Talk:Mohamed ElBaradei/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Last Name

Is this spacing correct? Shouldn't there be a space in El Baradei? RickK 04:36, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

Looks wrong, but that's how I see it in Google.

By the way, a Washington Times editorial said:

In early October, the IAEA's Mr. ElBaradei suddenly demanded that the Iraqi interim government account for the explosives at al Qaqaa. After monitoring the cache for a decade (and a year and a half after the fall of Baghdad), Mr. ElBaradei says he now wants answers. This of course has nothing at all to do with the U.S.-led opposition to Mr. ElBaradei's hope for a third term as director-general, as reported by Agence France Presse in late September. It appears that from the IAEA on down to the New York Times and CBS News, which planned to run the story on Oct. 31, the whole point behind the missing-cache story was to create an "october surprise" on the eve of the election. [1]

I just checked the IAEA website. His name there is indeed "Mohamed ElBaradei". No space between "El" and "Baradei". Since he runs IAEA, let's assume that this is his preferred spelling, and that this is how he is referred to professionally in English. -- PFHLai 05:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Last Name (reply)

The spelling of his name was bothering me, so I went searching for answers. Since I speak a little arabic, I found an Arabic document on the UN website with his name in the title. It is spelt like Al-Baradei, but for Egyptian names it is commonly transliterated as El-Baradei. As far as the spacing, it is up to the discretion of whoever writes the name. In Arabic, the 'Al' is attached to the last name, so it does sort of make sense to put the words together without a space. From the best of my research, I find that his name probably just comes from early writing of his name that way, which just sort of stuck. Hopefully someone who knows more will stop by and clarify.

Hello, Mr. Anonymous Contributor. Perhaps you could dig up the proper Arabic spelling for his name as well?

And please, don't remove or edit your own contribution without any comment. Just providing something like "rewrote paragraph on X for clarity" or "rephrased question about Y and added some background info" in the "Edit summary" box would be nice. Saves the paranoid among us from having to compare pages just to see what it was you didn't want us to know, if nothing else. (That last bit was a joke.) -- 09:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) magetoo

In the ALA-LC (Library of Congress) system, for what it's worth, the transliteration of his name would be Muḥammad al-Barādi`ī. The third letter is an h with a dot under it. The next-to-last letter should be a left single quote mark. I will now flee before the transliteration police get here. :-)
--Cam 02:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I have returned to clarify that, in this instance, the LC doesn't use a strict transliteration for its authorized heading (see authority control) but instead uses the more common form Mohamed El Baradei.--Cam 02:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Awesome work Cam. Thanks. --Avengerx

Downer?

Sorry, that's news to me. "There was no potential candidate to bid against his reelection, though he US tried to convince Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, who declined, to run for job." How come the Australian media hasn't picked up on this? He must be the most disliked politician in the Liberal party cabinet, with the exception of perhaps Ruddock or Vanstone. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

well then you really don't know Australia if that is what you think. I don't know why Foreign Minister Alexander Downer would be hated, he deals with international diplomacy. It would also be good if you used the proper terms when refering to these people such as Senator Amander Vanstone rather than just Vanstone. Mattrix18 10:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that the Australian media hasn't mentioned it more, but it did get one or two references — here, for example, and here. A Google search for "Alexander Downer" and "IAEA" is here. I don't know what the source of the claim is, though. -- Vardion 21:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How can he win the Nobel Prize?

This is a man who has been so entirely undermined by Iranian escalation tactics, threatening any UN intervention with possible aggression, that he and his EU-led cronies have backed down almost entirely. He has allowed Iran to carry on its enriching activities with utter impunity, but he harps on US involvement in Iraq and stolen weapons. Wow. Talk about misplaced priorities.--Michaelk 01:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I also don't agree with his winning of the Nobel Prize. While I don't have as strong of negative feelings about him as you do, I feel that the decision was politically motivated rather than properly awarded. His criticism of American policy is what wins him notierity; when it should instead be his works for the IAEA that gets him attention. Sadly, he isn't doing his job correctly, especially with the Iran debacle.--AvengerX 01:40, 8 9 October 2005

Agreed. The Times Online wrote a great article outlining every reason he should never even have been considered, let alone won.

1. Before the 1991 Gulf War (before Dr ElBaradei’s appointment), the IAEA failed to detect Saddam’s nuclear programme. After the war, it was startled by the scale of his work to make fissile material.

