Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus

Opening statements

And so, the mediation begins. As is customary, we shall begin the mediation with each person making an opening statement. Please state your position regarding the issues noted on the mediation page:

• The use of Finkelstein as a reliable source in this article
  • Which "Finkelstein" are we talking about and is the dispute over the use of any of his works or just a particular one?
• Use of any other commentator on the Arab-Israeli conflict that similarly doesn't hold a position as a tenured professor at a major university or does not do his/her own primary research of the Arabic, Hebrew, and English texts using the historical method as a reliable source in this article.

Please be brief – probably just a couple of sentences for each point – and please refrain from responding to the comments of others in their sections (stick to your own sections). -- tariqabjotu 07:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo

I agree on mediation on both points.

• This is about Norman Finkelstein and one text I wanted to add based on his book 'Image and Reality'. I think we should discuss the issue as it is stated now. I'd like to use Finkelstein as a reliable source in this article. I can't find anything in Wikipedia policy that disqualifies him. He is considered very reliable by academic colleagues. See e.g. the comment of Avi Shlaim ' sterling qualities for which Finkelstein has become famous: erudition, originality, spark, meticulous attention to detail, intellectual integrity, courage, and formidable forensic skills '."–Avi Shlaim, Professor of International Relations, Oxford University [[1]]. We also had a vote on it in the talk section [[2]] in which GHcool was heavily defeated.
• We didn't discuss the second issue on the talk page of the article, and I don't think I can accept this and get the other editors to agree. Besides I don't agree with it myself: in my opinion it would replace wikipedia 'reliable source' policy by a narrower policy.

--JaapBoBo 00:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

GHcool

I also agree on mediation on both points.

• I agree with most of the academics in the field of Middle Eastern history when I say that Norman Finkelstein is an unreliable source at best and a malicious one at worst. Shlaim is, as far as I know, the only reliable historian of the region that doesn't heavily criticize Finkelstein's work. Other serious scholars such as Benny Morris express nothing but contempt for the man and his work.[3] The passages of Image and Reality relevant to this debate contains nothing that can be described as serious historical research. All of it is a denial of others' research by selectively using other secondary sources that agree with Finkelstein's point of view. No primary sources are used unless it was quoted in another's book.
  • This debate mostly concerned the addition of information cited to Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict by Norman G. Finkelstein (Verso Books, 1995), but I think its safe to say that both JaapBoBo and I would find ourselves taking similar positions concerning anything Finkelstein ever wrote or ever will write.
• Contrary to JaapBoBo's opening statement above, I brought up this second point countless times, including in the unofficial vote he claims I was "defeated" in. Like JaapBoBo, I also hope that the "Causes of the Palestinian exodus" article does not come to the point where commentators that meet WP:RS but do not meet the other standards we have implicitly set for the article are allowed in. On the other hand, because Finkelstein's scholarship is so important to some people to have in this article, I proposed a compromise: we could do away with these implicitly agreed upon "higher" standards we've been setting for this article and allow a looser interpretation of WP:RS. As far as I'm concerned, the door is still open for this course of action, but JaapBoBo (and others) should be warned that if the door is open for Finkelstein's anti-Israel work, then the door is also open for pro-Israel works of similar quality and repute.

--GHcool 05:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Issue I: Finkelstein as a source

See /Archive#Issue I: Finkelstein as a source.

The two parties agreed to the following sentence:

According to Norman Finkelstein in his book Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, "all serious scholars [now concede] that ... the Palestinians [were] ethnically cleansed in 1948, and scholarly debate now [focuses] on ... whether this cleansing was the intentional consequence of Zionist policy or the unintentional by-product of war."^{[citation here]}

-- tariqabjotu 20:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Outside interference

See /On hold#Outside interference.

Conclusion?

See /Archive#Conclusion?.

Issue II: Furthermore...

So, let's continue then. The text JaapBoBo proposed was as follows:

Furthermore Finkelstein argues that transferist thinking is close to the core of Zionist thinking. According to Finkelstein Zionism claims for the Jews a prevalent right to Israel, their historical homeland, and accedes the Arabs only rights as incidental residents.[2]. He writes: 'the mainstream Zionist movement never doubted its 'historical right' to impose a Jewish state through the 'Right of Return' on the indigenous Arab population of Palestine.'[3] and 'Zionism's claim to the whole of Palestine ... called into question any Arab presence in Palestine.'

