Skip to open disputes • skip to newest thread • |
Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)
This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, mediation, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember guidelines and policy when discussing issues. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. The DRN noticeboard has a rotating co-ordinator, whose role is to help keep the noticeboard organised, ensuring disputes are attended to in a timely manner, are escalated to alternative forums as required, and that new volunteers get any assistance that they need. The coordinator also collects monthly metrics for the noticeboard. The current co-ordinator is TransporterMan (talk · contribs · email). |
|||||
Do you need assistance? | Would you like to help? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.
If you need help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
|
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over this page to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember:
|
Archived DRN Cases |
---|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136 |
This page is archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Contents
- 1 Current disputes
- 1.1 Talk:Joint Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#Legal_aspects_of_Iran.E2.80.99s_threat_of_genocide_-_is_it_a_random_fringe.3F
- 1.1.1 Summary of dispute by Yagasi
- 1.1.2 Summary of dispute by NPguy
- 1.1.3 Summary of dispute by Neutrality
- 1.1.4 Summary of dispute by Vesuvius_Dogg
- 1.1.5 Talk:Joint Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#Legal_aspects_of_Iran.E2.80.99s_threat_of_genocide_-_is_it_a_random_fringe.3F discussion
- 1.1.5.1 First statement by volunteer moderator
- 1.1.5.2 First statements by editors
- 1.1.5.3 Second statement by moderator
- 1.1.5.4 Second statements by editors
- 1.1.5.5 Third statement by moderator
- 1.1.5.6 Third statements by editors
- 1.1.5.7 Former Closing Statement by Former Moderator
- 1.1.5.8 Accepted Case By New Moderator
- 1.1.5.9 First Volunteer Moderator Statement
- 1.1.5.10 The case in a nutshell by editors
- 1.1.5.11 First proposition by editors
- 1.1.5.12 Second Moderator Statement
- 1.1.5.13 Second statement by filing party
- 1.1.5.14 Opposing views
- 1.1.5.15 Third Moderator Statement
- 1.1.5.16 Discussion
- 1.2 Talk:Mawlid#Consensus doesn't exist concerning falsehood
- 1.3 Talk:Dallon Weekes#Pretty. Odd.
- 1.4 Talk:Stockton Beach
- 1.5 Talk:Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier
- 1.6 R. Gordon Wasson
- 1.7 Aly Saad
- 1.8 User talk:Meters#.22Sanitizing.22_a_page
- 1.9 Talk:Surface_Book
- 1.1 Talk:Joint Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#Legal_aspects_of_Iran.E2.80.99s_threat_of_genocide_-_is_it_a_random_fringe.3F
Current disputes
Talk:Joint Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#Legal_aspects_of_Iran.E2.80.99s_threat_of_genocide_-_is_it_a_random_fringe.3F
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk · contribs)
- Yagasi (talk · contribs)
- NPguy (talk · contribs)
- Neutrality (talk · contribs)
- Vesuvius_Dogg (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
1st Talk link2nd Talk link --- Although I only recently became involved, there has been a dispute since about September 2015 at the Iran nuclear deal article. Inclusion was attempted of some material regarding significant criticisms by very prominent legal figures regarding the propriety of allowing privileges and sanctions relief without Iran having to cease threatening Israel. See this NPOV noticeboard post for a complete explanation of the sourcing and proposed text. It all seems pretty reasonable if you ask me, but Inclusion of any of this material was relentlessly opposed and reverted on the claimed basis that it was a "FRINGE" view, which is frankly preposterous given any close inspection of the WP:FRINGE policy. The behavior continued after I rewrote and restored some of the material. However, I think those insisting on exclusion were not forthcoming in seriously discussing any policy basis for removing the material. One user actually purported to assess the quality of the legal view itself based on his own knowledge, which I think is also preposterous. Another user appeared to reluctantly support some kind of inclusion but made a dubious argument that since two of the scholars were already cited for a separate criticism it would be undue to cite them again, but in any event he repeatedly reverted too. Both made the puzzling claim that the criticism of the nuclear agreement was not relevant to it. Myself and the other user supporting inclusion are in disbelief, I think, that such a bald violation of policy is being claimed as an enforceable consensus.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I posted to the NPOV noticeboard; see link above. I did not notify the others because my goal was to gain outside opinion, not continue the debate in another place. Two users responded without any reference to policy, with one attacking my motives—these responses explain my decision to seek mediated discussion rather than opening an RFC—but there was in my opinion one good substantive response, from administrator Masem.
How do you think we can help?
Mediate a discussion where all are expected to set forth clearly stated policy justifications for a desired outcome. Disfavor simple and conclusory use of "fringe" as an adjective to describe a claimed minority viewpoint, without reference to the policy language and examples. Act as referee. I think there is, as yet, no serious argument that well-sourced opinions in the relevant field by experts of this stature come within a country mile of the WP:FRINGE prohibition.
Summary of dispute by Yagasi
The proposed edits are based on opinion of prominent legal experts. To be a fringe theory, the edits must challenge a mainstream idea broadly supported by legal scholarship in reliable sources. No such scholarship sources were mentioned by proponents of the fringe claim and they have not affirmed the existence of a mainstream idea supported by scholarship. This violates WP:FRINGE.
Furthermore, the proponents of the fringe claim have presented viewpoints of some Wikipedia editors as a mainstream idea by giving these viewpoints undue weight and calling the legal experts "minority". This violates WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight that plainly requires: "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."
Moreover, the proponents of the fringe (marginal view) claim have presented their viewpoints as editor consensus. This misrepresentation violates WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV. Wikipedians must keep in mind that "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia... It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies... This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." Yagasi (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
The fringe claim was supported by a subsidiary argument based on a Wikipedia editor legal interpretation of the Convention: "The convention is focused on actions of persons and enacting criminal penalties for such actions. I could find no obligation to prevent threats of genocide..." This clearly violates the WP:NOR policy which cannot be overruled by editor consensus. Moreover, this argument is fallacious and cannot be accepted. Under Article I of the Convention "The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish". In its judgment in the Bosnian Genocide case the International Court of Justice decided: "The ordinary meaning of the word “undertake” is to give a formal promise, to bind or engage oneself, to give a pledge or promise, to agree, to accept an obligation." Yagasi (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by NPguy
The first and largest problem with the cited claims about the genocide convention is that they appear to be without legal merit. There are assertions about what the Genocide Convention requires and prohibits that lack support in the actual text of the Convention. The convention is focused on actions of persons and enacting criminal penalties for such actions. I could find no obligation to prevent threats of genocide, though incitement to genocide is punishable. So each of the legal claims is an extrapolation that departs significantly from the actual obligations in the convention. Since none of the sources appears to make an actual legal argument (i.e. an argument based on specific provisions of the Convention) it seems appropriate to treat them as fringe political views rather than serious legal claims.
The second difficulty is the argument that Iran has acted in a way that triggers the convention by allegedly threatening genocide against Israel. Most analyses indicate that statements by Iranian officials that Israel should not exist are rhetorical and political arguments, not actual threats. But there are serious sources who treat these as serious threats, so it seems appropriate to recognize this view.
But the argument that this supposed threat of genocide requires other states to refrain from any agreement with Iran unless Iran abandons its supposedly genocidal threats is extraordinarily broad. As far as I can tell, it is completely unsupported by any theory of domestic or international law. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which the proponents have not provided. NPguy (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Neutrality
I heartily agree with, and endorse, the statements of Vesuvius Dogg and NPguy. There is not much more to add. Perhaps this is not an issue of fringe so much as an issue of undue weight; the weight of consensus is not to include this text regarding extremely marginal arguments. The article, as it stands now, extensively discusses supporters of the agreement and critics of it. To add the quite marginal views that some editors would like to would not be encyclopedic.
Dontmakemetypepasswordagain argues that his desired text must be included because it is "published in three independent RS." That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of inclusion. Just because something is published does not mean that it deserves to be quoted or cited to. (This is particularly true with the Beres piece, which is a blog-style piece published in a specialty Capitol Hill newspaper, The Hill—which is reputable for news purposes, but neither scholarly nor of wide circulation. If this was a more substantial analysis published in, say, the journal Foreign Affairs, it might be a different story).
In particular, policy certainly does not dictate that the view contained in every op-ed be included in every article, particularly when the article covers a very broad topic and the views expressed in the op-ed are quite marginal.
Moreover, to the extent that the views of the authors of the pieces at issue are significant, we already quote two of the three elsewhere in the article. To add yet more text about their views would simply be undue weight. Neutralitytalk 00:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Vesuvius_Dogg
I agree with NPGuy's explanation and reasoning. I've said that while I prefer the material be deleted, if it is to be included, it should not be written so as to misrepresent the Genocide Convention and its requirements. Even Beres concedes that "the language of the Genocide Convention does not explicitly require any such precise enforcement" regarding genocidal statements or incitement. I've read the treaty and various op eds (or should we call them "motions"?) and find them highly novel from a legal point of view. Also, it should be noted Dershowitz's offhand comment was apparently made to NewsmaxTV and quoted on that non-RS site, making it problematic to give it weight on Wkipedia given that he has not published nor made this argument elsewhere, to my knowledge.
For what it's worth, I don't recall making more than a single edit on this issue, though I did comment on the Talk page. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Joint Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#Legal_aspects_of_Iran.E2.80.99s_threat_of_genocide_-_is_it_a_random_fringe.3F discussion
- Volunteer note - There has been extended discussion on the talk page. The listed editors have been notified of the filing. One editor, User:Joshua Isaac, has commented at the talk page but has not been invited to the discussion, and should be notified. Waiting for statements from other editors, since participation is voluntary although encouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I did not originally notify User:Joshua_Issac because he did not at any point remove, object to, discuss, or otherwise address the material regarding complaints about Iran's threats against Israel. I have gone ahead and notified him, but if he chooses not to participate, I strongly urge that this should not be taken as a reason to close the mediation—because IMO he was never involved with this dispute in the first place.
