Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 17:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Unknown |
Mediator(s) | SilkTork * YES! |
Comment | Case re-opened 21 August 2008. Closed 20 October 2008 |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force]]
Matt Lewis ( talk · contribs) (myself) and Snowded ( talk · contribs)
This isn't easy to write as I'm exasperated with this. One user in this hard-won 'British Isles' taskforce is making an unreasonable demand, and keeps pursuing it. He is saying that a specific term that I feel we clearly need to underpin a proposed guideline on British Isles (“ The Republic of Ireland”) can only be used in a certain way, and if other terms are used in the way he wants them to be used - otherwise her feels it isn't fair. I simply disagree... (I'll let you fill in here). He has given me no reason why using "ROI" will not work - he just says it is unfair and political - and we must be “geographical only”, and focus on the two major Islands of Great Britain and Ireland-the-island). IMO, 'Republic of Ireland' is only political by default - ie it that is a sovereign country. But to use his preferred choice of the island of Ireland instead (which contains both the ROI and the British country Northern Ireland) the way he wants to, is about as political as it gets. I've got to the stage where I've brought the guy's nationalistic views into the equation, as I think he wants to combine NI with ROI as a larger Ireland for political reasons. But I've pretty swiftly come here I think.
In short, the 'dispute' over the term " British Isles" (though largely a Wikipedia phenomenon, IMO), is to do with Republic of Ireland – and not the whole of 'Ireland' - which includes the British country Northern Ireland, of which it simply shouldn’t be said is ant-"British Isles", esp this implicitly, as there is no usable evidence or wisdom for it at all.
I wish for the British Isles usage guidelines to be unambiguous and include all terms equally, but he won’t allow it. He feels the term "British Isles" (a fully recognised term) is intrinsically unfair - therefore concessions must be made the other way. I've worked hard to help create a fair guideline and am worried it could be stonewalled to point of collapsing.
All my points have been laid out a few times in our conversations on the page.
Unfortunately this case requires someone to read quite a lot of text, and to have an awareness of the terms involved. And no unfair bias either way! Basically, I've suddenly found user:Snowded’s particular argumentative style impossible to deal with, and have completely lost AGF with him. He seems to be trying something new again, but as I say, I've completely lost faith with his motives. He's also being far too calm in the way he's winding me up! But I mustn't be personal. I'm actually going to have as much as a break from it as I can. But for someone to properly look at this (it will take a bit of time) and perhaps give input would be appreciated. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 17:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Just look at it - I'm at the point where I've lost faith. Nearly everyone on the opposing side of User:Snowded has simply left the taskforce (for a number of different reasons) - I want to see them come back. We will only do this by forging a fair guideline. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 17:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Opening case. This might have resolved itself since listing as it's been here for a week. I will look into it. SilkTork * YES! 13:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Very happy for someone else to look at the exchanges. From my perspective I have been trying to get Matt to accept an even handed perspective in respect of two geographical terms and avoid confusing politics with geography in an already sensitive issue. Matt's final implication that other editors have left is slightly dubious (especially the fairly obvious implication of the way he has phrased it), very few are involved in the first place. I had already raised a concern about this discussion with an admin to ask for advise on how to proceed in the face of some pretty aggressive accusations from Matt. Happy for that to switch to mediation.
Just for the record, I have clearly stated in the discussion that the political terms (such as Republic of Ireland) are legitimate. However there are two geographical terms that can cause issues. One is Ireland which has been interpreted as a nationalist agenda, the other is British Isles which can be interpreted as a unionist/imperialist agenda. My point has been very simply really. Both terms are valid geographical terms and need to be used (possibly in conjunction with political terms). In attempting to remove one of the (Ireland) and replace with with Republic of Ireland Matt is failing to show consistency and risks any chance of reaching an agreement. Given my track record of defending the continued use of British Isles and the actual edits on the article Matt's accusation of Nationalism if offensive and clear breech of several Wikipedia protocols. My most recent diff was an attempt to clear up any misunderstandings over language, but Matt has not seen fit to respond to that other than with another tirade. Personally I think this could be sorted out directly with a bit of good will. -- Snowded TALK 17:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
(indent) I love "calmness as a rhetorical devise, you might like to try it!. No further comment Matt, you're locked in a position here and there is nothing new in your above paragraph. -- Snowded TALK 22:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I also interpret the current impasse in much the same way as outlined by Snowded. I have no knowledge of other debates that Matt refers to. There is a simple line that can be drawn between geographic terms and political terms, and mixing geographic and political terms should be avoided. The Task Force has already accepted the British Isles is a geographic term - it should therefore be possible to move forward and agree on which articles and under what circumstances it is acceptable to use "British Isles". For all other articles, if it's a political article or a geopolitical article, etc, etc, then use the agreed political terms. It should not be necessary (perhaps desirable, but not necessary) to also attempt to address the Ireland/RoI debate in this task force. -- HighKing ( talk) 18:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The assumptions about motives have infected this whole area, and the problem has just highlighted how difficult it will be to try to reach a solution whilst such speculations and labelling of other editors on the basis of these presumed motives carries on.