GHcool, do you have a counter-proposal, or do you just believe these sentences don't belong at all? -- tariqabjotu 18:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This proposal is much less problematic than the whole "ethnic cleansing" stuff we hammered out earlier. The problem with it is that in a three sentence proposal, the first and third sentence are redundant. Only the second sentence is neutral, valuable, and appropriate in length. I changed the word "residents" to "citizens" since that is both the de jure and de facto position of Zionism. I also added a necessary comma and got rid of a definite article and the word "only" for clarity. This is my proposal: According to Finkelstein, Zionism claims for the Jews a prevalent right to Israel, their historical homeland, and accedes Arabs rights as incidental citizens.[citation here] --GHcool (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My original proposal was already a very condensed text, and I was planning on elaborating it a bit more. Something like this:

Furthermore Finkelstein argues that transferist thinking is close to the core of Zionist thinking. According to Finkelstein Zionism claims for the Jews a prevalent right to Israel, their historical homeland, and accedes the Arabs only rights as incidental residents. He writes: "the mainstream Zionist movement never doubted its 'historical right' to impose a Jewish state through the 'Right of Return' on the indigenous Arab population of Palestine." Zionism claimed all of Palestine, and wanted to turn that into a Jewish state that 'belonged' to the Jews. Non-Jewish inhabitants would not be intrinsically 'of' it. According to Finkelstein "[t]he result is a radically exclusivist ideology, which renders non-Jews at best a redundant presence and easily lends itself to schemes favoring population transfer - and expulsion". Thus, Finkelstein says, "Zionism's claim to the whole of Palestine ... called into question any Arab presence in Palestine."[citation]

This version is clearer, I think. And, frankly speaking, I don't see any reason in wikipedia policy why we should not put this in the article. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, JaapBoBo, but I hope you don't expect me to accept more of Finkelstein than the proposal you gave earlier. This is not a step in a productive direction. If I offered you an apple for $2.00, and you ask me to lower the price to $1.00, how would you react if I responded by raising my price to $3.00? Would I be closer or farther from making the sale? --GHcool (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comparison is not very strong. Editing on Wikipedia is for free. What I want is in line with wikipedia policy. In reality I could get as many apples as I want for free!

Please give your reasons why you want the text to be shorter, and explain how this is in line with wikipedia policy. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think what GHcool is saying is that you started with a proposal he didn't like (the one at the start of this section), then he counter-offered with a shorter version, and then you counter-offered with a version even longer than the one you originally proposed and GHcool rejected. Thus, your latest offer doesn't seem to make sense because instead of finding middle ground, it seeks to implement an even longer, stronger version of your position (which is even farther away from GHcool's position). -- tariqabjotu 21:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least my new proposal makes it clear that the old one was quite moderate.

As I understand it, if we reach an agreement on this text, I am supposed not to add more stuff from Finkelstein about this subject. I haven't agreed to that yet, so there's nothing strange in my proposal here. From my pov it is the 'middle ground'. --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, JaapBoBo, but offering a worse proposal doesn't make me think that your other proposal was better. The middle ground that will eventually be adopted is somewhere between your first proposal and no Finkelstein at all. My proposal falls within that range. Your second proposal falls way out of that range. --GHcool (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My second proposal is entirely warrented according to wikipedia policy. Your demand to shorten it is not. You have not put forward any argument for your position. --JaapBoBo (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) JaapBoBo, you haven't put forward any argument for your position either. Can you present one, and explain why you believe your proposals are within Wikipedia policy and GHcool's is not? -- tariqabjotu 04:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, Tariqabjotu, I don't care about JaapBoBo's second proposal at all. As far as I'm concerned, it is off the table. JaapBoBo cannot offer something, then take it away and offer something worse, and then expect me to accept the worse offer. The continuum that currently exists is JaapBoBo's first proposal on one extreme and no Finkelstein at all on the other extreme. Anything that falls outside that continuum must be dismissed by all sides. --GHcool (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

@TariqAbjotu: Naturally, as an encyclopedia, wikipedia should offer information. All I want to do is add relevant information from a reliable source. We should improve the quality of the article. Adding just a contracted and deformed statement is not good. The stuff should be clearly presented, without compromising Finkelstein's pov. This is what wikipedia requires, and this is what I want.

