Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
Article | Battle of Tali-Ihantala |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC) |
Requesting party | — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ |
Parties involved | User:Wanderer602, User:YMB29, User:Whiskey |
Mediator(s) | Mr. Stradivarius |
I, Mr. Stradivarius, am not involved. I am merely referring this discussion from the dispute resolution noticeboard. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a neutrality dispute over alleged pro-Finnish bias. There are secondary issues of how to present contradicting reliable sources, and whether edits count as original research or not. More details can be found at the dispute resolution noticeboard thread. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
This dispute has been referred here from the dispute resolution noticeboard. In that thread the previous steps were listed by User:YMB29 as follows:
There are long discussions on the talk pages that go in circles. [1] [2] [3] [4] I tried third opinion [5] and the no original research noticeboard twice. [6] [7] There were reports created in the incidents and edit warring noticeboards. [8] [9] Comments were also made on an admin's talk page [10] [11] and he eventually suggested to go here. [12]
— Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The conversation needs to have a better structure to avoid talk page discussion running out of control, in my opinion. I think we will probably have to go through all the individual points raised at the dispute resolution noticeboard thread one by one, and to look at the different sources being used and assess their strengths and weaknesses. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Provide a supportive structure for the editors involved to build consensus on the issues involved. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you realise that mediation requires an open mind, collaborating together in an environment of camaraderie and mutual respect, with the understanding that to reach a solution, compromise is required?
Hello Wanderer602 and YMB29! I've decided to take this case on myself, if that is ok with both of you. I know that I'm technically the filer of the case, but as I am not actually involved in the dispute I don't think it should be a problem. It's a bit unusual, but hey, we have to ignore all rules once in a while. First I would like you to sign in the section below to indicate that you have read and agree to the ground rules. Once we have agreement on the ground rules, then we can progress to the mediation proper. I would like to progress by getting a short statement on the dispute from each of you, and then we can work through the issues involved one by one until we reach a consensus. If you have any questions about the process you can post on the talk page, or of course, on my user talk. I look forward to having a productive mediation with both of you. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Great, we have agreement on the ground rules - thank you for signing them so quickly. The next step is to decide exactly what is being disputed, and I'd like to get a statement from you both on what you consider the dispute to be. Have a look below to see exactly what you should include. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
And thank you both for the opening statements. Everything is going ahead nice and smoothly, so thank you very much for that. There is one thing that I'm a little concerned with, which is the somewhat negative tone of some of your opening statements. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you both that we should focus solely on the content of the article; it is really not productive to focus on the supposed motives of the other participants. If we just consider the article content and concentrate on how the Wikipedia policies and guidelines relate to them, and keep an open mind, then we will have no trouble at all resolving this dispute. I will look over the statements, the DRN page, and the previous talk in the next couple of days, and decide how to proceed with the mediation. In the meantime, I invite you to kick back, relax, and maybe edit in a subject area you have never tried before. See you back here in a day or so. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Please sign just your username below, as well as Agree or Disagree, with four tildes (~~~~) to indicate your agreement or disagreement with the ground rules and your participation in the case. These shouldn't be taken lightly. If you agree to these it is expected you will abide by them. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello again, and sorry to keep you waiting! It's strange how a couple of days in the real world can feel like a lifetime on Wikipedia, isn't it? I hope that you can both put your differences behind you, forget all the arguments, you've had on the talk page, and find the common ground that you both share. It's good to take a step back at this stage and remember that we are all here because we want to make Wikipedia the very best resource that it can be. I know that this is true for both of you, and I am looking forward to using the best of both of your unique perspectives and abilities to make these two articles the very best that they can be. Now, I've used a standard mediation schedule to show you how we will proceed through the mediation, and I've also drawn together a list of issues that we will cover. As you can see from the agenda, we will be going through each of the issues turn. First, here is the agenda:
— Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a list of issues which I have drawn up based on your statements and on reviewing the dispute so far. This is also the order in which we will cover them in the mediation.
We will start with the naming issue of Vyborg. I've left an outline of what to do below. If you have any questions, then you can of course ask them on the discussion page or on my user talk. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
The opening statements have been moved to the talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
To Posse72 - before you join the mediation, I would like you to write an opening statement, no longer than 300 words, outlining the following points:
After you provide this statement, I will get the opinions of the other mediation participants, and then discuss the matter with other MedCab mediators to see if we agree on your participation. If everything goes smoothly, then we should just be able to continue from where we left off. I'm looking forward to reading your statment. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Issue one discussion has been archived to the talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Discussion on issue two archived to the talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
As promised, I think we should move straight on to issue four. We have talked about Baryshnikov quite a lot as part of our discussion of issue two, and in my opinion there's no real reason to have that discussion again as part of issue three. We can save our discussions of his opinions for the issues in which they are relevant. So issue four it is. Here is the wording of issue four:
As in previous issues, I would like all parties to make a statement, no longer than 250 words, outlining your opinions on this issue. What has the dispute on this issue been centered around? Are there any contentious points of view in the literature? As always I will be looking forward to your responses. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 21:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
As per several sources (references are in articles) the actual Soviet intent with the response is obscure but actual response is very clear in its wording. It requires Finns to first surrender without any conditions before any discussions could be held. Which (as per several sources) amounts to unconditional surrender demand, nothing more, nothing less. The actual Soviet intent is not even relevant since the only thing carried across was the message which - when read word to word - demanded unconditional capitulation. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 05:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
According to the Russian view, the claim that the Soviet government demanded unconditional surrender in June of 1944 has been developed by Finnish historiography to make it seem like the Finnish Army saved its country from occupation.
