Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:34, 23 December 2007

Hello Bless sins, Str1977 and Jedi Master MIK. I'm Shell Kinney (feel free to call me Shell) and I'll be mediating this case if you'll have me. You will want to watchlist this page to keep abreast of the discussions.

As always, mediation is voluntary. In this particular case, its also important to note that I am not currently a member of the Mediation Committee but have been asked to help out in this case since all committee members are unable to take on any new cases at this time. I do not believe I have any conflict of interest with this case and I have a background in religious studies (hobby, not professional), however if for any reason you feel I would be inappropriate as a mediator for this case, you may choose to decline and wait for a committee member to become available. Declining me as a mediator will not be held against you in any way.

Please note below whether or not you agree with me mediating this case by adding "I agree" or "I disagree". I look forward to working with you. Shell 10:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Pending clarification of what precise issues are to be mediated (or in other words, with the caveat that the the above does not accurately portray the points of conflict), I accept Shell as mediator. Str1977 12:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you as a mediator. Before, we proceed, can you briefly explain what your role will be to help us in settling this dispute. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree for you to be mediator. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

To address Str1977's question, if there is a difference of opinion on what the actual problems are, it is likely that developing a list of issues to be mediated will be our first priority. Mediation works best if we can start out stating the issues neutrally, for instance, instead of saying "1. Santa Claus should not be used as a source" something like "1. Is Santa Claus a reliable source" (assuming that policy is the basis of the reasoning to prohibit his inclusion). I will look at the issues presented on the case page, develop a list and then we can all discuss if more need to be included or if there are additional nuances to the issues already listed.

Bless Sins, for an in depth view of my role and this process, you may wish to read Misplaced Pages:Mediation. In short, I am a neutral third-party who will help direct discussions in an effort to achieve a consensus between all parties. As far as my personal style goes, I like to structure things so that we discuss one issue at a time -- I believe its easier to keep on topic and come to a decision when you only have to focus on one thing. I will not take sides, I never use my admin bit during a mediation and anything you say here cannot be used against you later -- we want to have a free, open and civil discussion in order to achieve a resolution that everyone can agree on. I would be happy to answer any other questions you might have about the process or dispute resolution in general. 06:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Shell, Thanks for accepting to mediate this. I have been at times involved in this dispute, so, if it is okay, I'd like to join in the mediation. Thanks, --Aminz (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Issues to be mediated

1. Are the words massacre or execution neutral in this context?
2. Should the regret of Abu Lubaba be mentioned?
3. Should Tariq Ramadan, Abu Nimer, Majid Khadduri, Daniel C. Peterson and Serjeant be used as sources?
4. Should the parallel to the Torah be mentioned?
5. Which term should be used to describe the women taken from Banu Qurayza?
6. Is FPM an acceptable external link?
7. Can Montgomery Watt's works be used to describe the role of Banu Qurayza in defending Medina during the Battle of the trench?
8. Can Shibli Nomani be used to present Banu Qurayza's interactions with Huyayy ibn Akhtab during the battle?
9. Should the phrase "as was practice" also note where the practice was common?
10. Using WP:LEAD, how should the lead paragraph be written?

This is the list from the case page. Below please list whether any additional issues need to be discussed and note if any of the issues miss the point of the problem. Please do not explain your viewpoint on the issues yet, right now we just want to agree that we have a list of all the issues that need to be resolved. Shell 06:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there is also some dispute over the appropriate way of writing an introduction for this article. --Aminz (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC) P.S. Shell, if you don't mind I have added some wiki-links to your comment. --Aminz (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. I was wondering what FPM stood for. When you refer to working on the lead paragraph, what is it that you are unsure of -- problems with NPOV or tone or just difficulty with what should be in a lead? Shell 20:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the problem is with providing an NPOV summary of the article for the lead. But we can include it in the general form of "Writing the introduction". Cheers, --Aminz (talk) 08:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There are some additional article related issues:

• Can Montgomery Watt's works be used to describe the role of Banu Qurayza in defending Medina during the Battle of the trench?
• Can Shibli Nomani be used to present Banu Qurayza's interactions with Huyayy ibn Akhtab during the battle?
• Can Majid Khadduri be used as a source?

