User talk:MichaelNetzer/Statement for ArbCom

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Michael_Netzer
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=463373264#ARBPIA_3

Sean.holyland makes a good case for the problem we have. I'm personally in awe of all the areas that Wikipedia guidelines cover. They are some of the more edifying statements on interpersonal relations and criteria for the success of a group effort. WP guidelines might deserve a place next to the more notable moral codes we've produced as a civilization. I haven't yet met anyone who can be entirely neutral, nor think such a thing is possible in people. Wikipedia recognizes this reality, and elaborates more on the attitude needed for good collaboration between conflicting desires and views. We need to care more about the collective work than our own individual aspirations for it. That's not always easy to recognize in ourselves, or measure, or enforce.

Every editor or arbitrator reading through the discussions in this case will view them a little differently. Almost everyone will know where they stand on them early in the beginning. There are two camps here and they're not necessarily only Arab-Israeli, or Palestinian-settler. Everyone ultimately identifies with one side more than the other. It is as natural as the desire to exist itself. The question is whether we can rise above our own personal positions on it and encourage a working atmosphere that helps make things better.

Why we have a problem?
Recent disputes started a couple of years ago with edit wars over using the terms Judea and Samaria. One side claimed the terms are being used to justify taking the Palestinians' land away from them by the settlers. They called it "settler speak" and compiled sources that tried to show the terms are mostly used in an appropriating context, and that they cannot be considered neutral.

The other side thought the term was historically well sourced, going back to antiquity, corroborated by the British administration to identify, more or less, what later became known as the West Bank, and embodied important information about the bond Jews have to areas that most of the world are saying they can't or shouldn't live in.

After tensions mounted in edit wars, the case was brought to ArbCom. It eventually produced a guideline that tried to address the concerns of both sides and diffuse the tensions.

Why did ArbCom allow for using Judea and Samaria?
The first few articles in the guideline defined allowances for use of the terms relating to antiquity and the British Mandate. In reference to modern times, it said that West Bank is the most common name for the areas and "is to be used". An allowance for its use was also defined relative to the present area under Israeli military administration.

In Article #6, ArbCom noted that some editors weren't convinced the terms could be used with sufficient neutrality when referencing modern entities. But it did not evidently agree with them. Still, qualifications were stipulated that would restrict their use so as to ensure, as much as possible, that they would be used neutrally.

If ArbCom would have agreed that the terms could not be used without bias, then there would not have been a need for the qualifications, and their use in reference to modern entities would have been prohibited altogether. This part of the guideline suggests a significant decision by ArbCom that although West Bank is considered the most common name and "is to be used", Judea and Samaria can also be used as a less common name, subject to the articles and qualifications of the guideline. Below are two possible examples that arise from the allowances:
 * 1) Based on Article #5, it should be possible to say ''"Alon Shvut is an Israeli settlement in the West Bank, administered by Israel as part of the Judea and Samaria Administrative Area."
 * 2) Or based on qualification #6C, it should be possible to say "Alon Shvut is an Israeli settlement in the West Bank, an area also known as Judea and Samaria."

Such a guideline could still be claimed by both sides as a basis for representing their side, which would not be a big problem if both sides applied it in relatively equal measure and balance. One side would now be able to use it when appropriate in an article, and the other would be able to prevent it if used in violation of the articles and qualifications.

ArbCom's decision reflects a need to use the terms in order to achieve balance and neutrality in articles about the disputed territories of the West Bank, specifically those articles about the settlements. The reason seems to be because there already exists a majority opinion on the legality of the occupation and settlements that Israel disputes. The historical bond from antiquity up to present times, between the Jews and the West Bank area known as Judea and Samaria, ratified by some of the more significant sites of ancient Israel's history being in this area, is an important part of Israel's claim for the legality of the settlements and the right that Jews have to live there. This is balanced by the decision of the International Court of Justice that the settlements are in violation of international law. These are two sides to an argument. If Arbcom was to prohibit the use of a historically recognized name used by one side to make its claim, then it would compromise the neutrality that Wikipedia aspires for in the encyclopedia. And so, ArbCom's guideline affirmed the need to be able to use the term relative to settlements, but restricted it in consideration of some editors who wanted to prohibit it altogether.