- On an unrelated note, I gather that the protocol for discussion going forward is for us not to respond to each other directly, but instead wait for the next "round" of statements once everyone has either posted a summary or declined to participate? Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, first all the summaries and then responses. Yagasi (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Dontmakemetypepasswordagain, Yes, after the second summary gets completed.
- Volunteer question - Does this case have a moderator? If so, who? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Question to moderator. @ThePlatypusofDoom: I saw that you suggested that we "discuss the problem civilly with other users" and thus I wrote a reply to Neutrality's "summary of dispute" posted today. But now I'm not sure your comment was meant to encourage us to reply to each other. Would it be acceptable for me to post a reply addressing Neutrality's comments? Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
First statement by volunteer moderator
I see no evidence that this case has a moderator. If so, will the moderator please so state? If not, I will be the moderator. Here are the ground rules. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Concise posts are more informative than overly long ones. Comment on content, not contributors. I expect every participant to check on the status of this case at least every 48 hours and to answer questions within 48 hours. As noted, please do not engage in threaded discussion with other editors. Address your comments to the community or the moderator (there isn't any real difference). Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Discussion at the article talk page may be ignored by accident. Will each participant please summarize, in one paragraph, what the issue is about the article and how it either should be changed or how it should be left as is? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
First statements by editors
I'll be brief. My view is that the proposed text from my earlier noticeboard post should be added to the article and then not be reverted out by the editors here. The question is whether to exclude the prose above, along with the underlying views and sources reflected. A few specific policy arguments have been raised, but on a more general level, it is argued that a WP editor is empowered to force an exclusion of expert commentary based on the editor's own belief as to whether the source is right. That is, if a particular user believes an influential figure's view is wrong, can he forcibly prevent other users from reflecting it in a centrally related article—thereby allowing the first editor's unpublished personal legal theories and political preferences to override both important source material and the activity of other editors? Alternatively, can the view be excluded if it is claimed to be a minority view? Isn't this all specifically forbidden by each and every sentence that appears in the first paragraph of WP:V? Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Before continuing the content disputes, I would like to know: 1. Who are the present participants? 2. What happens if at least one of them does not accept your mediation? 3. What happens if one of them does not submit his statements after 48 hours? Yagasi (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator
First, I will answer the questions of User:Yagasi. The participants are any editors who have submitted statements or otherwise agreed to take part in mediation. If at least one of them does not accept mediation, I will make a decision whether it will be useful to continue mediation with less than all of the editors, or whether I will close the case, and will probably recommend an RFC in that case. If an editor does not submit a statement within 48 hours, but discussion is still continuing by other editors, the lateness will not be noted and discussion will continue. If discussion stalls for 48 hours, with no comments, the case will be closed.
One editor, DMTPWA, has submitted a statement that I do not find helpful, because it doesn't identify what text they think should be included or excluded. It is also argumentative in using very non-neutral words such as "forcibly prevent" and "force an exclusion". Maybe that is what the other editors are doing, but we need to talk about article content, not contributors.
Once again, be concise in stating what article content should be included or excluded. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Second statements by editors
My statement is as follows. Wikipedia's declared fundamental principles include: being an encyclopedia written from a neutral point of view and having no firm rules. It does have policies and guidelines that are in effect and must be respected, but these may be changed at some time in the future. As I summarized above, some of effective policies and guidelines were violated when the genocide related issue was repeatedly removed, first under a claim of fringe theory, then under a claim of editor consensus on the fringe. The most concerning was the third revert when the so called "consensus" was established without even mentioning a single reliable source. If a group of editors is eligible to establish such a kind of consensus and remove text based on opinion of prominent legal experts, then this must be properly disclosed to the community and to the public. However WP:RS requires articles to be based "on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority view". In conclusion, I would like to state that the text of the third revert or the text proposed by the filing participant should be included in the subsection (or section) "Continued criticism" of the article. Copies of both texts will be added to the mediation. Yagasi (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator
I asked the editors to provide a concise statement as to what text should be included or excluded. The above statement, which is only about the policies and not about the specific text, is too concise on the point of the text (containing nothing about the text) (as well as being argumentative). Will each editor please state concisely, in one paragraph, what they want included or excluded? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Third statements by editors
Your statements have been puzzling, because (1) your First Statement by Volunteer Moderator asked for a summary of how the article should be changed, not a detailed explanation with sourcing and proposed text, which we of course could not present in one paragraph; (2) the proposed text was quite conspicuously and obviously linked in both my initial request for moderation and my First Statement, above; (3) the proposed text is more than one paragraph, yet you are asking us to both include the proposed text and argue "concisely" for its inclusion in a single paragraph. Do participants who are arguing for addition of text perhaps get an extra paragraph to post the proposed text? If not, why is linking to the proposed text not acceptable? Also, doesn't the side that insists on exclusion have to say something, or is it solely our burden to jump through hoops? Finally, I did not mention any editors or even specific edits, but rather the policy questions at issue, and I don't see how to discuss this without mentioning those policy questions. Ok, now here is the proposed text crammed into one "paragraph".Proposed text 1: In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, attorneys David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey argued that while the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide imposed an "obligation on all convention parties to prevent genocide and threats of genocide," Iran remained publicly committed to Israel's elimination.[1]Proposed text 2:In September 2015, emeritus professor of international law Louis René Beres argued that Obama's refusal to demand Iran abandon its genocidal incitement and threats, before being permitted to nuclearize under the deal, constituted a serious violation of U.S. treaty obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention, and, thereby, also of U.S. law due to the priority given to international treaties under the Supremacy Clause and related case law. Beres also argued that the deal might encourage Iran to quit the Non-Proliferation Treaty entirely, relying on the new deal as permission to nuclearize while abandoning all commitments under the NPT.[2]Proposed text 3: Talk:Mawlid Law professor Alan Dershowitz argued in an interview that the convention against genocide prohibits aiding genocide, and that by giving money to Iran under the deal, the U.S. was "aiding genocide. We're accessories to terrorism."[3] Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ Rivkin, David B.; Casey, Lee A. (July 26, 2015). "The Lawless Underpinnings of the Iran Nuclear Deal". The Wall Street Journal (A13).
- ^ Rene Beres, Louis (September 3, 2015). "Looking beyond strategy at the still-hidden legal flaws in Iran deal". www.thehill.com. Retrieved March 13, 2015.
- ^ Greg Richter (11 August 2015). "Dershowitz: 'We're Accessories to Terrorism' if Sanctions Dropped". Newsmax.com. Retrieved 20 September 2015.
- I'd like to try again to get another editor Neutrality involved in this discussion. That editor earned an editor's barnstar for edits to the page in question and was very active on the issue in dispute, but has not responded yet on this page.
