Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
- Request made by: Elliskev 15:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- Mel Gibson; Talk:Mel Gibson
- What's going on?
- Question whether adding Mel Gibson to Category:Anti-Semitic people is an appropriate edit or is defamatory and inappropriate per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
- What would you like to change about that?
- My opinion is that it's inappropriate.
- Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
- I will post to Talk:Mel Gibson that I have requested informal mediation. No discretion is required. Notify me on the talk page or User talk:Elliskev.
I have opened a section on the Gibson talk page for the mediation and tried to illuminate the key points in the debate. I offered a position on the matter, while trying to acknowledge both sides. For the moment, not much is happening. Perhaps the debate is old at the moment. -- LawrenceTrevallion 03:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
My mediation seems to have gone over well, though there is almost no discussion about the matter now. (The consensus may have already existed before I showed up.) Anyways, Wiki policy seemed clear that we could not categorize Mel Gibson as an anti-Semite as he had apologized for his comments. For the details of the debate, the see the talk page on Mel Gibson. -- LawrenceTrevallion 19:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
- Remove from anti semitic people category and add to
Category:Allegedly anti-Semitic people. His own statements plus statements by notable Jewish leaders seem sufficient to justify this.
Interestingstuffadder
16:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I responded to a similar idea on
Talk:Mel Gibson. I believe that qualified labelling is just as problematic. We should not be categorizing a living person's beliefs, or our hunches about their beliefs, unless the person specifically self-identifies as such. Exceptions exist, of course, but when a living person specifically denies a characterization, we should not label them as such in a category. It should be dealt with in the article content in a neutral way. --
Elliskev
16:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- On the main Gibson talk page, I proposed the creation of a new category called 'People accused of anti-Semitism'. The category would be for people who face (or have faced) substantiated charges of anti-Semitism from respected sources. "Substantiated charges" would obviously mean that there was reliable evidence to support the charge (as opposed to a "my best friend's roommate told me" accusation), and "respected sources" would refer primarily to credible individuals and organizations that have an accomplished track record of identifying and combating anti-Semitism (civil rights organizations like ADL and SPLC come to mind). This new category would provide for a factually-accurate categorization of Mel Gibson and would allow Wikipedia to associate the anti-Semitism controversy with Gibson's article without actually leveling the charge (even in a qualified way) that he is anti-Semitic.
Azathoth68
17:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hypothetically, that might be fine. But, I fear that such a category would become a haven for all the articles currently in
Category:Anti-Semitic people with the result being exactly the same problem, only euphemistically. --
Elliskev
17:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- But making clear that this is a category for people who have been accused by credible sources and providing cites to these sources would at least make this different in that it is verifiable (versus labelling MG an anti-semite when he himself has denied it).
Interestingstuffadder
20:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- What's to stop such a category from being populated with Hitler and Eichmann and so on? Once that happens, it's the same thing. Like I said, I have nothing against it in principle and I wouldn't object to it. I just don't think it will work in the long run. --
Elliskev
20:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- So what if it does, if the category description makes clear that this is just people who have been accused by prominent (credible?) sources? Being accused of anti-semitism by prominent sources is something that Hitler and Gibson happen to have in common. As long as the source is notable (eg ADL) and verifiable, Gibson's inclusion in such a cat would seemingly fall within POV guidelines, which says attributed opinions are OK, regardless of who else is there with him.
Interestingstuffadder
20:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Then we're close to a
False light problem. --
Elliskev
20:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see it. How is it a false light if he has in fact been accused of anti-semitism?
Interestingstuffadder
20:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I said "close." He'd be lumped together with a bunch of Nazis and white-supremacists. Categorization of this type completely removes all context and implies that all within a group have equivalancy. That implication is not fair, and in my opinion, comes close to putting him in a false light. -- Elliskev 20:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- How is that true if the category description clearly explains who is to be included in this category? For example a category called "leaders of germany" would include both Hitler and several upstanding social democrats, would this put the social democrats in a false light?
Interestingstuffadder
20:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- No. Because Hitler would be the minority of the category. I suppose he'd be in a false light. --
Elliskev
20:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- The ADL accepted Gibsons second apology, so your verifiable sources are down to Eugene Robinson and a bite size quote from a university professor (and the second one didn't go as far as saying he was antisemitic - instead stating that he merely had "jews" on the mind). And Hitler being a leader of Germany is a fact, as are the other leaders, it's not false light to place them together (however if you placed Tony Blair in with Leaders of the Labour party then you'd have a fight on your hands, as the politics of New Labour is very different and you would be challenging the whole philosophy of a political organisation). I don't think using Hitler+White supremacists as a bargaining chip is particularly good thing here either. Instead we should rely on the verifiability of Gibsons antisemitism, and whether the vast number of people who have been accused of it (regardless of levels of guilt and evidence) should be categorized.-- Koncorde 20:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- No. Because Hitler would be the minority of the category. I suppose he'd be in a false light. --
Elliskev
20:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see it. How is it a false light if he has in fact been accused of anti-semitism?