2. Under Dr ElBaradei, the IAEA missed the Libyan nuclear programme, which Libya chose to reveal after the 2003 Iraq war.

3. It missed Iran’s 20-year covert nuclear research programme, exposed by Iranian dissidents three years ago.

4. It failed to detect the “nuclear supermarket” run by A. Q. Khan, the Pakistani scientist who sold plans and components to Libya, North Korea and Iran.

5. It was slow to sound the alarm about North Korea’s conversion of its civil nuclear power into a weapons programme. The US accused North Korea of weapons ambitions in 2002.

For more info, read the article for yourself at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1816612,00.html. --Michaelk 16:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps he was given the prize for opposing what many consider to have been the vicious and illegal invasion of Iraq. Personaly I don't understand why some countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons and others not, especially given that US policy prioriutises US citizens, SqueakBox 16:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

there seems to be some confusion about the IAEA's role. it is not a policing, investigating agency. it is not an intelligence organisation. its job, as i understand it, is to verify that nations which agree to co-operate with it, use nuclear facilities safely, securely, and for peaceful purposes(if they have so agreed). neither 'rogue' states nor 'god's own' states such as the US offer IAEA inspectors full and untrammeled access to facilities, personnel or information to enable IAEA to detect non-compliance by the states. the iaea's job is to ensure that nuclear power is used appropriately, to the extent it can given the above limits to its access. the job of unearthing covert weapons programmes ... etc is the job of intelleligence organisations. the job of convincing or coercing nations to co-operate and obey the nuclear dogma ("we'll keep ours, you don't make yours") is that of the security council and individual nations.

it is the IAEA's job to inform its "superiors" whether the cooperation it receives is adequate for it to perform the verification it needs to do. in this, if the US state department disagrees with the IAEA, it can

1. put up the info it (the state dept.) has gathered to make the IAEA "see" that cooperation is not adequate.
2. fire the IAEA staff and appoint others to do a better job, which it can only do if it can convince other states on the iaea's board of governors (is it?) to do likewise.

if the state dept is unable to do either, it's not the iaea's problem.

Doldrums 18:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

And what has the IAEA/Baradei done about Israel's nuclear arsenal? A couple of nervous statements and no action or results. 80.6.30.24 00:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Did you read what Doldrums said? The IAEA is not responsible for monitoring Israel anymore then it is responsible for monitoring Iran as neither are currently allowing the IAEA to do so Nil Einne 09:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

controversy & october surprise

the controversy section is more aptly titled 'US opposition to ElBaradei". mention needs to be made of criticism of ElB from elsewhere. here's a start - Gong for dubious level of achievement by Bronwen Maddox (Foreign Editor's Briefing) The Times, October 08, 2005 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1816612,00.html

An october surprise section seems unwarranted, atmost it merits a mention under 'US opposition ...". Doldrums 08:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Quotes

Quotes should be part of a narrative, or moved to en.wikiquote.org. Rd232 13:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

"Considered stooge"

I removed User:InnocentMinds addition to the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize section (emphasized):

Considered by many as a stooge of the West (particularly the US) for allowing Western countries develop peaceful nuclear programs while disallowing Muslim Iran to do so. On October 7 2005, ElBaradei and the IAEA itself were announced as joint recipients of the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize ...

It doesn't belong in the Nobel Peace Prize section, and it should be rephrased to try and avoid POV (considered -- by whom?). -- magetoo 13:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed "Nuclear Club" Reference

I have removed para 2 of the Controversy section. It read as follows:

"During ElBaradei's term as Director General for the IAEA, the following countries have joined the nuclear club: India, Pakistan, and North Korea. It also should be noted that India and Pakistan did not sign the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty."

