Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Arab Winter

Opening comments
Hi all, I am Mdann52, and am assigned to help meditate this dispute. To begin, can I reming everyone this is a content-only resolution venue, so please do not start getting off topic and discussing conduct.

I've read through the above comments, and the prior history, and I would like to thank all those taking part for the nice short, to the point summaries above; It helps me get started here as soon as possible.

Before we start properly, can all 4 participants ( please confirm you are aware of me opening this case, and are still happy to take part? Thanks, -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  20:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thank you for taking the case. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm still willing to take part in this case. Thanks for mediating this case, & for your work elsewhere on Wikipedia. As I noted above: I have less time for Wikipedia for the next few months, & am not logging on every day. — Lentower (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll come by whenever I have interest in this case. I have done things elsewhere while my interest in this waned. I'll make sure WP:PRESERVE policy is implemented. It's a pleasure to have you as a mediator. --George Ho (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. sudo  people  19:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Right, super. Looking through this, the crux of the argument seems to be over whether Arab Winter is a seperate article from the Arab spring article. I would also note the previous discussion; both on the talk page and the AfD.
 * The main issue here appears to be a possible lack of sourcing for the table. Why don't all parties involved look into any further sourcing? Have any been suggested, or are known to any of the participants. I'd note the existing consensus to retain the material, so it's unlikely the result of this will be to remove all the material in question from the page. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  17:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The lack of sources is tangential to the dispute. What is at the core of the dispute has been very well presented by in the project page. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  18:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, if your understanding of the dispute is that consensus trumps core content policies such as NOR, I will have to withdraw from the mediation. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I never meant that; As Andrevan said, SYNTH may be an issue here. That is why above I asked about if any sources are available. This seems to be a fairly unique case, where there has been a lot of coverage of the events in question, yet nothing has (as of yet) been cited in the article. If everyone works together by trying to find sources, this will resolve the dispute quicker. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  11:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the point in finding sources, if the sources don't refer to "Arab winter"? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have a ton of time, and I'm not an expert on the subject. I've spent about an hour total here and there trying to source the material and have come up short in every case. My introduction to Arab Winter was as a 3rd party opinion (on general request). From there forward, my involvement has been protecting the article from deletion, eg. I reverted a mass deletion that undermined the proceedings on the talk page. I don't think consensus should trump core policies in this context, I'm merely pointing out that there's a reason consensus has unanimously condemned Cwobeel attempts to banish Arab Winter from the encyclopedia.