- There's one point above that I did not address in my initial comments. That is the claim by Beres that Iran might withdraw from the NPT and rely on the JCPOA as permission to nuclearize. First, this is not a legal opinion and therefore cannot be considered a claim by a subject matter expert. Second, it overlooks the fact that the JCPOA is actually premised on Iran's continued adherence to the NPT. Abandoning one in favor of the other is not an option. NPguy (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Forgive my delay in responding - I have added a comment above. Neutralitytalk 00:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Former Closing Statement by Former Moderator
I made this statement, and am now asked to allow the case to be re-opened. Here was my closing statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I am having to close this case as failed. After asking three times for concise statements of how the article should be changed or left alone, I have received, first, a lengthy statement of Wikipedia policies, second, a lengthy statement of Wikipedia policies, third, a wall of text. Even if it is true that the other editors are trying to suppress the presentation of a minority viewpoint by misuse of the fringe policy, the filing party isn't presenting a concise summary that permits mediation. At this point, I would recommend that the approach that is most likely to resolve this dispute would be a Request for Comments. However, I would strongly advise all parties that the wording of the RFC should be neutral and concise. If the RFC is either non-neutral (e.g., argumentative) or overly lengthy, it will not establish consensus and will just allow continued quarreling. So a neutral concisely worded RFC is the most likely way to resolve this issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I am now marking this case available for another moderator. If a moderator does not accept this case at this noticeboard, the participants may request formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Accepted Case By New Moderator
I accept the role of moderator in this dispute. I will be here at least once every 24 hours, to moderate the dispute. Please explain the issue and I'll see what I can do to resolve it. The Platypus of Doom (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
First Volunteer Moderator Statement
Please explain the issue in one reasonably-sized paragraph. Do not make it too long, no longer than 8 sentences. Explain what the problem is, what your proposed solutions are, and notify everyone in the case if they haven't been already. If possible, discuss the problem civilly with other users. I will check in once every 24 hours, all users are expected to check in once every 30 hours, or as much as possible. The Platypus of Doom (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
The case in a nutshell by editors
A fragment of the article, based on the opinion of prominent lawyers published in three independent RS, was entirely excluded. The lawyers have expressed concern that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was not in full accordance with the terms of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The fragment was reverted — first under a claim of fringe theory, then under a claim of editor consensus on the fringe — as a result of giving undue weight to the personal views of Wikipedia editors compared with the legal opinion from RS. The primary issues of the case are: 1. Is it appropriate to include in an article on international treaty/deal, particularly on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, criticism or other legal opinion on it given by prominent lawyers? 2. Can such a criticism or legal opinion be excluded from the article due to the above claims or these arguments prove the contrary? Yagasi (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
The exclusion of the above "proposed text" numbered 1-3 is based on an agreement among a few editors that the material in question represents "fringe" viewpoints. Despite the agreement by multiple editors, this argument is essentially based on the assertion by a single editor that he is a better source of legal analysis than highly influential legal experts whose views have been vetted and published by reliable sources that are subject to professional editorial control. The editor also claims that, having reviewed certain pieces of primary source material himself(!), he does not believe the experts' legal views are correct, and thus on the strength of this personal analysis, they should not only be treated as fringe views, they should actually be regarded as not being legal views at all—despite the fact that the authors and publications do present them as legal views, and despite the fact that, in the first instance, it was the established legal expertise of the authors that led to their views being selected by the RS's to supply published discussion of the JCPOA. There is no basis whatsoever for the claim that these exclusions reflect proper editing; in fact, these editor claims are clear original research even though the editor has not tried to include them in article prose. Since the material in question is well in keeping with all applicable policies, and since the arguments for exclusion have no validity and no support in WP policy, the reversions should cease. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
First proposition by editors
I propose to agree that the reverted fragment should be restored and, if somebody has concerns about a specific detail of it, this can be disputed here as the next stage. Yagasi (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Yagasi (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Second Moderator Statement
Okay, those were good summaries that explained the problem at hand. Can you give me more information about the lawyer who is being discussed? The opposing side, please present your counterargument. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Second statement by filing party
The disputed commentary is sourced to four authors who are all very prominent legal academics and/or lawyers, with two having extensive experience in government policy-making or advocacy roles. The first is a renowned academic, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, who at 25 years old became the youngest full professor at Harvard Law School, where he has remained; he enjoys an endowed chair; (extended bio here). The second is renowned constitutional lawyer David B. Rivkin who served in the administrations of two U.S. presidents, has specialized in international public law and litigation before the International Court of Justice, and has testified before the U.S. Congress numerous times on various legal matters; (extended bio here). The third is former U.S. Justice Department and Department of Energy lawyer Lee A. Casey, co-author of the Rivkin piece, who represented 26 states in a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of certain Medicare revisions contained within Obamacare; (extended bio here). Finally, we have Louis René Beres, an international law professor who has written numerous books on nuclear policy as well as hundreds of scholarly and opinion articles in publications like The Harvard National Security Journal (Harvard Law School), the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, and the Journal of the U.S Army War College, as well as all the top newspapers in the U.S. (NYT, WaPo, WSJ, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, etc.); (extended bio here). Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note by editor: As I mentioned on the NPOV noticeboard, long before the JCPOA talks Professor Irwin Cotler has analyzed the Iranian incitement to genocide and called the international community to fulfill its obligations to prevent genocide as announced in the Genocide Convention. Irwin Cotler is an Emeritus Professor of Law and a former Director of the Human Rights Programme at McGill University, former Canada's parliamentarian, Minister of Justice and Attorney General. He is considered an expert on international and human rights law. Cotler has taught as a Visiting Professor at Harvard and Yale, and has written extensively on war crimes justice. Cotler has served as Special Advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the International Criminal Court. Yagasi (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Opposing views
Haven't we done this already? See the summaries of he dispute by NPguy, Neutrality, and Vesuvius_Dogg above. NPguy (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Copy-Paste the argument if you want, if it's short enough. Please give specific examples, though. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- What do you want specific examples of? NPguy (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- NPguy, Just copy paste the first argument, or give a description, link to the talk page, and state your case. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Copy-Paste the argument if you want, if it's short enough. Please give specific examples, though. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand the point of repeating points that are directly above on this talk page. But here goes:
- The first and largest problem with the cited claims about the genocide convention is that they appear to be without legal merit. There are assertions about what the Genocide Convention requires and prohibits that lack support in the actual text of the Convention. The convention is focused on actions of persons and enacting criminal penalties for such actions. I could find no obligation to prevent threats of genocide, though incitement to genocide is punishable. So each of the legal claims is an extrapolation that departs significantly from the actual obligations in the convention. Since none of the sources appears to make an actual legal argument (i.e. an argument based on specific provisions of the Convention) it seems appropriate to treat them as fringe political views rather than serious legal claims.
- The second difficulty is the argument that Iran has acted in a way that triggers the convention by allegedly threatening genocide against Israel. Most analyses indicate that statements by Iranian officials that Israel should not exist are rhetorical and political arguments, not actual threats. But there are serious sources who treat these as serious threats, so it seems appropriate to recognize this view.
- But the argument that this supposed threat of genocide requires other states to refrain from any agreement with Iran unless Iran abandons its supposedly genocidal threats is extraordinarily broad. As far as I can tell, it is completely unsupported by any theory of domestic or international law. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which the proponents have not provided.
Two other editors, Neutrality and Vesuvius_Dogg, have made supporting statement above, but I leave it to them to (re)state their positions. NPguy (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I, too, don't understand the need to copy-and-paste my previous statement, but here it is:
- I heartily agree with, and endorse, the statements of Vesuvius Dogg and NPguy. There is not much more to add. Perhaps this is not an issue of fringe so much as an issue of undue weight; the weight of consensus is not to include this text regarding extremely marginal arguments. The article, as it stands now, extensively discusses supporters of the agreement and critics of it. To add the quite marginal views that some editors would like to would not be encyclopedic.
- Dontmakemetypepasswordagain argues that his desired text must be included because it is "published in three independent RS." That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of inclusion. Just because something is published does not mean that it deserves to be quoted or cited to. (This is particularly true with the Beres piece, which is a blog-style piece published in a specialty Capitol Hill newspaper, The Hill—which is reputable for news purposes, but neither scholarly nor of wide circulation. If this was a more substantial analysis published in, say, the journal Foreign Affairs, it might be a different story).
- In particular, policy certainly does not dictate that the view contained in every op-ed be included in every article, particularly when the article covers a very broad topic and the views expressed in the op-ed are quite marginal.
- Moreover, to the extent that the views of the authors of the pieces at issue are significant, we already quote two of the three elsewhere in the article. To add yet more text about their views would simply be undue weight.
Neutralitytalk 16:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with NPGuy's explanation and reasoning. I've said that while I prefer the material be deleted, if it is to be included, it should not be written so as to misrepresent the Genocide Convention and its requirements. Even Beres concedes that "the language of the Genocide Convention does not explicitly require any such precise enforcement" regarding genocidal statements or incitement. Perhaps that sentence should be quoted, so that a Wikipédia reader would understand that these supposed legal arguments are wishful interpretations, not grounded in historical practice or understanding? I've read the treaty and various op eds (or should we call them "motions"?) and find them highly novel from a legal point of view. Also, it should be noted Dershowitz's offhand comment was apparently made to NewsmaxTV and quoted on that non-RS site, making it problematic to give it weight on Wkipedia given that he has not published nor made this argument elsewhere, to my knowledge.
- For what it's worth, I don't recall making more than a single edit on this issue, though I did comment on the JPCOA Talk page.
Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Third Moderator Statement
Please discuss the problem civilly. Make your points in this discussion. I will take part, and after it comes to an end, we can resolve this case. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
I am opening the discussion. Please discuss the problem, and find a solution. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the article is quite long and many opinions are presented in it, but none of them discuss genocide. Is not the opinion of recognized legal experts on this issue significant enough to be presented in relation to this international treaty/deal? I think it is. Yagasi (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but I'm not convinced on how valid that opinion is. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Rivkin and Casey wrote: "The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide imposes an affirmative obligation on all convention parties to prevent genocide and threats of genocide. Iran remains publicly committed to Israel’s elimination, an unequivocal threat of genocide in violation of the Convention." No other legal experts' opinions were introduced here to disprove this. Yagasi (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, @NPguy:, your opinion? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- As I said in my original comment, the claim that the Genocide Convention requires or prohibits certain actions, if made as a legal claim, should be backed up by a legal argument that cites provisions of the convention and principles of international law. None of the cited sources makes any such argument. The convention is not a difficult read, but it is difficult to find provisions that support the claims being made. I would also point out that Beres is not a lawyer, so he cannot be considered a subject matter expert with respect to his legal claims.
- The reason I am pressing for stronger legal arguments is that the claims being made are extraordinarily broad. They are extrapolations that leave many gaps in reasoning that need to be filled in. NPguy (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- The convention is not a difficult read, but to interpret it you need special skills. I have already presented here an example of a very wrong interpretation of the Convention by a Wikipedian ("I could find no obligation to prevent threats of genocide..." But let us look at it in another way. Whom would the community prefer to choose for representation in court, a lawyer mentioned here or one of the Wikipedians taking part in the discussion?
- The authors of the pieces about genocide prevention have addressed specific audiences, but that has not made their opinion less accurate. According to the bio Beres lectures and publishes widely on matters of international law. Yagasi (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- @NPguy: it's not common for opinion articles in newspapers to be laden with legal citations and technical arguments—nor is there any requirement that we use an academic source in the first place. Moreover, I don't see any "gaps" in the reasoning that is presented.
