Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 237
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
International Churches of Christ
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | 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 |
|---|
User talk:JamieBrown2011
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Filing IP blocked.NotAGenious (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
2023 Manipur Violence
– General close. See comments for reasoning.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 |
|---|
Maske: Thaery
– Discussion in progress.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?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maske:_Thaery
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maske%3A_Thaery&diff=1171815810&oldid=1171773870
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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.
Summary of dispute by Clarityfiend
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)
Maske: Thaery discussion
Zeroth statement by moderator (Maske Thaery)
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)
Zeroth statements by editors (Maske Thaery)
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)
First statement by moderator (Maske Thaery)
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)
First statements by editors (Maske Thaery)
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.
Second statement by moderator (Maske Thaery)
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. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- I too would be interested. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Maske Thaery)
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)
Third statement by moderator (Maske Thaery)
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)
Third statements by editors (Maske Thaery)
Fourth statement by moderator (Maske Thaery)
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)
- @Robert McClenon There's a misdirected link somewhere. The link to the RfC doesn't appear on the talk page for the article. There's also some stray code at the top of the RfC. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Statement 4A by moderator (Maske Thaery)
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)
- Got it, thanks! Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Fourth statements by editors (Maske Thaery)
Fifth statement by moderator (Maske Thaery)
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)
Fifth statements by editors (Maske Thaery)
Back-and-forth discussion (Maske Thaery)
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)
- Being encyclopedic doesn't require one to be boring and dull. As I've stated before, a distinctive hallmark of Jack Vance is to create odd, exotic societies, e.g. The Dying Earth setting, "The Moon Moth", etc. To strip that out of one of his stories is to squeeze all the juice out of an orange, leaving a husk.
- JACU seems to have a strong, misguided preference for brevity. Of my joking "synopsis" of 2001: A Space Odyssey (above), they have stated on the talk page of Maske: Thaery, "By your standards, yes, I probably would shred the F out of that Asimov book [sic] because summaries are by their very nature incomplete and should not recreate the emotional experience of reading the story." Clarityfiend (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- I would refer you to WP:PLOTSUM, where you will find descriptors such as "brief," "concise," "general overview" and several cautions against attempting to recreate the experience of reading the book. My bias towards brevity is more in keeping with the letter and spirit of WP than your bias towards capturing the spirit of the book. I could hardly care less about the book. I care about providing a summary which falls within WP policy, nothing more.
- And because you insist on harping on the issue, I'm well aware that 2001 is not Asimov. My comment was referring to The Gods Themselves, which you also brought up on the Talk page. I stand by my earlier comment. I would have no problem shredding any plot summary which went into excessive detail or ran too long for comfort. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Per PLOTSUM, "The description should be thorough enough for the reader to get a sense of what happens". IMO, your version falls far short of this. You don't even explain what Maske and Thaery are. Related to this omission, as I've stated before, there's no clue that the primary setting is not Earth. It's also inaccurate: Ramus doesn't transform into a tree when they get home. The process occurs during the voyage and only culminates when they reach their destination. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- There is an RfC at the talk page of the article, so I guess it's up to the hivemind at this point. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Per PLOTSUM, "The description should be thorough enough for the reader to get a sense of what happens". IMO, your version falls far short of this. You don't even explain what Maske and Thaery are. Related to this omission, as I've stated before, there's no clue that the primary setting is not Earth. It's also inaccurate: Ramus doesn't transform into a tree when they get home. The process occurs during the voyage and only culminates when they reach their destination. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Sengol
– General close. See comments for reasoning.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- TrangaBellam (talk · contribs)
- Anirudhgiri (talk · contribs)
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 |
|---|
Dominic Ng
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | 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 |
|---|
Nakedness and colonialism
– General close. See comments for reasoning.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 |
|---|
Allan R. Bomhard
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Moved to WP:BLPN. NotAGenious (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
The Masked_Singer_(American_season_10)
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | 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 |
|---|
Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | 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 |
|---|
German influence on the Soviet space program
– Discussion in progress.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.
