Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Arbitrators 2 Minor comment 3 Why isn't everything voted? 4 Objection by Constanz 5 Objections and Comment by Vecrumba 5.1 Suggested revision

[edit] Arbitrators

Arbitrators active on this case:

• Blnguyen
• Charles Matthews
• Flcelloguy
• FloNight
• Fred Bauder
• Jdforrester
• Jpgordon
• Kirill Lokshin
• Paul August
• UninvitedCompany

There are 10 active arbitrators and none are recused, so the majority is 6.

Mackensen, appointed after the case was accepted, is deemed to be recused and non-participating, unless he states otherwise. As of March 1, Morven, Raul654 and SimonP are also inactive. Thatcher131 18:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor comment

The proposed enforcement paragraph should probably refer to "the article" (singular rather than plural), meaning Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945, or am I missing something? Newyorkbrad 17:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that was just me being careless. Kirill Lokshin 17:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I almost fixed it myself as a permissible clerical grammatical/typographical correction, but wanted to be sure. Newyorkbrad 17:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why isn't everything voted?

There are 9 proposed principles and 6 proposed remedies [1]. Why are not all of those voted here? Constanz - Talk 15:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Arbitrators only move those proposals which they are actually in favor of to the proposed decision page. If a particular proposal hasn't been moved, it's pretty safe to assume that none of the Arbitrators who have voted so far consider it a good idea. Kirill Lokshin 16:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Objection by Constanz

“Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.” -[2], (emphases mine)

The latter part of the proposal - just like the whole arbitration here - has potentially dangerous consequences. It will give a 'good' precedent for all kinds of minority point of view pushers and/or political extremists and/or blatant trolls. To allow material being removed by odd, unverifiable claims will e.g lead to a possibility of Holocaust article being attacked by Holocaust deniers, who claim 'there are other points of view' and that not everyone agrees that this genocide took place. Of course, the first ones to use the accepted precedent of unverifiability will be different kinds of whitewashers of Stalinist crimes, who - I'm sure - have been carefully watching this arbitration process. Constanz - Talk 16:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The wording there was copied straight out of WP:V; there's nothing being introduced that wasn't already a prominent part of policy. Kirill Lokshin 17:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is the case when an editor has provided copious amounts of material supported by reliable sources, but others continue to dismiss it with claims of "systemic bias" or "heavy nationalism". It is very demoralising when editors go to considerable efforts to find reliable sources, only to be dismissed with uncited baseless counter claims. Whilst you were prepared to make a finding of fact that both sides failed to cite reliable sources in their discussions, it's a pity you were not prepared to make a similar finding of fact when I proved that only one side had made the effort to back their assertions with reliable sources [3]. Martintg 22:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I urge the arbitrators to consider things over again. If it was copied from somewhere, I think the admins should have made a more elaborate proposal instead - i.e, what would help to solve the WP:POINT attempts by a side, which disapproves all reasonable sources.
If the current case ends with soapboxers equated with those who have endlessly tried to find acceptable and legal sources,... I am pesonally thinking of taking some steps in the future, like tagging some World War 2 articles, just because I personally might prefer different attitudes. E.g when Viktor Suvorov's ideas are not formulated in an article, nothing should stop me from claiming that the article is 'biased' without it. A good idea would be to strike Operation Barbarossa article and claim that “there are some sources” which say German assault was a pre-emptive strike etc (which I don't belive in). Try to claim that it wasn't so!?!Constanz - Talk 09:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

PS. Almost forgot! Holodomor would be the first item, that represents “systemic bias” and is a result of “heavy nationalism”. The category genocide has been removed numerous times - but without it, the article is biased! Many Western countries recognise the events as genocide against Ukrainian people! Constanz - Talk 09:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Read the article's talk, Constanz. --Irpen 09:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Objections and Comment by Vecrumba

On "no perspective is to be presented as the 'truth'; all perspectives are to be attributed to their advocates.":

• I appreciate the efforts of Kirill and others throughout this arbitration. However, I cannot fail to read this in any way but the term "occupation" is an interpretation not a fact based in international law. There is no distinction here between facts and interpretations in advocating a "perspective." This lack of distinction discounts the value of facts in the editorial "debate."

