Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-16 Howard Zinn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation: 2006-03-16 Howard Zinn 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Evidence 1.4 Compromise offers 1.5 Comments by others 1.6 Discussion

[edit] Mediation: 2006-03-16 Howard Zinn

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Bibigon 03:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

The Howard Zinn article.

Who's involved?

Myself and several other editors, but primarily, Pinkville.

What's going on?

I have been in a dispute regarding some pretty serious concerns about the Howard Zinn article as it is currently constituted. The article right now is some encyclopedic content, but as much or more of it is a collection of Zinn's quotes and writings presented uncritically, and with no discernable reason for being there. The article has a full page long introduction, which has a sentence introducing Zinn, and then goes into flowery prose like "While many historians study the role of great men in affecting history, Zinn chronicles history from the bottom up: from the street, the home, and the workplace." That prose, and the accompanying quotes make up 10 of the 11 paragraphs of the introduction.

The article then moves to his biography, which has a good deal of solid information, but is again filled with more of what makes the introduction not up to Wikipedia standards. In addition to give a biographical sketch of his life, the section also includes huge swaths of quotes, with accompanying interpretations as to what they mean within the context of his political views. The entire article has a very book report-like feel to it, as if trying to prove to the reader that the person really had read the book. The quotes in the context in which they are presented add little information to either an introduction to Zinn, or to his biography. This is to say, they are mainly fluff.

I attempted an edit of the article, a pretty serious one, where I cut out the aforementioned fluff, and I was met with personal attacks and outrage. To an extent, that was my fault, as I didn't realize that there would be resistance to the edits which I made, so my edit summaries were somewhat terse. My edits were large, and additionally, they were incomplete. In addition to the edits I made, I requested that someone write a section on Zinn's political views in an appropriate manner. I am not an expert on Howard Zinn's political views, and as such I did not feel qualified to craft a new section on them, so I left it out, hoping that someone would add one in. The article after my edits was definitely lacking in some details about his political views, so in that way, it was imperfect. That said, they were a clear and drastic improvement it seemed to me, and opened the door for the article to be in pretty decent shape once a seperate section on his politics could be crafted.

However, my edits were met with complete reversions, and as I mentioned above, personal attacks and outrage over the scope of those edits. I pursued the issue in the talk page, however, nobody was able to explain what the actual problem with my edits was(other than alleging I was biased and trying to silence Zinn's voice), and as such, I am in need of assistance. I didn't want to get into an edit war, however I feel confident enough that my changes are needed that I don't want to just let the matter drop.

What would you like to change about that?

I was hoping that people could help me out here, and either help with what I was trying to do, or if appropriate, tell me that my changes were out of line. Either way, I'm in need of guidance over what to do next.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

Sure.

[edit] Mediator response

[edit] Evidence

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Comments by others

The problem here is that the Howard Zinn article, like articles on other prominent people with strong political views, will be prone to vandalism. There are comments on the talk page, for instance, where someone has demanded a section where his views will be criticised heavily as they are "laughable". But Bibigon's edit attempts are not partisan, but an attempt to clean up an article that's poorly structured. Unfortunately, some people who no doubt want to protect the article from vandalism have seen his edits as destructive. In my opinion, they're wrong. (If this comment is in the wrong section of the page, feel free to move it.) --Liquidindian 06:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Well, I tried to make some changes to the Zinn article to address Bibigon's concerns but I gave up due to harassment by Bibigon. Bibigon seems more concerned with slapping multiple tags on this page than in making constructive edits. Previously, he ripped through, making vast deletions in the article he admits in his own words on the talk page he knows nothing about and continues to complain here, outside the article talk page, about people who have contributed to the Zinn page, even though he's made no effort to educate himself about the topic at hand, or to add anything to the page itself except tags, or to address the concerns of the people who have replied to Bibigon.

I personally answered a number of Bibigon concerns on the talk page and Bibigon ignored my comments and questions, yet comes here complaining. Bibigon needs to go back to the talk page to address the writers and editors who have built the page. He needs to come with respect and not attitude.

