Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-25 Negev Bedouins

Who are the involved parties?
User:Guy0307, User:LamaLoLeshLa, User:Tirpse77, User:MiS-Saath, User:Canadian Monkey

What's going on?
After reading the article for the first time, I (guy0307) thought some parts of it were highly biased, and I made this edit. Calling it crap was wrong, however I was really angry with the previous editors of the article. After about a month, I reread the article, and got even angrier. I put a proposal for deletion for the article (again, I was wrong.) Then there was a little discussion in the talk page.

What would you like to change about that?
Create an NPOV for the article. Come to an understanding with the other parties.

Discussion
I did not create this article, but am invested in the subject-matter. Here, as with the article Unrecognized villages (which I re-created on the basis of someone's else's work), I am willing to work for better NPOV. The threats of deletion were not only extremely inappropriate given the importance of the subject matter, but somewhat of an abuse of power. I am glad that Guy recognized this quickly enough however.

One concern is that the editors charging bias have not made many, or any, factual additions to introduce the POV they feel is vital and missing. If they did, I personally might have a better sense of what they are looking for. I will admit that I have a pretty deep level of investment in this issue, and am familiar with the government perspective, but overall see the government's policy towards the Bedouin as self-defeating. Thus I will do my best to bring in the government view, but I imagine my ability will be limited. At Unrecognized villages, I have invited another editor to bring in the POV he thinks is lacking, and there too, he has left it to me to bring it in, saying that he is not an expert. This humility is understandable, but it also results in no edit in his 'favor.' I will do my best, however, I do not have the time to do the research necessary at present and will not have the time for the next two weeks. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the biased sentences were removed in the last day. I still think most sentences about the Siyag are exaggerated. Guy0307 (talk) 04:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad that much of this was simpler than expected. What would you like to see happen with the section on the Siyag?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the Siyag really that bad? Guy0307 (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * this needs expert historian attention, to compare the formation of the siyag vis-a-vis other sedentrization experiences. furthermore, i think that the claims of yiftachel should be taken with a grain of salt, and we need to find a better source comparing the fertility of the siyag to the lands previously inhabited by bedouins. not an easy task since most of this land is relatively infertile anyway. MiS-Saath (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: Yifatchel, the info in this article hardly relies on Yiftachel, not that he is not a reliable source; there are many many many articles on the very challenging situation of the Bedouin: see the references section to see that many other sources have been added.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: is the Siyag really that bad? Please bear with the lengthy reply:
 * The fact that you ask that question evidences that that section is not written so well as yet. Basically, what happened is that Bedouin who had access to the entire Negev Desert were coralled into an area comprising 10% of the Negev within a matter of years. Is this bad? Well, if you are an indigenous person, living a Bedouin way of life in the desert as your forefathers had for hundreds and thousands of years, and someone comes along and declares it "state property" overnight, this is devastating, no? Devastating to one';s identity and one's way of life - but specifically, devastating to one's way of self-subsisting. Suddenly, the Bedouin have to figure out how to feed themselves in a much smaller territory with much less pasture, and almost no water and no access to traditional watering holes.
 * Suddenly, you are tossed into a small concentrated area, together with all the other tribes of the desert forced to compete with one another for narrowing resources. Suddenly, in a few years you have gone from a people with freedom of movement, to a people inside a 'fence.' Along with this indignity, you transform from a people respected for its unique ability to make use of nature to survive in the desert, like no other people has been able to do -- kings of the desert which no foreign power in history has been able to control-- into a minority in a state which now deems you 'primitive.' You transform from a relatively wealthy people overall (to own a herd of camels is a sign of great wealth, and to be able to carry one's household across the desert, one needs many expensive supplies), into a people perceived as universally poor, dirty, fly-ridden. And you transform, again, from a people with incomparable skills, into a people whose skills have now become obsolete, a people defined sociologically as "unskilled labor."
 * Then, within this Siyag that is 10% of your former range, you have no land rights - you do not own the land you sit on. In fact, you do not own the very land to which the government itself has transferred you. At any time, your settlement can be removed. Thus the Siyag is not even a reservation, or worse, a resettlement project, it is a just an area into which you have been tossed, concentrated, on your way to transfer into urban ghettos without any future. In other democratic countries, at the very least, indigenous peoples received reduced swathes of land with which they could do whatever they wished, where they could govern their own affairs (US), or received large swathes where they could establish confederations (Canada). Israel is smaller, but some move like this could have been approached, and should be now (in my opinion, through recognition of the settlements to which the Bedouin were transferred to the government in the 1950's - it's the least we can do after confiscating 90% of the desert from under their feet in the absence of a single negotiation). I could say more...LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you link to some sources which say 10%, and that the land was infertile? Guy0307 (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the 10% is in cited in the body of the article. If not, I'll get a citation later. About the infertility issue - I just added a citation to back this up, now in the body of the article.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that the siyag is a relatively infertile area is rather true, but its inclusion as a fact might be misleading. for the most part, most of the negev area is considered arid and infertile. when noting that the siyag is infertile, one has to compare it with other areas previously inhabited by bedouins. i don't recall any particularly fertile area that bedouins were pushed of, in part because particularly fertile areas were the sources of permanent residence and not pastoral nomadism. and please please find a better source than yiftahel, if possible. we have enough contentious material than to include synthesized ones. do we need to create more trouble than the ample amount we already have? MiS-Saath (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a really good point. Also, while it's not really related to this article in particular, Israel is not the only nation who "mis-treated" Bedouins. I think someone reading the article would think Israel is the only one who mistreated Bedouins.. Guy0307 (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please look at the citation, which is easily accessible if you click on the link. The citation refers to the entire sentence, which is not an instance of SYNTH. It would be synthesis if some editor made a connection between the various potentially disparate points; however, it was an academic, who is cited, who made the connection between related points. Briefly, the reason that the infertility is an issue is in order to clarify that in the new area, the ability to self-subsist off the land would be made more difficult. Re: the issue of whether other parts of the Negev were more fertile: yes, other areas had springs in them, watering holes for camels and sheep, valleys where water would collect and agriculture could occur; as the cited source says, the Siyag is "relataively infertile", as in, it is not totally infertile, but is infertile relative to areas from which the Bedouin have been barred.