Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-08-11/Hamsa

Where is the dispute?
Hamsa

Who is involved?

 * User:Tiamut
 * User:Biosketch

Acceptance of Mediation
Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it:

What is the dispute?
The dispute is over the inclusion of חַמְסָה after خمسة‎ in the article's lead. Underlyingly I think this is a linguistic competence problem. I'm fluent in Hebrew and English and have a basic command of Arabic. If I understand my interlocutor correctly, he is demanding I bring sources for something that would otherwise be self-evident to anyone familiar with these three languages – that the word hamsa is pronounced differently in English, Arabic and Hebrew. Both of us are regular contributors to a topic area covered by discretionary sanctions, and there seems to be mutual suspicion of one the other's motives, which is perhaps also interfering. I built a compelling case for the inclusion of חַמְסָה in the lead and am not satisfied that the responses I'm getting are valid reasons to exclude it.

What would you like to change about this?
I see no reason Hamsa shouldn't follow the convention established at similar articles, which is to include two or three foreign language forms in the lead corresponding to the cultures in which the subject of the article is exceptionally prominent. Examples of this are easy to come by: Isaac, Western Wall, Kebab, etc.

How do you think we can help?
We tried RfC, but it didn't attract any helpful comments. I'm appealing to the Mediation Cabal in the hope of generating more interest at a different venue. You can help by listening to the arguments of both sides and determining if there's a valid reason to exclude Hebrew from the lead.—Biosketch (talk) 11:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Mediator notes
Good God, just include it. What is the policy here? The guideline? Who cares? It's a word. Has the I/P debate spread to letters? Xavexgoem (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
I appreciate the input from User:Xavexgoem and endorse the gist of his message. Unfortunately, the editor with whom I'm engaged in the dispute isn't being cooperative and the discussion's not moving forward at all. Any suggestions on how to resolve this?—Biosketch (talk) 11:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What is Tiamut's complaint -- summarized -- without me having to look at the article talk? Xavexgoem (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course Biosketch appreciates your input Xavexgoem. Though an RfC brought no support for his position from outside editors, without reading the discussion or understanding the basis of the dispute you declared his position correct and closed the mediation. This while continuing to discuss the issue here for some unknown reason, as though this is another RfC, but one where the mediator's opinion serves as a substitute for the voice of the community. Since you have become a party to the dispute (by taking sides), why don't you join us on the discussion page, where other editors have expressed their objection to Biosketch's position? I've created a summary of the arguments for who do not want to have to go through the lengthy cyclical discussion of the last weeks. If I have somehow misrepresented Biosketch's position, he is welcome to add modifications as required. Further discussion should take place at the article talk page, not here.  T i a m u t talk 21:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have any good faith in any I/P disputants. I doubt this has anything to do with whether the Hebrew should be included, but is (again) a proxy dispute for I/P issues. I have no reason to believe anyone otherwise, because the issue is so incredibly minor that absolutely nothing changes whether it's included or not. Maybe I should've kept my mouth shut and let y'all go at it. Deeply Cynical, signed Xavexgoem (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, listen, I'm really sorry. I don't have a good excuse for my behavior. just... I dunno. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to feel sorry for. Your initial impression was the correct one. The I/P dispute is epidemic, appearing often where one least expects it, and it takes its toll on article quality and editor interactions daily. The reason I brought this dispute to the Mediation Cabal's desk wasn't out of an expectation that the Cabal would deliver a verdict one way or the other; rather, as usually happens, a point is reached where discussions revolve in circles and outside input is required to break the cycle and set things back on track toward consensus. Yes, there was an RfC, but User:Tiamut is not telling the whole story in characterizing it as having "brought no support for his position from outside editors." The fact is that the Template expired without any uninvolved contributors sharing an original insight that could help the situation, from either perspective of the dispute. So no, you shouldn't have kept your mouth shut, Xavex, and you should continue to involve yourself in this matter despite its inevitable complexities.
 * See also for example here, where an editor I'm frequently in conflict with in the I/P topic area explains why the Arabic name for the Western Wall is in lead at that article: "Because the site has significance in Islam." Like the hamsa, the Western Wall is significant to two cultures – Jewish and Muslim. The lead reflects this significance by displaying the forms familiar to both cultures in the lead. User:Tiamut should yield in this case and adopt the same reasoning for the Hamsa article.—Biosketch (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)