Summary of dispute by llenart626
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:
- “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”
I have summarised the above into the following statement in the Lead of the article:
- “However, after 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet space program was marginal.”
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)
German influence on the Soviet space program discussion
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Soviet space)
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:
- 1. Do you want moderated discussion?
- 2. Do you want a Third Opinion from the Third Opinion noticeboard?
- 3. What specific changes do you want (or not want) in the article?
Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Soviet space)
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)
- Hi Ilenart626, I need to redo my last edit because it was completely removed. The use of quotation marks in some of Anatoly Zak's statements will not change the main reason of our dispute which I summarize as follows:
- The Siddiqi-based statement "However, after 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet space program was marginal.” is a perspective of available information in 2000. It is not even a neutral paraphrasing of Siddiqi who talked about the "influence over the direction of the Soviet ballistic missile program" (which is a completely different aspect, not related to technical achievements). Since then, there is newer information: Matthias Uhl's comprehensive study of Soviet documents in Stalins V-2 (2001), Anatoly Zak's Russian Space Web (last updated in 2012), relevant CIA documents (RDP80-00810A001800090003-0, RDP80-00810A003300530005-2) released in 2010, and the Russian 70 Years of Swesda 1946-2016 document (2016) from Gorodomlya (quoted in the talk). Therefore the Siddiqi-based statement is biased in the Lead of the article and was deleted (not from the Historical Analysis section!, not even intended to do). The rest of my changes did not touch the controversary aspects at all, just improved the structure of the article and added several documented facts without presuming any interpretation. DonPMitchell's comment in 2009 has some good arguments and should be considered together with the Russian document Background to the creation of the RD-107/108.
- My point of view is not that the Germans invented or built the R-2, the R-5 or R-7. However, there is some evidence that they contributed basic ideas and design concepts. As with many inventions, the final result cannot be reliably attributed to specific individuals or teams, because its implementation requires an on-going refinement of ideas and breakthroughs (which is most of the challenging work). Denoting my edits as WP:Fringe theory is downgrading my honest contribution which is based on more than five years of research in the history of Soviet rocketry, also including analysis of Helmut Gröttrup's inheritance which was handed over to the (public) archive of the Deutsches Museum (NL281) in 2017 (another unknown to Siddiqi). SchmiAlf (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Robert, in reply to your specific questions:
- - agree to moderated discussion subject to DRN Rule D
- - Q 1 and 2 agree with moderated discussion
- - Q 3 that the exist wording of the article is not changed.
- Ilenart626 (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
First statement by possible moderator (Soviet space program)
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 statements by editors (Soviet space program)
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:
- Delete the last sentence "However, after 1947 [...] was marginal." in the lead (as justified by my arguments in the previous discussion). Siddiqi's statement may remain in the Historical analysis section.
- Improve the structure of the Work in the USSR section by sub-sections (as within my reverted/deleted edit of 16:35, 2 September 2023):
- 1) until end of 1947 for launching V-2 and support of R-1;
- 2) in 1948 and 1949 for design sketches of long range missiles;
- 3) activities at OKB-456 (the current Glushko ... paragraph commingles independent OKB-456 and NII-88 activities);
- 4) from 1950 to 1953 reduced cooperation on special topics;
- 5) Return to Germany (already existing).
- Add details based on Ustinov's report (1951) and other sources without prejudicing the level of German influence on later Soviet development.
- Add a section under Historical analysis describing the reasons of a controversary view (as drafted in the talk of 11:53, 25 August 2023):
- - fundamental interest of Soviets in German designs with visits in 1949;
- - conical shape of G-4 and similarity to R-7 boosters;
- - proposal of German engineers to use 4x 25 tons engines instead of 1x 100 tons engine;
- - reduced thrust/weight ratio of 1.2 to 1.4 (instead of 2.0);
- - system for simultaneous emptying of both tanks;
- - quote Russian 70 Years of Swesda 1946-2016.--SchmiAlf (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
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:
- The involvement of German scientists and engineers was an essential catalyst to early Soviet efforts. In 1945 and 1946 the use of German expertise was invaluable in reducing the time needed to master the intricacies of the V-2 rocket, establishing production of the R-1 rocket and enable a base for further developments. However, after 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet space program was marginal.
