Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-10 Leó Szilárd

Mediation Case: 2006-08-10 Leó Szilárd
Please observe 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: Hi There 01:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi There
 * Where is the issue taking place?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le%C3%B3_Szil%C3%A1rd
 * Who's involved?

Hi There, Will314159, SafeLibraries
 * What's going on?

Dispute concerning the appropriateness of inclusion of certain highly contentious historical issues which are not necessary for the article to include. Edits and reversions, with my opponent reverting but refusing to discuss the matter on the talk page, and labeling my changes as vandalism on the History page.

1) I removed section about the decision to use the bombs and the effects of their use from the article. The removed section posited certain very debatable theses and relied on ONE book by ONE author which the article thereby implied was authoritative. I removed this section for reasons which I specified on the Talk Page as follows: "I have completely removed the sections concerning the effects of the atomic bombings and the reasons for the decision to use the bombs. It is a highly contentious issue and is being debated at length on the WP page about the bombing (Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). There is no point to having a stunted rehash of that article here too, and any interested reader would do MUCH better to refer to the article - which, luckily, is already cited in the text itself." I replaced the text I removed with the advice to go read the WP article on that subject specifically and included a hyperlink. Another person interested in the Szilard article, User SafeLibraries, agrees with this edit.

2) User Will314159 reversed my edit, not discussing it on the Talk page, merely labelling his edit on the History page "atomic bomb too close to subject's hear to minimize"

3) Considering this to be insufficient reason to reverse my edit, and having had answers to none of my objections on the Talk Page, I restored the edit that Will314159 had undone.

4) User Will314159 then reversed my edit, not discussing it on the Talk page, merely labelling his edit on the History page "Quit it Hil There you are trivializing man's lilfe" (Original spelling preserved)

5) I restored the my edit (which User Will314159 had removed) and I removed the section that he had reinserted. I put the following comment on the Talk page: "I am removing the section about the effects of and decision to drop the atomic bombs again. My previous remarks and reasons for removing the section are still valid; if you think otherwise please explain why. If you think that James Carroll's opinion is final and definitive, please support such a contention, which you could do, by, let's say, going to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Debate_over_the_decision_to_drop_the_bombs and citing Carroll there - and if all the participants in the discussions THERE accept Carroll's opinion as final and definitive and if all further debates therewith cease in deference to his opinion, then perhaps it will accepted here too; but if not, not."

6) Once again User Will314159 reversed my edit, and in lieu of discussing it on the Talk Page, merely contented himself with labelling my changes as "Vandalism" on the History page.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?

1) I would like the opinion of an uninvolved third party as to the appropriateness or otherwise of my editorial decision to remove the passage the originally removed, as having the implication that the book and author cited by User Will314159 have an authoritative opinion in the matter of the history of the atomic bomb. I also want the passage deleted as being (as I said) far too controversial and contentious to be discussed in anything other than a dedicated article, and certainly not to be discussed in a short biographical article.

2) If my edits are appropriate, I would like User Will314159 enjoined from making any more changes in the article, especially because (but not only because) he feels no need to discuss anything. (And frankly, this is a 0-sum game; I can only accept a link in the article to the complete WP article on the bombs, whereas he seems to think that the topic is simple enough to sum in a short paragraph and that he has found an author whose opinion is final, decisive, and beyond disputation.)


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

No, do it in public, so that we may all be enlightened. So a third opinion placed on the original Talk page of the disputed article would be good.

Mediator response
Working on it. This case seems to be lacking any meaningful communication on the part of one of the parties involved. Torinir  ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 20:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Interest in the case died fast and hard. Overlying issue seems to have been resolved outside of MC. Closing. Torinir ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 01:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.