Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-19 Inayat Bunglawala

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

State: Closed Comments: close?

Contents 1 Mediation Case: Inayat Bunglawala 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion 1.4.1 Mediator User:Twas Now

[edit] Mediation Case: Inayat Bunglawala

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Zeq 07:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Inayat Bunglawala

Who's involved?

User:Tarc,User:KazakhPol,user:Zeq

What's going on?

There is a disagreement if this text [1] is suited for wikipedia and if www.ynet.co.il is a wp:rs source ?

What would you like to change about that?

reach agreement about the text of the paragraph to describe the event in the most NPOV way possible, add other sources if there are any to represent any other valid POV.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

...

[edit] Mediator response

There has been no activity for over a week. Can I close this case? Note that I would need statements from all the involved parties (User:Tarc, User:KazakhPol, user:Zeq) that they agree to mediation to keep the case open. --Ideogram 03:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say close it up, there's a compromised version in place now that'll do for the time being. KazakhPol never offered a shred of input into the mediation process though, so I wouldn't put too much stock in a reply from that end. Tarc 03:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Closing. --Ideogram 03:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

OK, I think there may be reason to include the allegations in Bunglawala's article, but only about two sentences' worth. The size of the paragraph blows this issue out of proportion to the other notable events of his career. A death threat is quite a big issue, but if that paragraph is the largest in his article, it suggests that this was in fact something he did, though it is only speculation.

How about this:

1. There is circumstantial evidence to suggest that he sent a death threat to the owner of Little Green Footballs, Charles Johnson.[2] In Bunglawala's own editorial in the The Guardian, he denied sending the threat to Johnson and blamed Zionists instead.^{[citation needed]Can someone cite the actual Guardian issue?}

− Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd still contend that a mighty razor-thin line is being skated here in regards to BLP, but this angle could have some merit. Worded like that though, its just a condensed version of the currently disputed text. If this is to be cited, the focus should simply be on the fact that there is no proof at all that Mr. Bunglawala committed the act; not that the blogger accused, did a bit of self-investigating, and Bunglawala issues a denial. Such as;

2. In May of 2006, Charles Johnson, the owner of political blog Little Green Footballs, received an e-mailed death threat that he traced back to Reuters, where Mr. Bunglawala is employed. [3] Johnson believed it to be from Mr. Bunglawala, but he could provide only circumstantial evidence to support the allegation. In the comment section of one of his editorials for The Guardian [4] he first brushed off the threat as "Zionists...up to mischief", and then with a more detailed "I will repeat: I did not send any message to LGF. I have never sent any message to LGF either by email or through posting on their website. I wholeheartedly detest LGF and the space it gives to racist and anti-Muslim tirades." denial, further down the page. Tarc 22:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually prefer the 2nd version and may I offer a combination:

3. In May of 2006, Charles Johnson, the owner of political blog Little Green Footballs, received an e-mailed death threat that he traced back to Reuters, where Mr. Bunglawala is employed (in the technical division not in the news division) . [5] Johnson believed it to be from Mr. Bunglawala, but he could provide only circumstantial evidence to support he allegation. In Mr. Bunglawala's own editorial in the The Guardian, he denied sending the threat to Johnson and blamed Zionists instead.^{[citation needed]Can someone cite the actual Guardian issue?}In the comment section of one of editorials for The Guardian [6] he first brushed off the threat as "Zionists...up to mischief"

Following a complained filled at Reuters by Charles Johnson he received the following response from Ed Williams – head of operations at Reuters:

Following your email regarding the posting of an offensive message that was sent from a Reuters IP address, I can confirm that an employee has been suspended pending further investigation. The individual was not an employee of Reuters’ news division.