This is imprecise at best. First of all, the author of this paragraph did not specify whether joining the nuclear club involves the production of nuclear energy, performing uranium enrichment, detonating nuclear weapons, or stating intents about these activities. In any event, India detonated its first nuclear bomb in 1974 (a whole 23 years before ElBaradei's 19979 appointment). Pakistan started developing its nuclear program in 1972. North Korea has been operating its reactor at Yongbyon since the 1960s or shortly thereafter. In addition, the relationship between India and Pakistan not having signed the NPT and Mohamed ElBaradei's tenure at the IAEA is quite tenuous.--Nicsilo 19:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not asking for the re-insertation, generally speaking the nuclear club refers to those who are believed to have developed working nuclear weapons, usually by having successfully publicly tested them (e.g. India, Pakistan) but sometimes even without a successful public test (e.g. Israel) Nil Einne 09:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Quotefarm template

Is four quotes too many for an article of this length and importance? Where are guidelines saying that it is? -Pgan002 (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines emphasize paraphrasing and limiting full quotations. The goal is to avoid plagiarizing news, and that is the reasoning behind limiting quotes. IMO 4 quotes is hardly too many, if anything it's not enough. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent reorganization

I think the recent reorganization has been an improvement. I objected to two new sections, and I wanted to explain. I took the somewhat drastic step of deleting two new sections that I thought were extraneous to this article. While the sections on U.S. and Israeli views addressed their views of ElBaradei, the sections on Iranian and NAM views were opinions on the Iran nuclear issue. This article is not the place to recapitulate the IAEA role in Iran and rehash Iran's position on the overall controversy. I am not familiar with Iran's (or the NAM's) stated views on the IAEA's handling of Iran, so I was not in a position to replace these sections with relevant material. I encourage others to do so. NPguy (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Your point is fair enough. WP requires multiple viewpoints, as you seem to agree with.--69.208.130.188 (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Israeli viewpoint section

This section is titled "Israeli viewpoint" - and should, obviously, include the Israeli viewpoint, nothing more nor less. The Nobel committee's opinion of ElBaradie is not "the Israeli viewpoint". Iran's comments regrading its nuclear program are not ""the Israeli viewpoint". Elbaradie's opinion about Iran's nuclear program are not "the Isreali viewpoint". As I wrote, if these are well referenced, they may have a place in a different section in the article, but not under "Israeli viewpoint", since they are, quite plainly, not the "the Israeli viewpoint". I haven't yet looked at the other sections to see if they have similar issues, but if they do, they need to be fixed, as well. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that Caroline Glick was writing her op-ed in response to ElBaradei winning the Nobel Prize, and she even mentions it in her article. And since the article is about ElBaradei, it only seems natural that his response or view of the viewpoints would be given. Do you think naming the sections "<Country> viewpoint and response", etc. or adding "response" sections to each country would be more appropriate?

(Just for reference, the ElBaradei quotes in other sections include "ElBaradei has urged Member States which have provided information to the Agency to agree to the Agency´s sharing of this information with Iran", "ElBaradei has said that contrary to the requests of the Security Council and the Board of Governors, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities", etc; If you don't like the idea of leaving it as it is or adding a response section, could you propose something?)

Thanks,--69.208.130.188 (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. I don't think it is inappropriate to segregate "Israeli viewpoints" while merging everything else in a criticisms/controversies section. That kind of activity screams POV and is a clear gesture to reduce legitimate critism by washing it as "Israeli viewspoints." Let's go ahead and divide all criticisms according to opinion: Views by American viewspoints, Arab viewpoints, Saudi viewpoints, etc... The only justified section would be "Views of Iran" or "Iranian viewpoints." They are the ones on trial, not Israel. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Every view had the exact same header? I don't understand how or why you felt one area was receiving different treatment, and this shouldn't be the case with any of the viewpoints.--69.208.130.188 (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You tagged a Jpost and WSJ editorial as formal viewpoints for two sovereign governments. Please rationalize that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post/Caroline Glick isn't an "Israeli" viewpoint? What kind of viewpoint would you call it? Why wouldn't this material and other material be appropriate under reaction since it is indeed a reaction?--69.208.130.188 (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No, just because it comes from an Israeli does not mean it represents Israel's POV. Get it? It is very rare for articles to segregate criticisms/praise/commentaries based on the nationality of journalists. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how you drew the implication that it would inherently represent Israel's POV, so I don't really get it. And again why wouldn't this material and other material be appropriate under reaction since it is indeed a reaction?--69.208.130.188 (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

ALSO - inaccurate section, changing immediately

Magazines such a WJ, Jeruselum Post, etc... do not speak on behalf of the United States, Israel, etc... Unless they are quoting x official, including their material in such a section is simply inaccurate. I'm going to merge everything according to the original section. Too many divisions are distracting and totally unnecessary. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The current sectioning doesn't seem completely logical, but my major problem before was content, not organization.--69.208.130.188 (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Waaaay too long

