Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2005-12-25 King Abdullah of Jordan

Initial request

 * Request made by: Cybjorg 12:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * The issue is mainly taking place on the Abdullah II of Jordan page in the external links section. The situation has occured to a minor extent on the Hashemite page, as well.  There is a brief discussion concerning the issue on the article's talk page, with the bulk of the dispute taking place on this page.


 * Who's involved?
 * Myself, as well as an anonymous user who mainly edits under the following IP address: 67.135.235.10.


 * What's going on?
 * I have removed external links by the anon user on the basis that the website in question contains speculative information about the future that is being passed off as fact. I believe the site also contains slanderous and libel accusations against King Abdullah of Jordan, as well as speculations about the future of his rule.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I would like a third party, unbiased review of the situation to determine whether the link should remain or be removed.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * You may contact me via my talk page.

Comments by others
The Link points to a web page with an important article about King Abdullah's dedication to the peace process between Arabs and Jews. The article refers to King Abdullah's peace plan called the "two basket plan" which was later adopted by President Bush as the "road map to peace". This is an improtant article when studing this man and his dedication to the peace process. It is important to know that the "roadmap to peace" started out as the King's plan not President Bush's plan. This link gives proper credit to the King's dedication to the peace process. I do not think that important published articles about the King should be left out. Personal bias has no place. Think what you want about prophecy, that is not the issue. The King is a great man of peace and should be given credit for the "road map to peace". External links should be inclusive of relevant information, again personal bias should be checked at the door. The link should stay. Whatif

I got involved after reading about the problem. It was remarkably like another issue I had before. The link in question presumes that King Abdullah will become a "Peacemaker" who will make a deal with the state of Israel, then kill those Israelis who do not worship him as "God". The site is inherently PoV and unprovable or unverifiable except by the unfolding of future events, is isn't even speculative, in the sense of someone speculates about weather or stock prices. While the anonymous user is welcome to his/her opinion, there is no journal articles nor even any "buzz" about this speculation, specifically about the King of Jordan. So far one place has any discussion about this theory, the "truthroom" site. Dominick (TALK) 19:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If I may add, whatif and the anonymous user are the same person. I would not consider "whatif" a third party, he is the website creator. Dominick (TALK) 19:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Please, an encyclopedia is not the place to peddle a pet theory. Which ID are you going to use for this? Dominick (TALK) 18:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

- Cybjorg 20:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

whatif and 3833 are not the same person, things are not always what they seem...whatif


 * I looked through the links on that page; the "truthroom" link stands out like a sore thumb. All the others, be they critical or supportive of the article subject, are from sites with some claim to authority.  They are also based on verifiable facts.  The "truthroom" article is essentially an offsite POV fork.  We would delete it like a shot if those comments were on the 'pedia; they are, as stated, unsourced, speculative, defamatory and stated in heavily POV terms.  I support the removal of the link and will play whatever part I can in ensuring it stays out, unless and until someone can give me a compelling reason why content which would be absolutely unacceptable on WP should be linked in this way. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What JzGyk said. -- Perfecto 21:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Copied from the discussion page.
 * I'm coming into this because we've had a request for an Advocate at the Association of Members' Advocates page and I've been reviewing the page for some pertinent info. The person requesting the advocate is an anon but I believe has since registered an account.


 * Honestly, I don't understand why this link to Truthroom.com has to continually be removed. Looking at George W. Bush you can find similar links to mudslinging sites such as toostupidtobepresident.com, dubyaspeak.com and Michael Moore's website. Not that the GWB article should be the shining example of Wikipedia (I personally think it's a steaming pile of manure) but clearly there's precedent out there for "rogue" or "fringe" websites critical of a particular world leader. If you look outside of GWB there's a massive article regarding the moon landings being faked and if that's not fringe or just plain wacko I don't know what is.


