I am questioning the reliability of information contained in the Encyclopedia Astronautica web site. Errors on the site have been identified as far back as 2006 but they have never been fixed. The site is no longer maintained and has never been peer reviewed, so these errors are never going to be fixed. Note that this space historian made the following comment in 2006:
I also note the following comments about the reliability of Encyclopedia Astronautica that was posted by another editor here in 2009 on Valentin Glushko’ Talk page, which is also relevant to this discussion:
Ilenart626 ( talk) 04:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Fifth statement by SchmiAlf
The reliability discussion on Encyclopedia Astronautica is a side aspect here only and not an elementary basis of my arguments (just a reference for technical concepts). With a similar argument, the work of Siddiqi, Mick, Neufeld (and many other authors) may be challenged if there is new relevant information since their publication date, no peers have fundamentally reviewed their findings and their work has not been updated accordingly.
I completely disagree that Siddiqi's and Neufeld's (based on Mick) statements can be summarized as ilenart626 does. He paraphrases Siddiqi (p. 84, see above) as "After 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet space program was marginal" (let me call it the 1947 proposition). One may even dispute whether Siddiqi's original term "influence over the direction of the Soviet balistic missile program" is sufficiently considered herein. With mentioning Neufeld and Mick that they support the 1947 proposition, he clearly exceeds the tolerable zone of interpretation. Neufeld/Mick have stated: "After 1948 they were increasingly frozen out and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used". This statement significantly differs from ilenart626's 1947 proposition. My previous edits were mostly consistent with Mick when unterstanding it in such a way that 1949 was a transition period between major involvement and being frozen out (from 1950) (as is agreed by most space historians). The 1947 proposition is completely overused when referencing to Neufeld and Mick as he does in Wikipedia's Soviet rocketry and Soviet space program (here even in conjunction with Anatoly Zak whose Myth and Reality statement is clearly opposite. This approach is not compliant to WP:SYNTH.
We cannot expect that we may find official Soviet documents which clearly determine the German influence on Soviet rocketry. In spite of high efforts in investigating Soviet/Russian archives, Uhl and Przybilski could not find the "smoking gun" of such proofs, just several chains of evidence. This is because the Soviets (most likely) have destroyed all German drawings and calculations after translating them (or at least have hidden them in a still secret location), not even German documents of the V-2 were retrieved. The most relevant document is Ustinov's 1951 report to Beria (Uhl, p. 259-260).
As a second opportunity, we have the CIA interrogations of Germans returned from Gorodomlya in 1952 and 1953. The comprehensive 1953 CIA interrogation and 1954 CIA interrogation are the most comprehensive reports, the first is (at least partly) based on Konrad Toebe's, the second on Helmut Gröttrup's interrogation in January 1954 after he and his family had fled to West Germany in December 1953 (backed by personal documents in his inheritance). These detailed statements of contemporary witnesses who were deeply involved in the German efforts for the Soviet rocketry are not biased by intentions of propaganda or embellishment during the Cold War. As the reports were released by the CIA in 2010 only, they were not known or considered by any of ilenart626's favorite sources. As the isolation of the German team from Soviet achievements (only one-way information flow!) was predominant after 1947, these documents are the most reliable source in this dispute of the German influence on Soviet rocketry. By the way, only a small portion of 10 (?) German returnees was debriefed by the MI6 and CIA with Helmut Gröttrup as an "important defector" and the "best-informed Dragon Returnee" (see Paul Maddrell, Spying on Science: Western Intelligence in Divided Germany, 1945-1961, p. 87, 205-109, 221-227). This 2006 document includes comprehensive analysis of the German work in Gorodomlya based on MI6 and CIA knowledge. It is not a conspiracy theory or WP:FRINGE.