@GHcool: you say I offered something, and than took it away and made a worse offer. Actually, I didn't offer anything in the first place. The original issue was Finkelstein as a reliable source. If that is accepted (and there is no reason why it shouldn't be accepted), I can add more than my original proposal. From my pov, the original text was never something that I should limit myself to. --JaapBoBo (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This approach is seriously frustrating the progress of this mediation.

The conclusion that Finkelstein is a reliable source contradicts the conclusion made here -- that there is dispute (and not just between you two, but among historians) whether Finkelstein is a reliable source. That is why the compromise under the first statement exists -- it gives the opinion of Finkelstein, while noting that this is Finkelstein's opinion. You have not demonstrated why Wikipedia policy favors your proposals over GHcoool's and I am not going to spend much time asking you to demonstrate that more clearly. This is in part because this mediation's outcome is not dependent on that and in part because I'm not getting the impression that you'd be successful at doing so. The idea that Wikipedia should offer information is true, but there are limits to that idea. The idea that GHcool's statement is contracted and deformed is your opinion (which we will get to momentarily). Furthermore, the last sentence in your response to me ("This is what wikipedia requires, and this is what I want.") is simply not based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

The complaint over semantics in response to GHcool is unnecessary and not useful in resolving the issue here. Actually, I didn't offer anything in the first place. Yes, you did; it's the piece at the start of this section. If [the idea that Finkelstein is a reliable source] is accepted (and there is no reason why it shouldn't be accepted)... We have been talking for weeks and months now, and it should have become clear to you by now that the decision of whether Finkelstein is a reliable source is debatable. From my pov, the original text was never something that I should limit myself to. That's rather unfortunate because that's exactly what I'm going to do -- limit you to your first proposal. We are not going to spend time examining a proposal of yours that was even farther from GHcool's position than your first proposal. We're trying to find middle ground here, but the responses above, sadly, give me the impression that you are not open to that.

Please, let's not tank an, until now, successful mediation with unreasonable demands and conclusions. -- tariqabjotu 16:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Going for a different approach here: JaapBoBo, can you present specific, actionable objections to GHcool's proposal? -- tariqabjotu 16:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. Finkelstein takes two facts, 1) the Zionists wanted and claimed a prevalent right to all of Palestine, acceding the Arabs 'only rights as incidental residents' and 2) they wanted to create a Jewish society there of which the Arabs would not really be a part. From these two facts (which are confirmed as facts by numerous reliable sources) he concludes that the result was 3) 'a radically exclusivist ideology', which 'called into question any Arab presence in Palestine'. All of these three points should be in to make Finkelstein's pov clear. What GHcool proposes is to reduce it to a watered down version of the first point. --JaapBoBo (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to argue with you TariqAbjotu, but, referring to your first edit on 30 January, you are arguing against me. What are you referring to when you say: "The conclusion that Finkelstein is a reliable source contradicts the conclusion made here -- that there is dispute (and not just between you two, but among historians)"? There is no dispute among historians whether Finkelstein is a reliable source. He and Morris have some differences of opinion, but that has nothing to do with Finkelstein's reliability. Furthermore I never agreed to the conclusion that Finkelstein's reliability is disputed, but only that it is disputed by GHcool. If GHcool is unwilling to admit Finkelstein's reliability, but willing to talk about how we should put Finkelstein's pov's in the article, then of course I try to find an agreement there.

My argument: "The stuff should be clearly presented, without compromising Finkelstein's pov." is required by wikipedia policy. It's the basis of WP:NPOV: "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly." Quite different from your evaluation: "simply not based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines".

Your argument "Yes, you did; it's the piece at the start of this section" is unfounded. There is no such thing at the start of this section, nor did I say such a thing earlier.

My demands are not unreasonable, but they reflect Wikipedia policy.

We have been discussing GHcool's arguments as to whether Finkelstein is a reliable source or not at length. All arguments were weak, and in the end none of them stuck. I showed a lot of patience then, as did you. Why lose patience now?

