CZ Talk:Managing Editor/2010/002 - References to war criminals

Initial comments

Moved from main page

How on earth do you think that this question could fall under the jurisdiction of the Managing Editor? You, who fought bitterly practically to the last bunker in Berlin to *keep from having* a Managing Editor in the first place! This is clearly, clearly, clearly a matter for the Editorial Council, and no one else. And I certainly don't look forward to the arguments that are going to rage about this matter. Hayford Peirce 22:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

But the Managing Editor is in the Charter, and I don't propose to sabotage him making interim determinations that are keeping an article flapping. I could simply make a History Editor ruling, although I'd be hesitant, but not utterly opposed, to making such a ruling. So I'm in trouble, now, for following the majority decision that I opposed?

Those that supported the Managing Editor insisted there would be urgent matters to which the EC could not respond in a useful time, and I see this as demonstrating their point. The EC must address Article Policy, and that indeed won't be easy -- yet it's among the most fundamental things facing the Council. Such a discussion might use this as an example, but the EC has to write more general policy.

Had a policy been in place, then this certainly would have been appropriate to submit to the EC for an interpretation. Had there been another available History Editor, I'd be glad to defer. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say that deciding whether or not call Dr. Mengele a war criminal or not must be about number 17,453 on the list of "urgent matters" to take care of right now. There may indeed be larger issues involved, but I would wager that right now only you and Martin care a whit about this particular question. Eventually the EC will get around to this matter; when, who knows? Hayford Peirce 22:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it's lower than 18,000. :-) Nevertheless, I was under the impression that the ME could act if the EC could not. This seems a classic case, when there is a shortage of History authors, and an article is in a revert war. "War criminal" is being deleted from direct quotes that are clearly the opinion of experts. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I was not informed of Howard's outrageous act, in asking the ME to overrule a social science editor who is on the EC. I suggest you take this matter to the Ombudsman, Howard, to ask for a ruling on Neutrality. I do not find it appropriate to approach the ME, especially as this article was chosen by us as an exemplar of how to write for CZ neutrality. Basically, you do not accept professional criticism or debate and this is not how editors should behave on CZ. It is not possible for Daniel to rewrite the CZ neutrality policy, and if he should try then the EC will doubtless over-rule him and possibly censure him. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 23:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Can any of you point me to a public place where it is stated that the EC are to engage in this experiment? I would also appreciate a brief comment on why the test wiki was not chosen as a venue for it, or whether the experiment could be moved there. --Daniel Mietchen 23:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It was not intended as an experiment and it is not authorised by the EC. This has arisen out of a discussion initiated by Howard on the Talk page of Neutrality Policy, with Gareth's ordering of material for guidance to citizens. I suggested that the best way to explain CZ policy is to write an article as exemplar, asking Howard to delay one week for me to finish some professional work. he started the article on his own, and I made two alterations -- objecting to the term "war criminal" for people who have not been indicted and convicted. I have not even started to comment or edit on more substantive matters.

So, in summary this is supposed to be a collaboration by two EC members and editors. It is not an experiment as such. However, I assumed that collaboration implied that Howard would be prepared to concede issues, and apparently he sees it as an opportunity to redefine CZ policy. In this light, it does indeed look like an experiment, and one that I would never have engaged in. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 23:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It was never stated that this was an EC experiment. See [1]. It was mentioned as a discussion, using an article I had started.

I had understood the agreement was to write an article as an exemplar, and then to discuss it a week later. I had never thought it was to stop writing -- after all, what would there be to discuss?

To me, it was no more than an example to be used. To me, comment or debate starts on the Talk Page; it does not include edit warring in the office. "Basically, you do not accept professional criticism or debate and this is not how editors should behave on CZ" is, to me, a violation of civility with a personal accusation.

So, Daniel, it wasn't a formal EC experiment. It has become, however, a hostile place to write an article. In the meantime, I will be putting in more clarifications of the usage of "war criminal", with supporting articles at least on war crimes, in a text box at the start of the article. I will restore the deletion of the direct quote at [2], with this supporting information, and will restore any other deletion within attributed quotes. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)