I think we need to reduce the size and overall scope of the article. We can definitely reduce the awards section, that isn't particularly notable. Try to merge most criticism together, perhaps create a praise section since a lot of the info in "reactions" mostly consists of compliments. One IP user is consistently rerouting sources and changing words around, it's extremely annoying so whoever you are please slow down. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources aren't being rerouted at all, information is simply being provided.--69.208.130.188 (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Article size, the article is just fine in length.--69.208.130.188 (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And a "praise" section is going to have the same problem as a "criticism" section, it has an inherent point of view.--69.208.130.188 (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism/controversies section is justified if the cited material consists of criticisms and controversies. Renaming it "viewpoints" or "reactions" or whatever other euphemism is nothing short of false. Similar characters, such as Richard A. Falk, have a criticism section. Point is, there is a vast amount of backlash cited throughout the article to warrant such a title. Being neutral does not mean omitting facts for positive bias. Also, don't spam my page with warnings because I warned you. Seriously, not cool. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I provided you with a warning asking you not to remove tags from the article when there is a dispute on the talk page, so please don't remove tags and I won't request that you not remove them. I am not convinced that a Controversy/Criticism section is appropriate for a biography of a living person, and I would point out that this material can be incorporated in to the article in a number of other ways.--69.208.130.188 (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There was no recent dispute challenging the neutrality. BILP has nothing to do with controversy/criticism section and to be honest I don't care if you aren't convinced. If you want to engage in a formal consensus please do, but continually demanding a justified title to be removed because you aren't convinced. I do agree content should be spread out accordingly, but shifting notable criticisms around to under-represent their importance won't fly. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion has been on the talk page for a few days, right around when the tag went up. BLP in general just says to be more sensitive about the quality of information which is included in a biography of a living person. Criticism sections are strongly discouraged in general, and they are thus even more strongly discouraged on a biography of a living person

According to WP:POVFORK, there is currently no consensus whether criticism sections are always a POV fork, "but it is a common fault of many articles. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen is a "Praise of..." article was created instead)".

And there is also a similar quote from Jimbo Wales:

In many cases they [criticism sections] are necessary, and in many cases they are not necessary.
And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.

— Jimbo Wales, Criticism sections on bios of living people

The information should be spread throughout the article, not distilled in to one area with a tendentious name no less.--69.208.130.188 (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Right. Criticisms section is necessary because he is a controversial figure and "moving" around criticism will devalue their legitimacy, as you have been attempting to do by aggressively putting redundant praise/flattery within the section. I don't car what Wales said and I'm surprised you would use such a pathetic appeal to authority fallacy. Your civil POV-pushing will not be tolerated for much longer, trust me. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment on perception of content, not on perception of contributor. Why don't you offer a justification for keeping only negative information in one tendentiously named section of the article? And I don't understand what is wrong with trying to appeal to consensus.--69.208.130.188 (talk) 09:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The recent edits seem like heavy-handed hagiography. The criticism section is probably also a bit overdone, the Israeli op-ed being a case in point. But its rhetoric is so over the top that it rebuts itself. I guess the praise section is also transparently over the top. The article is not improved. NPguy (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, the article seems to have a wider array of views in it now, but I agree it could always be improved. I would just point out that the article is never settled text and that there is an editing and discussion process for this very reason.--69.208.130.188 (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The criticism section was less than 4 paragraphs before unknown IP loaded it with fluff and POV-pushing. Ugh. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

My IP is known if you would check my signature or the page history. Could you explain how quoting the U.N. Secretary General and different governments is "POV-pushing"? The viewpoints are cited and attributed under their relevant topics, so I do not see why attributing particular governmental stances is "POV-pushing".--69.208.130.188 (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand your clarification.--76.251.250.43 (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

POV flag

Someone added a POV tag to this article. You aren't supposed to do that without explaining the POV problem. Please do, or I'll delete the tag. NPguy (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the tag since I couldn't find the problem being explained specifically. If there are specific concerns, they should be listed here on talk first.

