Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 137

User talk:Meters#.22Sanitizing.22_a_page
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I had updated and drastically improved the Rio Rancho High School Wikipedia page so that there was much more true and informative content. Without prior discussion, user Meters removed the content stated that the reason for the rollbacks was "Again, we don't list individual awins or non-notable students. See WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#OS" and "rmv mention of non-championship seasons". The additional content added great value to the page for future page inquiries. The simple mentioning of names and achievements to a schools activities is not advocating "notable student" (which I would agree with if it was on it's own page), but simply enriching the value of the page as is adding two more simple columns to a table for championship information. I would submit that instead my changes had added value, and is in keeping with Wikipedia's own stated 5th Pillar "Wikipedia has no firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold but not reckless in updating articles."

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Was threatened to be blocked on hermanns_99 talk page and tried to discussed it with User:Meters on there talk page to which they simple removed my comments.

How do you think we can help?

Look at the current content and then look at the content I had submitted to see with of the two versions presents the best information about the school.

Summary of dispute by Meters
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

User talk:Meters#.22Sanitizing.22_a_page discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Hermanns 99 (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Surface_Book
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The issue is emerged after a brief edit war. Some unregistered editor keep adding the information about some past technical issue of Surface Book and Surface Pro 4, which was preventing devices of some users to properly go to the "sleep" mode. This issue was resolved with a routine software update in the February 2016.

I think that such information has a non-encyclopedic nature and should not be included into online encyclopedia. Some other editor insists it should. My opinion is based on WP:IINFO and WP:UNDUE Wikipedia policies, other editor is yet to have to provide his rationale.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Yes, on the Talk page and via third opinion request.

How do you think we can help?

Provide a guidance how to deal with such cases now and in the future.

Summary of dispute by
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Surface Book discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Dallon Weekes#Pretty. Odd.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I added info containing why and when the subject was recruited. Although referenced by in-line citations, Factoidmactoid is reverting the additions due to the info being prior to the subject's recruitment, to which he says is irrelevant to the subject because of that. Although it is prior to the subject's recruitment, it gives valid, referenced info of the reasons the subject was recruited. Nowhere is info prior to a subject's history with a group forbidden in an article page, especially when it is relevant to the topic. My attempts to resolve the matter on the talk page are not successful as he responds by reverting, stating the same thing on how it is prior to the subject's recruitment, and not by continuing discussion on the article talk page. A third opinion has stated that if the info is referenced with the correct info mentioned, which it is, it is a valid inclusion.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I also attempted to contact the user on his talk page, to which he simply responded with the same reason in his edit reason (I copied/pasted his response on the article talk page discussion).

How do you think we can help?

The info I added is completely relevant to the subject and should not be removed just because it is prior to the subject's history. Other voices to help show whether the info is relevant to the subject may clear the air. Note that the opposing editor seems to not participate in talk page discussion.

Summary of dispute by Factoidmactoid
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Dallon Weekes#Pretty. Odd. discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.


 * Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. However, another editor, who has been discussing at the article talk page, has not been notified of this filing.  The filing party should notify Altenmann of this request for moderated discussion.  This case is currently waiting for one editor to be notified and for statements from the other editors, since discussion is here is voluntary (although encouraged).  Robert McClenon (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - All parties have been notified. I am neither accepting nor declining this case but am waiting for statements from the other editors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - This case may be closed within 24 hours if the other two editors do not respond, because, although participation at DRN is encouraged, it is voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

R. Gordon Wasson
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Talk:R. Gordon Wasson

Users involved Dispute overview
 * Blocked for 3 years
 * Blocked for 3 years
 * Blocked for 3 years
 * Blocked for 3 years

This is in regards to edits to an article about R. Gordon Wasson (1898-1986), who was a Vice President at JP Morgan and who wrote extensively about psychoactive mushrooms. The sequence of events began when the article was edited on March 8, 2016 by 159.53.46.142, an anonymous IP registered to JP Morgan. This edit introduced the information that Wasson participated in MK-Ultra subproject 58 (which is true) and that he was an intelligence agent (which is debatable), but all of this material was unsourced. I provided a primary reference for the MK-Ultra claim, and deleted the intelligence agent claim. 92.233.116.110 deleted the discussion of MK-Ultra, claiming it was 'uncited', but went on to add the statement that Wasson was "chief of Propaganda" at JP Morgan. In truth, he was VP of Public Relations. I restored the MK-Ultra fact, and documented Wasson's correct job description at JP Morgan. This was then deleted by 87.239.254.119, restored by Senor Cuete, deleted again by 92.233.116.110, restored by me (with an additional citation), deleted by 92.233.116.110, and restored by Senor Cuete. The drama continues, as 110 and Cuete have accused each other of edit warring. JerryRussell (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Only on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I stand by my most recent edit to the article, and hope that you can help me get it restored against deletions by 92.233.116.110

Summary of dispute by 92.233.116.110
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Senor Cuete
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Wow! look at user 159.53.46.142's talk page. It looks to me like this account is only used for disruptive editing. Also I agree that these IP editors are likely sock puppets. Reverting good-faith edits seven times is edit warring. Admins: don't you block editors for this? Senor Cuete (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Gee whiz! The IP editor in this dispute is someone at JPMorgan Chase & Co. He has been so disruptive that all of the warning's for bad behavior overflowed and some of them are archived. Doesn't Wikipedia block anyone anymore? Senor Cuete (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a list of Users involved I. only see two of the IP addresses involved in this dispute listed. 87.239.254.119 has been blocked for 6 months as a sock puppet. 159.53.46.142 is a server at JP Morgan. How is this address involved in the debate? Is 92.233.116.110 a sock puppet for JP Morgan? Since Wasson worked for JP Morgan, one would have to conclude that this is an attempt to censor Wikipedia by someone at JP Morgan. This is unacceptable. The talk page at 159.53.46.142 is disturbing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:159.53.46.142. In, addition, there is an archive of other warnings not to vandalize wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:159.53.46.142/Archive_1. How in the world is this not blocked? 92.233.116.110 has done everything banned on Wikipedia - sock puppetry, edit warring, personal attacks, reverting good faith edits, ignoring consensus, etc. Why is this user not blocked? At this point I think JerryRussel would be justified in adding the content he wants, ignoring the disrupting editing of 92.233.116.110 or whoever he really is. Admins, where are you? Block this editor.


 * Thank you Senor Cuete, I think you nailed what's going on. It's interesting that this sock puppet is continually trying to introduce questionable interpretations about Wasson, as well as references to Jan Irvin's site, which is an excellent blog but possibly not qualified as Wikipedia source material. At the same time he is fighting tooth and nail against correct citations. Perhaps it's better not to block this editor? If blocked, he would just get a new IP. While as matters stand, at least other editors can see the record. I don't have strong opinions about this, just a thought. JerryRussell (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC) JerryRussell (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I added the content back this morning. All quiet on the Wasson front, so far. JerryRussell (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 87.239.254.119
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Maunus
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by 2600:8801:2000:8c0:55e0:318e:abd1:c1bc
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by 159.53.46.142
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:R. Gordon Wasson
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. There has been proper notice by the filing party to the other editors.  I am neither accepting nor declining this case at this time.  The unregistered editors are very strongly cautioned against continuing to make allegations of vandalism, when there is no evidence whatsoever of vandalism.  (If anyone really believes that there is vandalism, they should report it to the vandalism noticeboard after reading the boomerang essay.)  The unregistered editors are further advised to create accounts, because the response to the edit-warring is likely to be semi-protection of the article.  Statements by the other editors are awaited.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Comment I would take this to WP:ANI. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:International Lyme_and_Associated_Diseases_Society
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

There is a dispute over the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS) Wikipedia entry. It has been brought to my attention by multiple parties that the entry 1) misrepresents the medical association as an "advocacy group," 2) states the group's position in opposition to a false claim of "the consensus" based on the opinions of three different medical organizations, and 3) falsely states that "the assumption that there is a persistent [Lyme disease] infection is not supported by high quality clinical evidence." These claims all are plainly false or biased, and I and several editors prior to me, have amended the ILADS article to balance the bias and to correct false information about Lyme disease. The user Jytdog has overwritten all of these corrections despite cited evidence. I and editors before me have had thorough conversations on the article's talk page, and Jytdog has maintained that his unilateral editorial direction is based on Wikipedia policies. However, as discussed on the talk page, reviewing similar articles such as the description of the Infectious Diseases Society of America's (IDSA) page reveals that Jytdog's opinion of Wikipedia policies does not apply to other organizations' pages; the IDSA page, for example, defines the IDSA as a medical association using the IDSA's website as a reference, whereas Jytdog insists that an organization may only be defined by secondary sources, never by the organization itself, and this user continually refers to ILADS, a professional association of medical doctors, as an "advocacy group" based on passing references of this nature found in arbitrarily chosen medical journal articles, which importantly are authored by individuals who oppose the ILADS organization on political grounds. Equally importantly, the references chosen state the authors' opinions, which are contrary to fact. Yet Jytdog continues to revert the page and create poorly founded argument to any refutation based on proven facts.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have contacted the Wikimedia organization, including two editors and an executive, and have been directed to take this next step of filing a dispute resolution claim. Should this fail to remove the article's fallacies and clear bias, my next step will be to discuss the unilateral control and bias via the news media. (For the record, I have no direct affiliation with the ILADS organization; however, I find the misleading nature of the article extremely concerning.)