No where in the actual text of the Soviet message does the word "unconditional" appear, so the statement "as it was written: a demand for unconditional surrender" is false.
Also if it was a written demand for unconditional surrender, why were the Finnish officials debating about how to interpret the message, with some wanting to continue the negotiations?
Even if we ignore Russian sources like Baryshnikov, there is clear evidence that unconditional surrender was never demanded. A good example is the recorded conversation between Stalin and the US ambassador (that took place after the Soviet message to Finland was sent), where Stalin suggests that the US try to clarify to the Finns that he has no intent to occupy their country. Quotes from sources are here: [13]
We have agreed before that the Finnish government simply interpreted the Soviet message as a demand for unconditional surrender [14], and this is what is written in the Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive article. However, Wanderer602 decided to change his mind for the Battle of Tali-Ihantala article... - YMB29 ( talk) 16:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I concur with Wanderer with this issue. I'd like to point out that contemporary players, working on the information provided by the Soviet message, Mannerheim and Swedish Foreign Ministry alike, considered it a demand for unconditional surrender. Also, the only available documentary evidence talks about Finnish unconditional surrender. There could be some informing documentary in Kremlin archives, but so far they have not been published for researchers, and it cannot be said which way they would tip the scales. I wouldn't put much weight to the public claims presented after Finns had rejected Soviet message. -- Whiskey ( talk) 12:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you all for your statements. Let me start by summarizing the points on which I think we all agree:
By a process of elimination, then, it seems that all we have to do is find a consensus on the following points:
I think the key to getting this resolved is in the details of the wording, so I have set up a proposals page for dealing with this issue. We can use this page to propose new drafts of the section in question, so that we can home in on a version that we all find acceptable. I would like you all to do two things next: first, please indicate whether you agree with my reading of the situation. Second, I would like you all to prepare a draft of the section in question that you believe is an accurate reflection of the coverage of this event in third-party, reliable sources.
While you are preparing your drafts I would like to remind you of our neutral point of view policy, which will be a very useful tool for us to find compromise here. As I'm sure you are all aware, this policy means that your personal preferences and biases should not affect your editing; we should all forget our biases and concentrate solely on accurately representing what is written in reliable sources. Statements that are widely reported as facts in reliable sources, we should also report as facts in Wikipedia. Opinions, or statements of fact that are contradicted by other reliable sources, should be attributed to their authors, and be given appropriate weight.
I would also like to remind you all that any comment that is not focused on the content at hand could be misconstrued. The pages involved here have a history of arguments, and so it is natural that people will react strongly if they suspect a comment is critical of them. To get these issues resolved as quickly and painlessly as possible, it is extremely important that you all refrain from negative personal comments. If you do feel that someone in the mediation has made a negative comment about you, then I recommend leaving a note about it on my talk page, or by emailing me, rather than replying directly. That way I can sort things out myself, and it should save us a lot of drama. Also, just in case you were wondering, positive personal comments are perfectly fine - especially when directed toward the mediator. ;-)
So, to recap, I would like you to:
I'll be looking forward to seeing what you come up with. Yours, as always — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Could I ask a comment from other participants to a point which greatly affects to this issue: This interpretation affects many articles, including Continuation War, Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Offensive, Battle of Tali-Ihantala, Battle of Vuosalmi, Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944), Battle of Tienhaara... So, do we A)Copy this thing to every article or B)Concentrate the handling of the issue in depth in one article (CW, V-P O or it's own) and create a short reference to that article from other articles? Please answer A or B. -- Whiskey ( talk) 22:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Collapsing initial drafting discussion
|
---|
Hi everyone, sorry for the delay in my replying. I've had a look at the drafts, and I can definitely see how a compromise between them could work. Before we work heavily on the compromise part, though, we need to get the drafts complying fully with Wikipedia policy - there are a few things that I think don't quite meet the policy standards as they are. I've listed some points below, and I would be grateful if you could comment. Also, feel free to split this post and reply to the individual parts - it will probably be easier to follow that way. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Please also feel free to add any more policy concerns with either of the drafts below. However, please refrain from making arguments based on neutrality or undue weight just yet - we can save that debate for when we are working on compromising between the different versions. We are just in the preliminary stage now, so please keep your arguments limited to the policies of verifiability and no original research. Once we have all these issues ironed out I'm sure we can work together to create a version that's acceptable to everyone. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Is any one going to comment on the issues on draft talk page? - Wanderer602 ( talk) 08:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