Your edit of 30 January seems to be inspired by a wish to end this mediation soon. You are not invoking wikipedia policy there. However, I'd like the result of this mediation te be based on wikipedia policy. After all, the one thing GHcool and I wholeheartedly agree on is that we should stick to wikipedia policy. I strongly urge you to have the patience to find an agreement with us that reflects wikipedia policy. Please steer us in that direction, and keep reminding GHcool and me that we want to base ourselves on wikipedia policy. --JaapBoBo (talk) 09:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against you; I'm merely trying to get you off a path that is going to get you -- and the mediation -- nowhere. I see I have not succeeded.

What I'm referring to by the statement "The conclusion that... but among historians" is this entire mediation. If you at this point feel that Finkelstein has been accepted as reliable by both you and GHcool, you are completely wrong. GHcool has made it quite clear that he still does not believe Finkelstein is a reliable source. And it's okay for you and him to disagree on that point; we don't need to decide whether Finkelstein is reliable to resolve this mediation. We just need to find a way to present him in a manner that's acceptable to both of you. We have done that so far with what we had under "Issue I".

Your argument "Yes, you did; it's the piece at the start of this section" is unfounded. There is no such thing at the start of this section, nor did I say such a thing earlier.

This is not exactly an "argument"; this is a statement of clear fact. I copied the piece in the block quote (indented, slightly different font) from here. So... I don't know how you can conceivably argue that "There is no such thing at the start of this section, nor did I say such a thing earlier". Moving on...

I'll be honest with you: yes, I do want this mediation to end soon. It looked like we were actually done, until you raised this "Furthermore..." piece all of a sudden. I hope this is really the last issue, and that when/if this gets resolved, we don't have another surprise. You are right that you should be basing the final result on Wikipedia policy, but you have not proved that your version is within Wikipedia policy and GHcool's is not. If you are using NPOV to say that multiple sides should be presented, then yes, both you and GHcool have done that. So, the policy part is not really not acting as the deciding factor here. -- tariqabjotu 04:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Tariqabjotu, for clearing this up. The time has come for JaapBoBo and me to set aside our differences of opinion on Finkelstein's reliability and concentrate on finding a reasonable compromise between JaapBoBo's first "Furthermore" proposal and no "Furthermore" at all. I gave a proposal that falls within that continuum. If JaapBoBo finds this proposal unacceptable, then I'm open to a counterproposal that falls within the same continuum. Let's get this mediation back on track. --GHcool (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

@TariqAbjotu:

• I also thought we were almost done untill GHcool objected to my "Furthermore" proposal. I did not bring that up all of a sudden: it was what this whole mediation was about from the beginning. Instead of acknowledging a misunderstanding you seem to blame me for this. Please don't do that.
• Indeed, this sentence was also part of the compromise that I supposed we had reached. But that compromise did not disallow me to add more stuff of Finkelstein. Actually, for me that proposal is still acceptable as a solution.
• Regarding: "but you have not proved that your version is within Wikipedia policy and GHcool's is not" I disagree with you. Just read WP:NPOV. It says: "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly." And GHcool's proposal does not represent Finkelstein's pov fairly, but my proposal does. See my edit of 31 January in which I explain this.

@TA & GHcool: please be realistic here. Wikipedia policy requires Finkelstein's pov to be presented fair. I will not settle for less. --JaapBoBo (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but in fact you will settle for less, or at least you would settle for less before you made the proposal that went beyond your first proposal. I encourage JaapBoBo not to terminate the mediation once he realizes that compromising means getting some, but not everything that he wants. --GHcool (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Beyond sub-thread

I'm going to ignore the above sub-thread for now, and see if we can still fare well. We have the following two proposals on the table. We have JaapBoBo's --

Furthermore Finkelstein argues that transferist thinking is close to the core of Zionist thinking. According to Finkelstein Zionism claims for the Jews a prevalent right to Israel, their historical homeland, and accedes the Arabs only rights as incidental residents.[2]. He writes: 'the mainstream Zionist movement never doubted its 'historical right' to impose a Jewish state through the 'Right of Return' on the indigenous Arab population of Palestine.'[3] and 'Zionism's claim to the whole of Palestine ... called into question any Arab presence in Palestine.'