How do you think we can help?

Wikipedia editor Jytdog has a clear bias against both the ILADS organization and the investigation into chronic Lyme disease. S/he also has a conflict of interest by way of working for a company that produces medication for neurological disorders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jytdog); untreated Lyme infects the nervous system. The article should be updated to correct false information and to remove bias, and Jytdog's evident unilateral control of the ILADS entry should come to an end.

Summary of dispute by Jytdog
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by ArtistLike
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:International Lyme_and_Associated_Diseases_Society discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - Closing as conflict of interest issue. There has been adequate discussion on the article talk page between the two listed registered editors.  The filing unregistered editor has not taken previous part in the discussion, and so may be one of the parties editing logged out, probably ArtistLike, probably inadvertently.  The filing party has not notified the other party of this filing.  However, this filing is stating this as a conflict of interest issue, and this noticeboard only deals with content disputes, not with conflict of interest issues.  The filing party is advised to take either of two actions.  Either file a case at the conflict of interest noticeboard, providing proper notice to the other editor, or refile this case here only as a content issue, also providing proper notice to the other editor.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

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 Users involved 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 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
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. 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&mdash;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
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * 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)
 * Volunteer comment – It looks like you opened it. Who volunteered to take it then? KSF  T C 20:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Question to moderator.  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 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. 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. 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." Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * 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 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)

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&mdash;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,, 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

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)

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: 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.
 * 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;

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)

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)

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. 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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'.'"
 * 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)


 * 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. 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. Interesting case. I'll be reading some more. Hopefully I'm not misunderstanding what the question is, though. —/M endaliv /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. 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. —/M endaliv /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)

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. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * Please read paragraph 174 of the Bosnian Genocide case and search here for Andreas Zimmermann. I will provide all the links later. Yagasi (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Below is the list of sources:


 * Some of the sources that support obligation of States to prevent genocide
 * Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), ICJ General List № 91, Judgment of 26 February 2007
 * Dominic McGoldrick (2009). "State Identity and Genocide: The Bosnian Genocide Case". In International Law and Power: Perspectives on Legal Order and Justice. Edited by Kaiyan Homi Kaikobad, Michael Bohlander. ISBN 978-90-04-17587-7
 * Irwin Cotler (2011). "Combating State-Sanctioned Incitement to Genocide: A Legal and Moral Imperative". In Confronting Genocide. Edited by René Provost, Payam Akhavan. pp. 131–150. ISBN 978-90-481-9839-9
 * Andreas Zimmermann (2011). "The Obligation to Prevent Genocide: Towards a General Responsibility to Protect?". In From Bilateralism to Community Interest: Essays in Honour of Judge Bruno Simma. Edited by Ulrich Fastenrath, Rudolf Geiger, and others. pp. 629–645. ISBN 978-0-19-958881-7
 * Rivkin, David B.; Casey, Lee A. (July 26, 2015). "The Lawless Underpinnings of the Iran Nuclear Deal". The Wall Street Journal
 * C. J. Tams, L. Berster and B. Schiffbauer (2014). Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: A Commentary. ISBN 978-3-406-603317-4
 * Yagasi (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC) Yagasi (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
I'm putting in a break so I don't have to keep scrolling up and down. I've read the relevant portions of the Genocide Case, and they're quite enlightening. From what I gather in the case, the Genocide Convention and Rome Statute do not directly accord state responsibility for genocide, but create a dual responsibility regime where there is an obligation to punish individuals. States may still be responsible to other States against whose nationals genocide occurred, though I would note the definition of genocide for State responsibility purposes might be different than what the Genocide Convention and Rome Statute use. Namely, I think it's questionable whether there would be State responsibility for public incitement. The way the Genocide Case works is that there was State responsibility for failure to abide by the Genocide Convention because the respondent failed to prevent the genocide, and failed to prosecute or extradite the perpetrators.

Turning to the Iran question, part of the problem is that the public statements are not themselves genocide under the Convention (Art. II), but might be punishable under the Convention (Art. III). Given, as far as I understand, Iran hasn't prosecuted or extradited Ahmadinejad, they may be argued to have failed to honor their obligations under the Convention (Art. IV). That said, it's still a question of fact requiring a trial as to whether Ahmadinejad's statements were punishable.