(This comment is about Draft 2 - moved here from the talk page there. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫) Churchill's statement shows what the Allies were offering to nations aligned with the Axis. "...to receive Soviet terms..." & "...to listen to the the (Soviet) interpretation of the terms..." - no indication that anything would have been discussed or negotiated, Soviet dictation of terms is therefore valid description. Term unconditional does not need to appear in the text. The demand explicitly stated that Finland needed to surrender without conditions before a delegation could be sent to Moscow. Surrendering without conditions is synonymous to unconditional surrender is it not? - Wanderer602 ( talk) 18:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I think that maybe we have been approaching this in slightly the wrong way - I have a feeling that we are getting sidetracked by focusing on individual sources, and losing track of the big picture. Let's keep our attention strictly on the drafts, and to working towards a version that is acceptable to everyone. I notice that YMB29 has made draft 3, which has dealt with all the sourcing issues that I brought up previously; I think we can now use this to make a start on finding a compromise. To this end, I have a task for Wanderer602. Wanderer, would it be possible for you to create a new draft 4, based on draft 3? I would like you to change the wording and/or the sourcing so that you find it acceptable; but I would also like you to write it so that you think it would be acceptable to YMB29 as well. If possible, I would also like you to post back on this page with an explanation of why you changed what you did, and of how you think it will be an acceptable compromise for everyone. Does this sound like something you would be willing to do? Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Could we agree to make this chapter a little longer, so we could include more information, as we seem to agree (YMB29?) that there should be a deeper version of this which would be referred elsewhere? In that sense, could we agree, that the issue is divided to four paragraphs: Messaging, Finnish response, Soviet response, documentary evidence/scholarly interpretation? It would be easier if we handle each paragraph separately, so we could move to something like incremential changes instead of totally different versions? (I guess we could agree on some text?) -- Whiskey ( talk) 07:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Look - Wanderer602, YMB29, you really have to stop making negative remarks about each other. Speculating on other editors' motives and competence is simply not acceptable. If you want to continue with this mediation then this must stop. If you still want to make these kind of negative remarks, then it will have to be outside of mediation. I warn you, though, that if you continue these kinds of behaviour outside of mediation then the things that may be awaiting you are not pleasant: they include topic bans, interaction bans, blocks for civility, or blocks for edit warring - see WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN for details. Let's take this discussion forward instead of arguing about each other, so that we can avoid going down that route. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi again guys. Thank you for all your comments and work on creating drafts - it has been very helpful, and I think that we now have a much better handle on what exactly the issues are here. Now, I have been discussing this with some of the other MedCab mediators, and we have come to the same conclusion: the dispute over this particular issue stems from a discrepancy in the sources. On the one hand we have Lunde (2011), who uses "unconditional surrender" and "basically a demand for unconditional capitulation", and Apunen & Wolff (2009) who are even more explicit in their description of the memo as a demand for unconditional surrender. On the other hand, we have Maude (2010) who says the memo was "far from a demand for 'unconditional surrender'". There are also undoubtedly other sources with various opinions on this issue. In cases like these, we cannot pick sides. The neutral point of view policy says that we must include all major points of view, and that means that we cannot and should not try and simplify this debate to make it look as if the sources agree on how to interpret the Soviet memo.
So, I have some more homework for you, if you will humour me some more. I would like you each to suggest a wording for the sentence(s) in question that describe both sides of the issue. It might look something like this: "In their 2009 book, Apunen and Wolff argued that the Soviet memo should be interpreted as a demand for unconditional surrender; however, Maude (2010) was of the opinion that there could have been some room for negotiation". You can have a look at WP:ASF for some more hints about how to do this. This kind of writing will be the key to finding a compromise that we can all live with, in my opinion. As usual, let me know if you have any questions. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
From Aspects of the Governing of the Finns [20]:
From Moisala & Alanen (translated) pp. 58-59:
pp. 66-67:
From Capitulation for the Sake of Pristege [21] (original in Russian):
From Lunde pp. 259-260:
From Between East and West: Finland in International Politics, 1944-1947 [22]:
From Vehviläinen (2002) Finland in the Second World War pp. 139-140 [23]:
From Baryshnikov (2006) The Phenomenon of Lies: 'The Victory in the Confrontation' [24]
From Apunen & Wolff (2009) Pettureita ja Patriootteja ("Traitors and patriots") pp.355-356
From Apunen & Wolff (2009) p. 371
From Polvinen (1964) Suomi suurvaltojen politiikassa 1941-1944 p.265
I have moved this thread from the end of the initial issue 4 discussion above. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Collapsing tangential/negative comments
|
---|
|
Collapsing tangential/negative comments
|
---|
|
Happy new year to everyone! I'll add the relevant quotes later today, but to move forward this discussion one should be aware that Swedes, who were acting as mediators, asked Kollontai to remove the term "surrender" from the June 23 answer. When Kollontai refused, Swedes decided to withdraw from mediation. So Swedes clearly considered the given formulation for something malevolent, not just an invitation to negotiations. Also, later in June, when Swedish ambassador in Helsinki Mr. Friis-Beck visited home, he met with Kollontai in an attempt to restart peace process. During her answer, Mrs. Kollontai didn't use the word "surrender" at all and finally Friis-Beck queried about that directly. Kollontai answered evasively that it was a "misunderstanding". -- Whiskey ( talk) 07:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
You know, I was reading through the archives of the mediation committee yesterday, and I came across a quote which I think applies to this situation very well. It was: "no amount of mediation can fix the 'point of view' that black is white". In other words, if we have a dispute over the basic facts, rather than over how to portray opinions, then no amount of negotiation will find a resolution. At the moment we have a situation where YMB29 and Wanderer602 are both pointing to the same set of quotes, and using them to draw different conclusions about the facts of the matter. Let's start from where we all agree - the actual text of the Soviet memo, as quoted by Wanderer602 above. I hope you will all agree that the actual text is indisputable.
Now, any interpretation of that text is opinion, of course. But we are disagreeing here over what constitutes an interpretation of the source. Wanderer602 is arguing that calling this text a demand for unconditional surrender is a paraphrase of the source - that it is inherently obvious from the text. YMB29 is arguing that this is an interpretation, and that summarizing this text as a demand for unconditional surrender amounts to original research. Despite all that we have written about this over the last few weeks, we don't seem to have come any closer in reaching an agreement on this central point.
