Talk:Mohamed ElBaradei

Mediation

OK, I see you are both happy for me to mediate. One question before we start, as I don't like making assumptions. Is there just the one IP editor involved in the discussion? Kevin (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes.--68.251.184.4 (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. We can get started then. I'm going to archive this page first for ease of editing. Any useful discussion can be brought back out.

1. Agree to mediation as a method for resolving this dispute  Done
2. Elicit participation from other users  Done
3. Agree on the process  Done
4. Set behavioral conditions for participation  Done
5. Set a common goal - working on this now
6. Make a plan for how to get to that goal (the next 4 points could be that plan)
7. Agree on the policies that are relevant to this article
8. Draw up a rough article outline (maybe just section headings and what relative size they should be)
9. Work through sections one by one using the common goal as a yardstick to check against
10. Repeat until finished

Discussion on the process

This is my suggested means of reaching a resolution. Make changes as you see fit until we're all happy. Kevin (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. Elicit participation from other users
   2. Set behavioral conditions for participation
   3. Set a common goal
   4. Make a plan for how to get to that goal (the next 4 points could be that plan)
   5. Agree on the policies that are relevant to this article
   6. Draw up a rough article outline (maybe just section headings and what relative size they should be)
   7. Work through sections one by one using the common goal as a yardstick to check against
   8. Repeat until finished

I thought we could make it clear that this should be done in a reasonably step-by-step manner, and that it also might make sense to solicit input from other editors as well to arrive at a better conclusion and to try to avoid a back-and-forth.--68.251.184.4 (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I suspect others may be less interested in turning up until step 5, but feel free to invite anyone. Kevin (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Solicit input from editors outside of the dispute? I disagree. I believe all users involved in the mediation must have an edit history or be an administrator/requested neutral opinion (by mediator)/editors who belong to related boards. But allowing opinions from random users would likely turn this into a POV match up, especially when most of them don't know the lengthy history behind this dispute. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Kevin - a fair warning. The above IP, as well as the other 72 IP, have been involved in prior disputes with me. I would hate to see "friendly" users endorsing x side solely based on their POV or collective agreement on other articles. This is very common in controversial Israel/Palestinian/Middle Eastern articles. Therefore, I believe involvement of "invited" users would influence the integrity of the mediation. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit: If editors were to be invited, I believe Kevin should be the one to submit requests. We as disputing editors should not be allowed to ask for opinions from friendly users. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'll keep an eye on any excessive POV problems, and will deal with them as required. At this point the history of the dispute is less important that getting the content right, and so long as they are neutral other editors could be quite helpful. User:NPguy and User:Nathan have been involved here, and may have useful opinions. Kevin (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've invited the 2 editors I noted. I don't see many others who have been involved here recently. If we reach any points where agreement cannot be reached, other opinions can be sought as needed. Kevin (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There opinion might be useful but there involvement was minor. I don't think Nathan even edited the article. edit: And Nathan sided with the IP, though I might have to look at the discussion archive. I sent you a message, I think it is important. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Every editor's opinion is important, and we should not be resistant to those who might help. Everyone is going to take a side at some point, so I don;t see that as a particular problem. It is important that we focus on the content (when we reach that point). Kevin (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine but I don't want to see users aside from yourself eliciting friendly editors to opinion stack. We can't be naive, there is a mountain of evidence that supports similar incidents on wikipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the rest of the process? Kevin (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Rd232 was also involved in a fair amount of the previous discussion, but I suppose someone else can invite him if they want.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I was invited to join this process. I don't expect to be heavily involved, but may chime in occasionally. NPguy (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, I was happy with the rest of the process for resolution if everyone else was.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

An outline of the problems I've identified:

• There is a statement in the archives that ElBaradei's earlier terms need expanded coverage, and no one disagreed.
• Everyone seems to agree that "Criticism of..." sections are substandard and should be avoided.
• We argued over a POV tag, held an RfC, and the consensus of the RfC was clearly that a POV tag was inappropriate in the abscence of a specific POV problem. I realize that Wikifan disagrees with this outcome.
• There has been discussion about the editing history of the article and other conduct. I think we should leave this stuff behind - we should avoid assigning blame or throwing accusations unless it becomes absolutely necessary, and to me it seems like we are still at the point where dispensing with that for now might allow a consensus form of the article to emerge.

In terms of core problems, what am I missing? Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 21:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll be brief:

• Fix the over-dependence on extremely unreliable sources.
• Reduce balancing criticisms with non-notable figures.
• End excluding RS while merging questionable sources to support facts (this is a major issue and could potentially lead to a libel accusation.)
• Reduction of IAEA/Me general mantra to counter specific claims. I.e, x says x about ME. Countered with a general opinion from ME. Unless ME responds directly, we can't continue to couch in general responses. We could potentially counter every accusation with a statement made by ME years before or years after.
• Reduce awards section. No BLP has such a lengthy award section. Nobel is fine, a little mention on the honorary degrees, but everything else is non-notable. Some BLPs have hundreds of awards, but we don't include all of them. And like I said before, the awards were a direct copy and paste from the IAEA. Even in the same order.
• Re-organize sections. Axe "first term, second term, third term etc.."
• Edit according to strict Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons standards, specifically the three core principals: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:No original research. Those should be the first pages we go to during disputes. No more "I don't like." A POV consensus cannot replace basic BLP laws.

That's all for now. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That all sounds reasonable as far as it goes. I did see you and the IPer discussing the sourcing issue; personally, I would exclude both Xinhua and VoA and severely limit any use of opinion columns (op-ed is sort of a NY Times-specific phrase that refers to a position in the physical paper, interesting fact). Xinhua and VoA are mouthpieces - intended to present the government view of the world. While the BBC is government sponsored, it differs from the other two in that the editorial control is independent - more analogous to NPR, really. I try not to rely on opinion columns because they present the imprimatur of an organization known as a reliable source but typically undergo only the most basic fact-checking (dates, names, events). In other forums there have been many discussions on sources that are reliable for some purposes but not as reliable for others; newspapers are a case on point, because the scrutiny on reporting (which has the reputation of the paper behind it) is much, much greater than that for opinions. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 22:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Editorials from reliable sources are valuable in BLPs. There is no rule endorsing the idea that they should be excluded. I understand the resistance since there is a mountain of not-so-pleasant criticisms, but we can't simply exclude them because of that. Xinhua isn't just a mouth piece, it's communist propaganda. Period. VoA isn't in the same league, but again its reliability is questionable because it is financed and run by the US government. BBC is subsidized by the British government but not administrated by it (supposedly.) Whatever factual inaccuracies notable journalists make in editorials is totally and completely irrelevant. Just like an inaccuracy or disputed evidence from ME, Rice, George Bush, Osama Bin Laden, we can include it if it comes from a reliable source. We of course quote in the context that it is x person's commentary, and not "this are the facts, says x." ME is a controversial figure. Similar BLPS: Richard A. Falk and Alan Dershowitz both include editorial references. Plus, the claim of reliability ultimately rested on a users "opinion" of the editorial, and not actually wiki policy. However, the real problem is the complete and total omission of notable facts. 4 paragraphs on IAEA spin and ME pimping is not particularly notable. Coverage on Israel, Iran, and especially the United States must be merged, and should be the primary focus. We need information prior to 2007, barely anything has happened since then. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There were plenty of other sources which reported the same thing as Xinhua and Voice of America, so I think it would be very easy to just change where the ref tags point to while leaving the verifiable content the same. I believe the inclusion of the op-eds is different, specifically when the op-ed contains basic mistakes within it and has claims which aren't repeated in any other reliable sources. Are we to the point of discussing problems with the article yet? I was thinking we should identify some basic guidelines first.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No there weren't. Notice the previous versions, very few paragraphs sentences had more than one source. I can post the diff if you like. I've directed you to several similar BLPs that rely on editorials for commentary. All are from reliable sources, mostly The New York Times. Whether you identify "mistakes" is again, totally, 100%, completely, absolutely irrelevant. Unless they are totally erroneous, like ME is a Mormon from China who works for the Central Intelligence Agency, we can include it, especially if it's from a reliable source. Seeing as how the article relied on unreliable sources so disturbingly before, I think at this point any claim against excluding reliable sources shouldn't be taken very seriously. Kevin said to focus on the article rather than the individual, but I have to post this. Here you couch in a totally unreliable source by a non-notable Iranian doctor: for commentary. Why do you demand we axe Jpost/NY but allow silly books from Iranian doctors? I'm sorry if you don't like the criticism, I've seen your edits and I know how you want the article. That is fine, I'm willing to collaborate. But Jpost, NY, CNN, any site with editorials all fall under basic BLP guidelines. I've identified 3. I can post more BLPs that have editorials, some with mistakes (oh noes!). Can we get to the article now? Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I was pointing out that there are plenty of other sources which do contain the exact same material, and that the statements are not subjective assertions but verifiable statements of fact.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If we are agreed on the next steps, then setting behavioral conditions is next, then set a common goal. Are we agreed enough on the process to move on? Kevin (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

What are we agreeing on? Several of us have identified problems as you requested, but a consensus has not been reached. I'm just not familiar with the process so pardon my ignorance. ; D Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

What I wanted to get sorted out first was a plan for how we will resolve the dispute, rather than how we will fix the article. I know it seems slow and you want to get to the article, but I have a reason for doing this. For weeks you have been disagreeing on virtually everything, and I want to get you working on something collaboratively before getting to the details of the article, where the real differences lie. What I want to agree on next is the numbered plan above. Kevin (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a problem I've identified. The organization of the article around ElBaradei's three terms is artificial. Better to organize around prominent issues, in a more or less chronological sequence:

• Iraq
• North Korea
• Iran
• Libya (maybe)
• Multilateral Control of the Fuel Cycle
• Nuclear Disarmament (maybe)

Some have suggested adding Israel and Pakistan to the list. I don't see a significant functional role for ElB in those countries. NPguy (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

good list. I think Israel could be merged with Iran. ME made an attempt to categorize the state with Iran's nuclear program. There was never an investigation, but it did get a significant amount of media coverage. Currently the IP has reported me for personal attacks or something, here. This is a serious hindrance to the mediation process. We all agreed previous disputes would not be brought up (I could have just as well posted an incident report for the IP). Anyone who has an opinion feel free to add. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Getting back on track

To get back on track, I would like you both to either suggest changes to the numbered steps above, or tell me you are happy and we can move on. All this discussion on the content is useful, but premature. I am as keen as you all to get to the article, but am a firm believer in having a plan of action first. Kevin (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

At this point I more concerned about a potential block because of the noticeboard report filed by the IP. If and when that is cleared up, then the mediation should continue. Since you are leading the mediation perhaps you could suggest a speedy close at the noticeboard? It could take over a week before a decision is made. I don't want to get blocked mid-discussion here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No-one is going to block you as a result of that discussion. I can probably close have closed the discussion there. Kevin (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Shall we proceed? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes please. Kevin (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with the list above..--99.162.60.191 (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll amend the list at the very top and start the next section. Kevin (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to any of the proposed rules/goals. Ultimately the goal is to have a better article, but I agree that the immediate goal is to get out of the rut of having extended arguments over its content. NPguy (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Behavior during mediation

1. Refrain from commenting on other's motives, biases etc.
2. Avoid characterizations of arguments made by others (i.e. "XYZ's opinion is ridiculous")
3. Leave the past behind. Nothing good can come from dredging up history we are all aware of.
4. Make a good faith attempt to understand the positions of others.

