Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Statusclosed
Request dateUnknown
Requesting partyUnknown
Commentwent to arbcom, please file a new request if problem persists

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|]]

This page is the second case page to exist at this location. For the original, see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive 1. Thank you for your understanding!

Request information[edit]

  • Request originally made by AdamKesher on 14:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Request summary:
    Dispute over the inclusion of links to relevant and informative information about the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict in its External links section. One side argues that these links are relevant and appropriate and that their continued deletion constitutes censorship; the other side asserts that including these links is a violation of Wikipedia's rules. I note that recently the opposition side has been deleting these links without prior discussion on the talk page.

Summary[edit]

2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict - inclusion of links to blogs and sites with images

For Against
AdamKesher, Cerejota, Iorek85 Denis Diderot, tasc, Barberio
The links under question are:
*closely related to the article itself
*argued to be of a high standard (web collectives of writers, compendiums of news agency photos, etc.)
*providing a unique resource of frontline observations beyond what the article can provide		 The blogs were clearly not reliable sources, they expressed a strong POV, they were not selected according to NPOV criteria, and the claim that they really were "frontline blogs" had not been verified.
They were blogs, they contained unverified original research, some contained copyrighted material, they were not reliable sources of information like textbooks, and there were already a number of external links.

Please note that these are quotes from the previous case page.

Mediator response[edit]

You are going to need to compromise.

"In arguments, compromise is a concept of finding agreement through communication, through a mutual acceptance of terms —often involving variations from an original goal or desire. It is the central aspect of any process of negotiation wherin disagreement exists, but both parties consider an outcome of agreement to be more important than the potential gain of particular items."

Also remember, this is Wikipedia. Verifiability > truth. Encyclopedia > policy.
That being said, a compromise should keep this in mind:

  1. This article is meant to be an encyclopedic article which is useful to the reader.
    1. Will the inclusion of blogs be useful to the reader and inform them more?
    2. Is encyclopedic elitism trumped by usability and a more complete understanding?
  2. The pursuit is not of truth, but of an informative and neutral article.
    1. If CNN says this and you think it's "propaganda", it's irrelevant, because CNN still said it.
    2. Etc.
  3. The article must not mislead or misinform the reader.
    1. Are the blogs incorrect? Or are they merely biased? (There is a difference)
    2. Is our linking to them going to provide undue importance?

Keeping these general things in mind, I'm sure you can come up with an agreeable and helpful solution. --Keitei (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise[edit]

Offers from the "For" crowd[edit]

I propose an NPOV-balanced list of quality to high quality blogs and compilations of news service photographs that satisfy WP:EL. As an example, I suggect the following links, which present views from both sides:

BEGIN
Frontline blogs
Israeli blogs
Lebanese blogs
Frontline photographs
Warning: Extremely graphic wartime imagery
END

I furthermore propose that the inclusion or exclusion of any specific blog or compilation of news service photographs should be subject to the community of editors, and these links should not be removed wholesale; the intent is to have about this many, of this quality or better. AdamKesher 01:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offers from the "Against" crowd[edit]

At the moment, I'm ready to accept a limited selection of Blog Sites that are of a reasionable high standard of quality, so long as we mark these links with Template:Unverifiable-external-links.

I'm not ready to accept sites such as hirhome.com, that pass themselves off as 'factual' articles when they are unverified opinion, and 'image colections' made up of copyrighted materials used without licence. I'm fine with linking to image collections of accredited photo journalists and news sites, as these sites are both licensed to use the images and have a higher verifiability in atributing and identifying the images. --Barberio 23:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have predicated your acceptance for External Links that are acceptable under WP:EL on the inclusion of a template that is proposed for deletion. Furthermore, as may be seen at this page, you have used the presence of this template to label such links "dubious" and suggest that it implies that they should be "replaced":

"The template has had language added that makes it clear that these links should be replaced."