So, as we disagree about what is fact and what is opinion, the next logical step here is to ask uninvolved editors what they think on the matter. This way we can find wider community consensus on the issue, which will be a lot more productive than arguing about what is white and what is black. We can do this by going to a noticeboard, as I suggested above, or by having a small RfC. If we go the RfC route, there's no need to make it a big, structured debate like the last one - we can just have a simple discussion, and end the RfC when people's opinions become clear. Let me know which one you would prefer. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
About the RfC text... I think we don't agree about the Soviet intention. In fact it is the stumbling block, as YMB29 prefers that Soviet intention was not to demand unconditional surrender, and Wanderer602 and I consider that the Soviet intention was to demand unconditional surrender. -- Whiskey ( talk) 10:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello everyone, and welcome to the Battle of Tali-Ihantala MedCab mediation! This mediation is about the Continuation War between Finland and the Soviet Union, which was part of World War II. At the moment we are discussing a memo that the Soviets delivered to the Finns in June 1944 outlining conditions for peace. The dispute is about whether or not we can describe the text of this memo as a demand for unconditional surrender. For background on this, you can have a look at the section that contains the passage in question and the draft proposal page that we have been working on, and we have also prepared a lengthy list of quotes from various sources on the subject. There is also the discussion on this page, which you are of course welcome to look through.
We have agreed that the Finns interpreted the memo as a demand for unconditional surrender, and we have also agreed that the Soviets probably didn't intend for it to be taken that way. What we haven't agreed on yet is how to portray the actual text of the memo. In particular, we are disputing the part that says "as it was written". So we have one version that says:
The Finnish government decided to interpret the present Soviet response as it was written: a demand for unconditional surrender.
And another version that says:
The Finnish government decided to interpret the present Soviet response as a demand for unconditional surrender.
Normally we would just work on finding a compromise through discussion between the mediation parties, but this case is a little special because it has come to the point where we are disputing what is fact, and what is opinion. One editor feels that calling the text of the Soviet memo a "demand for unconditional surrender" is a paraphrase of the source - that it is inherently obvious from the text of the memo itself. Another editor is arguing that this is an interpretation, and that summarizing this text as a demand for unconditional surrender amounts to original research. Once we come to a consensus on whether it is fact or opinion then we can move on: we will either state it directly in the article as fact or attribute it to its author as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, along with other points of view mentioned in reliable sources. Until then, however, we cannot progress, and so I would be grateful to uninvolved editors if they could give their opinions on whether the "demand for unconditional surrender" claim is fact or opinion. Thanks for your time. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Here's the text of the Soviet memo, translated:
"Because the Finns have repeatedly betrayed us, we want the Finnish government to issue an announcement signed by the President and the minister of foreign affairs that Finland is ready to surrender and turn to the Soviet government to request peace. If we receive this kind of announcement from the Finnish government then Moscow is prepared to receive a Finnish delegation."
"Поскольку финны несколько раз обманывали нас, мы хотим, чтобы правительство Финляндии передало подписанное президентом и министром иностранных дел сообщение, что Финляндия готова сдаться и обратиться к советскому правительству с просьбой о мире. Если мы получим от правительства Финляндии эту информацию, Москва готова принять финскую делегацию."
Also, mediation participants, I'd be grateful if you could not comment on each others' posts in the RfC space - this is to get the opinion of outside editors, after all. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
To all the uninvolved editors who have contributed here, thank you very much for your comments! I think they have been very helpful. Let me have a look at the results we have got so far. Three of the four uninvolved editors, Buggie111, Noleander, and Czarkoff, have argued against saying that the note was a demand for unconditional surrender in Wikipedia's voice; the fourth, OrangeMike, did not directly comment on the question. To me, this looks like a consensus against including the claim of a demand for unconditional surrender in Wikipedia's voice. I am aware of Wanderer602's views on the issue, but consensus does not equal unanimity, and I hope he will be willing to accept the opinions of the outside editors on this issue with dignity and good grace. Wanderer602, would you be willing to continue in this mediation with the understanding that we will treat the "unconditional surrender" claim as opinion, not as fact? Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Per the comments of the uninvolved editors at the recent RfC on this page, it looks as if we have reached consensus about the nature of the Soviet memo, although agreement is not unanimous. In light of this, I would like to get a statement of agreement from all the mediation participants, so that we can proceed with realistic expectations of what the outcome of the mediation will be. Here is the statement I would like you to agree with:
In the Wikipedia articles within the scope of this mediation, we will treat the claim that "the Soviet memo delivered to the Finnish government in June 1944 was a demand for unconditional surrender" as an opinion, not a fact. Furthermore, if we include this claim in any articles within the scope of this mediation, we shall attribute the claim to its source, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
Please sign below to indicate that you agree with this statement. Any discussion should go in the section directly above this one.