We've probably dealt with most of this anyway, but this is my view. Please add or edit as required. Kevin (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This looks good to me.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about leaving the past behind. Obviously rehashing past arguments is unproductive, but if the arguments were about something, we should perhaps crystallize that something rather than exclude it from discussion. NPguy (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I should clarify, I'm not talking about useful content discussions, just the "he said this in March" kind of thing. Kevin (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Now what? NPguy (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As soon as Wikifan12345 says he is happy with these guidelines we can move on. Kevin (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree with the terms. Can we extend the lock? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've extended for a month. Kevin (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Setting a common goal

I'd like some input from the parties here before I make any suggestions here. Kevin (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Substantively, I'd like to see the article become more

• balanced, with a focus on factual narrative but a minor admixture of favorable and unfavorable commentary.
• historically representative, addressing the key issues ElBaradei was actively involved in, e.g.:
  • Iraq
  • Iran
  • Libya
  • Multilateral Nuclear Arrangements for control of the nuclear fuel cycle
  • Nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament

Procedurally, I'd like to see flexibility from editors, particularly on the selection of sources of commentary. NPguy (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Flexible is relative. If commentaries fall under BLP guidelines, such as verifiability and reliable sources, they should be included. Only when commentary is redundant, encourages undue weight, and/or not notable should we consider exclusion. I think rules-of-editing need to be established pronto. Major edits and deletions should be preceded by collaborative discussion that follows strict BLP rules.

E.g: Opinion/personal POV < guidelines. Not sure how important MNA and NND is. This article is about ME. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you guys see a way to word this goal as a single sentence (or two), remembering that the ultimate goal is to serve our readers? Kevin (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

How about: To have a historically representative and balanced biography of ElBaradei which is in line with Wikipedia content policies and guidelines.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, historically representative and balanced biography that is dependent on reliable sources and is edited according to the 3 core principals of BLP. Period. "Balance" can be debated and argued forever, which is why wikipedia policies exist - to serve as a reminder about what should be in the article and how it should be written. Hopefully we all agree on this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there are 3 core policies of Wikipedia, not specifically of BLP. And there are clearly varying opinions of what a reliable source is, but again I think this process should help with that.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh? Reliable sources cannot be debated. Tehran Times and phony Iranian doctors are not reliable sources. Here is a common issue: Editing has become personalized. Disputes have boiled down to "in my opinion," "I think," "I believe" etc..etc..rather than focusing on core BLP laws. As stated by Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, the three core guidelines are: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research. Most important clause:

“ The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. ”

I'm not targeting you or attacking you or alienating you. I'm simply providing required reading. To say "there are clearly varying opinions of what a reliable source is" demonstrates a lack of understanding of not only BLP guidelines, but wikipedia rules in general. This is simple simple stuff. Once users get this then we can move on to actually editing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't say you were attacking me. Secondly, if you were trying to get semantical about it they are actually policies of Wikipedia in general, not guidelines specific to BLP individually or "BLP laws". In fact, these standards are even stronger for BLP. On what basis do you assert that Dr. Kaveh L Afrasiabi is a "phony Iranian doctor"? That would sound like an "opinion" which you deride, and as far as I can tell your opinion is rather unsubstantiated.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with semantics. Balancing reliable sources with a non-notable book written by a non-notable (and likely phony) doctor is not appropriate for wikipedia, and certainly not BLPs. If we can't get beyond this, I don't see how we can continue. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I wish you would clarify your phony doctor statement.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

We need to wheel in the rhetoric a bit here. As for a goal, it is a given that we will comply with WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V, so they need not be mentioned at this stage. Kevin (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

So how about "To have a historically representative and balanced biography of ElBaradei". To further the discussion, maybe just modify the wording or make counterproposal(s) without providing reasoning.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, cause the current version is a totally balanced and representative biography of Elbaradei. ;D Yes, we do need to wheel in the rhetoric. But there should be an understanding the propaganda news services are not reliable sources and cannot be used in any articles (with a couple exceptions), and this is doubly so for BLPs. Users must take responsibility for their edits (perhaps that should be a goal). Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Your sarcasm here is not helping fix the article. At this point we are not discussing sources or content; what I want from the two of you is a common goal, that you wrote yourselves. If you can collaborate on one or two sentences now, the rest will be much easier. Kevin (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

My comment was in jest. A reasonable response to an unreasonable view of BLP guidelines. I wrote a common goal (copy and paste BLP guidelines), IP disagrees. What's next? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think jest is not a good method of holding a debate after the previous animosity. It is much too easy to take the wrong way. I've also asked, and you have agreed, not to characterize the view and opinions of others. Please be careful to avoid such characterizations in future. As for what is next, discuss amongst yourselves which parts of the proposed goals you like, which you dislike and see if a common position can be found. Kevin (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

this isn't a matter about views and opinions. I'm not attacking the IP's "character." I'm not attacking anything. If we can't recognize failure to appreciate basic rules out of fear of offending then I don't know what to say. My "proposal" was more or less based on basic guidelines. There was no, "I think", "I believe" etc... I want this article edited according to strict BLP rules. That is it. This was the IP's proposal: "To have a historically representative and balanced biography of ElBaradei which is in line with Wikipedia content policies and guidelines." this isn't good enough. there is no need to say historically representative and balanced biography, that is a suspect inclusion and is vulnerable to interpretation. I provided explicit BLP rules and general wikipedia practices. This article shouldn't be about the user or their version of history or balance. It's about the references, and we cannot discriminate (i.e, I don't like this). Everything the IP has said is exactly the same rationale he gave in previous disputes, and you see where that went. It's hard to not confront someone's ideas and proposals if you misconstrue it as an attack on the editor in question. I'm not gonna lie. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I know the ground rules say not to rehash old arguments, but that seems to be what is happening. There was a long-running disagreement over an op-ed that Wikifan wanted to cite as a "reliable source" and others (myself included) thought unreliable because of factual errors. Wikifan has been unwilling to consider the use of alternate sources that reflect similar viewpoints but were more reliable. Others (myself included) have been unwilling to use this source for the reasons cited. So both sides have been inflexible on this point. It's not clear to me how to resolve this through mediation without adjudicating that disagreement on its merits.

One point for Wikifan to consider: I recognize the criticism of ElBaradei as having a legitimate basis and deserving space in this article. Using an error-ridden source to make the point has the effect of undermining the credibility of the viewpoint. The viewpoint would be represented more credibly if based on a different source that did not have such evident defects. Why not look for such a source? NPguy (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll sort out that part of the disagreement when we get to it. For now, I think it is important to collaborate on something simple, to get the ball rolling. Kevin (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, NPGuy proposed having an article which has "a focus on factual narrative but a minor admixture of favorable and unfavorable commentary" and "addressing the key issues ElBaradei was actively involved in" as a goal. I think this could be a starting point. I think we discuss policies in step 5.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there is an obvious misunderstanding of how we use sources. Whatever "errors" you identify is irrelevant. If its commentary from a reliable source, we CAN use it. Doesn't mean we have to, but we can. The rationales give to exclude do not apply, ever. Just as we don't exclude the error-ridden phony report by the Iranian doctor (pimping ME), or the errors/confusing rhetoric stated by ME, or the errors stated by George W. Bush, Osama Bin Laden, etc...all do not matter. Caroline Glick of Jpost is a reliable source. Heck, Caroline Glick herself is notable enough for inclusion, even if she said ME was a communist b@stard. Other editorials, by the NYT, WSJ, etc...can all be used because they are reliable sources. And errors like "5 terms" instead of 3 has been blown way out of proportional. It is not a major error. In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used. Considering users felt it was ok to use China/Iranian propaganda as sources and nobody pointed that out besides myself (and no one seems to care still), demands to kick out Jpost, NYT, WSJ, and editorials that might not paint an "accurate portrait" (i.e, gushing praise) should not be taken seriously. This isn't a simple disagreement over an op-ed, it is a disagreement over the entire editing process. The article speaks for itself Kevin, and I want to fix it, according to strict BLP guidelines. No interpretation, no opinion, no this-is-how-i-think-the-article-should-be-edited. No one has yet to use a guideline that forbids editorials, even those with "errors." Please post one if you can. For every source used, it should be screened by BLP guidelines. Every. single. source. Can we agree? Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we should agree on a goal right now, but I have said I am willing to replace VoA, Tehran Times, etc. with other sources which say the exact same thing if necessary. And as for a guidelines about Glick, WP:V#Questionable sources says:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves.

--99.162.60.191 (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post is a reliable source. Caroline Glick is a notable journalist. This isn't a questionable source. Tehran Times is a questionable source. This is a questionable source. This is a questionable source. This is questionable source. This is questionable source. Press TV is questionable source, in fact it's Iranian propaganda. And we have one, two, and three in the article. Who put in these sources again? We need accountability Kevin. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure when you became the supreme and unquestionable arbiter of reliability. The problem with your argument is that except for the opinion of the Iranian doctor, the other sources simply relay statements of fact which are repeated in multiple other reliable sources. Glick is being used to convey a polemic and fringe opinion, and she makes at least two factual errors in her article. And you never did substantiate your claim that he was a "phony Iranian doctor". Is it just that you can state an opinion or make a claim about something and it is true without having to provide any support?--99.162.60.191 (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no. Jpost is in the wiki database. It is a reliable source according to wikipedia. No, propaganda cannot be corroborated by other sources. If it was, those sources would be in the article. The iranian doctor is phony by virtue of being a non-notable, unimportant, pimp-piece for ME. Can you rationalize Press TV, China propaganda, and the Tehran Times? All sources which you put in? As I said before Kevin, editors must be held accountable for the sources they use. I'm not accusing the IP or anyone of wrong-doing, I just would like to see a nice, simple explanation that verifies there inclusion according to strict BLP codes. I've done that for all the sources I used. Please, we are all listening. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Kevin, does it not seem fair that editors understand the simple concept of no-propaganda? Really, it should be mandatory. Own up to your edits, or don't edit at all. If I continued to couch in Press TV, in say...george w bush in spite of warnings, I'd probably get blocked. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

So what about the "American propaganda" of Voice of America? I don't know what reliable source database you are talking about, and I don't know how you think the Iranian doctor is phony.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

VOA is not promoted as an independent news service. Plus, you put in the source, not me.

