Talk:Mohamed ElBaradei/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Article outline

This is the current state of the article, as summarised by myself. I suggest initially a brief statement from all as to what changes in structure are required. This way we can see which bits are already acceptable to all. Then we could edit the outline below, striking that which is to be removed, and making new additions in bold. We should probably also add rough sizes for the sections.

---

Lead paragraph

Name, current role, Nobel prize

Family

Basic bio details

Early career

Gaining qualifications, early diplomatic career

Career at the IAEA

Overall timeline: when he joined, what positions held

====Role in strengthened safeguards==== Comment: this is a missing section and would require some research. In his positions in OLA and EXPO, ElBaradei played an important supporting role in measures to strengthen IAEA safeguards in response to the 1991 revelations about Iraq's clandestine nuclear activities.

Election as IAEA Director General

Comment: ElBaradei emerged as a dark horse candidate in a contested election. There is a recent article on this by Fred McGoldrick in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Iraq

Comment: I'm not sure what Wikifan has in mind with "actions, reactions, event." It seems to me this would be a chronological narrative, perhaps with a few secondary source comments at the end.

Iran

Comment: This is the longest and most controversial section. Rather than commentary at the end it might be more appropriate to put commentaries at a few key points, e.g. after the 2003 report, after 2006 when Iran was reported to the Security Council. It should include ElBaradei's reactions to the prospect of U.S. or Israeli military attacks against Iran.

Israel

Comment: Pending proposed draft and discussion.

Syria

Comment: This would include the Israeli air strike in September 2007, ElBaradei's reaction both before and after the April 2008 U.S. briefing, and the subsequent IAEA investigation.

North Korea

Comment: Pertinent to ME. Collaborated with the failed diplomatic mission as director of the IAEA. Widely covered and most notable nuclear-armed country today.

Nuclear fuel cycle proposals

Economist article, expert group on multilateral nuclear approaches, fuel supply assurance proposals at IAEA, NTI fuel bank

under discussion

Re-election to a third term

U.S. opposition, then acquiescence Comment: This could be a single paragraph.

Comment: we may want to add a few additional subheadings, such as North Korea (2002-2009), Libya (2003-2004), disarmament and Middle East peace process. They would be short, and the first two would go into the chronological sequence above.

Nobel Prize

Paragraph on 2005 Nobel prize List of notable and covered awards/recognitions.

---

Discussion of Article Outline

I really don't like the current outline. Like I suggested before, can we merge his role as IAEA director into a single section and then section off important events? Also, what is the difference between Public career and terms? I don't think we should devote an entire section to Iran. That should be a sub-heading as a part of his term. This looks almost exactly like the current article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC) I hope you don't mind me moving this. I'd like to keep the proposed structure at the top. Kevin (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I started this section with what is currently in the article, so it probably looks very familiar. Once the others have given their summary you could edit the bit above (maybe strikethrough the bits you want gone, use bold for additions), or start a new outline, whichever seems appropriate to you. Kevin (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I did propose an outline above. I thought we were all going to collaboratively decide what sections will be used. Simply copy/pasting the sections from the old (and botched) article does not make sense. Shouldn't we go through each section individually before finalizing an outline or considering one the default? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't put up this outline as a proposal, just a reference point that reflects the current article state. I want you all to edit it, or throw it away and start fresh until we have an agreed outline everyone is happy with. Kevin (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well perhaps we should first agree upon a standard outline before starting an edit war. I prefer not to post material in x section only for that section to go away. collectively deciding on an outline which will be used to improve the article can't be constantly changed navigation-wise.

This is my idea based off comparable bios and UN-related people:

lead

Background and education (condensing family and early career)

Appointment as Head/director/director general whatever of IAEA - (not public career...doesn't make sense. :D) (reactions, mostly US, actions, events, etc...)

Iraq (actions, reactions, event)

Iran (actions, reactions, event) Any other countries (actions, reactions, events) Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wikifan's general approach, which I will try to implement in the outline above. I've put in a section break to separate the ongoing design work from discussions thereof. NPguy (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sweet. I prefer don't gather all criticism/praise etc...into one being lump or at the end of the section. It would be better if all references were merged according to event. I.e, ME does this, newspaper/notable figure says this (direct response to his action). We avoid confusion, and follow all the other BLP articles. Plus, reduces any impression of undue weight. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need these sections:

Career at the IAEA

Overall timeline: when he joined, what positions held

[edit] Role in strengthened safeguards

Comment: this is a missing section and would require some research. In his positions in OLA and EXPO, ElBaradei played an important supporting role in measures to strengthen IAEA safeguards in response to the 1991 revelations about Iraq's clandestine nuclear activities.

[edit] Public careerElection as IAEA Director General

that will just clutter up the page. And there is no need to dedicate a section to his election. We can just have an Early Career, like Hans Blix, and then devote everything else to IAEA Director. Opposition to appointment (appointment is more accurate than election), reactions, opinion of nations, etc...can all be put their. Then we should move on to Iraq, Iran, etc...

also, there is no need for a section on his election to a 3rd term. It's not a particularly notable event and was expected. That can go in the IAEA Director general page. Also, with with the Iran section, it would be good of us to include an Israel sub-section. The country played a crucial role when people starting slamming ME for his allegedly-passive approach to Iran.

And how important is this Nuclear fuel cycle proposals (2003-2009)? ME has does a lot of things, dozens of proposals. This should be merged into a sub-section, but giving it's own unique section is not necessary. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we need headings for all the outline elements listed above, but I think they are the key topics this article should cover. They are things I recall as particularly prominent events, and I have followed his career pretty closely. ElBaradei played a pivotal role in spurring international discussion of fuel supply assurances, and continues to play a key role as they develop at the IAEA. He sees it as a "legacy" issue. The ones Wikifan questions would be short. I think headings would be helpful to the reader, but I'm prepared to keep an open mind and see what the article ends up looking like.

I remain unconvinced of the need for a subsection on Israel. What "crucial role" did Israel play? How is this more important than others, such as the E3, the E3+3 the NAM, etc.? Wikifan, please explain. NPguy (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

ME began a lengthy campaign in categorizing Israel with Iran. ElBaradei: Israel's nuclear arms blocking Mideast peace. This is supported by hundreds of reliable sources. ElBaradei did play a pivatol role in fuel supply, but that is not what he most known for. I consider this undue weight to devote an entire section that really is essentially meaningless n the grande scheme of things. Vast majority of media doesn't promote as a leader in fuel supply discussion. I mean, he is more known for his Israel dance than that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why Israel's involvement would be more relevant than other parties either. I am fairly agreeable to the rest of the proposals at this point.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

What other parties? The sources are there. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think "other parties" is a reference to the E3 and the P5+1. From a quick scan of what came up in that Google search, I noticed a number of articles about Syria (a section that needs to be added to the outline) and about Middle East peace, but not much specifically linking Israel, Iran and ElBaradei. So I remain unconvinced of the need for an Israel subsection to the Iran section - but I remain open to being convinced by specific reliable citations.

As for fuel assurances, even if the topic hasn't been particularly newsworthy, I think it is noteworthy for its nonproliferation significance. My understanding is that Wikipedia is intended not merely to summarize the news media but rather to provide a guide to what is important about a subject. In any case, we can fill out the outline and see how it looks. NPguy (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You remain unconvinced? wtf? I'll do it for you: 1, 2, 3, 4. Remain unconvinced? Well, sources say differently. He made a pass in throwing Israel with Iran and trying to blame it for "impeding" global disbarment process. IT got more press coverage than the E3 + P51, that's for sure. That's never even been in the article before, not even mentioned. I would like to make this process more standard to BLP and less personal. Reduce the, "I remain unconvinced," "I disagree..." etc. If someone provides a source, responding with such statement is hardly appropriate and is extremely frustrating. Plus, I feel like I'm looking for your approval rather than collaborating. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

One of those four articles has an Iran focus. The others are about Middle East peace, Syria, and disarmament. As a result, I remain unconvinced that there should be an Israel subsection in the Iran section. I don't se the need for any country-specific subsections under Iran. Under the outline above, most of these citations would go in other sections.

I disagree with Wikifan on two other points. First, while these statements may have gotten more play in the Israeli press, I don't think they got more play in the world press. Second, this article should not necessarily be driven by press coverage.

Finally this mediation process is supposed to be about reaching agreement on what goes in the article. We aren't there yet, but I think we're getting closer. Like it or not, Wikipedia relies on getting other people to go along. NPguy (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, again, sources should "convince" you. We could put a totally unique "Israel section" since it has been involved in Syria/UN/IAEA/Iran and ME. What's "world press?" Israeli press isn't a sub-standard media. It is the only reliable source press in the Middle East with the exception of *lol* AJ. But anyway's, here is "world press:"NYT, WSJ, Telegraph, CNN. I do agree, perhaps the subject is too broad and important to be under "Iran." I'd imagine it should have it's own section, considering the diversity of information and events. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that the original publications may be more useful for determining the context of these reports. Kevin (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Kevin, what do you mean by "the original publications"?

Wikifan, by "world press" I don't mean news outlets of the Middle East. All national presses tend to view the world from a narcissistic perspective: How does this affect me? So it's no surprise that the Israeli press takes particular interest in what ElBaradei says about Israel. It's not a representative sample.

I'm interested in what others, including the IP editor, think of the outline so far. NPguy (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why Israel's involvement would be more relevant than other parties but I am fairly agreeable to the rest of the proposed structure at this point. I liked the suggestion of a section for nuclear fuel cycle proposals. I haven't seen how this would drastically alter the content of the article otherwise though.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Just that each of the links Wikifan12345 provided seemed to be reporting what El Baradei had said to another media outlet, i.e. 1 this link seems to be republishing what he said to the Sydney Morning Herald. The other links mention Der Spiegel, International Herald Tribune etc. Kevin (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Npguy I do not know where you are going with this. Reliable sources from all over the world support an Israel/ME connection. Reliable sources this article severely lacks. I do not know what you are disputing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Relevance is determined by reliable sources and coverage. The Israel issue has garnered far more coverage than this nuclear fuel cycle proposal, though I'm not suggesting we axe that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

One way of incorporating the role of Israel in the nuclear debate in the Middle East would be to put the nation-specific headers under an umbrella of "Nuclear energy in the Middle East" - that would allow for a discussion of the specific states with nuclear issues during his tenure, as well as the involvement of and impact on other Middle Eastern states. Nathan ^T 16:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So if the material is included in this manner in proportion to its mentioning in reliable sources and relevancy to the life of ElBaradei then this would seem okay. The broader exploration of this issue would be more appropriate for Israel and weapons of mass destruction, Nuclear weapons and Israel, etc.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see the justification for a section on Israel. ElBaradei has criticized the United States at least as much as Israel, but I don't think a section on the United States is called for. Both Israel and the United Sates have been the objects of his criticism, but neither was really the subject of his work. Instead, I suggest that we weave ElBaradei's criticism of Israel - and Israel's of him - in something like the above outline. Wikifan, can you live with that? Otherwise, I'd ask Kevin for advice on how to proceed. Can we move ahead, even without consensus, by filling out the outline? NPguy (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I really do agree with this sentiment, I am also just trying to find some agreement. But how many comments has ElBaradei made in his lifetime, and what is the burden for including them in the article? Comments about country X, Y, or Z don't seem as relevant, but they could be included for context when and where they are relevant. I am open to a small amount in the spirit of compromise though.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

For info: I did a NewsBank search for "El Baradei" AND "Israel", and found surprisingly little that was more than a passing mention. Almost every article talked about the bigger picture. The search includes a fairly broad cross section of world media. Kevin (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So based off of the above discussion I would propose that the material does not merit an entire section, but that the most representative comments could be included briefly where they are appropriate to provide some context. I am not sure what exact form others think this would take but it could be a few sentences somewhere in the Iran section. I really think that it would make sense to include larger blocs though, such as the U.N. Security Council, the IAEA Board of Governors, the Non-Aligned Movement, and the P5+1. I think the rest of this information would be better suited for other articles, and that the reactions in general should be fairly brief.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Npguy - we need to go beyond the "i think" "in my opinion" mentality. The sources speak for themselves. There are more unique reliable sources covering the Israel/ME issue (which has been one of his most publicized relations during his tenture as director) than there are in the entire article. UN Security council, IAEA BOG, non-aligned movement is of little importance to ME. We can't bloat this article like last time. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the reactions in general should be kept to a minimum, but I have a very hard time understanding how you would argue for including Israel but not the IAEA Board of Governors, the U.N. Security Council, etc. For example, the IAEA Board of Governors appointed ElBaradei to his three terms and has made all of the political decisions based on the technical findings which he has reported.

And anyways Israel hasn't even been completely critical of him as Shimon Peres said he was a "worthy winner" of the Nobel Prize, and the Israel Atomic Energy Commission/Israeli Ambassador to the IAEA welcomed both his appointment to a third term, saying

We are confident that Mr. El-Baradei will carry this burden and, with the support of Member States, will do his best to confront these challenges and win the struggle for a safer world

and his acceptance of the Nobel Prize, saying

I am pleased to convey the heartiest congratulations of the Government of Israel to the Agency and to the Director General, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, on being awarded the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize. ...It also recognizes the personal contribution of the Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei to carrying out these missions over the last years.

