Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-20 Georg Forster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Request for cabal mediation

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: alx-pl D 19:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Where is the issue taking place?
Talk:Georg Forster
Talk:Georg_Forster#Resolution
Who's involved?
alx-pl, Kusma, Molobo, Sciurinæ (from time to time)
What's going on?
  • There is a dispute on the attitude of Georg Forster to Poles and vice versa. Currently, there is a description in the section Georg Forster#Forster and nations that presents some of his words as insulting and based on stereotypes. Still, there is some pressure by Molobo to rephrase that as "racist" views and/or add an explicit quotation with his statements. There is an argument against this solution summarised in the 7 points at the end of the section Please answer my question Kusme and in the edits [1]
  • Another dispute concerns the attitude of Poles towards Forster. Currently, I am unable to characterise properly the point of the dispute as I am a bit lost. The arguments are in the section Unsourced opinion.
What would you like to change about that?
I would like to achieve an encyclopedic formulation of the issues which presents Forster in the fair light.
If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
I prefer open discussion. If you prefer to reach me in private you can email me via the Wikipedia email facility.

[edit] Comments by others

Still, there is some pressure by Molobo to rephrase that as "racist" views and/or add an explicit quotation with his statements I am not necessarily insisting on racism. But I don't see why shouldn't we give an example of statements he made, since they aren't disputed. --Molobo 19:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, you are. You place Forster into the category of yours called "Category:Anti-Polonism". You revert others when they try to remove it, therefore you insist on putting him into that category. The category is a subcategory of Category:Racism. Therefore you're insisting on declaring him a racist. --Sciurinæ 20:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Forster was placed there long before I arrived on Wiki.Anyway antipolonism has different categories including non-racist ones. However it's indeed hard to imagine that a person believing Poles are animals can't be seen as an racist.Yet I understand opposition to that wording and do not insist on it. --Molobo 20:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there are lots of other categories that "Anti-Polonism" inherits, for example Category:Foreign relations of Poland, but that's the only one and it doesn't change anything. (BTW I also agree that it really has to be hard to not consider someone calling Poles animals as a racist. It's a necessary conclusion that those people are racists. Everyone who believes that human beings are a form of animals are racists, too, aren't they?) The fact that you understood opposition to that wording didn't prevent you from pushing that idea for several months so why should anyone believe that now you've changed your mind completely? --Sciurinæ 20:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Please address the issuess relevant-I already explained that I am not insisting on the racism thing since the opposition makes it unlikely that it would be entered.
As to Forster's statements :
Whole sheets of paper would not suffice to give you an impression of what is called polnische Wirtschaft in the neighboring German regions. [...] The Poles are innately swine, the lords as well as the servants: everybody goes poorly dressed, especially the female sex; if they do dress up, it fits like a golden necklace fits a sow. --Molobo 21:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
For the record, 12 hours after he has said "Yet I understand opposition to that wording and do not insist on it." he did insist again.[2] --Sciurinæ 14:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't mislead Sciurinæ-I didn't restore the sentence "his racist views". --Molobo 10:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator response

I've seen a lot of going back and forth and rambling by both sides. It seems to me like nobody can even agree on what the dispute is, much less why it is happening or what must be done in order to resolve it. I'vbe been watching the case for some time, yet I havent seen any clear argument arise on either side. I'm leaving the case open for another three standard days, and if at the end of that I fail to see a clear argument with facts and references on both sides, then i'm closing the case. Firestorm 01:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)