Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-18 Alexander the Great

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: Talk:Alexander the Great State: Closed Requested By: Akhilleus Other Parties: Apro, Haiduc, others. Mediated By: Keitei Comments: Category:Ancient Greek eros chosen, discussion moved to Category talk:Ancient Greek eros

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-10-18 Alexander the Great 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-10-18 Alexander the Great

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: --Akhilleus (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Talk:Alexander the Great

Who's involved?

Akhilleus (talk • contribs)

Apro (talk • contribs)

Haiduc (talk • contribs)

and other editors contributing to the article and its talk page.

What's going on?

There's a long-running dispute about what category should be placed in the article to index the section on Alexander's sexual life (Alexander the Great#Personal life). A majority of editors have come to support a compromise, Category:Sexuality in ancient Greece. Existing categories such as Category:Pederasty in ancient Greece, or more precise categories that correspond to existing articles, like Category:Homosexuality in ancient Greece have been rejected on the grounds that they're unproven or anachronistic, in spite of the fact that support for these categories can be found in scholarship cited both in the article and on the talk page. The discussion seems to have been directed by editors' personal concerns rather than scholarship. The resulting compromise category could be used to re-categorize many articles dealing with classical Greece, with the possible effect of whitewashing WP's treatment of homosexuality in the ancient world.

What would you like to change about that?

The discussion is just a few people making the same points over and over. New voices are needed, who can take a look at the issue with fresh eyes (and hopefully with a good understanding of how policies like NPOV apply to this situation). Multiple RfCs have been created, but they haven't attracted new contributors.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

I'd like things to be as open as possible.

[edit] Mediator response

I will give you my response in two days. -- Wissahickon Creek   ^msg 15:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia policies on POV and NPOV. The article should favor a neutral view. --Wissahickon Creek ^talk 16:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you contacted the parties directly? They may not be aware there is a case here at all. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Now we wait. --Wissahickon Creek ^talk 12:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I hate to complain, but you seem to be conducting the mediation as a straw poll or a vote. But I would prefer a discussion, specifically of whether there's an NPOV violation going on. Consensus, after all, is not supposed to trump policy. Thanks. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear --Akhilleus first of all, the aim was to stop edit war and reverts. Second of all, aim is to find a compromise solution. Are you not satisfied in having a compromise solution? --Wissahickon Creek ^talk 17:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I think my request for mediation might not have been clear enough. The edit/revert wars have been stopped for some time; we didn't need outside intervention for that. Also, it was already clear that a numerical majority of editors contributing to the discussion could support a category "ancient Greek sexuality"; we didn't need outside intervention for that either.

The problem is that some editors, namely Haiduc and myself, believe that "homosexuality in ancient greece" or "same-sex desire in ancient greece" would be better categories for this particular aspect of the article. We believe that the decision not to use these categories is in violation of the NPOV policy, because they're a better reflection of scholarship on ancient Greece and on Alexander. As far as I can tell, the arguments against using these categories have been based on editors' personal feelings rather than reliable, verifiable sources--it seems to me that the true objection is that some people just don't want anything that clearly says "homosexual" or "same-sex" in the categories. A compromise that violates NPOV is no compromise at all, in my opinion, and what I'd really like is a frank, focused discussion of whether there's an NPOV violation here, and if so, what we should do. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

For more on reasons why I believe there's an NPOV violation going on here, please look at the exchange between Apro and myself in Talk:Alexander the Great#Categories: fundamental flaw. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, Akhilleus now you explained better what you want. About NPOV and POV as far as I've noticed the Category:Ancient Greek sexuality is less POV and is quite NPOV. Not to mention the great support for this category. Let's not make a point of it and push a POV here. You should avoid this. It's POV to state "homosexuality in ancient greece" or "same-sex desire in ancient greece" even if you would think they are better categories for this particular aspect. However, I advice you to accept the great support for the current NPOV formulation Category:Ancient Greek sexuality . Best regards, --Wissahickon Creek ^talk 18:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, but could you please clarify what you mean by saying that "it's POV to state 'homosexuality in ancient greece' or 'same-sex desire in ancient greece'"? I'm happy to agree that I'm advocating a particular point of view, but it's the point of view of the majority of scholarship on this topic (for which I have provided numerous citations), and by my reading of the NPOV policy, that's exactly what's supposed to guide the content of Wikipedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Case status changed to reflect the desires of the parties involved. A senior mediator is requested to take over the lead for this case, with Wissahickon Creek acting as assisting mediator. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 19:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wissahickon Creek is no longer assisting mediator; my position as mediator is of course equally open to recall. --Keitei (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Discussion