-- to which GHcool responded by saying,

The problem with it is that in a three sentence proposal, the first and third sentence are redundant. Only the second sentence is neutral, valuable, and appropriate in length. I changed the word "residents" to "citizens" since that is both the de jure and de facto position of Zionism. I also added a necessary comma and got rid of a definite article and the word "only" for clarity.

Then, we have GHcool's proposal --

According to Finkelstein, Zionism claims for the Jews a prevalent right to Israel, their historical homeland, and accedes Arabs rights as incidental citizens.[citation here]

-- to which JaapBoBo responded by saying,

Finkelstein takes two facts, 1) the Zionists wanted and claimed a prevalent right to all of Palestine, acceding the Arabs 'only rights as incidental residents' and 2) they wanted to create a Jewish society there of which the Arabs would not really be a part. From these two facts (which are confirmed as facts by numerous reliable sources) he concludes that the result was 3) 'a radically exclusivist ideology', which 'called into question any Arab presence in Palestine'. All of these three points should be in to make Finkelstein's pov clear. What GHcool proposes is to reduce it to a watered down version of the first point.

Personally, I believe these are good places to start. I get the impression that JaapBoBo objects to the fact that the pieces of information that lead Finkelstein to make his conclusion is not included in his proposal. Nevertheless, I can also see the redundancy. How about...

Furthermore, Finkelstein argues that transferist thinking is close to the core of Zionist thinking. Thus, Finkelstein states that Zionism claims for the Jews a prevalent right to Israel, their historical homeland, and accedes the Arabs only rights as incidental residents.

References

-- tariqabjotu 23:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to see the citation/quote that it is derived from to make sure that Tariqabjotu's wording does not needlessly embellish the citation/quote before I agree to this proposal. "[T]ransferist thinking is close to the core" sounds a little fishy, the phrasing and diction does not sound very neutral, and "transferist" is not even a real word. Furthermore, as I said earlier, I strongly feel that we should change the word "residents" to "citizens" since that is the reality both "on the ground" and in Zionist ideology. If Finkelstein makes the same or similar errors in his work as the ones in this Tariqabjotu's proposal, then I would probably accept this compromise and put the errors in quotation marks like we did with the one we already came to an agreement too. --GHcool (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"[T]ransferist thinking is close to the core" sounds a little fishy, the phrasing and diction does not sound very neutral... I don't think I understand. In what way are you expecting that piece to be "neutral"? Isn't it supposed to be what Finkelstein says? -- tariqabjotu 04:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If Finkelstein uses that kind of language, then I'll accept the proposal. I doubt that Finkelstein would invent a word that isn't in the English language ("transferist"). Also, to describe a large group of people "thinking" in the same way is over dozens of years and across generations makes me question the validity of the statement, but if this is what Finkelstein says, then so be it. Lastly, "close to the core" is highly subjective and requires further investigation before we assume that Finkelstein actually uses that kind of rhetoric, but again, if he truly does use that kind of rhetoric (and it isn't just JaapBoBo buttressing Finkelstein's research with JaapBoBo's own rhetoric), then that shouldn't stand in the way of a compromise provided we put all outlandish rhetoric in quotes so that we don't confuse the reader into thinking that Wikipedia has taken a stand on the issue. --GHcool (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

JaapBoBo, can you present the piece from one of Finkelstein's works that is supporting the statement, "Furthermore, Finkelstein argues that transferist thinking is close to the core of Zionist thinking."? -- tariqabjotu 05:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

@TA: What Finkelstein actually writes is: "Zionism's claim to the whole of Palestine not only precluded a modus vivendi based on partition with the indigenous Arab population, it called into question any Arab presence in Palestine. This was especially so, given that, in practice, the Zionist discourse on Palestine merged with the Zionist discourse on a Jewish polity. Both these discourses posited that (1) to 'normalize' their condition, Jews needed to relocate to a state (polity/territorial unit) that 'belonged' to them, and (2) non-Jewish inhabitants, even citizens and long-term residents, of the Jews' state (polity/territorial unit) were not intrinsically 'of' it. The political and topographic discourses in Zionism thus run parellel; they are mutually reinforcing and validating. The result is a radically exclusivist ideology which renders non-Jews at best a redundant presence and easily lends itself to schemes favoring population transfer - and expulsion."(p. 15-16)