So I am curious how this op-ed necessarily represents the view of the Israeli government, and then what would make that view (or any of the views) more relevant to his life or work than that of large blocs of nations, specifically ones tasked with his appointment. So, how do you argue Israel is more relevant to his life or his reporting? And how can sources such as an op-ed purport to represent the view of the Israeli government?--68.248.155.2 (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to add another quote in the same area as the other Israeli quotes. Former Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom also said:

We are having Dr. ElBaradei today until Thursday. I believe that he will have good meetings with the Israeli prime minister and with other high officials in Israel. I myself will meet him on Thursday in the airport when I'll be back from the States and he will be back home. We are talking to ElBaradei. It's not our first meeting. I met him a few months ago in Vienna. We believe that we should cooperate. We are working one with each other.

The prime minister at the point in time Shalom said there would be a good meeting was Ariel Sharon, and they were both members of the same party, Likud.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, another problem. We need to end the "I think..." mantra. I'm sorry, yes that might be interpreted as hostile but I've said this about 8 times. We edit according to BLP guidelines. Editorials existed in ALL blps if reliable sources support them. I am not going to argue the relevance of Israel with such an extremely opinionated post. Reliable source support everything, period. IAEA board of governors is not ME. That is in the IAEA article. Does anyone here really believe a long, unnecessary, and horribly off-topic section on IAEA board of governors (which would likely be a copy and paste from the IAEA website - fantastic) is truly relevant and complies with guidelines? Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't. All guidelines/policies are open to some interpretation, so it is absolutely necessary for editors to use judgement and opinions when making decisions. Right now we are discussing how much weight to give the El Baradei-Israel connection. That is an editorial judgement we as editors will have to make, taking into account each persons opinion, using the policies to guide us. There are no black and white issues here. Kevin (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>:IP's "interpretation" conflicts with policy. Reliable sources and general understanding of ME establish a clear and directly-relatable connection between him and Israel. Arguments like: "I have a very hard time understanding how you would argue for including Israel but not the IAEA Board of Governors, the U.N. Security Council, etc." I tend to ignore because they do not reflect policy and is directed as a user rather than the article itself. I'm sort of confused as to what is being disputed. Are you guys disputing an Israel/ME connection? If so, can you please provide sources that corroborates such dispute? NP reduced Israeli press as outside of "world media." Even though that it is totally ridiculous, I did 30 seconds of googling and found "world media" that carries the Israel story. No response. At least be consistent guys. :D 04:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Wikifan12345 (talk)

The general argument being made is that the El Baradei-Israel connection is insufficiently represented in the media to warrant it's own section. No-one seems to be disputing that there is some connection. Could you explain further how the IPs concerns do not reflect policy? I need to better understand what you are getting at. Finally, would you please not refer to the opinions/edits of others as "ridiculous". Kevin (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is the general argument. My question is why. Beyond, "In my opinion," "I think, and "I believe" very little rationale has been offered for support. Kevin, this is the reason why we established the above goals. I shouldn't have to go through every post and prove why x does not follow policy, you should recognize that. But, if this is truly what you want (and this is an extreme waste of time):

You requesting I explain why the IP "arguments" violates policy implies you either endorse it or agree they follow policy, ok...here we go:

Error # 1:"I think the reactions in general should be kept to a minimum, but I have a very hard time understanding how you would argue for including Israel but not the IAEA Board of Governors, the U.N. Security Council, etc. For example, the IAEA Board of Governors appointed ElBaradei to his three terms and has made all of the political decisions based on the technical findings which he has reported."

Reactions = editorials/criticism/etc...

As is said before, this violates core BLP principals, such Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

There is no excuse for consciously weaning "reactions" on BLPs. If reliable sources exist (and hundreds do for this specific case), we CAN use them. A specific source can be disputed naturally, but creating an artificial bar that says "all reactions = minimum" is totally ridiculous (yes, ridiculous Kevin) and again, violates BLP. Do you not agree?

For those who are unaware, ...the 3 BLP guidelines are technically policies. They are not subject to the level of interpretation you suggested, and certainly not the amount the IP posted.

As much as it might hurt other editors feeling, habitually posting disputes that violate basic BLP principals is ridiculous. Especially in the midst of a mediation where the ground-rules have been set and every user has been afforded the time to thoroughly review policies. If I were violating policy continuously and in spite of repeated cautions, I'd prefer someone tell me then be given the false impression that everything is honky dory. This is necessary for an effective mediation.

Shall I continue or can we move on? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I am not endorsing any opinions here, just asking a question so I can understand you better. I'm not trying to waste your time.

Re error #1 - I'm still not getting it - how does having a small amount of content on El Baradei-Israel rather than a separate section violate core BLP principles?

Seeing as none of the policies relevant here mention El Baradei, we must interpret them to understand how they apply to this article. How else can we apply them?

random section break

I do not think we can move on until we have established how much of the El Baradei-Israel connection to have in the article, and if it should have it's own section. Kevin (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

His rationale violates policy. The notion that we should consciously restrict criticism/praise is not a shared nor accepted standard in the community. IP has recommended/suggested this several times btw. Do you dispute this? I've provided plenty of supporting reliable sources to substantiate a unique section or sub-section of Israel in the article. His recommendations played/plays roles in UN opinion, US response, Arab views, and became a center platform for IAEA opinion. If any of you can dispute the sources I provided, please...by all means. Continuously demanding more rationale when the information speaks for itself is mind-blowingly frustrating. If you could be more explicit in your disagreement that would be helpful. If not, then let's move on to more-arguable topics (i.e, unreliable/propaganda sources currently in the article.) or crafting an accurate and strictly-edited by BLP policy outline of all sections. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So for example, there were over 4,000 articles about George W. Bush and Israel published in the last month (more than the entire George W. Bush article), yet there isn't an entire section devoted to his 'special relationship' or something of the sort with Israel in the article. How many articles are there abot Bush and a given country X? Does every country deserve its own section? Bush is primarily notable for being the President of the U.S., being the son of a former President and governor of Texas, and for what he did while he was President. Notable reactions about him would generally come from current or former U.S. officials or from U.S. public perception. ElBaradei is notable for being the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, for being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005, and primarily for his work on promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy and inhibitting its use for military purposes. Notable reactions about him would come from the international community as a whole (or specific blocs of nations), the IAEA Board of Governors which appoints him, and the Nobel Committee.

And anyways, I am not arguing against the inclusion of any material, I am taking issue specifically with the material which you have provided. I am asking you to justify how Israel is more relevant to his life or his reporting and how sources such as an op-ed can reliably purport to represent the view of the Israeli government (especially in the face of Israeli governmental sources which take a seemingly opposing view). On the separate issue of criticism/praise, I just think the information needs to come from reliable sources, be represented conservatively, and be represented in proportion to its relevance to ME's life or work. I think if you really want to include the information, you should just look at putting it where it might be more relevant (such as Israel and weapons of mass destruction, Nuclear weapons and Israel, etc.)--68.248.155.2 (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the Israeli government. Israel isn't Egypt or Syria, there is no state-controlled news that speaks on behalf of the administration. You can ask all you want, and I can continue to provide reliable sources that back up ME explicit relation to Israel. More reliable sources currently in the entire article, and certainly more than the whole nuclear recycle proposal. Most of that information is simply promotion news from the IAEA itself (hardly noteworthy if that is the case). Here, again...I'll post RELIABLE SOURCES that corroborate this basic happening:

Hey Kevin, I know you are a mediator but it seems responses like: "I do not think we can move on until we have established how much of the El Baradei-Israel connection to have in the article, and if it should have it's own section." are truly unhelpful. You asked a question (does IP rationale violate policy - my answer: yes, here is why.) Repeating that same question while I continually provide sources and BLP-guided reasoning makes me wonder what you actually want. If you want to mediate, please do...but delaying the process and simply wearing me down where I no longer care does not help. I'll simply go away as I'm sure many of you would like. ElBaradei: Israel's nuclear arms blocking Mideast peace, ElBaradei slams Israel for Syria attack, ElBaradei warns against strike on Iran, UN warns attack on Iran will spark 'fireball' in Middle East, Ball of fire' if Iran attacked: IAEA chief, Israeli official: ElBaradei's comments on Iran are irrelevant, A Conversation with Mohamed ElBaradei, Mohamed ElBaradei warns of new nuclear age, ElBaradei urges Iran to engage with U.S., Israel flexes muscles with 'Iran attack' drill, UK 'cover-up' on Israel's nukes, and many...many more. None of those are editorials btw.

Much of ME recent activism has solely revolved around Israel, and world media has taken notice. To deny notability without confronting these facts is not acceptable nor can be passed off as valid. As I said before, please explain what is wrong according to BLP policy. IPs challenge violated BLP policy and was totally ridiculous. You cannot debate reliable sources without more reliable sources. I mean that in the most blunt way possible. I'd be happy to message a qualified BLP-editor and he will verify. I'm sure he'd probably throw-up at the sheer amount of propaganda sources currently used in the article.

And now considering the growing-Iranian nuclear problem that has been responded to with silence, a section seems all the more important. ME legacy will be defined by his handling of Iran. Not nuclear recycle or Iraq or Nobel Peace Prize.

Please, explain why...in non-opinionated/POV/rationale, why a section is not justified by the sheer amount of attention and relationship with ME and why it also violates policy. Neither have been proven. I'm seriously considering messaging a BLP admin and get this over with. We cannot continue a mediation unless people understand how BLP works. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think getting another opinion is a good idea. I still do not understand why you feel that a decision on how much weight to give the El Baradei-Israel connection is strictly dictated by policy, and is not an editorial decision where consensus among the editors here forms the final outcome. As for moving on, it would be irresponsible of me to suggest we move on when agreement has not been reached. I'll see if I can propose a compromise position re Israel later today. Kevin (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Kevin...the reliable sources speak for themselves. that is also a quality shared of BLP policy. My "opinion" is purely based off available information. Therefore, you not "understanding" is very confusing. A compromise is acceptable in a mutually and legal dispute, but compromising when person A is editing according to strict BLP policy while person B has demonstrated no connection with wikipedia rules and instead relies on subjective opinion (which can be relevant in many instances) is concerning at best, and certainly does not warrant a compromise-zone. An editor involved in a dispute must be able to demonstrate that material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, I've done that. I'll be messaging a BLP regular shortly, though it shouldn't be necessary. Perhaps we need an experienced BLP-editor (and preferably admin) to collaborate with the mediation. Based off many of the POVs and opinions, users continually do not understand (or maybe...refuse to) core BLP policies. BLP are not like regular articles. Strict policies exist to dictate how they are written, more so than most topic-related articles on wikipedia. If users rely on conflicting methods, consensuses and compromises cannot be created. And as far as I know, no one has disputed the reliable sources. It all boils down to "I don't see why this makes sense..." I can't read for you guys. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you are misrepresenting the other opinions. They are that while there is an El Baradei-Israel connection, and there are sources to back that up, the amount of coverage relative to the entire coverage of El Baradei in general is too small to warrant it's own section. One of the others will no doubt correct me if I have misread that. Kevin (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that is the general claim and I have not misrepresented it. In fact, my entire argument (or rather, simply providing reliable sources) dismiss any bizarre notion that a section is not warranted. To accuse me of misrepresenting another POV while I have thoroughly provided clause after clause after clause to support my statements is suspect of your judgment. Perhaps we truly need a full-time BLP mediator because clearly users simply do not understand policy. And at this point, there is no excuse. Good faith has been assumed. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Kevin's assessment of my opinion, and also add that I don't think op-ed's fully establish the connection, especially when you have the State of Israel welcoming ElBaradei and congratulating him on his accomplishments and work multiple times in an official manner. So I questioned whether the connection has been fully and properly established and whether it was directly notable enough to include in this article.

I would also point out that I think both Kevin and Nathan are experienced BLP administrators in my opinion. A dispute resolution process within the third recent dispute resolution process does seem to be slightly redundant to me, but another pair of eyes never hurts.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Great. Your "opinion" is an opinion. Kevin hasn't disputed BLP or challenged the sources, and neither have you or Nathan. You've simply ignored them. Nathan is an involved user. Not impartial or objective to the necessary degree, I'll message a regular BLP admin very soon.