On "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.":

• Those seeking to remove it should at least be compelled to provide a reason other than their POV (and often not even that) which have absolutely nothing to do with the content presented, and which have never, ever, produced one iota of reputable evidence to the contrary of anything that has been presented. (Even Irpen, the only "opposing" party whom I can empirically regard as reasonable, appears to contend the Soviet re-taking of Latvia does not fall under "occupation".) Presenting this in this way implies one can remove content without producing any justification themselves, in complete contradiction to the need to provide reliable sources. Both the addition and removal of material are editorial contributions which must be based on reputable sources. There is no recognition that someone removing content is also making an editorial contribution and is subject to the same constraints and obligations.

On "The parties are strongly encouraged to enter into a mediation arrangement regarding any article content issues that may still be outstanding.":

• And what content or perspective is it that has not been provided? Every last person who has disputed "occupation" in any Baltics-related article who has been requested to produce any evidence to the contrary--including the parties here--have produced ZERO. The Russian Duma has made its proclamation, but has produced no evidence exactly how the Soviet presence in Latvia was fully legal. What exactly is it that would be mediated?
• I have already offered to split the first Soviet occupation from the Nazi occupation from the second Soviet occupation to avoid people (based on their own POV) believing that to mix them is some POV concoction. (Which ultimately I believe will answer Irpen's content mixing objections.) I cannot speak to those that baselessly label it all Holocaust denial when it is clearly marked as incomplete.

On "1.1) The dispute revolves around the title, scope, and content of the Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 article. Each of these points has been the subject of extensive and heated debate, which has failed to produce an outcome acceptable to all of the editors involved.":

• And what editors bringing reputable (or any!) sources would those be that are "disputing" the title, scope, and content? I've already pretty much dealt with the scope issue by agreeing to split up the occupations. What is there regarding title and content that has actually been "disputed" other than to be labelled POV? This statement of what the dispute revolves around elevates unsubstantiated POV diatribes--including POV and "this is not factual" tagging with no further basis provided--to the level of editorial contributions to now be apparently considered equally valid as compared to substantiated and incontrovertible facts. This statement is a gross mischaracterization of the "editorial" aspects of the dispute.

The one positive I see coming out of this is that if an editor removes a POV or "this is not factual" tag, then at least the editor who then reinserts said tag is, at that point, obliged to "provide a reliable source" with the addition of said content. Or are tags not regarded as content and subject to the same rigor? If tags are not regarded as content, then this entire exercise will have been a waste of everyone's valuable time, and especially of the arbitrators seeking to improve the situation.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Another valiant effort, but, in my opinion, you are talking to a wall. Partially insufficiently involved wall, partially a wall seemingly committed not to evaluate - much less to address - tagging as an issue on its own, or the 'content' of the 'debate' used to sustain it. Which was, in mz opinion, what lead to revert war over tags, after the 'debate' had run its inevitable course (how many times can one keep repeating already refuted points) and the tags, after period of silence, were removed. It would not require great efforts to establish -- without making a content decision -- that one side of debate stood on their own opinions only, that their arguments, where something factual was claimed, were devoid of sources supporting them, and to somewhat modify findings to reflect that. The points have been made, the findings do not reflect them. My suggestion: accept that, at this point no amount of persuasion will change that, I believe :)

The simple truth (and it is also reflected in WP:NPOV_Dispute "How to" guide) is that all opposing side needs to do to create a presumption of non neutrality is -- create a controversy: "(..) there is a strong inductive argument that, if a page is in an NPOV dispute, it very probably is not neutral — or, at least, that the topic is a controversial one, and one should be wary of a possible slant or bias." Considering all the sources already presented on talk page, that is, IMO, the best they can hope for - create a controversy. "Occupation denial" has no chance of standing in factual arguments. And they are successfully creating that controversy by employing, including but not limited to, trivial objections amounting to - see, there was an approximately three year interruption in Soviet illegal presence and rule in Latvia, so you have to treat that as two unrelated events (or else it's, no kidding - ARBITRARY pasting together of events), in separate articles. And no amount of persuasion that there is no obvious reason necessitating such separation, that they logically belong together if one tries to present Soviet rule in Baltic states, that, say, Britannica has a section [4] doing precisely that, compels them to agree. It's their opinion, it's not a factual assertion, it cannot be falsified.

