Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
Article | Irish American and Scotch-Irish American |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 19:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Unknown |
Parties involved | rjensen,Eastcote,Malke 2010 |
Mediator(s) | -- / MWOAP| Notify Me\ |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Irish American and Scotch-Irish American]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Irish American and Scotch-Irish American]]
This section should explain where the problem is. Link to the articles where the dispute is taking place. Irish American and Talk:Irish American. Adding Scotch-Irish American and Talk:Scotch-Irish American
Just a list of the users involved. For example:
The dispute involves the coverage of 19th century history in Irish American. rjensen keeps adding sections that get deleted by Eastcote and malke 2000. rjensen claims the new material is relevant and is based on reliable sources; Eastcote and malke 2000 say the new material cannot be added until there is a consensus of editors, which seems to mean Eastcote and malke 2000. Eastcote and rjensen have long been active contributors to Irish American. malke 2000 made his first edit one week ago--all his edits have been deletions of text added by rjensen. The deeper issue is the role of religion in the history of Irish Americans. rjensen argues that most reliable sources give great emphasis on Irish being Catholic or Protestant--and they examine the conflicts between Catholic Irish and Protestant Irish. Eastcote and malke 2000 say they are not convinced and the additions violate WP:UNDO. Jensen says that WP:UNDO stresses that the article must follow the reliable sources, and not the personal views of the editors.
this, would also help.
Eastcote and malke 2000 say they have the right to block new material until they are convinced. rjensen contends they do not provide reliable sources to support their position, and instead insist that consensus of editors is the main criteria. (I have been writing recently and anonymously within this framework and I too agree with Eastcote's and Malke's position here User 173.76.208.66) 173.76.208.66 ( talk) 20:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
rjensen suggests the mediators explain what the WP:UNDO rules require and settle the question of whether a "consensus" of editors is needed before adding new, cited text
Policy notes:
Talk is turning into debate. Requesting all edits requests to the talk page. -- / MWOAP| Notify Me\ 00:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
For Irish American
Editing Restirction Request lifted as case is closed. I encourge editors to not edit the article going against consensus. -- / MWOAP| Notify Me\ 01:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Editing Restirction Request lifted As concensus has been obtained, I am lifting this lock. I encourge editors to not edit the article going against consensus. / MWOAP| Notify Me\ 21:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
All involved parties agree that Wikipedia policy ultimately determines how the article should be edited:
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
For Irish AmericanView by Malke 2010
View by EastcoteThe statement of the conflict is a bit misleading. Some of the points of contention are subtle, so forgive me for going on at length. It is not as simple as whether or not references are reliable. These are the issues I have with Rjensen's edits, and I'll explain them each at length:
Let me make it clear that Malke and Eastcote do not have some kind of joint national, religious or political POV we are pushing. When this is resolved we might end up on opposite sides of other debates. Our interest here is in seeing a balanced article, without having hidden agendas slither in. Eastcote ( talk) 20:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 1. Disruptive editing.Around 17 February Rjensen began a flurry of edits throughout the page, making changes so fast and furious that article stability was being affected. Other editors objected (not just Eastcote and Malke 2010) and tried to restore some neutrailty, but Rjensen simply accused everyone of pushing POV and “blanking” his edits. Taken as a whole, Rjensen’s edits go out of their way to emphasize conflict between Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants in America. Eastcote ( talk) 20:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
2. Undue weight.Rjensen emphasizes conflict between American Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants by selective use of references which make it appear that isolated historical conflict is typical of overall inter-Irish American relations. For example, he uses the “Orange riots” in NYC in 1870/71, between the Irish Protestant Orange Order and Irish Catholic immigrants, to argue that there was widespread Irish Protestant v. Irish Catholic conflict. He provides citations for the riots. The riots are “true” and the citations are reliable sources which describe the riots. But the riots were local to New York City and did not characterize overall inter-Irish relations in America. Rjensen ignores citation of the same references he uses which say the Orange Order was not a major presence in the United States, and describes it as “feeble” and “weak”. There was indeed violent opposition to Irish Catholics, but this was primarily from Nativist organizations such as the “Know Nothing” Party, which opposed all Catholic immigrants, whether Irish, Italian or German. But Rjensen seems to want it to appear to be specifically Irish on Irish. Eastcote ( talk) 20:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
