Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-08 Saeb Erekat

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Saeb Erekat
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Jaakobou, Nickhh
Mediator(s)	Sceptre (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment	Closing; there are issues here which I feel far transcend MEDCAB.

Request details

There is a long going dispute over the "controversy" section in the article. After 7 months of discussions it's clear that some form of official/semi-official mediation is needed.

Current conflicting versions can be seen here: [1].

Who are the involved parties?

What's going on?

Current conflicting versions can be seen here: [2].

Version supported by Jaakobou has been built up from a small criticism compromize achived in September 2006. In September 2007 an editor insisted the event was not notable and ever since there'd been discussions and further source inspection leading to a larger and heavily sourced version. Frankly, after 7 months of being forced to inspect each and every source and prove (to my recollection) 14 high quality sources considered this event serious, I'm not willing to go back to the mini-version I've agreed to back in 2006; certainly not after I've repeatedly suggested this compromise before (and during) being forced to do much work. In any event, Nickhh version is inappropriate being that it's (a) untrue to the sources found, and (b) uses no sources at all for the biggest controversy. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC) minor clarification 08:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to change about that?

Go back to the well cited encyclopedic version. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: um sorry to be a little sarcastic here, but surely this simply translates as "Go back in its entirety to the version that I wrote and that I insist on having here, despite the objections of virtually every passing editor who's come across it in the last year"? (Those objections being based around a series of Wikipedia policies, including WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:POV, as well as WP:READABILITY. Sorry, I made that last one up of course). Are you here for mediation, or in a bid to get quasi-official backing for your version to be hammered back in? --Nickhh (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, "objections of virtually every passing editor" is, pardon my own reply sarcasm, a bunch of gabble; since versions have changed considerably along this time period. This gabble includes also the mention of WP:NOTABILITY, since it was clearly established both here and also in direct communications with Nickhh on the article talk page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For info - accusing me of writing a "bunch of gabble" isn't sarcasm, it's simply an oddly-worded insult. And you have never "established" notability, you have merely asserted it, which is a very different thing. --Nickhh (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator notes

I'm accepting this to give some guidance on guidelines and policies; don't squeeze my neck based on your opinion of the case.

If I am correct in my assumption, this article is about a living person. We should be very careful on how we balance things in these sorts of articles. I'm not making any judgement on the sources; that can be made on the talk page.

There are two main objections to the section: the first is that the "controversy" section takes up about two-thirds of the page's code and source's. Looking over your version, there is some blatant NPOV violations (i.e. air-quoting the word massacre) The second is the existence of a section titled "controversy": such a word implies a point of view right off the bat and is discouraged per NPOV#Article structure, WTA, CRIT and MOS#Article titles, headings and sections.

The first will require some tending to. Try to reduce the number of sources and the POV so a reader doesn't get any impression: remember, we don't call Osama bin Laden a terrorist (we say "MI6, the DHS, etc. have classified bin Laden as a terrorist), so we shouldn't say things about people of lesser notoriety. The easy way to deal with the second is to get rid of the controversy section, and try to integrate it into talking about his political career. If this has proved helpful, thanks. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See #Clarification on the word massacre. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. original version agreed upon in September 2006 was nice and short, but Eleland was fighting with me for 7 months claiming the incident wasn't notable enough to have even a single 3 row paragraph. After 7 months where the incident was clearly validated as notable, he and Nickhh replaced it with a version that has exactly zero sources for the massacre claims incident. diff Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way it's being used implies a POV. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre,

Erekat's POV was well presented that he stood by his previous statements and completely rejected the UN report. There is no way to avoid the fact that his perspective was rejected and heavily criticised on numerous sources, including 3 separate CNN anchors and even within the UN document. I'm more than open to include quality sources that justify his "massacre, at least 500 killed, no more Jenin camp, they are hiding bodies in secret graves" claims, but those sources don't really exist since he made an ugly blood libel on international broadcasting, which was rejected once the evidence was available.
Had my opposition were truly interested in a balanced version (like Ryan Postlethwaite and Rama before him) rather than removing this incident entirely from the article, Eleland (and now Nickhh) would not have claimed WP:NOTABILITY for 7 months now, forcing scrutiny over sources (I had to make phone calls to both Jerusalem Post and also Washington Times) and expansion of the section. In my opinion, Eleland and Nickhh notability claims combine false personal attacks and apply disruptive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude; as they compare CNN, BBC, Jerusalem Post, Washington Times, Yediot Ahronoth, Haaretz, the UN... to:
1. "obscure conspiracy theories of right-wing bloggers" Eleland, 15:51, 20 October 2007
2. "These "controversies" you want covered in great detail and in scrappy English are not notable outside of the right-wing blog world of Little Green Footballs" Nickhh, 07:26, 7 April 2008