Also, I don't know if Kevin is an experienced BLP user. He obviously is a quality mediator, but understanding of even basic BLP policy is seriously lacking in this discussion...to an almost tragic extent. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: This sentence IP: "I don't think op-ed's fully establish the connection" shows you did not read my above post. Every source (around 15 of them counting all sources) listed shows no indication of it being an editorial. Again, even if it did....totally irrelevant. Can't help but notice the pattern with "I think" (a.k.a, opinion). Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you have objectively proven anything to anyone but yourself, and that you are entitled to your "opinion" but that it is nothing more than that. Just your opinion, which accusing people of violating policy doesn't seem to convince many people of. And Kevin's role is isn't supposed to be to pick or determine which "side" is right, it is to help establish a consensus. Wikipedia kind of works on those, not on one person's "objective reality".--68.248.155.2 (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not questioning what you think. I haven't accused any of violating policy, I've demonstrated it. Big difference. :d Kevin's role is to be an objective mediator and promote a fair and efficient process of collaborative editing. You, for some reason, don't recognize the importance of Israel in relation to ME. I then explained why your initial reasoning violated policy x, x and x, then listed reliable sources, which you claimed were editorials when they were not, to support a generally-accepted fact. As I said, there are more unique reliable sources that exist than # of reliable sources in the article itself. You are making this personal and accusing me of things I have not done. Please strike your post. Off-topic but we'll probably end up using it since it is so revealing: 'It Was Others Who Failed' Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, it is wonderful that you have the opinion that you have "demonstrated" me violating policy, but you seem to be alone your in your initial opinion and your opinion of demonstration. And the expression of both of these opinions would seem to be inhibiting the discussion of why your opinion of a connection isn't corroborated by reliable Israeli governmental sources and why your opinion of direct notability to the life and work of ElBaradei could not be extended to any other given country X in my opinion and the opinion of others. Your opinion may be that you are always right, the problem is that opinion can't be used as proof and you have to convince others of your opinion.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

So now I'm alone? Okay. For future responses, please focus on what I actually wrote rather than reducing your position to bandwagoning. Just because 1 person out 3 uses strict-BLP policies and reliable sources to support his "opinion" (based off available information, not POV...not "I think" mentality) does not meant the other two are correct by virtue of being greater in number. A true indicator of righteousness will be resolved by an experienced BLP-admin/editor. I will be messaging shortly. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict: Uh, thanks for that attackful post. Perhaps you could focus on the sources and policies I posted rather than resorting to attacking my character and apparent stubborn/inflexible/resistant to policy opinion. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that your expression of your opinion of you "demonstrating" me violating policy is inhibitive to the process, specifically as we initally laid out, and I would encourage you to instead to focus on the content matter. I didn't attack your character, I am sorry you somehow managed to interpret it that way, and I would for the third time say that I would welcome another set of eyes on the article and encourage you to just discuss the content matter.

And again, in summary, objection to the material may be summed up in two key points:

1. Multiple Israeli governmental sources have welcomed ElBaradei's appointment to a third term, congratulated him on the work that led to his acceptance of the Nobel Prize, etc. This casts doubt on an ultra-controversial connection between the two.

2. Assuming that there is a controverisl connection between ElBaradei and Israel, it may not be directly notable to his life to include in this article. ElBaradei could have a connection with any country X, we have to show why it is important enough to include in the article.

I welcome another set of eyes, and would encourage you to just reply to content matter.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec - to Wikifan) I have to say at this point, that the only real attacks on editor's characters is by yourself, and that your inflexibility is making reaching a consensus more difficult. Much of your recent language ("righteousness", "bandwagoning" etc) indicated to me that you have very strong feelings toward this article that appear to be hindering your ability to remain neutral and objective. Kevin (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My inflexibility? I've repeatedly listed policies and appropriate/cordial approaches. IP hasn't changed his position or POV in spite of mediation and has continually dismissed BLP standards. No one user, including yourself, has even touched or disputed what I wrote. No one has discussed the sources, aside from an accusation that they were editorials (they weren't - please recognize that) and you contiously ignoring user faults is troubling. A consensus CANNOT be reached without appreciation for basic rules, an appreciation that has not been meant. I really couldn't care less about ME. I really don't. All I want is for the article to follow strict BLP rules. Users who deny that should be recognized. If your implying that my responses to your questions are somehow hindering the "process", well yeah.

Look Kevin, posts like these: your opinion of a connection isn't corroborated by reliable Israeli governmental sources and why your opinion of direct notability to the life and work of ElBaradei could not be extended to any other given country X in my opinion and the opinion of others. Your opinion may be that you are always right, the problem is that opinion can't be used as proof and you have to convince others of your opinion is nothing less than insulting. Truly. I spent a lot of time crafting posts and doing my best to apply BLP policy, something the IP or you has yet to do, but I'm continually shut out and told to stop hindering the process and be more flexible. The IP clearly does not understand the concept of reliable sources or what constitutes an editorial. If you can use BLP policy to support your rationale like I have, please do. I've requested this from all of you. Please. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Apart from all of the other discussion, there is also WP:BLP#Criticism and Praise:

Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

And the selection you have bolded was in response to you saying that I am relying on opinion while you have "demonstrated" something. If you really demonstrated something, which would seem to be counterproductive anyways, then I completely missed it. I would encourage you to recognize that we all only have opinions and to just discuss the content. And I have tried to cite Shimon Peres, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Israel's ambassador to the IAEA as reliable sources for Israel's view of ElBaradei.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Since when is this criticism? Have you read the sources? ME accuses Israel of violating Syrian sovereignty. ME accuses Israel of destabilizing the Middle East with its covert nuclear weapons program. ME believes an Israeli bombing of Iran would be a serious mistake and violation of x rules, etc... These are facts and supported by reliable sources (and most are not editorials), something this article seriously, seriously lacks. How you interpreted that as criticism is beyond me. And even if it were criticism, the sheer amount of coverage would warrant an inclusion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, I believe the notability criteria would be in general, but then there is also Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS:

Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be.

and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.

--68.248.155.2 (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no this has nothing to do with criticism. You just posted a totally irrelevant (and not binding) guideline policy. Please provide a rationale for undue weight and NOTNEWS. Those are serious concerns and blindly pasting and copying guidelines is unsettling. Undue weight would imply the widely-covered Israel/ME events are a minority viewpoint or is being over-represented according to its actual value. Unfortunately, this is not a minority viewpoint because it isn't even a viewpoint. Claiming undue weight makes sense since you claimed the sources were editorials three times even though I said they were typical reliable news articles. I encourage you to read through them. I am not an expert on undue weight so I'm sure someone can explain better than I. A NOTNEWS claim suggests the notability of Israel/ME is so weak that it does not deserve inclusion. So you are essentially saying the hundreds of stories that have been written over the years covering ME's personal and explicit involvement with Israel does not meet notability standards. That is my interpretation because you did not provide a rationale aside from pasting and copying not relevant guidelines.

Even so, fighting policies with policies might be considered shopping. Please address the reliable sources and policies I provided. They are very informative and are more related BLP (in fact, they make what is BLP).

Perhaps Kevin can explain to you what's wrong.

Awaiting 3rd opinion, should come momentarily. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You asked for policies and those are policies, I am not shopping simply providing a third or fourth line of reasoning since you dislike official statements from Israeli governmental officials and the opinions of other editors. General rationale for the policies may be found in WP:CHERRY and WP:News articles. More specific rationale, using WP:UCS, is that tangential coverage of a few quotes about a non-notable topic does not warrant an entire section in a BLP in an encyclopedia. And WP:UNDUE is a part of WP:NPOV, for your reference. I'm again going to give other editors a chance to comment.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 05:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't ask for you to cherry pick a nice-looking policy. You took an unrelated and unsubstantiated policy, NOTNEWS and UNDUE WEIGHt, both of which do not apply (and I explained that thoroughly). I was very explicit and thorough, and you did not even approach the sources, outlined and rationalized guidelines, and very simple logic. For comparison, I could say...you are violating WP:NOTCENSORED. and WP:NOTFORUM. Then I could quote a reasonably fitting line and I'm done. Yet it is not relevant nor appropriate. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to explain to IP what is wrong, because I find IP's arguments to be reasonable and in line with policy. His/her (and others) argument is that the overall amount of coverage of the El Baradei-Israel connection is too little to warrant it's own section. This is in line with the policy on a neutral point of view which states (in part) "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". His/her argument that we should not report everything the media has said about El Baradei is in accordance with the section of WP:NOT that states that we should consider "the historical notability of persons and events". Overall I find IP's arguments convincing, and your refutations often seem to misunderstand the purpose and meaning of the relevant policies, and often attack the motives of the editor rather than the substance of their arguments. Kevin (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so you find IP's arguments reasonable and in line with policy? Like, confusing reliable coverage that isn't editorials as criticism as he did about 30 mins ago? Uh?? Yes, we understand his/her argument is that the overall amount of coverage is too little to warrant it's own section. Yeah, I've spelled that argument more than once. I provided extensive reasoning why and listed an incredible amount of reliable sources that dismiss this illusion that there is too little of a connection between Israel and ME. by total volume of coverage: Iran, Iraq, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Nobel Prize, proposals/whatever, IAEA promotion etc...and in that order. NPOV is a solid policy and I think it is beautifully written. But I don't understand your reasoning. There is nothing obscene or POV here. The sources speak for themselves. ME has been given a voice, I don't see why we should ignore one of the most notable happenings of his tenure because of ambiguous claim of POV. And Kevin, IP has relied on the blatant inaccuracy that the RELIABLE SOURCES were editorials. He stated they were op-eds even after I friggin explained in 3 paragraphs why they weren't. In fact, I said it again right above. And I'm saying it now. And I'll probably end up saying it again. Please point where I am attacking the motives of the IP. You've seem to ignored the IPs rants on my own "agenda":in my opinion and the opinion of others. Your opinion may be that you are always right, the problem is that opinion can't be used as proof and you have to convince others of your opinion.

You've taken a troubling position here. You've consistently endorsed the views of the IP while ignoring my views (supported by available information and policy, explicitly) and the continuous BLP and general etiquette violations of the IP. The habitual generalizations and constant circular logic is totally backward and needs a solution. Clearly this isn't doing it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Kevin. I think you have assessed the situation accurately. NPguy (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Responded to your post that started with "I still don't see the justification for a section on Israel...." a few paragraphs up. Feel free to comment. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

random break 2

In two years of editing primarily BLPs, one thing that has become clear is that there are no "strict policies" governing the development of an article. Policies advise against certain things, and describe outer bounds of conduct and acceptable content, but within that outer bound there is always a great deal of room for interpretation. I think Kevin, the IP and Npguy would agree on that, while clearly Wikifan doesn't. So what we have is a fundamental split on how policies on Wikipedia work, and how they should be applied on this article. Since my sense is that everyone here is familiar with the policies and has no intention of violating them, perhaps the simplest solution would simply be to stop quoting them or citing them altogether. Policies won't write the article, and repeatedly citing them to support a position is not helpful.

There is a compromise position here - instead of including a whole section about ElBaradei/Israel, why not agree on a few sentences that describe his interaction with Israel and include it somewhere within the proposed architecture? No one is saying there has been no Israel element at all, or that it should be entirely excluded from the article, so why not meet somewhere in the middle? Nathan ^T 12:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. We give weight according to coverage. Rationales for exclusion were moot, and no valid argument has been given to dispute the unique sources or even general understanding. As I said, there is over 2 years of Israel/ME confrontation (supported by more reliable sources that are currently in the article) and a "few" sentences is woeful disproportionate to the amount of coverage. This, coupled with sheer amount of BLP and civil violations of IP and odd and confusing position of Kevin, does not warrant a compromise. If a user can simply respond to the sources given and dispute explicitly why they aren't important or notable, please do. But no one has, and the reason being is because the information speaks for itself. I never edited proposals with "I think" or "I believe." I cited direct BLP policies and then posted more than 20 unique sources ranging from ME warning Israel not to bomb Iran, ME categorizing Israel with the Irnian issue, ME suggesting Israel is de-stabalizing the middle east by its undeclared nuclear weapons program and this double standard is angering the islamic countries (namely Iran), etc...If you can condense the hundreds of interviews, stories, articles, and editorials on one of the most defining actions of ME into a "few" sentences, please do. At this point the mediation as become less of a cordial discussion as it is a POV battle. Demanding I settle because the sources and policies I cite are not recognized by the collective, and that they violate NOTNEWS (lol) and UNDUE WEIGHT (lol) and WP:CRITICISM (even loler, none of this is criticism), and that the coverage was only Israeli-based (false, this was NPguys insistence), does not make sense. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment from lightly involved editor: i.e., i've commented a few times, maybe edited article. Have read only this section and subsection.

