Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-25 World War II Economic data

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: World War II State: Closed Requested By: rjensen Other Parties: rjensen, ironplay, Haber Mediated By: user:LawrenceTrevallion Comments: Negotiating with Haber and Rjensen. It looks like this problem may not be solvable by mediation.

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-08-25 World War II Economic data 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise ideas 1.4 Compromise offers 1.5 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-08-25 World War II Economic data

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Rjensen 03:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place? World War II section 8.1 on Industrial Production

...

Who's involved? rjensen, Haber, ironplay

...

What's going on? Rjensen adds a 12 line table summarizing munitions production by major powers; haber and ironplay repeatedly remove it ("too long" "misleading" "POV" etc). Data is not controversial & comes from standard economic history sources (ie the British journal Economic History review) and is necessary to understand why Allies won

...

What would you like to change about that? Keep table

...

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you? rjensen@uic.edu

...

[edit] Mediator response

I started a discussion with Rjensen and Haber on the talk page of the article (some of it was on their individual talk pages). I attempted to ascertain Haber's objections to the chart, and asked Rjensen to make those changes. Haber, however, seemed to have a fundamental disagreement with the chart itself, including the belief that its inclusion was POV. Since both Rjensen and Haber remained firm in the respective positions, we were not able to reach a conclusion. LawrenceTrevallion 18:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise ideas

1. Hi. Maybe the table could be made a bit smaller and "prettied up" a bit. Maybe we could have a compromise here. Leave a prettier and smaller version of the table with the same data, and also leave the bit in about Mussolini's mistress (another edit war in the making). There is surely room for both. Thank you. Wallie 19:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Another suggestion (variation on suggestion 1 above): I still get the impression that the debate is about presentation of the article rather than the content. It may be best to have a brief bit in the World War 2 article and write a sub-article about Industrial Production in World War II. the table, as it is now could go in the sub article. and more details given there too. Later, if the table could be formatted OK (smaller and prettier), and was in keeping with the overall article, I cannot see anyone objecting to it. Wallie 09:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is a summary of ww2. Munitions production was a major part of the war and needs to be covered. This is probably the best overall table produced by economists. Opposition to it is incoherent but seems to be based on the POV notion that economics is not legitimate subtopic. As for data quality--note the article is full of numbers, most of which are much vaguer and much less studied (see the casualty data for example). Rjensen 09:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That is what I am trying to get at. If you mix numbers in with the text, it is easier to do this as this seems the normal method in Wikipedia. You are trying to introduce a table, which is bound to attract some attention, not because it is wrong, but because it "unusual" in Wikipedia. It simply stands out. If there were similar tables throughout the article, it wouldn't. All I am saying is to be patient. I'm sure that you will win people over in the end. After all munitions production is not contentious. I can only say that some may find it boring compared with other aspects of the war. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be mentioned in the article. Wallie 17:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Discussion

Historians generally agree that munitions production was one of the main activities of WW2. The economic historians have researched the data and have come up with a basic table that summarizes the output of the major countries. This 12-line table usefully summarizes a major aspect of the war. Complaints to the effect that there is not enough space seem unlikely in view of efforts by the same editors who dislike the table to include details about the death of Mussolini's mistress. Complaints that the table is "misleading" have not been substantiated by any reliable sources (or any sources at all, for that matter.) The table has been repeatedly removed --and not replaced with anything, just blanking. I suggst that the table's contents are not at all controversial but rather some people do not like the material for reasons they have not yet explained. Rjensen 10:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there even a mediator here? This has already been discussed ad nauseum on the WWII talk page. Haber 20:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be discussed here. Before any mediator can decide, he needs to know what the issues are. So can you explain here what your objections to the table are. I am particularly interested if you don't like the contents, or just the format. I think the format could be changed. However, I know that it is not easy to put nice tables up on Wikipedia. Wallie 21:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Ironplay has just received an indefinite block for his misbehavior. Rjensen 05:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)