Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/08 November 2011/Iraqi Turkmens

Where is the dispute?
The dispute is strictly at Iraqi Turkmens and its talk page.

Who is involved?
The list of the users involved. For example:


 * User:Turco85
 * User:MamRostam03

What is the dispute?
The dispute first began when I first started to develop this article in December 3, 2010‎. I was using the sources which were previously there before I had initially started to edit the article as my starting point to expand the article. However, once I found sources stating the 1957 Iraqi Census as well as citations which states that their official language is Turkish, a group of new users (many of which have been blocked now for the sock puppet actions) started reverting my edits and accusing me of nationalism. Due to the heated edit-wars and disputes on the talk page (which one may see on archive 1), I decided to stop editing the article and come back at a later time. However, since editing the article, a completely “new” user has started to revert my edits. I have tried to explain to them that they are removing a wide range of academic citations…furthermore, some of those academic books/journals are used in certain sentences in the version of the article which they keep trying to revert it to. For example, when they revert my edits, publications such as Anderson & Stansfield (2009) are still being used even though these authors speak of the 1957 census and state that the Iraqi Turkmens speak Turkish.

What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?
I have tried to discuss this issue on numerous occasions on the discussion page. I was adviced by User:Mr. Stradivarius on the Dispute resolution noticeboard to open a case at the Mediation Cabal.

What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute
I have shown a wide range of sources and have quoted many of them on the discussion page yet this user [who I believe to be the same person as those in archive 1] will not accept using the 1957 Iraqi Census nor will they accept that the the Iraqi Turkoman Congress adopted a Declaration of Principles stating that their official language is Turkish. Basically, I have tried to compromise however this user will not allow any co-operation. The main issue is that academic sources are being removed when this user does not "like what they see", yet the same sources are being used in the version of the article which they revert it to.

What can we do to help resolve this issue?
You can help by giving some advice/direction on what should be done about this matter. I have clearly sourced all my edits and yet I know it will be removed in due course. The discussion has historically gotten heated, and as I do not like confrontation, I would most likely just avoid editing the article; thus, the article would end up in a poor and inaccurate state again. It would be great if someone with a positive attitude can help conclude this argument in a fair manner.

Mediator notes
I am opening this mediation case. As this is the first case that I have mediated, I have requested that User:Steven Zhang assists me. Before going any further, could we just ensure that both editors involved in the dispute are aware of the case and willing to take part in this mediation process. Could both editors please provide an opening statement, outlining their view of the case and their opinions. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

As ItsZippy has requested my assistance with this case, I will be helping to mediate this, but I intend to mainly advise and let ItsZippy steer the mediation. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....  21:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

We are still waiting for an opening statement from MamRostam03, who is yet to reply to this mediation after two notices. I will give this another two days and, if it remains inactive, I will close the case. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to both editors for providing opening statements. It seems that the main problem here is the content regarding language and the use of sources relating to this. After reading the opening statements and the previous discussions at the talk page, I think it would be wise to establish a few ground rules. Could both parties please read the ground rules I have proposed below and sign to indicate acceptance of them. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to halt the current discussion, as it is proving counter-productive. Firstly, MamRostam03, before continuing the discussion, please read and understand the ground rules outlined below, then sign to signify your acceptance of them. Unless you accept these ground rules, this mediation cannot happen. Secondly, we need to stop arguing about other editors and keep the discussion solely focused on the content dispute. This mediation case will only work if we can agree to leave personal comments out of it. We must assume good faith, which includes not accusing other editors of trying to pursue and agenda or damage the article in question. This issue can only be resolved by a thorough examination of the sources. Before we go any further, I would like to see MamRostam03 signify his acceptance of the ground rules. In order to enable productive discussion, I will then outline a mediation agenda, which will determine in the course this discussion will take. Until the ground rules are agreed to and an agenda is established, I would ask that both involved restrain from continuing the discussion. I shall hide any discussion which takes place before then. I appreciate that this will take some time; however, with strong opinions on both sides, patience is vital if we are to resolve this dispute. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you MamRostam03 for accepting the ground rules. I would now like to establish an agenda. This will be a list of issues in this dispute which we will cover in order. We will follow the agenda and keep discussion to the agenda. I will post the agenda below. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I will be away from Sunday 4th December - Thursday 8th December. During this time, I will be unable to mediate this case. I am therefore putting this case on hold until that date. If my co-mediator, Stephen Zhang, wishes to continue mediation while I am away, he may. If he does not, this case will re-open once I re-open it. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Opening statements
The dispute is focused mostly on the following main points:
 * 1) The 1957 Iraqi Census is constantly being removed. I believe that the reason for the removal of the Census is because some users do not want to accept that Iraqi Turkmens make up 9% of the population of Iraq.
 * 2) The language section is a constant dispute. The Iraqi Turkmen have declared their official language as Turkish; however, I accept that like other Turkish minorities (e.g. those living in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Georgia, FYR Macedonia etc.) that they have their own dialect.
 * 3) Finally, the version of the article which User:MamRostam03 keeps reverting it to uses sources such as Anderson & Stansfield (2009) which actually mentions the 1957 Iraqi Census as well as the fact that the Iraqi Turkmens speak "Turkish" as their mother tounge. Thus, what I am trying to say is that even when my edits are being reverted, many of the sources in User:MamRostam03 version of the article actually acknowledges the version of the article which I have written (i.e. the 1957 census and Turkish being their mother tounge). Turco  85 ( Talk ) 13:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The talk page (including all the materiel that Turco conveniently "archived" for hiding previous consensus) speaks for itself. Turco needs to appreciate (or admit to understanding) the difference between high quality and low quality sources. Something that is published in a peer-review journal, obviously is preferrable to something found on a random nationalistic website (such as fringe political party, the Turkey-funded "Iraqi Turkmen Front", which is a marginal organisation that receives only a minute number of votes in Iraq).