@GHcool: TA's proposal is not a clear enough rendering of Finkelstein's pov. As I wrote before, Finkelstein takes two facts, 1) the Zionists wanted and claimed a prevalent right to all of Palestine, acceding the Arabs 'only rights as incidental residents' and 2) they wanted to create a Jewish society there of which the Arabs would not really be a part. From these two facts he concludes that the result was 3) 'a radically exclusivist ideology', which 'called into question any Arab presence in Palestine'. All of these three points should be in to make Finkelstein's pov clear. Do you have arguments against this? --JaapBoBo (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

After seeing the original quote, it should be clear to all of us that "Furthermore, Finkelstein argues that transferist thinking is close to the core of Zionist thinking," is JaapBoBo's rhetoric and conclusion, not Finkelstein's. It must be stricken from all further proposals. The "radically exlusivist ideology" stuff is fairly summarized by "Thus, Finkelstein states that Zionism claims for the Jews a prevalent right to Israel, their historical homeland, and accedes the Arabs only rights as incidental residents and citizens." The "called into question any Arab presence" stuff is, admittedly, missing from Tariqabjotu's proposal. If we use this phrase at all, we must place it in quotes and attribute it to Finkelstein. I look forward to reading a counter-proposal with this feedback taken into consideration. --GHcool (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the prevalent right claim is equivalent to a "radically exlusivist ideology". As I said earlier, the prevalent right claim is only a part of the ideology. Another part is Zionism's craving of a 'truly' Jewish society. According to Finkelstein these resulted in a "radically exlusivist ideology".

If GHcool objects to my wording of Finkelstein's pov, then maybe it's better to quote Finkelstein. E.g. like this:

According to Finkelstein Zionism is a "radically exlusivist ideology". He writes:

"Zionism's claim to the whole of Palestine not only precluded a modus vivendi based on partition with the indigenous Arab population, it called into question any Arab presence in Palestine. This was especially so, given that, in practice, the Zionist discourse on Palestine merged with the Zionist discourse on a Jewish polity. Both these discourses posited that (1) to 'normalize' their condition, Jews needed to relocate to a state (polity/territorial unit) that 'belonged' to them, and (2) non-Jewish inhabitants, even citizens and long-term residents, of the Jews' state (polity/territorial unit) were not intrinsically 'of' it. The political and topographic discourses in Zionism thus run parellel; they are mutually reinforcing and validating. The result is a radically exclusivist ideology which renders non-Jews at best a redundant presence and easily lends itself to schemes favoring population transfer - and expulsion."

--JaapBoBo (talk) 11:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

JaapBoBo, I appreciate your current attitude of compromise. I want you (and Tariqabjotu) to know that I believe you made the above offer in good faith. Nevertheless, I must remind you that your original offer was a 3 sentence summary of Finkelstein's views. What you are offering now is a 1 sentence summary and a 5 sentence direct quotation. This will not do for the same reasons your earlier longer summary would not do; it is outside the bounds you set by your first proposal. I look forward to reading more mutually acceptable proposals in the future. Again, thank you for your cooperation (I mean that sincerely). --GHcool (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. My original proposal did not include that those three sentences were all I wanted in from Finkelstein. They were just a beginning. --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to start that line again? It didn't work before. It won't work again. --GHcool (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I am just stating facts here. You are not disputing them, but you are not accepting them either. You act as if I'm trying to play a trick with you. I am not. Please show your good faith! --JaapBoBo (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that you are playing a trick on me because I don't believe that you are a stupid person. Only a stupid person would deliberately try to trick somebody the same way twice when it didn't even work the first time. Since I assume good faith, and I assume you are not a stupid person, I believe that you genuinely did not understand a fundamental concept of successful negotiation: that the differences between what is acceptable by both parties decreases over time. Hopefully, you understand this concept now and we can continue within the range we set for ourselves with your first proposal. --GHcool (talk) 07:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope we do agree that whatever we put in from Finkelstein should be a clear representation of his pov. Do you agree that this is the basis of what we want to agree on? --JaapBoBo (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should be a clear representation of his point of view without crossing the line into redundancy and WP:Undue weight. --GHcool (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The text you propose is not clear because it is incomplete. --JaapBoBo (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This could go on forever