- Even more moreover, the aim of WP content policies is to reflect significant published viewpoints, not to rebut, challenge, or otherwise take a stand against them. Making sure WP articles don't take sides in a public debate is the whole point of NPOV. You're coloring outside the lines. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- If he is not a lawyer, why should he be included, if this is not his area of expertise? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- The title of Beres is Professor Emeritus of Political Science, International Relations, Terrorism, and International Law at Purdue University. The title was granted by the university and under this title he should be introduced. He taught International Law at universities and published dozens of law articles in academic law journals. Yagasi (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- If he is not a lawyer, why should he be included, if this is not his area of expertise? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- @ThePlatypusofDoom: the details of Beres's C.V. reveal a rather large number of books, journal publications, panel memberships and speaking engagements on topics of foreign policy, international law, and nuclear policy and strategy. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 03:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
One avenue we have not explored is what other legal scholars think of some of these arguments. For example, here is an effective rebuttal of Rivkin and Casey: More Weak Arguments For The Illegality of the Iran Deal, by Jack Goldsmith, former Assistant Attorney General in the George W. Bush Administration. A key quote from that article: "That Convention does not by its terms, as they say, 'impose an affirmative obligation on all convention parties to prevent genocide and threats of genocide.'" This is in line with my previous commentary, which Yagasi mocks above.
I took another look at Beres's CV. Although his CV does not list a legal degree or other formal legal credentials (which is what I looked for at first), he did teach international law and has quite a few publications on on international law. Despite those apparent qualifications, his arguments are not credible. To take one example with which I am familiar, the claim that "Here, the most ominous risks have to do with permitting Iran to enrich uranium after 15 years. These plainly ironic allowances contradict the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)" is - if intended literally - mistaken. Enrichment per se does not contradict the NPT.
That's all for today. NPguy (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Somebody else posts a numbered list of "a few quick responses" on a blog he founded, therefore we exclude the more prominent, actually published view by arguably more prominent authors—because reasons? Sorry, can you connect the dots for me? And FWIW, I am adequately persuaded that you do not agree with the published view by Rivkin et al. and that you do agree with published views to the contrary. That established: so what? This is not sarcasm, it is a serious question. Why should a significant published POV be excluded because you disagree with it? That's directly contrary to numerous policies, but especially NPOV and WEIGHT. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- The key quote from Jack Goldsmith — "Convention does not by its terms, as they say, 'impose an affirmative obligation on all convention parties to prevent genocide and threats of genocide.'" — looks very strange, since:
- (2007) In its judgment in the Bosnian Genocide case the International Court of Justice decided: "The ordinary meaning of the word “undertake” is to give a formal promise, to bind or engage oneself, to give a pledge or promise, to agree, to accept an obligation."
- (2009) Professor of Public International Law at Liverpool University Dominic McGoldrick wrote about states that were parties to the Genocide Convention: "Thus, the Contracting Parties had a direct obligation to prevent genocide."
- (2011) Cotler called "the international community... to fulfill its obligations under international law, including the obligations to prevent genocide and to punish incitement to genocide, as announced in the Genocide Convention."
- (2011) Andreas Zimmermann, Professor of Public Law, European and Public International Law at the University of Potsdam, wrote about genocide: "With regard to genocide, the situation is, given both the wording of Article 1 of the Convention, as well as the 2007 judgment of the ICJ, relatively clear-cut. In particular, the Court has determined that the obligation to prevent, which the Court perceived as due diligence obligation amounting to use any means 'as the circumstances permit', does not presuppose any territorial link of the State obliged to take measures to prevent genocide. Rather all States, depending on their capacity effectively to influence the actual perpetrators of genocide, have, according to the Court, to employ all means reasonably available both de facto and de jure to them, so as to prevent genocide so far as possible."
- (2015) Rivkin and Casey wrote: "The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide imposes an affirmative obligation on all convention parties to prevent genocide and threats of genocide. Iran remains publicly committed to Israel’s elimination, an unequivocal threat of genocide in violation of the Convention."
- Yagasi (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC) Yagasi (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Evidence of Iranian incitement to genocide was presented in the article "Combating State-Sanctioned Incitement to Genocide: A Legal and Moral Imperative" by Cotler. While negotiating with Iran the P5+1 states, each of them separately and all of them collectively, had at their disposal the means to influence Iran (which was interested in lifting economic sanctions on it) to stop the genocidal declarations of its current leaders. After the JCPOA was agreed by the parties without any provisions against "direct and public incitement to commit genocide", the P5+1 have much less means to comply with their obligation to prevent genocide. As far as I can remember, nobody asserted here that other States should "refrain from any agreement with Iran", as some participants of the discussion claim, but a better deal could be achieved. Yagasi (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
@NPguy: this dispute has already festered for 8 months. You have had quite enough time to marshal any policy arguments you think support the exlusion of these POVs. Please do not delay your participation in this discussion any further; it's been almost 48 hours without a response from you. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've been busy. For now i'll just add that the chain of logic is extraordinarily tenuous. First: does the Genocide Convention require any specific action against a purported threat of genocide? That is in dispute. Second, Does Iranian rhetoric against Israel -- that the country should not exist -- constitute a threat of of genocide? This is very much a minority position, if not a fringe. Third, does this combination require parties to the Genocide Convention to refrain from any dealing with Iran that might be of any benefit to Iran? The is the boldest, most extraordinary extrapolation of all. If it were true, all of the P5+1, the entire European Union, and many other states would be in violation of the convention.
- This is what led me to conclude that the claim simply does not pass the laugh test and does not deserve to be taken seriously. So no, I haven't given it a lot of thought, just as I don't spend a lot of time wondering whether the Earth is flat. NPguy (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@NPguy: Please remember to be civil. You actually have to support your argument. While I don't believe it's a fringe opinion, it may be in the minority. If you do not discuss the problem, I will let Yagasi and Password do what they want with the article. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@ThePlatypusofDoom: thank you. I would like to add the following. I apologize for the length; thus far, I have avoided responding to NPguy's arguments regarding the subject matter itself, but now I have responded further below. But first, regarding the relevant policies:
While I think that the "majority/minority" dichotomy is a bit fuzzy in certain fields, such as law, where there are rarely if ever any "objectively correct" answers, at a minimum I think it has been shown that the disputed view is no less than a "significant minority view" as delineated in the "Due and undue weight" section of WP:NPOV:
From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from a September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
- If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
- If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
The latter of these two approaches—i.e. the second bullet point—is precisely what Yagasi and I have done. All the named sources are prominent in one or more of the following fields: law, political science, nuclear weapons policy, and international diplomacy. In particular, Dershowitz and Rivkin are so prominent that they can fairly be described as "luminaries" in the field of law.
Notice also that the first bullet point refers to "commonly accepted reference texts". I doubt there is any such source showing that NPguy's preferred view is so well-established that it is actually a clear "majority opinion". Certainly, no such source has been shown thus far. Nor does the fact that the agreement was not widely rejected do anything to prove the prevalence of either view. All it shows is that the political authorities signing the deal judged that it would be better to enter into the deal, than not to do so. Laws and legal norms and principles get ignored all the time—by legislative authorities, by judicial authorities, by political executives, and indeed by the general public. The fact that the deal was signed does not show that there were no valid concerns regarding Iranian behavior viz. the Genocide Convention which cast doubt on the propriety of the deal.
Moreover, NPguy's stated opinions on the subject matter itself, besides being fully irrelevant to content in WP article space, appear to be laden with straw-man argumentation. For example: Nobody's accusing Iran of genocidal threats against Israel because of some ho-hum abstract suggestion "that the country should not exist". That is pure sophistry. Rather, we're talking about repeated threats of mass violence, including thinly veiled threats of nuclear annihilation; just a few months ago Iran launched empty ballistic missiles (which are only useful for delivering nukes and other WMD) inscribed with the message "Israel must be wiped out". Iranian government news services even said the purpose of the launches was to show that Iranian missiles could hit Israel, and a spokesman added that "Israel would not last long in a war".
Nor is anyone suggesting that parties to the Genocide Convention must refrain from taking any dealing "that might be of any benefit to Iran"; but, that said: not giving permission to enrich nuclear fuel today—and permission to build nuclear weapons in ten years—to a nation that has repeatedly stated its intent to destroy a tiny country containing 1/3 to 1/2 of the world's Jews, does not seem like an outrageous suggestion for preventing genocide. After all, how hard can it be to stop threatening to wipe out a foreign country? Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@Dontmakemetypepasswordagain: @NPguy: Do you think a wording like "so and so has criticized the convention because...... but some scholars claim that this opinion is not valid" would work? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- (back to the flat Earth and Convention discussion) This chain of logic belongs to the International Court of Justice in the Bosnian Genocide case. The Court has interpreted (paragraph 438) the means of action as follows: "As indicated above, for a State to be held responsible for breaching its obligation of prevention, it does not need to be proven that the State concerned definitely had the power to prevent the genocide; it is sufficient that it had the means to do so and that it manifestly refrained from using them." The historian Professor Robert S. Wistrich wrote in April (!) 2015: "TODAY, ONCE more, we see a deafening silence from Western leaders and decision-makers whenever Iran threatens Israel with total destruction. The subject is not even on the agenda in the nuclear negotiations... Such Western silence over Iran’s genocidal anti-Semitism and hegemonic ambitions (so reminiscent of the 1930s) will in the longer run boomerang dramatically against the West."