I largely withdrew from the discussions a day or so ago, since I felt I had said all I have to say on the matter: that attention to what reliable sources say, coupled by a need to provide reliable sources will largely solve the dispute about naming, so long as care is taken to identify and carefully distinguish in our discussions and in the written material in articles the different ways in which terms like British Isles are meant and used in the reliable sources we choose to use. Along with this, there is a corresponding need to review on exactly the same basis, the use of the various terms that have been used in articles on wikiepdia about Ireland, in all senses of the word.
I am in no danger of having any problem opening up between myself and Jza84 over this: as long-standing editors of wikipedia who have worked together in many instances in the past, we both surely recognise that differences of opinion will sometimes arise between different editors, and that the way to resolve them if they need resolution is in reasoned discussions, exploring common ground and reaching together towards a solution that is best for wikipedia. In that respect, we will expect to "win some and lose some", but actually winning or losing is of little consequence to us as individuals, as the main aim we both share is to improve upon what is present in wikipedia, and a difference of opinion on how to write about something will explore and test a variety of possibilities which will then likely lead to an improvement anyway in content.
So, please, I would appreciate not being labelled misleadingly as a "nationalist" here when all I am trying to do is to apply the existing guidelines and policies of wikipedia, which I still maintain should be our prime objective here in order to see how far that can go in resolving this current dispute. DDStretch (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
(a) The point about referencing "British Isles" is that it is clearly a contentious term to some editors. Since contentious material that is likely to be challanged can be, and then this requires it to be referenced, I was merely pointing out that unless something remarkable happens, we will always be in the position of having to provide a reference after a challenge to the term. Personally, I think too much challenging is being done (see Frodsham and its talk page for an early example which I thought was being too particular, even though it was within the rules of wikipedia), but I am accepting the reality in attempting to sidestep future unnecessary disputes by simply adding the reference when the information is added to the article, thus avoiding problems associated with other editors trying to find or find again a source which they had forgotten about or had never even read before, given that the original editor who added the term may no longer be editing at that point. WE are not adding the reference to prove that it exists, we are adding the reference to justify using it in the context or article (more prcisely, in the sentence in the article) it is being used with on wikipedia.
(b) "And you have bullied people from the guideline the stipulation" I don't know what you mean here, but it is quite a serious charge, and I ask you to explain it in detail, or withdraw it.
(c) "I not sure I like the idea of you exchanging emails with Snowded either - apologies too if nothing serious has gone on in that capacity." I can exchange emails with anyone I like, thank you. But you must have been meaning that you do not like the idea of me exchanging email with Snowded about this matter. For the record, I have not. I did exchange some email some time ago on an unrelated matter concerning some sockpuppet suspicions, but that was completely unrelated.