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I did look at the citation (at least an older version...). it referenced an article of 'du kium' which in turn referenced yiftachel. i'd be happier if we were to reference yiftachel directly where he shows/says in clear terms that the siyag is infertile when compared with other areas. again i'd be happier if we could find a geographer other than yiftachel making this claim, to preempt the inevitable challanging. yiftachel is known to be highly partisan. it doesn't rule him out from being a source, but i do think that it makes him rank lower in preference to non-partisan sources. MiS-Saath (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be clear - the article is an academic article, period, published by an academic press, not an NGO like Dukium. The fact that Dukium posted it later in no way links the article itself with the NGO (it's the equivalent of Dukium posting a Maariv aricle); the link is provided so that we can read it - a few years ago you would have had to go to the National Library at Givat Ram to get this book. As far as the fact that the author references Yiftachel - are you suggesting that anyone who cites a disliked author should have their research considered implausible? That's going too far. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This MedCab request by User:Guy0307 is a waste of time and abuse of process. There is no actual factual issue for mediation and nothing that has been raised on the talk page and reached stalemate. Guy0307 has complained that the article is POV, but on the talk page he has failed to offer any substantive examples or sources to support this claim. It seems that Guy0307 cannot do the research himself, or that he knows his claim is unfounded, so he wants to waste other people's valuable time in this forum. Guy0307 please use the talk page as intended before dragging others into this. There is a mountain of evidence about Israel's attempts to wipe out the Negev bedouins. The effort to also wipe out this history is the intellectual equivalent of holocaust denial, or the equivalent of those who for so long denied what was done to Native Americans. And please before anyone tries to feign outrage, I am not saying that Israel's actions against Negev Bedouins are the same as the holocaust. I am saying that the effort to deny it has as much integrity as efforts to deny the holocaust. Enough is enough. --Tirpse77 (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from making ad-hominem claims. you're more than invited to join the above thread which seems more productive regarding contentious issues. the article has already been amended and worked on by LamaLoLeshLa to address some of the issues raised above. Also, please refrain from making a soapbox out of this medcab. you know very well that this article does not give enough weight to the official position of the israeli government with relation to bedouin issues, and is thus unbalanced. whether you agree with it or not, or think that this position is baseless/lacks integrity is of no value to the article. the position of the government of israel needs to be presented on equal terms. MiS-Saath (talk) 10:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are no issues that require mediation and nothing you have stated suggests otherwise. This is a total abuse of process. The claim it is "unbalanced" because it does not contain official Israeli sources is total nonsense. The question is does it contain reliable sources regardless of where they are from. There is nothing in WP guidelines that says specifically that governments that do terrible things must be cited. For example, there is no requirement that South African government arguments in favor of apartheid, or US government arguments in favor of slavery be included on those topics. If there are substantive issues being discussed and solved let them be discussed on the talk page where they belong.--Tirpse77 (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My reply: The article has some points in it which might be considered by some non-natural POV. In order to apply for Medcab, it doesn't have to be an uncivil dispute (which is about what you are starting..) A mediator will help us decide what is the best wording/versions. Also, I was pretty sure this was going to be an uncivil dispute.. Probably because of this. If there is a mountain of evidence about Israel's attempts to wipe out the Negev bedouins, I would be happy to have a look at it (assuming, of course you will give me some evidence). Guy0307 (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Guy0307, your response cannot be taken seriously. All you have done is issue vague complaints that the article is POV and you even suggested deleting it. You have not raised a single substantive issue about the existing sources or specific issues in the article. As I write, the article has no fewer than 93 footnotes. Is there anything in there you dispute? Do have anything to add, or do you just want to waste people's time? What seems to be the case is that you cannot do the work yourself, but you do not like the article, so you want someone else to re-write it for you. Maybe editing WP is not for you and you should stick to internet forums on the I-P conflict. I would strongly advise MedCab to ignore this time-wasting--Tirpse77 (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been using this space to resolve issues that these guys are raising because I think often there are ways to resolve doubts without need for mediation. Thus, for me, this seems more like a second talk page than a mediation page. One thing that is very clear is that the issues that are coming up here could have been raised on the talk page (and were not), rather than needing to come to this space, which should have been a last resort. On another note: While I can see that it would be useful to represent the government view in the article, I don't agree that the government perspective needs to be given 'equal weight', as this is an article about the Negev Bedouins, and not, say, the "Negev". Some other examples: in the case of the article "Jerusalem," I would expect equal weight to be given to the Israeli, Palestinian and international perspectives. In the article, African Americans, I wouldn't expect American governmental perspectives to be necessary. Or, a better example - on an article on Native Confederations in Canada, I'd expect some, but not equal, representation of the relaqtionship with the government as well as the government view on settling disputes. Indeed, probably the best way to go here might be to create a section called "Government perspective" where you guys can just put it all out there - i.e. whatever it is you want to see in the article that you think is missing. I still don't exactly know what it is that you would like to see (If I were to write such a section, it would say something like: "The Israeli government sees the unrecognized villages as illegal settlements, and thus calls the Bedouin trespassers and squatters; Thus it views every building in unrecognized villages as on the way to removal") Could one of you please start to write just one or two or three paragraphs that explain the government perspective you think is missing, with or without citations? Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