• If there isn't much of interest in first term, why not merge into "First two terms section"?
• Considering Israel is going around threatening to bomb Iran, despite whatever El Baradei says, obviously its pronouncements about him are important, but they should be in relevant subsections.
• I assume this IS going to be included in the final, Syria (2007-2009)...Israeli air strike in September 2007, ElBaradei's reaction both before and after the April 2008 U.S. briefing, and the subsequent IAEA investigation. It's of interest to both people who were mad about airstrike and people who think Syria was after nukes so what actually happened under his watch should be made clear to readers. (With whether it's a sentence, a paragraph, a section to be decided.)
• His leadership on/comments on Nuclear fuel cycle proposals (2003-2009) Economist article, expert group on multilateral nuclear approaches, fuel supply assurance proposals at IAEA, NTI fuel bank should get a sentence or two with a few refs. Doesn't necessarily need a subsection; same for other country topics.
• The battle over his re-election is important, but obviously there should be clear context of what political groups opposed him and because of what of his actions. That's all for now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

At least one user recognized notability (though to an ambigious degree - qualify perhaps?). Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: the proposal as it currently stands does not organize in terms of ElBaradei's terms as DG, but in terms of issues he faced. That's why all the country/topical references. If they end up being short, it may be better to include disarmament, fuel assurances, and Middle East peace issues in a single section labeled "other." To respond to Wikifan, I think Israel should be referenced in several sections, including Iran, Syria and Middle East peace - just not in its own section. I don't see how you can interpret Wiki policies to require an Israel section. NPguy (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, you "don't see." I've responded thoroughly to your points above, you did not do the same and no you are repeating what has already been disputed. I don't see why you wouldn't understand. ME has dealt with Israel in a explicit way beyond Iran. He has invested much time and focus, more so than North Korea according to coverage. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And might I reiterate, I responded to every claim directed at me. I wish people could do the same, it would make the mediation a whole not less repetitive. there is some guideline that talks about these kinds of "disputes." If you have a concern beyond opinion, please post it. But it's hard to argue hundreds of reliable sources and months of coverage, more so than the proposals, Nobel Peace Prize, etc...Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarity, are you able to accept that the general consensus is for mention of the El Baradei-Israel connection to be written into the sections as proposed, or do you still feel that a separate section is warranted? Kevin (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe for clarity it would make sense to write an Israel/ME connection according to its importance and coverage. With the amount of reliable sources and information available, it is logical and warranted-by-policy that a unique section be created. It would also make the issue seem less scattered and improve the current navigation/clutter that currently exists in article. It would also make disputes a lot easier to manage. If it becomes apparent that the section is not needed following a draft, then I would support a generally merged-info but unless we have sections on Syria, Iran, US...I don't see how we could put in all notable Israel-related events accurately. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

<backdent>
As for an Israel section, why not draft/preview what you think belongs in it and note whether and why material should be taken from sections where currently listed. I don't strongly see the need for a separate Israel section, but am open to more concrete suggestions. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. How about, for now, we count a pending-Israel section as part of a rough-draft outline and then see how that goes. If it becomes apparent that the information known is not notable or large enough to warrant a total section devoted to it, then naturally we would go to merging. But just for clarification: The original dispute was there is no ME/Israel connection and it shouldn't be in the article anywhere. Now that's no longer the case, except a unique section isn't warranted. Am I right here? so inconsistent....:D Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a more detailed outline is necessary. Putting in draft versions is the best way to put your point across.

As for no Israel connection? Haven't people heard about the Samson Option? But seriously it seems to be there's a good, controversial quote out there from him about Israel should admit it has nukes. Like in this Reuters article: In an article for the International Herald Tribune, Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, set out what he thought should be done to achieve consensus on nuclear disarmament. "What compounds the problem is that the nuclear non-proliferation regime has lost its legitimacy in the eyes of Arab public opinion because of the perceived double-standards concerning Israel, the only state in the region outside the NPT and known to possess nuclear weapons," he wrote. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There's more. He referred to Israel's skirmish over Syrian land threatened "stability" in the region. He's also made several well-covered references to Israel's actions during the latest war, and has continually dismissed a strike against Iran's alleged-nuclear facilities would severely disrupt the diplomatic mission and exacerbate whatever problems exist. The Iranian nuclear dispute is also coupled with Israel because ME has routinely used the state as defense. Under Bush, ME experienced intense scrutiny over the administration's-perceived passive approach he took towards Iran while flaming their ally instead. ME has routinely suggested Israel is a major contributor to the current Middle East nuclear shake-up. For comparison, ME has devoted more time to Israel than North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan combined. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Wikifan has suggested that I have been acting tendentiously, and that I am one-sided in my approach. While I disagree with his assessment, I feel that either a different mediator or an alternate form of mediation would be more useful at this point. I suggest looking to either WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDCOM for assistance. My thanks all here who have genuine efforts at reaching agreement. Kevin (talk) 04:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said you were one-sided in your approach. For those curious please see our on-going discussion at Kevin's talk here. Kevin made some weird accusations and I made an effort to settle them. Please do not blame me for you wanting to resign from mediation. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

While I would be sorry to see you (Kevin) go and while I want to continue in the same process, I realize that it also needs to have the engagement of all users.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So where do we go from here?

Wikifan appears to believe that editing this article is a rule-based process, while other editors appear to believe it should be based more on editorial judgment.

Wikifan also appears to be frustrated that others involved in this discussion generally have not responded to his lengthy comments in sufficient detail. For my part, I don't have the time for that. It is not meant as a sign of disrespect. On the substance, I have argued that most of interactions between ElBaradei and Israel were about another issue, whether it be Iran, Syria, or Middle East peace. By that argument, they would fit better in those sections. My rationale is that it's ElBaradei's job to deal with Iran and Syria (though not with Middle East peace - he seems to be freelancing there). Except insofar as it relates to those other issues, dealing with Israel is not a major part of his official responsibilities. I would welcome a response to that argument.

One editor has even suggested that, since we have been unable to agree in the abstract, Wikifan should be invited to draft an Israel section for consideration by other editors. I can support that approach.

Wikifan, would you be willing to draft an Israel section here on the discussion page? NPguy (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan is frustrated at users who disagree with materials without providing proper or appropriate reasoning. When arguments are finally resolved, users make more excuses. (I.e, you said media was only Israeli-based - not "world media." That was wrong. IP dubiously claimed the section violates criticism policy, when the information wasn't critical/POV/opinion. Then he claimed notability, NOTNEWS...all unrelated and unapplicable reasons. Then you attacked me and said I was being inflexible and should compromise. I'm not an editor who relies solely on the rule book. I'm all for perspective and suggestions, but when user disputes violate BLP policy (and general logic) it suggests a more personal/POV upset rather than a concern for the information itself. I included a nice summary of the excuses you guys made and reiterated my explanations. It all seems to get lost in the rhetoric. Kevin decided to "ignore" it (his words, not mine.) Yes, I'm totally willing to draft an Israeli section but first it would have to assumed in the outline or it might be out of place. Does that not seem fair? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the majority of the content would be more relevant to include within the existing Iranian or Syrian sections, but I am open to seeing what a section would look like at least. But we have to use the same threshhold for inclusion, so this may mean adding sections about other countries as well then. I suspect including every country with this threshhold would make the article possibly innavigable, but I am willing to temporarily suspend judgement and at least see where it could go.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You "think." Opinion noted. Thanks for the nasty tidbit at my BLP request. There are no existing Iranian or Syrian sections. ME hasn't even touched Syria's pursuit of nuclear weapons aside from flaming Israel for bombing it. :D Anyways. Let's set up the outline with the Israel section/sub-section and write a draft. We need a new mediator also. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, most of us do think from time to time. You did want to quote an op-ed which does has mistakes in it, and you have been involved in the article for more than a month, so I don't know why you think it is nasty to state that. There were also Iran and Syria sections proposed during the mediation process we were supposed to be having, if you didn't notice that.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, you are still the only editor who wants an Israel subsection. It's up to you to draft one; don't expect any help. You do not seem aware that the other editors are bending over backwards to accommodate you, despite your incessant bickering. I see no point in waiting for a new mediator. It's time to put up or shut up. NPguy (talk) 08:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Angry much? So let's see, 1 out of 3 passionately deny the existence of notable and relevant reliable sources (more reliable sources than the entire article currently has) yet oddly demand I "put up or shutup" because I'm the only user who actually relies on references rather than rhetoric? Whatever section I draft will likely be dismissed based on the sheer level of subjectivity and resistance to edits beyond narrow POV that seems to collectively dominate the discussion. You have yet to explain why a section isn't merited (i.e, disputing the references - not the editor who posts them)and instead resort to attacking me, again. You are absolutely right, I do not see any point in waiting for a new mediator. I'm just gonna grab some admins and see what they think. Considering how devoted some editors are, I'm really not in the mood to get blocked. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you should reassess your viewpoint and realize that you need to work with other editors. The consensus has been that the section is WP:UNDUE, but we have said we are at least open to you drafting such a section.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

there has been no consensus. I don't "think" you understand the process of consensus, reliable sources, or UNDUE WEIGHT. I really don't think you understand how BLPs are edited either. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There pretty much was a consensus minus you if you reread any of the discussion, and you have to convince other editors of your reasoning as well.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus, and you haven't even read the references posted or else you wouldn't continue to refer to them as criticism (your entire bizarre dispute) and editorials. Discussion is not a debate. Your insistence that we have to "convince" each other is completely backwards, though I suppose if you wear a user down with rhetoric and libel they'll eventually leave. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"Your insistence that we have to "convince" each other is completely backwards". WP:CONSENSUS#Process: "Discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons". And you were the only editor I noted in disagreement, but if I missed another you could kindly correct me. I think it would be the most productive if you just worked on a proposal.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Read the next sentence: "a handful of editors agreeing on something does not constitute a consensus, except in the thinnest sense." This isn't as much of a dispute as it is a bizarre personal vendetta. By virtue of saying "I am not convinced" does not negate the value of reliable sources or policies. This is the 2nd time you have misrepresented a policy, and the 3rd time you took one out of context. Keep it up. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I hold that consensus works by convincing others of your opinion, you are free to believe otherwise if you truly wish. I'm really trying to wrap my head around what this has to do with improving the article. I'm only going to reply to material of that nature.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You "hold" (misconstrued/misrerpesentation of policy < Wikipedia policy. The least you can do is strike your poorly quoted consensus policy law. It's not my job to convince someone who won't even open up right-click links. I can't survive a cordial dispute with editors who habitually violate policy, misrepresent guidelines, and deny reliable sources. This is beyond opinion. It is madness. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can't hold a discussion then I don't know how you are expecting to improve the article.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

Deprecated template I am removing all instances of {{ArabDIN}} in favor of {{transl|ar|DIN|TEXT HERE}}; please assist me in removing it from this page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sectionized dispute - Kevin and I

Quick review over the dispute and general complaints/suggestions about Israel/ME. Hopefully I represented POV's relatively okay, but I condensed ideas for comprehension sake. Wikifan Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, the conclusion I draw from this and other exchanges is that you are so focused on presenting your own position that you have not made the effort to understand the perspectives of others. Setting aside the merits of the issue, this conveys the impression that you are assuming others are acting in bad faith. If you are hoping for a more sympathetic hearing, this is not the most constructive approach.NPguy (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

How so? I've spent plenty of time to "understand" your perspective. Don't attack me NPguy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

. As I said, we've been through this before. Try not posting beyond "wikifan you are disruptive":D Such thinly-veiled ad hominem attacks are not tolerated in discussions no matter how civil they might be written. Also, please prove it - with diff's of course (include your own as well). You accused me of the same 4 pages up. Also, do these kinds of false representations and downright lying upset you: yaddayaddayadda Thank you Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You might examine your editing habits if:
*You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people
*You constantly warn editors for "harassment" or "incivility" which occurs within mostly constructive comments.
*You characterize every warning directed at you as "harassment"
I think it might be best to calm things down, remember this isn't a battle ground, and be civil. We agreed to this at the beginning of the mediation. There is no place in mediation or the talk page for otherwise. The point of this process is to improve the article. Other users are being patient with you and the suggestion has been made that you should draft the section that you are proposing. I would encourage you to reread the principles we agreed to at the beginning of the mediation process.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sweet. Can you stop attacking me and actually focus on the dispute? I've responded to your copy and paste guideline (NOTNEWS, CRITICISM, lol?) and then accurately posted about 30+ unique sources (reliable) along with relevant policies which you haven't even touched. I'm not trying to persuade anyone, certainly not you. All I'm doing is literally posting available information which no one aside from Ceed has remotely considered. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who Ceed is, I don't see where you think I attacked you (I would appreciate it if you could clarify), and I have said I am open to you writing a proposal. I am not sure what you want me to focus on, you are the one who wants to draft a proposal.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Meant CarolMooreDC. Ceed is another editor that I often confuse him/her with. Clarification: You constantly warn editors for "harassment" or "incivility" which occurs within mostly constructive comments and You are the one who has a pattern of wanting to quote an op-ed are nothing less than an attack pieces. I can provide further diffs, those are pretty tame compared to available diffs. Most of your responses are mixture of my character and avoidance of actual substance (i.e references provided, which you haven't even clicked on...hence you referred to them as "editorials" 4 times). Fortunately for many people, I tend to ignore character attacks. I can't write a draft until it is in the outline. Without knowing lead/body/concluc I can't do anything. And unless editors drop the POV game and apply BLP policies to their editing suggestions, I don't see how this will go anywhere. Nothing has changed, and if we unlocked the article users would throw in more propaganda references and deny reliable sources, while cluttering up sections with non-notable info (i.e, silly IAEA board of governors section.) Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to get in to a contest with you. Would it be more productive for you to draft a proposal?--68.248.155.2 (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. Productive would be following BLP procedures and realizing the futility of this bizarre will to resist basic policy. You asked for clarification, I gave it to you. There is no contest other than ignoring what is known and demanding an unmerited compromise. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

