Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/25 December 2011/Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive

Ground rules

Please keep all comments focused on the mediation. Proper editing decorum must be maintained, and as such, incivility and personal attacks must not occur, and I (Lord Roem) reserve the ability to archive, refactor or remove comments of such nature.
Try to keep an open mind in the case, and realise that sometimes, you need to give a little to get a little. Mediation is not possible without compromise as well as keeping an open mind.
When there are multiple issues that need to be addressed in a dispute (such as this one) only one particular issue or dispute is to be discussed at a time. Discussion that veers off course of the current topic may be archived at my discretion.
MedCab is not a formal part of the dispute resolution process, and cannot provide binding sanctions. Nevertheless, I ask that both involved agree to abide by the outcome of this case.
You will watchlist this page so as to keep track of all conversations and discussions.

- Itsmejudith (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Virago250 (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issue One: Proposed Merge

The statements have been submitted and all the basics are now done. We're making quick progress, so let's keep the momentum going with our first issue of discussion.

Before we can discuss any issues regarding the inclusion or exclusion of any content (as well as discussion of sources), we need to determine the viability of the article in and of itself. I think this is a gateway issue which can help resolve other parts of this dispute.

Virago says in his statement that the article in dispute, Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive "has almost nothing to do with the Max Planck Society of today". Rather, the article seems to concern the issue of the alleged censoring of materials at the same "Max Planck Society Archive". Virago has indicated a desire to "illustrate what happens when key historical materials are censored, and how historiography can bring this to light". Itsmejudith says in her statement that Virago "thinks Wikipedia is [a place for] 'righting great wrongs'".

So here are my questions to both parties to begin discussion. Please remember to have an open mind in this process.

To Virago, two questions: (1) Firstly, can you step into Itsmejudith's shoes and see how your statement could be interpreted as as trying to 'right great wrongs'? (2) Secondly, if the material you want to include is about censorship and the theories of history that surround it, can you provide a direct answer to why that should not be part of the original Max Planck society article?

To Itsmejudith: you have stated a determination to make the article more readable to readers of "different backgrounds". What suggestions can you offer to help us do that? I look forward to these comments as a springboard for deeper discussion. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it will help to move the mediation on if I say that on reflection it might be a good idea not to merge but to rename the page Max Planck Society Archive, which is currently a redirect. Then what we would do to make the article accessible to readers is to include all the basic points that one would expect in an article about an archive. What is in the archive? Where is it kept? Just all the banal stuff. And then there would be a section on Access. That is where the sourced statements about restriction of access to the archive would go. If we get any statements to the opposite effect, they would also go in there. There would be a link to the archive's web page where there is information about access to researchers. (It does indeed look restrictive, in my judgement, but readers will have to make up their own minds.) Would we include anything about historiography in general? About Arendt and Davidowicz? About the other archives containing information about colonial and/or Nazi atrocities where access has been restricted? That depends on whether we have reliable sources that have made such links. I really would leave out everything related to logic. Readers don't expect to find that in an article about an archive. They would be likely to stop reading as soon as they saw the very unfamiliar terms. And then we wouldn't be doing our job of passing on information. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Virago, what do you think about Itsmejudith's suggestion on renaming the page Max Planck Society Archive as described above? It may provide a better way to highlight this content. Lord Roem (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view, there are three major and insurmountable problems associated with Itsmejudith's suggestion of merging (or renaming) Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive with the Max Planck Society article:

(1) The Max Planck Society was created to rehabilitate Germany's self-image, so that Germany could act as a bulwark against the possible encroachment of Cold War Communism.

The public in general cannot be expected to be aware of how and why the Max Planck Society and its associated Institutes were created in the first place. This is very relevant. Expert historians in this area have pointed out that immediately after World War II the Allied governments had to deal with the chaos that would ensue in Germany if it became clear that almost the entire medical establishment in Germany was directly associated with the activities of the Nazi program. Such chaos would make it very hard to deal with the arising opposition to Communism; thus, a united effort was required. What would be gained by exposing the Nazi sympathies of almost the entire German medical establishment? The Cold War was given major priority instead. It was felt that this could be accomplished by renaming the Kaiser Wilhelm Society and its institutes as the "Max Planck" Society and institutes. In many cases, the former directors of the institutes and societies stayed on in the same capacity they had had before. This necessitated censorship. For example, the famous photograph of Max Planck greeting Adolf Hitler was made less accessible.

Some might feel that documenting these things in Wikipedia is an attempt to "right wrongs", but this fails to acknowledge what historians have already discovered independently. Were these historians all biased, seeking only to "right wrongs", or were they merely attempting to expose historical facts? Indeed, the information this is based upon has only been open to the public since 1995 (a 50 year wait after the end of World War II in 1945: the legal requirement). The historian of greatest expertise who deals with this matter is Hans-Walter Schmuhl, whose work I have referenced extensively in other directly related articles. (This article was needed so that it could be referenced by those other, previously-written articles.) Schmuhl is not alone, for Gretchen Schafft was prevented from accessing the records archived at the Max Planck Society Archive. While Gretchen Schafft may be trying to "right wrongs" (a view only expressed, thus far, by Itsmejudith), all the evidence I have seen seems to be based on facts. This is precisely what a historian should try to do.