But that leaves aside the question, as I understand it, of whether the other States Parties to the JCPOA violate their obligations under international law by joining that agreement and lifting sanctions on Iran on the grounds that Iran had failed to live up to its obligations under the Genocide Convention because it did not prosecute or extradite Ahmadinejad. I'm really curious as to the argument, and unfortunately I haven't been able to get past the WSJ paywall to read the Rivkin & Casey op-ed yet. I'm going to look at Zimmerman next. If I'm misunderstanding the dispute here, I'd appreciate some guidance. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The dispute is if these arguments have legal merit. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a thorny question. I would give a reserved "yes" to that question. The reason I would give a reserved answer is because of the general duty to negotiate in international dispute resolution wherever there is a dispute. There are multitudes of examples of arguments that your average person, or even average lawyer would consider not just preposterous but downright nonsensical being treated with care and consideration by all the involved parties, at the highest levels. Later tonight I'll look through my notes, but I specifically recall a case either before the Iran-US Claims Tribunal or the ICJ (might've been the Timor-Leste case) where one of the parties made claims as to the invalidity of some foundational treaty in international politics. Claims like that, which would be treated as spurious and vexatious in US courts do get briefed, argued, and decided upon with serious consideration at these courts. That said we would hardly consider those arguments as being particularly significant for the purposes of a Wikipedia article: Something like a claim that a duly executed and ratified treaty might be invalid is decidedly fringe, no matter how loudly that State's legal team trumpets it at the ICJ. But I'll be back later with a more definitive answer. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Mendaliv, enjoy your reading. I would ask you to pay attention to Summary of dispute by Yagasi. In particular, to WP:DUE that requires: "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." So if you do not agree with the proposed criticism/opinions from RS, try to introduce alternative or disproving RS. Yagasi (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC) I will say, though, that Beres is on the money in his points about how Iran would likely argue about the applicability of the agreement later on. I found the case I mentioned above where some rather preposterous arguments were made: In the provisional measures decision during the U.S. Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran case, the foreign minister of Iran came up with some wild claim that the Court shouldn't consider the case as merely concerning the embassy in Tehran, and that the consular staff being held hostage was "a marginal and secondary aspect of an overall problem, one such that it cannot be studied separately". He later goes on to claim that because the purpose of provisional measures are to protect the interests of the parties, the provisional measures can't be unilateral (which I take to mean that there should be some tit-for-tat if the court were to apply some provisional measures). Iran then defaulted at the hearing. I believe there was also an argument that the issue wholly concerned matters within Iranian sovereignty, and therefore was outside the court's jurisdiction. Of course, Iran doesn't hold a monopoly on patently bogus claims before international bodies. The U.S. has said its own fair share of nonsense. As have many other States. The real question is just how effective Iranian wriggling would be, whether some kind of dispute resolution would resolve it, and if not, whether the other States Parties would just revert to the status quo of sanctions. As to a prominence assessment, Beres' article has gotten virtually zero recognition anywhere. There are nine (9) ghits for the title, none of which are scholarly. While it's only been about 8 months since it came out, you would expect some citation by now if it were mainstream or even minority. Hell, not even the conservative or pro-Israel think tanks have picked up on it, which is frankly unthinkable for something mainstream or minority. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 06:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not even to the point where I criticize the reliable sources. I'm just laying the groundwork for a general understanding of how international dispute resolution works so the disputants can more adequately participate. Something foundational, for instance, would be the presumption in the S.S. Lotus case that States are by default unrestricted in their international actions. That is, we must start with the presumption that the JCPOA is internationally lawful, and then figure out if there's an international law restriction that renders it unlawful. Of course, there is also the question of whether the JCPOA is lawful under domestic law, for instance under US law; SCOTUS doesn't often cotton to what is done in the international law arena. Sabbatino, for instance, refused to grant title to a shipment of sugar that had been nationalized by Cuba without just compensation (which would violate international law) back to its rightful owner. The US death penalty cases (Medellin, Avena, and at least one more whose name eludes me) on the other hand show a willingness of the US courts to enable the violation of international law—those rulings, of course, are domestically lawful. So, honestly, you're likely to find reliable sources going at this from both sides. From a WP:DUE standpoint, though, what needs to be determined is how prominent the arguments are, not only with respect to one another, but with respect to the overall coverage of the JCPOA. I'm not going to be able to answer the latter question, and probably am not going to give a satisfying answer to the first question. What I can work towards is how fringe a particular argument is. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the update on the direction of your research. Yagasi (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was somehow able to get the WSJ website to display the full Rivkin & Casey article, finally... and rather than lose my chance, I took the opportunity to review it, and have a few comments. First and foremost, these guys aren't nuts who just randomly got published by the WSJ, but actually have published a decent body of legal scholarship, although the vast majority of it is prior to 2010, and a pretty significant amount of it dates back to the Cold War. This doesn't taint their work, but it provides a lens through which it should be read. I'm actually a bit annoyed with the WSJ simply describing the authors as "constitutional lawyers" and partners in a law firm who once worked at Justice. They've both had roles in international relations, though I'm not sure how prominent it was given the puffery law reviews virtually always use to spin their authors' credentials. All that said, the opinion piece has a distinct fringe feel to it, especially its use of catastrophic language ("end-run around the Constitution", "it surrenders on the constitutional requirement", "This is beyond reckless.", "Security Council gambit", "The U.N. Charter resolution has trapped the U.S.", "The president has thus handed the legal high ground to Tehran", "another reminder from the administration that brought ObamaCare"). My biggest concerns, though, deal with the attention that this piece, and position, has gotten in the legal scholarship: Virtually none. A grand total of two scholarly articles cite this, neither published in a law review, and neither suggests that it violates the Genocide Convention (instead, they deal with the suggestion that American states might interfere with it to make their will heard). It's been nearly a full year since the op-ed came out. For no law review article to have even given this a footnote-level mention says that the view that US participation in the JCPOA would result in the US violating the Genocide Convention is not a mainstream, or even minority view in legal academia. And really, I have a lot of trouble taking an op-ed in a newspaper as a reliable source for international law. I'll definitely continue looking around on this, but I really don't think we should be using this citation if at all possible. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you see the piece by Louis Rene Beres? On the particular POV under discussion, he argues that "a U.S. obligation is clearly deducible from Article V of the convention, which calls for international cooperation in providing 'effective penalties' for those who have engaged in 'incitement to commit genocide' and also from Article VIII". Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a much better reference, and one that gives a meatier argument. I would respond to the questions of Article V and VIII of the Convention by pointing out that, if we assume that Iranian officials have engaged in public incitement, even without the JCPOA the U.S. (and all other States Parties to the Convention) would seem to have already violated the Convention via Article V by not providing an effective penalty for those officials, and via Article VIII by not bringing that conduct before a competent organ of the UN. JCPOA doesn't enter into it other than, perhaps, by lifting the countermeasures the U.S. and other States have historically placed on Iran. However, one has to understand that international law isn't hard and fast like US constitutional law is. There is considerable leeway accorded in how States may meet their obligations in most cases. Obviously, they may not take a half-assed approach to their own governments committing crimes against humanity or violating other jus cogens or erga omnes norms. But there has historically been a hell of a lot of leeway—not without controversy—in very closely related situations. One of the classic problems taught in entry-level public international law casebooks, for instance, the tension in States after the end of long-term systematic human rights abuses, when those people picking up the pieces have to decide between a tribunal approach to punish the wrongdoers (à la Nuremberg) or a truth and reconciliation commission style of approach. The former is tremendously expensive and time consuming, and has been criticized because the full truth behind abuses in truly widespread, systematic human rights violations (e.g., forced disappearances) is much less likely to come out when the only people who know where the bodies are buried (both literally and figuratively) were those who perpetrated the violations. Truth and reconciliation commissions, on the other hand, do result in more talking because of the leniency or amnesty granted. Very often the survivors and next of kin just want the world to know the story, to know what they experienced really happened, and what better to silence anyone who would deny it than those who perpetrated it admitting to it? But the obvious problem with those commissions is that the perpetrators probably won't be punished! And so there's tension. But it's hardly the case that the use of truth commissions result in an unacceptable derogation of international obligations, either on the part of the State where the wrongs were committed, or on the part of the other States who will routinely provide material support for the missions undertaken by those commissions. To get to the point: The argument that the States supporting the JCPOA are violating the Convention by failing to sanction Iran would seem to assume that sanctions are the only acceptable way for the States Parties to meet their obligations. That's a really broad conclusion, and one that needs to be considered much more carefully and thoroughly.


 * Can you point out links to the two scholarly articles? Yagasi (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You said you are not thoroughly familiar with the Genocide Convention, but you will do some research and answer some questions. What about a more clear procedure for the research? Are your preliminary answers a part of your opinion and you expect us to discuss and address all of them now or your will post a summary opinion and only it is to be addressed by the community? I prefer the latter approach so we can respond to your final opinion and only to it. Yagasi (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The two articles that cite Rivkin & Casey are: (1) (2)  Neither article appears to take seriously the arguments by Rivkin & Casey that the US would be violating the Genocide Convention by participating in the JCPOA, which is a pretty clear indication that it's not even a minority viewpoint. Adebahr doesn't even mention the Genocide Convention argument, and only cite Rivkin & Casey as an example of people making the case for state-level sanctions. Shank does much the same, though he does mention the Genocide Convention: He harshly criticizes Rivkin & Casey, describing the argument that Iran has violated the Genocide Convention as "specious", and then questions Rivkin & Casey's credibility on the grounds that in 2009 they had published an article defending the Torture Memos. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 15:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * So do you support my initial contention that theirs is a fringe view? NPguy (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite there yet, but even if I can't conclude that their view is fringe, it's certainly not mainstream. If it merits mentioning, it would need to be balanced out. How WP handles minority or fringe theories where the mainstream hasn't taken significant notice of them isn't something I have a lot of experience with. Obviously we shouldn't synthesize something out of other sources, but the doctrines upon which the presumption that their view is wrong rest are nearly a century old. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, what's this about a presumption from an old doctrine?

Gregory Shank is emphatically not an expert on the subject matter. He has two sociology degrees and a criminology degree. So I'm not sure it would be good to cite him even for his own opinion here, much less use him to rebut or justify excluding Rivkin/Beres/Dershowitz/etc. Nor is the Social Justice Journal even a law journal. You're citing a non-prominent sociologist against multiple heavyweight legal figures on the subject of the legal validity of an international treaty? Are you doing this research on Westlaw/LexisNexis? How were you searching for law review articles?

In response to your prior posts, I would note that Beres's argument about the U.S. obligation to provide "effective penalties" for incitement to genocide certainly doesn't presuppose that sanctioning Iran is the only way to meet the obligations; rather it presupposes that any agreement whereby Iran is allowed to take actions which lay foundations for nuclear weapons production will constitute a failure to have imposed "effective penalties". This related to a central contention of the article ("[T]here is little doubt that the proposed pact — allegedly designed to prevent Iranian nuclearization — would effectively render Iranian nuclearization a fait accompli.").

But in any event, your own analysis of whether the view is correct can't inform the question of whether the view is held or accepted by others in legal academia. Rather it's your ability to find and read relevant legal sources on either the subject matter or the POV itself or an opposing view by an equivalent expert in the field. Oh and your Westlaw account haha.