So the goal is to improve the article, and none of your postings have shown me what your ideal proposal would look like.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The goal is to create an article that meets BLP standards. Current state fails even C-class requirements. I've posted many things, and most importantly reliable sources which you haven't even read. As you can see, I'm not seeking your approval. NPOV dictates that we let sources speak for themselves. All of your arguments are exclusively about attacking me and my inability to convince you rather than actually approaching general policy and explicit/detailed references. The previous section has a nice paragraph supported by reliable sources detailing a lengthy relationship between ME/Iran/Syria/IAEA. But wait, it violates NOTNEWS!! No, CRITICISM!! No, UNDUEWEIGHT!!! At this point, all I can do is laugh. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any intention of discussing improvement to the article?--68.248.155.2 (talk) 01:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice deflection. Do you? I'm still laughing by the way. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You're the one proposing a section about Israel, so you would probably have to be the one to write it since you are pretty much the only one who knows what would be in it.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not proposing a section on Israel. I'm providing available sources that indicate a need to include a section on an ME's relationship with Israel. First you said there was no connection and totally dismissed the need. Then you said the idea was dependent on editorials and therefore not valid. Then when it was clear no editorials were used you said this was a regional-dispute and not covered by "world media." Then what wasn't the case (unique stories come have from 5 continents), you listed NOTNEWS/CRITICISM policy which did not apply and you misquoted anyways. Then you attacked me and said I was being inflexible and should compromise. Now expect me to write a draft of a section when an outline hasn't even been established and no editors have recognized or accepted available information. I'm not sure if you've ever written an article, but it's difficult to write an accurate draft without a general outline and an understanding of preceding/succeeding sections. In your words: "you would probably have to be the one to write it since you are pretty much the only one who knows what would be in it." Lemme get this straight, you have been disputing something you know nothing about? Makes sense. Thanks for the update at least. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I am saying if you see the problem then surely you see the solution. I don't see a problem and I don't claim to be clairvoyant, thus you need to elaborate. I'm not sure why that is contentious.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Elaborate on what? Solution = Act of God. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Elaborate on the section which you are proposing, if you didn't notice me say that before.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, if you are serious about trying to resolve this dispute, I recommend that you draft an Israel section for other editors to review. With all the time you have devoted to this issue, it seems you could easily have it written by now. Instead you have persisted in complaining about how you are being treated. Not only does this not contribute to substantive resolution of the issue, but it personalizes the dispute. It's a shame, because when you get down to editing, you actually have something to contribute.

So I will create an Israel section in the outline above and ask you to fill it out. NPguy (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sweet. However, I think the Syria section would need to be absorbed into the Israel one because there isn't any unique information between Syria/ME other than Israel bombing Syria's nuclear sites. I already have about 6 paragraphs but I need to condense it and remove excessive quotations, etc... It will be very rough. The goal is to demonstrate (though unnecessarily) notability and pertinence to ME as an individual. Also, I don't think there needs to be years in the section. ME has been director since 1997 I think so cutting coverage to 2002 is excluding happenings prior that he has been involved in. I need 1-2 weeks max. Am I good so far? Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead, but be aware I (and other editors) believe precisely the opposite, that much of your proposed Israel section belongs in a Syria section. ElBaradei is dealing directly with Syria (several inspections and reports to the Board of Governors, not released officially but available at ISIS-Online) and indirectly with Israel and the United States (criticism for bombing and withholding intelligence; criticism in return for inaction). NPguy (talk) 08:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? Can you post a reliable source that corroborates Elbaradei dealing "directly" with Syria? Very little media coverage has been devoted from what I know. Elbaradei has continiously criticized Israel for impeding nuclear disarming, endorsing the "double-nuclear-standard," equated Israel with Iran in terms of nuclear pursuits, cautioning Israel for a possible offensive against Iranian nuclear sites, and devoted much energy to latest Gaza War in relation to Israel's involvement, etc...I also see no section on North Korea either. As far as I'm concerned, Syria has been of little importance to the UN, IAEA, United States, or any Arab country. Israel is the only country with beef and bombed Syria civil-nuclear site a year or so ago I think. At this point I'm all for opinion, but those who disagree must confront the information that is available, and there is a lot of it. We need to end this sense of entitlement. By virtue of simply opposing everything Israel does not it is somehow a valued criticism. Please provide actionable disputes, like explicitly defining the notability of x source (or in this case, X x 350). If it rather odd to have a section on Syria but not Israel. In fact, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I know for a fact the Israel draft will be disputed the moment it is posted but this what is wanted and there will be an immense amount of reliable sources supporting the draft. Users will have to be more explicit in their disputes. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I've wandered by here from WP:BLPN and I can't see what on earth this dispute is about. Are there are alternative versions, or proposals? Any chance some of the dispute and/or existing material could be moved to a related topic article, rather than this bio of Mohamed ElBaradei? Rd232 ^talk 15:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Right now the dispute appears to be over whether a section should be added about an ME/Israel connection. In my opinion, this would be WP:UNDUE. I have suggested such information could be placed in Israel and nuclear weapons, etc.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Having read the ANI on this - before overviewing rest of this talk page - I realized this article is under mediation. Is Kevin the mediator? Not entirely clear.

Per the ANI complaint, where I don't want to comment given my relative ignorance and reluctance to get involved in the minutae of the above: per the original complaint I do think IAEA promotion sites...Tehran Times, Xinhua News Agency, and Press TV.. can be reliable sources, depending, on a case by case basis, and depending on if it's news or opinion.

While it still has to be proved to me it needs an Israel section, I think it might need a "Nuclear Free Middle East" paragraph or section which would have EM's comments on Israel's nukes and other nation's nuclear aspirations.

EM's involvment, comments and effect on IAEA relevant; every detail of what is being overseen belongs in the relevant articles.

I still don't understand why people so heated over this article, frankly. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Kevin gave up in frustration. NPguy (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically. I'm about too as well. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Kevin said he left because he has "little interest in mediating a dispute where one party feels I am acting tendentiously and taking sides".[1]--68.248.155.2 (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to Carol

This is intended to be a nice big overview of our dispute for the sake of those who do not want to read 50 paragraphs of discussion. Consider this my version of our dispute. I am not including the BLP violation complaints, that can be found in the noticeboard listed below and elsewhere in the discussion. Thanks.

I do not believe Xinhuam, Tehran, and Press TV can be used to support ME "facts" over credible wikipedia-certified reliable sources. The sources painted an inaccurate picture of ME. This is why I wanted to make sure everyone understand the importance of BLP rules, yet Kevin believed everyone's opinion is valid and all policies can be "interpreted." IP had no idea what reliable sources were and I'm pretty sure he still does not understand the difference. You can use those sources when quoting themselves, or on behalf of the newspaper, but they would never be used in BIOs or articles outside of themselves. Like, you would never see Tehran Times in George W. Bush, or Xinhua News in Taiwan, etc. There is a major conflict of interest here. R2 - I agree, disputes can get lost in the rhetoric. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Support for Israel/ME section

Basically, I consider the amount of unique sources on Israel/ME connection is so overwhelming the a individual section is necessary. Here is a sample of the unique sources I've posted: 1, 2, 3, 4, NYT, WSJ, Telegraph, CNN, 1 this link, ElBaradei: Israel's nuclear arms blocking Mideast peace, ElBaradei slams Israel for Syria attack, ElBaradei warns against strike on Iran, UN warns attack on Iran will spark 'fireball' in Middle East, Ball of fire' if Iran attacked: IAEA chief, Israeli official: ElBaradei's comments on Iran are irrelevant, A Conversation with Mohamed ElBaradei, Mohamed ElBaradei warns of new nuclear age, ElBaradei urges Iran to engage with U.S., Israel flexes muscles with 'Iran attack' drill, UK 'cover-up' on Israel's nukes, growing-Iranian nuclear problem, Israel's skirmish over Syrian land threatened "stability" in the region., Israel's actions during the latest war, Middle East nuclear shake-up.. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Claims made against sources and myself

First, the idea of a ME/Israel section or information was dismissed 100%. Then, when I posted a link, it was said to be a "minority viewpoint." Then when I posted more links, it was undue and overtly critical. Then it was suggested information be merged into corresponding sections, like Iran. Then when I posted information that separates Israel from Iran, I was being inflexible, avoiding consensus, confrontational, etc. The concept wasn't desired from the get-go in spite of reliable media coverage. this is why we haven't had a resolution, because no matter what is said or what information is available users will continue to deny it regardless. That is why I wanted an uninvolved BLP-editor to take a look.

Following claims have been made:

• Violates WP:UNDUE. According to the policy, "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." This is clearly a significant VP. Little rationale was offered when an editor copied and pasted this policy. I'm assuming he was suggesting that this Israel/ME is a minority viewpoint and therefore does not deserve a section because it isn't proportional to media coverage/notability/etc. Am I right here? Yeah, R2...is this the case? I truly don't think so. Simply listing policies and saying "I disagree" cannot continue.

• Violates Wikipedia:Criticism. Not a strong policy, but a criticism challenge implies that the section is made up of criticisms of Elbaradei so much so that is would constitute a fork or POV-pushing. First, these aren't criticisms. The references are actual events, Elbaradei is even quoted and interviewed in many of the references. Plus, there are all reliable sources with a long history of fact-checking, a strong change from the Tehran Times and Press TV which there use is being rationalized above all else.

• NPguy stated something along the lines of, "The coverage is mostly Israeli/regionally-based and does not have the "world-media" quality." Please correct me if I'm misrepresenting you here NP. This was said after I posted a Haaretz link. As you can see, we have references from 5 continents.

• IP referred to the references as "editorials" after I posted 10 non-editorialized links. Not sure how I can approach that other than saying the sources are clearly not editorials.

• There is only 1 of you and 3/4/5 of us. Doesn't matter. Really, it's more like 1 vs 2 and at times 1 vs 3. Majority of discussion (more like name-calling) is between the IP and I. NPguy pops in every now in then with a reflection my editing habits, etc. Kevin asks for more elaboration, qualifies my statements, gives the occasional opinion, etc. Nathan is too inconsistent to be considered totally involved as he doesn't respond to my posts. So no, this isn't even close to being considered an actual consensus.

There are more accusations but they are a lot more personal and I would prefer not to list them. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Arguments against an ME/Israel section

The general argument against an ME/Israel section has been that Israel hasn't played a crucial role in the life or work of ElBaradei. The majority of the time would be spent focusing on ElBaradei's life and work, and a brief reaction would be given. Commentary or reaction from the most relevant parties, large international groups such as the the E3+3, the NAM, the IAEA Board of Governors which appoints ElBaradei, would be given and kept brief. The argument has further been given that the original sources where ElBaradei made comments would need to be used, that ElBaradei is often making only a passing comment in the supllying arrticles, that if tangential coverage about Israel were in the article in its own section then any other country X may need its own section as well, and that the information which is relevant should go in to its appropriate section (Syria, Iran, etc) or Israel and weapons of mass destruction, Nuclear weapons and Israel, etc. --68.248.155.2 (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Please begin conversation below the line.

---

Please begin conversation here.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we get that. References disagree. Elbaradei life and work = Acting director of IAEA. I listed your general "argument" and explained why it was wrong. All I had to do was link 20 unique references that clearly paint a picture of ME devoting much of his precious time to Israel. Certainly more than Syria (currently a section in the outline, why Syria and not Israel) and definitely more than North Korea. Also, where the hell is North Korea? Or Pakistan? Libya??? His nuclear dealings come before all else, especially the E3+3 which barely got any coverage at all, Board of governors which is not relevant to ME (that goes in the IAEA site or a member of the BOG, NAM, etc...) Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

How so? What references show Elbaradei only making "passing comments?" What does that mean?? ME speaking directly about Israel, Israeli officials speaking directly to ME (like calling for his impeachment), ME referring Israel to the UN/IAEA, taking interviews about Israel's nuclear weapons program, etc...etc...etc...etc...etc. Your dispute does not connect well with the references provided or just basic knowledge. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I will clarify with others, but you ought to understand the argument at this point.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Understand what? You haven't touched the references. There is nothing to understand. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, I am going to let my argument stand for itself. I think you might begin by waiting for others to comment.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Israeli governmental sources which present a positive relationship

The general arguments given above were the main rationale against a section devoted to Israel and ME. The following sources were given to show that an ME/Israel conflict may be overblown.

• Shimon Peres said he was a "worthy winner" of the Nobel Prize
• The Israel Atomic Energy Commission/Israeli Ambassador to the IAEA welcomed both his appointment to a third term, saying

  We are confident that Mr. El-Baradei will carry this burden and, with the support of Member States, will do his best to confront these challenges and win the struggle for a safer world

  and his acceptance of the Nobel Prize, saying

  I am pleased to convey the heartiest congratulations of the Government of Israel to the Agency and to the Director General, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, on being awarded the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize. ...It also recognizes the personal contribution of the Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei to carrying out these missions over the last years.