I'm closing this now, as things are simply moving too slowly for us to make meaningful progress with this dispute. I don't like to do this when we still have many issues left to resolve, but I think it is probably time to take things back to the talk page and try and work them out there. Continuing this dispute resolution thread doesn't look like it will be a productive use of our time. I will still be watching the article to make sure conversations are productive, and I have witnessed you all become better at working with each other since October, so I think with a little bit of good faith from all sides there is no reason why you can't work out your differences on the article talk pages. I will still be around to give advice, and feel free to copy any of the content from the drafting page to use. I wish you all the best of luck with your editing. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
Article | Battle of Tali-Ihantala |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC) |
Requesting party | — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ |
Parties involved | User:Wanderer602, User:YMB29, User:Whiskey |
Mediator(s) | Mr. Stradivarius |
I, Mr. Stradivarius, am not involved. I am merely referring this discussion from the dispute resolution noticeboard. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a neutrality dispute over alleged pro-Finnish bias. There are secondary issues of how to present contradicting reliable sources, and whether edits count as original research or not. More details can be found at the dispute resolution noticeboard thread. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
This dispute has been referred here from the dispute resolution noticeboard. In that thread the previous steps were listed by User:YMB29 as follows:
There are long discussions on the talk pages that go in circles. [1] [2] [3] [4] I tried third opinion [5] and the no original research noticeboard twice. [6] [7] There were reports created in the incidents and edit warring noticeboards. [8] [9] Comments were also made on an admin's talk page [10] [11] and he eventually suggested to go here. [12]
— Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The conversation needs to have a better structure to avoid talk page discussion running out of control, in my opinion. I think we will probably have to go through all the individual points raised at the dispute resolution noticeboard thread one by one, and to look at the different sources being used and assess their strengths and weaknesses. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Provide a supportive structure for the editors involved to build consensus on the issues involved. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you realise that mediation requires an open mind, collaborating together in an environment of camaraderie and mutual respect, with the understanding that to reach a solution, compromise is required?
Hello Wanderer602 and YMB29! I've decided to take this case on myself, if that is ok with both of you. I know that I'm technically the filer of the case, but as I am not actually involved in the dispute I don't think it should be a problem. It's a bit unusual, but hey, we have to ignore all rules once in a while. First I would like you to sign in the section below to indicate that you have read and agree to the ground rules. Once we have agreement on the ground rules, then we can progress to the mediation proper. I would like to progress by getting a short statement on the dispute from each of you, and then we can work through the issues involved one by one until we reach a consensus. If you have any questions about the process you can post on the talk page, or of course, on my user talk. I look forward to having a productive mediation with both of you. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Great, we have agreement on the ground rules - thank you for signing them so quickly. The next step is to decide exactly what is being disputed, and I'd like to get a statement from you both on what you consider the dispute to be. Have a look below to see exactly what you should include. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
And thank you both for the opening statements. Everything is going ahead nice and smoothly, so thank you very much for that. There is one thing that I'm a little concerned with, which is the somewhat negative tone of some of your opening statements. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you both that we should focus solely on the content of the article; it is really not productive to focus on the supposed motives of the other participants. If we just consider the article content and concentrate on how the Wikipedia policies and guidelines relate to them, and keep an open mind, then we will have no trouble at all resolving this dispute. I will look over the statements, the DRN page, and the previous talk in the next couple of days, and decide how to proceed with the mediation. In the meantime, I invite you to kick back, relax, and maybe edit in a subject area you have never tried before. See you back here in a day or so. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Please sign just your username below, as well as Agree or Disagree, with four tildes (~~~~) to indicate your agreement or disagreement with the ground rules and your participation in the case. These shouldn't be taken lightly. If you agree to these it is expected you will abide by them. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello again, and sorry to keep you waiting! It's strange how a couple of days in the real world can feel like a lifetime on Wikipedia, isn't it? I hope that you can both put your differences behind you, forget all the arguments, you've had on the talk page, and find the common ground that you both share. It's good to take a step back at this stage and remember that we are all here because we want to make Wikipedia the very best resource that it can be. I know that this is true for both of you, and I am looking forward to using the best of both of your unique perspectives and abilities to make these two articles the very best that they can be. Now, I've used a standard mediation schedule to show you how we will proceed through the mediation, and I've also drawn together a list of issues that we will cover. As you can see from the agenda, we will be going through each of the issues turn. First, here is the agenda:
— Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a list of issues which I have drawn up based on your statements and on reviewing the dispute so far. This is also the order in which we will cover them in the mediation.
We will start with the naming issue of Vyborg. I've left an outline of what to do below. If you have any questions, then you can of course ask them on the discussion page or on my user talk. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
The opening statements have been moved to the talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
To Posse72 - before you join the mediation, I would like you to write an opening statement, no longer than 300 words, outlining the following points:
After you provide this statement, I will get the opinions of the other mediation participants, and then discuss the matter with other MedCab mediators to see if we agree on your participation. If everything goes smoothly, then we should just be able to continue from where we left off. I'm looking forward to reading your statment. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Issue one discussion has been archived to the talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Discussion on issue two archived to the talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
As promised, I think we should move straight on to issue four. We have talked about Baryshnikov quite a lot as part of our discussion of issue two, and in my opinion there's no real reason to have that discussion again as part of issue three. We can save our discussions of his opinions for the issues in which they are relevant. So issue four it is. Here is the wording of issue four:
As in previous issues, I would like all parties to make a statement, no longer than 250 words, outlining your opinions on this issue. What has the dispute on this issue been centered around? Are there any contentious points of view in the literature? As always I will be looking forward to your responses. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 21:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
As per several sources (references are in articles) the actual Soviet intent with the response is obscure but actual response is very clear in its wording. It requires Finns to first surrender without any conditions before any discussions could be held. Which (as per several sources) amounts to unconditional surrender demand, nothing more, nothing less. The actual Soviet intent is not even relevant since the only thing carried across was the message which - when read word to word - demanded unconditional capitulation. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 05:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
According to the Russian view, the claim that the Soviet government demanded unconditional surrender in June of 1944 has been developed by Finnish historiography to make it seem like the Finnish Army saved its country from occupation.
