Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Panzer Ace

Panzer Ace

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Nug (talk · contribs)
3. K.e.coffman (talk · contribs)
4. Assayer (talk · contribs)
5. LargelyRecyclable (talk · contribs)
6. Drmies (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Panzer ace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Talk:Panzer_ace#Removal_of_material

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

1. There are two opposing viewpoints on this article, one that Panzer Aces/Tank Aces are individual tank commanders, who were successful in combat and destroyed a relatively large number of enemy tanks because of their skills and expertise (referenced by Kershaw and Forty). The opposing viewpoint is the "Panzer Ace Myth" viewpoint - this states that the concept of the Panzer ace is a myth, and that they only achieved success in destroying tanks because of the tank technology and circumstance. As part of this viewpoint, the numbers of tanks destroyed has been called into question (referenced by Zaloga).
2. The references that go to explain the Panzer Ace/Tank Ace viewpoint by Kershaw and Forty have been removed from the article, so this viewpoint is no longer represented. The suitability of Kershaw and Forty as RS and their authority has been called into question. The "Panzer Ace Myth" viewpoint by Zaloga, remains in the article.

Because of this, the article is currently tagged with an undue weight tag. Ongoing debate about this has been going on for some weeks, so it would seem a good idea to get a mediator for an objective viewpoint to help. Thanks!

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• While I appreciate Deathlibrarian's effort, I do not really subscribe to the terminology used in this overview, and challenge the foundation of it: it is not that simple. For starters, the conflation between "Panzer Ace" and "Tank Ace" denies a stark difference between the two: yes, it is argued (by me and other editors, reflecting an academic viewpoint) that "Panzer Ace" is a myth, but "Tank Ace" is not a synonym for a neutral reading of that term, as the move/rename discussion proved. What we really have is a conceptual problem: for me and others, if I can speak for them, "Tank Ace" is a poorly chosen term (unlike Flying Ace, which is duly verified as common parlance) pointing to military precision in shooting from a tank. For that kind of article, Kershaw and Forty are probably reliable enough. But for the myth and the glorification pertaining to the term "Panzer Ace", those tank historians are woefully underequipped, and in fact they support this kind of myth, a glorification of the Nazi military. I have argued before that Deathlibrarian and others, if they want lists of German tank commanders who killed lots of people, they should just write up a list article, and leave "Panzer Ace" to the historiographers: let's be clear, "Panzer Ace" is the subject of historiography, more than history. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think I have ever edited the article, I only recently participated on the talk page in regard to the reliability of Oxford University educated former British Army chief of staff at the Royal Armoured Corps gunnery and tactical school, past Tank Museum director and prolific author on armoured warfare George Forty, after this RSN request regarding Forty's reliability on the topic of tank aces[1].

My observation is that the real issue is the conflict between whether concept "Tank ace" is a subject of historiography or a subject of contemporary military science. Those that support the historiography view reject inclusion of Forty (and Kershaw, both authors have professional military backgrounds). Those that support the historiography view also reject renaming the article to something less controversial like "German tank aces"[2] (or even just "Tank aces" so that we could include outstanding tank commanders from other countries), and so we have the current article name "Panzer ace" with the associated baggage.

As a subject of contemporary military science, the term "Tank ace" seems to have come into common usage[3] after 1975[4], and is a term used by George Forty in his books on armoured warfare, which have been described as superb by the Editor-in-chief of the US Army Armor Branch's professional development journal and recommended reading for current and future tank commanders[5]. In this context "Tank ace" is a tank commander who "made a difference at a critical time and a critical point on the battlefield" and military science aspect is the study of those identified qualities necessary when commanding a modern main battle tank, not "a glorification of the Nazi military" as some would have us believe.

So the issue here is whether the article should focus narrowly on historiography aspect versus broader focus on the military science aspect. My view is that the focus should be the broader one, as we can also include a section on the historiography as well. --Nug (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not outright opposed but I'm not convinced this is the appropriate venue for working through this. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• Chairperson's note to all listed parties: In light of the number of listed parties, I'd like to try to prevent confusion and unnecessary discussion by making some things clear before everyone starts weighing in.

• First, if you have been listed as a party but do not care to participate in the mediation and you agree not to edit the article, or continue discussion at the article talk page, on the matter in dispute you may say so rather than accepting or rejecting and your withdrawal will reduce the party count.
• Second, in determining whether prerequisite to mediation #5 has been met conditional or ambiguous "accepts" will almost always be counted as rejects unless the condition is something which is always done in mediation anyway. If the reason for conditioning your "accept" is to contest the way the issue to be mediated is stated by the listing party or to insure that your additional issue is considered, bear in mind that if the case is accepted for mediation and a mediator accepts the case that the mediator will negotiate the exact issues to be mediated with the parties; if you are not satisfied with the outcome of that process you may withdraw from or reject the mediation at that time. Based on the party count at this time, we will need at least 4 accepts before the case can be accepted.
• Third, with this many people involved, even if the minimum number of "accepts" is met if many fail to either accept or reject acceptance it is possible for the case to be accepted but the mediator determine that there aren't enough parties or aren't enough necessary parties for the mediation to succeed (see the next subsection) and close it.
• Fourth, please understand what mediation can do. It will not hear the arguments and make a judgment as to what is correct. What it will do is to attempt to provide a moderated and guided environment where discussion can continue with a view to reaching consensus. While mediators work diligently towards coming to a negative or positive consensus, they also realize that "no consensus" is a perfectly acceptable result under Wikipedia's wiki concept. In general regarding the concept of mediation, see the article on Mediation.
• Fifth, realize that formal mediations often take weeks and sometimes months to complete.
• Sixth, please do not engage in discussion or reply to other users on this acceptance page. Either just accept or reject (or withdraw, see above) and, if you care to do so, add additional issues in the appropriate section above. Be aware that the privilege of mediation (i.e. that statements and discussions made during mediation cannot ordinarily be used as evidence for any behavioral complaint, though there are exceptions) does not apply until a case has been accepted for mediation and a mediator opens the case.

I'd strongly recommend that all parties read the Mediation Committee policy before deciding to accept, reject, or withdraw. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC) (Chairperson)

Reject: Only one unambiguous acceptance out of four required. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC) (Chairperson)