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've left a fuller response below, in the "discussion" section, but since you keep posting in this section I'll reply here as well - seriously Jaakobou there is no point in asking for mediation when you fail to understand the fundamental point at stake. The issue at hand is not whether he made accusations of a massacre or not and whether this was widely reported in the mainstream media (and in any event this IS now noted in the current version of the article). You've spent an awful lot of energy proving to me and others something that we already know. The issue is about the notability of the alleged controversy that followed that, and whether we should highlight in a massive section the one or two right wing op-ed pieces that attempted to label him a liar. When will this point finally sink in? And also, if you want to do something constructive with this article, you might care to address the separate points I have made to you about the errors and duplication you have introduced to another section of the page. --Nickhh (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nickhh,

I 100% reject the notion that the provided sources are "one or two right wing op-ed pieces".
I've been making constructive contributions on this article for quite some time now while you were busy making WP:POINTs.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) So which mainstream media sources (news sections) accuse him of lying and make the "controversy" out to be a big deal? As opposed to those which reported his statements, and also then made the point that he got it wrong (as did many others). You still aren't getting the point of what I'm saying are you, even after I've made it about, oh, 40 times now?

2) Two diffs hardly show the whole range of editing behaviour, by either of us. --Nickhh (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on the word massacre

How many times do you need CNN to confront you for the use of the word massacre on CNN, BBC and others to qualify for a mention of this wording on wikipedia? p.s. the massacre claims were refuted and rejected by multiple high quality sources, including Palestinian sources.

note: i left out at least a dozen links that repeat his claims... i have more if needed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes

Discussion

My version attempts to do what is suggested above in the mediator notes: present this six year old minor (one-sided) kerfuffle with some partisan media and blog commentators, not as a significant "controversy" but, briefly, as one incident in someone's overall biography and also without all the repetitive and ultimately unilluminating sources. Sure my version can be improved, even maybe with a couple of extra sources, but no mainstream and contemporary profile of Erekat makes even remotely as big a deal of this issue as Jaakobou's preferred version of the page does. Most don't even mention it, such as this one from the BBC, this one sourced to AFP news agency, or even this short one posted on a generally pro-Israel site. Or this one either. And as I've mentioned 100 times on the talk pages Jaakobou, it's got nothing to do with what Erekat did or didn't say at the time, however many links you provide - instead it has everything to do with whether he was deliberately lying and how significant or notable the resultant "controversy" was. ps: do you always go runnning to WP:AE, or pages like MedCab, without even informing the person you were in dispute with that you've gone there? --Nickhh (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ps: I've added a mention of his use of the word "massacre", with one cite. We don't need more than that - as I've long said, it's not in dispute he used the word and continued to do so after the event. And we certainly don't need a whole detailed debate about how his use of the word proves he must be an unpleasant liar. --Nickhh (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This change keeps the version incorrect to previously cited sources. His use of words does not prove he must be an unpleasant liar, that's your own perspective; it only proves that he made a bad political call on international broadcasting back in April 2002 and was caught and heavily criticized on making it. Regardless, the reports were fairly clear and your version does not satisfy high quality source input or Elealnd's previous Notability concerns, discussed for 7 months already since September 2007. I can't accept a false version that doesn't fix the points raised by Eleland and PalestineRemembered back in 2007. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to suggest that Eleland & PR's persepectives on this article, and the notability/undue weight issues, are closer to mine than yours? I think you should re-read the discussion you are referring to. I'm sure Eleland would be amused by that as well. Please also point out what is actually "incorrect" in my version - it may be less crammed with obscure details and quotes, or references and accusations, but the basic facts are there, and nothing is factually wrong there. And it is certainly not my perspective that he is a liar - I am suggesting that you have been trying to subtly hint at that through the heavy references to minority individual viewpoints (one Jerusalem Post op-ed and one National Review comment piece). I think also you need to be clearer about what you want mediated, rather than just insisting you want your version back. --Nickhh (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic

Just to put this tenacious insistence on massive detail into comparative perspective on a standard wiki game. The same problem occurs on the Israel Shahak page. A survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto massacre, he devoted much of his life to writing prolifically on problems for Israel's secular politic world of messianism within the Cabalistic side of Jewish religious thought. Result, large sections of his page are dedicated to the insinuation, based on one (still obscure) incident in which he is said to have lied.Shahak is a liar, hence all his writings are unreliable. The technique is to discredit the man, in order to discredit any criticism of Israel he may have made.Nishidani (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani,

Can you please clarify and expand about this "technique is to discredit the man" and who is behind this technique? I'm also interested in more expansion on what the people applying this technique are trying to achieve... who gains and who loses from this?

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaako, is this a request that I furnish you with more 'proofs' that I am an inveterate Israel-hater, wedded to conspiracy theories, so you can copy and paste them on PhilKnight's page for my upcoming trial in the highest courts of Wiki arbitration as a (borderline) antisemite?!! This is not the place for such fishing expeditions, and I'm sure you'll have plenty of occasions to misquote my contributions from talk pages over the coming months to document my violent hatreds. In the meantime, (1) look up Benny Morris's interview with Ehud Barak in 2002, where Barak says 'lying' is a cultural characteristic of Palestinians and more widely all Arabs. Cordially back to you old chum! p.s. for your assistance with English, borderline is a technical term in psychatric diagnosis, and thus what you said amounts to the 'medicalisation' of Norman Finkelstein's critical approach to Israel, as though his scholarship displayed an unbalanced psychoneurotic symptomology. Be more careful in future. Wiki editors are not supposed to soapbox on sources by branding some they dislike as written by psychiatric patients, when they have no such nosological record) Cheers Nishidani (talk) 08:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nishidani,

I was not inquiring about Barak's cultural interpretations of the failure of the Oslo peace talks; I asked that you clarify your previous statement i.e. "The technique is to discredit the man, in order to discredit any criticism of Israel he may have made." I was interested in giving you the option to clarify that you are not an "inveterate Israel-hater" since that's the impression your comment made; Perhaps, due to an error of judgment and that you had not intended what you wrote.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it is a principle in my world never to worry too much about an innuendo. To do so only feeds the inflamed imaginations of those who spread them. I don't have to clarify why I am not this or that, when this or that is some badge of infamy or prejudice attributed to me by others. You get the impression I'm an 'inveterate Israel-hater'? Fine, enjoy your impressionism. I'm not impressed, in either sense of the word (O.E.D.). ps.

"'I’ve been hurt — and so has my family — by some of the reaction,' Carter said. 'It’s the first time in my life I’ve ever been called a liar. A bigot. An anti-Semite. A coward. A plagiarist. He paused after each epithet. 'This has hurt,' he said." (Cohler-Esses, Larry. "Carter Faces, and Disarms, Jewish Crowd". The Jewish Week, January 26 2007.)

