Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-04 Historical revisionism (negationism)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Request for cabal mediation
[edit] Request Information
- Request made by: Lapaz 16:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- Historical revisionism (negationism)
- Who's involved?
- Mainly Philip Baird Shearer. Stbalbach and Dado have also looked on the issue a bit.
- What's going on?
- User Philip Baird Shearer (PBS) insists on deleting the Rwandan Genocide and the Srebrenica massacres. He considers they should not be included on the page.
- What would you like to change about that?
- As both genocides have been targets of revisionism, they should be listed on the page as targets of revisionism.
- If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
- No need for discretion, this is quite to the contrary most important public and democratic matter.
- Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?
- Not for the time being, thanks.
-
- This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do
- what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.
- We're not talking about some idealist philosophical matters here, we're talking about two genocides which happened in the last 20 years, one in Europe the other in Africa, of thousands of killings on the sole grounds of their supposed ethnic membership, of machetes and burnt corpses, of the responsibility not only of the direct perpetrators of the genocide but also of the international community, and, to be really precise, of totally unacceptable claims that these genocides did not happen. Kant would have upsetted a few more times in his life his daily walk if he had lived in the 20st century. Let's hope that the 21st century will not just white-wash all of the 20th century crimes. I'd like to point out that it seems to me of the upmost importance of having a decent page on revisionism on a "free-for-all-to-edit encyclopedia", lest Wikipedia becomes a platform for negationism theories and thus a totally anti-democratic project. Lapaz 16:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mediator response
I'll accept this case. I'm studying it now. Flying Jazz 12:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
At this time, the article and talk page seem to have had about 10 days of relative quiet that I don't want to disturb. After months of nearly constant activity with much improvement along with passionate disagreements, it would be a mistake for me to express an opinion on this content dispute during this quiet time. If the editors return to this dispute, I hope they follow the advice expressed here to present a summary RfC in an attempt to reach consensus. With respect to the content dispute, I ask the editors to remember what Wikipedia is not.
Towards the end of the time of activity, there were certain posts in the talk page that drive me to remind the editors:
- 1) No personal attacks
- 2) Assume good faith by others in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary
- 3) Stay cool
- 4) Avoid lame edit wars
Having said all that, I admire the restraint it takes to work on such passionate and important topics without words spiraling out of control more often. But edit wars aren't ever productive.
I also share Lapaz's hopes for the next century. Flying Jazz 05:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