I also don't see any language in WP:FRINGE that even comes close to authorizing the removal of a POV simply because it has not been widely cited in academic literature. Is it your belief that WP:FRINGE encompasses flat-Earth theories, Elvis-is-alive theories, Paul-McCartney-is-dead theories, moon landing conspiracy theories, astrology, creation science, and prominent expert opinions from mainstream sourcing that have not been widely cited in academia within 8-10 months of publication?

No, again, the question is whether the view is held by experts, and if so approximately and relatively how many. The fact that a number of very prominent individuals have published views in mainstream sources (it really doesn't matter much that they're not academic) is enough to show that it is held by no less than a significant minority. I refer again to Jimbo Wales's guidance for gauging weight to be afforded views: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". That's what we've done. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 05:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it looks like the views are only held by a very small minority, virtually none at all in legal circles. And no, that is not true. If something is not cited in third-party sources, it shouldn't be included. Also, removal of POV is standard on Wikipedia. Read WP:POV. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Legal opinion, published by 4 prominent lawyers in 3 independent RS, which is in line with main legal sources devoted to genocide and which was not rebuted by other lawyers is POV? Is it really Wikipedia's policy?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yagasi (talk • contribs) 14:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "A single op-ed published by two prominent attorneys, but not law professors, in a non-academic setting; another article by a prominent political science professor in a non-academic setting that is more hesitant; and a chapter in a festschrift that doesn't even discuss the JCPOA, cobbled together to affirmatively assert some argument" would be a more accurate assessment. There's no indication given that it's in line with "main legal sources". That it's not been rebutted in the mainstream legal academia doesn't make it mainstream. Nor does it mean we represent it as the only game in town. Honestly, the pieces that question Rivkin & Casey are no less valid than Rivkin & Casey itself. Rivkin & Casey is in a non-academic journal, as an opinion piece, and doesn't cite sources. Shank is in an academic journal as an article (not as an editorial), albeit by a non-law scholar, but does cite sources. It's within our editorial discretion as Wikipedia editors to weigh that sort of thing, and in my book they're equally valid and equally invalid. There is no rational basis to insist on Rivkin & Casey while discounting Shank's criticism of them. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Say what, now? Of course there are multiple bases to exclude his opinion, each good enough all by itself.  He has zero expertise on the subject, which fact WP policy ranks as far more important than whether the publication is academic or not.   Further, he's a freaking sociologist, and thus I'm not even sure how to take your comment seriously.  On top of that it would appear he lacks any real-world experience at all, much less relevant government service, tenure at a university or at least a think tank, partnership at a major law firm that engages in international practice, or any other source of foreign policy credentials.  Not only that, the journal cited is not serious academia; it's a steamy counter-culture rag devoted to progressive activism, as the "About Us" page makes clear.  Its most prominent contributor is Noam Chomsky, who is known primarily for promoting actual fringe views and ideologies, e.g. anarchy as a serious contender for a model of modern political life.  Sorry, this is a patently ridiculous argument on your part, notwithstanding the fact that Shank used some footnotes. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So we're left with a wash. You don't like Shank because of some association with fringe, that's fine. Rivkin & Casey also have a nice fringe track record with their support of the Torture Memos. Either they're both in or both out. You can't have this both ways. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Uhm, no—not even close. There's the whole total lack of expertise, total lack of experience, and doubts about seriousness or credibility of the publication.  Really, it's clear that Rivkin and Beres are experts well within their fields, publishing in mainstream sources, and Shank simply isn't qualified to speak on the subject. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Says you. I disagree. The Rivkin & Casey op-ed is simply not reliable and is not reflective of the mainstream. You don't even need Shank to say that. Being the most recently published source (that has been found so far) on a subject doesn't automatically make it authoritative. And when something is fringe—which I'm very close to concluding it is—just because the mainstream hasn't deigned to refute them doesn't make them what we use on Wikipedia. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WSJ is reliable, mainstream, and high-quality. Ditto for The Hill, although it is perhaps of lower quality.  Rivkin, Casey and Beres are all prominent, well-established experts writing well within their fields of expertise.  Your personal opinion as to whether the views are mainstream is literally irrelevant.  At this point, as a courtesy I request that you please state whether you are a law student currently enrolled in a course on international law? Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm searching every damn legal research tool I have access to, including HeinOnline, which is far more comprehensive than either West or Lexis. Look, just take it in stride that these guys' opinions haven't been published in academic journals—not even the journal that put out Trahison des Professeurs. Find something else if it exists or accept that no RS for law has covered the novel and frankly undeveloped hypothesis that not only is there an affirmative duty on States to not trade with Iran, but that the status quo of sanctions are both necessary and sufficient to meet those purported treaty obligations. There are plenty of reasons to oppose the Iran Nuclear Deal. That Iran is committed to wiping out Israel is certainly one of them—from a moral perspective. But an international legal perspective? I'll grant you it's a seductive hypothesis, but it's not a sound one. The failure of any legitimate law RS to have mentioned it, even in scholarship by the proponents of it—when the normal timeline to publication is maybe six months—is a really bad sign. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * There is nothing legally wrong with the Wall Street Journal piece and it is in line with all the sources I have listed above.


 * Sanctions are not the only lawful way for the States Parties to meet their obligations, but it is probably the best one. According to the authors of the book "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: A Commentary" (added to the list Obligations of States sources) "the duty to prevent requires state parties to mobilise their best efforts... the duty to prevent genocide requires state parties 'to employ all means reasonable available to them, so as to prevent genocide so far as possible'." Furthermore, "the duty to prevent requires third states to take action against the perpetrators themselves. Such action may take various (lawful) forms, from diplomatic protests, supporting and implementing international sanctions, to suspending treaties or mobilising public opinion." Moreover, "It requires third states to interrogate their actions and choose a course of conduct (and make public the reasons for it) that seems best suited to prevent acts of genocide." (pp. 51–53; all emphases are mine). As far as I remember the "course of conduct" and the reasons for it has been never made public. Yagasi (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WSJ is not a journal of legal scholarship, and op-eds are not subject to the editorial oversight of either academic journal articles, or the oversight even that most WSJ articles are subjected. That's the point of an op-ed: Someone can get their opinion published. While they're somewhat more reliable than letters to the editor, they're not even close to the kind of coverage we should be using in this field. As to your other contention, that sanctions are the best way, rather than the only way, that's frankly a political question that falls outside the scope of legal-vs-illegal analysis that any court would ever enter into. The "sanctions are the best way" argument is incompatible with the "JCPOA violates the genocide convention" argument. Finally, Zimmermann isn't really relevant as neither the JCPOA nor obligations of other States to sanction Iran are mentioned: To use that source to buttress the WSJ op-ed is original synthesis, and is therefore not permitted. If Rivkin & Casey referred back to Zimmerman as a source, it might be permissible to do a summary of the points Zimmerman makes as part of fleshing out the argument that Rivkin & Casey make, but since they cite no sources, that's not really feasible. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just for the sake of discussion, do you really not see any practical connection between a treaty granting Iran uranium enrichment rights that will enable it to achieve near-zero breakout for nuclear warheads, and the fact that Iran has made veiled threats to use nuclear weapons on Israel (and refuses to stop doing making such threats)? In your view, withholding uranium enrichment rights from Iran is just another tool in the potential toolbox for getting Iran to cease making threats of annihilation?  Do you at least acknowledge the cognitive dissonance?  Do you also recognize that this claim itself is original research on your part?  You seem to argue that that is how somebody might rebut the arguments by Rivkin, Beres, etc.  But just to clarify, you're not actually claiming that any such published rebuttal exists, are you? Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion on the Iran nuclear deal isn't really material here. I think it's entirely reasonable to argue that it's ethically wrong, and that it may put the US in a complicated position in terms of international relations. However, I don't agree that it's black letter international law that the US may not lift its sanctions on Iran. Let's not play the "Oh you're just giving us original research!" game. You all have been doing the same damn thing by referring back to Zimmerman. It's entirely possible to remove content from an article without having to cite a source for it when there's an editorial reason to do so, such as unreliability (and WSJ is not a reliable source for the analysis of international law, in the same way that HuffPo isn't). —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? At what point did anybody say anything was black-letter law?  At what point did I even mention Zimmerman?  (I haven't read any source by Zimmerman).  Your comments on WSJ are also simply wrong, as is the suggestion that it's equivalent to HuffPo.  See comment below the next arbitrary break. And in any event, you've undertaken your own pretty extensive analysis here in an effort to explain away or rebut the Rivkin/Beres views yourself, similarly to NPguy.  That's OR, and as I said earlier, the only way your legal expertise (or mine) can be of use here is by means of finding and reading relevant expert views. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WSJ publisher is responsible for accuracy of op-eds as well as for their the other material. Attorneys David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey do not risk their reputation as some Wikipedia users do. It could be noticed that you dislike Dershowitz, Gordon, Rivkin, Casey, and WSJ. You have ignored my nutshell case description: "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." Now you are distorting my words by dropping the 'probably' from "Sanctions are not the only lawful way for the States Parties to meet their obligations, but it is probably the best one." Zimmermann was relevant here as an argument to convince NPguy that the Genocide Conventions impose obligations on states. This source was not yet used in the article. The term 'obligation' was used by Rivkin, Casey and Beres and this was quite enough, but NPguy didn't agree with them and claimed that no obligation existed. You could explain NPguy that according to RS (Zimmermann and others) the Genocide Convention does impose obligation on states to prevent genocide, but you preferred to use him for attributing me original synthesis. It seems you have adopted the views of the opposing side and are expanding your role far beyond research and answering legal questions as you have promised. Yagasi (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, as a quick aside, given this policy stance, could you guys say a few words about the fact that the JCPOA currently uses a Huffington Post blog piece by an anthropology professor as a source for legal analysis of the NPT? Did that inclusion prompt an emergency cite check and a 50,000 word, eight-month debate? Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Omg, we're using Huff-Po for a legal analysis of the NPT? Yeah that's not right. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I don't know how reliable that source is for legal issues. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Break
I have to put a break here, I don't want to scroll down all the way. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * An important quote from the policy on identifying reliable sources: "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications."