3. Non-neutral language.The language he uses implies conflict, even when making statements of fact, e.g., Irish Catholics “dominate” the Catholic Church and have a “disproportionate” and “dominating role” in law enforcement agencies, rather than a more neutral “are prominent in” these organizations. Or “Many served on both sides of the Civil War, but Catholics in the North resisted the draft…”, which is supported by reference to the 1863 NYC draft riots. The riots did occur, in that specific place and time, but the way it was written makes it seem as if Irish Catholics refused to serve at all, and ignores other facts, such as that nearly 40 Union regiments were specifically titled “Irish” regiments because of the many Irish Catholics who served in them. This also ignores that the South had problems with large-scale desertion, much of it from the mountain areas where Rjensen’s “Protestant Irish” lived. Many of Rjensen’s edits have been re-edited to be more neutral. Eastcote ( talk) 20:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
4. Historical synthesis.Rjensen uses multiple sources to argue that there was a monolithic Irish Protestant consciousness opposing minority Irish Catholics in America. He takes Fact A "Irish Protestants settled widely in the South", combines it with Fact B "There were riots in New York City in 1870", and stirs in Fact C "Most people in a poll today who claimed to be Irish also claimed to be Protestant". From this he reaches the conclusion that religious conflict is the central factor in inter-Irish American relations. Eastcote ( talk) 21:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't say I follow everything you guys are saying here, but again, this is not a debate area, we need to refine what is going into the article. please state on the talkpage what you want in the article (or don't want), provide sources, and a brief description why. I will be making the edits as a Neutral Editor. -- / MWOAP| Notify Me\ 00:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 5. Fringe Agenda-pushing.There is the possibility of a White supremacist/ neo-Confederate “fringe” agenda which explains Rjensen’s emphasis on conflating different historic Irish Protestant waves of immigration, and his emphasis on conflict with Irish Catholics. Rjensen has authored an article denying discrimination against Irish Catholics published by the white supremacist American Renaissance magazine. [http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/03/ano_irish_need.php] He also uses references to “neo-Confederate” writers who are proponents of the “Celtic Thesis”, which asserts the novel historical interpretation that the American Civil War was fought between a “Celtic” South and an “Anglo-Saxon” North, and that the war grew out of this cultural divide rather than out of a disagreement over slavery. This “Celtic Thesis” is much contested by more mainstream historians as a "fantasy of hyperbole", “a historical confection”, and a “myth” whose proponents “resist logic and historical reasoning”. The primary proponent of this theory was Grady McWhiney, who was a founding member of the League of the South, whose objective is “a free and independent Southern republic”. Eastcote ( talk) 21:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, this is not debate. Please state on the talkpage what you want in the article (or don't want), provide sources, and a brief description why. I will be making the edits as a Neutral Editor. -- / MWOAP| Notify Me\ 00:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC) This might take some time. Rjensen has made so many changes, so quickly, over the past week or so, that both Scotch-Irish American and Irish American are shot through with things that need to be straightened out. So I guess we just have to take it from the top. My concerns for the Scotch-Irish American article are:
There is not simply a single passage in the article that we disagree on. There are numerous, so on the mediation talk page I'll just go down the line. Eastcote ( talk) 03:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC) All along Eastcote has assumed the fallacy that if a group mostly assimilates into the American culture, then it is no longer of much interest and should be dropped from Wikipedia. No SR says that--it's his private opinion. Was John Kennedy fully assimilated? Ted Kennedy? the younger Kennedys??--when do they become "American" and get dropped from the article on "Irish Americans"?. Note that millions of Americans call themselves Scotch Irish in 2008. The answer scholars use is that they are American all along, but they have enough distinct characteristics to be worth studying. For example, two scholars have demonstrated that the SI had distinctive voting patterns in the 1928 and 1960 elections--much to Eastcote's astonishment (he still owes me an apology and a shoeshine). Rjensen ( talk) 21:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC) |
Seeing that a prespoal is in progress (and could be a while) & editors know how to come to a concensus, I will leave these discussions for talkpages. This case is now closed. -- / MWOAP| Notify Me\ 01:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