I would be happy to work with Bibigon but this user seems more intent on pushing aggression and personal viewpoint than in adding content. For example, this user makes the POV claim yet fails to bring other viewpoints to the article. This user seems to think slapping tags on an article substitutes for the work of adding content. Nobody has fought with this user about adding content because this user has added none. No one has argued with this user about layout because Bibigon did not attempt to fix the layout. Instead Bibigon contented the Bibigon self with slapping multiple tags on the article whining about layout and such.

In the midst of my trying to edit the article to meet some of the comments, Bibigon grabbed the article twice and changed the wording as though Bibigon has nothing better to do than supervise writers who add content. This sort of behavior chases volunteers away from Wikipedia. Bibigon needs to give up grinding axes and begin making contributions. Adding tags to pages he avows he knows nothing about is harassment, pure and simple.

In the history of this page, Bibigon provides his gmail address to talk offline about the Zinn article. This is so disrespectful, I really feel driven away. What is the point of working on articles to have them secretively destroyed?

Further, the history of this page indicates that this has been assigned to someone for mediation. Is it a secret who is the mediator? Are the people who do the work without complaint entitled to comment?

skywriter 22:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I said I didn't know enough about Zinn's politics to write a section on them myself. That doesn't mean I don't know anything about the topic, and it doesn't mean I'm not qualified to edit this article to make more closely conform to what makes a good Wikipedia article.

2. Please point to where you addressed my concerns in the talk page. I see nothing even resembling that.

3. I did not add the POV tag, I merely put it back after Skywriter removed it without pointing to a consensus that it should be removed. As for the layout tag, I did try to address the layout issues, and my changes were reverted. I put the tags on because they represent legitimate problems with the article. Now that you have removed the junk from the intro, some of those issues have been dealt with. Others have not.

4. Adding tags to pages is harrassment? How so? Could you please elaborate on this point?

5. How is providing my gmail address disrespecful? This is just one of the strangest comments I have ever encountered.

6. As for the mediator, I don't know if a mediator has been assigned yet. I look forward to hearing from one. Bibigon 23:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

As the person singled out as the "primary"... opponent of Bibigon I have to respond to her/his characterisation of the Howard Zinn article debate and of me. I think one would be hard-pressed to find an example in my comments on the Zinn talk page of a personal attack, or even of outrage. Nor did I revert any edits that Bibigon made (my last edit was to revert vandalism on 23 February, before any of this discussion had taken place). What one can find in my comments is a mix of agreement with Bibigon's criticisms of the article and a deeper disagreement with the way Bibigon dealt with the problems she/he saw. I pointed out that wholesale removal of large quantities of material (however unpolished) was not constructive and that it would be better to either rewrite the material or leave it for someone else to rewrite after indicating the problems on the talk page. It is, I believe, disingenuous for Bibigon to say: "I didn't realize that there would be resistance to the edits which I made...", since there is often resistance to much more minor edits of much less contentious articles. The controversy around Howard Zinn and the article on him are readily apparent and such large removals of material were bound to be met with resistance. Bibigon's edit summaries (and later comments on the talk page) further inflamed the situation because of the use of words like "fluff" (reappearing in the above remarks) to characterise what was removed, and descriptions like: "There just wasn't a lot of redeeming value in there" and "sentence is laughably unencyclopedic". I suppose "terse" is one word to describe such comments, but regardless, they have proved unproductive. As I pointed out on the talk page, a more constructive way to proceed - especially considering the obviously contentious nature of the subject - might have been to raise the problematic issues on the talk page first, then try to collaborate with others to make the article better (which it surely needs to be). It is also much easier to improve an article from existing material than to create it out of a vacuum; having the quotations on the page preserves information that can be used as source material for a more concise summary and representation of the information in quotes. I think that might be the best way to proceed now: read the quoted material and summarise the pertinant text to give an idea of Zinn's views, etc. while reorganising the article and giving more compositional balance to the whole thing. Pinkville 15:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)