This does not sound like the compromise you have proposed above. We want a meaningful solution, not one that will break down if this template is deleted. What do you propose to do if the template is deleted? What guarantees are there that if this link is included, you or other will not declare WP:EL-acceptable links dubious and subject to deletion, based on this template? AdamKesher 01:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have not yet conceded in any way that these sites are acceptable under WP:EL, and I don't belive you've demonstrated that yet either. I'm willing to make an exception and allow these links under the suggested template, or other similar warning. The template recomends that the links be reviewed, but all articles should be reviewed all the time. Since blog sites are potentialy volatile and may become hugely inacurate, or suddenly disapear, I think it's appropriate to have a clear recomendation of continual review of the links. And yes, if an editor could find a similar source that is verifiable, and provided the same information as the blogs, then that link should be replaced.
Please try to understand the concept of Wikipedia:No binding decisions. This mediation is solely between you and the people currently named. If a group of editors, in the future, form a consensus to remove those links, then there is nothing this mediation process can produce to stop them. If someone deletes the links without consensus support, then you could restore them with an apropriate edit summary or discussion on the talk page. I'm not going to make any kind of guarantees that the links will not be deleted in the future by other editors, because it is not somthing I could offer under Wikipedia Policy.
At the moment, the 'limited number of blog links under a reader warning, no links to deliberatly misleading sites, no links to copyvio sites' offer is all that's on the table from me. You can suggest an alternative compromise of your own if you want. I'm trying to compromise, but I'm not just going to give in and let you have all you want. --Barberio 10:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The heart of the discussion and any hope of compromise must rest on the issue if the proposed links adhere to Wikipedia's WP:EL policy. I have argued that the links above are:
  • closely related to the article itself
  • argued to be of a high standard (web collectives of writers, compendiums of news agency photos, etc.)
  • providing a unique resource of frontline observations beyond what the article can provide
which is entirely consistent with WP:EL. You say that you "have not yet conceded in any way that these sites are acceptable under WP:EL, and I don't belive you've demonstrated that yet either." This is an inadequate response the the substantive arguments raised in favor of these links. Do you believe that the links proposed above are in violation of WP:EL? If so, why? AdamKesher 14:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a subtle problem with your arguments.
  • closely related to the article itself
The blogs may be closely related to the article, but the article is not closely related to the blogs. The WP:EL requirment is that the article subject be closely related to the link, not the other way around. As I already stated, it would be inapropriate for the article on Oxford University to link to a student's blog that talks about thier experiences at Oxford University. Although the blog is closely related to Oxford University, the Article is not related to the Blog.
  • argued to be of a high standard (web collectives of writers, compendiums of news agency photos, etc.)
Again, this is not the requirment. The requirment is that these articles are of a particularly high standard. This is something that would have to be agreed by consensus, and not simply 'argued' by some.
  • providing a unique resource of frontline observations beyond what the article can provide
First of all, the term 'frontline' is not really apropriate unless the blogger is engaged in actual ground combat areas. Using this term is simply an emotive phrase, and inapropriate. Second, all of these 'observations' are eventualy noted by the accredited media, and it is prefered to source from these verfiable reports. You may mean that they provide unique opinions, which I do not feel satisfies the requirments for a unique resource the article could not otherwise provide itself.
Again, I am still unsatisfied that these links abide by WP:EL. --Barberio 15:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a glaring flaw in your argument: WP:EL doesn't say this at all. The precise wording is:

"there are exceptions [to blog links], such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard."