I have some concerns about the discussion as well:

• Is it uncivil to bring in to question a user's religious beliefs, after that user indicates that he/she doesn't want his religious beliefs to be a part of this discussion?
• On the talk page, may users post highly contentious and negative information about notable living persons?
• Is it uncivil to accuse a user of violating[REDACTED] policies (e.g. WP:NPOV, WP:CENSOR)?

Bless sins (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've added those points to the content questions above.

To answer your concerns about discussion, since you didn't give diffs, I can't give you specific answers, however:

• In general, it is best to avoid discussing other editors and focus only on content. There are very rare exceptions where someone may politely point out that a particular editor's beliefs may be causing them difficulty sticking to NPOV. I would ask that those involved in this mediation stick to discussing the content issues to be worked out.
• Very rarely and only with sources. Misplaced Pages:BLP#Non-article_space is clear that the only reason for such material to be on a talk page is in the case of an editor discussing content to be included in an article (and they should be providing sources at that point).
• Not usually. Its possible to make those types of comments in an uncivil manner and continually making accusations without proof can sometimes be uncivil, but simply warning another person that they are violating policy is not uncivil. Again, since you didn't show a specific case, I can't advise you on the particular incident you're mentioning. Shell 16:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mention any incidents on purpose. I'm not looking to embarrass any particular user, but to establish guidelines in general for this discussion. I think your answers are clear. Thank you. When can we begin discussing the actual issues?Bless sins (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Just waiting to hear from Str1977 and Jedi Master MIK as to whether they agree we've listed all the issues that need to be mediated. Shell 22:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry I didn't know you were waiting for me. Ya, I think thats all the issues. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hallo, sorry for taking so long. I think the points raised above are more or the less the issues in dispute, however I would rephrase them as such (I have taken the liberty of numbering the list above for reference): 1. Is the word "massacre" neutral, accurate and appropriate to use in reference to the whole event of the BQ's demise (my view) or should be word be removed completely from the article (BS view)? 2. Should the regret of Abu Lubaba be mentioned outside of place where it is directly relevant to the article? (I say no.) If so, is it enough to state that he regretted his words (my suggested but ignored compromise) or need we parrot the exact wording from the source? 3.a. Should Tariq Ramadan be used as a source? Or only with caution? 3.b. Should Abu Nimer be used as a source on historical events? Even in contradiction to existing sources? (I say no.) 3.c. Should Majid Khadduri as a source on historical events? Even in contradiction to existing sources? (I say no.) 3.d. Should Daniel C. Peterson be used as a source? (I see no dispute about this.) 4. Should the claim that the verdict agrees somehow with Deuteronomy be included? If so, how? (Longstanding consensus was not to include this.) 5. Should we use tangentially relevant special terms in Arabic in the plain text (as opposed to wikilinks)? (I say no.) 6. Should FrontPage Magazine be mentioned in the external links? (I say why not.) 6.a. On a related issue: should we selectively remove items from a "further reading" section that we don't like? (I say no.) 7. Are we obliged to follow William Montgomery Watt (that's his full name, the surname is simply Watt) even in vague and questionable wordings? (I say no. ) That Watt can be used as a source is not at all controversial, he is quoted at least half a dozen times. 8. Are we obliged to follow Shibli Nomani in all wordings? IMHO the issue is already settled aside from one about another source (Lings).

Basing myself on the latest revert, I see other issues as well:

9. Shall we include a view from Serjeant that is not decisive to a discussion? 10. Shall we include the BQ's socially inferior status, deduced from the lower blood money, as a fact right at the beginning of the passage, or shall we place it further down as a deduction from the fact that the blood money was lower? 11. Should describe something as "as was practice" without denoting where it was practice? 12. How shall we word the introduction?

Finally, this mediation must be limited to actual changes to the article and not focus on real or supposed incivilities - I know both parties have made mistakes on that field but highlighting only one party's fault would be, well, imbalanced. Also, discussing these doesn't get us anywhere. Str1977 22:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Few more notes before I hope we could get started.

2. It should be noted that there was no visible change in the article at all by the "compromise", just a little note in the edit box of the article which was not otherwise viewable. Otherwise, thats not what I had a problem with.