Yours sincerely

Ed Williams

Zeq 08:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The correspondence between Reuters and LGF is of no relevance to Bunglawala though. If info on this matter is to be on the page at all, it should only be about the Bunglawala. Perhaps if there is a section for this mini-controversy on LGF's wiki page, more detail of the correspondence could go there. Also, his more detailed "I did not send it" response should remain, as it details just why he he a beef with LGF (their perceived anti-Islamic stance) in the first place. Tarc 13:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that his response should be included. However Reuters response is quotes by a WP:RS source as part of the story so it should be included. Zeq 13:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that version #2 is the most appropriate and NPOV that we could go for right now. The article is supposed to be encyclopedic, not a collection of evidence. Tarc's version mentions the facts, and there are adequate links to the Reuters articles for anyone interested in looking up more of the story. Again Zeq, material simply being from a reliable source does not qualify that material for inclusion. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Since KazakhPol again has restored the old unacceptable version, I have edited choice #2 into the article rather than a simple revert. Tarc 14:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I posted about this on the BLP noticeboard (scroll down to #158) and already and received a response on the matter. A request for mediation does not seem necessary, as this was always about an issue of Wikipedia policy, not content dispute. Tarc 15:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=+ynetnews+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search

ynetnews is not a tabloid and is used as wp:rs source all over wikipedia. it even has it's own article ynetnews - I think mediation is still needed because unlike what tarc said the sipute about content still remain and I wish to resolve it. Zeq 18:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ynetnews is a professional news organization and is definitely a reliable source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether it is or not isn't the original point; I only mentioned it as an aside. The real issue here was what sort of info goes into pages of living people, and the info the Zeq keeps trying to add in doesn't qualify. Tarc 22:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please can someone help mediate this. Tarc is already edit-warring to get his way. Thanks. Zeq 23:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You are acting in very bad faith on this issue. I went through the proper channels, the BLP notice board, and received a response to the matter at hand. As far as I can tell, that is all that was needed. I am certainly sorry that I even brought up the WP:RS tangent now, as you have focused solely on that (a classic strawman argument) to the exclusion of the primary dispute...that your edits were in violation of WP:BLP policy. Tarc 23:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF and don't try to avoid the mediation. Placing a message on the BLP board in which you have presented the issue wrongly and did not let me know it is there has not helped you at all. You and I have a dispute and I suggest we mediate it. This is the normal thing to do. If you agree let's proceed with mediation if not we will take it further. You can not dlete sourced content but I am willing to let a 3rd party mediate between us. Zeq 07:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edit was a violation of Wikipedia policy regarding the biographies of living persons. This is not a content dispute and never should have been brought to mediation in the first place. Tarc 13:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP says: Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Since Ynet is an RS, I'm not sure what the violation of BLP would be. I don't think the passage is a 'conjectural interpretation', but perhaps you would like a tighter rephrasing? Tewfik^Talk 17:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I would see it as running afoul of;

Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip, ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopaedic article on that subject. When these magazines print information they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the magazine doesn't think the story is true, then why should we?

We have a Wiki page of the media secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain. We have a Ynet article about an anonymous Reuters employee who was suspended for sending a death threat e-mail, an article that doesn't even mention the secretary until the latter 1/3rd of the article, and then only as a suspicion of the e-mail's recipient. In the end, what real relevance does this have to the bio of Mr. Bunglawala, a story about something that didn't actually happen? Tarc 18:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The article documents that Bunglawala saw fit to respond to the accusation. That seems to be grounds for inclusion of a blurb, however small.

In the comment section of the Guardian, underneath his own editorial, Bunglawala denied sending the threat, blaming "Zionists" instead. "That was not me! Methinks some Zionists are up to mischief," he wrote.

Tewfik^Talk 18:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

We still come back to the fact that the story simply is not true; this was an allegation made by a partisan blog owner that was never able to be substantiated. What I believe Zeq is getting hung up on here is this idea that since it appears in an apparently reliable source, than that is the only qualifier for inclusion. I disagree. WP:RS is policy, but does not exist in a vacuum; there are other wiki policies as well, such as WP:BLP. I would think that edits and additions here should be held to a standard of meeting all wikipedia policies, and not just meeting a single one and to hell with the rest. Tarc 17:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the claim is true, since we aren't reporting that. We are only reporting that this claim was notable, as was Bunglawala's response to it. What part of WP:BLP do you feel that that violates? Tewfik^Talk 09:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Good we are making progress. Tarc admit that he has a problem with the text and the problem is that the text is not true.
• I agree with Tarc: We have a content dispute on text.
• I also can agree with Tarc that the text may be true or may be false (I don't know what is true and what is not)
• So, the only question is: Was the material published by WP:RS source ?

Zeq 08:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No Zeq, that is not it at all. I really have nothing more to say to someone who so completely distorts the arguments of others as you are wont to do.