Note the logical OR—only one of these conditions need be met to qualify as an exception, but I'm arguing that many of them are. The article is manifestly "closely related" these websites which all write about the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Furthermore, they do indeed meet a particularly high standard, most being online journals for which submission is required to publish, or of sufficiently high quality or interest that they have been featured in The New York Times[3] and other newspapers of record. Finally, they provide compendiums of news service photographs, several of which have also been published in highly respectable news organizations. I understand that you believe that these links "do not adhere to WP:EL," but you have not explained why you believe this.
  • Why does a blog that has been featured in The New York Times[4] not meet a "particularly high standard"?
  • Why do you believe that people anywhere in Lebanon or north-central Israel are not on the "frontlines" of this conflict?
  • Why do you believe that news service photographs—or even private photographs from blogs featured in the NYT and elsewhere—do not satisfy "a particularly high standard"?
  • Why do you believe the Wikipedia article 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is not closely related to blogs and photographs dealing with the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict?
If we are to apply WP:EL (that uses OR in its criteria for the inclusion of links), you must provide a reasonable argument addressing each of these issues. Failing that, we must agree that the proposed links satisfy WP:EL. I'll help you with the pointer to this policy on Wiki's links normally to be avoided. Which one of these 9 conditions is met without exception by these links? AdamKesher 17:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to say this again clearly. The Blogs may be closely related to the Article, but the Article is not closely related to the blogs. It is assosiated to the blogs, by their connection to the subject matter, but the article is not about those blogs. If this was a specific article on media coverage of the conflict, then your argument might stand, but it is not. In the terms of mathmatics, this is a one way relation. The blogs close link to the subject matter does not imply a close link from the subject matter to the blogs. You can continue to say that the blogs are closely linked to the article all you want, but that doesn't mean that the article is closely linked to the blogs.
Sugestion that we link to copyvio sites (sites that publish copyrighted materials without permisions) is not even up for discussion, it's not going to happen. We should not link to these sites. We can, and should link to the CNN image site, but we should not link to a site that agrigates these images without permision from the copyright holder.
I'm unable to asess your claim that the NY Times belives these sites to be of a 'particularly high standard' since your reference points to a 'premium content' article. However, the opinion of an editorial peice should not substitute for a consensus agreement of wikipedia editors. I'm unsure if you claim that the NYT has said the blog sites named are of a high standard, or if they just highlighted these blogs. Mention in a newspaper editorial is not an automatic indicator of quality.
Again, I stand by my position that 'Frontline Blogs' is a misleadingly emotive term. 'Frontlines' are where the ground combat troops are, being 'on the frontline' is a term for being at or very near to ground fighting, not in the area of a bombing campaign. 'Regional Blogs' or 'Conflict Region Blogs' would be less emotive and more accurate. --Barberio 00:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is logically absurd. According to Oxford, the word "related" means "belonging to the same family, group, or type; connected." This is a symmetric relationship. It just doesn't make sense to say that A is "closely realted" to B while at the same time arguing that B is not "close related" to A. Again, you have not explained your opposition to these links in the plain terms of Wikipedia policy WP:EL. Finally, I would not necessarily oppose the change of wording from frontline, but arguing that people anywhere in Lebanon or north-central Israel are not on the front lines of this conflict is, again, absurd. AdamKesher 14:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've tried. By your arguments, almost any blog can be linked to under your interpertation of the exceptions. And frankly you're argument is weak and clearly self condratictory. You appear to be flat refusing to belive in the concept of an asymetrical relationship. I think you are making a huge strech of the intent of those exceptions; I reject that argument, and I stick to my original offer. A limited number of blogs, under a clear warning that they are unverifiable, and no longer calling them 'Frontline Blogs'. You can reject it, or accept it. --Barberio 15:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about this: Each external link is presented for voting on the talk page, and editors are asked to go to the site and vote for it if they think it is of reasonable quality. Once there is a +3 outcome, it is added to the page. On the page itself, add a line such as "The following links are from blogs which may not be reputable news sources. They may provide more informed information, but they are not guaranteed to be truth." or perhaps something like that which is more NPOV and not giving a bias. The point being that it isn't a template, but a statement for this page.
That doesn't address the equal stress on both sides, but it does handle ensuring quality of sites we link to and a small disclaimer. Anyhow, just a suggestion. --Keitei (talk) 06:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Altho an intresting offer, I don't think it'd work. Right now it'd be a mess to try and organise a fair and even poll for the article. Aditionaly, this kind of solution is generaly frowned upon because it adds beuocracy and a false appearance of democracy. (Poll outcomes on wikipedia are only ever a plurality of those interested in taking the poll).
Wikipedia:No binding decisions, meta:Don't vote on everything WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy, Wikipedia is not an experiment in rules making.
I do think the warning over the lack of verifiability on the sites should be obvious, and unambiguious. If it, and similar warnings, should be a template or not is being discussed elsewhere, and is probably out of scope for this mediation now. --Barberio 10:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it'd be useful to begin a system to establish and maintain a current idea of consensus. Not necessarily voting, but a way to know if the blog has suddenly veered into the irrelevant or disreputable. If such a system is drawn up and continued, it won't be a single (very long) discussion every month or so that anyone can ignore and claim that they can do whatever because it wasn't a binding decision. A continued solution that can change as quickly as this conflict does seems to be in the best interest? Opinions on that? --Keitei (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having raised the issue on Wikipedia talk:External links, I belive it's consensus that "The article should be related to the blog, not the blog related to the article.", which I belive eliminates the argument that the links are allowable under this exception. --Barberio 10:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with Barberio's offer - it's pretty much what we have already. Frontline isn't a necessary tag. --Iorek85 13:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreements[edit]