I.e. President Carter made a series of critical allegations about Israel. The result was that a technique was used 'to discredit the man, in order to discredit any criticism of Israel he may have made'. Look, Ariel Sharon lied in his memoirs about the Qibya Massacre. Benny Morris proved that. Ben-Gurion also lied, as Moshe Sharett's diaries show. On the relevant page, the facts are given for what the raid was, comments by various parties follow, Sharon's, Moshe Sharett's, Ben-Gurion's. No one has exhausted himself plugging away to get onto the page a multireferenced assertion that Sharon lied. One gives the facts, and leraves such possible illations to the reader's independent judgement. The Bush Administration lied in 950 public declarations about Iraq, all documented. None of us are going to Cheney's or Bush's or Condi's page to make havoc by pushing this out into a massive piece of research so that fibs become the decisive, showcased element of their wiki biographies. All politicians lie, prevaricate etc, except George Washington. So even if Saeb Erekat did lie, (I don't know) I fail to understand your obsession with the dissonance between his comments and the probable figures ascertained afterwards by a variety of sources. Apply your technique to every controversial figure with a Wiki page and you will get the same response from other editors. Use it only of critics of Israel, and the point you are making looks decidedly POVish, indeed not only ideological but close to playing politics with the page. I can only understand this obsession, permit the forceful term, in the light of my acquaintence with those many wiki pages where critics of Israel are described frequently as Carter was described, by smearing agitprop, and in the light of a very common attitude in Israel (Barak is just one) and abroad, which associates lying with Arabic culture. (There's probably more material in here to get me crucified somewhere. Feel welcome to snip and clip and post it elsewhere as proof that Adolf Nishidani is ruining Wiki:). Cheers, pal, and, a little irony and pathos of distance won't hurt. Nishidani (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I understand you correctly, you're clarifying your "The technique is to discredit the man, in order to discredit any criticism of Israel he may have made." comment by saying that Israelis have a "technique" of smearing critics of Israel by utilizing "a very common attitude in Israel .. which associates lying with Arabic culture"?

p.s. I don't understand why you're combining 'lying Jews', yourself, crucification and Adolf Hitler all in a single comment but the undertones are as though I called you anti-semitic, which I haven't, and you are using hyperbole to insult me. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have not understood me correctly at all. I have ad nauseam repeated all over Wikipedia, that there is no such thing as a 'people'/'ethnos'/'race'/ with a shared Weltanschauung, and seamlessly cohesive outlook on politics. I don't believe one can speak of 'Americans think', 'the Israeli perspective is', 'the Chinese regard...', 'French people are..', etc.etc. To me that is all hollow language, for which those who speak or write like that must take personal responsibility. All modern societies particularly are fractured by distinct interest, class, and status groups. Opinion varies within groups. I do say that some groups, lobbies, interests, governments, depending on discursive context, behave in certain ways. Pharmaceutical lobbies tend to pressure governments to rig higher prices for medicines, not to lower them. Many editors in here, ostensibly writing from what they think is a 'pro-Israeli' perspective, lose all perspective and try to make smear material floating out there from all sources, the anti-defamation league etc., stick on critics of Israel. I had to correct this recently in the Wiki page on Robert Malley. There, only one person seems to have made out that Malley is 'anti-Israeli'. This single campaign by one person to smear Malley got a very harsh rebuke and rejoinder from several estimable Jewish Americans who are senior officials in the negotiations. They said it was scurrilous. All the page had when I read it was Peretz's innuendo. Whoever posts that smear material posts it, in my view, so that every time you check on figures like Malley, you glance at the innuendo his views are 'controversial' because he is suspected of anti-Israeli (antisemitic codeword) viewes or is a liar (deceitful). So when I said the technique in Wiki I frequently observe is to smear critics of Israel by calling them liars, antisemites, deceitful, etc., and this is common in here (one has to endlessly check these insinuations and they are almost invariably poorly sourced or false), or that an attitude is 'common' in Israel, this in no way means that this is an Israeli attitude, or shared by all Israelis, any more than saying antisemitism was common in Germany, or Europe, or Eastern Europe, and Islamophobia rather common in America, etc., that, ipso facto, all people from those countries can be accused of antisemitism or islamophobia. One judges individually, not 'ethnically' or 'by nationality' (at least I do). Nice try again, Jaakobou, but I suggest this probing in the dark waters of my psyche for some ontological enmity against Jews/Israelis, is a waste of time. I'm reminded of lines from W.H.Auden, which I will misappropriate to leaven this boring requisition with some fun:-

Oracular Jaakobous, with wit,

Like unsuccessful anglers by

The ponds of Nishidani sit,

Baiting with the wrong request

The vectors of their interest:

At nightfall tell the angler's lie.

Come now, let's not distract ourselves from the page, which wonders why you are so taken with proving Erekat is a liar. I am not being discussed here. What is contended is something else. Take more notice of the more serious points I made, which replied precisely to your central request. I will withdraw and let you all get on with it. Cheers-Nishidani (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for choosing to withdraw and let us all get on with it.. would you also consider to remove the tribute limmeric you wrote for me and your assertion that I'm "taken with proving Erekat is a liar"[3] ? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]