I have been deliberately ignoring discussion of particular sources here, because they have no part in setting a goal. We are not going to set a goal that includes or excludes specific sources, so discussion at this point is premature, as I have stated numerous times. The detail of the article text and associated sources is the last thing we will get to, after we have set a framework for the article content. When we reach that point we can have all the discussion you want on sources, but not until then. Kevin (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well can you be more explicit? References...uh, kind of make up the article. My goal is to edit the article according to strict BLP guidelines. Anything short of that is unacceptable. What do you have in mind? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you want the article to be? Npguy wants the article to be "balanced, with a focus on factual narrative", the IP suggested "To have a historically representative and balanced biography of ElBaradei". Maybe you could take those points, add your point about being compliant with policy, maybe start out with something about serving our readers.

All of this talk of sources now is just continuing old arguments, and we know that that method of resolving the dispute failed, so why continue it? Kevin (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

balance and factual narrative is all babble. It is codeword for "my version of balance and factual narrative." The guidelines have PERFECTLY crafted laws that dictate how articles should be edited. This doesn't need to be a debate. If users are disputing whether or not propaganda deserves a spot in the article, we have a problem. It certainly conflicts with "balance and factual narrative." We don't need a statement of purpose, we just need to follow the rules that every other editors do in BLPs. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems like you are not happy with the way we are progressing. Do you feel that the plan we laid out at the top of the page is no longer appropriate? Kevin (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need to add "no propaganda" as part of our "plan?" Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No, of course not. Can you answer my question above? Kevin (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, there are several plans. NPguys, IP's, and mine. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about the numbered plan at Talk:Mohamed_ElBaradei#Mediation, specifically #4 where we agreed to set a common goal. Your statement "We don't need a statement of purpose" seems at odds with that step. Kevin (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I touched the third rail here by reopening the disagreement on sources. Perhaps it will show, as Kevin said, how hopeless that path is. I'm also prepared to set aside for now the process point on flexibility and focus first on substance. My suggestions were to produce an article that is

• mostly factual, balanced, with a minor admixture of favorable and unfavorable comment; and
• historically representative (with whatever list of key events/issues we agree on).

Can we agree on these points? Are there any that are missing?

Wikifan has suggested that "balance" is in the eye of the beholder, so it's essentially meaningless. I think it's important as a first step to recognize the importance of balance, even if we disagree on the second step of how to achieve it. I would prefer to leave it to Kevin to help us work through that second step. NPguy (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, we don't need to consciously weed out critical/positive sources. If something is a reliable source, we use it. Our goal should be maintaining neutrality and verifiability. This pursuit of "facts" and "truth" leads nowhere except POV-pushing and article ownership. Previous editing disputes prove that. ME is so controversial that it will be extremely difficult to create a "factual" article. Everything is opinion, spin, and perspective. The only "factual" events are those outside of ME, like Iran's/Pakistan/whatever nuclear program. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

So could you try to condense that in to one or two sentences?--99.162.60.191 (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you willing to try that? Kevin (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, serious question? Why? Is one paragraph too long? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no. I am disappointed that you are not willing to actively resolve this dispute. Kevin (talk) 06:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

what is the dispute? NPguy posts a misrepresentation of my POV and I correct his inaccuracies. IP dubiously asks me to condense my response into two sentences without rationale. I honestly thought he was kidding. And if he wasn't, well....perhaps he is the one who is not willing to actively resolve this "dispute." Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

My thinking was that way back at the beginning of setting a common goal Kevin asked us to come up with a few sentences that we could move forward with. Since you didn't seem to like any of my proposals, I was trying to get you to come up with one..--76.214.145.216 (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't returned to this in a few days, but it looks like this process hasn't been making significant progress. If I had to identify a reason, it would be that Wikifan is convinced that there is no other possible outcome than that the article conform to his interpretation of BLP and its application to ElBaradei. I agree that this is disappointing. I think we would all appreciate it if you, Wikifan, would agree to and actually follow through on participating in a mediation process in good faith. Mediation does not mean structured debate that vindicates your position - compromise on your part will be necessary in order to come to a useful conclusion.

On a side note, I don't know anything about this Iranian doctor that has been mentioned. Assuming that he is still alive, however, the BLP policy applies to him as much as it does ElBaradei. Further mentions of him as "phony" or his work as "phony" without substantiation should result in blocks or topic bans for anyone violating BLP in that way. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 15:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's all wikifan's fault. Surprise. All he wants is for the editing process to follow strict BLP guidelines and restrict policy interpretation (as stated by IP). How demanding! He is so disruptive. The Iranian doctor was simply an example. IP posted it under the rationale, "if we can include American, we can also include Iranian." No, Nathan we can't. A non-notable unknown Iranian doctor writes a book that vaguely refers to ME (and not in specific context) is unacceptable. Especially when the edit was simply in response to my edits, which could be considered editing to illustrate a point...but again, we are supposed to forget the past. I don't see how referring to a phony doctor constitutes a topic ban. Can you provide a policy that supports such assertion? Well, then again...you said you didn't know anything about this Iranian doctor. IMO, willingly posting propaganda sites and claiming they are reliable sources (over 10+) and reverting users who try to remove them violates all that is BLP. It is not only potentially libelous, but defeats the whole purpose of wikipedia. We might as well us The Onion. anyways. I guess no one cares though? Serious question. I think we all agree to this "common" goal, now off to the meaty stuff. Like understanding the basic policy of what are and what aren't reliable sources. Failure to do so would force us into a more pressuring mediation, and that will likely not end well. Can we agree or should I condense this into two sentences? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, there is a reason that assuming good faith is a policy. The core of it is that we ought to assume that others edit not to provoke you, or to create a terrible POV article, or to violate myriad policies, but that others have interests similar to your own. Specifically, I've seen nothing to suggest that any other editor of this talkpage is unfamiliar with the RS or BLP policies; nothing that suggests to me a willingness or desire to violate either policy, and very little that suggests they are unwilling to compromise with you on certain issues in the context of mediation. We share your goals, but we may have a somewhat different understanding of BLP and other policies than you. For example, I'd prefer to exclude both editorials and state-owned news outlets. Your approach suggests that you think no one else understands BLP, or that everyone else is intent on violating it. That simply isn't the case. If anything, you personally are polarizing this debate unnecessarily.

As for BLP and the Iranian doctor - you absolutely need to stop referring to a living person as a "phony doctor" or his work as phony. The real name of the person you are talking about is on this talkpage. That is utterly basic BLP policy. I also don't think "non-notable unknown" is really necessary - that description includes most people, doesn't it? Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 23:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've assumed good faith off and on. But honestly, I cordially enumerated the sources. All of them, from propaganda, to promotion sites, and not even half could be considered reliable. IP claimed that the propaganda sources were corroborated by reliable sources. That is totally absurd and I asked him to prove it, and he told me to condense what I wrote in two sentences. Editors cannot continue to demand good faith when they constantly violate basic core policies. And you cannot expect me to assume good faith beyond the ordinary after the IP reported me to noticeboards in spite of a well-established agreement he made here. You didn't seem to have a problem with that. If you are seriously saying nothing suggests users haven't violated or do not understand BLP policies then I insist you read the article and discussion. It's assumed violations have been made because the article was reverted to a previous state by an administrator because of BLP violations by the IP. Here is a statement you made above: "For example, I'd prefer to exclude both editorials and state-owned news outlets." This is a major problem. "I prefer, "In my opinion," "I believe," etc....is not a valid justification. Editorials go hand-in-hand with BLPs. Alan Dershowitz, Norman Finkelstein, Ban Ki-moon, and practically all controversial/critical/important figures contain editorials (all reliable sources of course) in the article. Find me a rule that restricts editorials, please. I asked you asked you guys three times. "State-media" isn't the issue. Propaganda is. Virtually all Middle Eastern media is stated owned with the exception of Israel, even praised al jazeera is owned by a despot. This argument over what is reliable sources, what should be in the article, how we should edit is becoming way too long. We have BLP policies that are standard and should be a first and hopefully only tool to decide what should be in the article. Sure, there are exceptions, but please...demanding we exclude Jpost, NYT, WSJ, while claiming an unreliable and unheard of so-called Iranian doctor (phony, IMO) is perfectly ok doesn't make sense. Now we are going to revert back to, "let's make a common goal..." and then we'll have to do this all over again. This is not rocket science. BLP is pretty easy if you read the policies. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd really like to keep any reply brief since the entire discussion is off-topic, but you said "IP claimed that the propaganda sources were corroborated by reliable sources. That is totally absurd and I asked him to prove it, and he told me to condense what I wrote in two sentences"

So, for example, the "Chinese propaganda" of Xinhua, the official press agency of the government of China which employs ten times the number of reporters as similar agencies such as Reuters, is being used to support an objective quote. This quote has been picked up by multiple other sources such as The Department of Foreign Affairs of South Africa, Global Security, AFP, The Daily Times, etc. So I suppose this is French Pakistani South African Global Security Chinese propaganda as well.

Similarly, the "American propaganda" of Voice of America, is being used to support the fact that ElBaradei objectively said he will not be seeking a fourth term. While some op-ed writers may dislike the American propaganda of ElBaradei having only served three terms (and not five), The Financial Express and Chinese propaganda also corroborate the American propaganda.

So, I don't really care which sources are used to support the material. It would be useful if you could provide support for your assertion that Afrasiabi is a "phony Iranian doctor" though.