Tewfik, I have already answered that question several times over, with the part of BLP that reads "...if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopaedic article on that subject." Tarc 13:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that then the part of policy that is being argued about? That is perhaps a judgement call, but as I said previously, I believe that a claim notable enough to elicit a published denial is at least notable enough for a single-line mention. Tewfik^Talk 19:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Tarc: If you don't want to talk to me what is the point in mediation ? Can you answer the questions please. Zeq 23:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You have not asked anything that is relevant to the discussion, and I still hold that this is a dispute of policy, not content. I'm done here. Tarc 23:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediator: Please read the above (especially the 3rd party like slim virgin). We need some help. Zeq 10:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator User:Twas Now

Just a notice that I will offer myself as mediator, though at the moment I do not have time to read through the comments (I'm going to bed). I should be able to check within 24 hours. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks we indeed need help to reach a solution/resolution. Zeq 07:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The allegation that Bunglawala made death threats is unsubstantiated and based on questionable circumstantial evidence: the email came from a Swedish IP address on a London computer. Bunglawala denied the allegation, so unless it can be proven that the threat was sent by him, I think this should be excluded. Although it may have been from him, the burden of proof lies on us to certify that it was indeed from him. This is simply "newscruft", and Wikipedia is not a newspaper.

If a reliable source reports something, it is not automatically reason for inclusion. I am reminded of the discussions regarding content in Ann Coulter (See Archive 2, Archive 3). Ann Coulter has claimed on the reputable CBC that Canada's military fought in Vietnam. So she's not big on history (or she is big on her version of history), but this information is not necessarily encyclopedic.

Suppose the New York Times reports that "Dick Cheney has said that his emails have a Spanish IP address, yet from a Washington, D.C. computer. Recently an email of death threats to Stephen Harper has been tracked to a Spanish IP from a D.C. computer." Even if Cheney denies this, what is the encyclopedic value of such a news piece? In five years will it matter? In ten years? Fifteen? The answer is no. It will probably not matter in even one year, unless it can be proven.

Now, perhaps it can be argued that since Bunglawala's article is much smaller and incomplete than that of Cheney, perhaps this event warrants inclusion. There are more important things to mention in Cheney's article, so that's why we wouldn't include it, but Bunglawala doesn't have a lot, so adding this little incident would be an improvement! But wait, this argument implicitly states that "he hasn't done many notable things, so for him we will lower our notability standards". This is obviously absurd: if we applied similar logic to every BLP, then Wikipedia would have tons of long articles on mildly notable people, but the content would be mostly filler (e.g. "Barack Obama is trying to quit smoking" → See WP:SMOKERS).

I have no opinion on whether or not Bunglawala sent the threat. If it is proven surface that it was him, then we can include it. Until then, let's leave out the news blurb. Thank you. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This is far from mediation. This is your opinion which is not based on any wikipedia policy. The issue to be mediated between the parties is the question of if a wp:RS source published something can it be included in the article ???

You have made up your mind prior to medaition starting so you can not serve as impartial mediator. Can you assign this to someone who can remain neutral and help both sides resolve the problem ??? Thanks. Zeq 22:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, did you actually read my rationale, or did you simply see that I did not agree with you before responding? Simply being reported by a reliable source does not warrant inclusion. We don't provide every politicians' quote that appears in the Washington Post. We don't provide the scores to every football game that was played last night and reported this morning. We don't write that the mayor of Berlin attended Such-and-such Gala and was seen speaking to So-and-so, even if it was reported in Süddeutsche Zeitung, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, and Die Zeit. The issue here is not WP:RS. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Twas Now, that is precise reasoning I was going by when I removed the material from Inayat Bunglawala's wiki page, and is the conclusion reached by the mediator of the BLP notice board as well. If it is ever proven that the hate mail came from him, then I'll personally edit the info back in. Thank you.

Zeq, how much further do you really wish to take this? Tarc 22:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Twas Now, of course I read every word of your. Your raising this question (a violation of "assume good faith") shows that you can NOT be the mediator in this case. You have pointed out to "Wikipedia is a not a news paper" and the link is to a "NOR" (no original research). You seem to ignore that we are talking about a WP:RS source that published an important biogarphical aspect about the subject of the article. The source even quote the subject rsponse to the issue and brings the action taken by the employer. All together the source does good work and once this work was published it can be used in Wikipedia. ynetnews.com (the source) is used in many article in wikipedia.