It has also been pointed out that personnel from the Max Planck Society Archive relabeled subject material under different names not made public, and then restricted access only to these newly-renamed materials. It is hard to know exactly what is in the Max Planck Society Archive, as the names of the newly-reclassified materials was never made available to the public; thus, the materials cannot be accessed. Thus, there might very well be things that no historian knows about at all. How are we to find out what these are? In addition to this, the personnel have refused to collect material, and have destroyed some material. (See Schafft.)

(2) It is not appropriate to merge this article into "Max Planck Society".

It appears that the Max Planck Society Archive is heavily engaged in various forms of censorship of data referring to the Second and Third Reichs, as well as personnel associated with the Second and Third Reichs at the Kaiser Wilhelm Society and associated institutes. To place associated information concerning the censorship, and how it has been determined to be censored, in an article about the Max Planck Society, would be similar to placing expert information on the Protestant Reformation in an article about Roman Catholicism, or a sympathetic view of Joe McCarthy's influence on Cold War politics in an article about the greatest achievements of American democracy. If I thought that opening up a view of the Max Planck Society Archive under the Max Planck Society Wikipage would be constructive, I would have added the material to that page at the outset. (In fact, that was my first thought. When I realized that this probably wouldn't be appropriate, I then wondered if there might be other pages associated with the Max Planck Society or its institutes, that would be more appropriate. I could not find any other Wikipedia page associated with the Max Planck Society or the Kaiser Wilhelm Society that seemed appropriate; thus, my only alternative was to create a new page.) I fully agree that economizing by reducing the number of associated pages on any topic is the preferred approach, but sometimes it doesn't work.

(3) To exclude logic would make it impossible to understand the viewpoint of Lucy Dawidowicz and Hannah Arendt, critical to this article.

As the major point of the article, Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive, is to establish several forms of censorship, both during the Second Reich and the Third Reich, as well as specific techniques used by historiographers to bring these things to light, historiography does not actually belong under the Max Planck Society (a society not directly connected with historiography); thus, it requires a separate subject in itself. Therefore, the linkage to Lucy Dawidowicz and Hannah Arendt, both of whom deal specifically with these subjects. It should be noted that the articles on Lucy Dawidowicz and the article on Hannah Arendt, already existed and were available for use, before I wrote Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive. I assumed that these Wikipedia articles were unbiased and were not trying to "right great wrongs", but rather dealt directly with the issues. As Lucy Dawidowicz bases her view of historiography on continuity (understood as Cauchy's definition of Continuous function), and as this definition in its modern form (post-Bertrand Russell) requires predicate calculus, a discussion of logic seems impossible to avoid. Indeed, to avoid it would make it impossible to understand what Lucy Dawidowicz is talking about. Most people think that history requires a reference to time; thus, the continuity should have time or something that is time-like as an independent variable.

Regarding a sympathetic view of Itsmejudith's position, I would repeat that I agree that making this article as accessible and easy to understand as possible, is important. I take this very seriously! I have made references to already-existing Wikipedia links in part so that they would be viewed almost as parentheticals to be examined only for those with the desire to dig deeper. To simplify by not mentioning these associated areas, would unfortunately perpetuate the ignorance of the reader, who is unaware of the complications. Please take note: I'm not attacking Itsmejudith. I am, rather, trying to broaden the reader.

Lastly, the view expressed by Itsmejudith that articles in Wikipedia should properly be addressed to high school students comes as a great surprise, and in fact does a great disservice to Wikipedia as a whole. An encyclopedia is intended to serve a very wide range of readers and topics, from the most elementary to the most advanced. Such collections make topics available to readers who may not otherwise ever be exposed to such topics. As such, an encyclopedia should be very democratic. Why deny high school students (or anyone) the chance to dip into topics such as historiography, especially when there is a very relevant tie-in between seemingly disparate topics? For example, why can't high school readers be exposed to differential geometry or Lie Algebra or Galois Fields (to explain Einstein's views of general relativity)? It is also not clear to me that Itsmejudith fairly represents any particular constituency.

I'm sorry if I've gone slightly outside the boundary of Lord Roem's request, above, but I felt that this was necessary to elucidate parts of my position. Is Itsmejudith willing to provide citations to support her position, and can she point out exactly where I am 'trying to right great wrongs', rather than simply stating the facts?

Virago, I appreciate your answer, but I think you missed Itsmejudith's new suggestion. She suggests converting this article to a current redirect Max Planck Society Archive. Such a page would be separate from Max Planck Society as it would only be about the archive. As Itsmejudith says, this article can then include information about the archive's accessibility. What do you think about that?

Additionally, let me ask you to limit down on the issues we talk about. Your third point above was on a different subject -- a subject we will cover in this mediation -- but let's do our best to do it one at a time, ok?