I would again reiterate that this discussion is off-topic and that we should just be coming up with a goal right now.--76.214.145.216 (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Xinhua is being used to support facts, not quotes. Either way, it is not a reliable source and it being the state media agency of China is the whole point. You just don't understand the concept of reliable sources according to wikipedia policy, and that is the problem. You. Do. Not. Understand. What. Reliable. Sourcing. Means. Look up BLP policy, I've quoted official guidelines extensively and you've ignored it time and time again. Kevin, if editors cannot grasp this, I consider we ship this off the BLP noticeboard. They'll tell you right off the bat that propaganda news sites are not tolerated outside a few exceptions. You won't find xinhua in George Bush or tehran times in Barack OBama. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I find it completely irrelevant which source is used to support something when there are so many sources to support the same thing. At this point I think you are trying to create a fire where there is none. I also think it is sad that it takes a week to come up with two or three sentences.--76.214.145.216 (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, include a source that supports the propaganda reference. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You must have missed at least six of them above?--76.214.145.216 (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It is off topic for setting a goal - it goes back to setting conditions for the discussion. It will be impossible to pursue a meaningful mediation if we can't move beyond disputes about past interaction and assume, going forward, that we're all capable of reading and understanding policy. That we can have good faith disagreements, beyond simple misunderstanding or unfamiliarity, is a bedrock notion on Wikipedia and any community endeavour. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 00:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Right. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, the material you are trying to take issue with occurs in many reliable sources, so I don't care if Xinhua or The Financial Express is used to report the exact same information. We should be coming up with a goal. And I think the problem I think you have is relying on a polemic and mistake-ridden op-ed. Of note, DebkaFile, an Israeli open source military intelligence website, also carried the claim of ElBaradei serving five terms. So, the only problem I have seen, is an op-ed writer relying on very low quality open-source Israeli military intelligence (I would call it propaganda, but propaganda is a rumor which is used to help a cause.) It would be useful if you could provide support for your assertion that Afrasiabi is a "phony Iranian doctor" though. You might start out outside the open source Israeli military intelligence, since its record doesn't seem to be too good.

Note: This material was restored so that an off-topic reply could be given.--76.214.145.216 (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else believe Xinhua, Tehran Times, and other state-owned and universally accepted propaganda medias are reliable sources? Anyone? Can they be used in articles to support events and figures? Anyone? Hello? You having a beef with a reliable source (Jpost is a certified wikipedia reliable source, btw) while dubiously demanding we insert Iranian propaganda, along with non-notable doctors, who's fact-checking is unmeasurable, like all propaganda news sites, does not make sense. Caroline Glick is a notable journalist. Jpost is a certified reliable source. Do you dispute this? The inaccuracy you identify is irrelevant to the topic. We are quoting a reliable source in the context of a known and acclaimed journalist. You going through google and mentioning debkafile is nothing short of original research and goes beyond what sourcing requires. If you oppose Glick on ideological gtounds, I really don't care. She passes guidelines with flying colors, as does NYT, WSJ, and CNN - all sources you removed several times. Do I really need to grab a BLP noticeboard admin and clarify whether or not Xinhua can be used in BLP? Or if we can exclude reliable sources based on user-dispute and criticisms outside of BLP guidelines? Really? I can. If Kevin agrees, I most certainly will. Doubly so if it settles this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I am done replying to off-topic drivel. You are completely ignoring the conversation. Perhaps that material would be better suited for your user page, and not a section which reads "Setting a common goal". I would reiterate the goal which NPGuy and I agreed on about five days ago.--76.214.145.216 (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah okay. I amended the initial goal proposed by Kevin and endorsed the general agreement, something you violated early on. NPguy unfortunately misrepresented my POV, and then you listed more rationalizations for using propaganda, non-notable sources, etc...which I responded to the best I could. So, you had no issue continuing the discussion and now when I've offered to get an experienced BLP admin who appreciates the importance of guidelines (and not using state propaganda sources), you are now "done replying to off-topic drivel." To consider what makes a solid BLP - its references - to be off-topic, then I truly do not know what to say. I do however endorse Kevin's general proposal for mediation. But eventually we'll have to go through this again. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

So where was your proposal again? Could you just provide it within quotes?--76.214.145.216 (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

“ Yeah, historically representative and balanced biography that is dependent on reliable sources and is edited according to the 3 core principals of BLP. ”

Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Kevin said it was early to be discussing the policies, but that is fine with me if it is with everyone else.--76.214.145.216 (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, if this is our mission statement (i.e, goal that will define our mediation), then I don't see why we shouldn't include the BLP-policy denotation. After all, this is a BLP article, and the whole dispute is centered on alleged-BLP policy violations. Why leave it up for interpretation? We are just setting ourselves up for more disputes. I don't see why Kevin would have a problem with this.

I have no problem with that goal, so long as you all agree. Except for the "Yeah" at the beginning :) . Kevin (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Slightly copyedited: To write a historically representative and balanced biography that is dependent on reliable sources and is edited according to the 3 core principals of BLP.

I copied and pasted the original statement. "Year" was part of it. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I can buy that. I would like to register my annoyance Wikifan for repeatedly blaming me for setting him off on a rant. Wikifan seems to take everything personally, yet has no appreciation for how his own over-reactions turn others off. Wikifan needs to chill out. If you want good will, assume good faith. NPguy (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we are beyond good faith. You misrepresented my POV. I corrected it. I didn't attack you. I simply corrected an inaccuracy. Sorry. Maybe it is you who needs to chill out and stop taking things personally. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could both cease commenting on each others motives. Surely you can both see how unhelpful it is. Kevin (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about motives. I care about what is and what isn't in the article. I don't think propaganda sources/BLP violations/misinterpretation of policy=motivates. It might be considered inappropriate editing in the right context, but identifying motives is subjective and cannot be proven without clear statements or checkuser. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit: Suggesting NPguy to chill out is not questioning his motives. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I am tempted to respond, but - except to say that I was not question motives either - I would rather move on to the next step. NPguy (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think we've done enough here. I also think there has been plenty of discussion on the policies applicable - WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:V. I don't think any one disagrees that the article must comply with those policies. For the next section, setting out an outline, WP:NPOV is the most relevant as we decide how much content to allocate to each portion of the biography. Kevin (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Article outline

This is the current state of the article, as summarised by myself. I suggest initially a brief statement from all as to what changes in structure are required. This way we can see which bits are already acceptable to all. Then we could edit the outline below, striking that which is to be removed, and making new additions in bold. We should probably also add rough sizes for the sections.

---

Lead paragraph

Name, current role, Nobel prize

Family

Basic bio details

Early career

Gaining qualifications, early diplomatic career

Career at the IAEA

Overall timeline: when he joined, what positions held

Role in strengthened safeguards

Comment: this is a missing section and would require some research. In his positions in OLA and EXPO, ElBaradei played an important supporting role in measures to strengthen IAEA safeguards in response to the 1991 revelations about Iraq's clandestine nuclear activities.

Public careerElection as IAEA Director General

Brief overview paragraphComment: ElBaradei emerged as a dark horse candidate in a contested election. There is a recent article on this by Fred McGoldrick in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Iraq (2002-2003)

Comment: I'm not sure what Wikifan has in mind with "actions, reactions, event." It seems to me this would be a chronological narrative, perhaps with a few secondary source comments at the end.

Iran (2002-2009)

Comment: This is the longest and most controversial section. Rather than commentary at the end it might be more appropriate to put commentaries at a few key points, e.g. after the 2003 report, after 2006 when Iran was reported to the Security Council.

Syria (2007-2009)

Comment: This would include the Israeli air strike in September 2007, ElBaradei's reaction both before and after the April 2008 U.S. briefing, and the subsequent IAEA investigation.

Nuclear fuel cycle proposals (2003-2009)

Economist article, expert group on multilateral nuclear approaches, fuel supply assurance proposals at IAEA, NTI fuel bank

Re-election to a third term (2005)

U.S. opposition, then acquiescence Comment: This could be a single paragraph.

Comment: we may want to add a few additional subheadings, such as North Korea (2002-2009), Libya (2003-2004), disarmament and Middle East peace process. They would be short, and the first two would go into the chronological sequence above.

First term as director general

Empty

Second term as director general

Empty

Third and final term as director general

Support/dissent for election to third term Campaign to prevent re-election

Role in addressing the nuclear program of Iran

Mention of the 2007 report Reactions to his role Media interviews Comments on a fourth term

Awards

Paragraph on 2005 Nobel prize List of other awards and recognitions

---

Discussion of Article Outline

I really don't like the current outline. Like I suggested before, can we merge his role as IAEA director into a single section and then section off important events? Also, what is the difference between Public career and terms? I don't think we should devote an entire section to Iran. That should be a sub-heading as a part of his term. This looks almost exactly like the current article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC) I hope you don't mind me moving this. I'd like to keep the proposed structure at the top. Kevin (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I started this section with what is currently in the article, so it probably looks very familiar. Once the others have given their summary you could edit the bit above (maybe strikethrough the bits you want gone, use bold for additions), or start a new outline, whichever seems appropriate to you. Kevin (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I did propose an outline above. I thought we were all going to collaboratively decide what sections will be used. Simply copy/pasting the sections from the old (and botched) article does not make sense. Shouldn't we go through each section individually before finalizing an outline or considering one the default? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't put up this outline as a proposal, just a reference point that reflects the current article state. I want you all to edit it, or throw it away and start fresh until we have an agreed outline everyone is happy with. Kevin (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well perhaps we should first agree upon a standard outline before starting an edit war. I prefer not to post material in x section only for that section to go away. collectively deciding on an outline which will be used to improve the article can't be constantly changed navigation-wise.

This is my idea based off comparable bios and UN-related people:

lead

Background and education (condensing family and early career)

Appointment as Head/director/director general whatever of IAEA - (not public career...doesn't make sense. :D) (reactions, mostly US, actions, events, etc...)

Iraq (actions, reactions, event)

Iran (actions, reactions, event) Any other countries (actions, reactions, events) Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wikifan's general approach, which I will try to implement in the outline above. I've put in a section break to separate the ongoing design work from discussions thereof. NPguy (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sweet. I prefer don't gather all criticism/praise etc...into one being lump or at the end of the section. It would be better if all references were merged according to event. I.e, ME does this, newspaper/notable figure says this (direct response to his action). We avoid confusion, and follow all the other BLP articles. Plus, reduces any impression of undue weight. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need these sections:

Career at the IAEA

Overall timeline: when he joined, what positions held

[edit] Role in strengthened safeguards

Comment: this is a missing section and would require some research. In his positions in OLA and EXPO, ElBaradei played an important supporting role in measures to strengthen IAEA safeguards in response to the 1991 revelations about Iraq's clandestine nuclear activities.

[edit] Public careerElection as IAEA Director General

that will just clutter up the page. And there is no need to dedicate a section to his election. We can just have an Early Career, like Hans Blix, and then devote everything else to IAEA Director. Opposition to appointment (appointment is more accurate than election), reactions, opinion of nations, etc...can all be put their. Then we should move on to Iraq, Iran, etc...

also, there is no need for a section on his election to a 3rd term. It's not a particularly notable event and was expected. That can go in the IAEA Director general page. Also, with with the Iran section, it would be good of us to include an Israel sub-section. The country played a crucial role when people starting slamming ME for his allegedly-passive approach to Iran.