-
- "The convention against genocide provides that nobody can help or aid genocide," Dershowitz explained the issue very plainly to the Newsmax TV audience. "And by giving them that money, we're aiding genocide." But some Wikipedians prefer to ignore the evidence presented by Cotler, remove quotes from Dershowitz (to hell with the person, the video record is shown on a "non-RS site"?), and not giving this encyclopedia a lot of thought. Yagasi (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The question whether the statements by Iranian leadership look rhetorical is not relevant. The Convention does not condition the act of "Direct and public incitement to commit genocide" on existence or absence of rhetoric. Rhetoric was not even mentioned in the 2007 judgment of the ICJ. In 2012 the website of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei declared that there is religious "justification to kill all the Jews and annihilate Israel, and Iran must take the helm." These words did not prevent you, NPguy, from claiming on the talk page in 2015: "Does Iran want to kill all Israelis? Nothing I have seen suggests that it does." Do you think that non-Jewish Israelis would remain alive? Yagasi (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC) Yagasi (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@ThePlatypusofDoom: in principle, absolutely yes. I'm committed to fairly representing significant viewpoints on the subject, as I think that is Wikipedia's #1 job in any controversial topic. That said, I would like to at least explore whether there is any better sourcing for a rebuttal than a single law professor's kinda-sorta self-published blog post that contains a single 96-word bullet point on the subject, among a list of "a few quick responses". The blog post was made less than 24 hours after the article it attacks—and even includes an admission by the author that he hasn't bothered to research some of the claims he makes—suggesting that it is at best an off-the-cuff response (literally Monday-morning quartbacking as you can see from the datestamp) and not a piece that was seriously considered, researched by the author, or vetted/reviewed by others.
Nor does the Goldsmith paragraph address the claims by Beres at all.
The blog post's conclusion also stops just short of saying that the administration has concocted a thin and hypertechnical legal rationale for allowing the deal to go forward; it says nothing about whether it is good policy—or consistent with the goals of the Genocide Convention—for the U.S. to grant its nuclear imprimitur to a nation that has made genocidal nuclear threats. @NPguy: you seem pretty well-versed in the arguments in favor of the deal; is there anything similar in a newspaper or perhaps something else with traditional editorial oversight, or at least vetting and review of articles by persons other than the authors? If a 96-word bullet point in a borderline self-published blog post are the only sourcing we've got, I'd be a bit reluctant to present that as a serious rebuttal.
Second, a small comment regarding the wording. Personally, I think a number of policies are better served when two conflicting views are presented in two separate sentences. I can elaborate later if you find that approach acceptable, but I just think it's easier for the WP editorial voice to avoid taking sides when the content is written that way. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@Dontmakemetypepasswordagain: I would go for the second option, make a small comment regarding the wording. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, and I realize that this may seem to be a step backwards, but I want to keep the focus on the merits of these claims. This is a at least a two-level question:
- First, does Iran's harsh anti-Israel rhetoric constitute a threat of genocide? Does Iran plan or intend to commit genocide? This is essentially impossible to prove, one way or another, since it depends on inferring Iran's state of mind (as if Iran were a person rather than a complex society) and becomes clear only in hindsight. There are important political figures who have made this claim (not least Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu), so ti cannot be dismissed as fringe. But Iran's rhetoric has been fairly consistent over many years, and yet Iran's overt acts have generally been limited to its support for proxy attacks by Hamas and Hizbollah. This suggests a more limited intent. And the governments dealing with Iran have not acted as if they believe Iran actually intends a genocidal attack against Israel. So I think it is only fair to judge this claim as unproven. Comparing the circumstance to Bosnia or other cited cases, there are huge differences in both the degree of imminence of the threat and the capacity to act on such a threat. The striking thing about all such cases are that they involve attacks by the ruling government or an occupying military against people already under their control. The genocide convention was designed to address that type of circumstance. I am not aware of any acts of inter-state warfare that have been considered genocide.
- Second, does the genocide convention require or prohibit any specific actions to prevent genocide? It has very specific requirements to treat acts of genocide as crimes, and arguably for states to prevent acts of genocide on their territory or under their jurisdiction or control. And the arguments above about preventing genocide in another country would apply to cases where the facts are clear, i.e. when genocide is imminent or has begun and urgent action is needed to prevent its onset or spread. As best I can tell, none of the governments involved believes the genocide convention imposed any specific requirements with respect to the JCPOA and Iran.
Frankly, I haven't seen a lot of rebuttals to these claims (about the JCPOA and the genocide convention). I think they are simply dismissed as so ridiculous on their face that no rebuttal is needed. That has been my view from the beginning.
I have to correct the discussion above on one more point. The JCPOA does not give Iran permission to acquire nuclear weapons after ten years. Quite the opposite, the JCPOA is built around Iran's explicit commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons. For Iran to build nuclear weapons would be a violation of the JCPOA. NPguy (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- First you have told the community that your arguments were based on an "effective rebuttal of Rivkin and Casey" by the Goldsmith post (this was your single source). Now you are telling us that any link between the JCPOA and the Genocide Convention is "so ridiculous on their face that no rebuttal is needed." You may change your mind (accordingly you supporters can change their mind too), but this does not relieve you from addressing all the reliable sources that find a substantial link between the JCPOA and the Convention.
- Your personal "view from the beginning" is being discussed since September 2015 causing a delay of many months (not just of a couple of days). I think that your current two-level question is just a fallacy of relevance. Anyway, the answer for your first level question can be found, for example, in the already cited article "Deadly comparisons" by the historian Wistrich who inter alia wrote that "for the first time since Hitler’s Reich we have a powerful state formally inscribing anti-Semitism as a state doctrine." An answer for the second level — does the Genocide Convention require any actions to prevent genocide? — has already been given. Yagasi (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- @NPguy: I would have thought this was abundantly clear, but I have not spent dozens of hours my evening and weekend time engaging in this "discussion" because I wanted more detail on your personal views. Please discuss sources and policies, otherwise I'm afraid I don't see the point in continuing. This is plain tendentious editing, a refusal to get the point. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- @NPguy: @Dontmakemetypepasswordagain: @Yagasi: Would it be okay to put Yagasi's and Password's material in the article, but whoever is making these changes is to state that this is a minority opinion in the text? I don't think it's fringe material, but I don't think it is the majority opinion by a long shot. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I would invite Neutrality and Vesuvius_Dogg to comment. Perhaps we should also invite an editor who is an expert on the genocide convention to comment. None of us is such an expert.
I'm really not sure what this process is supposed to do, but I remain no more persuaded that these views deserve recognition than before this started. If these views are to be presented, there needs to be some sort of contrary view of at least part of the claim. Perhaps there is room for presenting opposing views on the question of whether Iran's rhetoric constitutes a genocidal threat. For example, there is this piece in Ha'aretz. There are a few others, but I'm less sure of their reliability. This is where a subject matter expert could help. NPguy (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- @ThePlatypusofDoom: What about just stating Goldsmith's view in detail? I suggest the following:
"Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith wrote a post in response on the Lawfare Blog, disputing Rivkin and Casey's claim that the Genocide Convention imposes any affirmative obligation to prevent threats of genocide. Goldsmith also argued that the deal would not have been unanimously affirmed if the 15 signing nations had viewed the lifting of restrictions on Iranian ballistic missiles as a violation of the Genocide Convention; Goldsmith dismissed such a view as 'a very speculative stretch at best'."
- @NPguy: Suggest a few sentences presenting the Ha'aretz piece in further contrast to the view that the threats are serious? Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
The disputed fragment should not be wiped off the WP. I hope the question of minority/majority opinion will be irrelevant in the future. Goldsmith's view may be included. Peter Beinart is not a lawyer. His opinion may be added if the Robert Wistrich's opinion is included. The edit summary should say: Consensual edit achieved through DRN mediation - details at the talk page; the talk page should include a link to the archived DRN case. Yagasi (talk) 06:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Can someone ask an editor who is a lawyer or knows a lot about international law to comment? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- @NPguy: I agree with NPguy that a subject-matter expert might be helpful here. I also remain unpersuaded that the views which are sought to be included - which are quite marginal - belong on the JCPOA page. This is not to say that content on Iran's threats could not be presented on some other page (e.g., Iran–Israel relations or Genocide Convention). To draw a very rough analogy, the encyclopedia has a lot of great articles on political repression in the Soviet Union, but we don't try to shoehorn them into articles on international agreements where they are not relevant, such as START I or the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Neutralitytalk 13:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Critical and other legal opinions on JCPOA should be integrated into the article. Otherwise WP:Criticism and NPOV will be violated. Yagasi (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I saw ThePlatypusofDoom's request for an international law expert. While I'm not thoroughly familiar with the Genocide Convention and scholarship in it, I'd be happy to do some research and answer some questions. The threshold question I see is whether the Genocide Convention prohibits "threats" to engage in genocide. My initial impression is that it's an open question and has been considered an open question in the legal scholarship. Harmen van der Wilt comments at reasonable length about this in a book chapter in 2012. He mostly discusses "incitement to genocide" cases tried before the ICTR, notably contrasting the Bikindi case with the Nahimana, Barayagwiza, Ngeze case. Towards the end, though, he spends some time considering the issues of Iran and the speech directed towards Israel, ultimately referring to an article by Susan Benesch on the subject.[1] Benesch, at the time a teaching fellow and adjunct at Georgetown Law, considers a "reasonably possible consequences test" and applies this approach to the Ahmadinejad case, but ultimately concludes that it is highly unlikely that the ICC or ICJ would take on such a case.[2] Interesting case. I'll be reading some more. Hopefully I'm not misunderstanding what the question is, though. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Susan Benesch wrote in her article: "In a forthcoming article, Professor Gregory Gordon makes the case that Ahmadinejad did commit incitement to genocide". Would you add Gordon's article to your list? Yagasi (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Benesch is referring to a symposium article by Gordon, who at the time was an assistant professor at University of North Dakota law school (i.e., he's probably not one of those off-the-wall symposium papers that the journal took because it couldn't find anything else... which I've seen happen before). I will note that an acquaintance of mine, Douglass Cassel, also participated in that symposium, and he's 100% legit where international human rights/international humanitarian law/corporate social responsibility are concerned. Just from reading the abstract, it sounds like Gordon hits many of the same points that van der Wilt does, though in the context of a 67-page law review article. I would say it's probably a good source. Gordon does take serious note of, for instance, Alan Dershowitz's contention that Ahmadinejad's speeches probably violate the Genocide Convention and Rome Statute, as well as potentially violating domestic laws that have been given universal jurisdiction.[3] I'm not so sure about the third one in light of what happened with Pinochet in Spain and the UK, and with Kiobel in the US. Universal jurisdiction is kind of on the outs right now. The other two do not appear to be fringe, though I wouldn't characterize them as the obvious interpretation of those documents on that basis. The US House of Representatives did adopt a resolution condemning Ahmadinejad's comments. Even if it's easy to dismiss that as political maneuvering and the obvious move of an ally of Israel, in terms of Wikipedia policy it kind of lends a lot more prominence to the argument that there's a controversy worth mentioning. Of course, I can't say from these older documents that Ahmadinejad's statements back then have a bearing on the JCPOA something like eight years later. I'm sure something touches on public statements of the Iranian government (or more appropriately, Iranian politicians, given the ICC handles individuals), but I haven't looked hard enough yet. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks for joining the discussion, Mendaliv. You seem to have focused on the question of whether Iranian statements constitute incitement to genocide. To my mind, the more critical questions here are what third parties are required to do or prohibited from doing to prevent acts of genocide. NPguy (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- To my mind, the questions of your research should deal with the issue as defined in the subsection The case in a nutshell by editors. Iranian incitement to genocide may be one of the questions. Yagasi (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for joining the discussion, Mendaliv. You seem to have focused on the question of whether Iranian statements constitute incitement to genocide. To my mind, the more critical questions here are what third parties are required to do or prohibited from doing to prevent acts of genocide. NPguy (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- (edit conflict) I'll look into that, but my initial reaction is that there is virtually never a mandate to do something affirmatively with a State that has a policy of genocide in the absence of UN sanctions or treaty obligations explicitly (and I mean explicitly) to the contrary. For instance, engaging in some form of trade with a State that itself is actively engaging in a variety of human rights abuses is, as far as I know, not prohibited by default. The interesting thing about the Genocide Convention and Rome Statute is, as I hinted above, it addresses individual wrongs rather than State wrongs. The Genocide Convention basically sets up a regime where States Parties authorize their nationals who engage in genocide to be brought before a Nuremburg-like tribunal, but ideally before a domestic tribunal in the State where the crimes occurred. The Rome Statute does the same for the ICC. States themselves, even governments, are not themselves subject to the jurisdiction of those tribunals, and those treaties don't say anything about State responsibility other than, perhaps, setting up regimes by which reparations might be paid to another State.