So, please respond to Itsmejudith's revised suggestion, as she has forgone wanting to merge it into the Society article. Lord Roem (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Roem, I didn't miss Itsmejudith's new suggestion. Combining this article with the general article on the Max Planck Society or renaming this article Max Planck Society Archive are both intended to harvest the most general information from Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive -- about two small paragraphs' worth of information. Thus we would create some nice article that's "encyclopedic" in format and hardly says anything, at the utter expense of all the material on historiography. This is a solution?

To my mind, the main "added value" of Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive is in the very material that would be excised as part of such a change. Do you (or does Itsmejudith) have any suggestions about reusing the Historiography information that is currently in the sections of Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive? Virago250 (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is now a discussion about a rename, as I have withdrawn the proposal for merge. And it is also about what content should remain after merge. Maybe we should discuss each of those in turn? I will just address the rename question now. The article can't keep its existing name. The capitalisation is wrong, for one thing. And for another, it isn't a clear name. It isn't a general article about research materials. What are research materials, anyway, if not documents in an archive? And what is an archive, if not a collection of documents that can be potentially be used for research. I don't know of any other article that has a colon in its title except for articles on books where the colon introduces the book subtitle. Virago, what do you think "Research Materials" adds here? Does it help a reader find their way to the page? There is lots else I can say in response to your previous post, but will stick to this for now. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Itsmejudith, my main concern is to preserve the material on German historiography in the Second and Third Reichs. I cede on the issue of renaming the article, but request of Lord Roem that we come to an understanding of where the information on historiography might henceforth reside, after it is excised from the newly-renamed article. Virago250 (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-read the material several times and I don't think there is an easy solution. There are things you wish to say about historiography, rewriting of history and logic. If they are things that have already been said by reliable sources, then the material needs more footnotes for verification. And after those footnotes are added it may be clearer where the material belongs. But if they are things that you personally want to say, then all I can suggest is that you publish them elsewhere. If your essay is accepted as an article in an academic journal, then we can cite it here. Also, I really still don't understand it all, and I'm sure I'm in as good a position to understand as most editors you will find here. To be honest, I don't think you should have to know mathematical logic in order to recognise that it is wrong to cover up genocide. But if Lucy Davidowicz argued the contrary, perhaps you could give the exact citation and then I will try to look it up. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's take each issue in turn. I think Virago is right that, if we reach consensus on inclusion of some material, then two paragraphs may not suffice. But we'll have to work together to see. Right now though, let's see what a few days has given us: a first agreement. So, to confirm both parties' agreement on renaming, I want you two to sign below. Then we can move on to discussing specific material in the work. Lord Roem (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(1): Mediation parties agree to rename the article Max Planck Society Archive.

Issue Two: Lucy Dawidowicz

Now that we have consensus on the first point, let's move on to some tougher issues -- content material. A core dispute seems to be over the inclusion of Lucy Dawidowicz's work.

For both editors - and before you respond to each other - post a very short bulleted list of why this person's work should or should not be included. As other issues are wrapped up here, it may be better to deal with each subpoint one-by-one. Virago - this is primarily a task for you, to justify its inclusion.

Let's resume! Lord Roem (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, all. I am involved with some family issues for the next few days and may not respond quickly, but I will respond anon. Virago250 (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal from mediation

Lord Roem asks that I justify the inclusion of Lucy Dawidowicz's work on historiography in this article. In brief: the intent of this Wikipedia article is to discuss the consequences of censorship on the historical record. Dawidowicz's work in historiography is the very core of this article. The article is not about censorship of the Holocaust per se, but about what happens when the historical record is compromised through censorship.

I think that in many ways I have been naive to try to write such an article in Wikipedia, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". The warnings are all over the editorial interface, especially:

If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.

I am not so enamoured of my own work that I cannot handle constructive criticism, but I am much more used to writing in an academic environment, where constructive criticism is generally supported by citations. (In other words, those who criticize have an academic argument.) I was not prepared to deal with 'edits' to an article on historiography, by someone who knows nothing about the topic. (I am not casting aspersion on Itsmejudith's expertise as an editor, but a look at her contributions will quickly reveal that she's not an expert on historiography.)

It may be that Wikipedia is not the proper venue for an article of this type.

I thank Lord Roem for his attempt to handle the 'dispute' between me and Itsmejudith, but I think, now, that my filing of the dispute was a waste of everyone's time. The work that I began with this article will be deepened and submitted for publication in an academic venue.

Best wishes,Virago250 (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Virago. I appreciate your honesty and find your approach refreshing. Actually I can hold my own in academic debate on historiography. But not in Wikipedia, which is not a good place for complex academic arguments. It's a Gradgrind kind of place: facts, facts, facts. As I said a while back, you have done Wikipedia a great service in bringing our attention to the works of Sarkin, Schmul and others. I am sure that you will be able to publish your ideas in an academic journal and will look out for them. Did you see, by the way, that I raised the Sarkin book in the discussion on WP:HISTRS, the outline policy on good sources in history? If you wanted to comment further on HISTRS, then I know that several of us would value your views. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]