Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Confederate States of America

Dear Moderator,

I respectfully request mediation/arbitration regarding the following article: Confederate States of America. Specifically, the Texas v. White sub-escion

The gist of the issue is that there is definitely a matter of disagreement over content of the above, and all attempts at compromise have failed. The "Talk" page history will clearly outline it.

All the other editors agree that TexasReb has no reliable secondary sources for his fringe neo-Confederate position. He insists on his own personal reading of a Supreme Court case. Rjensen (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. That has been TexasReb's pattern throughout. He derides consensus and insists that his personal views are more important than reliable sources. Then he makes threats of taking things to "higher authorities" if he doesn't get his way. Red Harvest (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Moderator(s). As perhaps can be gleaned from the above comments, compromise is impossible. I have attempted it time and time again and to no avail. None of the above editors have remotely proved their accusations that I have failed to provide reliable sources which fit comfortably into Wikipedia rules. In fact, what appears to be taking place is a "concerted" effort on the part of certain parties to shut down/censor any information that they don't want included; they refuse to assume "good faith" and have no basis whatsoever to delete relevant information. In this case, nothing more than a neutral, non-POV, summary of the dissenting opinion in the Texas v. White sub-article of the larger Confederate States of America article.

Some of the replies to me have actually bordered on libel. For instance, RJensen accusing me of "hating" the United States of America (just as one instance). Without any sort of basis, this editor lashes out at me with extremely hostile language and malicious accusations. Then, to elaborate a bit on the "reliable sources" issue? When challenged? He "shifts gears" to even greater degrees of nonsense. This editor, unfortunately, has a history of censoring information he doesn't agree with and always justifying it with the claim the sources are unreliable, or the inclusion is "not relevant", or that the editor has a "fringe" viewpoint, or etc, etc. ad absurdum...

Red Harvest's position is equally absurd. His accusation that my addition of the dissenting opinion in Texas v. White -- as worded -- is POV -- and that I am throwing a "temper tantrum" over the fact it was unjustifiably deleted is nothing short of ridiculous. And the "if I don't get my way" observation makes no sense at all, either. If all I wanted to do was "get my way", I would have gone to mediation/arbitration long ago. I finally did because I see no other alternative. And I have never objected to a consensus; I only object when it becomes a "bully tactic" and on important issues. That is, certain controlling editors using it as their sledge-hammer to pound down anything they disagree with.

As is though, all I request is a fair hearing and fair decision. Please read the original inclusion and wording of my addition to the Texas v. White section, as well as the "edit war" and who started it, and the subsequent exchange on the "Talk Page" over it all. I can only base my "case" upon all these things. And I have not the slightest hesitation in presented them for fair review and judgment.

I respectfully ask that this thing be settled once and for all. It is getting out of hand, and I promise to abide by whatever is the final decision. TexasReb (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

As an addendum, I just want to add the text from my original inclusion of the dissenting opinion. Here it is:

Two separate dissenting opinions were written by the three justices in the minority. While calling secession and subsequent support given it by the majority of Texas voters "a very ill advised measure"[194] Justice Robert Grier opined that Texas was not a state by constitutional definition and had not been since it declared its secession from the United States in 1861, and this particular issue should be decided on "political fact and not as a legal fiction."[195]. Thus, he concluded Texas had no standing to file a suit before the Supreme Court. In writing a separate dissent, Justice Noah Swayne (speaking for himself and Justice Samuel Miller), sided with the majority opinion on the "merits of the case" itself, but agreed with Grier that Texas was not a state within the Union at the present time.[196]

I realize this is not a decision for me to make in terms of inclusion or not; that is up to Moderators. I only want to present what I wrote as proof there was no POV involved, that it was properly sourced by Wikipedia rules, and was neutrally worded.

I probably should have mentioned before that another editor later weighed in on the subject as well. While I would not and will not presume to comment on his motivations, it does appear though (at least IMHO), that he is a bit appalled himself as to how the "consenus" thing is manifesting. That is, something like a "smug" consensus among certain editors who take their numerical superiority for granted and use it to appeal to the same to shut down anything they don't like.

It has been proposed to remove the Texas v. White section entirely. Failing that? Then at least the "fairness" that would include a summary of the dissenting opinion just as was the majority opinion. Nothing more than those suggestions, in the least. Respectfully, TexasReb (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The other editors all agree that the dissenting opinion in the Texas-v-white case had no legal importance, while the majority opinion was the law of the land and finalized the status of the Confederacy and the secessionist states. The other editors all agree on the need for a short statement regarding the content of the majority opinion because it deals directly with the faith of the Confederacy, and we see no need for any mention of the dissenting opinion. TexasReb strongly dislikes the majority opinion. Therefore he keeps harping on the minority opinion not because it is important, but because he thinks it delegitimizes the majority opinion in a way that appeals to neo-Confederates. His opinions are Not based on any reliable source – He has not found a single scholar who agrees with him, which is why he relies on his own (mis)reading of the primary source text of the dissenting opinions. The other editors all agree this is heavy-handed POV degrades the quality the article. Rjensen (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

And the dissent written by a single justice (Grier, a Jacksonian Democrat) did not claim that secession was constitutional, so it did not dispute a key finding that the majority opinion made. The other two justices who dissented did so for far different reasons (almost the polar opposite of Grier) because they supported the Radical Republican view that the reconstruction govt. should not be allowed to file the suit. The recent attempt to have the Texas vs. White paragraph removed emphasized how only things that directly related to the CSA should be in the article. Grier's dissent and certainly the other two do not fit that bill. Red Harvest (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Moderator(s).

At least on this page, as pertains to a request for arbitration, I am not going to address anything at all to RJensen or Red Harvest, and haven't been. No sense in it; such is pointless.

It seems the posts of the editors in question are an attempt to justify an unjustifiable removal/censoring/deletion of properly sourced, relevant, neutral, and non-POV material. I hope my "case" as presented above will verify that. If the entire section (Texas v. White) remains, then my position (as is that of another editor who was also "shut down") is and only is, that the dissenting opinion should be included as well. Nothing more than that. It seems that certain editors are going to almost desperate lengths to keep such out, but only giving their own biased POV as to why..?

I have never once attempted to "shut down" any other viewpoint on the issue. However, to justify their own position, rings like a bell on how they truly regard "good faith" and relevant material. That is, not much at all. The reliance on "consensus" -- in this instance -- it seems -- is born out of the assurance that a numerical superiority is there; not a platform of good ground to stand on, under Wikipedia rules. TexasReb (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)