Article | Irish American and Scotch-Irish American |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 19:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Unknown |
Parties involved | rjensen,Eastcote,Malke 2010 |
Mediator(s) | -- / MWOAP| Notify Me\ |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Irish American and Scotch-Irish American]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Irish American and Scotch-Irish American]]
This section should explain where the problem is. Link to the articles where the dispute is taking place. Irish American and Talk:Irish American. Adding Scotch-Irish American and Talk:Scotch-Irish American
Just a list of the users involved. For example:
The dispute involves the coverage of 19th century history in Irish American. rjensen keeps adding sections that get deleted by Eastcote and malke 2000. rjensen claims the new material is relevant and is based on reliable sources; Eastcote and malke 2000 say the new material cannot be added until there is a consensus of editors, which seems to mean Eastcote and malke 2000. Eastcote and rjensen have long been active contributors to Irish American. malke 2000 made his first edit one week ago--all his edits have been deletions of text added by rjensen. The deeper issue is the role of religion in the history of Irish Americans. rjensen argues that most reliable sources give great emphasis on Irish being Catholic or Protestant--and they examine the conflicts between Catholic Irish and Protestant Irish. Eastcote and malke 2000 say they are not convinced and the additions violate WP:UNDO. Jensen says that WP:UNDO stresses that the article must follow the reliable sources, and not the personal views of the editors.
this, would also help.
Eastcote and malke 2000 say they have the right to block new material until they are convinced. rjensen contends they do not provide reliable sources to support their position, and instead insist that consensus of editors is the main criteria. (I have been writing recently and anonymously within this framework and I too agree with Eastcote's and Malke's position here User 173.76.208.66) 173.76.208.66 ( talk) 20:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
rjensen suggests the mediators explain what the WP:UNDO rules require and settle the question of whether a "consensus" of editors is needed before adding new, cited text
Policy notes:
Talk is turning into debate. Requesting all edits requests to the talk page. -- / MWOAP| Notify Me\ 00:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
For Irish American
Editing Restirction Request lifted as case is closed. I encourge editors to not edit the article going against consensus. -- / MWOAP| Notify Me\ 01:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Editing Restirction Request lifted As concensus has been obtained, I am lifting this lock. I encourge editors to not edit the article going against consensus. / MWOAP| Notify Me\ 21:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
All involved parties agree that Wikipedia policy ultimately determines how the article should be edited:
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
For Irish AmericanView by Malke 2010
View by EastcoteThe statement of the conflict is a bit misleading. Some of the points of contention are subtle, so forgive me for going on at length. It is not as simple as whether or not references are reliable. These are the issues I have with Rjensen's edits, and I'll explain them each at length:
Let me make it clear that Malke and Eastcote do not have some kind of joint national, religious or political POV we are pushing. When this is resolved we might end up on opposite sides of other debates. Our interest here is in seeing a balanced article, without having hidden agendas slither in. Eastcote ( talk) 20:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 1. Disruptive editing.Around 17 February Rjensen began a flurry of edits throughout the page, making changes so fast and furious that article stability was being affected. Other editors objected (not just Eastcote and Malke 2010) and tried to restore some neutrailty, but Rjensen simply accused everyone of pushing POV and “blanking” his edits. Taken as a whole, Rjensen’s edits go out of their way to emphasize conflict between Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants in America. Eastcote ( talk) 20:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
2. Undue weight.Rjensen emphasizes conflict between American Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants by selective use of references which make it appear that isolated historical conflict is typical of overall inter-Irish American relations. For example, he uses the “Orange riots” in NYC in 1870/71, between the Irish Protestant Orange Order and Irish Catholic immigrants, to argue that there was widespread Irish Protestant v. Irish Catholic conflict. He provides citations for the riots. The riots are “true” and the citations are reliable sources which describe the riots. But the riots were local to New York City and did not characterize overall inter-Irish relations in America. Rjensen ignores citation of the same references he uses which say the Orange Order was not a major presence in the United States, and describes it as “feeble” and “weak”. There was indeed violent opposition to Irish Catholics, but this was primarily from Nativist organizations such as the “Know Nothing” Party, which opposed all Catholic immigrants, whether Irish, Italian or German. But Rjensen seems to want it to appear to be specifically Irish on Irish. Eastcote ( talk) 20:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