 * The contention that an expert view must be published or cited in academic literature, within 8 months of publication or at any time thereafter, is simply wrong. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the rest of the guideline (not policy): "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." No way in hell is the op-ed a reliable source for saying that the US lifting of sanctions on Iran is a violation of international law. That's Rivkin & Casey's non-scholarly opinion. This is a basic editorial decision. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You might also find WP:USEBYOTHERS informative. As well as WP:RSOPINION. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please pay attention and read carefully; at no point during the past eight months or during the course of this discussion has anybody suggested using these sources for anything other than statements that these are opinions held by the authors. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I think I'm going to break for the night. I appreciate that you have spent a lot of time at this discussion, but it's something of a slap in the face to have spent all this time of my own and then suddenly realize you are arguing against these inclusions as if they were being presented as statements of fact in WP's editorial voice.  I get that you weren't a party to the earlier discussion, but there hasn't been a single hint that we're trying to insert this as a claim of fact. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Alright then, now we're getting somewhere! So as I noted, op-eds are reliable primary sources for the statements as attributed. So, yeah, it gives us "In 2015, Rivkin and Casey argued in a WSJ editorial that the lifting of sanctions on Iran would violate the United States' obligations to prevent genocide under the Genocide Convention." Where a primary source doesn't get you is past WP:DUE or WP:FRINGE. But as I've said before, I'm not quite to where I can call this fringe. I have that hesitation because I'm not sure about the more conservative elements in international law scholarship. One of the big problems, though, is determining quite what the mainstream is. As I've said, I've been searching. My main search terms have been "iran nuclear" genocide and JCPOA genocide, limited to 2015 and later. I've found strikingly little in terms of scholarship on any of the databases to which I have access. It's hard to prove a negative, but this is one of those cases where there's just not much out there that actually addresses this specific scenario. I'm reluctant to look to other stuff except as a means of showing definitively whether the Genocide Convention argument is fringe or is minority, but even looking there I've not found much. Most things I've looked at have dealt with questions of individual responsibility—whether the person making the inciting speech is liable under the Convention. I'm reluctant to look at "responsibility to protect" jurisprudence more generally because of how context specific these things can be: Where a responsibility to protect might be present under the NPT, the Outer Space Treaty, or the Geneva Convention, for instance, there might not be one under the Genocide Convention... or if there is, it might function differently. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It's hard to keep up with this. If I might just comment on three sources that have been discussed here: The Rivkin and Casey op-ed is a quasi-legal argument.  It has a seeming legal logic to it, but without scholarly support.  It strings together a chain of unsupported and implausible at best marginally plausible legal claims.  The Shank article has a veneer of scholarship, but at least on the issue in question its argument seems like an ad hominem attack on Rivkin rather than a real argument.  I don't think either merits inclusion.  The Brennan article in the Huffington Post does not really present a coherent legal argument, but it does contain a well-selected compilation of quotes of statements of legal opinions by others.  Since it is used primarily as a source for those quotes, which appear to be completely accurate, its use seems entirely legitimate. NPguy (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Does the Genocide Convention impose obligation on states to prevent genocide or you still believe it is a quasi-legal argument?


 * Brennan's article from the Huffington Post was referred 5 times without indicating that he is not a lawyer but an anthropologist. This is very problematic since he expresses legal opinions ("one seemingly insurmountable issue is whether Iran has the right to enrich uranium. The short answer is: Yes.", "The NPT treaty language is quite clear. In Article IV of the treaty it states: ...", "Bottom line: At present Iran has the legal right under treaty to enrich uranium.") Yagasi (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The Genocide Convention primarily imposes obligations on States to punish genocide. It also creates a responsibility to prevent genocide, and presumably a responsibility to prevent public incitement to genocide. The latter two are less well defined, and even less defined will be the responsibility of States to punish or prevent prohibited acts that take place in third States. What bothers me about Rivkin & Casey are the absolute terms in which they speak in that op-ed, and moreover presume without explanation that the sanctions regime is both necessary and sufficient to meet these obligations. Good legal scholarship has a much more reserved flavor, and doesn't generally leave such broad presumptions unexplained. I know, it's an op-ed, and they're conforming to that style. Even so, I'd prefer to omit Rivkin & Casey as not representative. I don't have nearly as many reservations with Beres, but I still think the viewpoint needs balancing. My ultimate preference would be to comment on the moral and strategic objections to lifting sanctions on Iran in light of the outrageous statements made by Iranian leadership. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 15:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Your statements about alleged presumptions by Rikvin/Casey about the necessity and sufficiency of sanctions for GC purporse are incorrect, as already noted. Rivkin and Casey simply do not argue that the maintenance of ballistic-missile sanctions is sufficient to meet Genocide Convention obligations.  They do argue that it is necessary, and they quite clearly explain why—i.e., it is because "nuclear weapons delivered by ballistic missiles are the most likely means by which Iran could implement its genocidal policy".


 * I now affirmatively request that you stop attempting to analyze the legal source material yourself; original research, especially by an editor who presumes to evaluate an expert opinion by means of his own analysis of the legal subject matter, only clouds this discussion. I am increasingly seeing reason to doubt whether it is even good analysis.  Separately, attempting to evaluate whether the view is widely held by means of your own legal analysis is downright absurd, ridiculous, and is prohibited. Although I acknowledge you have done some exploration of whether the views have been cited in legal academia, adding your own arguments of why you think the view is probably rejected is more or less explicitly prohibited by WP:FRINGE.  I also affirmatively request that you not attempt to introduce non-expert commentary (e.g. Shank) to purportedly rebut expert commentary, as such an approach is also clearly prohibited and also needlessly clouds this discussion.


 * since you are holding yourself out as an expert, I ask you again to please confirm whether you are/are not a current law student whose familiarity with international law is limited to having taken an international-law course in law school. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not a law student and I have substantially more familiarity with international law than a course in law school. But I doubt that would make a whit of difference to you given it's becoming blatantly clear you're unwilling to consider anything other than your personal opinion on these sources. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please identify any personal opinion I've tried to present here. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Mandeliv (and NPguy), getting back to the actual policy constraints at play, you simply haven't stated any actual policy basis for excluding this opinion by authority of WP:FRINGE. A significant minority opinion need not be widely accepted to be reflected in an article about the larger topic with which it is connected. It does not need to be cited in academic literature, positively or otherwise. It also does not need to be published in an academic journal. Nobody is trying to present any of these POVs as fact, or as anything other than attributed POVs, and nobody is trying to present the views in detail.