 * Turco alternates between profound sleight-of-hand/red-herrings, and what I must only assume to be profound ignorance. Take his three "main points" above.....


 * 1) I have no problem with the 1957 Census statistics, provided it's findings are reliably sourced and given proper context. (red-herring)


 * 2) "The Iraqi Turkmen" have never made any such declaration. Such a declaration would indeed be strange, since the vast majority can't even understand Turkish, let alone read or speak it. The academic sources refer to the language either as "Turkmen", "Iraqi Turkmen", or "South Azeri/Azerbaijaini". It is, if you read the articles, a dialect of the latter, with heavy influence from Arabic, Kurdish, and Persian - depending on where the Iraqi Turkmen live. (either deliberate sleight-of-hand by conflating "Turkish" with "Turkic", or profound ignorance).


 * 3) Red-herring. I am not attached to the current version (in fact I think it is atrocious) - but it was reached by a consensus, and is far more accurate than the obscenely misleading, inaccurate, and ethno-nationalist version you are attempting to implement against consensus.

MamRostam03 (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ground rules

 * Please keep discussion on the the content of the article and away from the conduct of others users. Please assume good faith, avoid making any personal attacks or accusations and only comment of the content issue. The potential or assumed motives of other editors should not be discussed and we will assume that everyone wishes to improve the article. I reserve the right to archive, remove or refactor any incivility and personal attacks which I feel are detrimental to the mediation process.
 * To avoid an edit war and keep mediation on track, please refrain from editing the article in question, apart from non-controversial edits, until the mediation process is over.
 * Remember that mediation works on compromise and that mediation will not work without an open mind.
 * Please keep the discussion on topic. Each issue will be dealt with separately. If I feel comments are moving off topic, I reserve the right to archive them.
 * Although the Mediation Cabal cannot form binding sanctions, I would ask that both editors to abide by the outcome of this process.


 * Note: Please read them carefully. These ground rules should not be taken lightly. If you agree to them you are expected to abide by them.

Agreement by participants to abide by ground rules

 * Note: Please read them carefully. These ground rules should not be taken lightly. If you agree to them you are expected to abide by them. Please sign below.
 * I agree to abide by all the ground rules. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 13:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree to abide by all the ground rules. MamRostam03 (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation agenda
Thanks for your patience in this dispute. Here is the agenda which this mediation case will follow. Please keep discussion to this agenda and do not deviate from it - I reserve the right to remove comments which do this. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

[1%] Open case. ✅ [5%] Receive opening statements.✅ [10%] Establish ground rules.✅ [15%] Ascertain what the key issues in the debate are. [20%] Initiate discussion on the first issue, discussing issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved. [35%] Initiate discussion on the second issue, discussing issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved. [50%] Initiate discussion on the third issue (if one exists), discussing issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved. [65%] Initiate discussion on the fourth issue (if one exists), discussing issues, changes that may need to be made, and compromises that need to be formulated, in order for the issue to come to an amicable solution. Discuss the potential use of outside opinions, such as RFC's, to help determine community consensus. Mediators to implement solution when one is achieved. [75%] Assess the status of the mediation, considering how the solutions implemented have improved the article. Determine whether any issues still need to be addressed. [80%] Revisit any remaining unresolved issues. [85%] Discuss the articles with parties, offering advice as to how to better manage disputes in future. [95%] Discuss long term options to help keep the article stable, for example agreement to abide by certain rules when editing these articles. [100%] Seek resolution of dispute through party agreement, then close mediation. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Key issues
To me, the key issues seem to be as follows. If you see this as an accurate representation of the key issues, please indicate below. If you believe there are further issues which need addressing, please let us know below. Please do not discuss any of the issues presented, only whether or not they need to be discussed in this mediation process. I will remove any comments which begin to initiate discussion on the actual issues. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Which sources in the article should be used and which should not.
 * 2) How to interpret any contentious sources in the article - what position do they support and how should they be used?
 * 3) Using the sources provided, determine how to describe the language of the Iraqi Turkmen.
 * 4) Using the sources provided, determine whether the Ottoman Empire encouraged migration from Anatolia to Iraq.


 * Those are an accurate representation; however, there is also the issue of the removal of census' as well as User:MamRostam03's refusal to accept that the Ottoman Empire encouraged migration from Anatolia to Iraq.  Turco  85  ( Talk ) 14:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As a source, I think the census can feature as part of issues 1 & 2. I will add the issue of the Ottoman Empire to the list. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, that seems fine to me. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 15:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Great. We'll just wait to see if MamRostam03 has any further issues to add, then we can progress. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Administrative notes
User:MamRostam03 was blocked by User:HelloAnnyong at 00:51, 7 December 2011, for sockpuppetry. See Sockpuppet investigations/Ledenierhomme for the details. That probably means that this mediation should be closed. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Case closed. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
I have hidden the above discussion. Please read my comment in the mediator notes section. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)