(d) I do not intend to take part in the taskforce any more, given the response this seems to be attracting from you. My only aim was to apply the principles of wikipedia in order to try to resolve the matter. Since this seems to be unsuccessful, I see no reason to continue with my involvement, since my time is far better spent elsewhere, and I will no longer have the relevant taskforce pages on my watchlist. I would, however, like to see the justification for the bullying accusation here, or else a withdrawal of it. DDStretch (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm closing this (I've been asked if it's still open). I see it as just a policy/guideline issue now (on what Wikipedia allows regarding ROI-use and 'geography' articles), so this isn't perhaps the best place place if it comes up again. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 15:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 17:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Unknown |
Mediator(s) | SilkTork * YES! |
Comment | Case re-opened 21 August 2008. Closed 20 October 2008 |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force]]
Matt Lewis ( talk · contribs) (myself) and Snowded ( talk · contribs)
This isn't easy to write as I'm exasperated with this. One user in this hard-won 'British Isles' taskforce is making an unreasonable demand, and keeps pursuing it. He is saying that a specific term that I feel we clearly need to underpin a proposed guideline on British Isles (“ The Republic of Ireland”) can only be used in a certain way, and if other terms are used in the way he wants them to be used - otherwise her feels it isn't fair. I simply disagree... (I'll let you fill in here). He has given me no reason why using "ROI" will not work - he just says it is unfair and political - and we must be “geographical only”, and focus on the two major Islands of Great Britain and Ireland-the-island). IMO, 'Republic of Ireland' is only political by default - ie it that is a sovereign country. But to use his preferred choice of the island of Ireland instead (which contains both the ROI and the British country Northern Ireland) the way he wants to, is about as political as it gets. I've got to the stage where I've brought the guy's nationalistic views into the equation, as I think he wants to combine NI with ROI as a larger Ireland for political reasons. But I've pretty swiftly come here I think.
In short, the 'dispute' over the term " British Isles" (though largely a Wikipedia phenomenon, IMO), is to do with Republic of Ireland – and not the whole of 'Ireland' - which includes the British country Northern Ireland, of which it simply shouldn’t be said is ant-"British Isles", esp this implicitly, as there is no usable evidence or wisdom for it at all.
I wish for the British Isles usage guidelines to be unambiguous and include all terms equally, but he won’t allow it. He feels the term "British Isles" (a fully recognised term) is intrinsically unfair - therefore concessions must be made the other way. I've worked hard to help create a fair guideline and am worried it could be stonewalled to point of collapsing.
All my points have been laid out a few times in our conversations on the page.
Unfortunately this case requires someone to read quite a lot of text, and to have an awareness of the terms involved. And no unfair bias either way! Basically, I've suddenly found user:Snowded’s particular argumentative style impossible to deal with, and have completely lost AGF with him. He seems to be trying something new again, but as I say, I've completely lost faith with his motives. He's also being far too calm in the way he's winding me up! But I mustn't be personal. I'm actually going to have as much as a break from it as I can. But for someone to properly look at this (it will take a bit of time) and perhaps give input would be appreciated. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 17:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Just look at it - I'm at the point where I've lost faith. Nearly everyone on the opposing side of User:Snowded has simply left the taskforce (for a number of different reasons) - I want to see them come back. We will only do this by forging a fair guideline. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 17:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Opening case. This might have resolved itself since listing as it's been here for a week. I will look into it. SilkTork * YES! 13:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Very happy for someone else to look at the exchanges. From my perspective I have been trying to get Matt to accept an even handed perspective in respect of two geographical terms and avoid confusing politics with geography in an already sensitive issue. Matt's final implication that other editors have left is slightly dubious (especially the fairly obvious implication of the way he has phrased it), very few are involved in the first place. I had already raised a concern about this discussion with an admin to ask for advise on how to proceed in the face of some pretty aggressive accusations from Matt. Happy for that to switch to mediation.
Just for the record, I have clearly stated in the discussion that the political terms (such as Republic of Ireland) are legitimate. However there are two geographical terms that can cause issues. One is Ireland which has been interpreted as a nationalist agenda, the other is British Isles which can be interpreted as a unionist/imperialist agenda. My point has been very simply really. Both terms are valid geographical terms and need to be used (possibly in conjunction with political terms). In attempting to remove one of the (Ireland) and replace with with Republic of Ireland Matt is failing to show consistency and risks any chance of reaching an agreement. Given my track record of defending the continued use of British Isles and the actual edits on the article Matt's accusation of Nationalism if offensive and clear breech of several Wikipedia protocols. My most recent diff was an attempt to clear up any misunderstandings over language, but Matt has not seen fit to respond to that other than with another tirade. Personally I think this could be sorted out directly with a bit of good will. -- Snowded TALK 17:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
(indent) I love "calmness as a rhetorical devise, you might like to try it!. No further comment Matt, you're locked in a position here and there is nothing new in your above paragraph. -- Snowded TALK 22:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I also interpret the current impasse in much the same way as outlined by Snowded. I have no knowledge of other debates that Matt refers to. There is a simple line that can be drawn between geographic terms and political terms, and mixing geographic and political terms should be avoided. The Task Force has already accepted the British Isles is a geographic term - it should therefore be possible to move forward and agree on which articles and under what circumstances it is acceptable to use "British Isles". For all other articles, if it's a political article or a geopolitical article, etc, etc, then use the agreed political terms. It should not be necessary (perhaps desirable, but not necessary) to also attempt to address the Ireland/RoI debate in this task force. -- HighKing ( talk) 18:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The assumptions about motives have infected this whole area, and the problem has just highlighted how difficult it will be to try to reach a solution whilst such speculations and labelling of other editors on the basis of these presumed motives carries on.