Discussion[edit]

I cannot possibly reach any agreement with someone as ill willed as Barbeiro, who has made a mockery of the process. Either take me out of this proceeding or move to ArbCom. --Cerejota 22:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request Assistance for Unmitigated and Unsubstantiated Edits by tasc, Contrary to Mediation[edit]

I concur with Cerejota in his comment under "Discussion" above. I also note that tasc has again deleted these links without discussion here or in the other case currently under informal mediation (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-02 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict Photographs), yet in his edit comments asserts that this has been done to remove "propaganda". I ask again as I have before of this issue: "tasc deleted the very links discussed on this mediation page without resorting to either mediation or the talk page—the commented explanation is "rm propaganda." He has apparently violated WP:3RR, and is involved in numerous other disputes with other editors who complain about POV edits without explanation through talk or mediation. I would suggest that this continuing problem has repeated itself too many times, gone on too long, and should be stopped in accordance with whichever Wikipedia policies are deemed to be appropriate." AdamKesher 11:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This mediation process has been flagrantly ignored and abused by those who wish to delete information from the article. I note that tasc has again deleted these links while thumbing his nose at this process. This particular user has been banned several times in the past for similar actions. By my lights, his actions in this dispute warrant at least this response. Really, what good is this mediation process if individuals are allowed to act in this way with impunity, suffering no consequences whatsoever? As Cerejota points out, this has become a mockery. I'm not sure how to take this to the next level or if it's even appropriate that I be involved, but if someone outlines the proper steps, I'll take them. AdamKesher 13:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that tasc has again deleted these links while thumbing his nose at this process. AdamKesher 15:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page for this information moderation is Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.

No Progress[edit]

It appears that this mediation is stalled, since neither Cerejota or Adam are willing to offer any compromise on their positions. I've tried to make a compromise on this, and feel somewhat anoyed over the characterisation that I've been obstructive. --Barberio 11:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a ridiculous assertion, and adds weight to Cerejota's accusation above of your ill will and mockery of the mediation process. AdamKesher 13:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Barbeiro, if asking for the removal of a moderator without raising your concerns here first is not a clear demonstration of your stalling of the process, then we live on different planets.--Cerejota 12:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration[edit]

Based on the fact that this mediation process has been ignored and mocked, I have requested arbitration on the censorship of links and images that satisfy Wikipedia policies WP:EL and others. Please see the page Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Deletion_of_WP:EL-compliant_links_and_images_from_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict. AdamKesher 16:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'm unsure if we should continue mediation with the people still willing to discuss things, (which appears to be me and Iorek85), or suspend this till after arbitration. (Which will probably take considerable time) --Barberio 09:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the problem Barbeiro this process is not about you, its about all of us. You continue to mock the process.--Cerejota 12:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Tom Zeller Jr. (2006-07-24). "Anne Frank 2006: War Diaries Online". The New York Times. Retrieved 2006-07-28.
  2. ^ "ISRAELI AIR ATTACK KILLS CIVILIANS". CNN. 2006-07-30.
  3. ^ Tom Zeller Jr. (2006-07-24). "Anne Frank 2006: War Diaries Online". The New York Times. Retrieved 2006-07-28.
  4. ^ Tom Zeller Jr. (2006-07-24). "Anne Frank 2006: War Diaries Online". The New York Times. Retrieved 2006-07-28.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict&oldid=1012553030"