As noted, nothing in the fringe policy authorizes removal of an attributed POV simply because it is not held by a majority in academia, or simply because it hasn't been cited in academic literature within less than a year. Actually that's contrary to several clear dictates of the policy, as well as being contrary to NPOV and DUE.

The expert credentials of the authors on the subject matter are clearly extremely strong, the publications clearly extremely mainstream. WP:FRINGE is simply not triggered; the opinion is sufficiently established as a significant minority opinion under WP:DUE, per the quoted Jimbo Wales guidelines ("If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents").

WP:DUE is thereby satisfied by maintaining clear attribution of the POV while keeping summaries of the views brief. Any concerns about presenting a non-majority view are quite well dispelled by citing opinions to the contrary, e.g. the one by Jack Goldsmith—in fact, that specific Goldsmith piece conveniently includes a statement stating that author's opinion that the view was probably rejected or ignored by the nations signing the JCPOA. I have already proposed text above to present this in rebuttal to Rivkin/Casey/Beres/etc.

Minority opinion by prominent expert in high-quality mainstream sourced carefully attributed, responded to with sourced rebuttal; problem solved, inquiry over, and WP readers do not die of leprosy because of being exposed to a POV that might not be the WP:TRUTH. As previously noted by an administrator not involved in this discussion, citing WP:FRINGE as a reason to exclude this well-sourced expert POV is just not a proper application of WP:FRINGE. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Repetition does not make arguments about WP policy any more persuasive. If there is a specific text proposal for presenting the view and rebuttal, that would provide something more concrete to discuss.  Otherwise, we appear to be at an impasse.
 * Incidentally, I agree that Beeman's article is not a reliable source for the legal analysis it contains. But the article is cited only as a source for quotes (accurate ones) of official statements.  One does not have to be a legal scholar to compile accurate quotes. NPguy (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed, NPguy. Password, your argument is unconvincing. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In case it needs to be said, I concur with NPguy and ThePlatypusofDoom. Not having a particular wording on the table isn't helping things. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with NPguy on his impasse claim. When the fringe argument was claimed for the first time I answered: "Apparently the fringe claim does not hold water, however the discussion is open and the burden of proof is on those who wish to remove the paragraph". When Goldsmith's piece was introduced, Dontmakemetypepasswordagain suggested adding to the proposed text as follows: "Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith wrote a post ..." I have agreed with the proposed text and with the addition to it. No acceptable proof and no RS were provided to support a fringe or the faked consensus for removal of the proposed text. So I do not understand why you agree with NPguy.
 * NPguy asked for an editor, who is an expert on the genocide convention, to comment. You have invited such editors and one editor volunteered to answer questions while disclosing he is not "thoroughly familiar with the Genocide Convention and scholarship in it". Now this volunteer takes an extremely active part in the discussion causing it to be destructive and to miss the goal of finding a consensus. Additionally, some of his comments about living persons seem to me intolerable. You have asked him to comment, so you can ask him to stop it. Yagasi (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I won't be leaving this conversation anytime soon. But by all means, continue to personalize this dispute. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * There has been suggested material on the table this entire time. It is posted in this discussion with the clear label "proposed text", in boldface type.  I have also written prose for the rebuttal by Goldsmith.   I am of course open to making any necessary adjustments.  No objections whatsoever have been raised other than that (1) the two of you disagree with the POV of the admittedly prominent expert sources, and (2) you do not agree with the policy guidelines on identifying reliable sources, which clearly state: "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications."


 * Meanwhile, back in the land of things that have been allowed into the article by NPguy, Beeman is being presented as a source of legal analysis. He is being cited for his cultural anthropologist's legal opinion that the official United States legal interpretation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is incorrect.  This is made clear both by the WP article prose, which presents him as a legal analyst who agrees with Iran's interpretation of the NPT—and the article itself, wherein Beeman helpfully explains how the U.S. government is getting it all wrong, acidly noting the government's "important errors" and "lack of authority", as well as blasting the Obama administration for taking a "hard-line" stance against Iran and "singling out Iran for prejudicial treatment".  To recap, we're citing this anthropologist and East Asian dance expert's legal interpretation and conclusions on the NPT, and you also maintain that this HuffPo piece is reliable and disinterested reporting, and acceptable sourcing for legal analysis on WP, while, for example, legal analysis in a top newspaper and the top Capitol Hill political newspaper by very prominent practitioners must be excluded because it wasn't presented or cited in a law review article; meanwhile a direct quote of Alan Dershowitz, an extremely prominent legal scholar, is to be dismissed as not being from a reliable source. No double standard, eh? Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Break
Could you each explicitly respond to the following comment by User:Masem, quoted from a discussion on the NPOV noticeboard, which is flatly contrary to the positions you are taking?:

"I agree that in discussing criticism of an international treaty/deal such as this, removing the legal opinion of recognized experts under FRINGE is stretching what FRINGE is to apply to. Whether the Iran deal was legal/beneficial or not is not yet a well-established fact or widely-held opinion, and remains controversial in the news. As such, presenting what recognized legal experts say are legal issues with the deal seems completely appropriate to include. It would be different if we were pulling from a claimed legal expert with no recognition in the field, but that would be more UNDUE/WEIGHT rather than a FRINGE aspect. And while their statements that there might legal issues with an international deal can be considered an 'exceptional claim', their expertise and the sources reporting them are well above the bar for 'exceptional sources' to support that claim. Mind you, what they have stated, that there are legal issues with the deal, should still be treated as a claim attributed to these experts; the only way that claim will ever be verified or disproven is in a court of law. --M ASEM (t) 15:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)" (emphasis added). Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Not contrary at all. Also not binding. In any event, Rivkin & Casey may be fringe—I'm still not sure yet—but they certainly aren't mainstream. There's a need for balancing, especially with respect to other, far more prominent criticisms of JCPOA. I would prefer not using their op-ed at all because of its poor quality as a source. And happily, there are other, better sources (Beres) that do the same thing. Why is this not an acceptable compromise position? —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Mendaliv is correct in this case. Because of the results of his searches for sources, a small sentence or 2 might be included. But, this is the most that should be written. This may or may not be WP:FRINGE, but it's nowhere near mainstream. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Those who with to avoid an impasse need to present a new proposed text. The three pieces of proposed text above at best give undue weight to a marginal view.  The preceding discussion suggests that there might be at most one sentence -- preferably a short one -- that presents the view in a nutshell and together with a rebuttal.
 * Question for Mendaliv: Why do you think the Op-Ed by Beres is any better (more reliable) than the other opinion pieces? That's not my impression. NPguy (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My main gripe with Rivkin & Casey, and why I prefer Beres, is that the latter actually shows his work. I don't agree with some of the logical jumps he makes, especially with respect to the applicability of the Genocide Convention, but the quality of the work as a piece of legal scholarship—even if it's an editorial-type piece in a political magazine—is much better. Subjective as that may sound, it's not an unacceptable editorial basis on which to prefer a source. For example, because Beres is less catastrophizing, and provides more explanation, it makes paraphrasing and quoting him, should the opportunity arise, so much easier without violating NPOV. This is also a minor thing, but The Hill is much more scholarly for law than WSJ. It's not an academic journal, but it's definitely an improvement. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * When you took the case as a moderator there were 2 parties: the filling and the opposing. What is the status of Mendaliv? Is he opposing party #2 or, maybe, a lawyer for the opposing party? On behalf of whom he suggests a compromise?
 * We discuss a legal opinion published by 2 prominent professors of law and 2 recognized attorneys. To announce this opinion (or a part of it) fringe the opposing party has to present very strong evidence to prove its viewpoint. Can this be based on the ideas and ad hoc rules presented here by a party that claims HuffPo piece being a source of legal analysis?
 * Rivkin & Casey have specialized in litigation before the International Court of Justice and Beres is a law scholar. Why should we adopt a scholar viewpoint and reject viewpoints from the practical field? Yagasi (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My status is a participant. I did my own research and came to my own conclusions. Let's not play the "this is a behavioral problem" game. Personalizing this dispute will not resolve it. Let's also not make this about HuffPo. Pretty much everyone here has agreed that it's a suboptimal source. Let's resolve the actual problem here. Finally, Wikipedia prefers scholarly sources. Rivkin & Casey isn't that, nor is it a source from a practicing attorney's viewpoint—I've read plenty of bar journal articles, and this isn't one. This is just an op-ed that doesn't show its work. Playing up Rivkin's or Casey's credentials isn't going to change anything. Even Nobel laureates publish bunkum sometimes. See, e.g., Brian Josephson. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Rivkin & Casey wrote: "Yet the nuclear agreement’s legitimacy in international law is far from clear. 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." What is wrong with this piece that makes you think it "may or may not be" fringe? Did you buy the "catastrophic language" or "Brian Josephson" arguments? Does the claim "The Hill is much more scholarly for law than WSJ" persuade you that there is a real possibility for fringe? We also have a balancing opinion (Goldsmith) for this piece that was presented by NPGuy and already accepted by the opposing party.
 * Another point. Why only a small sentence or 2 might be included and this is the most that should be written? I disagree with this. Mentioning only one article will misinform the WK readers and make them think that this is a viewpoint of one lawyer only. If we examine the HuffPo piece we find out at least 3 things that were accepted when the article was written. A non-lawyer legal commentary could be included; the source need not necessarily be an academic edition; this source can be referred 5 times in the article even if it explains how the U.S. government is getting it all wrong. If we do not want to rewrite the whole article now, we should more or less keep the same line in the discussed case. Yagasi (talk) 09:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Mentioning one article is all that is needed, because this is a small minority opinion at best. Also, please stop attacking Mendaliv and accusing him of bias, you are getting close to incivility and not assuming good faith. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if it looks that way. Mendaliv, sorry. I thought I was addressing his arguments. Yagasi (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You say your position is not at all contrary to the one Masem stated; then do you agree with his statement that "while their statements that there might legal issues with an international deal can be considered an 'exceptional claim', their expertise and the sources reporting them are well above the bar for 'exceptional sources' to support that claim." ? Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 04:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Mendaliv is not here to exhibit his personal viewpoint. The matter is not if we agree or disagree with something, it is about how significant the opinion is. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