 * I think the quickest way to solve the dispute is to strip the article of the table leaving its text as a framework for improvement, eg. tagging specific claims, and setting up a timeframe for correction (what's standard practice for this?) I'm getting tired of saying it, but I generally agree with regarding the article's quality, but he hasn't defended his case adequately, and until he does, shouldn't be so intent on destroying as much of the article as he can get away with. The main concept I'd like to see hashed out in mediation is don't rush to delete articles. Interest has waned (and been driven away) so sourcing the article right this second probably isn't very realistic.  sudo  people  18:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The argument about deletion has been already resolved in AFD, so I don't see the need to discuss that here. What we are trying to do here is to mediate the dispute about the "Arenas" section, which in my opinion is 100% original research. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  19:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Right, so seems like deconstructing the table may be a smart idea. I'll take a look at this when I get home, have a go rewriting it, and see what I can come up with; Personally, prose seems to be a smarter option in this case anyway. As for the name of the article, the AfD and other discussions have already showed a consensus that will not be overruled by meditation. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  13:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this effort. Yes, sourcing and converting to prose are a good way to go here, as had been suggested on the article's talk page. You might have a look at Arab Spring, which has a mix of prose and another table that should be deconstructed. — Lentower (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As I have made clear, I barely have the time for a while to participate in this mediation. And, sadly, no time for sourcing or switching to prose. — Lentower (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Above, mentions  comment in the project page, and uses it to support his viewpoint that it's "100% original research". comment includes "Relevant reading includes These are not original research, What SYNTH is not". Both these articles support the fact that the Arenas section is not WP:OR. — Lentower (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please stop with your characterizations? It is not helpful. I did not say that Andrevan supports my argument. All I said is that I believe the key issue in this dispute is NOR and not sourcing. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * With apologies to and this mediation process:
 * Could you please stop putting/pushing your values on to me and others? You seem to have a lot of trouble with WP:AGF, understanding that other's point of views could have value, and motivate them to behave differently than you. Your motivations and others can differ.— Lentower (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Arab winter
Sometime before I became aware of this article, I heard the term Arab winter used on several of the CBS News or on PBS (possibly the PBS Newshour) TV news programs. Most reliable sources. Even if I had the time, I'm not sure how to track this down. — Lentower (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So what? we are not any longer discussing the validity of an article on Arab Winter. We have one and that has passed AFD. What this mediation is all about is about Arab Winter, which my contention is that it is 100% OR and it should go. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps or another editor knows how to track these sources down & use them to improve the article. — Lentower (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure this is going anywhere. You are trying to frame this discussion as it were one about finding cites. It is not. You can cite every single sentence in the Arab Winter section, but if these sources don't refer to the subject of the article, adding the material is still a violation of WP:NOR. So, in the spirit of moving forward, my proposal is as follows:
 * Evaluate each and every sentence in the section, one at the time, to address if the material is related to an Arab Winter as expressed by the source. If it is the case, we keep that sentence, if it is not we delete it. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There may be some OR issues here; I've had a quick look, and have added some sources to the first table; Not 100% if they help, but probably worth a look. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  17:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am totally confused. Are you mediating this dispute or actively editing the article? Are these two not mutually exclusive? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I try and do both; It is generally for the better if we can build the encyclopaedia. As the issues here appear to be due to WP:SYNTH, removing the issues quickly is probably better than argueing over it for ever and ever. Sometimes, one person starting to fix stuff makes other get into gear and help too. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  17:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that you will be following process as described at Mediation_Committee/Policy. If that is not your plan, please let us know. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * is following Mediation_Committee/Policy, which saids in part:
 * Sensible compromises between each arguments will be proposed (including sandboxing or producing multiple "drafts" of the article(s) or section(s) which are disputed);
 * Nothing wrong with him supplying potential drafts. — Lentower (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Example sentences
,, : I'd appreciate your comments and participation below. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be better for this process, if the mediator guided us, not one of the people who need to be mediated. — Lentower (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Case #1
This is an example of material that was unsourced, and now a source was added to comply with WP:V.