When leaving the USSR, the Germans had to sign a secrecy agreement with the KGB (Uhl, p. 205-207). Therefore public contemporary information is very rare in the West, none in the East. We find several private memoirs reporting on the Gorodomlya operations, among them Irmgard Gröttrup's Rocket Wife (1958), Kurt Magnus' Raketensklaven (1993), Werner Albring's Gorodomlia (1991), and Boris Chertok's Rocket and People (1995/2005). All of them provide additional insight into Gorodomlya's activities from a German or Soviet view and can be used for plausibility checks, but require cautious interpretation. -- SchmiAlf ( talk) 10:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Please provide me with as much information as you can for the Reliable Source Noticeboard about any sources that you are questioning, including the Encyclopedia Astronautica, and any sources available from it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Sixth statement by ilenart626
Refer to my comments above in my fifth statement regarding reliability issues with the Encyclopedia Astronautica website. Also note the following additional comments about Encyclopedia Astronautica's reliability on various Talk pages:
Ilenart626 ( talk) 02:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Sixth statement by SchmiAlf
The main dispute is about Asif Azam Siddiqi's monumental history Challenge to Apollo, a NASA publication in 2000, in chapter 3 "Stalin and the rocket", pp. 69-84. This section concludes by the statement (p. 84): "On the other hand, the available evidence suggests that Korolev and his team made very little use of German expertise, at least after 1947. Their influence over the direction of the Soviet balistic missile program was marginal at best." As there is significant other reliable information contradicting it, Siddiqi's work is questioned as unrealiable, at least on his conclusions on pp. 83-84, and the rating of German contributions from 1948 until 1950 where it is incomplete.
In itself, chapter 3 already includes several of his own statements weakening his final conclusion:
In addition, for the period of 1948 to 1953 significant information is missing as several relevant documents were unknown to Siddiqi or released after 2000:
There are the following errors in Siddiqi's work:
With the above quotes, missing information and errors, Siddiqi's Challenge to Apollo is deemed incomplete and unreliable for the chapter 3, pp. 62-84, especially his conclusions on p. 84.
The dispute of the reliability of Encyclopedia Astronautica is of secondary relevance only as none of my essential arguments is founded on this database, which is used as a compendium for easier understanding and visualization of design concepts. -- SchmiAlf ( talk) 12:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
See comment at RSN: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&diff=1175954925&oldid=1175953387
Each editor is asked to make a short additional statement at this point. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Seventh statement by SchmiAlf
I completely agree with the statement: "I would think it marginally reliable, but that better sources are suggested. I doubt it should be used for controversial details that are in opposition to more academic, or more up to date works."
There are similar issues with any publication (incl. Siddiqi's work which was published in 2000) that it may be outdated and contain uncorrected errors. Without getting to (or understanding) the (original) roots of an information and its subjective (potentially biased) view any secondary analysis should be treated with caution and weighed by the plausibility and consistency with other sources. -- SchmiAlf ( talk) 20:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Seventh statement by ilenart626
Was a comment from only one editor, however in the context of this dispute I believes his remarks are relevant. However, considering the number of issues with the Encyclopedia Astronautica website identified in my fifth and sixth statements above (which are only a sample) I believe the reliability issues with this website are not just related to the dispute with the "German influence in the Soviet space programme" but affect all of Wikipedia. Therefore I would suggest that a WP:RFC be held to obtain more viewpoints and reach consensus on whether the site is:
and the results be published on WP:RSP.
There are plenty of reliable sources out there that can be used to reference space history, why bother with one that is unreliable? Ilenart626 ( talk) 14:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Question to ilenart
Ilenart626, any suggestion for a revised neutral lead which is compatible to Zak, Neufeld and other sources?-- SchmiAlf ( talk) 16:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
IMHO, the last sentence "However, due to a combination of security and political requirements, by the end of the 1940’s the Soviets had frozen out the German specialists and made very little use of their expertise and their future influence on the Soviet space program was marginal." is not neutral enough for a consented lead. The "end of 1940's" is less precise than possible and the "future influence .. was marginal" statement at the end of the lead might be mistaken as covering the whole work of the German specialists (even if smoothed by the word "future"). The question of whether (and when) the German expertise was marginal should be discussed in the Historical analysis section where I do not expect that the controversary discussion would ever reach a consensus.