I largely withdrew from the discussions a day or so ago, since I felt I had said all I have to say on the matter: that attention to what reliable sources say, coupled by a need to provide reliable sources will largely solve the dispute about naming, so long as care is taken to identify and carefully distinguish in our discussions and in the written material in articles the different ways in which terms like British Isles are meant and used in the reliable sources we choose to use. Along with this, there is a corresponding need to review on exactly the same basis, the use of the various terms that have been used in articles on wikiepdia about Ireland, in all senses of the word.
I am in no danger of having any problem opening up between myself and Jza84 over this: as long-standing editors of wikipedia who have worked together in many instances in the past, we both surely recognise that differences of opinion will sometimes arise between different editors, and that the way to resolve them if they need resolution is in reasoned discussions, exploring common ground and reaching together towards a solution that is best for wikipedia. In that respect, we will expect to "win some and lose some", but actually winning or losing is of little consequence to us as individuals, as the main aim we both share is to improve upon what is present in wikipedia, and a difference of opinion on how to write about something will explore and test a variety of possibilities which will then likely lead to an improvement anyway in content.
So, please, I would appreciate not being labelled misleadingly as a "nationalist" here when all I am trying to do is to apply the existing guidelines and policies of wikipedia, which I still maintain should be our prime objective here in order to see how far that can go in resolving this current dispute. DDStretch (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
(a) The point about referencing "British Isles" is that it is clearly a contentious term to some editors. Since contentious material that is likely to be challanged can be, and then this requires it to be referenced, I was merely pointing out that unless something remarkable happens, we will always be in the position of having to provide a reference after a challenge to the term. Personally, I think too much challenging is being done (see Frodsham and its talk page for an early example which I thought was being too particular, even though it was within the rules of wikipedia), but I am accepting the reality in attempting to sidestep future unnecessary disputes by simply adding the reference when the information is added to the article, thus avoiding problems associated with other editors trying to find or find again a source which they had forgotten about or had never even read before, given that the original editor who added the term may no longer be editing at that point. WE are not adding the reference to prove that it exists, we are adding the reference to justify using it in the context or article (more prcisely, in the sentence in the article) it is being used with on wikipedia.
(b) "And you have bullied people from the guideline the stipulation" I don't know what you mean here, but it is quite a serious charge, and I ask you to explain it in detail, or withdraw it.
(c) "I not sure I like the idea of you exchanging emails with Snowded either - apologies too if nothing serious has gone on in that capacity." I can exchange emails with anyone I like, thank you. But you must have been meaning that you do not like the idea of me exchanging email with Snowded about this matter. For the record, I have not. I did exchange some email some time ago on an unrelated matter concerning some sockpuppet suspicions, but that was completely unrelated.
(d) I do not intend to take part in the taskforce any more, given the response this seems to be attracting from you. My only aim was to apply the principles of wikipedia in order to try to resolve the matter. Since this seems to be unsuccessful, I see no reason to continue with my involvement, since my time is far better spent elsewhere, and I will no longer have the relevant taskforce pages on my watchlist. I would, however, like to see the justification for the bullying accusation here, or else a withdrawal of it. DDStretch (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm closing this (I've been asked if it's still open). I see it as just a policy/guideline issue now (on what Wikipedia allows regarding ROI-use and 'geography' articles), so this isn't perhaps the best place place if it comes up again. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 15:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)