Interestingstuffadder
20:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Then we're close to a
False light problem. --
Elliskev
20:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- So what if it does, if the category description makes clear that this is just people who have been accused by prominent (credible?) sources? Being accused of anti-semitism by prominent sources is something that Hitler and Gibson happen to have in common. As long as the source is notable (eg ADL) and verifiable, Gibson's inclusion in such a cat would seemingly fall within POV guidelines, which says attributed opinions are OK, regardless of who else is there with him.
Interestingstuffadder
20:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- What's to stop such a category from being populated with Hitler and Eichmann and so on? Once that happens, it's the same thing. Like I said, I have nothing against it in principle and I wouldn't object to it. I just don't think it will work in the long run. --
Elliskev
20:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- But making clear that this is a category for people who have been accused by credible sources and providing cites to these sources would at least make this different in that it is verifiable (versus labelling MG an anti-semite when he himself has denied it).
Interestingstuffadder
20:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hypothetically, that might be fine. But, I fear that such a category would become a haven for all the articles currently in
Category:Anti-Semitic people with the result being exactly the same problem, only euphemistically. --
Elliskev
17:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- On the main Gibson talk page, I proposed the creation of a new category called 'People accused of anti-Semitism'. The category would be for people who face (or have faced) substantiated charges of anti-Semitism from respected sources. "Substantiated charges" would obviously mean that there was reliable evidence to support the charge (as opposed to a "my best friend's roommate told me" accusation), and "respected sources" would refer primarily to credible individuals and organizations that have an accomplished track record of identifying and combating anti-Semitism (civil rights organizations like ADL and SPLC come to mind). This new category would provide for a factually-accurate categorization of Mel Gibson and would allow Wikipedia to associate the anti-Semitism controversy with Gibson's article without actually leveling the charge (even in a qualified way) that he is anti-Semitic.
Azathoth68
17:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I responded to a similar idea on
Talk:Mel Gibson. I believe that qualified labelling is just as problematic. We should not be categorizing a living person's beliefs, or our hunches about their beliefs, unless the person specifically self-identifies as such. Exceptions exist, of course, but when a living person specifically denies a characterization, we should not label them as such in a category. It should be dealt with in the article content in a neutral way. --
Elliskev
16:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
- Request made by: Elliskev 15:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- Mel Gibson; Talk:Mel Gibson
- What's going on?
- Question whether adding Mel Gibson to Category:Anti-Semitic people is an appropriate edit or is defamatory and inappropriate per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
- What would you like to change about that?
- My opinion is that it's inappropriate.
- Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
- I will post to Talk:Mel Gibson that I have requested informal mediation. No discretion is required. Notify me on the talk page or User talk:Elliskev.
I have opened a section on the Gibson talk page for the mediation and tried to illuminate the key points in the debate. I offered a position on the matter, while trying to acknowledge both sides. For the moment, not much is happening. Perhaps the debate is old at the moment. -- LawrenceTrevallion 03:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
My mediation seems to have gone over well, though there is almost no discussion about the matter now. (The consensus may have already existed before I showed up.) Anyways, Wiki policy seemed clear that we could not categorize Mel Gibson as an anti-Semite as he had apologized for his comments. For the details of the debate, the see the talk page on Mel Gibson. -- LawrenceTrevallion 19:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
- Remove from anti semitic people category and add to
Category:Allegedly anti-Semitic people. His own statements plus statements by notable Jewish leaders seem sufficient to justify this.
Interestingstuffadder
16:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I responded to a similar idea on
Talk:Mel Gibson. I believe that qualified labelling is just as problematic. We should not be categorizing a living person's beliefs, or our hunches about their beliefs, unless the person specifically self-identifies as such. Exceptions exist, of course, but when a living person specifically denies a characterization, we should not label them as such in a category. It should be dealt with in the article content in a neutral way. --
Elliskev
16:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- On the main Gibson talk page, I proposed the creation of a new category called 'People accused of anti-Semitism'. The category would be for people who face (or have faced) substantiated charges of anti-Semitism from respected sources. "Substantiated charges" would obviously mean that there was reliable evidence to support the charge (as opposed to a "my best friend's roommate told me" accusation), and "respected sources" would refer primarily to credible individuals and organizations that have an accomplished track record of identifying and combating anti-Semitism (civil rights organizations like ADL and SPLC come to mind). This new category would provide for a factually-accurate categorization of Mel Gibson and would allow Wikipedia to associate the anti-Semitism controversy with Gibson's article without actually leveling the charge (even in a qualified way) that he is anti-Semitic.
