Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-03 Mel Gibson Categorization: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Compromise offers: i concede your point, but... |
→Compromise offers: false light |
||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
::::::What's to stop such a category from being populated with Hitler and Eichmann and so on? Once that happens, it's the same thing. Like I said, I have nothing against it in principle and I wouldn't object to it. I just don't think it will work in the long run. --[[User_talk:Elliskev|Elliskev]] 20:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC) |
::::::What's to stop such a category from being populated with Hitler and Eichmann and so on? Once that happens, it's the same thing. Like I said, I have nothing against it in principle and I wouldn't object to it. I just don't think it will work in the long run. --[[User_talk:Elliskev|Elliskev]] 20:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
:::::::So what if it does, if the category description makes clear that this is just people who have been accused by prominent (credible?) sources? Being accused of anti-semitism by prominent sources is something that Hitler and Gibson happen to have in common. As long as the source is notable (eg ADL) and verifiable, Gibson's inclusion in such a cat would seemingly fall within POV guidelines, which says attributed opinions are OK, regardless of who else is there with him. [[User:Interestingstuffadder|Interestingstuffadder]] 20:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC) |
:::::::So what if it does, if the category description makes clear that this is just people who have been accused by prominent (credible?) sources? Being accused of anti-semitism by prominent sources is something that Hitler and Gibson happen to have in common. As long as the source is notable (eg ADL) and verifiable, Gibson's inclusion in such a cat would seemingly fall within POV guidelines, which says attributed opinions are OK, regardless of who else is there with him. [[User:Interestingstuffadder|Interestingstuffadder]] 20:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
::::::::Then we're close to a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_privacy#False_light False light] problem. --[[User_talk:Elliskev|Elliskev]] 20:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
=== Discussion === |
=== Discussion === |
||
Revision as of 20:28, 3 August 2006
Mediation Case: 2006-08-03 Mel Gibson Categorization
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
Request Information
- Request made by: Elliskev 15:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- Mel Gibson; Talk:Mel Gibson
- What's going on?
- Question whether adding Mel Gibson to Category:Anti-Semitic people is an appropriate edit or is defamatory and inappropriate per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
- What would you like to change about that?
- My opinion is that it's inappropriate.
- Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
- I will post to Talk:Mel Gibson that I have requested informal mediation. No discretion is required. Notify me on the talk page or User talk:Elliskev.
Mediator response
Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
- Remove from anti semitic people category and add to Category:Allegedly anti-Semitic people. His own statements plus statements by notable Jewish leaders seem sufficient to justify this. Interestingstuffadder 16:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I responded to a similar idea on Talk:Mel Gibson. I believe that qualified labelling is just as problematic. We should not be categorizing a living person's beliefs, or our hunches about their beliefs, unless the person specifically self-identifies as such. Exceptions exist, of course, but when a living person specifically denies a characterization, we should not label them as such in a category. It should be dealt with in the article content in a neutral way. --Elliskev 16:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- On the main Gibson talk page, I proposed the creation of a new category called 'People accused of anti-Semitism'. The category would be for people who face (or have faced) substantiated charges of anti-Semitism from respected sources. "Substantiated charges" would obviously mean that there was reliable evidence to support the charge (as opposed to a "my best friend's roommate told me" accusation), and "respected sources" would refer primarily to credible individuals and organizations that have an accomplished track record of identifying and combating anti-Semitism (civil rights organizations like ADL and SPLC come to mind). This new category would provide for a factually-accurate categorization of Mel Gibson and would allow Wikipedia to associate the anti-Semitism controversy with Gibson's article without actually leveling the charge (even in a qualified way) that he is anti-Semitic. Azathoth68 17:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hypothetically, that might be fine. But, I fear that such a category would become a haven for all the articles currently in Category:Anti-Semitic people with the result being exactly the same problem, only euphemistically. --Elliskev 17:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- But making clear that this is a category for people who have been accused by credible sources and providing cites to these sources would at least make this different in that it is verifiable (versus labelling MG an anti-semite when he himself has denied it). Interestingstuffadder 20:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- What's to stop such a category from being populated with Hitler and Eichmann and so on? Once that happens, it's the same thing. Like I said, I have nothing against it in principle and I wouldn't object to it. I just don't think it will work in the long run. --Elliskev 20:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- So what if it does, if the category description makes clear that this is just people who have been accused by prominent (credible?) sources? Being accused of anti-semitism by prominent sources is something that Hitler and Gibson happen to have in common. As long as the source is notable (eg ADL) and verifiable, Gibson's inclusion in such a cat would seemingly fall within POV guidelines, which says attributed opinions are OK, regardless of who else is there with him. Interestingstuffadder 20:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Then we're close to a False light problem. --Elliskev 20:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- So what if it does, if the category description makes clear that this is just people who have been accused by prominent (credible?) sources? Being accused of anti-semitism by prominent sources is something that Hitler and Gibson happen to have in common. As long as the source is notable (eg ADL) and verifiable, Gibson's inclusion in such a cat would seemingly fall within POV guidelines, which says attributed opinions are OK, regardless of who else is there with him. Interestingstuffadder 20:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- What's to stop such a category from being populated with Hitler and Eichmann and so on? Once that happens, it's the same thing. Like I said, I have nothing against it in principle and I wouldn't object to it. I just don't think it will work in the long run. --Elliskev 20:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- But making clear that this is a category for people who have been accused by credible sources and providing cites to these sources would at least make this different in that it is verifiable (versus labelling MG an anti-semite when he himself has denied it). Interestingstuffadder 20:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hypothetically, that might be fine. But, I fear that such a category would become a haven for all the articles currently in Category:Anti-Semitic people with the result being exactly the same problem, only euphemistically. --Elliskev 17:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- On the main Gibson talk page, I proposed the creation of a new category called 'People accused of anti-Semitism'. The category would be for people who face (or have faced) substantiated charges of anti-Semitism from respected sources. "Substantiated charges" would obviously mean that there was reliable evidence to support the charge (as opposed to a "my best friend's roommate told me" accusation), and "respected sources" would refer primarily to credible individuals and organizations that have an accomplished track record of identifying and combating anti-Semitism (civil rights organizations like ADL and SPLC come to mind). This new category would provide for a factually-accurate categorization of Mel Gibson and would allow Wikipedia to associate the anti-Semitism controversy with Gibson's article without actually leveling the charge (even in a qualified way) that he is anti-Semitic. Azathoth68 17:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I responded to a similar idea on Talk:Mel Gibson. I believe that qualified labelling is just as problematic. We should not be categorizing a living person's beliefs, or our hunches about their beliefs, unless the person specifically self-identifies as such. Exceptions exist, of course, but when a living person specifically denies a characterization, we should not label them as such in a category. It should be dealt with in the article content in a neutral way. --Elliskev 16:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Discussion
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.