LamaLoLeshLa, thank you for your constructive efforts and comments. I would suggest that the discussion be immediately moved back to the talk page where it belongs. This is not the right forum for it and until there is a specific issue for mediation we should not be in this forum. The fact that you and User:MiS-Saath agree that issues are being constructively resolved is prima facie evidence that no mediation is required and these issues belong on the talk page.--Tirpse77 (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tirpse77, i've reverted your last edit because it did not seem constructive to the issues raised here. in particular it definitely did not address the views by the israeli government/institutions, but rather a thesis by benny morris regarding it, which is something entirely different. it also introduced POV material and used POV language (e.g. the word for both respective processes that happened in israel/palestine and the arab world is 'exodus' because this maintains neutrality, despite the fact most if not all editors carry one opinion about it or the other). Mediation is required to stop this article from becoming yet another I-P battleground front. MiS-Saath (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not the appropriate forum for this discussion. I will only engage you on article-related issues on the talk page of the article. The continued insistence that there is an issue for mediation when no specific issue has been presented is simply Forum shopping. --Tirpse77 (talk) 10:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No particular issues? Let me raise one right here: I think some parts of the article are POV. Here is an example: Negev_Bedouins. You think it's NPOV, I don't. We obviously need a mediator. Guy0307 (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Guy0307, I am sorry you do not have a basic understanding of how WP works. Rewriting articles you don't like is not the role of mediation. Already since you posted your message that section has been edited and discussion is taking place on the article talk page. There is no stalemate and no need for mediation. General unhappiness with an article when you have made absolutely no effort to improve it is not grounds for mediation. --Tirpse77 (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As this is clearly a talk page and not a mediation page (as in, we are mediating the issue ourselves and I think can handle it), I request that you take a look at all the government perspective I added to the talk page. I may actually put something together from it when I get a chance. However, I am still waiting for some sense of what you in particular think needs inclusion. (FYI The government PR doesn't actually make the government look so great unless you are predisposed to want to believe the Israeli government is unflawed, and ignore all the other evidence to the contrary.)LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reading articles (in particular I-P ones) on wikipedia makes you treat sources with a grain^H^H^H^H^Hboatload of salt. but i hope that we all agree that we can't hide the complexities of the issues under the rug, in particular because there are at least SOME people and SOME goodwill to try and find an acceptable solution and they deserve a mention. MiS-Saath (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)