 * Simply including the link isn't inferring any particular POV and, like I said, GWB's article is chock full of derogatory external links so what's the big deal? In fact, I think it should probably be addressed in the article. --Wgfinley 07:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC) (Copied by Whatif)


 * See WP:EL. Wikipedia is not a link farm, we have no need to link to every single site which exresses any opinon, however bizarre.  And for the record I would happily expunge most of the links from the GWB article, too, I am quite sure that a lot of them are "me-too" blogs and other crap inserted mainly as self-aggrandizement by their owners.  This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not the Wikipedia Collection of Bizarre and Untenable Opinions! - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wgfinley's Comment
Whatif put my comments from the article's discussion page here (I'm recusing myself as a Cabalist on this one BTW!). I'm trying to give Whatif some help and I fully realize some of what he/she is doing right now is not productive -- the edit war needs to cease on the link.

My opinion is as it is above, if we allow external links in the articles of other high profile world leaders (GWB is the first that comes to mind, check out that external link list!) that are highly critical, fringe or even "crackpot" then I don't understand why this article should be any different. It's a link, not an endorsement, somewhere to get information. I have made my point to those who are against this link that they should include the criticisms/debunking of the POV posited on the site into the article but they appear to just want to delete it. Going on precedent in other articles I just don't understand that position. --Wgfinley 20:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I understood that he/she placed your comments here. As you are a Cabal member, I found it highly irregular to include a cabal members opinion here to throw the discussion, especially when it was not placed here by you in the first place. If you are posting an opinion should it go in the mediator section?
 * In any case, The link pointed to a non-notable theory, that paints a living person to be the "anti-Christ", not the plethoria of notable "crackpot" comspiricies that are commonly bandied about on "W". There is no opposing it, like we would not include a theory that says the King of Jordan is an alien being. Dominick (TALK) 20:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

My word shouldn't carry any more weight here, I'm certain it will be handled well. Since Whatif asked for an advocate that's what I am in this case, I'm not the one mediating and my Cabalist cap is off for this one. --Wgfinley 20:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

One More Thing - Dominick and Cybjorg Need to Quit
There, hopefully that is attention getting because I can't seem to get the attention of these two as it pertains to the AMA Requests Page you two must stop debating the issue there. The AMA request page is for people to ask for help from someone -- you may not like that call for help, it may be complete bunk, but that person needs their opportunity to be heard by an advocate there. It is not another forum to continue the debate. So please, I ask yet again, stop debating this on the AMA request page. Thanks.

--Wgfinley 20:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I will go back and delete my comments there. You are right and I should have known better. Dominick (TALK) 21:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, sorry if I was testy, been happening a lot there lately so you are definitely not alone. --Wgfinley 06:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe I only posted to the AMA request page twice. The first was to place my request (which was followed by a lengthy and misplaced arguement by the anon user); the second was in defense of the accusations against Dominick and an attempt to point out that this issue had already been raised.  I'm not quite sure why a hand-slap for "debating" was issued. - Cybjorg 16:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't know how else I can explain it, the AMA page is not the place to rebut people. Maybe I can explain it, imagine an accused criminal trying to confer with his attorney and the prosecutor insists on sitting there and responding to everything the criminal states to his attorney.  That's what it is.  --Wgfinley 18:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Response to Dan's POV question
I think that Truthroom.com does push a POV (or an agenda, one might say) – one that is not currently in the article. Truthroom.com takes the fact that King Abdullah is one of many who is searching for peace in the Middle East, mixes it with some conjecture and opinion, and churns out a POV article concerning the prophesied biblical future.

My main arguments for not including the link are:


 * According to External links, external links should "contain neutral and accurate material". The information on Truthroom.com does not appear to be neutral and, until the predicted events transpire, cannot be proven accurate.


 * According to Neutral point of view, information should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each". Information should also "without bias describe debates fairly instead of advocating any side of the debate".  Truthroom.com adds "undue weight" to a small minority opinion, and therefore "it doesn't belong in Wikipedia...regardless of whether it's true or not".  Truthroom.com is also "biased in favor of one particular view".  (all information in quotes taken directly from Wiki:NPoV).


 * According to Verifiability, information sources on Wikipedia should fall under the threshold of verifiability. The information on Truthroom.com is a theory that has been tentatively formed based on current events concerning the future of the world; thus it cannot be verified.


 * According to No original research, material listed on Wikipedia should be "published already by a reputable source". This excludes content such as "unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments that would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation'". Truthroom.com pieces together current events in an attempt to bolster their "historical interpretation" of the future.