• Former Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said:

  We are having Dr. ElBaradei today until Thursday. I believe that he will have good meetings with the Israeli prime minister and with other high officials in Israel. I myself will meet him on Thursday in the airport when I'll be back from the States and he will be back home. We are talking to ElBaradei. It's not our first meeting. I met him a few months ago in Vienna. We believe that we should cooperate. We are working one with each other.

  The prime minister at the point in time Shalom said there would be a good meeting was Ariel Sharon, and they were both members of the same party, Likud.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Please begin conversation below the line.

---

Please begin conversation here.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing those. We aren't here to promote a positive/negative image of ME. This still has nothing to do with the accusations you made (or lack thereof) against the reliable references I provided. You cannot solely rely on Israeli government press releases. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If anything, the promotion of ME is being way overblown. That is why editors had to rely on unreliable media, because no sources outside of propaganda/state news devoted any attention. Israel has a very complicated political system. Just because one politicians says something does not mean the hundreds of stories written by world media is suddenly irrelevant or "overblown." Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to let others form their own opinion.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Relevant Wikipedia policies

The general arguments given above were the main rationale against a section devoted to Israel and ME. Wikifan requested policies to support the arguments, and the following was given:

• WP:BLP:

  Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

• WP:UNDUE:

  Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

• WP:NOT#NEWS:

  Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article.

Upon Wikifan's request, rationale was given which may be summed up by the essays WP:CHERRY and WP:News articles.

Sections can be created purposefully to promote a particular bias, and they can accidentally evolve through excessive focus on one aspect of the subject. The section goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias and gives a particular viewpoint a soapbox that is far larger than reality warrants. Though the facts may be true and reliably supported, the proportional volume of the hand-picked facts drowns other information, giving a false impression to the reader. Instead of this, items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact. The guidelines for verifiability, notability and reliable sources, followed to the letter, would mean that any news event which was independently reported by multiple news reporting services on any given day could have a Wikipedia article, even if it were the most trivial coverage or sensationalistic story. Something encylopedic has lasting importance and direct relevancy to the subject of the article.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Please begin conversation below the line.

---

Please begin conversation here.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, how does this apply to the references I provided? Copying and pasting random policies that you clearly have no understanding of is not helpful or a reliable response. You are not being explicit or approaching what is available directly. I really don't see where you are going with soapbox, bias, etc... That's just weird. Excluding hundreds of reliable sources on the pretense that it might promote bias is bizarre and no policy endorses that, especially when a section hasn't even been written yet. Your preference for Press TV and Tehran Times over RSs is also suspect, considering those are essentially built on complete bias and violate the rules that constitute journalistic integrity (and wikipedia:reliable sources). Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

These were the same policies given above against an Israel subsection, you are not characterizing my argument properly, and I believe the sources currently in the article are a separate issue which should be discussed separately.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I am characterizing your argument properly. The references are not a separate issue - they are the issue. References = information = coverage = notability. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I am the expert on my own opinion, and I don't feel that you were representing it correctly. I have represented it above for others to read.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You left out key information of your "opinion" that was stated frequently in the dispute. Regardless, I responded. You haven't disputed the simplified bullets I posted. I can post diff's to support but it will probably take me awhile. Whatever dispute you have still doesn't resonate with the references provided. You cannot argue what is available. I still do not understand your dispute other than various unsubstantiated policies I thoroughly dismissed above and below. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I am leaving both opinions as they are for others to repond to.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

After my gesture in suggesting to Wikifan that he draft an Israel section for others to review, he has still produced nothing, but has proposed deleting the Syria section and merging into the Israel section. That ignores the fact that all the other editors believe that the Israel section should be merged (partly) into the Syria section. And the explanation for this edit, that ElBaradei is investigating Israel, not Syria, is false. ElBaradei is investigating Syria, while complaining about Israel. Wikifan, if you want people to treat you with respect, you have to reciprocate. These edits were not kosher. NPguy (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Commentary/background

According to NPOV, we let the sources speak for themselves. My POV (and I obviously have one) is solely based on available information and strict-policy. Not conjecture or subjective thinking. If someone can dispute the references beyond the dubious claims made above, and without attacking my character and saying I'm being inflexible, avoiding consensus, not assuming good faith, that would be nice.

Kevin reportedly resigned following this: By strict path policy, I mean justifying extreme disputes and accusations with policy and accurate information. I didn't care either way but I'd prefer he remained until we can get a new mediator or more uninvolved BLP-experienced editors/admins. Though it became clear that Kevin harbored a POV beyond what is expected of a mediator at a incident report I filed for various BLP violations here: You are a bad editor and hypocrite etc..etc...

Look, if users want to engage in disputes and list policies to validate their POV. Fine, but when I respond, dont peddle back and saying I'm being repetitive/inflexible/hostile/etc. This is really annoying: "I do not believe Wikifan has a legitimate complaint. If anything, the other editors have a legitimate complaint about Wikifan's confrontational behavior."

This was said after I responded to every single one of his accusations. I no longer care what people think or what their opinion is of me. Prove it with diff's and actual disputes that you start. Never in my life have I experienced such resistance when so much information exists to support.

Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to summarize the other side above. I think that it may make the most sense to summarize the two sides independently. Each argument would have its own section and replies, if given, would be kept in the other section. This is for organizational purposes, and to avoid redundancy in restating the same things in back and forth replies.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That is no other side. You are posting completely new information or information that was already discussed. Everything I listed is exactly excuses you provided. This isn't a debate IP. I list references + policies. What is the problem? What is your dispute??? What does this have to do with an Israel/ME section? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The other side is the rationale against inclusion which most other editors have subscribed to. This is a summarization of all of the discussion above.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the rationale your subscribe to. If other editors wish to endorse it here, let them do so. You failed to mention the criticism dispute (which wasn't valid), and we already discussed the debunked undue weight/cherry-pick/NPOV policy that you simply copied and pasted. You've been against the section from the very beginning, first totally refusing to consider it. Then saying there wasn't enough information. Then saying it was all editorials/opinion/POV. Then saying it was all criticism (not true), then saying coverage isn't notable, then saying it should be merged in with the other sections, etc..etc.. Why a section on Syria but not Israel? That truly does not make sense, proportional to coverage by ME or general knowledge. This has become a POV dispute and users are afraid to let go of the arguments they've held for 2 weeks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So I am going to leave my arguments in the sections above and allow others to interpret them.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"Interpret?" This isn't a puzzle. My entire point rests on reliable coverage and explicit policies. No interpretation is necessary, I've included everything in a simple and logical manner. If users feel confused, I'll try to be more precise. Leaving arguments ambiguous for interpretation is absurd. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't been able to understand my explanation of my arguments after this long, I don't know why you would be confident that I would stand a better chance now. Thus, I would like to give others a chance to interpret them. Perhaps user-space would be a less cluttering space to conduct my explanation to you.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I get your explanation. What I don't understand is how they have anything to do with the references listed. Dispute those, not my POV. I've devoted a lot of time debunking your rationalizations, from defending Tehran Times to demanding we source a non-notable Iranian doctor for support in a BLP, claiming an Iranian doctor and author is just as reliable as an American one. One's country does not determine notability.

Your understanding of reliable media is sub-par at best, when you referred to Press TV (owned by the state of Iran) as a standard news outlet.

This is why you haven't approached the reliable references provided. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If you read the argument above, it is that the reliable sources you have provided are providing tangential coverage to the life of ElBaradei. I'm giving others a chance to respond. I think it would make the most sense for you to direct your edits at an audience of others and not me, as I first want to get input from others.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh? How are the sources "tangential" to the life (director of IAEA)? What is tangential about them? By virtue of repeatedly saying they are tangential does not somehow make it so. Take any of the sources I listed and explain why it is "tangential." Notability is determined by media coverage (explicitly). As far as google is concerned, there are more reliable sources for an Israel/ME section than the total # of reliable sources currently in the article, though that isn't much of an accomplishment. It makes sense for me to correct your inaccuracies and prevent the audience from developing a false impression. If and when the "audience" has a question, it can be answered. Either way, this is a textbook False dilemma. Hopefully everyone knows that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Waste of Time

This whole discussion is a waste of time. I recommend that everyone shut up and get back to editing. NPguy (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

On a completely separate topic, I have recently expanded Nuclear fuel bank. Some of that material might eventually by summarized here. It could use some clean-up, etc. as well.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. At this point I believe editing has become a one-way-street and I doubt most will open up without force (i.e, medcab, sanctions, etc..). I'll watch the article and make an attempt to reduce the usage of state-propaganda sources such as Press TV, Tehran Times, Xinhua News Agency when reliable replacements exist. On another note, I think we can reduce the current outline. I can't find a whole lot of reliably-referenced information on Nuclear fuel cycle proposals (2003-2009) aside from select press releases by the IAEA. I don't believe that is enough to warrant a unique section, though we could likely absorb the info into an ambiguous area like the lead or make it into a minor sub-section. Outside of the IAEA, the issue has mostly received attention from specialty-papers like Scitizen. It seems the proposals are a collective effort by the IAEA with ME, being the acting general/director of the organization, mounting the PR campaign...as seen here: nuclearfiles - again, science-driven paper. I can't find a single RS on the issue, the only coverage it has received is again from science-based/IAEA sources. And nothing has matriculated from these "proposals" as far as I know. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was, let's get back to editing and fleshing out the outline of this article. We may not have a mediator, but we can still draft. The commentaries are the waste of time. NPguy (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm doing. I'm in the process of trying to find a new mediator. I don't want to see editors reporting users mid-discussion. We can assume those kinds actions are not in good faith. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If there isn't reportable behavior, then there can't be reports. So I look forward to all editors editing in accordance with guidelines. And the best way for the next mediation/mediator to be successful will be for involved editors assume good faith and not make accusations about the mediator.--69.217.67.104 (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Reporting users following an agreed mediation is unacceptable. And those were not accusations, but thanks for the commentary. And thanks for totally skipping a solid reasoning in axing this bizarre nuclear proposal weird section. Probably should ditch the Syria one to since that has more to do with Israel. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Call your assertions which ended the mediation whatever you would like. And the only unacceptable thing I see is engaging in behavior which is reportable to begin with.--69.217.67.104 (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

While I'm not this minute willing to study and verify everything in this article, I'd like to propose that all material related to Israel be inserted in the proper sections with no discussion of Israel section till that draft done. (Plus consideration of at least a paragraph on Nuke Free Middle East - and I'm sure I've seen El Baradei mention Israel in that context.) And THEN if somehow it looks like it deserves it's own section, do it. Wikifan really should at this point make that much of a deference for what seems pretty much a consensus decision that a separate section not justified (at least at this point).

It just seems overly contentious to do otherwise, and obviously there has been edit warring here, leading to protecting article. And wiki admins are becoming more and more assertive in smacking such down. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Israel section stays. Under that logic you all should write a draft for this nuclear proposal section which has no place in the article. Hell, write a draft for ALL sections. After all, references mean nothing these days. Unless it's Press TV then it's totally cool. ; ) I can't find a single reliable third-party sources that substantiate these proposals to a notable degree. Creed - read the sources above. You are totally misrepresenting what has been said and a simple flip through the references above dwarf the # of reliable sources currently in the article. I agreed to to "waste of time" proposal. If you want to get in on the hot sweaty Israel action respond to the proper section. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

For some brief information about nuclear fuel cycle proposals, from third party sources you might see:

• "Mohamed ElBaradei: Nobel Lecture". Norwegian Nobel Committee. 2005-12-10. Retrieved 2009-05-25.
• "IAEA Nuclear Fuel Bank Reaches Funding Target". Nuclear Threat Initiative. 2009-03-09. Retrieved 2009-05-25.
• "Iran: Nuclear Fuel Bank Seen As Way Out Of Crisis". Radio Free Europe. 2006-01-16. Retrieved 2009-05-25. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• "A nuclear fuel bank advocated". News. Chicago Tribune. 2006-10-22. Retrieved 2009-05-25. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Here are other third party sources which are slightly more technical in nature:

• Braun, Chaim. "Technical Review of Fuel Assurance Proposals". September 20, 2006. http://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/meetings/PDFplus/2006/cn147-braun.pdf
• Giles, Jim. "Atomic agency launches bid to bank nuclear fuel". Nature 438, 268-269 (17 November 2005).
• Mackenzie, Debora. "Is it time for an international nuclear fuel bank?" The New Scientist, Volume 201, Issue 2690, 7 January 2009, Pages 6-7.
• Müller, Harald. 2005. “Multilateral Nuclear Fuel Cycle Arrangements,” Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, No. 35. Stockholm: WMDC.
• Pascual, C. (2008). The geopolitics of energy From security to survival. [Washington, D.C.]: Brookings. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2008/01_energy_pascual/01_energy_pascual.pdf
• Scheinman, Lawrence. "Article IV of the NPT: Background, Problems, Some Prospects". Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission. June 7, 2004. http://www.wmdcommission.org/files/No5.pdf

--69.217.67.104 (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to wikifan: Re: "Israel section stays," I assume you mean your proposal which you refused to outline per my request above so others could figure out if it needed a section? In the protected article I just see three references to Israel, all about Iran (and without even mentioning El Baradei on Israel's threats vs. Iran or nuclear free middle east). So current info certainly doesn't seem to be substantial enough for a whole section.