SchmiAlf has stated that “Siddiqi's statement may remain in the Historical analysis section.” I assume SchmiAlf is referring to the following:
- However, due to a combination of reasons, including secrecy requirements due to the military nature of the work, political considerations and personal reasons from some key players, from 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists. They were effectively frozen out from ongoing research and their influence on the future Soviet space program was marginal.
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:
- changes 1-5 relate to SchmiAlf edit of 16:35, 2 September 2023, which has been deleted due to copyright violation;
- uncertain where and what details of “Ustinov's report (1951)” SchmiAlf wants to add; and
- SchmiAlf draft in the talk of 11:53, 25 August 2023 has over 1,000 words.
Ilenart626 (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- The copyright violation was in fact missing several quotation marks.
- Details of "Ustinow's report (1951) include a structured overview of the German tasks in USSR from 1946 to 1951 with some more relevant details as compared to the current description in the article for 1948 to 1950. His final conclusion "The German specialists who have worked in the field of reactive technology have given considerable aid in restoring and reconstructing the German designs, especially in the first period. Their individual theoretical, design, and experimental work was used in designing Soviet models." supports the controversary view.
- My lengthy argument (more than 1000 characters) was due to the complete deletion of my edit which I could otherwise have referred to. SchmiAlf (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Second statement by possible moderator (Soviet space program)
Schmialf has proposed three changes to the article:
- Delete the last sentence of the lede paragraph: "However … was marginal."
- Expand the "Work in the USSR" section.
- Expand the "Historical analysis" section by adding a section.
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 statements by editors (Soviet space program)
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:
- “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”
The other sources support the above, for example:
- Chertok - “…the Germans had little influence and the R-7 rocket that propelled the Sputnik 1 to orbit was "free of the "birthmarks" of German rocket technology"
- Ley - “In reality, the Germans did not build anything for the Russians, did not “supervise" the firings, and did not introduce innovations”
- Russian Space Web - “As it often happens in history, the truth might lie in between…”
- Mick & Neufeld - “As a gross generalization, one can say that the initial transfer of Third Reich knowledge, both in the eastern occupation zone and in the USSR, was a success, but afterwards the value of most of the German teams quickly diminished as a result of the Stalinist policy of isolation and secrecy, compounded by linguistic difficulties, differences in engineering cultures, rivalry and resentment from indigenous engineers and scientists, and the inefficiencies and disin- centives of the planned economy.”
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:
- Chertok (Russia 1996) is deemed mostly reliable, but he has major issues in neutral description of Soviet/German relationships. As an example he claims that Korolev had never been on Gorodomlya (p. 49) - in fact he was there in 1948 and 1949. His view is driven by the Soviet (and Stalin's) mania that all rocketry development was done by Soviet engineers only, a fatal dilemma which he addressed several times (pp. 46-49, 57-58, 65, 68-69). In addition, he claims that Korolev was unable to listen to German proposals. Gröttrup's and Magnus' retrospection is different, without any reservation from Korolev and his staff as long as the ideas and concepts supported his target and Ustinov's respect. Therefore his central statement that "R-7 had no German birthmarks" must be challenged: If R-5 had German birthmarks and R-7 was partially based on R-5 ...
- Siddiqi (2000) is deemed mostly reliable, but his findings were never updated to later publications, such as secret CIA reports from 1952 to 1956 (released in 2010), Matthias Uhl's Stalins V-2 dissertation (2005), publications of Gröttrup (1958), Magnus (1993), Albring (1991) - all of them in German only. Also newer Russian documents are missing
- Russian Space Web (last updated on 5 August 2012) is deemed reliable and neutral (and I can agree with Zak's statement: “As it often happens in history, the truth might lie in between…”.)
- Mick, Neufeld (2012) are deemed neutral (but less relevant in this context)
- Ley (1969) may be right in some assumptions, but his limited view during the Cold War can't be taken as a serious argument.