5. Nah nah, we all did agreed a long time ago that using the original arabic would be a little too much and wikilinks would be better; the issue is stated correctly as we "ended" with conflict on how it should be translated or referred to in English. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The issues originally stated were stated quite neutrally. Str1977's edit on 22:10, 16 December 2007 shows how Str1977 views the situation, and should only be used as such. Secondly, I insist that WP:CIVIL, WP:BLP and other wiki policies be upheld both for article changes and for discussion. I don't think that this is an unreasonable demand, since these policies contain special provisions for discussion, meant to be used at times like these.Bless sins (talk) 08:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Mik,

2. I never laid any blame at your door for the invisible compromise. I posted it invisibly because I didn't want to go ahead before anyone accepted it as a compromise. It always takes at least two for a compromise.

5. Indeed. We two seem to agree on this. But it seems that BS here wants to have the Arabic term appear.

BS,

No, my statement reflected my view (and that was my intention) but the original statements were not neutral at all but in some cases actually mispresented the dispute

You can insist all you want but I will not agree to any mediation on behaviour issues. If you think I did wrong you can report me any time you feel like. I want this mediation to be aimed at achieving a solution for the article text, not to pound anyone into submission. Str1977 17:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this is exactly what we do not want to do. Please limit your comments to other issues that need to be added to the list. Shell 17:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have added two of the issues that Str1997 brought up; I did not add number 10 since I'm not sure I understand what that's meant to say. Also, I have a bit of concern about "deduced from lower blood money" and just want to make sure that a source deduced this, because if this is something we came up with, its original research and shouldn't be used. Shell 17:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

To elaborate on this: one version says that "Hitherto, the Qurayza, who were less powerful than the Nadir, stood socially inferior with respect to Nadir." whereas another one has "The more powerful Nadir rigorously applied Lex talionis ... placing the Qurayza in a socially inferior position." The remark about the social position is, I think, mentioned in a secondary source but IMHO it is a deduction from the fact of different blood money. Therefore I prefer the second version. Str1977 17:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, this mediation isn't to focus on behavior, its to resolve the editing impasse. Bless sins did not refer to any editor when asking questions about behavior and gave no indication of whether someone in this debate had behaved that way -- I don't believe the questions or answers were intended to bother you. However, that doesn't change the fact that everyone involved should remain civil during the mediation. We're much more likely to resolve the issues if we can calmly discuss the points.Shell 17:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Shell. The main point is that behaviour should not be an issue. I believe that once the article issues are fixed, behaviour will not be an issue for lack of opportunity. Just this note: you are not familiar with BS but I am hence I know that he referred to me. Not that I consider my behaviour, despite all faults, to be worse than his towards me. In any case, it should not be the issue here as no resolution is possible. And I will try to be as civil as possible. Str1977 17:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of Massacre/Execution

• Are the words massacre or execution neutral in this context?

Things that may be important for this discussion: Are we writing with WP:NPOV in mind? Do sources use these words or are we using these words to describe the incident? Does this give undue weight to a minority view or do many sources use this terminology?

Please briefly state your opinion about the use of these words and your basis for that opinion. Just as a reminder, lets try to stick to the topic and not discuss each other whenever possible. Shell 17:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Aminz

Here was my position:

• I think usage of the terms like "massacre" or "execution" does not add any real information to the article once we have mentioned that they were killed and the number that were killed.
• The common meanings of the term "massacre" and its connotations imply illegitimacy. One can find the meaning of the term here : "The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly" - The term originally comes from the Old French macecle, macecre meaning butchery, shambles. It has the killing cruelly connotation.

(Added at 21:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)) I provided the meaning of "massacre" from American Heritage dictionary above. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as:"The indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people or (less commonly) animals; carnage, butchery, slaughter in numbers; an instance of this."--Be happy!! (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please see the usage of the term "massacre" in the Bible translations showing that the term is not neutral:

(Added at 21:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC))- Since they are many instances of mass killing in the Bible, this shows, in my mind, the translator considers the term non-neutral. --Be happy!! (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(events)#Conventions provides a guildline for usage of terms like "massacre" for the article titles but I think is applicable here too: "the use of strong words such as "massacre" can be a focus of heated debate". In part 3 it says: "If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications." This is further explain here: A generally accepted word on how to describe the event means there is consensus on the applicability of the word amongst scholars in the real world. This is not the case here. This incident has no common name and depending on the author, the reliable sources use terms like execution, punishment and massacre. All of the terms like "execution", "punishment" and "massacre" imply legitimacy or illegitimacy. The neutral word to use is "killing"