No where in the actual text of the Soviet message does the word "unconditional" appear, so the statement "as it was written: a demand for unconditional surrender" is false.
Also if it was a written demand for unconditional surrender, why were the Finnish officials debating about how to interpret the message, with some wanting to continue the negotiations?
Even if we ignore Russian sources like Baryshnikov, there is clear evidence that unconditional surrender was never demanded. A good example is the recorded conversation between Stalin and the US ambassador (that took place after the Soviet message to Finland was sent), where Stalin suggests that the US try to clarify to the Finns that he has no intent to occupy their country. Quotes from sources are here: [13]
We have agreed before that the Finnish government simply interpreted the Soviet message as a demand for unconditional surrender [14], and this is what is written in the Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive article. However, Wanderer602 decided to change his mind for the Battle of Tali-Ihantala article... - YMB29 ( talk) 16:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I concur with Wanderer with this issue. I'd like to point out that contemporary players, working on the information provided by the Soviet message, Mannerheim and Swedish Foreign Ministry alike, considered it a demand for unconditional surrender. Also, the only available documentary evidence talks about Finnish unconditional surrender. There could be some informing documentary in Kremlin archives, but so far they have not been published for researchers, and it cannot be said which way they would tip the scales. I wouldn't put much weight to the public claims presented after Finns had rejected Soviet message. -- Whiskey ( talk) 12:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you all for your statements. Let me start by summarizing the points on which I think we all agree:
By a process of elimination, then, it seems that all we have to do is find a consensus on the following points:
I think the key to getting this resolved is in the details of the wording, so I have set up a proposals page for dealing with this issue. We can use this page to propose new drafts of the section in question, so that we can home in on a version that we all find acceptable. I would like you all to do two things next: first, please indicate whether you agree with my reading of the situation. Second, I would like you all to prepare a draft of the section in question that you believe is an accurate reflection of the coverage of this event in third-party, reliable sources.
While you are preparing your drafts I would like to remind you of our neutral point of view policy, which will be a very useful tool for us to find compromise here. As I'm sure you are all aware, this policy means that your personal preferences and biases should not affect your editing; we should all forget our biases and concentrate solely on accurately representing what is written in reliable sources. Statements that are widely reported as facts in reliable sources, we should also report as facts in Wikipedia. Opinions, or statements of fact that are contradicted by other reliable sources, should be attributed to their authors, and be given appropriate weight.
I would also like to remind you all that any comment that is not focused on the content at hand could be misconstrued. The pages involved here have a history of arguments, and so it is natural that people will react strongly if they suspect a comment is critical of them. To get these issues resolved as quickly and painlessly as possible, it is extremely important that you all refrain from negative personal comments. If you do feel that someone in the mediation has made a negative comment about you, then I recommend leaving a note about it on my talk page, or by emailing me, rather than replying directly. That way I can sort things out myself, and it should save us a lot of drama. Also, just in case you were wondering, positive personal comments are perfectly fine - especially when directed toward the mediator. ;-)
So, to recap, I would like you to:
I'll be looking forward to seeing what you come up with. Yours, as always — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Could I ask a comment from other participants to a point which greatly affects to this issue: This interpretation affects many articles, including Continuation War, Vyborg-Petrozavodsk Offensive, Battle of Tali-Ihantala, Battle of Vuosalmi, Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944), Battle of Tienhaara... So, do we A)Copy this thing to every article or B)Concentrate the handling of the issue in depth in one article (CW, V-P O or it's own) and create a short reference to that article from other articles? Please answer A or B. -- Whiskey ( talk) 22:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Collapsing initial drafting discussion
|
---|
Hi everyone, sorry for the delay in my replying. I've had a look at the drafts, and I can definitely see how a compromise between them could work. Before we work heavily on the compromise part, though, we need to get the drafts complying fully with Wikipedia policy - there are a few things that I think don't quite meet the policy standards as they are. I've listed some points below, and I would be grateful if you could comment. Also, feel free to split this post and reply to the individual parts - it will probably be easier to follow that way. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Please also feel free to add any more policy concerns with either of the drafts below. However, please refrain from making arguments based on neutrality or undue weight just yet - we can save that debate for when we are working on compromising between the different versions. We are just in the preliminary stage now, so please keep your arguments limited to the policies of verifiability and no original research. Once we have all these issues ironed out I'm sure we can work together to create a version that's acceptable to everyone. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Is any one going to comment on the issues on draft talk page? - Wanderer602 ( talk) 08:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