- Dmitry Ustinovs (1951) report is very valuable at it outline his detailed targets for the use of German scientists. It is a neutral view because he had to explain Lavrentiy Beria why so much money was spent for the German team (for sure, not for gardening etc.) and discuss when they might return to Germany under the risk of reporting Soviet progress of rocketry to Western secret services
- Encyclopedia Astronautica is useful especially in technical matters (also supporting some of my controversary findings, but I do not want to restart the talk on that article).
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)
Third statement by moderator (Soviet space program)
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 statements by editors (Soviet space program)
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:
- Several high-ranking visits to Gorodomlya in 1949 (documented by Siddiqi & Zak, proving the fundamental interest of Soviets in German ideas and designs far beyond V-2);
- Retaining most of the Germans in Gorodomlya until mid of 1952 and pay them high salaries even after most of the V-2 technology transfer had been completed by end of 1947 (the most plausible reason is that they knew too much about the advancements of Soviet rocketry);
- Conical shape of G-2 and G-4 (documented by 1953 CIA interrogation (item 50) and the similarity to the R-7 boosters (documented by comparative drawing);
- The use of pressure-stabilized balloon tanks based on thin-walled self-supporting structures (<2 mm) to reduce weight (documented by 1953 CIA interrogation (items 6a,10b,26-33), Uhl (p.177-178) and applied for R-7)
- Optimized thrust/weight ratio of 1.2 to 1.4 (instead of 2.0) (documented by 1954 CIA interrogation (item 25) and applied for R-7's Sputnik shot with a value of 1.4);
- System for simultaneous emptying of both tanks as described by Ustinov's 1948 task "fuel level sensor in the rocket’s tanks" (documented by 1954 CIA interrogation (item 25), Russian Tank emptying system and Chertok (p. 292, Vol 2);
- Arrangement of the oxygen tank ahead of the fuel tank to improve the center of gravity position (documented by 1954 CIA interrogation report (item 21) and applied for R-5 and R-7).
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:
- Siddiqi 2000 on page 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”
- Neufeld (2012) on page 58 “The Germans played a central role in that process, including the further development of the missile and its rocket engine, but after 1948 they were increasingly frozen out and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used.”
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)
|
|---|
|
Fourth statement by moderator (Soviet space program)
"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 statements by editors (Soviet space program)
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:
- Siddiqi 2000 on page 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”
- Neufeld (2012) on page 58 “The Germans played a central role in that process, including the further development of the missile and its rocket engine, but after 1948 they were increasingly frozen out and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used.”
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)
Fifth statement by moderator (Soviet space program)
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 statements by editors (Soviet space program)
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:
- "Mark Wade's online Encyclopedia Astronautica has become a popular Internet source for space history. Unfortunately, while it contains a great deal of information, not all of it is correct. Space historians have noticed a variety of factual problems, and unfortunately these problems have not been consistently repaired. Since this is not a peer-reviewed source and historical errors are not always fixed, this cannot be considered a reliable source, despite its impressive appearance." - Critical Issues in the History of Spaceflight, (2006) pp. 484–485
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:
- “I urge some caution with regard to the biography on Encyclopedia Astronautica, because it toes the line of a particular nationist German historian who claims that all of Russian rocket inventions were made by captured Germans. There is no documentary evidence at all that Germans designed the KS-50, ED-140 or RD-105 engines or had anything to do with the R-7 packet rocket design. This is just stated without proof in the articles and books by this historian and parroted on the astronautix.com site. Russian documentation multiple eyewitness accounts all claim that the Germans worked on the R-1 project and were completely isolated from more advanced missile projects, for security reasons. The Germans who worked in the Soviet Union were almost all debriefed by the CIA and some by von Braun. Yet none of these claims about inventing later rocket and engine technology appeared until the 1990s, after technical details of those missiles were made public by Russian sources. I fear these conspiracy theories will be dragged into wikipedia, and we will never hear the end of it. I recommend looking at articles on Soviet rocket engines by the American engineer George Sutton, and articles and books by Asif Siddiqi. For a scholarly treatment of the German work in USSR, look at Michael Uhl's book "Stalins V2" (in German).”
