Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-09 Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Mediator(s)	Addhoc (talk)
Comment	closing case per Sm8900's comments

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

Request details

I suggest that this MedCab proceeding be closed. it might be useful to close it without deleting it, as it might be useful to have a record of it somewhat, just for some of the discussions, views and information exchanged here. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Who are the involved parties?

Everybody. You can use the list of parties which appears at a request for Arbitration which was filed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Palestine-Israel_articles, which requests ArbCom to start a case on the ENTIRE group of Israeli-Palestinian disputed articles. Numerous editors will probably be scrutinized.

Here's a short, useful list, just for this case: User:Tiamut, User:RomaC, User:GHcool, User:SJMNY, User:Eleland, User:Jaakobou, User:Pedro Gonnet, etc etc. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll put my name forwards to be included, but have no idea what is involved. PR^talk 08:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your note. basically, the idea here is to address the same broad, collective issues which the ArbCom case was started for, as they should eventually be addressed somehow by MedCab also, since it can address content more specifically, and perhaps on a more cooperative level. i know it';s unusual to start a MedCab case with such a broad outline, but this is in response to the ArbCom case which refers to an unusually wide number of problems, and a broad scope of discussion. So I did want to respond to your concern diectly, as it is valid. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What's going on?

There appear to be numerous instances of questionable user conduct from editors on both sides. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, I'm hoping (ha, ha) that the ArbCom will deal with those issues and the editors who behave in this way. I like your idea of moving on and working out what we'll do once the ArbCom have removed the rocks from the playing field. PR^talk 15:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?

I would like to see MedCab assign a mediator to this article, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for starters, and then hopefully remain around to help deal with the numerous issues related to conduct of many editors, and disputes in many articles.

This case is taking on large proportions. it would be good to be able to start doing some positive proacvtive action now, which would help to institute a positive form of dispute resolution. in spite of the many dispuites now occurring, almost nowhere has active mediation been sought. We need to start making a dent in a positive manner. thanks.

I don't really feel the ArbCom case will make much headway towards actually resolving any article disputes, since ArbCom doesn't handle content disputes; it only addresses user conduct. the people who are starting the current proceeding don't seem to fully realize all the ramifications of that fact. So i think we'd all appreciate some outside positive input. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how well a mediator could work - but there is a significant improvement that could be imposed, and fairly easily. This would be to bar any form of "denial". It should be intolerable to deny, for instance, that there was a massacre at Deir Yassin. But we can go further than that, even if the facts/scholars are equally split between "Battle" and "Massacre", we should always take the side of the military loser.

Now, clearly, that opens the door to "victimhood", pro-Palestinian editors could demand that Battle of Jenin be re-named Jenin Massacre. I propose that such a solution (even if the facts suggest otherwise, even if we were to be effectively making an unfounded slur on Israel), would actually be perfectly tolerable.

Now, I've deliberately chosen a truly extreme case (I'm not entirely sure any Western RS's call this particular incident the "Jenin Massacre"!) My proposal is that, if there are even a small handful of English RS's that entitle it this way, then, believing as we do that the victims refer to it as a massacre, then that's what we should call it. ie we always accept (or at least include) the version of the self-perceiving victims.

I have some other suggestions for actually writing these articles, since on top of claims of "victimhood", there are/will be extreme differences in the "facts" related to the case - clearly, it would be wrong to stop pro-Israeli editors from including well-sourced claims that they provided oxygen and other supplies to the Jenin hospital while the incident was under way, even when the victims are saying that the hospital was under total siege, with no victims or supplies getting through.

However, I see that as much less of a problem - if we separate "victimhood" from "the facts", then we'll have made very significant progress straight away. Denial may be legal out in the real world, but it would be relatively easy - and extremely useful - to declare the encyclopedia a friendly place for "victimhood" and an unfriendly place for "denial".

What do you think? PR^talk 15:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your ideas. However, i would suggest that we not start out by discussing article titles right away, or by trying to lay down any broad collective rules meant to immediately govern several articles at once. that seems like it might be a path to immediate contention, no matter how well-intentioned. I would suggest we try to handle one article at a time, and focus mainly on content discussions, rather than immediately wrangling over titles. that seems like a better way to handle this.

also, remember this is still officially a medcab case; we haven't actually made it a community forum yet. :-) so while we're still figuring it out, it seems better to retain the traditional article-by-article approach, at least until we figure out some broader issues, and also get some process going over time, which would probably allow us to also hear from some other editors as well. thanks.

By the way, to answer your question, I'm not sure I see any benefit to always accepting the version of the "victims". there are always two sides to each issue, and usually neither side believes that the other side was simply the "victims." I would suggest we adopt an approach which assumes that there will always be two sides to almost all issues which we discuss here. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't allow criticism of the Jews in 1930s Germany, since we'd immediately recognise it as nasty denial (and I'm wholly in favour of treating such events in that fashion). The obvious thing to do is to write our articles in much the same way.