I am getting tired of this debate. Maybe it was a bad idea to leave the first issue (Finkelstein as a reliable source) undecided (better said, the first issue is officially undecided, but for all practical purposes we act as if Finkelstein is a reliable source). Now I feel that GHcool is trying to hold me to a concession that I did not make and he is not seriously discussing how Finkelstein's pov can be put clearly into the article. Instead he seems to be only interested in curtailing it. In the mean time I have found some other pov's of Finkelstein that I would like to add. In my opinion this is fully warrented by Wikipedia policy because Finkelstein is a reliable source. However since this mediation is still ongoing I will for the time being refrain from that. If I were to put the text here we could discuss it probably for months and I don't fancy that.

It is clear to me that should we stop this mediation and should GHcool obstruct the clear inclusion of Finkelstein's povs in the article, an arbitration case would be an easy win for me. What I am asking GHcool is to agree to have Finkelstein's pov's clearly in the article. --JaapBoBo (talk) 11:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, please assume good faith. Secondly, I already agreed to have Finkelstein's pov clearly in the article so long as it doesn't break the rules of WP:Undue weight or redundancy. You've given me a proposal that was good, but not good enough and I gave you a proposal that was good but not good enough. We can continue giving each other proposals until we meet in the middle like we did last time. As we saw last time, this process takes a while, but not forever and it is completely possible to walk away satisfied. I have not given up on the hope for a fair and reasonable compromise because both of us have demonstrated that we can be fair and reasonable people. Let's get back to the table and get this sorted out.  :) --GHcool (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Again you are proposing that we should meet in the middle and using that as your only argument. Lets leave this kind of 'horse trading' behind us and discuss the content, like we did last time. --JaapBoBo (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In the mean time I have found some other pov's of Finkelstein that I would like to add.

JaapBoBo, if you keep adding more issues, this conceivably could take forever. We are not discussing any more Finkelstein items after this one. We have, in fact, already addressed both of the issues mentioned in the mediation. I am not here to work out every single dispute between you too, especially if just when I think we're done, we have yet another point of contention. If you want to quit the mediation, just do so; don't hang the possibility of closure as a threat. Further, it's too bad if you have a problem with finding a middle-ground compromise; that's what we do in mediation. -- tariqabjotu 15:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear TariqAbjotu,

I did not add another issue. I only said I wanted to add more from Finkelstein to the article, which is completely in line with the first issue: Finkelstein is a reliable source, so there is nothing against adding more from Finkelstein.

Furthermore I would also prefer, after GHcool has admitted that we should include Finkelstein's povs (provided they are relevant) fair and clear in the article, to end this mediation and agree on this.

Finally I don't have a problem with a middle-ground compromise, but I do have a problem with a compromise that would clearly violate wikipedia policy. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I will not agree on any vague "agree to disagree" type resolutions. This seems to be a recipe for further JaapBoBo to add whatever he wants from Finkelstein, then for me to delete whatever I want (which will probably be all or most of it), and then for us to request another mediation. We would be back to square one.

Also, JaapBoBo's implication that we've been working toward "a compromise that would clearly violate wikipedia policy" is a straw man and a false dichotomy. Of course I don't want to violate Wikipedia policy. We have been, and hopefully will continue, working toward a compromise that is satisfactory to both of us and that would also satisfy Wikipedia guidelines. As we all know, Wikipedia guidelines are often vague enough that they require interpretation. JaapBoBo and I have different interpretations of the same guidelines, which is completely normal and expected. The mediation process is here so that we can sort out these differences, and until the start of the "This could go on forever" thread, we have been doing an admirable (if slowly paced) job of doing just that. Let's get back to the business of sorting out our differences peacefully and respectfully and in an orderly manner. --GHcool (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

GHcool would like this mediation to go on. Despite the fact that we have reached an agreement on the original issue: for all practical purposes we have concluded that Finkelstein is a reliable source.