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)
Sixth statement by moderator (Soviet space program)
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 statements by editors (Soviet space program)
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:
- Talk:Martin Summerfield#Encyclopedia Astronautica reference questionable “ The Martin Summerfield biography referenced from astronautix.com contains a great deal of misinformation crediting Summerfield with developments first made by engineers at other companies.”
- talk:Kvant-1#Kvant mass? Highlights the Encyclopedia Astronautica still showing mass as 83,000kg. NASA gives the correct mass of 20,000kg
- Note the comment here about Encyclopedia Astronautica being a WP:UGC site Talk:Apollo command and service module#Requested move 26 November 2018 - to lower/sentence case "sources" we should not be using at all, like Encyclopedia Astronautica, a WP:UGC site
- Talk:Aerojet General X-8#What a well written and documented page should achieve“…such as Mark Wade's Encyclopedia Astronautica, which I have foud clear errors.”
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:
- p. x (Preface): "Russian historians have never adequately addressed the use of German expertise in the immediate postwar period. They have generally minimized the German role as extremely peripheral. On the other side. the popular press in the West has had a tradition of dismissing early Soviet successes as merely an extension of German work."
- p. 58: "On June 4, 1947, NII-88 Director Maj. General Gonor hosted another meeting to discuss the long-range goals of the German specialists affiliated with the institute. At the meeting, Gröttrup, the leading German rocketry specialist in the Soviet Union, proposed the development of a new missile designated the G-1 (later to be confusingly called the R-10) as a successor project to the R-1. Not surprisingly, there was as much resistance on the part of Soviet engineers to any German proposal that was competitive with their own plans. In this case, the G-1, with a range of 600 kilometers, had capabilities and design elements very similar to Korolev's R-2. The latter was particularly stubborn in his opposition to the G-1 plan."
- p. 63: "Korolev and his engineers returned from Kapustin Yar to Kaliningrad in time to hear the revised report by the German engineers on their G-1 study. On December 18, 1948, the members of the Scientific-Technical Council of NII-88 gathered to make a final decision on the German proposal. [...] After a long and sometimes acrimonious session, punctuated for the first time by a discussion of the political implications of using German expertise, the council formally terminated the parallel approach of work on the R-2 and the G-1, which had been continuing for close to two years by then."
- p. 72: "The three successes [i.e., launch of R-1, R-2, R-2E until September 1949] did, however, instill sufficient confidence in Soviet capabilities to eliminate any doubt about terminating work on the German G-1 concept, with which the R-2E shared many performance characteristics."
- p. 81: "On April 4, 1949, Minister of Armaments Ustinov personally visited the Gorodomlya facility with a proposal to the Germans to design a missile that could carry a three-ton warhead a distance of 3,000 kilometers. The specifications were identical to those for the Soviet R-3 missile, and Ustinov's proposal was quite likely a means to augment the R-3 effort by absorbing as many technical innovations as possible from all sources. This new German missile project, called the G-4 (or R-14), reinvigorated the energies of Gröttrup's team, which was given only three months to complete a preliminary draft plan on the missile. Given the circumstances, what they came up with was no less than astounding. The G-4 was a single-stage, cone-shaped, twenty-five-meter-long vehicle with a single 100-ton-thrust engine."
- p. 81: "On October 1, 1949, Ustinov sent NII-88 Director Maj. General Gonor, Chief Engineer Pobedonostsev, and Chief Designer Korolev to Gorodomlya to be briefed on the G-4 missile. It was a rare interaction between the latter and the Germans, and it was probably Korolev's last visit to the island. The Soviets returned to Kaliningrad with the product of the German team's work; the Germans themselves were given no explanation and heard little about the project ever again. Some minor redesign effort on the G-4 was continued until February 1950, but by that time, a formal decision [i.e., termination] on the R-3 had already been taken by NII-88, and presumably the Soviets saw little use in having the Germans continue with their parallel project."
- p. 82: "Work on the G-4 and G-5 projects coincided with a marked decrease in work among the Germans. In April 1950, the Ministry of Armaments formally decided to terminate further work on long-range missiles at Branch No. I at Gorodomlya. Also, by order of the ministry, on March 29 of that year [1950], all access to classified materials was denied to the Germans. Despite the order, 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."
