Arab Winter
- Editors involved in this dispute
- Sudopeople (talk · contribs) – filing party
- Cwobeel (talk · contribs)
- George Ho (talk · contribs)
- Lentower (talk · contribs)
- Greyshark09 (talk · contribs)
- Articles affected by this dispute
Arab Winter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
- Talk:Arab Winter#Merge to Arab spring
- Talk:Arab Winter#RfC: Is the section "Arenas" original research?
- Talk:Arab Winter#AFD (AfD is at [1])
- Talk:Arab Winter#Arenas section
Issues to be mediated
- Primary issues (added by the filing party)
- The Arab Winter article should be improved in place, instead of deletion or large sections blanked.
- The article has repeatedly been nominated for deletion, merger, and the removal of the largest section has been advocated. The consensus has been formed opposing such edits. Four edits by Cwobeel (talk · contribs) have been attempts to circumvent the consensus and remove significant portions of the article (ranging from 6,000 to 12,000 characters). It is our contention that such edits are detrimental to the article's health and should cease.
- Most of the talk page agrees that the article needs improvement and compromises have been recommended. One of which is to remove the table formatting for a standard narrative format - a first step move that would likely make editing the article much more productive.
- Additional issues (added by other parties)
The presentation of the dispute above is not representative of the real issue, which is a violation of Wikipedia content policies. And as well all know consensus can't trump our core content policies. The issues are related specifically to the "Arenas" section Arab Winter#Arenas, which exhibits the following policy violations:
- It contains unsourced material per WP:V (any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material).
- The material in the section is a WP:NOR violation (To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented).
Basically, what editors have done in that section is to create a table of events and associate them with the concept of "Arab Winter" while the sources [provided do not make that connection whatsoever, a clear violation of W:NOR. The problem is not the format (narrative or table), but the content. The entire section is based on original research by editors, as the material on the table does not refer to the subject of the article. What editors have done here is to take any and all events following what was called the "Arab spring" and add it here as if these were described by reliable sources as belonging to an "Arab Winter". So, the issue here is one of violation of content policies and not of formatting. Having said that, if there is material attributable to reliable sources that describes an event as being part of an "Arab Winter", I'd agree that it would be best presented in narrative format rather than in a table. Per WP:BURDEN - The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, so despite this, the material is being restored without any attempt to address the content policy violations that I have clearly outlined. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Parties' agreement to mediation
- Agree. sudopeople 21:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agree. Note that I have less time for Wikipedia for the next few months, & am not logging on every day. — Lentower (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agree - Cwobeel (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)