(This comment is about Draft 2 - moved here from the talk page there. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫) Churchill's statement shows what the Allies were offering to nations aligned with the Axis. "...to receive Soviet terms..." & "...to listen to the the (Soviet) interpretation of the terms..." - no indication that anything would have been discussed or negotiated, Soviet dictation of terms is therefore valid description. Term unconditional does not need to appear in the text. The demand explicitly stated that Finland needed to surrender without conditions before a delegation could be sent to Moscow. Surrendering without conditions is synonymous to unconditional surrender is it not? - Wanderer602 ( talk) 18:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I think that maybe we have been approaching this in slightly the wrong way - I have a feeling that we are getting sidetracked by focusing on individual sources, and losing track of the big picture. Let's keep our attention strictly on the drafts, and to working towards a version that is acceptable to everyone. I notice that YMB29 has made draft 3, which has dealt with all the sourcing issues that I brought up previously; I think we can now use this to make a start on finding a compromise. To this end, I have a task for Wanderer602. Wanderer, would it be possible for you to create a new draft 4, based on draft 3? I would like you to change the wording and/or the sourcing so that you find it acceptable; but I would also like you to write it so that you think it would be acceptable to YMB29 as well. If possible, I would also like you to post back on this page with an explanation of why you changed what you did, and of how you think it will be an acceptable compromise for everyone. Does this sound like something you would be willing to do? Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Could we agree to make this chapter a little longer, so we could include more information, as we seem to agree (YMB29?) that there should be a deeper version of this which would be referred elsewhere? In that sense, could we agree, that the issue is divided to four paragraphs: Messaging, Finnish response, Soviet response, documentary evidence/scholarly interpretation? It would be easier if we handle each paragraph separately, so we could move to something like incremential changes instead of totally different versions? (I guess we could agree on some text?) -- Whiskey ( talk) 07:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Look - Wanderer602, YMB29, you really have to stop making negative remarks about each other. Speculating on other editors' motives and competence is simply not acceptable. If you want to continue with this mediation then this must stop. If you still want to make these kind of negative remarks, then it will have to be outside of mediation. I warn you, though, that if you continue these kinds of behaviour outside of mediation then the things that may be awaiting you are not pleasant: they include topic bans, interaction bans, blocks for civility, or blocks for edit warring - see WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN for details. Let's take this discussion forward instead of arguing about each other, so that we can avoid going down that route. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi again guys. Thank you for all your comments and work on creating drafts - it has been very helpful, and I think that we now have a much better handle on what exactly the issues are here. Now, I have been discussing this with some of the other MedCab mediators, and we have come to the same conclusion: the dispute over this particular issue stems from a discrepancy in the sources. On the one hand we have Lunde (2011), who uses "unconditional surrender" and "basically a demand for unconditional capitulation", and Apunen & Wolff (2009) who are even more explicit in their description of the memo as a demand for unconditional surrender. On the other hand, we have Maude (2010) who says the memo was "far from a demand for 'unconditional surrender'". There are also undoubtedly other sources with various opinions on this issue. In cases like these, we cannot pick sides. The neutral point of view policy says that we must include all major points of view, and that means that we cannot and should not try and simplify this debate to make it look as if the sources agree on how to interpret the Soviet memo.
So, I have some more homework for you, if you will humour me some more. I would like you each to suggest a wording for the sentence(s) in question that describe both sides of the issue. It might look something like this: "In their 2009 book, Apunen and Wolff argued that the Soviet memo should be interpreted as a demand for unconditional surrender; however, Maude (2010) was of the opinion that there could have been some room for negotiation". You can have a look at WP:ASF for some more hints about how to do this. This kind of writing will be the key to finding a compromise that we can all live with, in my opinion. As usual, let me know if you have any questions. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
From Aspects of the Governing of the Finns [20]:
From Moisala & Alanen (translated) pp. 58-59:
pp. 66-67:
From Capitulation for the Sake of Pristege [21] (original in Russian):
From Lunde pp. 259-260:
From Between East and West: Finland in International Politics, 1944-1947 [22]:
From Vehviläinen (2002) Finland in the Second World War pp. 139-140 [23]:
From Baryshnikov (2006) The Phenomenon of Lies: 'The Victory in the Confrontation' [24]
From Apunen & Wolff (2009) Pettureita ja Patriootteja ("Traitors and patriots") pp.355-356
From Apunen & Wolff (2009) p. 371
From Polvinen (1964) Suomi suurvaltojen politiikassa 1941-1944 p.265
I have moved this thread from the end of the initial issue 4 discussion above. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Collapsing tangential/negative comments
|
---|
|
Collapsing tangential/negative comments
|
---|
|
Happy new year to everyone! I'll add the relevant quotes later today, but to move forward this discussion one should be aware that Swedes, who were acting as mediators, asked Kollontai to remove the term "surrender" from the June 23 answer. When Kollontai refused, Swedes decided to withdraw from mediation. So Swedes clearly considered the given formulation for something malevolent, not just an invitation to negotiations. Also, later in June, when Swedish ambassador in Helsinki Mr. Friis-Beck visited home, he met with Kollontai in an attempt to restart peace process. During her answer, Mrs. Kollontai didn't use the word "surrender" at all and finally Friis-Beck queried about that directly. Kollontai answered evasively that it was a "misunderstanding". -- Whiskey ( talk) 07:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
You know, I was reading through the archives of the mediation committee yesterday, and I came across a quote which I think applies to this situation very well. It was: "no amount of mediation can fix the 'point of view' that black is white". In other words, if we have a dispute over the basic facts, rather than over how to portray opinions, then no amount of negotiation will find a resolution. At the moment we have a situation where YMB29 and Wanderer602 are both pointing to the same set of quotes, and using them to draw different conclusions about the facts of the matter. Let's start from where we all agree - the actual text of the Soviet memo, as quoted by Wanderer602 above. I hope you will all agree that the actual text is indisputable.
Now, any interpretation of that text is opinion, of course. But we are disagreeing here over what constitutes an interpretation of the source. Wanderer602 is arguing that calling this text a demand for unconditional surrender is a paraphrase of the source - that it is inherently obvious from the text. YMB29 is arguing that this is an interpretation, and that summarizing this text as a demand for unconditional surrender amounts to original research. Despite all that we have written about this over the last few weeks, we don't seem to have come any closer in reaching an agreement on this central point.
