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

Table (9-13)

nr.	GHcool's argument	JaapBoBo's refutations
9	criticism of Laila Parsons [1]	Parsons evidently takes Finkelstein serious as a scholar Parsons doesn't criticise Finkelsteins reliability, she just sides with Morris Parsons adds no significant arguments to Morris' The way Parsons writes about Finkelstein shows her bias. By writing 'without [..] offering any new evidence of his own' she suggests Finkelstein should have done that, but in reality she knows that all Finkelstein wants to show is that 'the moderate conclusion that Morris draws is contradicted by the very evidence cited to support that conclusion', which requires no new evidence.
10	"Finkelstein burst onto the scene with an odd book that portrayed Israel as the little sister of Nazi Germany." - Tom Segev[2] "Is it surprising that Finkelstein’s books and essays are reproduced on neo-Nazi websites all over the Internet, or that Holocaust deniers celebrate him as 'the Jewish David Irving?'" - Paul Bogdanor[3]	The citations say nothing that undermines Finkelstein's reliability. They are completely neutral as to Finkelstein's reliability,
11	The Finkelstein material in question only mirrors the "Master Plan" explanation proposed by Walid Khalidi and Ilan Pappe.	Finkelstein says something completely different. Pappe and Khalidi say things about the preparation and execution of a master plan. Finkelstein says something about Zionist beliefs that induced them to do such a thing. Zionists believed they had a preemptive right to the Land of Israel.
12	JaapBoBo's last post grossly misrepresents Finkelstein.	I am not misrepresenting Finkelstein. On what point am I misrepresenting him?
13	GHcool proposes a new policy guideline: (2) The "Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus" article should include information from all sources considered reliable in some circles including (especially?) sources considered unreliable in other circles.	This guideline would accept e.g. Holocaust-deniers as reliable sources, as they are 'considered reliable in some circles', like neo-Nazi-circles This argument, which would accept Image and Reality, is not mine. I don't appeal to arguments that would replace wikipedia policy. I appeal to wikipedia policy.

Outside interference

To all involved:
It has come to my attention that at least one editor has been contacting our mediator, Tariqabjotu, with the specific intention of undermining my position in the mediation and turning the mediator against me. This is absolutely unacceptable to me and I assume it would be unacceptable to JaapBoBo as well. If I catch this kind of activity again, I will have no choice but to immediately discontinue my role in the mediation and return to the status quo ante while coming to no compromise on this issue. The mediation will be over and my and JaapBoBo's original hopes to come to some kind of mutual agreement will be shot down. I repeat: If I catch any more attempts at undermining the neutrality of the mediation or the mediator(s) by any editors outside of the mediation process or off of the mediation page, I will immediately quit the mediation, the mediation will be a failure, and I will be less willing to to compromise in the future than I am now. I cannot stress this enough or make it more clear and I am not open to negotiation about this problem or my reaction to it. --GHcool (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I honestly hope you won't be that drastic. To put things bluntly, it looks like you're asking for an excuse to quit the mediation, leaving the article (so you presume) in the condition you prefer. People have been commenting on this mediation in a variety of manners, both here and on my talk page, with a variety of intentions. I have just about ignored all of these comments because I do not want them interfering with the mediation. Similar comments in the future will be similarly ignored, and similarly have no effect on how I mediate this case. So the idea that such comments will leave you with "no choice but to immediately discontinue my role in the mediation and return to the status quo ante" is... well... without basis. I can understand your frustration at some of the comments so far, but quitting over something that is beyond JaapBoBo's control (and that will have zero effect on the mediation) does not seem far to JaapBoBo.

One way we could decrease the visibility of this mediation and decrease the likelihood of interference is by transferring the mediation to MedCom's private wiki. If you want that to be arranged, please say so. -- tariqabjotu 03:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would like that. Forgive me, Tariqabjotu, I assume you are an honest mediator. You are correct when you say that this behavior is an excuse to quit the mediation, but incorrect when you say that I am "asking" for this excuse or when you imply that it is not a good excuse. My reaction is not a "cop out." The reason I am here is to have a discussion with JaapBoBo with the help of an impartial mediator that would not have been possible on an ordinary talk page. I am happy and willing to discuss the Finkelstein issue in the mediation, but if I also feel obligated to do so outside the mediation, then I see no difference between the mediation and the regular talk page. The private mediation may help solve this problem and I sincerely hope that it does. I spent a lot of time and energy here and I will be as sad as anyone if we cannot continue in a mature and dignified manner and that we can all assume good faith (or at least better faith) without hints of sabotage. --GHcool (talk) 09:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I need each of you to e-mail me (using this link) with something referencing the title of this mediation in the subject of your e-mail. If you have an e-mail address set in your Wikipedia profile, I will respond to your e-mail with information on how to access your account on the MedComWiki. If you don't have one set in your profile, you can contact me on my talk page and we can arrange to have the account set up another way. -- tariqabjotu 19:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried adding my e-mail address in my Wikipedia profile, but it didn't send me a confirmation e-mail. --GHcool (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered is still at it. He seems determined to doom this mediation to failure. I already sternly, but politely, asked PalestineRemembered on his talk page to stop and told him that he is putting the mediation in jeopardy. PalestineRemembered clearly won't listen to me. Perhaps if JaapBoBo sent a polite message to PalestineRemembered asking him to stop interfering in the mediation, PalestineRemembered would listen to him. It would be an enormous gesture of good faith since it is in both of our best interest to see the mediation succeed. In turn, I vow to do the same if any users who takes my stance on this issue starts to interfere with the neutrality of the mediation process. --GHcool (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I asked PR not to interfere with the mediation. I trust he will do that. By the way I also saw that Alithien has posted some 'advice' on TariqAbjotu's page. But I trust that doesn't affect him. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you JaapBoBo. You've done the right and honorable thing. I look forward to the chance to continue the mediation without further interruptions.

As for Alithien's "advice," I won't ask him to stop advising Tariqabiotu since it seems like he stopped already by himself (his one and only piece of advice was posted more than a month ago). I get the feeling from your last post that this does not significantly raise your suspicions of foul play, but if it does, tell me and I'll write Alithien telling him not to comment further. --GHcool (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Alithien voted for Finkelstein as a reliable source. --87.208.1.240 (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Is someone interfering with the mediation again? --GHcool (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's probably JaapBoBo. -- tariqabjotu 21:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote here, I accept Sm8900's argument and appreciate PalestineRemembered's promise not to derail the mediation any further by contacting the mediator and to abide by whatever compromise I and JaapBoBo reach together. I will ask that the mediation be kept public, however, if I begin again to believe that the neutrality of the mediation is being undermined or if it appears futile because certain editors don't consider the compromise as being binding, then I will immediately discontinue my involvement in the mediation and it will fail. This is in nobody's interest and therefore I am optimistic that we can proceed without further interruptions. --GHcool (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)