And how important is this Nuclear fuel cycle proposals (2003-2009)? ME has does a lot of things, dozens of proposals. This should be merged into a sub-section, but giving it's own unique section is not necessary. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we need headings for all the outline elements listed above, but I think they are the key topics this article should cover. They are things I recall as particularly prominent events, and I have followed his career pretty closely. ElBaradei played a pivotal role in spurring international discussion of fuel supply assurances, and continues to play a key role as they develop at the IAEA. He sees it as a "legacy" issue. The ones Wikifan questions would be short. I think headings would be helpful to the reader, but I'm prepared to keep an open mind and see what the article ends up looking like.

I remain unconvinced of the need for a subsection on Israel. What "crucial role" did Israel play? How is this more important than others, such as the E3, the E3+3 the NAM, etc.? Wikifan, please explain. NPguy (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

ME began a lengthy campaign in categorizing Israel with Iran. ElBaradei: Israel's nuclear arms blocking Mideast peace. This is supported by hundreds of reliable sources. ElBaradei did play a pivatol role in fuel supply, but that is not what he most known for. I consider this undue weight to devote an entire section that really is essentially meaningless n the grande scheme of things. Vast majority of media doesn't promote as a leader in fuel supply discussion. I mean, he is more known for his Israel dance than that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why Israel's involvement would be more relevant than other parties either. I am fairly agreeable to the rest of the proposals at this point.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

What other parties? The sources are there. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think "other parties" is a reference to the E3 and the P5+1. From a quick scan of what came up in that Google search, I noticed a number of articles about Syria (a section that needs to be added to the outline) and about Middle East peace, but not much specifically linking Israel, Iran and ElBaradei. So I remain unconvinced of the need for an Israel subsection to the Iran section - but I remain open to being convinced by specific reliable citations.

As for fuel assurances, even if the topic hasn't been particularly newsworthy, I think it is noteworthy for its nonproliferation significance. My understanding is that Wikipedia is intended not merely to summarize the news media but rather to provide a guide to what is important about a subject. In any case, we can fill out the outline and see how it looks. NPguy (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You remain unconvinced? wtf? I'll do it for you: 1, 2, 3, 4. Remain unconvinced? Well, sources say differently. He made a pass in throwing Israel with Iran and trying to blame it for "impeding" global disbarment process. IT got more press coverage than the E3 + P51, that's for sure. That's never even been in the article before, not even mentioned. I would like to make this process more standard to BLP and less personal. Reduce the, "I remain unconvinced," "I disagree..." etc. If someone provides a source, responding with such statement is hardly appropriate and is extremely frustrating. Plus, I feel like I'm looking for your approval rather than collaborating. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

One of those four articles has an Iran focus. The others are about Middle East peace, Syria, and disarmament. As a result, I remain unconvinced that there should be an Israel subsection in the Iran section. I don't se the need for any country-specific subsections under Iran. Under the outline above, most of these citations would go in other sections.

I disagree with Wikifan on two other points. First, while these statements may have gotten more play in the Israeli press, I don't think they got more play in the world press. Second, this article should not necessarily be driven by press coverage.

Finally this mediation process is supposed to be about reaching agreement on what goes in the article. We aren't there yet, but I think we're getting closer. Like it or not, Wikipedia relies on getting other people to go along. NPguy (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, again, sources should "convince" you. We could put a totally unique "Israel section" since it has been involved in Syria/UN/IAEA/Iran and ME. What's "world press?" Israeli press isn't a sub-standard media. It is the only reliable source press in the Middle East with the exception of *lol* AJ. But anyway's, here is "world press:"NYT, WSJ, Telegraph, CNN. I do agree, perhaps the subject is too broad and important to be under "Iran." I'd imagine it should have it's own section, considering the diversity of information and events. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that the original publications may be more useful for determining the context of these reports. Kevin (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Kevin, what do you mean by "the original publications"?

Wikifan, by "world press" I don't mean news outlets of the Middle East. All national presses tend to view the world from a narcissistic perspective: How does this affect me? So it's no surprise that the Israeli press takes particular interest in what ElBaradei says about Israel. It's not a representative sample.

I'm interested in what others, including the IP editor, think of the outline so far. NPguy (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why Israel's involvement would be more relevant than other parties but I am fairly agreeable to the rest of the proposed structure at this point. I liked the suggestion of a section for nuclear fuel cycle proposals. I haven't seen how this would drastically alter the content of the article otherwise though.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Just that each of the links Wikifan12345 provided seemed to be reporting what El Baradei had said to another media outlet, i.e. 1 this link seems to be republishing what he said to the Sydney Morning Herald. The other links mention Der Spiegel, International Herald Tribune etc. Kevin (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Npguy I do not know where you are going with this. Reliable sources from all over the world support an Israel/ME connection. Reliable sources this article severely lacks. I do not know what you are disputing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Relevance is determined by reliable sources and coverage. The Israel issue has garnered far more coverage than this nuclear fuel cycle proposal, though I'm not suggesting we axe that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

One way of incorporating the role of Israel in the nuclear debate in the Middle East would be to put the nation-specific headers under an umbrella of "Nuclear energy in the Middle East" - that would allow for a discussion of the specific states with nuclear issues during his tenure, as well as the involvement of and impact on other Middle Eastern states. Nathan ^T 16:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So if the material is included in this manner in proportion to its mentioning in reliable sources and relevancy to the life of ElBaradei then this would seem okay. The broader exploration of this issue would be more appropriate for Israel and weapons of mass destruction, Nuclear weapons and Israel, etc.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see the justification for a section on Israel. ElBaradei has criticized the United States at least as much as Israel, but I don't think a section on the United States is called for. Both Israel and the United Sates have been the objects of his criticism, but neither was really the subject of his work. Instead, I suggest that we weave ElBaradei's criticism of Israel - and Israel's of him - in something like the above outline. Wikifan, can you live with that? Otherwise, I'd ask Kevin for advice on how to proceed. Can we move ahead, even without consensus, by filling out the outline? NPguy (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I really do agree with this sentiment, I am also just trying to find some agreement. But how many comments has ElBaradei made in his lifetime, and what is the burden for including them in the article? Comments about country X, Y, or Z don't seem as relevant, but they could be included for context when and where they are relevant. I am open to a small amount in the spirit of compromise though.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

For info: I did a NewsBank search for "El Baradei" AND "Israel", and found surprisingly little that was more than a passing mention. Almost every article talked about the bigger picture. The search includes a fairly broad cross section of world media. Kevin (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So based off of the above discussion I would propose that the material does not merit an entire section, but that the most representative comments could be included briefly where they are appropriate to provide some context. I am not sure what exact form others think this would take but it could be a few sentences somewhere in the Iran section. I really think that it would make sense to include larger blocs though, such as the U.N. Security Council, the IAEA Board of Governors, the Non-Aligned Movement, and the P5+1. I think the rest of this information would be better suited for other articles, and that the reactions in general should be fairly brief.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Npguy - we need to go beyond the "i think" "in my opinion" mentality. The sources speak for themselves. There are more unique reliable sources covering the Israel/ME issue (which has been one of his most publicized relations during his tenture as director) than there are in the entire article. UN Security council, IAEA BOG, non-aligned movement is of little importance to ME. We can't bloat this article like last time. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the reactions in general should be kept to a minimum, but I have a very hard time understanding how you would argue for including Israel but not the IAEA Board of Governors, the U.N. Security Council, etc. For example, the IAEA Board of Governors appointed ElBaradei to his three terms and has made all of the political decisions based on the technical findings which he has reported.

And anyways Israel hasn't even been completely critical of him as Shimon Peres said he was a "worthy winner" of the Nobel Prize, and the Israel Atomic Energy Commission/Israeli Ambassador to the IAEA welcomed both his appointment to a third term, saying

We are confident that Mr. El-Baradei will carry this burden and, with the support of Member States, will do his best to confront these challenges and win the struggle for a safer world

and his acceptance of the Nobel Prize, saying

I am pleased to convey the heartiest congratulations of the Government of Israel to the Agency and to the Director General, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, on being awarded the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize. ...It also recognizes the personal contribution of the Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei to carrying out these missions over the last years.

So I am curious how this op-ed necessarily represents the view of the Israeli government, and then what would make that view (or any of the views) more relevant to his life or work than that of large blocs of nations, specifically ones tasked with his appointment. So, how do you argue Israel is more relevant to his life or his reporting? And how can sources such as an op-ed purport to represent the view of the Israeli government?--68.248.155.2 (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to add another quote in the same area as the other Israeli quotes. Former Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom also said:

We are having Dr. ElBaradei today until Thursday. I believe that he will have good meetings with the Israeli prime minister and with other high officials in Israel. I myself will meet him on Thursday in the airport when I'll be back from the States and he will be back home. We are talking to ElBaradei. It's not our first meeting. I met him a few months ago in Vienna. We believe that we should cooperate. We are working one with each other.

The prime minister at the point in time Shalom said there would be a good meeting was Ariel Sharon, and they were both members of the same party, Likud.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, another problem. We need to end the "I think..." mantra. I'm sorry, yes that might be interpreted as hostile but I've said this about 8 times. We edit according to BLP guidelines. Editorials existed in ALL blps if reliable sources support them. I am not going to argue the relevance of Israel with such an extremely opinionated post. Reliable source support everything, period. IAEA board of governors is not ME. That is in the IAEA article. Does anyone here really believe a long, unnecessary, and horribly off-topic section on IAEA board of governors (which would likely be a copy and paste from the IAEA website - fantastic) is truly relevant and complies with guidelines? Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't. All guidelines/policies are open to some interpretation, so it is absolutely necessary for editors to use judgement and opinions when making decisions. Right now we are discussing how much weight to give the El Baradei-Israel connection. That is an editorial judgement we as editors will have to make, taking into account each persons opinion, using the policies to guide us. There are no black and white issues here. Kevin (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>:IP's "interpretation" conflicts with policy. Reliable sources and general understanding of ME establish a clear and directly-relatable connection between him and Israel. Arguments like: "I have a very hard time understanding how you would argue for including Israel but not the IAEA Board of Governors, the U.N. Security Council, etc." I tend to ignore because they do not reflect policy and is directed as a user rather than the article itself. I'm sort of confused as to what is being disputed. Are you guys disputing an Israel/ME connection? If so, can you please provide sources that corroborates such dispute? NP reduced Israeli press as outside of "world media." Even though that it is totally ridiculous, I did 30 seconds of googling and found "world media" that carries the Israel story. No response. At least be consistent guys. :D 04:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Wikifan12345 (talk)

The general argument being made is that the El Baradei-Israel connection is insufficiently represented in the media to warrant it's own section. No-one seems to be disputing that there is some connection. Could you explain further how the IPs concerns do not reflect policy? I need to better understand what you are getting at. Finally, would you please not refer to the opinions/edits of others as "ridiculous". Kevin (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is the general argument. My question is why. Beyond, "In my opinion," "I think, and "I believe" very little rationale has been offered for support. Kevin, this is the reason why we established the above goals. I shouldn't have to go through every post and prove why x does not follow policy, you should recognize that. But, if this is truly what you want (and this is an extreme waste of time):

You requesting I explain why the IP "arguments" violates policy implies you either endorse it or agree they follow policy, ok...here we go:

Error # 1:"I think the reactions in general should be kept to a minimum, but I have a very hard time understanding how you would argue for including Israel but not the IAEA Board of Governors, the U.N. Security Council, etc. For example, the IAEA Board of Governors appointed ElBaradei to his three terms and has made all of the political decisions based on the technical findings which he has reported."