 * In opposition to the Libel policy, Truthroom.com contains defamatory information concerning King Abdullah, insinuating that he is the future Antichrist. In asserting this claim, Truthroom.com is claiming that Abdullah will fulfill a grievous future roll in historical world events, even so much as breaking an oath with Israel, desecrating the (future) Jewish temple, and will murder millions in the process of setting up his kingdom on earth.  These libelous and defamatory accusations are akin to character assassination and slander.  Considering the recent accusations of character assassination in Wikipedia, I think it is wise to not include references to Truthroom.com.


 * According to What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia should not publish:
 * Primary or original research such as proposing theories and solutions or original ideas.
 * Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge.
 * Wikipedia is not a Soapbox for publishing propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view (see NPov point above).
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, or a collection of unverifiable speculation. Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. (Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not.)

I believe there are ways of pointing to links concerning King Abdullah's political positioning without accusing the man of being the Antichrist or speculatively aligning him with biblical tribulational views. - Cybjorg 06:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The Link points to a web page with an important article about King Abdullah's dedication to the peace process between Arabs and Jews. The article refers to King Abdullah's peace plan called the "two basket plan" which was later adopted by President Bush as the "road map to peace". This is an improtant article when studing this man and his dedication to the peace process. It is important to know that the "roadmap to peace" started out as the King's plan not President Bush's plan. This link gives proper credit to the King's dedication to the peace process. I do not think that important published articles about the King should be left out. User:Whatif


 * I can't add much to Cybjorg's contentions. What bothers me in this process is the selective disclosure on the part of "whatif" on the contents of the website. Any of us can follow the links and read it ourselves. It boils down to this, The site accuses Abdullah of being the "Peacemaker", which if you follow the links in order (articles=1, =2, =3) you get to one that says that the "Peacemaker" will become the Antichrist and pursue genocide aginst the Jews. This is a PoV fork, unverifiable speculation, and is a propaganda piece. It also would be an amazing article to find in any encyclopedia, so violates the principle of "least astonishment". The article in question doesn't deal with any political views that the King of Jordan pursues. One editor removed all links, but while this process goes on, he restored them. When some consensus is reached or if perhaps "whatif" realizes the issues with the link, and why they are wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia, I intend to prune them except for the ones that are sources for the article. Dominick (TALK) 13:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

External Link Style Guide
You left out #4 on the external link guide which states: ''On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view.'' All the links there now are pretty much pro-Abdullah and this guideline is pretty much in conflict with the guideline that external links be neutral. As I've shown, that is most certainly a guideline that isn't followed.

I just think both of you are overreacting to this site, perhaps because you're close to the topic or something? The Truthroom site as I see it explains some Bible prophesies and tries to make a case for how Abdullah fits in those prophesies. It's interpreting one as indicating he will become the Anti-Christ. How could that be libel? Abdullah would have to show there was a serious case of people actually believing he's the Anti-Christ. If we were going to go off the deep end and say that stuff shouldn't be on WP then I encourage you both to go and try to delete the Nostradamus and Bible code articles right now and see how far you get. By definition it's not a POV fork because it's an external link.

Finally, if the article as it is constituted now doesn't "deal with any political views that the King of Jordan pursues" as Dominick states then it is in serious need of editing because I can't imagine too many other articles on world heads of state that don't discuss their political view, actions, etc. --Wgfinley 18:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediator response
Asked if still an issues (IPs tend to give up and go home after a bit) Dan100 (Talk) 15:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, seems the IP has now registered, and I'm told mediation is still required, so taking this on Dan100 (Talk) 19:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Initial response: First I'd like to say (in light of some of the above comments) that mediators don't "hand down" judgements. We (should!) try to help opposing parties come to a consensus. So anything I say is just one step in the process (although if both sides agree early, great!), and any who's not happy should not hesitate in making a rejoinder.


 * Now, I'm going to have to ask a question here before going further and I'd like to here from each party involved in this: Do they think that the "Truthroom" site is "pushing" a particular point of view, if so what exactly is it, and is it a PoV already in the article? Dan100 (Talk) 20:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)