(21:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)) The phrase "does not carry POV implications" in the policy, I believe, confirms that the term has "POV implication" - The term can be also "focus of heated debate" --Be happy!! (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• A list of academic sources that mention execution can be found here . In my view execution and massacre are both judgmental terms and both should be avoided and instead killing be used although this is not something everybody agrees with. --Be happy!! (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Str1977

• Is the word "massacre" accurate? Yes, as a great mass of people were killed.
• Is it neutral? I think, in the end, yes because it accurately describes the even better than any other word. That massacres are not seen as positive things today by most people is a matter of judgment on their part. That doesn't make the term in itself POV.
• Certainly, the term does not imply illegitimacy.
• However, since there are concerns about the term being problematic, I have already reduced its usage to its minimum, three occurences: the title of the picture (which reflects that the event indeed has a common name), a quote, the title of a link and the headline for the section describing the massacre. In places were a verb was need I have replaced it with variations on kill.
• Yes, the term is used by academic sources to describe the event. And importantly, it is the only term that describes the whole thing. "Aftermath" really does not work and "Execution" ...
• "Execution", strictly speaking, begs the question of what is executed? The verdict is executed. Execution also implies that there was some sort of formal verdict resulting from a trial - which is not the case here (and punishment is worse on this account). Therefore I reject the term no matter how many sources use it. There is no Wiki-policy that requires us to follow a majority on this (and as stated, massacre is used as well).
• Keep in mind that because "massacre" apart from occurences that are quotes is included only once, it is only this one occasion (the section headline) that can be subject to the dispute.
• Bible translations are not relevant here. They are (good or bad) translations of existing texts), not encyclopedic articles newly written. Str1977 17:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Bless sins

Massacre is used in three instances. I dispute its use in all instances (in this case to be used in the lead) but two (its usage in the title of a painting, and its usage in an Ibn Ishaq quote).

Massacre

I assert that the term is non-neutral. To back up my claims, I refer to:

• Oxford dictionary ('...a brutal slaughter')
• American Heritage dictionary ('...cruelly')
• Merriam-Webster dictionary ('...atrocity or cruelty', 'a cruel or wanton murder')
• Chambers reference ('cruel and indiscriminate killing...')
• Dictionary at Encarta ('the vicious killing...')

• Collins English dictionary('savage killing...'){Added 04:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)}

Most users will find that the accusation of cruelty, brutality and viciousness is not neutral.

Another problem with the word 'massacre' is that, like 'execution', it doesn't describe the entire event. The word 'massacre' ignores the fact that women and children were not killed.

Execution

This term is certainly accurate, and is widely in use. To back up this assertion, I have compiled a list of 19 academic and reliable sources.

Str1977 disputes its neutrality, but has not substantiated his/her assertions with any sources. Nevertheless, for the sake of compromise, I have omitted the word entirely from the article.

Bless sins (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Jedi Master MIK

I'll try to be short and simple seeing as most of the points seem to have been stated:

• Massacre by definition is POV, I do not see why we have at least all been able to agree to that.
• Execution while still not necessarily encompassing the whole issue is much more NPOV and implies a lot less.
• Execution points to execution of decisions as well as the execution of the BQ men.
• Killing I have no problem with either though yes I do realize that it only gives part of the final results.
• Aftermath I have no problem with as it is general and NPOV as possible when giving the situation though yes I realize that it could only work for the title.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on a compromise

• It looks like at least two of you agree that the word "massacre" should stay in the picture caption since the word there is part of the proper name of the painting. Can everyone agree that the word is acceptable there to describe the image?
• There's also a split about using the word "massacre" or "execution" elsewhere. One suggestion has been using variants of "kill". I also noticed in the lead that specific terms have been used, such as "beheading". Could another compromise be changing the heading "Siege and massacre" to something more specific, perhaps, "Siege and Judgment by Muhammad" which avoids the use of descriptive terms all together? What other creative compromises would you accept? Shell 16:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If the name of the painting includes "massacre" (it is originally a Persian miniature) then I have no problem with its addition.--Be happy!! (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to what BS claims, I have not disputed the neutrality of the term "execution" but more its accuracy. Execution of what? It is strictly speaking not accurate to speak of the execution of people - verdicts are executed. The one dimension where neutrality is infringed is the issue that if a judgement is executed, it presumes not only the guilt of those killed but also that there actually has been a trial. Of course, that argument doesn't go very far as of course not only judgements and verdicts can be executed but also orders for killing. But still, it is something that is executed, not someone. And finally: in our disputed passage, the section heading, "Siege and execution" would mean "Siege and how it was executed" and that is nonsense.