- p. 83: "The almost eight years of involvement of the German scientists in the Soviet rocketry program clearly proved to be an essential catalyst to its further advancement. During the existence of the USSR, Soviet historians rarely, if ever, mentioned the use of German expertise in the postwar years, but the collaboration was real and extremely pivotal in furthering Soviet goals."
- p. 83: "Western historians have debated much on the role of the "German factor" in the postwar development of ballistic missiles in the Soviet Union. The most common interpretation has been one very generous to the Germans - that is, that they had a significant influence over early Soviet developments. One author [James Harford], writing in 1995, argued:
- For years Soviet space leaders put down the contribution that captured Germans and their V-2 technology made to the Soviet ballistic missile and space programs. 'Not significant,' they would say, 'we got mostly the technicians. The Americans got von Braun and his top team. We sent our Germans back after a few years.' That explanation is no longer the Party line. In fact, it is now acknowledged that German rocket technology was bedrock to the USSR, just as it was to the US."
- [In the following paragraphs, Siddiqi does not provide a traceable explanation why he puts aside this statement for his own differing conclusions.]
- p. 84: There is compelling reason to believe that the USSR might have floundered for years before moving ahead to such ambitious concepts as the R-3 had it not been for mastering the design and manufacturing technologies of the A-4 rocket.
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:
- Matthias Uhl's Stalins V2 dissertation (2005) on the "Technology Transfer of German Missile Technology in the USSR and the Buildup of the Soviet Rocket Industry 1945 to 1959" with many details of research in Russian archives, pp. 132-216
- The Soviet Minister of Armament Dmitry Ustinov with his 1951 report to Beria including a comprehensive overview of the German work in 1947 to 1950, with his conclusion:
- "The German specialists who have worked in the field of reactive technology have given considerable aid in restoring and reconstructing the German designs, especially in the first period. Their individual theoretical, design, and experimental work was used in designing Soviet models."
- Reports of CIA interrogations on returnees from Gorodomlya, such as 1953 CIA interrogation and 1954 CIA interrogation (released in 2010) which provide many details of technical concepts and calculations later found in Soviet missiles
- Missing information of the German tasks in Valentin Glushko's OKB-456 for the development of rocket engines, e.g., as reported by Olaf Przybilski The Germans and the Development of Rocket Engines in the USSR (2002) and Paul Maddrell in "Spying on Science - Western Intelligence in Divided Germany" (pp. 225-227) (2006)
There are the following errors in Siddiqi's work:
- p. 82: "The last remaining eight German scientists, including Grottrup, were given permission to leave the Soviet Union on November 22, 1953. Within a week, they were all gone, ending the seven-year existence of NII-88's Branch No. I.
- [In fact, it was a group of 24 retained German scientists CIA report RDP80-00810A002000690002-2 (August 1953) who eventually returned in November 1953. See also RDP80-00810A000400020001-7 report of June 1952
- p. 82-83: "Dr. Waldemar Wolf[f], one of the few who remained behind in the Soviet Union after 1953, lived in Moscow for many years before also returning to Germany. In his remaining years in the Soviet Union, he had no contact with the ballistic missile program."
- [Wolff already returned to Germany in June 1952 as reported by Encyclopedia Astronautica and Stadtwiki Dresden
- p. 83: "Compounding Korolev's personal resistance toward cooperation with the Germans was a much more imposing political imperative one that was grounded in xenophobia and distrust."
- [This is an unsupported generalization of Boris Chertok's quote on p. 58 and does not take into account the Soviet-German contacts until 1951 with "groups of young Soviet engineers migrated to Gorodomlya ostensibly to be taught by the experienced Germans" (p. 82).]
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)
Seventh statement by moderator (Soviet space program)
See comment at RSN: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)
- Robert, was it meant to be here (as suggested below) or in the RSN? SchmiAlf (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Seventh statements by editors (Soviet space program)
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:
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate
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)
Back-and-forth discussion (Soviet space program)
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)
- Apologies for the delay in replying, has been a busy week.