Instead of accepting this GHcool is now nagging at what I would like to add from Finkelstein. Trying to rob Finkelstein's pov of its real meaning. Trying to make this into "horse trading". And he is saying that he will "delete whatever I want" from Finkelstein. This is not the constructive attitude that is expected of editors. --JaapBoBo (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

On 2 January GHcool wrote: "Clearly this issue is more contentious than either of us had anticipated. Like most things related to the I-P conflict, there is evidence on both sides to support either claim. I don't think JaapBoBo and I will ever agree that Finkelstein is 100% reliable or 100% unreliable. Therefore, to get out of this deadlock we seem to be in ..." [4]

To get out of the deadlock I propose that we end this mediation by agreeing on what we already agree on, namely to treat Finkelstein in the article as if he is a reliable source. --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I never agreed to treat Finkelstein as if he's a reliable source. I agreed to treat Finkelstein as a source to be mediated upon and come up with a compromise that would be satisfactory (if not ideal) for both of us. I do not accept JaapBoBo's proposal to give up on the mediation. I still have hope that we can come up with a compromise. --GHcool (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

A compromise should be based on a fair representation of Finkelstein's pov in the article. GHcool does not agree with my proposal for Finkelsteins pov on the origin of the transfer idea. He proposes something which does not represent Finkelsteins pov fairly. The problem is that GHcool refuses to discuss the content. If GHcool keeps doing this I will stop this mediation and go ahead in the article. --JaapBoBo (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I've been trying to discuss the content this whole time. It wasn't until JaapBoBo started this thread that we stopped talking about the content. User:Tariqabjotu, do you have any ideas about how to jump-start the mediation back into productivity? --GHcool (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

How about we refocus on "the issue", whatever that may be. Can each of you state what you believe the question we should be answering at this stage is (i.e. what we're trying to accomplish with this second thread) and what your position on the answer to that question is? -- tariqabjotu 00:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The Question: What would be a good compromise between the two extremes? At one extreme, we permit none of Finkelstein's views in the article at all. At the other extreme, we permit a three-sentence summary of Finkelstein's views in the article (this was JaapBoBo's position in his first proposal).

The Answer: A good compromise between 0 sentences and 3 sentences would 1-2 sentences summarizing Finkelstein's views. --GHcool (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The Question: Is Finkelstein a reliable source?

The Answer: A good compromise is to treat him as a reliable source. --JaapBoBo (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• We had a long discussion about the reliability of Finkelstein, in which GHcool failed to come up with even one good reason as to why Finkelstein should not be reliable.
• On the talk page we voted [5], and there were five 'yes', one 'maybe' and only GHcool said 'no'.

I think GHcool should be reasonable and give in. --JaapBoBo (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation closed

I'm closing the mediation on the basis that there is no chance that anything else will come out of this case. When I asked whether the case was over in January, GHcool said yes. So, I'll assume he's okay with stopping at that point. JaapBoBo, in response to my request above for a question and answer regarding what should be accomplished in this thread, did not mention anything we have been discussing for the past 2+ months. Instead, he reiterated something that has already been discussed -- whether Finkelstein is a reliable source.

As I have said already, JaapBoBo, we are not talking about that anymore; it is not important in talking about the phrasings that (I thought) were under discussion. However, because that is the only thing you want to talk about and because you clearly do not either want a compromise or understand what one is (given you think a compromise is "to treat [Finkelstein] as a reliable source"), my job here is complete. -- tariqabjotu 17:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu; quite a disappointment and a major setback for all decent Wikipedians who saw here a ray of hope in ever seeing a neutral Wikipedia on these most contentious issues. Now that mediation has failed because one of the players played the game as "heads I win, tails you lose"; are there no consequences? Where does someone go from here? Itzse (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Tariqabjotu for your role as mediator. You have acted as fairly and admirably as I could have hoped for given the circumstances. I'd like to make it known that since the mediation closed inconclusively, I am not bound to any of the compromises I proposed or agreed to during the course of the mediation. Thanks again. --GHcool (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

thx TariqAbjotu.

I'm disappointed though that in the end you disregard Wikipedia policy, simply ignore my arguments, and side with GHcool. --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)