But your question is more about whether a third State might, for example, continue to engage in trade with a State that has engaged in some internationally wrongful conduct. I believe that mostly it's a moral imperative to decline to permit trade with such a State, rather than one of controlling international law. Other third States might engage in countermeasures against the State that continues to trade. It's also possible that the trading State has some domestic law requirement forbidding trade that it enacted when it ratified a particular treaty. Since the previous discussion is so long, could someone link to the sources that are claimed to support the obligation? I'd like to take a look at those. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'll look into that, but my initial reaction is that there is virtually never a mandate to do something affirmatively with a State that has a policy of genocide in the absence of UN sanctions or treaty obligations explicitly (and I mean explicitly) to the contrary. For instance, engaging in some form of trade with a State that itself is actively engaging in a variety of human rights abuses is, as far as I know, not prohibited by default. The interesting thing about the Genocide Convention and Rome Statute is, as I hinted above, it addresses individual wrongs rather than State wrongs. The Genocide Convention basically sets up a regime where States Parties authorize their nationals who engage in genocide to be brought before a Nuremburg-like tribunal, but ideally before a domestic tribunal in the State where the crimes occurred. The Rome Statute does the same for the ICC. States themselves, even governments, are not themselves subject to the jurisdiction of those tribunals, and those treaties don't say anything about State responsibility other than, perhaps, setting up regimes by which reparations might be paid to another State.
-
-
References
- ^ van der Wilt, Harmen (2012). "Between Hate Speech and Mass Murder: How to recognize Incitement to Genocide". In van der Wilt, H.G.; Vervliet, J.; Sluiter, G.K.; Houwink ten Cate, J.Th.M. The Genocide Convention: The Legacy of 60 Years. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. pp. 41–50. ISBN 978-90-04-15328-8 – via Brill Online. (subscription required (help)).
- ^ Benesch, Susan (2008). "Vile Crime of Inalienable Right: Defining Incitement to Genocide". Virginia Journal of International Law 48 (3): 485–528 – via HeinOnline. (subscription required (help)).
- ^ Gordon, Gregory S. (2008). "From Incitement to Indictment—Prosecuting Iran's President for Advocating Israel's Destruction and Piecing Together Incitement Law's Emerging Analytical Framework". Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University School of Law) 98 (3): 853–920 – via HeinOnline. (subscription required (help)).
Talk:Mawlid#Consensus doesn't exist concerning falsehood
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Mawlid ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Mawlidman (talk · contribs)
- Saheehinfo (talk · contribs)
- MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
There is a dispute regarding which edit should be accepted for the article: this edit (mine) or this edit (opposing editor). I argue in favour of mine for 2 main reasons: 1) It has sub-sections because there are 2 distinct sections to the 'Permissibility' section: one for and one against. This gives the section greater clarity. 2) My edit simply quotes the opinion of the scholar Ibn Taymiyya, hence it is uncontroversial and fully self-explanatory. I argue against the other editor's version for 2 main reasons: 1) without sub-sections, the 'Permissibility' section looks very unwieldy. 2) in this version the opinion of the scholar Ibn Taymiyya is described as complex, even though plenty of other sources do not make mention of any such "complexity". This description is a matter of dispute, hence such controversy should be avoided--especially when my version easily offers a non-controversial solution.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I tried extensive discussion on the talk page, sought a third opinion (but was rejected because a 3rd editor was nominally involved).
How do you think we can help?
Just to give fair advice about which arguments have merit and to offer a respectable opinion that can lead to a resolution to this ongoing dispute.
Summary of dispute by Saheehinfo
I'll start with point 2) above because this is the major dispute we are having.
The existing version is based on the work of a respected academic scholar named Dr. Raquel M. Ukeles and is peer reviewed and published by Oxford University Press. This clearly passes WP:RS and so I do not understand why it should be removed.
I have also seen other works from reliable sources which also seem to support the current text such as: Raquel M. Ukeles, Islamic Law in Theory: Studies on Jurisprudence in Honor of Bernard Weiss, BRILL
The problem with the suggestion made by Mawlidman is that it seems to be a primary source. The source is a direct translation of one of Ibn Taymiyya's works. I do not see the need to refer to a primary source such as this translation when a number of secondary sources exist such as the one above by ukeles. Further, within the translation there are numerous pages dedicated to the subject so it is not clear to me why We should only quote one paragraph in particular.
For the record, I have no problem incorporating all reliable secondary sources regarding Ibn Taymiyya's views and am happy to expand on the existing version.
Regarding point 1) above, the disagreement regarding subheadings was a minor issue which I assumed had been resolved as Mawlidman stated previously that Regarding the sub-headings, i can live with their removal.
Anyhow, I was somewhat reluctant to have explicit sub headings of "support" and "opposition" as it gives the impression that only 2 views exist - I.e. either one is for the Mawlid or against it. In reality a wide range of opinions exist such as the fact that some historic scholars accepted certain parts of the mawlid but forbade others. Ironically Ibn taymiyya seems to be of those who were neither totally for or totally against the mawlid.
I am on holiday at the moment so may not respond in a timely fashion. apologies for any delays. Saheeh Info 07:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Mawlid#Consensus doesn't exist concerning falsehood discussion
- Volunteer note - There has been adequate talk page discussion. The two listed parties, while the main parties to the discussion, are not the only parties. Other parties who have commented should be listed. All of the editors should be notified of this filing. This case is being left open to allow for addition of other parties and for proper notice to be provided. (I will not be moderating the discussion if this case is opened.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer comment – I can open this case for moderated discussion once all of the involved editors are properly listed and notified. KSFTC 21:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer comment – @Mawlidman: This is a reminder that all involved editors need to be notified on their talk pages before the case can be opened. It is your responsibility as the editor who filed the case to notify them. KSFTC 01:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer comment – I am now opening this case for discussion. @Saheehinfo and MezzoMezzo: If you are willing to participate, reply here. KSFTC 15:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
@Mawlidman: Can you respond below to Saheehinfo's points? KSFTC 11:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd appreciate if we dealt with point one first of all.
1) When i said i can live without sub-headings this was done as a goodwill gesture, but i never initially intended to remove them for any other reason i.e. i always believed they were appropriate. But since no goodwill was reciprocated i have put the issue back on the table. Anyway, to hold me against a past claim that i now so obviously disavow is a bit insultingly dismissive of my request. 2) Regarding the claim that there is no distinct 'Support' and 'Opposition' and that there is "a wide range of opinions [that] exist", if you read each scholar's ruling then you will see that each one has a general opposition or support towards Mawlid. They only elaborate on this support or opposition by setting conditions to their general rulings eg. some that support it then condition their support on the basis that Mawlid is conducted in a certain manner; some that oppose Mawlid then condition their opposition by saying that the month in which Mawlid is celebrated is special etc. Despite these conditons you will never find a conflict with their general support or opposition i.e. you don't have a 'support' scholar then saying that they oppose Mawlid. There are 2 distinct general views: 'support' or 'opposition'. --Mawlidman (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Could you respond to Saheehinfo's second point about your removal of a source that he claims is reliable? Why shoudn't it be included? KSFTC 23:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@KSFT: Yes, sorry. In answering his questions, i oppose Saheehinfo's version for several reasons:
1) This current version was first added by an obscure one-off editor called Thehistorian1984 here. This is the version Saheehinfo is defending based upon his claim that this is the consensus version as he states here in the first paragraph, Talk:Mawlid#Ibn Taymiyyah. As you can see the content is identical except that some extra sources have been added. Note that Saheehinfo had no qualms adding sources that supported the initial edit; however, he stubbornly rejected any of my edits that countered this edit—even if my edits were supported by worthy sources.
