User:Bigeez/Collaboration and resistance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Prologue (NOT to be included in the subsection):
Over the past few months, Talk:World War II has debated “collaboration” more than Westminster and Brexit. Though some seventy-five years have elapsed since the war ended, “collaboration” stands as a dodgy and combustible topic. The most significant problem appears to be the lack of consensus from scholars and the proper definition of the term. Perhaps, there is a unity of mistrust among those countries who have been branded as fostering collaboration. Or, are they absenting themselves from any moral standpoint of decency? This might explain why scarcely the mere mention of collaboration conjures collusion among editors and finger-pointing, not only in Wikipedia as we have seen but elsewhere. As we have witnessed, the cauldron boiled over, and summary judgment quickly followed. I confess, there is a growing attitude or assumption about collaboration. One thing is quite clear: little faith is to be had in whoever writes this subsection. Factual evidence presented by scholars, historians, and well-known authors is not enough it seems. Perhaps one’s national conscience deterred their scholars from addressing it in the past. When they had, they were dismissed by frivolous attempts aimed at discrediting their work. Indeed, the epistemic justification of the information — the credibility of the available evidence regarding that particular time — in and of itself supports the decision to write about it. The epistemological thought process — the study and determination to write a book on collaboration — has been rendered by scholars, university professors, historians, and yes, by those who were discredited by some. In this subsection, those writers who have been referenced had no fear of their writings. In fact, for them, it was a release. Therefore, nowhere can that same transfer of information be hindered: not on Wikipedia, nor anywhere else. The pulse of one nation’s people, transferred to historians or authors who are — or were — natives of German-occupied Europe, has become the most crucial references on this subsection and have analysed the evidence in detail. In closing, we must be reminded that the unfortunate consequence of the omission of ‘collaboration’ will give the public the impression that nationalistic views take precedence over truth. That impression will undermine the public’s confidence in Wikipedia’s impartiality: specifically, its editorial board, whom I greatly respect. Therefore, let us widen our lenses, and barring any unforeseen crisis, it is doubtful the subsection will go unwritten. Wikipedia’s editors alone possess agency to act. Therefore, to each, his/her own judgment on history. Lastly, if it is ignored, its moral implications will be sacrificed on the altar of one’s national pride.