with respect, please, don't interrupt. Mendaliv is insisting that we directly reject a neutral uninvolved admin's policy analysis of these sources and claims, and instead do the opposite. I want to know why. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

NOTE:
If this case continues for another week and not much progress is made, I will have to close it as failed. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Break
Putting in another break. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, however I do insist on an response from Mandeliv and/or NPguy as to why we should reject Masem's policy conclusions about this source material, instead of adopting his conclusions and calling it a day. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

This is because Mendaliv knows more about law then an admin. Unless the admin went to law school, he's the expert here. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To my opinion, a Wikipedia editor, before being assigned as a law expert in dispute resolution, should disclose his legal credentials to the community. Yagasi (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty clear that I'm a lawyer. Mendaliv has made a number of errors in elementary reasoning and reading comprehension. He has raised several vague and uncited personal opinions about the subject matter, but that's of little consequence.

In any event, ordinary sourcing policies are not suspended just because an editor has a personal POV that a source is wrong. That's covered under the policy on soapboxing; either the editor finds a source version of his POV or he accepts that it can't be reflected on WP (because of WP:V).

Perhaps Yagasi is a lawyer, too; we haven't discussed it because it's not especially relevant. Anyway, again, I didn't request that this admin participate because he wasn't part of the dispute—but neither was Mandeliv. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please, do keep trying to make this personal. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Nothing personal, just pointing out (in response to your opinion being claimed as authoritative) that you've made analytical errors in the OR arguments rebutting the source POVs. But more to the point, personal editor OR arguments about subject matter POVs, and whether they are correct, don't matter.

Anyway, you said you don't agree with Masem's statement; Masem said all three sources and opinions were fine for inclusion given their relation to the subject matter. I happen to agree with this, because as I stated (do you want me to quote policy language again?) high quality non-academic sources in mainstream circulation are fine for stating POVs that commentators have. Yagasi also agrees.

Anyway, will you please acknowledge the editor's statement and say why we shouldn't implement it? I have posted suggested text below. Do you see any problems?

"Some legal commentators argued that the terms of the agreement presented possible Genocide Convention violations. Attorneys David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey argued in a Wall Street Journal opinion article that while the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide imposed an obligation to prevent genocide and threats of genocide, Iran was 'publicly committed to Israel's elimination'. In an interview, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz expressed a similar view, as did political science professor Louis René Beres, who 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.  However, Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith, writing on the Lawfare Blog, generally disagreed that the Genocide Convention imposed any affirmative obligation in this regard, and noted that the nuclear agreement had been unanimously affirmed by 15 signing nations. Goldsmith argued that it was clear any such concerns had been rejected."

To my opinion, the upgraded text proposed by Dontmakemetypepasswordagain is cautious, well balanced, and reflects the review of reliable sources held till now. The proposition should be discussed and all questions ought to be answered before any decision is taken or a consensus is achieved. Yagasi (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The text is too long for small minority viewpoint. Shorten it to three sentences. Also, about being a lawyer, you haven't brought it up earlier in the discussion. Why? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur. This is way unbalanced and completely ignores the points brought up during discussion. That said, I commend you for putting forth a proposed wording. We're moving in the right direction. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 12:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

As I've stated and others seem keen to ignore, there was never any point where there was not proposed text on the table.

User:ThePlatypusofDoom is not a participant to this discussion, and he is a brand-new editor who began his Wikipedia career six days before this dispute began. He has been on WP for about 6 weeks in total. Since he is a non-participant who doesn't seem to know anything about WP policy, I'm ignoring his demands as unsupported. In answer to his question, I didn't previously state explicitly that I was a lawyer because it was fairly obvious. More importantly though, it's irrelevant, because WP policy does not afford any special role, privileges, or powers to editors claiming to be experts.

and I will be including this text at the article unless you identify specific policy language showing it must be reduced for some reason. My patience for tendentious ignorance of policy is at an end. I note that you've expended an awful lot of breath complaining that you don't want to reply to Masem's confirmation that, per the relevant WP policies, all the sources and POVs are kosher for inclusion (pun intended). Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Masem's statement isn't a confirmation, it's not binding, it's not authoritative. Masem is another editor like you or me. There is no consensus to add this text. It will be reverted. This is not a dispute that will be ended by fait accompli. I strongly advise you to exercise caution before going down this road. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Remember to be WP:CIVIL, as you seem to be heading towards incivility. My experience doesn't matter. I also note that you have been reprimanded for edit warring before. Also, if length of Wikipedia career is a measure, NPguy would be judged to be correct, because he has been on Wikipedia longer. So, this statement is invalid. Your statement on me, the moderator has no place in this. The statement about expertise is true, but someone who knows more about the subject is probably better. I know nothing about International Law (probably a good thing, I don't have any bias). So, I defer to people who have experience in this subject. Also, I know a fair amount in the policies, do not say "Oh, he's only been here for 6 weeks" as an excuse for claiming that you are correct.


 * Also, You are allowed to state this opinion, just make it no longer than 4 sentences (I said 3 earlier but changed my mind). I freely admit that I am not an expert in international law. As for the paragraph, this is giving a little too much undue weight.ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Closing of Case
After over 14 days with me as moderator, we have gotten nowhere. I am closing the case, I would request formal mediation. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Manny Pacquiao
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

User:Pacphobia claims that a lineal championship (or "lineal champion", "lineal title", etc.) should be both italicised and capitalised as a proper name, when it is merely a 'conceptual' title—an idealised statistic—one that is neither handed out in the form of a championship belt nor granted as an official status by any boxing governing body. In doing so, he fails to realise that all mainstream media uses lower case without italics; i.e., "lineal". He also seems to (silently?) disagree with a recent community consensus, as well as MOS:EMPHASIS, MOS:CAPS and MOS:TITLE.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Have attempted discussion to provide rationale at User:Pacphobia's talk page but without success, as they choose only to communicate via edit summaries. Addressing a consensus/unanimously-agreed formatting issue at the article talk page itself would be redundant in this situation, as the format has already been established at WikiProject Boxing.

As of User:Pacphobia's most recent revert (of which there have been three so far), he has now resorted to insults, making this not only a content issue but a conduct one as well.

How do you think we can help?

Inform User:Pacphobia of how basic WP guidelines work—namely MOS:EMPHASIS, MOS:CAPS and MOS:TITLE—and how they apply directly to the presentation of lineal championships. Furthermore, if they wish to challenge the existing consensus at WikiProject Boxing, they are welcome to do so—but they must make the first move, since talk page discussion has so far proved fruitless. Oh, and possibly make them aware of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA—I refuse to collaborate with anyone who needs to insult others to get their way.