3. Non-neutral language.The language he uses implies conflict, even when making statements of fact, e.g., Irish Catholics “dominate” the Catholic Church and have a “disproportionate” and “dominating role” in law enforcement agencies, rather than a more neutral “are prominent in” these organizations. Or “Many served on both sides of the Civil War, but Catholics in the North resisted the draft…”, which is supported by reference to the 1863 NYC draft riots. The riots did occur, in that specific place and time, but the way it was written makes it seem as if Irish Catholics refused to serve at all, and ignores other facts, such as that nearly 40 Union regiments were specifically titled “Irish” regiments because of the many Irish Catholics who served in them. This also ignores that the South had problems with large-scale desertion, much of it from the mountain areas where Rjensen’s “Protestant Irish” lived. Many of Rjensen’s edits have been re-edited to be more neutral. Eastcote ( talk) 20:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
4. Historical synthesis.Rjensen uses multiple sources to argue that there was a monolithic Irish Protestant consciousness opposing minority Irish Catholics in America. He takes Fact A "Irish Protestants settled widely in the South", combines it with Fact B "There were riots in New York City in 1870", and stirs in Fact C "Most people in a poll today who claimed to be Irish also claimed to be Protestant". From this he reaches the conclusion that religious conflict is the central factor in inter-Irish American relations. Eastcote ( talk) 21:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't say I follow everything you guys are saying here, but again, this is not a debate area, we need to refine what is going into the article. please state on the talkpage what you want in the article (or don't want), provide sources, and a brief description why. I will be making the edits as a Neutral Editor. -- / MWOAP| Notify Me\ 00:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 5. Fringe Agenda-pushing.There is the possibility of a White supremacist/ neo-Confederate “fringe” agenda which explains Rjensen’s emphasis on conflating different historic Irish Protestant waves of immigration, and his emphasis on conflict with Irish Catholics. Rjensen has authored an article denying discrimination against Irish Catholics published by the white supremacist American Renaissance magazine. [http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/03/ano_irish_need.php] He also uses references to “neo-Confederate” writers who are proponents of the “Celtic Thesis”, which asserts the novel historical interpretation that the American Civil War was fought between a “Celtic” South and an “Anglo-Saxon” North, and that the war grew out of this cultural divide rather than out of a disagreement over slavery. This “Celtic Thesis” is much contested by more mainstream historians as a "fantasy of hyperbole", “a historical confection”, and a “myth” whose proponents “resist logic and historical reasoning”. The primary proponent of this theory was Grady McWhiney, who was a founding member of the League of the South, whose objective is “a free and independent Southern republic”. Eastcote ( talk) 21:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, this is not debate. Please state on the talkpage what you want in the article (or don't want), provide sources, and a brief description why. I will be making the edits as a Neutral Editor. -- / MWOAP| Notify Me\ 00:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC) This might take some time. Rjensen has made so many changes, so quickly, over the past week or so, that both Scotch-Irish American and Irish American are shot through with things that need to be straightened out. So I guess we just have to take it from the top. My concerns for the Scotch-Irish American article are:
There is not simply a single passage in the article that we disagree on. There are numerous, so on the mediation talk page I'll just go down the line. Eastcote ( talk) 03:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC) All along Eastcote has assumed the fallacy that if a group mostly assimilates into the American culture, then it is no longer of much interest and should be dropped from Wikipedia. No SR says that--it's his private opinion. Was John Kennedy fully assimilated? Ted Kennedy? the younger Kennedys??--when do they become "American" and get dropped from the article on "Irish Americans"?. Note that millions of Americans call themselves Scotch Irish in 2008. The answer scholars use is that they are American all along, but they have enough distinct characteristics to be worth studying. For example, two scholars have demonstrated that the SI had distinctive voting patterns in the 1928 and 1960 elections--much to Eastcote's astonishment (he still owes me an apology and a shoeshine). Rjensen ( talk) 21:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC) |
Seeing that a prespoal is in progress (and could be a while) & editors know how to come to a concensus, I will leave these discussions for talkpages. This case is now closed. -- / MWOAP| Notify Me\ 01:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)