Reactions = editorials/criticism/etc...

As is said before, this violates core BLP principals, such Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

There is no excuse for consciously weaning "reactions" on BLPs. If reliable sources exist (and hundreds do for this specific case), we CAN use them. A specific source can be disputed naturally, but creating an artificial bar that says "all reactions = minimum" is totally ridiculous (yes, ridiculous Kevin) and again, violates BLP. Do you not agree?

For those who are unaware, ...the 3 BLP guidelines are technically policies. They are not subject to the level of interpretation you suggested, and certainly not the amount the IP posted.

As much as it might hurt other editors feeling, habitually posting disputes that violate basic BLP principals is ridiculous. Especially in the midst of a mediation where the ground-rules have been set and every user has been afforded the time to thoroughly review policies. If I were violating policy continuously and in spite of repeated cautions, I'd prefer someone tell me then be given the false impression that everything is honky dory. This is necessary for an effective mediation.

Shall I continue or can we move on? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I am not endorsing any opinions here, just asking a question so I can understand you better. I'm not trying to waste your time.

Re error #1 - I'm still not getting it - how does having a small amount of content on El Baradei-Israel rather than a separate section violate core BLP principles?

Seeing as none of the policies relevant here mention El Baradei, we must interpret them to understand how they apply to this article. How else can we apply them?

random section break

I do not think we can move on until we have established how much of the El Baradei-Israel connection to have in the article, and if it should have it's own section. Kevin (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

His rationale violates policy. The notion that we should consciously restrict criticism/praise is not a shared nor accepted standard in the community. IP has recommended/suggested this several times btw. Do you dispute this? I've provided plenty of supporting reliable sources to substantiate a unique section or sub-section of Israel in the article. His recommendations played/plays roles in UN opinion, US response, Arab views, and became a center platform for IAEA opinion. If any of you can dispute the sources I provided, please...by all means. Continuously demanding more rationale when the information speaks for itself is mind-blowingly frustrating. If you could be more explicit in your disagreement that would be helpful. If not, then let's move on to more-arguable topics (i.e, unreliable/propaganda sources currently in the article.) or crafting an accurate and strictly-edited by BLP policy outline of all sections. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So for example, there were over 4,000 articles about George W. Bush and Israel published in the last month (more than the entire George W. Bush article), yet there isn't an entire section devoted to his 'special relationship' or something of the sort with Israel in the article. How many articles are there abot Bush and a given country X? Does every country deserve its own section? Bush is primarily notable for being the President of the U.S., being the son of a former President and governor of Texas, and for what he did while he was President. Notable reactions about him would generally come from current or former U.S. officials or from U.S. public perception. ElBaradei is notable for being the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, for being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005, and primarily for his work on promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy and inhibitting its use for military purposes. Notable reactions about him would come from the international community as a whole (or specific blocs of nations), the IAEA Board of Governors which appoints him, and the Nobel Committee.

And anyways, I am not arguing against the inclusion of any material, I am taking issue specifically with the material which you have provided. I am asking you to justify how Israel is more relevant to his life or his reporting and how sources such as an op-ed can reliably purport to represent the view of the Israeli government (especially in the face of Israeli governmental sources which take a seemingly opposing view). On the separate issue of criticism/praise, I just think the information needs to come from reliable sources, be represented conservatively, and be represented in proportion to its relevance to ME's life or work. I think if you really want to include the information, you should just look at putting it where it might be more relevant (such as Israel and weapons of mass destruction, Nuclear weapons and Israel, etc.)--68.248.155.2 (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the Israeli government. Israel isn't Egypt or Syria, there is no state-controlled news that speaks on behalf of the administration. You can ask all you want, and I can continue to provide reliable sources that back up ME explicit relation to Israel. More reliable sources currently in the entire article, and certainly more than the whole nuclear recycle proposal. Most of that information is simply promotion news from the IAEA itself (hardly noteworthy if that is the case). Here, again...I'll post RELIABLE SOURCES that corroborate this basic happening:

Hey Kevin, I know you are a mediator but it seems responses like: "I do not think we can move on until we have established how much of the El Baradei-Israel connection to have in the article, and if it should have it's own section." are truly unhelpful. You asked a question (does IP rationale violate policy - my answer: yes, here is why.) Repeating that same question while I continually provide sources and BLP-guided reasoning makes me wonder what you actually want. If you want to mediate, please do...but delaying the process and simply wearing me down where I no longer care does not help. I'll simply go away as I'm sure many of you would like. ElBaradei: Israel's nuclear arms blocking Mideast peace, ElBaradei slams Israel for Syria attack, ElBaradei warns against strike on Iran, UN warns attack on Iran will spark 'fireball' in Middle East, Ball of fire' if Iran attacked: IAEA chief, Israeli official: ElBaradei's comments on Iran are irrelevant, A Conversation with Mohamed ElBaradei, Mohamed ElBaradei warns of new nuclear age, ElBaradei urges Iran to engage with U.S., Israel flexes muscles with 'Iran attack' drill, UK 'cover-up' on Israel's nukes, and many...many more. None of those are editorials btw.

Much of ME recent activism has solely revolved around Israel, and world media has taken notice. To deny notability without confronting these facts is not acceptable nor can be passed off as valid. As I said before, please explain what is wrong according to BLP policy. IPs challenge violated BLP policy and was totally ridiculous. You cannot debate reliable sources without more reliable sources. I mean that in the most blunt way possible. I'd be happy to message a qualified BLP-editor and he will verify. I'm sure he'd probably throw-up at the sheer amount of propaganda sources currently used in the article.

And now considering the growing-Iranian nuclear problem that has been responded to with silence, a section seems all the more important. ME legacy will be defined by his handling of Iran. Not nuclear recycle or Iraq or Nobel Peace Prize.

Please, explain why...in non-opinionated/POV/rationale, why a section is not justified by the sheer amount of attention and relationship with ME and why it also violates policy. Neither have been proven. I'm seriously considering messaging a BLP admin and get this over with. We cannot continue a mediation unless people understand how BLP works. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think getting another opinion is a good idea. I still do not understand why you feel that a decision on how much weight to give the El Baradei-Israel connection is strictly dictated by policy, and is not an editorial decision where consensus among the editors here forms the final outcome. As for moving on, it would be irresponsible of me to suggest we move on when agreement has not been reached. I'll see if I can propose a compromise position re Israel later today. Kevin (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Kevin...the reliable sources speak for themselves. that is also a quality shared of BLP policy. My "opinion" is purely based off available information. Therefore, you not "understanding" is very confusing. A compromise is acceptable in a mutually and legal dispute, but compromising when person A is editing according to strict BLP policy while person B has demonstrated no connection with wikipedia rules and instead relies on subjective opinion (which can be relevant in many instances) is concerning at best, and certainly does not warrant a compromise-zone. An editor involved in a dispute must be able to demonstrate that material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, I've done that. I'll be messaging a BLP regular shortly, though it shouldn't be necessary. Perhaps we need an experienced BLP-editor (and preferably admin) to collaborate with the mediation. Based off many of the POVs and opinions, users continually do not understand (or maybe...refuse to) core BLP policies. BLP are not like regular articles. Strict policies exist to dictate how they are written, more so than most topic-related articles on wikipedia. If users rely on conflicting methods, consensuses and compromises cannot be created. And as far as I know, no one has disputed the reliable sources. It all boils down to "I don't see why this makes sense..." I can't read for you guys. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you are misrepresenting the other opinions. They are that while there is an El Baradei-Israel connection, and there are sources to back that up, the amount of coverage relative to the entire coverage of El Baradei in general is too small to warrant it's own section. One of the others will no doubt correct me if I have misread that. Kevin (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that is the general claim and I have not misrepresented it. In fact, my entire argument (or rather, simply providing reliable sources) dismiss any bizarre notion that a section is not warranted. To accuse me of misrepresenting another POV while I have thoroughly provided clause after clause after clause to support my statements is suspect of your judgment. Perhaps we truly need a full-time BLP mediator because clearly users simply do not understand policy. And at this point, there is no excuse. Good faith has been assumed. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Kevin's assessment of my opinion, and also add that I don't think op-ed's fully establish the connection, especially when you have the State of Israel welcoming ElBaradei and congratulating him on his accomplishments and work multiple times in an official manner. So I questioned whether the connection has been fully and properly established and whether it was directly notable enough to include in this article.

I would also point out that I think both Kevin and Nathan are experienced BLP administrators in my opinion. A dispute resolution process within the third recent dispute resolution process does seem to be slightly redundant to me, but another pair of eyes never hurts.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Great. Your "opinion" is an opinion. Kevin hasn't disputed BLP or challenged the sources, and neither have you or Nathan. You've simply ignored them. Nathan is an involved user. Not impartial or objective to the necessary degree, I'll message a regular BLP admin very soon.