Twas Now, I thank you for your efforts but I think you need to go back to the cabble and ask that this case is assigned to someone who can FACILITITE a dialogue between the two sides. You have not acted as mediator you have acted as an arbitor - these are two diffrent roles. We are in mediation now so please find us a mediator who can mediate and help each side see the other side POV. A real dialogue between the sides did not took place and you are hindering such dialogue by taking sides. Zeq 05:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

We are not discussing whether or not ynet is reliable. It probably is, sure, why not, but the issue at hand is WP:BLP. Are we going to include everything ynet reports simply because it is a reliable source? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• The answer is simply: Yes. If a relevany info comes from a WP:RS we will include it in the most NPOV way possible and if there is a diffrent view w will incldue that view as well.

Another important thing to consider is that all newspapers, even reliable ones, have an editorial bias. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• And this cause us to do what ????? Not include a source that is used all over wikipedia ???
• You must be kiiding to bring this up. Look up how many times material from ynetnews is used in wikipedia in many diffrent directions and biases to both sides. Have you read ynetnews articles ? There are Palestinian authers and there are Israeli authors - it is basicaly as NPOV as wikipedia is.

• • So it seems we are settling our diffrences: The material from ynetnews can be used since it is a wp:rs source.
  • If someone has an additional source which has a diffrent POV on the issue that can be used as well.

Zeq 11:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, are you reading the same Mediation Page that I am? How on earth are you reading the mediator's responses as "settling differences" ? There is no "agreement"; your position on this matter has been denied. I will say this one last time, as simply as I possibly can. Whether or not Ynet is a reliable source is not the point of contention here, and never really was an issue at all. I am sorry that I casually mentioned it at all, and have since retracted any possible contention that Ynet is an RS.

The primary issue here is the official wikipedia policy on pages involving living people, and how said policy limits what can or should be placed on such pages, regardless of the reliability of the source. A story about accusing someone of committing a crime where there is absolutely no proof that they committed the crime has no place in an article such as this.

You asked for mediation in this issue, and you got it. End this acrimony please, and I must say that enlisting others to circumvent 3RR 1 demonstrates extremely bad faith in this matter, and makes me wonder whether you were really interested in mediation or just interested in making a point all along. Tarc 12:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, the other user approached Zeq about abusing the 3RR. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not took part in any such attempt . bte, this concept of a tag team is not a violation. I have complianed baout several users who coperated to violate 3RR and it turns out it is OK. in nay case I don't take part in it. Now can we mediate the isue ? Zeq 19:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? "To be fair"? The next time you want to accuse me of abusing WP:3RR I suggest you take it to the report page or keep your "fair" judgements to yourself. WP:BLP is quite clear. There is no ground to remove this info. KazakhPol 03:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Lets all WP:COOL down, and stick to the content under discussion. I'm unclear as to what the problem with my rationale above was. We all accept Ynet as an RS. We acknowledge that perhaps not everything published in an RS warrants inclusion. My argument was that because Bunglawala published a response in another RS to this case, that concern is a nonissue, which also means that as long as it is phrased in an NPOV manner (#2?), there is no BLP violation. The section about the suspension email should be subject to a discussion on RS. Can we all agree to that? Tewfik^Talk 22:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. It is not exactly what I want but I accept it so we can move forward. Zeq 20:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That "editorial"

It took nearly an hour, but I finally found the piece that's been referred to here as an "editorial."

It was not an editorial. It was an opinion piece Inayat Bunglawala posted on a collective group blog called Comment is free which is hosted by The Guardian. Bunglawala's post, "This code could open doors," is about the Dan Brown book The DaVici Code.

It appeared on May 22, 2006 and comments continued to be added through June 10. The few Bunglawala remarks disputed here for the past month or more were among those comments.

I think anyone who reads the page itself will see that the ynetnews article about it was not straightforward reliable reporting and should not be cited as the basis for a suggestion that Bunglawala emailed anonymous death threats to anyone. — Athænara ✉ 12:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is your opinion or you have a source for that ? Zeq 13:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)