- To revise the Lead the first issue is that as per MOS:INTRO “The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.” So any new items we add to the lead have to be significant and covered in the main body of the article.
- Neufeld (2012) main contribution to the article (from page 58) is “ In the rocket sector, Stalin ordered that Soviet teams begin by copying the V-2...The Germans played a central role in that process, including the further development of the missile and its rocket engine, but after 1948 they were increasingly frozen out and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used.” This is pretty similar to the “essential catalyst” section in the lead, but it could be used.
- I was also thinking that that the issue that Siddiqi 2000 flagged on page 84 “Such an argument conflates two clearly distinct issues: the use of recovered German technology and the use of the actual German scientists” could also be highligted better in the article and the lead.
- An additional source that is not currently used in the article is Siddiqi (2009) “Germans in Russia: Cold War, Technology Transfer, and National Identity”. Note that in this essay Siddiqi uses recently accessible Russian archival sources in his analysis, including Dmitry Ustinov’s 1951 report. In this essay Siddiiqi delves into how and why German specialist were not used. This highlights further reasons as to why the Soviets ignored German expertise, including secrecy requirements, Zhdanovshchina and Korolev’s conviction as an enemy of the state. The following section of the essay highlight some of these issues.
- ”Given Zhdanovshchina’s various dimensions, Korolev was forced to take great care in his actions. In addition to regulating his behavior to conform to prevailing party dictates, he had to steer clear of the Germans since they represented a foreign influence; yet, he had to account for the possibility that their help was essential to the success of his work, as mandated by Stalin. Negotiating all of these concerns required a delicate dance from all three constituencies—the bureaucrats, the Soviet engineers, and the German specialists. The bureaucrats (Ustinov, Gonor, and others) needed to satisfy Stalin’s whims to build long- range ballistic missiles, a goal that would fail, they believed, without the help of the Germans; they sought to give the Germans the resources they needed but recognized that parallel and independent work by Germans and Soviets was financially untenable. The designers (Korolev, Mishin, and others) needed to avoid the kind of behavior that would get them fired, purged, or worse, especially given the pressures to reinforce a new nationalist tenor in Soviet science in the early cold war years; they did not want to be working for the Germans or having the Germans work for them… A solution to this Gordian knot was found through complex gymnastics that left the one constituency who had little or no power, the Germans, out in the cold. Taking advantage of the vigilant need for secrecy, industrial managers such as Ustinov and Gonor effectively slowed down German work on the G-1 missile until the Soviets matched the German quality of work. Once the Soviet side had eclipsed the Germans, the perceived utility of the latter plummeted.”
- This essay could be used to update the article and important points included in the lead.
- Summarising the above points, and incorporating some of your changes, I came up with the following draft of the lead. In the interest of reaching a consensus I have also deleted most of the references to years in the lead:
- During World War II Nazi Germany developed rocket technology that was more advanced than that of the Allies and a race commenced between the Soviet Union and the United States to capture and exploit the technology. Soviet rocket specialist were sent to Germany in 1945 to obtain V-2 rockets and worked with German specialists in Germany and later in the Soviet Union to understand and replicate the rocket technology and develop concept studies for long-range and intercontinental ballistic missiles.
- The use of Nazi Germany rocket technology and involvement of German scientists and engineers played a central role to early Soviet efforts. The use of German expertise was invaluable in reducing the time needed to master the intricacies of the V-2 rocket, establishing production of the R-1 rocket and enable a base for further developments. 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.
- Ilenart626 (talk) 14:44, 20 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:
- "However, due to a combination of security and political requirements, the Soviets froze out the German specialists after 1949 and made little use of their expertise for the Soviet space program."
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)
- In reply to your specific points:
- To specify “1949” you would need a specific source that actually states this, do you have one? If you don’t want to use "end of 1940's" then Siddiqi (2000) specified “1947” and Neufeld (2012) specifies “1948”. Therefore “…after 1947-48…” is supported by these sources and can be used.
