Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Muhammad selling slaves

Muhammad selling slaves edit

Editors involved in this dispute

Trinacrialucente (talk · contribs) – filing party
Jeppiz (talk · contribs)
CounterTime (talk · contribs)
FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs)
Eperoton (talk · contribs)
Code16 (talk · contribs)
Alexis Ivanov (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

Muhammad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

[[1]]

Issues to be mediated edit

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

whether the word "sold" and "traded" be added the section regarding Muhammad's slaves + removal of POV stating slaves were "bought usually to free and show that freeing slaves was a virtuous thing to do". NB, there is a separate open issue on this article which is NOT related.
As the other RfM was rejected as it was deemed the same as this open one[[2]], I'm adding the second topic/subject here to optimize everyone's time. In the same "Household" section of the article which currently reads: "Traditional sources dictate Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad, with the marriage not being consummated until she had reached puberty at the age of nine or ten years old. She was therefore a virgin at marriage." The dispute is whether to include the sections in bold, since a) no primary sources ever say the word "puberty" or "menstruation" and b) there is strong evidence to the contrary which suggests Aisha did not reach puberty at the time the marriage was consummated and c) whether or not Aisha is beyond irrelevant (I can think of no other article where the virginity of the wife is relevant...and also there are several debates on this topic to the contrary. d) the Wikipedia article dedicated to Aisha does not mention anything about "puberty"...and rightly so since it is never mentioned in primary sources. I have proposed on several occasions that the subject be avoided completely by removing the reference to her age, puberty and virginity due to contradictory evidence. However, this was disagreed by several editors, including one admin. The relevant discussion on the talk page is here [[3]] and will be familiar to @TransporterMan: as he received (and rejected) the initial request due to the time elapsed between when the discussion on the talk page began to when the request was filed. Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional issues (added by other parties)

Additional issue 1
Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation edit

Agree. Trinacrialucente (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Agree.~~ cӨde1+6^TP 03:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC) Disagree (for the 1st point). The filer accepted that the BBC source can not be used to present that opinion as a statement of fact, as per wiki guideline, after admin intervention. No mediation necessary. cӨde1+6^TP 02:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC) Agree for the 2nd case, but that's a whole other beast, with a ton more editors involved... Might be better to start a fresh mediation case. cӨde1+6^TP 16:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree for the second subject. That dispute is ripe for outside help. Eperoton (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I will not be active until the seventh of this month, a close relative has suffered from brain hemorrhage and is hospitalised, so if discussion starts before that my participation shall be minimal/zero. User:Code16 please remove your "other" comments from this list and leave and Agree/disagree comment or combine your comments into one please. I agree to this mediation with the caveat that we add an FAQ question when this mediation is over and lay this matter to rest once and for all. No need to mediate if we are going to be back here in a couple of months. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am active as of now. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: edit

@Trinacrialucente: @Jeppiz: Can we just leave it in the talk page? Perhaps in the form of an RFC? That would be much better so that it gets more attention, rather than using a 'mediation'. Thanks. 23:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)[reply]

@CounterTime: I seriously wish we could. Unfortunately there are some very odd and outright irrational personalities who have chosen to block any/all progress on ANY of this article. And once again, I am completely open to compromise and would prefer to erase a section as opposed to keeping it if it is too controversial (i.e. the age of Aisha at time of marriage). But I simply cannot allow propagandists to dictate/over-rule facts. Seriously, take a look at the previous attempts to make changes on the talk page and you will see what I am talking about. But once again, I do appreciate your input and discussion as it is rare to be able to find rational, cool-headed people (both for or against) the topics on this article. Trinacrialucente (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CounterTime: FYI, if you don't believe me, check my talk page. Right after I raised the other RFM, a sock-puppet of one of the users filed a case asking to have me banned. It was rejected as groundless, but it shows you that certain individuals here have no morals/ethics to speak of when it comes to trying to push their POV. This is JUST Wikipedia, but some take it way too seriously... Trinacrialucente (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Trinacrialucente: But the problem is that one should have a consensus to modify claims in the article, something that can be achieved only through seeking the input of as many as possible. Having a 'mediation' of only 3 people will be judged by others as insufficient. And one should keep good faith (WP:GOODFAITH) about other editors, it's a fundamental wiki principle. 23:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