There are, of course, times when "both sides" feel that they are victims, but the suffering of the victims of suicide bombings have no place in the article Battle of Jenin - just as the suffering of the people in the refugee camps have no place in articles about the effects of suicide bombings.

Actually, I'm coming round to one of the same things you used to say - let's put all the information into the articles. I objected then, because there is a great deal of nonsense around, and we don't want to include it all. But, where people can demonstrate their individual suffering, I don't believe we should seriously doubt their word. Put victims first in all cases. PR^talk 19:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. thanks for your comment. Sorry, not sure I agree. I feel that your proposal would not solve the disputes at most of the specific articles. At this point, I will defer to allow others to comment on this. I assume you are not looking only for agreement from me anyway, since right now I have absolutely no power or role to propose or lay out a solution for any disputing parties at any disputed article. As i mentioned, I feel that all of these should be solved on a case-by-case basis, based on the details of each specific dispute and.or article. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediator notes

Articles to address

Could we start by focussing on the Palestinian people article, and move forwards from there? Addhoc (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea. That sounds fine; I agree to that. By the way, could you please let me know where I might respond to notes like these? Is this section ok for me to post a reply to you in? this is the "mediator notes" section, and I'm not the mediator, but your comment did appear to be phrased as a question. i didn't want to start our case here off wrong by putting my notes/comments in the wrong place. :-) thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would make the following alternate suggestion; let's perhaps look at the articles on this topic which currently appear in Category:Protected due to dispute, or perhaps also in Category:Accuracy disputes, and start with a few of those, depending on where mediation is actively needed. Some exapmples of the most contentious and/or currently locked articles are:

1. Battle of Jenin (locked until about a week ago),
2. Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus (currently being mediated on specific conflict between two specific editors),
3. Second Intifada (currently locked),
4. Arab citizens of Israel (currently locked),
5. Palestinian right of return (subject to dispute over article title, making it rather intractable, as well as other issues),
6. Saeb Erekat currently locked,
7. Rule of the Gaza Strip by Egypt currently locked
8. Jewish lobby many disputes.

etc etc., as well as others. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Scope of mediation

Here is fine. On my talk page tariqabjotu has expressed concerns about whether we should proceed with informal mediation at the same time as the arbitration case. I think a lot depends on the scope of the arbitration case. What are your thoughts? Addhoc (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that we absolutely should proceed with this MedCab case. Here is a link to a discussion I had at my talk page, re some problems and issues associated with the Arbcom case: User_talk:Sm8900#About_the_arbcomm.

Briefly though, my main thought is that if we do not have some positive dispute resolution process going on, the ArbCom case will start dissolving into a whole mess of allegations/accusations and counter-allegations, as it has already started to do to some degree. A MedCab case should have been started a long time ago, for many of these articles. I'm a little shocked that it wasn't already, in some of these cases. I'm also a little shocked to see an ArbCom case being started on such a wholesale, collective basis.

As I said to tiamut, this is not what the Arbcom process is for. It is not how it is designed. It is designed to address specific instances of user misconduct, on specific articles. There are numerous good-faith editors, with legitimate grievances, who are seeking resolution from the ArbCom case, who will find themselves drowned out by the clamor from both sides, as each side seeks to defend its "own" guy(s).

So IF by starting a mediation case, we can start to impose a little bit of rationality on the process, a little bit of equity and equanimity, which should have been imposed a long time ago, then it seems to like a good idea to do so.

I have my own ideas on how to find resolution on most of these cases. Is this a good place to state it? Basically, I have one main approach which I try to apply in a variety of cases. I feel it is wrong to try to hold everyone to some mythical view of neutrality which no one reaches in reality. It is better to accept that there are two communities here, with two vastly different viewpoints. Each has its own legitimate concerns, and its own verifiable sources. It is better to try to give each a fair hearing than to try to seek some mythical "objectivity" or "neutrality". People who do seek that mythical standard often find themselves ensnared by the fact that both sides have equally strong views of their rightness, and in fact often have equal amounts of validity, and (more importantly) some equal amounts of verifiable sources to support their approach to issues.

whew, a lot of typing. Sorry, but this issue has made me a bit reflective. anyway, that's why I think this MedCab case is extremely warranted, and can only play a positive role here, or at the very least, I feel that it definitely cannot hurt to have this Medcab case. thanks.

It's good to be able to discuss this. please feel free to keep posting any general musings, comments, or questions you may have. by the way, I may be off and on the web generally, so please don't interpret any delay in replying as any kind of problem with a post of yours. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, one more small thought: my main goal here was to simply notify you officially, and to put you on the case, just to bring in a further source of positive and constructive input, from a neutral third party. So please feel free to proceed at your own pace, and to act as you think best. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)