Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-28 Birthright

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: Birthright Israel State: Closed Requested By: Chabuk Other Parties: Chabuk, Behemoth101, 66.69.211.12 Mediated By: Squadnleedah Comments: No activity since 3 Jan, asking to close

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-12-28 Birthright 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-12-28 Birthright

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 03:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Birthright Israel

Who's involved?

User:Chabuk, User:Behemoth101 and User:66.69.211.12

What's going on?

Behemoth and the AnonIP(66) insist on adding a huge (disproportionately) "Criticism" section to this article (ironically with the caveat "It is important to note that these criticisms have received little to no public mention..."). When they first added it, I moved to the talk page and suggested a compromise section that included all of the criticisms which had reliable sources in a more concise and less pov version. Despite my attempts to compromise, these two users insist on re-adding their section, despite the fact that it violates WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. They refuse to compromise and insist on trying to paint me as the 'bad guy' in this dispute and have violated WP:AGF.

What would you like to change about that?

A neutral party who can tell us which version (if any) of the "criticism" section should be kept, and to discuss the personal conduct of the users involved. Basically, an end to the edit warring and pov pushing.

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

Doesn't matter, talk pages are fine.

[edit] Mediator response

Hi guys,

Sorry it took so long to get back to you, ive been working flat out through the christmas holidays.

I cant see any problem with the article the way it is, i do see very minor POV terminology hidden in there but nothing that makes it read too badly.

66.69.211.12 You need to seriously consider signing up for a Wikipedia account, while yes it is wiki policy to allow anonymous editing, when it comes to more controversial articles, often it is a way of hiding who you are, if a known editor is known to have certain views, you can hide behind an anonymous ip. I dont know if your a sock puppet or not, but to add some credibility to yourself i would suggest signing up.

If Behemoth can come up with a verifiable, noteable source for criticism, there is no reason that that shouldnt be added into the article, but also needs to be completely clean of any bias or weasel words, state the facts of the criticism and then leave it alone.

To All parties - Bacrach was correct, this is NOT a place for opinions, only for stating a previously researched and documented fact. If there are two facts that dispute each other in an article and they can both be placed in there whilst keeping it understandable, so be it, as long as its cited.

Squad'nLeedah 06:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this case still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 01:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Closing. --Ideogram 02:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

Anon user 66.69.211.12 to create an account to use while editing this article

The addition of a criticism section PROVIDED all criticisms are fully cited and meet all standards.

Squad'nLeedah 07:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've already offered a compromise section, the other two users refused to change their pov version. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 03:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• I support a compromise section for the record. However, my additions have been categorically rejected and insulted, rather than edited for consistency. My position is POV insofar as criticising the Birthright Program based on its own statements using factual, reproducable living histories is POV. I suggest that my colleague Chabuk discontinue indulging in a campaign of false-middle playing in order to preserve the integrity of this program, which is clearly a biased political front for youth indoctrination in the name of religious piety. Only then should good-faith collaboration be realizable.--66.69.211.12 04:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Behemoth101

[edit] Discussion

As an outside opinion, I would like to ask User:Behemoth101 and User:66.69.211.12 to read the following points and accompanying policy/guideline already stated by others:

• Blogs are not reliable sources, and the blog used a reference seems to be completely unverifiable. (WP:RS)
• The section is not written in a neutral tone and seems to be making meritless antisemitism accusation lacking any facts what so ever. (WP:NPOV)
• Continuing from the above point all of this completely lacks any reliable sources. (WP:OR)

The main arguement being is reliable sources. Reading WP:RS, if the users can provide published works meeting that guideline I would ask they post them. POV text can always be neutralized but original research should only be removed. - Tutmosis 01:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You had better rely on your "main arguement[sic]" because there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to come up with your "antisemitic" appraisal of my contribution. Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. If you had actually read my contribution, you would have realized that the argument being made is that:

A - Birthright makes no effort to be a religious program B - Birthright admits to having a SECULAR agenda (see also: NOT JEWISH) C - by pointing this out and other flaws within the program, I am advocating JEWISH RELIGIOUS values instead of SECULAR POLITICAL values.

Another thing. I am Jewish. And I am not a "self-hater," whatever THAT means. You will not catch me making anti-Semitic comments. You are OBVIOUSLY mistaken.

I am calling into question the legitimacy of this third-party decision. Obviously, our third party mediator doesn't know the difference between two terms which have 300 years' worth of separation. How can this person be counted on to make an opinion that requires enough knowledge to know where the actual neutral point IS in THIS debate?

--66.69.211.12 05:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Behemoth101

• Wow. Just, wow. Behemoth, Tutmosis never called you anti-Semitic, I'm not quite sure where you got that idea from, but that little tirade against him was totally uncalled for. He never accused you of being a "self-hater" and for you to accuse his "appraisal" "anti-semitic" is a gross violation of Wikipedia policy. Finally, by "calling into question" the legitimacy of a mediator that you asked for in the first place I think just proves your bias. You can't shop around for a mediator until you find one that agrees with your PoV. We followed proper process again, and we found again that my interpretation (and by that I mean wikipedia policy) is right. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 05:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• I accused the text of having a POV connotation, not you. Reading over today it might not be "antisemitic" but it definitely accuses the organization for favoring "cultural" over "religious" Judaism, which makes little sense. Another thing that makes no sense is that the first sentence states that the organization is "biased towards the State of Israel" when it's purpose is to organize trips to Israel. But all of this is not relevant at all since there are no sources except some unverifiable personal blog. Unfortunately the section will be removed, and to note I am not the mediator, breaking policy usually does not require mediation but third opinions to confirm the 'accusation'. - Tutmosis 18:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Chabuk, you misinterpreted me. Our third party's appraisal of ME was that I was the anti-semite. That is the meaning of the phrase "anti-semitic appraisal" in its original context. Don't try to see a hidden hatred where there is none - I never called anyone an anti-semite. Tutmosis accused me of being "anti-semitic" and I was simply responding.

Tutmosis, I appreciate your suggestions on Wikipedia policy. I will try to paint by numbers next time. However, you should recognize that there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between Jewish "cultural" issues and Jewish "spiritual" issues. These categories DO overlap, but to suggest that the State of Israel is an EXCLUSIVELY spiritual issue is to subscribe to a gross bias towards a Zionist agenda.

Thank you to everyone for your input. --71.42.119.68 18:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Behemoth101

I did not accuse you of being anything and I am not "suggesting" Wikipedian policy but pointing it out. The section you added is unverfiable original research. I asked you to prove me wrong but this has not yet happened. You must understand that wikipedia functions on this policies/guidelines and there nothing else to talk about except whether the text meets or breaks them. I'm also clueless as to what you ment by "paint by numbers". - Tutmosis 22:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)