Re: the rest of your statement seems to be an incoherent but evidently negative response which makes cooperative editing a little confusing and difficult and dissuades me from trying to figure out how to draft anything here. Please see Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging_in_incivility which some parties have ran afoul of lately.

To 69.217.67.104 (Nuclear fuel guy?): I have a feeling these arent relevant to the Israel section issue so maybe you could move them to their own section and tell us which sections they are relevant to? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan was saying there wasn't a basis for a nuclear fuel cycle proposal section and I was just trying to show that the issue has indeed gotten coverage from outside the IAEA. I recently expanded an article at Nuclear fuel bank with some such information. I was replying to WF, so sorry this was off-topic for this section. I will try to concentrate the conversation about this above.--69.217.67.104 (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking for references on nuclear fuel bank. Nuclear fuel bank is not synonymous with ME. Regardless, only one of those is an RS. I never said the issue has not gotten coverage outside of the IAEA. Most of the coverage is IAEA promotion and the rest is general and not particularly pertinent to ME. This is a BLP - not IAEA or nuclear fuel. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"Only one of those is an RS": I think the Norwegian Nobel Committee, the Nuclear Threat Initiative, Nature, and the WMD Commission are all reliable sources.--69.217.67.104 (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No they are not certified 3rd party reliable sources. I'm referring to media coverage, not special-interest groups. You still have no idea what a reliable source is even after I explained to you about 8 times. Reliable sources are not debatable. There is a wikipedia noticeboard that lists all the reliable sources. Here is the policy Wikipedia:Reliable sources and here is the noticeboard: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't specifically see the list that you are referring to and since when are the Norwegian Nobel Committee, the Nuclear Threat Initiative, Nature, and the WMD Commission interest groups?--69.217.67.104 (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

1 has little to do with the fuel recycle program and is reiterating IAEA plans as part of his Nobel Prize. I do not see the WMD commission in the draft, and reviewing the reference shows little mention of ME as an individual or a great role in the proposals aside from a few comments. None of those are 3rd party reliable sources. Like, CNN, BBC, peer reviewed journals, etc... You just googled ME+nuclear fuel recycle proposals. There isn't enough man. Let's move on. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't "google" the National Academies Press, I don't appreciate your speculation, and it is more reliable than a general newspaper. The National Acadamies operate under a charter granted by the Congress of the United States and the nation's leading experts in every field serve on their award-winning panels and committees. The specific authors of the source in question include the U.S. Committee on the Internationalization of the Civilian Nuclear Fuel Cycle, the Committee on International Security and Arms Control, Policy and Global Affairs and the National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council.

I didn't see them on the certified list of reliable sources which you speak of, yet I have yet to see you produce this list. Then again maybe if this group is supported by the U.S. government under government charter then you would like to classify it as American propaganda.--69.217.67.104 (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

One reason the fuel cycle section belongs here is that ElBaradei stimulated the recent discussion of the fuel cycle with his 2003 Op-Ed in the Economist. After that, he convened an international group of experts to consider alternatives for multilateral control of the fuel cycle. At his initiative, the IAEA also held a side event at the 2006 IAEA General Conference to consider various proposals. So ElBaradei's role in this issue is not really in doubt. NPguy (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

So? ME has published many things? Where is the notability of this proposal? It's gotten practically zero coverage outside of an op-ed (which according to consensus, op-eds don't count) and certainly not enough to warrant a section. Perhaps a general proposal but it's undue at this point. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

There have been many conferences about the subject such as at the 2005 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's non-proliferation conference and the 2005 IAEA Expert Group, among others. The National Nuclear Security Administration and the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism have also recognized the relevancy of the issue, among others. Perhaps you should conduct some basic background research on the topic. A better question might be why ElBaradei's work which has helped to make him notable wouldn't be included in his biography.--69.217.67.104 (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Draft nuclear fuel cycle proposals section

Draft proposal

In an October 2003 editorial for The Economist, ElBaradei wrote that the production of new material through reprocessing and enrichment needed to be restricted exclusively to facilities under multinational control. "These limitations would need to be accompanied by proper rules of transparency and, above all, by an assurance that legitimate would-be users could get their supplies," he wrote. A 2005 IAEA Expert Group commissioned by ElBaradei made the recommendations of developing and implementing international supply guarantees with IAEA participation; promoting voluntary conversion of existing facilities to multilateral nuclear approaches; creating, through voluntary agreements and contracts, multinational, and in particular regional, MNAs for new facilities; and the scenario of a further expansion of nuclear energy around the world might call for the development of a nuclear fuel cycle with stronger multilateral arrangements. ElBaradei called for the expert group meeting on September 15, 2003 at the IAEA General Conference.

In September 2006, ElBaradei convened a special event on assurances of supply which heard a number of proposals. The "Six-Country Concept" would require customer states to forego sensitive indigenous nuclear facilities. The head of Russia’s nuclear agency, detailed its International Uranium Enrichment Center at the Angarsk Electrolysis Chemical Combine “to provide guaranteed access to uranium enrichment capabilities to the Centre’s participating organizations”. The Washington-based Nuclear Threat Initiative proposed an IAEA-administered fuel bank which reached its funding target in March 2009. Developing nations expressed concern they may lose all access to enrichment and reprocessing technology if they accept fuel from a fuel bank, with the Non-Aligned Movement being critical of additional criteria for accessing the fuel banks. ElBaradei said the proposals heard could help address "current concerns about the dissemination of sensitive fuel cycle technologies."

Wikifan proposal

In a 2003 editorial for The Economist, ElBaradei wrote that the production of new material through reprocessing and enrichment needed to be restricted exclusively to facilities under multinational control. "These limitations would need to be accompanied by proper rules of transparency and, above all, by an assurance that legitimate would-be users could get their supplies," he wrote. A 2005 IAEA Expert Group commissioned by ElBaradei made the recommendations of developing and implementing international supply guarantees with IAEA participation; promoting voluntary conversion of existing facilities to multilateral nuclear approaches; creating, through voluntary agreements and contracts, multinational, and in particular regional, MNAs for new facilities; and the scenario of a further expansion of nuclear energy around the world might call for the development of a nuclear fuel cycle with stronger multilateral arrangements.

In September 2006, the IAEA held a special event on Assurances of Nuclear Supply and Non-Proliferation which heard a number of proposals. The "Six-Country Concept" would require customer states to forego sensitive indigenous nuclear facilities, and recipient country would be able to approach the IAEA to facilitate new arrangements with other suppliers if nonproliferation conditions had been met. Sergei Kiriyenko, the head of Russia’s nuclear agency, detailed its International Uranium Enrichment Center at the Angarsk Electrolysis Chemical Combine “to provide guaranteed access to uranium enrichment capabilities to the Centre’s participating organizations”. The Washington-based Nuclear Threat Initiative proposed a international fuel bank to be administered by the IAEA which reached its funding target in March 2009. Developing nations expressed concern they may lose all access to enrichment and reprocessing technology if they accept fuel from a fuel bank, with the Non-Aligned Movement being critical of additional criteria for accessing the fuel banks. ElBaradei said the proposals could help address "current concerns about the dissemination of sensitive fuel cycle technologies."<ref>IAEA: IAEA Seeks Guarantees of Nuclear Fuel</ref>

• Reference to bolded - So basically, the entire second paragraph as little to do with ME aside from a final sentence which simply says he endorses the proposals. This either has to be written where ME is a major character or removed all together. This also seems to be more related to Nuclear fuel bank rather than ElBaradei specifically.

---

Comments

Above is a very rough draft of a nuclear fuel cycles proposal section. I would like to spend more time on the connection to ElBaradei and specific proposals, but I also think a general overview needs to be given to readers and that the section should stay fairly brief. I think maybe one paragraph could be added to explore some of the current proposals.--69.217.67.104 (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we need a proposals section. The Nuke Free Middle East would be another proposal. And I'm sure there are more. I do think the above is far too long and should mostly be directly about what he personally has proposed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I shortened it somewhat as you proposed. A Nuke Free Middle East section/sub-section may also make sense.--69.217.67.104 (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Where are the references? This reads like a copy and paste and screams SYNTH. Most of this could go into the nuclear fuel bank article (which the IP has spent a lot of time crafting). I don't believe there is enough notability to warrant a unique section here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The references are inline. They appear with "footnotes".--69.217.67.104 (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Click on the footnotes, no reference is shown. You have to add a reference code to publish the footnotes. Original point still stands. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference sections aren't supposed to be on talk pages. You can view the references by viewing the source of the page.--69.217.67.104 (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are posting a draft, yeah they are. Ugh. Only 2 references both of which are not 3rd party reliable sources and do not indicate anything notable (encyclopedic-wise) to ME. Next. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Correction: The first source is simply affirming ME being a Nobel Prize winner and has little to do with the nuclear fuel recycle proposal. So essentially the draft is dependent on a single reference. Academic Press is reasonable enough but it doesn't appear to be very explicit to ME as an individual. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The first source is quoting from his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, which most people would agree he is notable for receiving because of his work on nonproliferation. In fact, the Committee said it was for "efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way".--69.217.67.104 (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This draft is not very good. It should start with ElBaradei's 2003 Economist Op-Ed, then follow with the experts report on Multilateral Nuclear Approaches. The Nobel Prize speech is a not a key milestone; it reiterates these earlier ideas. Next would come the 2006 IAEA General Conference special event and one outcome, the NTI fuel bank proposal. It's easy enough to create the narrative with the sources here. And stay tuned for discussion at the June and September IAEA Board of Governors meetings.

I'm not convinced about adding something on a nuclear-free Middle East. ElBaradei has made some statements, but he didn't originate the idea and as far as I can tell hasn't pushed it seriously. He has had more to say about general disarmament issues and about Middle East peace. NPguy (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I would be willing to start with other sources, I just was trying to demonstrate notability, relevancy, and a direct connection to ElBaradei to a skeptical audience and I thought his reference to it in the Nobel speech did this well. I anticipate WF won't like the Economist, the IAEA, or the Nobel Speech, but I would be curious of what other users think.--69.217.67.104 (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to add anything from his speech. It reads like an essay, like OR, like much of the article currently. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You might want to reread your policies. Original research consists of "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas". In fact, by directly attributing to a source, we are avoiding original research. In Wikipedia, this is most commonly called verifiability. Verifiability means you can see that his quote was published in another source, in this case here (If you don't belive the Nobel Committee, other sources have vouched for the quote here and here, for example).--69.217.67.104 (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. BY OR, I'm referring to WP:SYNTH. This nuclear proposal issue is not notable enough to warrant an inclusion. Little to zero coverage by reliable 3rd party references. It's not even in the IAEA article. It should stay in the nuclear fuel bank. ME has been involved in many things, half a dozen routine press-releases and obscure magazine reflections don't count as reliable 3rd party references. You are pushing something that does not exist. Maybe get some Press TV and we'll talk. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not think Wikifan has a well-informed perspective on the prominence of this issue and I doubt he has done any research to justify the "little to zero coverage" claim. Perhaps Wikifan is not familiar with the literature in this field. Fuel supply assurances are a prominent current issue in nuclear nonproliferation policy. They are high enough on the agenda to merit prominent mention in major speeches by Presidents Bush (February 11, 2004) and Obama (April 5, 2009), and ElBaradei helped put it on the agenda. NPguy (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Great. I'm not disputing the prominence of fuel supply. There isn't a strong case in how this relates to ME in a very explicit way to warrant an inclusion on an encyclopedic article. It was never in the article before, why now? Besides, the current version wreaks of SYNTH and little to no 3rd party reliable references exist which indicate a lack of coverage and therefore a lack of notability. But hey, keep attacking my ignorance. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

All the statements are attributed to reliable sources, so I don't understand your SYNTH argument at all.--69.217.67.104 (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

None of those are "reliable sources" and SYNTH has nothing to do with attribution. You clearly do not understand what constitutes an RS. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Its my opinion that an op-ed written by the subject of a biography, the IAEA, the National Academies Press, the Global Security Newswire, and the Arms Control Association are reputable and reliable sources. I wouldn't be opposed to seeking alternative sources, but perhaps you could get a comment about their reliability from the RS noticeboard.--69.217.67.104 (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Great, that's nice. We've been through this before IP. Your opinion isn't the clinching factor in what indicates reliable sources. A reliable source is one that is considered a reliable source by wikipedia - but to be more explicit, 3rd party reliable references (CNN, BBC, major media, academic journals, just to name a few). IAEA is a primary source and is reliable in its own context. I don't know any of the others but they probably fail. Don't throw policies at my face when you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Pardon the language but you need to accept the concept of what is a legal reliable sources or stop editing wikipedia all together. The fact that you are allowed to write drafts without a single RS is beyond me. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