Therefore I propose the following sentence at the end of the lead section:
I'm asking why the Soviet space program is referenced here. The absolute focus of German concept studies was missile technology (or Soviet rocketry), with Minister of Armaments Dmitry Ustinov as the driver who forced both Sergei Korolev and the German collective into a partly competitive situation (which eventually paid off). Even Korolev could not dare to openly promote space projects. But this is a side aspect only and I leave it up to your preference. -- SchmiAlf ( talk) 08:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Ilenart626 ( talk) 14:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
In addition some remarks to
Siddiqi (2009). Beyond the more detailed description of the political background it does not provide updated information (or analysis) of the potential German technical involvement (and Soviet interest) in 1949 for the G-2 and G-4 designs based on Ustinov's 1951 report and Uhl's Stalins V-2 (except quoting them). It still suffers from the same errors and incompleteness as detailed above in the reliability discussion. --
SchmiAlf (
talk) 13:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
An RFC on the reliability as a source of Encyclopedia Astronautica is a good idea. I will take the lead within 36 hours.
Back-and-forth discussion in the section for back-and-forth discussion may continue, but we also need to address the main issue.
The primary issue had been whether the article should say that German influence on the Soviet space program after 1947 was marginal. Has there been agreement either to accept that statement, or remove that statement, or include a different statement in its place? If there has not been agreement, we will use an RFC. Participants will choose between leaving the statement in and removing it, unless there is also a different statement proposed.
Please answer concisely whether there has been agreement, and whether there is an alternative statement to consider. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
The RFC on the reliability as a source of Encyclopedia Astronautica is now running at RSN. Please participate in it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Eighth statement by SchmiAlf
Based on ilenart's reply in the back and forth discussion there is no agreement. Therefore I agree to Robert's proposal for an RFC. My position is to delete the last sentence of the lead section: "However, after 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet space program was marginal."
My alternative proposal (disagreed by ilenart626) was: "However, due to a combination of secrecy and political requirements, the Soviets froze out the German specialists after 1949 and made little use of their expertise for the Soviet space program."
Siddiqi 2000 states non-marginal activities during 1948 into 1950 contradicting his isolated conclusion ("After 1947 influence ... only marginal", p. 84) as I already mentioned in my sixth statement. In April 1949, Ustinov urgently ordered the German specialists to work on G-4 (R-14) and G-5 designs (see also Ustinow 1951) with results reviewed by Soviet managers and specialists in October 1949 who ordered "minor redesign efforts until February 1950" (Siddiqi, p. 81), and "the Soviets continued to ask advice on technical matters well into 1951. [...] In early 1951, groups of young Soviet engineers migrated to Gorodomlya ostensibly to be taught by the experienced Germans at these excellent facilities. It was the last time that the Soviets would make active use of German expertise in the postwar years." (Siddiqi, p. 82).
The "marginal" statement substantially lacks plausibility because the majority of the German team was released back to Germany only in June 1952 due to secrecy reasons. Why should they remain in the USSR if knowing not more than all details of V-2 (and its Soviet "copy" R-1) and some ideas for the elongated R-2? Anatoly Zak (2012), Russian Web Space, described the situation of 1949/1950 as follows:
-- SchmiAlf ( talk) 15:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I think that the choice comes down to between the existing wording, which is:
However, after 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet space program was marginal.
or the alternate wording, which is:
However, due to a combination of secrecy and political requirements, the Soviets froze out the German specialists after 1949 and made little use of their expertise for the Soviet space program
Are those the choices? Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
A draft RFC is in draft at Talk:German influence on the Soviet space program/RFC on last sentence of lede. Please review it and indicate whether it states the issue correctly. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Ninth statement by SchmiAlf
For clarity, I'd like to add the word thereafter to my preferred version:
-- SchmiAlf ( talk) 10:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Ninth statement by ilenart626
Would also suggest in addition to options A and B an additional option C, which is the last alternative I suggested that ScmilAlf rejected, with slight modifications.
Have updated Talk:German influence on the Soviet space program/RFC on last sentence of lede. Ilenart626 ( talk) 11:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Closed as moved to BLPN. I have notified the other editors, but am now closing this thread because BLPN is a better forum for the issue, which has to do with allegations that a living person was involved in the murder of another person. The filing editor is requested to file at WP:BLPN, and the other editors are requested to check BLPN. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|