2) Now, as can be seen, Thehistorian1984's foundational edit cited one source: the pivotal Ukeles-authored work. Of all my searching for this source i have been unable to acquire it or to inspect whether its citation matches the content espoused in the edit. Likewise, even Saheehinfo has admitted that he has never seen the source and whether it matches the edit's content, as he admits here: [1] (to find press 'ctrl' + 'f' and type 'book' and it is the first one highlighted). I find it ridiculous that he has so staunchly defended this foundational 'consensus' edit even though he has admitted he has no proof to defend it.
3) The words "complexity of the issue" in Saheehinfo's version is rather subjective and open to dispute. While there are indeed sources that mention Ibn Taymiyyah's (IT's) views using adjectives like 'complex' (as the source quotes of Saheehinfo's version make clear) there are also sources that present IT's views using no such adjectives (some can be seen here: User:Mawlidman/sandbox#Sources that don't raise issue of complexity). Likewise, the words "although not forbidden (ḥarām)" in Saheehinfo's version are also open to dispute, as my above sandbox link shows. When something is open to dispute and conflicting opinions exist i don't see why one version gets to take precedence over the other. If there is such dispute then the best action to resort to is to add content that is neutral. My edit (shown here: User:Mawlidman/sandbox#My proposed edit) offers this solution: it simply quotes IT and presents his view clearly and objectively.
4) Saheehinfo objects to my version because he claims i am using a "primary source". In fact this is untrue. The source is not a book of IT or a translation of a book of IT; it is a book by the scholar Muhammad Umar Memon, published in the scholarly publishing house Walter de Gruyter. This makes it in fact a secondary sources that just happens to include IT's quoted opinion. Quoting IT doesn't make it a primary source. The source quotes IT—which is how i added IT's personal view at length. Note also that Muhammad Umar Memon makes it quite clear what he personally makes of IT's view on Mawlid here: User:Mawlidman/sandbox#Sources that don't raise issue of complexity (last quote); it certainly isn't in agreement with Saheehinfo's version. So once again we have differences of opinions expressed by several authors, hence why i call for only adding IT's own quoted view and let that do the explaining—rather than conflicting authors. I also find it strange that Saheehinfo objects to quoting IT, yet the article has 2 quotes already in the Permissibility section. Why doesn't Saheehinfo count these as primary sources too? If a scholar like Al-Suyuti can be quoted at length, despite authors not being divided about his support for Mawlid, then why can't IT be quoted at length when his views are open to dispute among authors? If anything, Al-Suyuti shouldn't be quoted, but rather authors should quickly summarize his view because it is considered so uncontroversial. Saheehinfo also claims that "within the translation there are numerous pages dedicated to the subject so it is not clear to me why We should only quote one paragraph in particular." Again he is incorrect: i only quoted from IT what was relevant to his views on Mawlid. Everything of IT's words that precede and succeed this quote were not added because they veered of course talking about other issues. If "there are numerous pages dedicated to the subject", as he claims, could Saheehinfo please draw attention to them?
This is my reply to Saheehinfo. All i desire is to remove controversy by letting IT speak for himself—instead of others disputing over his views. Memon's source, as the only secondary source i could find that quotes IT at length, offers that solution. --Mawlidman (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@Saheehinfo: You need to check this page regularly. If you don't respond soon, I'll have to close this case as failed. KSFTC 18:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- @KSFT: If he doesn't respond soon does that mean that my case is rejected? --Mawlidman (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- If I close the case because he doesn't respond, it will mean that you were unable to discuss the issue, so no consensus could be reached. KSFTC 22:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- @KSFT: Well wouldn't that be very convenient for him not to respond? So i put in the effort to resolve this issue here most likely for nothing...how does such a system sound fair? If i had known that that's how it works then i wouldn't have bothered because from much experience the other editor is not approaching this dispute in good faith and seeking a fair solution. --Mawlidman (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- If I close the case because he doesn't respond, it will mean that you were unable to discuss the issue, so no consensus could be reached. KSFTC 22:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
FYI - I do now have access to the work by Ukeles. The summary currently in the wiki article is an accurate reflection of her lengthy work so I really do not see why we should remove the existing version of the article. I scanned the pages before going on holiday with a view to provide the relevant quotes but unfortunately the Internet access here is so poor that the scanned documents do not open. You can also buy the book from Amazon if you do not believe me (it is not expensive). Can we therefore put this on hold until I am back? Saheeh Info 14:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer comment – I am putting this case on hold until Saheehinfo can participate. Saheehinfo, let me know here when I should reopen this case. KSFTC 18:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- @Saheehinfo: A time frame on your return to editing action would have been nice. Regarding your acquisition of the book, all i ask, when you return from vacation, is that you show me that the source says something like "although not forbidden (ḥarām)" (which was in the edit). I'm not concerned by whether the cite mentions "complexity" because as i have shown the "complexity" adjective is a matter of dispute between different authors, i.e. plenty of authors don't think the issue is complex. --Mawlidman (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Thanks - I'll be back on Saturday and will respon then.Saheeh Info 18:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Coordinator's note: I've extended the archive date of this case 9 days until May 15 to allow for the hold. If not resolved by then, then the case will be automatically archived and, in effect, closed if any 24-hour period passes with no edit made to it. If May 15 approaches without resolution or manual closing, KSFT may then extend it beyond May 15 by adjusting the "Do not archive until" date in the case header, but the best practice is not to do so unless there is active ongoing discussion and some hope of resolution. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Point 1
- As I have explained before, I reverted your changes on the contested portion of the article per WP:BRD. When we come to an agreement on a new version we can update it since Consensus can change. I explained this on a number of occasions over the last few weeks (here, here and here) and also made clear that we should work together on this.
- Point 1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This is the reason why I reverted your changes - it was not done out of "stubbornly rejecting" your edits.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Point 2
- There is long standing version of Ibn Taymiyya's views from Jan 2015 as follows:
- The complexity of the issue is best seen in the opinion of the scholar Ibn Taymiyya who wrote that it was a reprehensible (makrūh) innovative practice, although not forbidden (ḥarām), but since "some observe the Prophet's birthday out of a desire to show their love of the Prophet and thus deserve a great reward for their good intentions"
- Ref: Ahmed, editors, Yossef Rapoport, Shahab (2010). Ibn Taymiyya and his times. Karachi: Oxford University Press. p. 320. ISBN 9780195478341.
- Point 2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The book Ibn Taymiyya and his Times consists of a number of articles by academic scholars. The relevant article in this book is by Dr. Raquel M. Ukeles and is entitled "The Sensitive Puritan? Revisiting Ibn Taymiyya's Approach to Law and Spirituality in Light of 20th-century Debates on the Prophet's Birthday (mawlid al-nabī)".
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- On page 319 of the book, Ukeles states that "This paper argues that contemporary debates over Ahmed Ibn Taymiyya's approach to the Mawlid festival illuminate complexities within Ibn Taymiyya's thinking regarding the relationship between law and spirituality."
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- On page 320 she states that "Ibn Taymiyya rules that the Mawlid is a reprehensible (makruh) devotional innovation..."
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- On page 320 she also states that "he recognized that some observe the Prophet's birthday out of a desire to show their love of the Prophet and thus deserve a great reward for their good intentions."
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Given the above, the summary by @Thehistorian1984: seems reasonable. However, I could not find an explicit mention to "although not (haram) forbidden" in the article. I would therefore be happy to remove this given that it was not explicitly mentioned in the book and seems to fall under WP:OR and perhaps WP:SYNTHESIS.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Question for Mawlidman - are you ok with this source and the summary?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Point 3
- You stated that: When something is open to dispute and conflicting opinions exist i don't see why one version gets to take precedence over the other.
- Point 3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I have mentioned previously that we need to use all sources to come up with something that is accurate and reflects all viewpoints. So if conflicting views do exist from reliable sources then we should detail all of these.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You also state that: If there is such dispute then the best action to resort to is to add content that is neutral. My edit offers this solution: it simply quotes IT and presents his view clearly and objectively.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I completely disagree. Your proposal to "simply quote" Ibn Taymiyya is problematic as it means that we bypass a number of rigorous secondary sources. Wikipedia guidelines state that we should mainly use reliable secondary sources since:
- A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Point 4
- The book you are quoting from is entitled Ibn Taimiya's Struggle Against Popular Religion: With an Annotated Translation of His Kitab Iqtida As-sirat Al-mustaqim Mukhalafat Ashab Al-jahim (Religion and Society). It consists of three parts. Part three is entitled "Translation of Kitab Iqtida as-Sirat al-Mustaqim Mukhalafat ashab al-Jahim". It is a direct translation of Ibn Taymiyya's book and is 231 pages long (pages 89 to 320). As I understand it, a direct translation of an authors work would be a primary source with respect to the author himself. Please read WP:PRIMARY.
- Point 4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- There is absolutely no reason to use a primary source given the number of academic works dedicated to the subject.