Now, of course the guide also states that "(..) marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral", -- i.e. to commit to something. It also says (my emphasis): "on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why."

But, if the committee members do not wish to address those concerns, to consider the "mode" of the dispute, whether there is substance to sustain the controversy, whether there was effort to resolve it in accordance with the guide, it's their prerogative to make that decision. Let's instead try to agree precisely how to proceed afterwards. Doc15071969 17:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear on how to proceed afterwards. It's incumbent upon the tagger to cite a new or already existing source to back his claim that facts are either missing or presented such that additional conclusions are drawn in the article which are not present in the already existing sources. If the tagger can't point to alternative facts and/or conclusions in new or existing sources when challenged, any other editor is free to remove the tag. Martintg 00:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested revision

"4) Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding new material, including inserting editorial tags, should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it." —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Second to Vecrumba. Constanz - Talk 14:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the Arbitators are working from the assumption that the act of POV tagging is introducing new material, because the POV tag implies an alternative view point exists but is not adequately represented in the article. So following from that basis, the POV tagger should cite a reliable source supporting that view point, otherwise it may be challenged and removed by any editor. Can Kirill or any other Arbitrator confirm or deny this assumption? Martintg 00:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, dispute tags and article content are two rather different things. While it is expected that editors laying out the reasoning for adding dispute tags will make reference to reliable sources when needed, it would be overly simplistic to reduce this to a question of "citing" the dispute. A (not quite randomly chosen) example: it's perfectly legitimate to argue that an article is noncompliant with policy because the sources used do not actually support some aspect of it; in this case, the dispute would be conducted entirely on the basis of examining the sources already present, so there's nothing to "cite [another] reliable source" for. Kirill Lokshin 02:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. In your example, a particular POV is created by selectively presenting facts from sources already present. So presumably in this case the editor tagging the article would be expected to cite those neglected facts in the already-present-sources, that support the different aspect? Martintg 03:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if the concern was that facts were neglected. (There are issues possible other than simply omitted facts; for example, an article may be presenting the facts themselves correctly but then drawing additional conclusions from them not pesent in the original sources.) Kirill Lokshin 03:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality and sourcing while related is not one and the same issue. Perfectly sourced material may be used for tendentious presentation by selective and arbitrary presentation of facts, selective and arbitrary omission of facts or starting off the articles unencyclopedic from their onset by taking an inflammatory title, pasting together separate events to ensure the distorted presentation of history and implying the scope that is tendentious. --Irpen 00:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a POV tag that flags the arbitary presentation or the selective omission of facts, is flagging the need for new material to be added or modified in order to find balance. Therefore, since it is flagging that new material ought to be added, the tagger is obligated to cite a reliable source for this new material. Martintg 00:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already indicated the occupations will be split (where do I go to ask for edit access to do that?). Irpen, if you believe the completed section (first Soviet occupation) selectively lacks or omits information, I invite you to discuss after the article is split. (I love the melifluous sound of tenditious as it rolls off the tongue as much as you do, but you are getting a bit repetitive with it, especially as the commitment to split has been made. Just an observation.) While I can't speak for the other parties, dividing the alleged "problem" into separate pieces should simplify the editorial process in general--certainly no one has raised any objection to such a split so far.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

And there had been no reputable evidence presented to date by anyone that "occupation" is not factually accurate. I fail to see how factual can be disputed as inflammatory with no evidence to the contrary. Again, splitting the article will (hopefully) help focus future discussion there as well.

    I should mention I posted a machine translation of the Russian Wikipedia article on Latvia in the Occupation of Latvia discussion page. It's a fairly complete inventory of the WP:OR-and-not-based-in-fact opposition position. And the article has been tagged as failing to meet Wikipedia norms. Nevertheless if anyone would like to represent this as the "Russian position," please feel free to clean up the translation and I'll include it. (The presence of that view does not change the use of "occupation" in the title of the article as the alleged "Russian position" is (a) not based on reputable sources [sorry, on any sources] and (b) not even reflective of facts.) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)