To return to the proposed text, thanks for the improvements. I think it gets about halfway there. Sorry I'm being lazy and just kibbitzing, but here are some more suggestions. I still think the Nobel speech was not a significant event in the sequence and deserves at best a passing mention (no more than "also mentioned in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech"). The ElBaradei proposal and the MNA expert group were the prelude. The main action came later, through a large number of proposals presented at the September 2006 special event. Among those currently under consideration at the IAEA are the six-supplier proposal (now on the back burner), the NTI fuel bank, the Russian fuel bank and the German enrichment sanctuary proposal. NPguy (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not bent on the Nobel information at all, it is really just to try to help others see the connection to his work. I don't mind trying to improve the proposed draft at all, but CarolmooreDC expressed some concerns about the length of the section as well. So you think maybe axe the Nobel, shorten the IAEA expert group, and then maybe cover some of the proposals?--69.217.67.104 (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks. NPguy (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Prove notability or it goes. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think from now on we should just ignore Wikifan. He has refused to engage constructively and repeatedly falls back on arguments about reliable sources, notability, etc. that defy common sense. For me the last straw is the arrogance of this last statement. He has not rebutted the well-reasoned arguments for inclusion of this section. Instead, he appears asserting that he is the arbiter of what goes into this article. Wikifan is clearly the outlier and we don't need his agreement to achieve "consensus" as used in Wikipedia. NPguy (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm at least going to just try to ignore the comments if they don't discuss improvements to the article.--69.217.67.104 (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but citing policy and continuingly pointing out just how ridiculous this collaboration process is is not being constructive. Telling an editor his section is not notable and shouldn't be in the article and then citing x x and x while providing logic rationales is not defying productivity. Defying productivity is not knowing what a reliable source is and then reporting me when I tell you what is in a not so nice way. I fall back on arguments about reliable sources because you do not recognize them. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you find another editor who doesn't think the IAEA, the National Academies Press, the Global Security Newswire, and the Arms Control Association are reliable sources? I suggested you could get input about the matter at the RS noticeboard. I'd be willing to seek alternative sources as well if you would. Profanity shouldn't and doesn't have a place in discussion.--69.217.67.104 (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you the simplified policy guidelines I've posted? Wikipedia is supported by 3rd party reliable sources. All of those you mentioned are not standard sources with the exception of the NAP (maybe). I'm disputing reliable in the context of wikipedia, not there own information and certainly not your bizarre image of what constitutes reliability on wikipedia. Profanity isn't against the rules and it wasn't a personal attack (i.e, **** you.) So if saying fuck gets your attention good. I don't care what you are "willing" to do. This isn't a negotiation. The section has absolutely zero notability and not enough 3rd party reliable sources exist to support. You are promoting SYNTH and something that isn't there. ME isn't defined by IAEA-limited proposals that have gone nowhere. It's nuclear weapons and that's basically it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This excerpt could be edited down a bit. There are two key points: First, ElBaradei was a key instigator of the current discussion, through the Economist article (which started things off), convening the expert group in 2004 (the first in the international discussion forum), and convening the special event in 2006 (where all the current proposals were tabled). Second, some of these proposals involve the IAEA, where ElBaradei has been notably cautious about pushing them toward fruition, apparently gun-shy because of opposition by developing countries. I will look at editing this excerpt and the fuel bank article (which needs a new name) over the next week or so. NPguy (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not disputing ElBaradei was a key instigator of this proposal but the current draft does not reflect a strong relationship. We are writing an article on ME, not the IAEA and its many activities (that ME obviously plays a marginal part in most considering his position). I've made it pretty easy to understand that was is written is far from acceptable. I'm not totally against a section as long as it is pertinent to ME as an individual. And as I said, most of this can go in the nuclear fuel bank article and a lot of it is copy/paste. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

On ElBaradei's role in the special session: ElBaradei convened the Special Session, prepared the provisional agenda for the Special Session, provided and directed the staff for the Special Session, stated the Objective and Context for the Special Session, and provided opening remarks for the Special Session. It is nonproliferation work, specifically which he conducts as Director General, that is relevant to his notability. ElBaradei has noted the relevancy of his work in this area in op-eds ("Towards a Safer World" by IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei. 16 October 2003. Published in The Economist) to general audiences, in his Nobel lecture, and in his comments to the Agency among others.

ElBaradei specifically describes his advocacy for assurance of supply numerous times. Below are a few of the more recent descriptions:

• "You will recall that, for a number of years, I have been advocating the establishment of multinational mechanisms to assure access for all countries to nuclear fuel and reactor technology, as envisaged in the Statute."
• "I first made this proposal five years ago. A number of ideas have been put forward since then on developing a new, multilateral framework for the nuclear fuel cycle. This could be done in different ways. But I believe any such framework must be global and non-discriminatory."
• "I have been advocating for some time the establishment of a multinational mechanism to assure access for all countries to nuclear fuel and reactor technology, and simultaneously to strengthen the non-proliferation regime."

--76.214.161.244 (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You still aren't responding to what I'm saying. Here, I'll simplify it.

• A) You need to demonstrate sufficient notability. This is determined by degree of coverage from 3rd reliable sources (the only 3rd party reliable source that pertains to ME is the Economist reference.) If you continue to say "I think this is reliable..." I'm going to assume you are playing dumb per Wikipedia:Civility. There really is no excuse at this point.
• B)Regardless of whatever references you post, the current draft does not reflect a strong relationship with ME. This can all go in the Nuclear Fuel Bank article. We have to mention his involvement but this section draft is unnecessarily wordy and has little to do with ME as an individual. I made this clear above.
• C)The above sources you cited are IAEA references. You cannot justify a section with IAEA press-releases when they've gained particularly no recognition from the outside world in relation to ME. A few mentions like "ME commissioned so and so" and "ME initiated proposals" and "ME endorses this pursuits" is not notability.

This is very a very simple and logical (some NPguy says I defy, lol) so refer to the above for any more challenges. Feel free to write another draft. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"I'm going to assume you are playing dumb per Wikipedia:Civility": I would strongly appreciate it if you could keep your analysis of my behavior to yourself.--76.214.161.244 (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That right their violates civility policy. Continuing to cite MY behavior as a reason to derail discussion is what's holding back mediation. But it's a fair assessment, I've been more than generous and patient in spite of whatever offenses you perceive. I'm not promoting an argument through hostility, you are. Talk to NPguy, he seems to thoroughly enjoy long tangents on why I'm not being "productive" through sweeping generalizations and sheer avoidance of dispute. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm just asking you to not analyze my behavior, that shouldn't be a problem.--76.214.161.244 (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I'm citing a pretty well-defined policy. I'm not analyzing anything. You and NPguy have continually asked me to explain x x and x and I've done that. Recognize it or drop the draft. That's how mediation works, it can't be a one-way-street. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

conflict

NP and IP are both actively working on Nuclear fuel bank. In fact, the IP has basically rewritten the article and wrote 95% that makes up its current form. 1. 2. So now it make sense. Much of this nuclear proposal comes straight from the nuclear fuel bank article. Similar references are used and most of the information is a copy/paste (more or less). At least the 2nd paragraph is. I never really paid much attention to the actual content but after reviewing the drafts several times there doesn't seem to be a major connection with ME from what is being written. The 2nd paragraph has zero mention of his name or his role except for the last sentence where he makes a statement of his approval. Hardly notable. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought expanding the article over there was a good thing, and I mostly did it due to the frozen discussion here.--69.217.67.104 (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't exactly respond to what I was saying. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

For record

Source: I think from now on we should just ignore Wikifan. He has refused to engage constructively and repeatedly falls back on arguments about reliable sources, notability, etc. that defy common sense. For me the last straw is the arrogance of this last statement. He has not rebutted the well-reasoned arguments for inclusion of this section. Instead, he appears asserting that he is the arbiter of what goes into this article. Wikifan is clearly the outlier and we don't need his agreement to achieve "consensus" as used in Wikipedia.

NP axed this from his userspace. Hopefully a mediator gets here soon but because so much drama has been created this needs some air: concern. If NPguy wants to edit in this manner obviously we have to go to a higher authority and the failed mediation will continue. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

On another note

If we want a mediator, a request would have to be filed at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal.--76.214.161.244 (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I can't file a mediator agreement until everyone else agrees. And it's clear NPguy no longer wants to mediate because he refuses to discusses disputes. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan keeps appealing for a mediator, then keeps alienating everyone who tries. The lesson I've taken is that it's better not to engage. It's a waste of time and it just ends up fueling Wikifan's penchant for unproductive conflict. So I would repeat to anyone thinking of getting involved the advice Wikifan complains of above: ignore him. NPguy (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I know the article has been through a fair amount of dispute resolution already. I'm mostly trying to concentrate time on other articles like Nuclear fuel bank and Baruch Plan. Would you express interest in continuing the mediation? If so, and if you have the time, it would be great if you could fill out WP:MEDCAB or at least leave an empty template with your user name expressing interest. If not, maybe you could say you would be happy if a mediation continued without you? Unless WF wants to withdraw his remarks about our previous mediator, I am not sure how else we should continue but would welcome any ideas.--76.214.161.244 (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll fill out the medcab if IP endorses it. IF NPguy goes I have no issue. He hasn't been doing much anyways except for criticizing me and not responding to edits. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I would obviously endorse it, and I would go ahead and fill it out either way. Hopefully NPguy would like to participate, if he has the time.--76.214.161.244 (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok give me some time I'll post it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Article lock

I submitted a request to lock the article and it was declined under the basic pretense of simple edit-warring. Can we all unofficially agree not to edit the article while I submit a MEDCAB proposal with the exception of grammar? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems reasonable if you could try to get the proposal up within the next few days, it shouldn't take too long to fill out..--69.208.130.182 (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

By the end of Monday for sure. Busy weekend. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I'm in no rush to edit. NPguy (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Waiting until Tuesday sounds ok for me.. I would post it, but it would not allow me..--69.208.130.182 (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You could always register a username. Tuesday is good. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Medcab submission posted. Technically it's Wednesday so apologies for the tardiness. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's still Tuesday here, but no big deal..--69.208.130.182 (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Medcab

I've opened this case up at medcab (case file here). Do editors still want mediation, or has there been some shift (I wouldn't be surprised if the Iranian elections had something to do with this, for instance). If I'm opening up wounds, please tell me first and foremost. Thank you. --Xavexgoem (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think mediation is really needed here. It tends to devolve into rehashing personal disagreements. I think the protagonists are tired of those arguments, which have also driven mediators away. What I think would make more sense is for the editors to flesh out the elements of the outline above. That may uncover more disagreements, but at least they would be about the article. NPguy (talk) 03:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes Mediation is needed. We've gone through hell in this discussion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

←Well, let me know when you agree ;-) - I'll just keep the case opened and keep the page watchlisted. --Xavexgoem (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

We already agreed to mediation above. NPguy believes my involvement has been a "waste of time" and infrequently edits the article. He stopped being a principal collaborator over a month ago. Can we continue? Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Beyond being a "waste of time," I think recent efforts at mediation have been counterproductive. They have only fanned the flames of past disputes. Wikifan was offered the opportunity to draft a section on Israel (even thought other editors questioned the need for such a section), but he never took up the offer. For the record, no one has been editing this article for a couple of months (until today), so the line about "stopped being a principal collaborator" is a self-serving invention. NPguy (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it appears this is fanning the flames. I'm hanging back until there's a content dispute. In lieu of that, there's no reason for the two of you to be arguing. I expect that when something comes up that you two will stop. --Xavexgoem (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. If you review the above discussion and the archives, you'll understand that this is a major content and editor dispute. The Medcab proposal paints a pretty clear picture of what occurred. NPguy never voiced any major concerns about the MEDCAB and only now when it has finally been accepted does he say no. The IP (who endorsed medcab) and I have been the most active in the article discussion, while NPguy popped in an out and spent most of his time trying to merge in the nuclear bank draft which I critiqued above. Can we please continue? I can't change NPguys opinion and his constant personal assessments. I really wouldn't have wasted 2+ hours trying to negotiate a mediator this was NPguy's plan. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I can mediate between those parties that request it, certainly. I apologize that I didn't start myself out from the greatest of positions, but I needed to make some things clear. Where would you like to start? --Xavexgoem (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I've never been a part of a MEDCAB before. Do we start enumerating problems in the discussion as we've done before or is there a separate page we should go to? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Either we can move the discussion to the casepage, or we can continue here. Mediators just provide structure, so it doesn't necessarily matter how we start to go about this. Any start will do. --Xavexgoem (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC) I'm partial to staying on the talkheader for now, because dragging discussion to the casepage often causes frustration this late in a dispute.

Should we create a sort of outline - dispute, parties to dispute, suggestions, etc...or at least start a new page here? Or do should we just want to go on from this section? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hold onto that thought - going to bed. I'd really prefer if this happened organically; I'll hang back until I see something come up. --Xavexgoem (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

We've been through a formal mediation effort, which produced a decent outline for the article (above). I strongly recommend as a next step that we fill in the outline, not rehash the discussion that led to it. NPguy (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)