I'm familiar with WP:GOODFAITH and WP:CONSENSUS, and maybe because you have not editing on Wikipedia, let alone on that article for long, but there are few are actually interested in consensus there. If there were, we would not have these types of forums to resolve such incidents. You'll need to trust the process, as it's in place for a reason. Trinacrialucente (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Trinacrialucente: As I said earlier, one should have a consensus to modify claims in the article, something that can be achieved only through seeking the input of as many as possible. Having a 'mediation' of only 3 people will be judged by others as insufficient. In any case I'm not participating in it, feel free to make an RFC in the relevant talk page. 00:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Comment: I've recently inserted the relevant quote from Wikipedia guideline (on the Talk page) that should be sufficient to end this issue. News Organizations are not good sources for "statements of fact" period. The BBC source has been quoted directly, and the opinion attributed to the BBC. So any previous edits by users who were inserting the BBC's opinions as a statement of fact were simply in breech of guidelines. cӨde1+6^TP 03:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: User Trinacrialucente has reverted the edit, without actually answering the point about guideline on the talk page. I think this at this point, it is reasonable to assume bad faith and POV pushing. cӨde1+6^TP 15:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The discussion is barely a day old and may already be moving towards consensus, so the mediation request seems at least premature. Eperoton (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that sounds deliberately misleading on your part, as you know this same discussion took place earlier month here, and came to a stalemate because of you and another user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad#Muhammad_selling_slaves. FYI, I believe that the current iteration of the sentence as edited by Ymblanter is a great compromise/accurate for everyone. If we can leave it at that, I see no need for mediation. This mediation proposal was only created as certain factions have attempted to hijack the board under the constant premise of "need consensus to make changes" and they do not allow a consensus other than the status quo, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And yes, you are indeed one of the guilty parties there. Trinacrialucente (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I believe that the current iteration of the sentence as edited by Ymblanter is a great compromise/accurate for everyone" Then why did you revert this exact language? 23:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Because it was made unilaterally without suggestion/discussion on the Talk page so we could all get a consensus as we HAD been doing up to that point. On the talk page, in one instance the user was saying we shouldn't use the source, then suddenly he quotes it in its entirety. After I reverted to YOUR last edit (NB YOURS...not mine, since that was the last we had agreed/built upon per the discussion) I began to formulate a response/additional citation to that effect, but of course the other editor had decided unilaterally to revert YOUR version to an even earlier edit which predated the progress we had made on our discussion. BTW...didn't you say you didn't want to be a part of this process? Did you change your mind?Trinacrialucente (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tell yourself whatever you want dude. We're done here. cӨde1+6^TP 02:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "we're done", unless you are now leaving the mediation. I said I would be willing to accept the current edit, but obviously I don't speak for the group here. Also, there is still another component that needs to be worked on in the same "Household" section; namely Aisha's/puberty citation age.Trinacrialucente (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee edit

Chairman's note: All parties should understand that if they do not care to participate here or do not believe that this process should go forward, they are not required to participate; simply vote "Disagree" in the space noted above. They should keep this page watchlisted, however; if this case is accepted for mediation, they can change their minds and participate at that time. There are at least three editors involved in the discussion at the article talk page over the last month who should be listed as parties; I'm going to add them, but if there are others I've not spotted, they should be added as well. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]

A couple of issues which concern me at this point:

Party list: The purpose of mediation is to try to help the parties involved in a dispute to come to consensus through moderated dialog. Such an effort is futile, however, unless everyone who might interfere with any consensus which is reached here is at least invited to take part. As noted by Code16 there were quite a few editors, other than those currently listed here, who took part in that discussion. In light of the amount of time which has passed since the end of the RFC and in light of the editors who have actively continued discussion since that time, I think that there isn't much risk in limiting the list here to the six currently listed. But if any of you think others should be invited to participate, please add them to the party list, above.
Issues to be mediated and conditional acceptances: If this case is accepted for mediation and a committee member chooses to mediate the case, then the mediator will discuss and resolve the issues to be mediated — which may be one or more of those listed above and may even be issues not listed above — with the participants and resolve any conditional acceptances. If you have placed a condition on your acceptance (e.g. second issue only or creation of a FAQ) and your condition is not satisfied or if you do not care to participate in mediation of the issues determined by the mediator, you may reverse your acceptance to a rejection and the mediator will then re-evaluate whether there are enough parties left to satisfy our prerequisites for mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Accept.~~ This case is accepted for mediation. I will now request that a member volunteer to take the case. If no member volunteers to take the case within two weeks (though I think that there is possibly someone already interested), this acceptance will be withdrawn and the case rejected for lack of a mediator. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reject. With the filing party's indefinite block, this case no longer satisfies Prerequisite to mediation #5, "[a] majority of the parties to the dispute consent to mediation" and since no member has accepted the mediation, the acceptance is withdrawn. The case may be refiled by another party — which might actually be of benefit due to the confusion about the issues to be mediated and who is interested in mediating which issue — but if it is please be sure to include any editors, if any, who have joined the discussion since this case was filed. The prerequisites of mediation must, of course, be satisfied for any new filing. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]