- Examples of reliable works on this subject are:
- The Sensitive Puritan? Revisiting Ibn Taymiyya's Approach to Law and Spirituality in Light of 20th-century Debates on the Prophet's Birthday (mawlid al-nabī)." Ibn Taymiyya and His Times, ed. Youssef Rapport and Shahab Ahmed, 319-337. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2010.
- Marion Holmes Katz, The Birth of The Prophet Muhammad: Devotional Piety in Sunni Islam (Culture and Civilization in the Middle East) Routledge
- Raquel M. Ukeles, Islamic Law in Theory: Studies on Jurisprudence in Honor of Bernard Weiss, BRILL
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The above are excellent sources on the subject and certainly pass WP:RS. We should therefore definitely use them. Mawlidman - do you agree that these sources should be used?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Conclusion:
- 1) Your edits were reverted per WP:BRD not out of "stubbornly rejecting your edits"
- 2) The current version of the paragraph is a reasonable rendering of Ukeles's work with the exception of "although not (haram) forbidden" which seems to be WP:SYNTHESIS and therefore can be removed.
- 3) We should use all reliable secondary sources to come up with something that reflects all opinions.
- 4) Directly quoting from a translation of Ibn Taymiyya's work seems to fall under WP:PRIMARY which is unnecessary when so many reliable secondary sources exist. Saheeh Info 11:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Conclusion:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- @Saheehinfo: and @KSFT: Firstly, i'm glad you agree in removing although not (haram) forbidden from the article. I think this removal also, more than ever, reinforces my request to have the section divided into sub-sections since we have 2 clear views of general support and opposition--each including their own conditions.
Now, to respond to your questions:
are you ok with this source and the summary? No i am not ok with this source and summary for several reasons: 1) You said On page 319 of the book, Ukeles states that "This paper argues that contemporary debates over Ahmed Ibn Taymiyya's approach to the Mawlid festival illuminate complexities within Ibn Taymiyya's thinking regarding the relationship between law and spirituality." The key words you quoted are "This paper argues". That makes it quite clear that this is the author's personal view and hints that they acknowledge that authors hold conflicting views of IT's opinion; this is precisely what i have been arguing. I have shown some authors think his opinions are complex while others do not. So i don't see why the complex view should exclusively prevail in this conflict. 2) You say On page 320 she states that "Ibn Taymiyya rules that the Mawlid is a reprehensible (makruh) devotional innovation..." Thanks for finding this, but could you please quote the entire sentence? I don't understand why you cut it so short and i'd like to know the full content of this sentence because it could add further illumination to IT's views.
I'd like to respond to your Point 3. You said we should mainly use reliable secondary sources, so do you consider my source, Ibn Taimiya's Struggle Against Popular Religion, to be a primary source? I have already shown Memon's book is not a primary source. The book quotes IT but i already showed that Memon mentions his view of IT's mawlid opinion and there is nothing wrong with adding IT's quote in the article when other pro-Mawlid scholars' opinions are already included in it. I have already covered this above.
Now to respond to Point 4. The book i used, Ibn Taimiya's Struggle Against Popular Religion, is 444 pages long; you said IT's quote in the book is 231 pages long. So about half the book is his quote and half the book is the scholar Memon's words. In what world does that make Memon's work a primary source? We have IT's quote regarding Mawlid, but we also have Memon's view of IT's mawlid opinion. Therefore, we have a primary and secondary source regarding IT's views on Mawlid.
That brings me to answer your last question: do you agree that these sources should be used? No i don't agree. Let's be clear hear: your extra sources are all simply accessories to the foundational Ukeles edit by Thehistorian1984, i.e. they reinforce the initial edit's insistence that IT's view is complex. These sources add nothing new; they could readily be removed, to leave the foundational edit by the Thehistorian1984, and the initial edit will have gained or lost nothing. However, the problem that you keep ignoring is that your sources present one side of the coin: the "complexity" of IT's views. I have shown with my excellent sources that others view IT's opinion as not being complex at all. So why do you keep insisting that your version has the sole right to take precedence? My version takes the middle ground simply by quoting IT from a scholarly secondary source that provides us with the greatest amount of his own quoted opinion. I am not calling for an edit that says "IT was against Mawlid--period"; nor am i calling for an edit that presents his views as being universally accepted as being "complex"--as you are. I am saying that when such controversy swirls it is best to just let IT speak for himself and let the readers make their own opinions, rather than having people like Ukeles and Memon offering their own disputed opinions. --Mawlidman (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Saheehinfo: and @KSFT: Firstly, i'm glad you agree in removing although not (haram) forbidden from the article. I think this removal also, more than ever, reinforces my request to have the section divided into sub-sections since we have 2 clear views of general support and opposition--each including their own conditions.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- @Mawlidman: - there is too much going on here, so I would prefer it if we could try and agree on the fundamentals first.
- You stated that:
- I am saying that when such controversy swirls it is best to just let IT speak for himself and let the readers make their own opinions, rather than having people like Ukeles and Memon offering their own disputed opinions.
- I could not disagree more with this. Please review WP:SECONDARY which states that:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- So we ARE absolutely meant to make use of scholarly works such as those by Ukeles who have thoroughly analysed Ibn Taymiyya's works and provided an interpretation based on this. Her work has been peer reviewed and published by a respected academic institute. All of this makes it completely acceptable to use as a source for a Wikipedia article. As I mentioned before, if there are conflicting views amongst academics then all these views should be represented. To simply quote directly from one of Ibn Taymiyya's own books is problematic since it bypasses the specialist knowledge and analysis made by scholars who have spent much time to come up with there conclusions.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You also stated that: so do you consider my source, Ibn Taimiya's Struggle Against Popular Religion, to be a primary source? I have already shown Memon's book is not a primary source.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- As I mentioned above, the book you are quoting from is entitled Ibn Taimiya's Struggle Against Popular Religion: With an Annotated Translation of His Kitab Iqtida As-sirat Al-mustaqim Mukhalafat Ashab Al-jahim (Religion and Society). It consists of three parts. Part three is entitled "Translation of Kitab Iqtida as-Sirat al-Mustaqim Mukhalafat ashab al-Jahim". It is a direct translation of Ibn Taymiyya's book and is 231 pages long (pages 89 to 320). As I understand it, a direct translation of an authors book would be a primary source with respect to the author himself. Please read WP:PRIMARY.
- Parts one and two of the book are Memon's interpretation. Both of these parts would be acceptable as a secondary source. However, the long quote that you have suggested is from the third part.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I haven't touched on your other points as we need to agree on the fundamentals first (although please note that I disagree with your view that there is a major conflict amongst academics or that some academics claim that Ibn Taymiyya's views were "not complex").
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- So can we first agree on the following:
- a) Reliable secondary sources such as those by Ukeles, Katz, Memon etc... should be used
- b) *IF* there is a conflict amongst academics then all these all these views should be represented
- c) The use of Primary sources (e.g. direct quotes from Ibn Taymiyya's own books) are unnecessary given the multitude of reliable secondary sources that are available. Saheeh Info 15:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- @Saheehinfo: I am not in the habit of circular arguing and repetition. You have my answers to all your questions above. I answered all your questions in detail; the least you could do is to answer my one real question: could you please quote the entire sentence? If you want the context of this question then re-read my response above (the question is also in bold).
@KSFT: could you please give us your input because this argument between me and Saheehinfo is going nowhere and we are running out of time. --Mawlidman (talk) 09:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Saheehinfo: I am not in the habit of circular arguing and repetition. You have my answers to all your questions above. I answered all your questions in detail; the least you could do is to answer my one real question: could you please quote the entire sentence? If you want the context of this question then re-read my response above (the question is also in bold).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- @Mawlidman: - A simple yes or no would suffice and then we can discuss content. So do you agree on the following:
- a) Reliable secondary sources such as those by Ukeles, Katz, Memon etc... should be used
- b) *IF* there is a conflict amongst academics then all these all these views should be represented
- c) The use of Primary sources (e.g. direct quotes from Ibn Taymiyya's own books) are unnecessary given the multitude of reliable secondary sources that are available.
- If we cannot even agree on the fundamentals there is no point discussing content. So please answer YES or NO and then I would be happy to go through content with you. Saheeh Info 14:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I have answered all your questions above in detail. Read my responses properly and stop stalling this discussion with circular arguments and requests. Also, if you demand of others that they answer your questions then you should at least return the courtesy. All I have asked you twice is that you answer 1 question; you have clearly ignored my request. Do you have something to hide? Does the full quote I'm asking you for reveal something you don't abide by? --Mawlidman (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'm not sure I understand exactly what the dispute is about, and it seems like you might not either. It looks like one disagreement is that Mawlidman wants to split a section into two subsections, one with information about who agrees with the subject of the article and one about people who disagree, and Saheehinfo doesn't want the subsections. Is that correct? If so, Saheehinfo, can you explain why it shouldn't be split? Per WP:PSTS, primary, secondary, and tertiary sources can all be used on Wikipedia. Translation is not "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis", so a translation of a primary source is a primary source. That shouldn't be relevant for citing facts or quotes, though, as long as the article has other independent sources. Can one or both of you summarize the other points you disagree about? KSFTC 21:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, one of my requests is for sub-sections. My second request is that we simply add Ibn Taymiyya's opinion as a quote of his own words regarding Mawlid. --Mawlidman (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Dallon Weekes#Pretty. Odd.
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Stockton Beach
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier
Closed discussion |
---|
R. Gordon Wasson
Closed discussion |
---|
Aly Saad
Closed discussion |
---|
User talk:Meters#.22Sanitizing.22_a_page
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Surface_Book
Closed discussion |
---|