What went wrong?
I'm not sure what happened over the last two years because I wasn't involved with this area of the encyclopedia. What I do know is that when I did become involved about a month ago, the terms were pretty much non-existent in articles about settlements. I soon discovered that some editors who sought to prohibit the use of the terms reverted an edit that added it. The lengthy discussions that followed my interjection, revealed strong and passionate opinions that the guidelines prohibit their use altogether in reference to modern entities. The attitude I found in these exchanges was of aggressive argumentation and edit reverts that most other editors didn't want to contend with, though I slowly discovered that more and more editors began joining the discussion and supporting my comments on it.

I can't speak for anyone else but it seems that a lot of editors just gave up on trying to address this problem, which is understandable when considering most editors are here because they enjoy developing the encyclopedia, and not to engage in these types of disputes.

Nishidani's comments here perhaps tell the story better than most. He argues that the terms are "settler-speak" and cannot be used in the way I was proposing or in any way with reference to modern entities. He seems to understand the guidelines in an entirely opposite way than I and others do. He was involved in one of the edit reverts and his arguments are of the more passioned and intense that are made.

Why is the legal statement's application problematic?
It would be enough to have this situation alone compromising the balance in articles on settlements. However, about a year ago another development further exasperated the neutrality. A project on a legal statement, to be added to all articles on settlements, was underwritten at IPCOL. Like with the ArbCom Naming Guidelines, an agreement was reached about the exact wording to be used in a brief statement in article leads. There was also agreement that it could be elaborated on in the articles themselves if the articles were sufficiently robust and not merely like stubs. Suggestions were made that these elaborations in the article bodies be added into the history section, or something comparable.

The result was that on all articles I've seen that had sufficient content, editors added the legal statement in the leads, and also in its own new section, and placed it prominently in the middle of the articles. This interrupted the flow of reading because after the history section that was specific to the settlement, the reader was presented with a general legal statement about the all the settlements, in its own section. It's a jarring and powerful presentation that affects everything else that follows it, which is the meat and potatoes content about each settlement. It would have seemed sufficient to either include the paragraph in the history section itself, to lessen from the intrusion it makes. Or if desired in its own section, to move it to the end of the article where legal statements are usually placed.

From what I've seen, the consensus on the legal statement made no stipulation that it needs its own section within the article, nor about it needing to be placed in the middle of the article disruptively. These were decisions made by editors who proceeded to add the legal statement into articles on settlements. There was also an addition to the agreed-upon wording that I removed upon noticing it. Here's the diff, it was discussed here. This addition exasperated the severity of the legal decision in a way that doesn't exist in the ICJ verdict, and was not agreed on in the consensus on the legal statement. It ultimately further compromised the balance and neutrality of the articles.

How can we solve the problems?
Prohibiting use of the term Judea and Samaria, which ArbCom had previously deemed vital to maintaining neutrality, at least in articles on the settlements where most of the edit wars took place, along with the intrusion of the legal statement, both in the lead and in its own section, placed disruptively and prominently on the pages, are the effective results that do not seem to have been intended by the Naming Guideline and Legality Consensus agreements.

While some editors suggest that adding a mention of Judea and Samaria, subject to guideline qualifications, in article leads is unacceptable, they don't seem to have a problem with the legal statement doing the same thing. This is the type of POV push that's been applied to create the present imbalance. It seems to me that in this situation, even a mention in the lead would not be enough to shift the tone of the articles back towards neutrality. But I think it would be a good first step. The more pressing issue is that the legal statement in the body of the articles must either be merged into the history section, or placed at the end of articles where it would be less intrusive and disruptive.

As can be seen from the discussions, attempts to implement such edits were met with immediate reverts and followed by long tangential arguments that eventually brought us to ArbCom in hopes of finding a solution.

I agree with Casliber that there's at least a need for ArbCom to help clarify its position on the previous agreements and how their results have played out in the actual articles.

The articles on settlements don't need to carry the burden and responsibility of the broader Arab-Israeli conflict that frustrate some editors. Wikipedia is much better than to allow its content to be dictated by a tilted POV in such a prominent dispute on the world stage.

I know I speak for many other editors in hoping ArbCom will at least give its opinion on the dispute. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)