So, as we disagree about what is fact and what is opinion, the next logical step here is to ask uninvolved editors what they think on the matter. This way we can find wider community consensus on the issue, which will be a lot more productive than arguing about what is white and what is black. We can do this by going to a noticeboard, as I suggested above, or by having a small RfC. If we go the RfC route, there's no need to make it a big, structured debate like the last one - we can just have a simple discussion, and end the RfC when people's opinions become clear. Let me know which one you would prefer. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
About the RfC text... I think we don't agree about the Soviet intention. In fact it is the stumbling block, as YMB29 prefers that Soviet intention was not to demand unconditional surrender, and Wanderer602 and I consider that the Soviet intention was to demand unconditional surrender. -- Whiskey ( talk) 10:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello everyone, and welcome to the Battle of Tali-Ihantala MedCab mediation! This mediation is about the Continuation War between Finland and the Soviet Union, which was part of World War II. At the moment we are discussing a memo that the Soviets delivered to the Finns in June 1944 outlining conditions for peace. The dispute is about whether or not we can describe the text of this memo as a demand for unconditional surrender. For background on this, you can have a look at the section that contains the passage in question and the draft proposal page that we have been working on, and we have also prepared a lengthy list of quotes from various sources on the subject. There is also the discussion on this page, which you are of course welcome to look through.
We have agreed that the Finns interpreted the memo as a demand for unconditional surrender, and we have also agreed that the Soviets probably didn't intend for it to be taken that way. What we haven't agreed on yet is how to portray the actual text of the memo. In particular, we are disputing the part that says "as it was written". So we have one version that says:
The Finnish government decided to interpret the present Soviet response as it was written: a demand for unconditional surrender.
And another version that says:
The Finnish government decided to interpret the present Soviet response as a demand for unconditional surrender.
Normally we would just work on finding a compromise through discussion between the mediation parties, but this case is a little special because it has come to the point where we are disputing what is fact, and what is opinion. One editor feels that calling the text of the Soviet memo a "demand for unconditional surrender" is a paraphrase of the source - that it is inherently obvious from the text of the memo itself. Another editor is arguing that this is an interpretation, and that summarizing this text as a demand for unconditional surrender amounts to original research. Once we come to a consensus on whether it is fact or opinion then we can move on: we will either state it directly in the article as fact or attribute it to its author as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, along with other points of view mentioned in reliable sources. Until then, however, we cannot progress, and so I would be grateful to uninvolved editors if they could give their opinions on whether the "demand for unconditional surrender" claim is fact or opinion. Thanks for your time. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Here's the text of the Soviet memo, translated:
"Because the Finns have repeatedly betrayed us, we want the Finnish government to issue an announcement signed by the President and the minister of foreign affairs that Finland is ready to surrender and turn to the Soviet government to request peace. If we receive this kind of announcement from the Finnish government then Moscow is prepared to receive a Finnish delegation."
"Поскольку финны несколько раз обманывали нас, мы хотим, чтобы правительство Финляндии передало подписанное президентом и министром иностранных дел сообщение, что Финляндия готова сдаться и обратиться к советскому правительству с просьбой о мире. Если мы получим от правительства Финляндии эту информацию, Москва готова принять финскую делегацию."
Also, mediation participants, I'd be grateful if you could not comment on each others' posts in the RfC space - this is to get the opinion of outside editors, after all. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
To all the uninvolved editors who have contributed here, thank you very much for your comments! I think they have been very helpful. Let me have a look at the results we have got so far. Three of the four uninvolved editors, Buggie111, Noleander, and Czarkoff, have argued against saying that the note was a demand for unconditional surrender in Wikipedia's voice; the fourth, OrangeMike, did not directly comment on the question. To me, this looks like a consensus against including the claim of a demand for unconditional surrender in Wikipedia's voice. I am aware of Wanderer602's views on the issue, but consensus does not equal unanimity, and I hope he will be willing to accept the opinions of the outside editors on this issue with dignity and good grace. Wanderer602, would you be willing to continue in this mediation with the understanding that we will treat the "unconditional surrender" claim as opinion, not as fact? Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Per the comments of the uninvolved editors at the recent RfC on this page, it looks as if we have reached consensus about the nature of the Soviet memo, although agreement is not unanimous. In light of this, I would like to get a statement of agreement from all the mediation participants, so that we can proceed with realistic expectations of what the outcome of the mediation will be. Here is the statement I would like you to agree with:
In the Wikipedia articles within the scope of this mediation, we will treat the claim that "the Soviet memo delivered to the Finnish government in June 1944 was a demand for unconditional surrender" as an opinion, not a fact. Furthermore, if we include this claim in any articles within the scope of this mediation, we shall attribute the claim to its source, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
Please sign below to indicate that you agree with this statement. Any discussion should go in the section directly above this one.
I'm closing this now, as things are simply moving too slowly for us to make meaningful progress with this dispute. I don't like to do this when we still have many issues left to resolve, but I think it is probably time to take things back to the talk page and try and work them out there. Continuing this dispute resolution thread doesn't look like it will be a productive use of our time. I will still be watching the article to make sure conversations are productive, and I have witnessed you all become better at working with each other since October, so I think with a little bit of good faith from all sides there is no reason why you can't work out your differences on the article talk pages. I will still be around to give advice, and feel free to copy any of the content from the drafting page to use. I wish you all the best of luck with your editing. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)