- For the end of the sentence Neufeld (2012) states “…they were increasingly frozen out and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used.” Siddiqi (2000) states “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”. I would suggest a combination of the two would be “… they were excluded and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used. After this date the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their future influence on the Soviet space program was minimal.”
- Regarding including “the Soviet space program”, as this article is called “German influence on the Soviet space program” I would suggest that it is included.
- To summarise the above my suggestion for the lead is:
- During World War II Nazi Germany developed rocket technology that was more advanced than that of the Allies and a race commenced between the Soviet Union and the United States to capture and exploit the technology. Soviet rocket specialist were sent to Germany in 1945 to obtain V-2 rockets and worked with German specialists in Germany and later in the Soviet Union to understand and replicate the rocket technology and develop concept studies for long-range and intercontinental ballistic missiles.
- The use of Nazi Germany rocket technology and involvement of German scientists and engineers played a central role to early Soviet efforts. The use of German expertise was invaluable in reducing the time needed to master the intricacies of the V-2 rocket, establishing production of the R-1 rocket and enable a base for further developments. However, due to a combination of security and political requirements, after 1947-48 they were excluded and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used. After this date the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their future influence on the Soviet space program was minimal.
- Note that, as I have outlined above, to comply with MOS:INTRO to include this new lead we would also have to add to the main part of the article:
- highlight the issue that Siddiqi 2000 & 2009 flagged regarding :two clearly distinct issues: the use of recovered German technology and the use of the actual German scientists” in the article.
- adding to the article Siddiqi’s (2009) further reasons as to why the Soviets ignored German expertise, including secrecy requirements, Zhdanovshchina and Korolev’s conviction as an enemy of the state.
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)
- Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree! My reading of Siddiqi (2009) is that he uses Ustinov's 1951 report, Uhl's Stalins V-2 and other sources to support his conclusions. Note the following “In this essay, I use recently accessible Russian archival sources to reconstruct the experience of German rocket scientists forcibly relocated to the Soviet Union during the early cold war.” Yes it does not support your assertion that “It still suffers from the same errors and incompleteness as detailed above in the reliability discussion”. As I have already said a number of times, I believe your assertions in the reliability discussion above are based on your own opinions and synthesis of a variety of sources.
- I also note that the majority of your arguments are supported by primary sources where all my sources are secondary sources. Suggest you review WP:PST and how you need to utilise secondary sources. Note in particular “ All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.”
- Ilenart626 (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Eighth statement by moderator (German influence on Soviet space program)
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)
Comment 8.1 by moderator
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 statements by editors (German influence on Soviet space program)
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:
- "In October 1949, Ustinov returned to the island, apparently in the company of Pobedonostsev and Korolev. Presence of Korolev, who would normally avoid direct contact with the German team, hints about the importance of the G-4 project for the ongoing work at NII-88. After reviewing the project with the Germans, the Soviet team returned to Podlipki with all the results of the research on the G-4.
- In April 1950, there were more visitors from NII-88 with inquiries about the G-4, however against all his hopes, Gröttrup was not invited to any meetings in Podliki. Yet, his Soviet colleagues hinted that the project once again received positive reviews. It was another deja vu for the Germans, as they were not offered any responsible positions in the implementation of the project. Inquires for various updates and studies of details related to the G-4 continued coming in from the "mainland" during 1950, however Germans started quickly loosing interest in the rocket they surely would not be allowed to build or see flying. Yet, reluctantly they continued work on the project during 1950, once again submitting all the results to the officials from "mainland."
--SchmiAlf (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Ninth statement by moderator (Soviet space program)
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 statements by editors (Soviet space program)
Ninth statement by SchmiAlf
For clarity, I'd like to add the word thereafter to my preferred version:
- However, due to a combination of secrecy and political requirements, the Soviets froze out the German specialists after 1949 and thereafter made little use of their expertise for the Soviet space program.
--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.
- However, due to a combination of security and political requirements, after 1947-48 they were excluded and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used, the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their future influence on the Soviet space program was marginal.
Have updated Talk:German influence on the Soviet space program/RFC on last sentence of lede. Ilenart626 (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Sean Combs
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | 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 |
|---|