Azathoth68
17:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hypothetically, that might be fine. But, I fear that such a category would become a haven for all the articles currently in
Category:Anti-Semitic people with the result being exactly the same problem, only euphemistically. --
Elliskev
17:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- But making clear that this is a category for people who have been accused by credible sources and providing cites to these sources would at least make this different in that it is verifiable (versus labelling MG an anti-semite when he himself has denied it).
Interestingstuffadder
20:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- What's to stop such a category from being populated with Hitler and Eichmann and so on? Once that happens, it's the same thing. Like I said, I have nothing against it in principle and I wouldn't object to it. I just don't think it will work in the long run. --
Elliskev
20:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- So what if it does, if the category description makes clear that this is just people who have been accused by prominent (credible?) sources? Being accused of anti-semitism by prominent sources is something that Hitler and Gibson happen to have in common. As long as the source is notable (eg ADL) and verifiable, Gibson's inclusion in such a cat would seemingly fall within POV guidelines, which says attributed opinions are OK, regardless of who else is there with him.
Interestingstuffadder
20:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Then we're close to a
False light problem. --
Elliskev
20:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see it. How is it a false light if he has in fact been accused of anti-semitism?
Interestingstuffadder
20:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I said "close." He'd be lumped together with a bunch of Nazis and white-supremacists. Categorization of this type completely removes all context and implies that all within a group have equivalancy. That implication is not fair, and in my opinion, comes close to putting him in a false light. -- Elliskev 20:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- How is that true if the category description clearly explains who is to be included in this category? For example a category called "leaders of germany" would include both Hitler and several upstanding social democrats, would this put the social democrats in a false light?
Interestingstuffadder
20:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- No. Because Hitler would be the minority of the category. I suppose he'd be in a false light. --
Elliskev
20:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- The ADL accepted Gibsons second apology, so your verifiable sources are down to Eugene Robinson and a bite size quote from a university professor (and the second one didn't go as far as saying he was antisemitic - instead stating that he merely had "jews" on the mind). And Hitler being a leader of Germany is a fact, as are the other leaders, it's not false light to place them together (however if you placed Tony Blair in with Leaders of the Labour party then you'd have a fight on your hands, as the politics of New Labour is very different and you would be challenging the whole philosophy of a political organisation). I don't think using Hitler+White supremacists as a bargaining chip is particularly good thing here either. Instead we should rely on the verifiability of Gibsons antisemitism, and whether the vast number of people who have been accused of it (regardless of levels of guilt and evidence) should be categorized.-- Koncorde 20:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- No. Because Hitler would be the minority of the category. I suppose he'd be in a false light. --
Elliskev
20:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see it. How is it a false light if he has in fact been accused of anti-semitism?
Interestingstuffadder
20:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Then we're close to a
False light problem. --
Elliskev
20:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- So what if it does, if the category description makes clear that this is just people who have been accused by prominent (credible?) sources? Being accused of anti-semitism by prominent sources is something that Hitler and Gibson happen to have in common. As long as the source is notable (eg ADL) and verifiable, Gibson's inclusion in such a cat would seemingly fall within POV guidelines, which says attributed opinions are OK, regardless of who else is there with him.
Interestingstuffadder
20:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- What's to stop such a category from being populated with Hitler and Eichmann and so on? Once that happens, it's the same thing. Like I said, I have nothing against it in principle and I wouldn't object to it. I just don't think it will work in the long run. --
Elliskev
20:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- But making clear that this is a category for people who have been accused by credible sources and providing cites to these sources would at least make this different in that it is verifiable (versus labelling MG an anti-semite when he himself has denied it).
Interestingstuffadder
20:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hypothetically, that might be fine. But, I fear that such a category would become a haven for all the articles currently in
Category:Anti-Semitic people with the result being exactly the same problem, only euphemistically. --
Elliskev
17:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- On the main Gibson talk page, I proposed the creation of a new category called 'People accused of anti-Semitism'. The category would be for people who face (or have faced) substantiated charges of anti-Semitism from respected sources. "Substantiated charges" would obviously mean that there was reliable evidence to support the charge (as opposed to a "my best friend's roommate told me" accusation), and "respected sources" would refer primarily to credible individuals and organizations that have an accomplished track record of identifying and combating anti-Semitism (civil rights organizations like ADL and SPLC come to mind). This new category would provide for a factually-accurate categorization of Mel Gibson and would allow Wikipedia to associate the anti-Semitism controversy with Gibson's article without actually leveling the charge (even in a qualified way) that he is anti-Semitic.
Azathoth68
17:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I responded to a similar idea on
Talk:Mel Gibson. I believe that qualified labelling is just as problematic. We should not be categorizing a living person's beliefs, or our hunches about their beliefs, unless the person specifically self-identifies as such. Exceptions exist, of course, but when a living person specifically denies a characterization, we should not label them as such in a category. It should be dealt with in the article content in a neutral way. --
Elliskev
16:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.