Checking that source, there is absolutely nothing in it referring directly or indirectly, in an way or manner that this is part of an "Arab Winter", or considered in the context of an "Arab Winter". Please present arguments on how and why this material is not in violation of WP:NOR -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH does not apply for now. It is cited by just one source. SYNTH discourages combining sources and making a point without another verifiable source. The above passage may follow WP:STICKTOSOURCE section as far as I can see. Perhaps try analyzing other related policies mentioned in WP:NOR. --George Ho (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I rescind my struck comment. The article says that the United Nations accused groups of ethnic cleansing. Also, The Telegraph may or may not be reliable; I haven't seen released statements of evidence against perpetrators. --George Ho (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course WP:NOR applies. There is absolutely no mention of Arab Winter in that source, neither implicitly or explicitly. That is exactly what WP:OR tells us not to do. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NOR: This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. - And here we have in all its glory an attempt to imply that the Ethnic cleansing incident is related to Arab Winter !!! -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course, if you can find a source that described the Ethnic cleansing incident as being part of an "Arab Winter" we would not be having this conversation. So, either you or others find that source or the content needs to be deleted. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Will this article help? --George Ho (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That article can be used to describe the opinion of Nuri Kino, which says that It is like the Arab Spring, that was hailed by many journalists in Western society. But we, those of us who have a good knowledge of these counties, we knew that it would be hijacked by fundamentalists and that an Arab Winter would come. Good addition, as a fully attributed opinion. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you or I add it? Either way, where can we add it? --George Ho (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Case #2
Ditto about this one. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If they're OR, not in citation given, or otherwise, mark them as such. Remember that there's no time limit and I think we'll all be OK with it. sudo  people  23:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * SYNTH doesn't apply either because just one source is used. Even when it doesn't mention "Arab Winter", the source about the cited statement may be accurate and reliable. --George Ho (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with that in general. As an example, if an article were about the "Great Recession" you wouldn't expect every single source to use the phrase or even necessarily allude to it - you'd probably expect to see some sort of economic information. I do see 's point about it being OR though. Again, mark it and give editors adequate time to research it. I do think we should let mediation commence before any major editing. I'm interested in what mediators have to say. I'm also not very interested in contributing to another wall of text, ie. we don't need Talk:Arab Winter 2.0   sudo  people  23:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ???? Material in articles need to comply with all three core content policies as clearly described in the policy pages: Verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. They work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three. So the fact that the material is sourced and verifiable, is not enough. It needs to be related to the article's subject not by our own research, but by reliable sources that describe these events as being part of a purported "Arab Winter" -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope another source helps. And another source there and here. I'm unsure about this one; it hasn't mentioned Syrian spillover yet. --George Ho (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * These are excellent sources to improve the article, which is not what this mediation is all about. What we are discussing here is the Arenas section. Look guys\gals, if you don't want to engage constructively, and to the point, I will bail out and force closing this mediation. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have enough brains or energy to convert the table to prose. We haven't constructed a replacement yet. --George Ho (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not what the mediation is about. It does not matter if it is a table or a narrative, as long as there is an OR violation. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So what is mediation about then? Tell me in your own words. I've been prompted by your words to find out myself what is mediation for. --George Ho (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In my own words: the mediation is about the section Arab Winter, about which I am arguing that it needs to be deleted as the material in that section is 100% in violation of WP:NOR. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Mediation is a process by which we should all be able to come to agreement about the future of the the article. Besides your threat to leave mediation, I think you're being incredibly productive by going line by line. That's a vast improvement over your previous actions. Cheers to progress!

lastAction
(See: Requests_for_mediation/Arab_Winter) ...but I don't think filling up the mediation talk page is going to make it any easier. I think we should "Now, relax and let the [mediation] process unfold." ie. I'm going to wait for mediator's thoughts on going through the article line by line, removing the table, etc. to gain their wisdom on avoiding further conflict between editors. sudo people  01:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * yes, hope the mediator finds some time to engage. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'll be able to change your mind about what mediation should be. If you can't agree with me and the other, then I guess the peak has been reached. Who is taking mediation for granted? --George Ho (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't have to change my mind. What we need is for the mediator to follow the process described at Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee/Policy As you can see, the first line item is to frame the mediation: The issue or issues in dispute will be established.  -   Cwobeel   (talk)  02:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay; I've been busy with other issues. Looking at both of the above sections, it seems to make sense that not every source will refer to the phrase "Arab Winter" - I note the opening pharagraph states "The Arab Winter is referring to the events across the Arab World, including the Syrian Civil War, the Iraqi insurgency, the Egyptian Crisis, and instability in Yemen.", which appears sourced. So therefore, would people agree that this means there is not really an NOR issue here, so that can be retained as a compromise? -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  18:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't find this a delay. this matter doesn't have to be resolved instantaneously. I also agree that not every source needs to mention "Arab Winter". — Lentower (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Doing another title discussion
There was no consensus to change the title. When is revisiting the title the right time? --George Ho (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is recommending a title change at this point. sudo  people  23:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft that may replace "Arena" section
I created, but I left out "Arena" section. I want to include Iraq–Arab Winter connections, but I don't know how to implement it. @Cwobeel, Sudopeople, Lentower: I hope you can help me out on this. --George Ho (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Very good start. I will have some time on Sunday to work on it. -  Cwobeel   (talk)