Also, I don't know if Kevin is an experienced BLP user. He obviously is a quality mediator, but understanding of even basic BLP policy is seriously lacking in this discussion...to an almost tragic extent. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: This sentence IP: "I don't think op-ed's fully establish the connection" shows you did not read my above post. Every source (around 15 of them counting all sources) listed shows no indication of it being an editorial. Again, even if it did....totally irrelevant. Can't help but notice the pattern with "I think" (a.k.a, opinion). Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you have objectively proven anything to anyone but yourself, and that you are entitled to your "opinion" but that it is nothing more than that. Just your opinion, which accusing people of violating policy doesn't seem to convince many people of. And Kevin's role is isn't supposed to be to pick or determine which "side" is right, it is to help establish a consensus. Wikipedia kind of works on those, not on one person's "objective reality".--68.248.155.2 (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not questioning what you think. I haven't accused any of violating policy, I've demonstrated it. Big difference. :d Kevin's role is to be an objective mediator and promote a fair and efficient process of collaborative editing. You, for some reason, don't recognize the importance of Israel in relation to ME. I then explained why your initial reasoning violated policy x, x and x, then listed reliable sources, which you claimed were editorials when they were not, to support a generally-accepted fact. As I said, there are more unique reliable sources that exist than # of reliable sources in the article itself. You are making this personal and accusing me of things I have not done. Please strike your post. Off-topic but we'll probably end up using it since it is so revealing: 'It Was Others Who Failed' Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, it is wonderful that you have the opinion that you have "demonstrated" me violating policy, but you seem to be alone your in your initial opinion and your opinion of demonstration. And the expression of both of these opinions would seem to be inhibiting the discussion of why your opinion of a connection isn't corroborated by reliable Israeli governmental sources and why your opinion of direct notability to the life and work of ElBaradei could not be extended to any other given country X in my opinion and the opinion of others. Your opinion may be that you are always right, the problem is that opinion can't be used as proof and you have to convince others of your opinion.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

So now I'm alone? Okay. For future responses, please focus on what I actually wrote rather than reducing your position to bandwagoning. Just because 1 person out 3 uses strict-BLP policies and reliable sources to support his "opinion" (based off available information, not POV...not "I think" mentality) does not meant the other two are correct by virtue of being greater in number. A true indicator of righteousness will be resolved by an experienced BLP-admin/editor. I will be messaging shortly. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict: Uh, thanks for that attackful post. Perhaps you could focus on the sources and policies I posted rather than resorting to attacking my character and apparent stubborn/inflexible/resistant to policy opinion. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that your expression of your opinion of you "demonstrating" me violating policy is inhibitive to the process, specifically as we initally laid out, and I would encourage you to instead to focus on the content matter. I didn't attack your character, I am sorry you somehow managed to interpret it that way, and I would for the third time say that I would welcome another set of eyes on the article and encourage you to just discuss the content matter.

And again, in summary, objection to the material may be summed up in two key points:

1. Multiple Israeli governmental sources have welcomed ElBaradei's appointment to a third term, congratulated him on the work that led to his acceptance of the Nobel Prize, etc. This casts doubt on an ultra-controversial connection between the two.

2. Assuming that there is a controverisl connection between ElBaradei and Israel, it may not be directly notable to his life to include in this article. ElBaradei could have a connection with any country X, we have to show why it is important enough to include in the article.

I welcome another set of eyes, and would encourage you to just reply to content matter.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec - to Wikifan) I have to say at this point, that the only real attacks on editor's characters is by yourself, and that your inflexibility is making reaching a consensus more difficult. Much of your recent language ("righteousness", "bandwagoning" etc) indicated to me that you have very strong feelings toward this article that appear to be hindering your ability to remain neutral and objective. Kevin (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My inflexibility? I've repeatedly listed policies and appropriate/cordial approaches. IP hasn't changed his position or POV in spite of mediation and has continually dismissed BLP standards. No one user, including yourself, has even touched or disputed what I wrote. No one has discussed the sources, aside from an accusation that they were editorials (they weren't - please recognize that) and you contiously ignoring user faults is troubling. A consensus CANNOT be reached without appreciation for basic rules, an appreciation that has not been meant. I really couldn't care less about ME. I really don't. All I want is for the article to follow strict BLP rules. Users who deny that should be recognized. If your implying that my responses to your questions are somehow hindering the "process", well yeah.

Look Kevin, posts like these: your opinion of a connection isn't corroborated by reliable Israeli governmental sources and why your opinion of direct notability to the life and work of ElBaradei could not be extended to any other given country X in my opinion and the opinion of others. Your opinion may be that you are always right, the problem is that opinion can't be used as proof and you have to convince others of your opinion is nothing less than insulting. Truly. I spent a lot of time crafting posts and doing my best to apply BLP policy, something the IP or you has yet to do, but I'm continually shut out and told to stop hindering the process and be more flexible. The IP clearly does not understand the concept of reliable sources or what constitutes an editorial. If you can use BLP policy to support your rationale like I have, please do. I've requested this from all of you. Please. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Apart from all of the other discussion, there is also WP:BLP#Criticism and Praise:

Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

And the selection you have bolded was in response to you saying that I am relying on opinion while you have "demonstrated" something. If you really demonstrated something, which would seem to be counterproductive anyways, then I completely missed it. I would encourage you to recognize that we all only have opinions and to just discuss the content. And I have tried to cite Shimon Peres, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Israel's ambassador to the IAEA as reliable sources for Israel's view of ElBaradei.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Since when is this criticism? Have you read the sources? ME accuses Israel of violating Syrian sovereignty. ME accuses Israel of destabilizing the Middle East with its covert nuclear weapons program. ME believes an Israeli bombing of Iran would be a serious mistake and violation of x rules, etc... These are facts and supported by reliable sources (and most are not editorials), something this article seriously, seriously lacks. How you interpreted that as criticism is beyond me. And even if it were criticism, the sheer amount of coverage would warrant an inclusion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, I believe the notability criteria would be in general, but then there is also Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS:

Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be.

and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.

--68.248.155.2 (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no this has nothing to do with criticism. You just posted a totally irrelevant (and not binding) guideline policy. Please provide a rationale for undue weight and NOTNEWS. Those are serious concerns and blindly pasting and copying guidelines is unsettling. Undue weight would imply the widely-covered Israel/ME events are a minority viewpoint or is being over-represented according to its actual value. Unfortunately, this is not a minority viewpoint because it isn't even a viewpoint. Claiming undue weight makes sense since you claimed the sources were editorials three times even though I said they were typical reliable news articles. I encourage you to read through them. I am not an expert on undue weight so I'm sure someone can explain better than I. A NOTNEWS claim suggests the notability of Israel/ME is so weak that it does not deserve inclusion. So you are essentially saying the hundreds of stories that have been written over the years covering ME's personal and explicit involvement with Israel does not meet notability standards. That is my interpretation because you did not provide a rationale aside from pasting and copying not relevant guidelines.

Even so, fighting policies with policies might be considered shopping. Please address the reliable sources and policies I provided. They are very informative and are more related BLP (in fact, they make what is BLP).

Perhaps Kevin can explain to you what's wrong.

Awaiting 3rd opinion, should come momentarily. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You asked for policies and those are policies, I am not shopping simply providing a third or fourth line of reasoning since you dislike official statements from Israeli governmental officials and the opinions of other editors. General rationale for the policies may be found in WP:CHERRY and WP:News articles. More specific rationale, using WP:UCS, is that tangential coverage of a few quotes about a non-notable topic does not warrant an entire section in a BLP in an encyclopedia. And WP:UNDUE is a part of WP:NPOV, for your reference. I'm again going to give other editors a chance to comment.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 05:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't ask for you to cherry pick a nice-looking policy. You took an unrelated and unsubstantiated policy, NOTNEWS and UNDUE WEIGHt, both of which do not apply (and I explained that thoroughly). I was very explicit and thorough, and you did not even approach the sources, outlined and rationalized guidelines, and very simple logic. For comparison, I could say...you are violating WP:NOTCENSORED. and WP:NOTFORUM. Then I could quote a reasonably fitting line and I'm done. Yet it is not relevant nor appropriate. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to explain to IP what is wrong, because I find IP's arguments to be reasonable and in line with policy. His/her (and others) argument is that the overall amount of coverage of the El Baradei-Israel connection is too little to warrant it's own section. This is in line with the policy on a neutral point of view which states (in part) "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". His/her argument that we should not report everything the media has said about El Baradei is in accordance with the section of WP:NOT that states that we should consider "the historical notability of persons and events". Overall I find IP's arguments convincing, and your refutations often seem to misunderstand the purpose and meaning of the relevant policies, and often attack the motives of the editor rather than the substance of their arguments. Kevin (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so you find IP's arguments reasonable and in line with policy? Like, confusing reliable coverage that isn't editorials as criticism as he did about 30 mins ago? Uh?? Yes, we understand his/her argument is that the overall amount of coverage is too little to warrant it's own section. Yeah, I've spelled that argument more than once. I provided extensive reasoning why and listed an incredible amount of reliable sources that dismiss this illusion that there is too little of a connection between Israel and ME. by total volume of coverage: Iran, Iraq, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Nobel Prize, proposals/whatever, IAEA promotion etc...and in that order. NPOV is a solid policy and I think it is beautifully written. But I don't understand your reasoning. There is nothing obscene or POV here. The sources speak for themselves. ME has been given a voice, I don't see why we should ignore one of the most notable happenings of his tenure because of ambiguous claim of POV. And Kevin, IP has relied on the blatant inaccuracy that the RELIABLE SOURCES were editorials. He stated they were op-eds even after I friggin explained in 3 paragraphs why they weren't. In fact, I said it again right above. And I'm saying it now. And I'll probably end up saying it again. Please point where I am attacking the motives of the IP. You've seem to ignored the IPs rants on my own "agenda":in my opinion and the opinion of others. Your opinion may be that you are always right, the problem is that opinion can't be used as proof and you have to convince others of your opinion.

You've taken a troubling position here. You've consistently endorsed the views of the IP while ignoring my views (supported by available information and policy, explicitly) and the continuous BLP and general etiquette violations of the IP. The habitual generalizations and constant circular logic is totally backward and needs a solution. Clearly this isn't doing it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Kevin. I think you have assessed the situation accurately. NPguy (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Responded to your post that started with "I still don't see the justification for a section on Israel...." a few paragraphs up. Feel free to comment. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

random break 2

In two years of editing primarily BLPs, one thing that has become clear is that there are no "strict policies" governing the development of an article. Policies advise against certain things, and describe outer bounds of conduct and acceptable content, but within that outer bound there is always a great deal of room for interpretation. I think Kevin, the IP and Npguy would agree on that, while clearly Wikifan doesn't. So what we have is a fundamental split on how policies on Wikipedia work, and how they should be applied on this article. Since my sense is that everyone here is familiar with the policies and has no intention of violating them, perhaps the simplest solution would simply be to stop quoting them or citing them altogether. Policies won't write the article, and repeatedly citing them to support a position is not helpful.

There is a compromise position here - instead of including a whole section about ElBaradei/Israel, why not agree on a few sentences that describe his interaction with Israel and include it somewhere within the proposed architecture? No one is saying there has been no Israel element at all, or that it should be entirely excluded from the article, so why not meet somewhere in the middle? Nathan ^T 12:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. We give weight according to coverage. Rationales for exclusion were moot, and no valid argument has been given to dispute the unique sources or even general understanding. As I said, there is over 2 years of Israel/ME confrontation (supported by more reliable sources that are currently in the article) and a "few" sentences is woeful disproportionate to the amount of coverage. This, coupled with sheer amount of BLP and civil violations of IP and odd and confusing position of Kevin, does not warrant a compromise. If a user can simply respond to the sources given and dispute explicitly why they aren't important or notable, please do. But no one has, and the reason being is because the information speaks for itself. I never edited proposals with "I think" or "I believe." I cited direct BLP policies and then posted more than 20 unique sources ranging from ME warning Israel not to bomb Iran, ME categorizing Israel with the Irnian issue, ME suggesting Israel is de-stabalizing the middle east by its undeclared nuclear weapons program and this double standard is angering the islamic countries (namely Iran), etc...If you can condense the hundreds of interviews, stories, articles, and editorials on one of the most defining actions of ME into a "few" sentences, please do. At this point the mediation as become less of a cordial discussion as it is a POV battle. Demanding I settle because the sources and policies I cite are not recognized by the collective, and that they violate NOTNEWS (lol) and UNDUE WEIGHT (lol) and WP:CRITICISM (even loler, none of this is criticism), and that the coverage was only Israeli-based (false, this was NPguys insistence), does not make sense. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment from lightly involved editor: i.e., i've commented a few times, maybe edited article. Have read only this section and subsection.