 * I keep forgetting that these are better in WP:AN3 (I see them rather rarely), so I have copied everything above to there. This DRN request can be closed, as I doubt User:Pacphobia will show up here. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Pacphobia
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Manny Pacquiao discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Sturmvogel 66 is capitalizing "8 Water-tube boilers" and "4 Shafts" (but not "1600 officers and crewmen") in the infobox, because "water-tube" and "shafts" and not first words. I don't think that's correct.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talkpage discussion

How do you think we can help?

Finding the guideline or style guide applicable.

Summary of dispute by Sturmvogel 66
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Frederick S._Jaffe
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

This concerns a section of the biography of Frederick S. Jaffe, a Planned Parenthood VP who was my father, concerning a table in a 1969 memo of his listing many proposals for population policy, most of which were not from Planned Parenthood. RohanRidesAgain has added circumstantial evidence that attempts to tie Jaffe and Planned Parenthood to some of the proposals in the table such as "Compulsory abortion of out-of-wedlock pregnancies" as well as a link to a site, "The Jaffe Memo: A Sinister Agenda on a Single Page". I would like the standard Wikipedia rigor be applied to his argument as well as to his choice of primary site. See Case for Third Opinion process - Dave Jaffe in the Talk page for my concise case.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I solicited a Third Opinion but was informed by Robert McClenon that this dispute was better suited for here.

How do you think we can help?

I would like the wording changed back to my original wording, which acknowledges the controversy, states the *facts* of the matter simply, and includes a link to the memo.

Summary of dispute by RohanRidesAgain
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.


 * I don't know what I'm supposed to do, if anything. There is a consensus forming on the talk page in this matter already.  It just isn't going his way.

(Appreciate the notice of the conversation, and appreciate too that DaveJaffe has stopped summarily reverting edits)

RohanRidesAgain (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus. The "consensus" to which RohanRidesAgain refers is between him and the creator of the page entitled "The Jaffe Memo: A Sinister Agenda on a Single Page" that he uses as his primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveJaffe (talk • contribs) 20:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You apparently did not notice the contribution by PediaWikiMaster. He completely affirms my argument as reasonable.  So, that's 3.  And now you've managed to get a conflict of interest warning, so in a way, that's 4.  The CoI is a warning that perhaps your view is being influenced by your relationship, and is not merely a 'fact' as you have been asserting.  Conversely, your CoI is perhaps influencing you to call my statements 'interpretation' when they are actually facts.  That's what PediaWikiMaster was getting at: what you labeled an interpretation was virtually a direct quote from your father.


 * There is nothing controversial about my wanting to add the phrase "Defenders say..." It is actually what defenders say, as you are proving.  :)  RohanRidesAgain (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Frederick S._Jaffe discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. I won't be opening this discussion, but felt as though the volunteer who does open it should be advised that I confirmed with GorillaWarfare the article and edit does fall under the Discretionary Sanctions on the topic of Abortion Broadly Construed. See Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion for more information. -- Cameron11598  (Converse) 06:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. Notice has been given to the other editor by the filing party.  It should be noted that the filing party has a declared conflict of interest as the son of the subject of the article, and is acting correctly in discussing the article rather than editing the article.  The other party is invited to comment.  Since discussion here is voluntary, although encouraged, this case can be opened for moderated discussion after the other party responds.  (Please keep discussion brief until the case is accepted.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - I will not be opening this case for discussion myself; I am recusing because of prior discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note - The discretionary sanctions should have no effect on proper moderated discussion, and certainly not on the moderator, but provide for remedies for editors who engage in disruptive editing (including disruption of moderated discussion). Will a moderator please open this case?  Robert McClenon (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note to participants - I am willing to act as moderator in this case if both parties will agree that they consider me to be neutral and neither thinks that my previous actions in directing the discussion here would bias me. I will only open this case if both parties agree.  If either party objects, or if either party is silent, we will wait for a moderator.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note - Whoever accepts the role of moderator should probably state their personal opinion about this subject, someone with strong views about it should not moderate, a neutral editor would be best on such a controversial topic. I'll open this case if both parties agree that I should, as it seems fairly simple compared to the case that I am currently moderating.  ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 18:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note - I don't think that it should be up to the parties whether to accept a moderator who has no previous involvement if they have both agreed to moderated discussion. If they don't accept the moderator, they can back out.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

First Statement by moderator
I am opening the discussion and accept the role of moderator. Please make your cases, and discuss. Remember to be WP:CIVIL, though. Make the statements short though, I do not want a wall of text. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Summary of Dispute by Dave Jaffe
My father, Frederick S. Jaffe, was a Planned Parenthood Vice President who in 1969 wrote a memo to a colleague listing a series of questions that would need to be asked about any population policy proposals. To illustrate one question regarding selectivity of impact in the U.S., he created a table of many of the current proposals of the time, from many sources (with attribution) and ranked them on that criteria. Opponents of Planned Parenthood have seized upon that table to claim that, by not denouncing some of the options, Planned Parenthood in fact supported such policies as "Compulsory abortion of out-of-wedlock pregnancies". They ignore the fact that the table also includes such wacky ideas as "Encourage increased homosexuality" and "Chronic Depression". Again, most of these proposals came from sources outside of Planned Parenthood.

The gist of what Rohan and others are attempting to add to this page is circumstantial evidence tying Jaffe/Planned Parenthood to such policies and including a link to a site entitled "The Jaffe Memo: A Sinister Agenda on a Single Page". He/they further have added information about the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future (of which Jaffe was one of nine consultants) without any original citations, relying on a single quote from Jaffe that can be interpreted in many ways.

Rohan and I disagree on three key points:


 * he insists on referring to "defenders" of the memo (or really the table in the memo). I claim one cannot defend that table any more than one can defend a table of baseball batting averages
 * he includes a lot of unsubstantiated claims based around the population policy debates of 40+ years ago that in no way change the fact that the table in the memo was merely a list of proposals
 * he insists on adding links to the aforementioned site. This site is not the kind of primary source required by Wikipedia. I have a link to the complete memo for anybody to read and decide for themselves. There is no need to include his link; if anyone wishes to see his point of view they can just Google "Jaffe memo" and they will find it.

I would like Rohan’s unsubstantiated claims removed and the paragraph changed back to my original wording, which acknowledges the controversy, states the *facts* of the matter simply, and includes a link to the memo (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KCqtNShmxgYTA1REcxai1OME0/view). DaveJaffe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay. The website that Rohan wants to link seems very WP:FRINGE, I don't think it should included in the article. What is the quote that can be interpreted in many ways? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

ThePlatypusofDoom, Rohan added the section "Advocacy for Population Control" to attempt to connect Jaffe/Planned Parenthood to the coercive population control methods listed in that table. His only basis for this section is the fact that Jaffe was one of 9 consultants used by the Rockefeller Commission and this quote: "Persons seeking an improved health system and those seeking rapid reduction in population growth can work in harmony toward the stabilized population recommended by the Commission of Population Growth and the American Future, Frederick S. Jaffe said at the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association. The commission's principal conclusion is that there is no convincing argument for continued population growth, said Mr. Jaffe, director of the Center for Family Planning Program Development of Planned Parenthood-World Population". Jaffe and Planned Parenthood advocated voluntary family planning instead of coercive population control methods, believing that when people have the education and access to birth control they would choose smaller families for economic reasons, thus keeping the population from growing. There is nothing in the quote Rohan found that indicates otherwise. DaveJaffe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

your response? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

If you do not respond in 2 days, I will close this case and allow DaveJaffe to do what he wants with the article. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Because RohanRidesAgain has not responded, I will close this case. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

EgyptAir Flight 804
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I have found a source in the press identifying the meaning of all the recent aviation codes received for the Flight MS 804, and have listed my source and then put the meaning for every code. Unfortunately, every time, I put the information, I find that it was undid by the two members listed below. Not sure, why. At first, I didn't have the source, which one of them highlighted on a talk page, but then, I did specify the source and still they kept removing it, every time I list the information. Not sure, what else can I do. I feel the information in important, as those codes are meaningless without an explanation. Please advice.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to talk to them, but in vain

How do you think we can help?

I am not sure, I just need to know if we need another source.

Summary of dispute by Guysayshi
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Firebrace
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

EgyptAir Flight 804 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.