"Judgement" is unacceptable - again because it assumes both the guilt of the BQ and the existence of a trial where there was none. (And BTW, nominally the decision came not from Muhammad, who only endorsed it.)

The points raised by BS above do not hold water in my book: yes, massacres are often considered cruel etc. but that's not part of the denotation but a reflection of the current common opinion that such acts are cruel. We do not hide the facts just because they are considered bad nowadays. Exterminating the word "massacre" is hiding the fact.

BS has also stated that massacre would be inaccurate because not all BQ were killed. Well, this argument defeats all variations on "kill" and "behead". It does not defeat massacre as the BQ in a substantial part (their men) were subject to a massacre - a massacre of the BQ does not mean that all tribe members were killed.

Thus far I have seen no suitable term that could replace "massacre" in the section heading. All mentioned terms do not work as they are either inaccurate, POV or don't work for linguistic reasons (Siege and killing).

And until that request for an equally suitable alternative is met, I cannot agree to any alternative. After all, I already bent over backwards and compromised on half a dozen occurences of "massacre" in the article. There remains only one occurence (outside of quotes)

So, frankly, Shell, if you cannot find another word that does the trick, mediation should focus on other issues. Str1977 12:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, its up to all of you to find something that "does the trick", I'm just here to help keep the discussion on track and make suggestions where I can. I'm not sure if you realize, but you're coming across as rather upset over the whole situation. I know that content problems can be very frustrating, but the more calm everyone can stay, the more likely we can work through these problems.

Couple of comments about words people are considering.

• Massacre is specific to killing that is indiscriminate and cruel.
• Execution can mean performing capital punishment in addition to other meanings.
• Judgment requires someone making a decision, so if Muhammad only endorsed the idea, my phrase was completely incorrect.

Is there any other way we could describe the outcome of the siege? Can anyone come up with language that would include both the death of the men and the enslavement of the women and children? Shell 18:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a suggestion: Is it possible to split the "siege and massacre" section into two sections, one on "siege" and the other "aftermath"? --Be happy!! (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Shell you were incorrect when you said "judgment by Muhammad", since Muhammad didn't pronounce the judgment. There, was, however, a judgment, and it was pronounced by S'ad ibn Mu'adh. The prophet certainly approved of the judgment. How about "Siege and judgment"?Bless sins (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Str1977:

• Both judgments/decisions and people were executed and so it does indeed encompass a greater amount of the event than massacre.
• Nothing in the definition of execution assume definite guilt. If it does anything of the like, it only assumes that those who performed the execution probably considered the executed as guilty which they did. Its not infringement of NPOV though.
• On the contrary, it would only imply that if you left it uncapitalized; the capitalization would show it to be a separate part of the incident.
• Again there is nothing in the definition of judgment that is assumptive. It is a decision of what is the proper coarse of action considered by the judge, i.e. the Muslims; only this and nothing more.
• I'd say 4-5 dictionaries describing massacre as is and 19+ sources using anything but massacre as proper denotation of the event is a little more than "current common opinion". Consider that with the fact that there are positive and negative views of the incident, it is definitely not "fact".
• Massacre hasn't defeated words like "Execution" and "Judgment" however; you may still say they are inefficient and POV as well but they are still not to the extent that the word "Massacre" is and so for now that's what is important, choosing the lesser of 2-3 evils.

Aminz:

• Good suggestion, didn't think about that one before and I think it it would work well for the title part of the dispute at least.
• Unfortunately the word "Massacre" appears in the body paragraphs as well and so the dispute would still continue.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• "If it does anything of the like, it only assumes that those who performed the execution probably considered the executed as guilty which they did." Completely agreed. Not all execution are just, and many are fiercely disputed. See for examples. The only thing execution would imply is that S'ad and Muhammad both considered the Qurayza to be guilty - which is fact.Bless sins (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Disputed convictions leading to execution