• If there isn't much of interest in first term, why not merge into "First two terms section"?
• Considering Israel is going around threatening to bomb Iran, despite whatever El Baradei says, obviously its pronouncements about him are important, but they should be in relevant subsections.
• I assume this IS going to be included in the final, Syria (2007-2009)...Israeli air strike in September 2007, ElBaradei's reaction both before and after the April 2008 U.S. briefing, and the subsequent IAEA investigation. It's of interest to both people who were mad about airstrike and people who think Syria was after nukes so what actually happened under his watch should be made clear to readers. (With whether it's a sentence, a paragraph, a section to be decided.)
• His leadership on/comments on Nuclear fuel cycle proposals (2003-2009) Economist article, expert group on multilateral nuclear approaches, fuel supply assurance proposals at IAEA, NTI fuel bank should get a sentence or two with a few refs. Doesn't necessarily need a subsection; same for other country topics.
• The battle over his re-election is important, but obviously there should be clear context of what political groups opposed him and because of what of his actions. That's all for now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

At least one user recognized notability (though to an ambigious degree - qualify perhaps?). Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: the proposal as it currently stands does not organize in terms of ElBaradei's terms as DG, but in terms of issues he faced. That's why all the country/topical references. If they end up being short, it may be better to include disarmament, fuel assurances, and Middle East peace issues in a single section labeled "other." To respond to Wikifan, I think Israel should be referenced in several sections, including Iran, Syria and Middle East peace - just not in its own section. I don't see how you can interpret Wiki policies to require an Israel section. NPguy (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, you "don't see." I've responded thoroughly to your points above, you did not do the same and no you are repeating what has already been disputed. I don't see why you wouldn't understand. ME has dealt with Israel in a explicit way beyond Iran. He has invested much time and focus, more so than North Korea according to coverage. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And might I reiterate, I responded to every claim directed at me. I wish people could do the same, it would make the mediation a whole not less repetitive. there is some guideline that talks about these kinds of "disputes." If you have a concern beyond opinion, please post it. But it's hard to argue hundreds of reliable sources and months of coverage, more so than the proposals, Nobel Peace Prize, etc...Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarity, are you able to accept that the general consensus is for mention of the El Baradei-Israel connection to be written into the sections as proposed, or do you still feel that a separate section is warranted? Kevin (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe for clarity it would make sense to write an Israel/ME connection according to its importance and coverage. With the amount of reliable sources and information available, it is logical and warranted-by-policy that a unique section be created. It would also make the issue seem less scattered and improve the current navigation/clutter that currently exists in article. It would also make disputes a lot easier to manage. If it becomes apparent that the section is not needed following a draft, then I would support a generally merged-info but unless we have sections on Syria, Iran, US...I don't see how we could put in all notable Israel-related events accurately. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

<backdent>
As for an Israel section, why not draft/preview what you think belongs in it and note whether and why material should be taken from sections where currently listed. I don't strongly see the need for a separate Israel section, but am open to more concrete suggestions. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. How about, for now, we count a pending-Israel section as part of a rough-draft outline and then see how that goes. If it becomes apparent that the information known is not notable or large enough to warrant a total section devoted to it, then naturally we would go to merging. But just for clarification: The original dispute was there is no ME/Israel connection and it shouldn't be in the article anywhere. Now that's no longer the case, except a unique section isn't warranted. Am I right here? so inconsistent....:D Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a more detailed outline is necessary. Putting in draft versions is the best way to put your point across.

As for no Israel connection? Haven't people heard about the Samson Option? But seriously it seems to be there's a good, controversial quote out there from him about Israel should admit it has nukes. Like in this Reuters article: In an article for the International Herald Tribune, Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, set out what he thought should be done to achieve consensus on nuclear disarmament. "What compounds the problem is that the nuclear non-proliferation regime has lost its legitimacy in the eyes of Arab public opinion because of the perceived double-standards concerning Israel, the only state in the region outside the NPT and known to possess nuclear weapons," he wrote. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There's more. He referred to Israel's skirmish over Syrian land threatened "stability" in the region. He's also made several well-covered references to Israel's actions during the latest war, and has continually dismissed a strike against Iran's alleged-nuclear facilities would severely disrupt the diplomatic mission and exacerbate whatever problems exist. The Iranian nuclear dispute is also coupled with Israel because ME has routinely used the state as defense. Under Bush, ME experienced intense scrutiny over the administration's-perceived passive approach he took towards Iran while flaming their ally instead. ME has routinely suggested Israel is a major contributor to the current Middle East nuclear shake-up. For comparison, ME has devoted more time to Israel than North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan combined. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Wikifan has suggested that I have been acting tendentiously, and that I am one-sided in my approach. While I disagree with his assessment, I feel that either a different mediator or an alternate form of mediation would be more useful at this point. I suggest looking to either WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDCOM for assistance. My thanks all here who have genuine efforts at reaching agreement. Kevin (talk) 04:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said you were one-sided in your approach. For those curious please see our on-going discussion at Kevin's talk here. Kevin made some weird accusations and I made an effort to settle them. Please do not blame me for you wanting to resign from mediation. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

While I would be sorry to see you (Kevin) go and while I want to continue in the same process, I realize that it also needs to have the engagement of all users.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So where do we go from here?

Wikifan appears to believe that editing this article is a rule-based process, while other editors appear to believe it should be based more on editorial judgment.

Wikifan also appears to be frustrated that others involved in this discussion generally have not responded to his lengthy comments in sufficient detail. For my part, I don't have the time for that. It is not meant as a sign of disrespect. On the substance, I have argued that most of interactions between ElBaradei and Israel were about another issue, whether it be Iran, Syria, or Middle East peace. By that argument, they would fit better in those sections. My rationale is that it's ElBaradei's job to deal with Iran and Syria (though not with Middle East peace - he seems to be freelancing there). Except insofar as it relates to those other issues, dealing with Israel is not a major part of his official responsibilities. I would welcome a response to that argument.

One editor has even suggested that, since we have been unable to agree in the abstract, Wikifan should be invited to draft an Israel section for consideration by other editors. I can support that approach.

Wikifan, would you be willing to draft an Israel section here on the discussion page? NPguy (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan is frustrated at users who disagree with materials without providing proper or appropriate reasoning. When arguments are finally resolved, users make more excuses. (I.e, you said media was only Israeli-based - not "world media." That was wrong. IP dubiously claimed the section violates criticism policy, when the information wasn't critical/POV/opinion. Then he claimed notability, NOTNEWS...all unrelated and unapplicable reasons. Then you attacked me and said I was being inflexible and should compromise. I'm not an editor who relies solely on the rule book. I'm all for perspective and suggestions, but when user disputes violate BLP policy (and general logic) it suggests a more personal/POV upset rather than a concern for the information itself. I included a nice summary of the excuses you guys made and reiterated my explanations. It all seems to get lost in the rhetoric. Kevin decided to "ignore" it (his words, not mine.) Yes, I'm totally willing to draft an Israeli section but first it would have to assumed in the outline or it might be out of place. Does that not seem fair? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the majority of the content would be more relevant to include within the existing Iranian or Syrian sections, but I am open to seeing what a section would look like at least. But we have to use the same threshhold for inclusion, so this may mean adding sections about other countries as well then. I suspect including every country with this threshhold would make the article possibly innavigable, but I am willing to temporarily suspend judgement and at least see where it could go.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You "think." Opinion noted. Thanks for the nasty tidbit at my BLP request. There are no existing Iranian or Syrian sections. ME hasn't even touched Syria's pursuit of nuclear weapons aside from flaming Israel for bombing it. :D Anyways. Let's set up the outline with the Israel section/sub-section and write a draft. We need a new mediator also. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, you are still the only editor who wants an Israel subsection. It's up to you to draft one; don't expect any help. You do not seem aware that the other editors are bending over backwards to accommodate you, despite your incessant bickering. I see no point in waiting for a new mediator. It's time to put up or shut up. NPguy (talk) 08:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Angry much? So let's see, 1 out of 3 passionately deny the existence of notable and relevant reliable sources (more reliable sources than the entire article currently has) yet oddly demand I "put up or shutup" because I'm the only user who actually relies on references rather than rhetoric? Whatever section I draft will likely be dismissed based on the sheer level of subjectivity and resistance to edits beyond narrow POV that seems to collectively dominate the discussion. You have yet to explain why a section isn't merited (i.e, disputing the references - not the editor who posts them)and instead resort to attacking me, again. You are absolutely right, I do not see any point in waiting for a new mediator. I'm just gonna grab some admins and see what they think. Considering how devoted some editors are, I'm really not in the mood to get blocked. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

Deprecated template I am removing all instances of {{ArabDIN}} in favor of {{transl|ar|DIN|TEXT HERE}}; please assist me in removing it from this page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sectionized dispute - Kevin and I

Quick review over the dispute and general complaints/suggestions about Israel/ME. Hopefully I represented POV's relatively okay, but I condensed ideas for comprehension sake. Wikifan Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, the conclusion I draw from this and other exchanges is that you are so focused on presenting your own position that you have not made the effort to understand the perspectives of others. Setting aside the merits of the issue, this conveys the impression that you are assuming others are acting in bad faith. If you are hoping for a more sympathetic hearing, this is not the most constructive approach.NPguy (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

How so? I've spent plenty of time to "understand" your perspective. Don't attack me NPguy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

. As I said, we've been through this before. Try not posting beyond "wikifan you are disruptive":D Such thinly-veiled ad hominem attacks are not tolerated in discussions no matter how civil they might be written. Also, please prove it - with diff's of course (include your own as well). You accused me of the same 4 pages up. Also, do these kinds of false representations and downright lying upset you: yaddayaddayadda Thank you Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of mediation isn't to bait other users in to attack. And you might be a tendentious editor if:
*You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people
*You constantly warn editors for "harassment" or "incivility" which occurs within mostly constructive comments.
*You characterize every warning directed at you as "harassment"
--68.248.155.2 (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)