To the editor who added the tag, I would note I haven't been in disagreement with any proposals which have recently been made, so perhaps you could try editing/improving the article before bringing the issue to the talk page. Summarizing some content, adding some "missing" content, etc. would seem fine.--76.251.250.43 (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Right - article suffers from extreme POV clutter, especially here, here, and here. Criticism/controversy section was suspiciously mixed/merged with "viewpoints", and some points simply deleted. The article lacks focus, it jumps from praise to *yawn* fluffy facts that don't really matter. An IP user radically edited the article without going to talk about a month ago, forcing myself to revert/fix but eventually I just got bored. It is clear this article suffers from extreme POV-pushing and unfortunately these attacks have gone largely unrecognized by users considering the relative infrequent moderation of the article. It is also suspect when entire paragraphs are supported by single sources, and section titles are renamed without consensus. POV tag is as far as I'm willing to go. Feel free to fuck up the article beyond that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So it still seems you need to enumerate specific content and have specicifc proposals about what you're liking to change. I seemed to identify the following issues from your paragraph:

• Article contains fluffy facts that don't really matter

• First, you need to specify and enumerate "fluffy" facts. If a source is misquoted or misparaphrased, you should add a {{disputed}} tag to the specific statements.

• Entire paragraphs are supported by single sources

• The proper resolution to this is to add a {{fact}} tag to material which is not found in sources.

• Section titles are renamed without consensus

• There seems to be some discussion of the section titles on talk, and article content is always changing. Controversy/criticism sections, much as homage/exaltation sections, are usually discouraged as a rule of thumb because they turn in to a POV-fork. POV-forks may imply that details in the main passage are "true" and imply that other material is "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false. A more neutral approach may result by folding debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them into separate sections that ignore each other. For example, Adolf Hitler doesn't need a criticism section, and Jesus Christ doesn't need a praise section, the content should simply be attributed and the reader should be able to form their own opinion. If there is content which was removed or which is missing, simply add where it is appropriate or create a new section (about the topic of the criticism rather than the particular stance taken).

So it would be helpful if you could provide specific examples of the above in each respective section and a proposal of what you are wishing to change.--76.251.250.43 (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Been there done that. I'm not going to feed you and will continue to add the POV tag save from edit warring. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, you need to enumerate specific problems and propose remedies for the tag(s) to remain.--99.130.163.56 (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Already did. Wikifan12345 (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think you did. The complaints have been generic, without specific suggestions for fixes. NPguy (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)::::::First of all, Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing, just blunt. I can't restore info when it backlogs 100 edits. I make one edit, it's reverted, replaced with b.s and/or fluff, then dozens of more edits make it impossible to insert the original sentence save from reverting back to my (or whoever else) version. Citing an entire section is not ridiculous. I don't need your encouragement, wikipedia is a place for collaboration and you and your buddies unilaterally fucked up the article and removed any progress I and others made before going to talk. POV tag stays. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Right. So there is room for improvement if or when specific suggestions are made. I would note that no users have voiced concern with anything you have proposed, so there is no ongoing dispute. It would be better for you (Wikifan12345) to just edit the article directly to cover missing issues, etc. These tags are only for active debate/disputes about specific issues. No one has challenged anything you have proposed.--99.130.163.56 (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There was room for improvement before you (or the other anonymous IP address, LOL), deleted ENTIRE cited info, removed the criticism/controversies section and LOADED the article with b.s. This, for example, isn't necessary: blah blah self-promotion. This needs to be merged with controversies if the viewpoints qualify, blah blah. This needs to be reverted back to its original state a month ago, blah. We have critics and supporters commenting on HIS viewpoints. They need to be separated like they were before and not doing so is suspect. Simple and concise is always better. I had to deal with some idiot IP address who wouldn't stop deleting/moving around and fucking up the article with fluff and irrelevant facts, ultimately forcing myself to leave. This is why a POV tag is necessary. The fact that you don't recognize these problems is also a concern. Dispute proved and challenged sufficiently, tag stays. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, no personal attacks and no incivility. Second of all, if cited information was removed then simply restore it. Thirdly, criticism sections are strongly discouraged and the information is supposed to be merged in to the main article (you suggested this and it already has been done). Citing an entire cited and verifiable section seems silly and ridiculous, but you would still tag the section and not the article. I would strongly encourage you to instead point out specific issues within the sections as outlined above.--99.130.163.56 (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not being uncivil, just blunt. I can't restore info when it backlogs 100 edits. I make one edit, it's reverted, replaced with b.s and/or fluff, then dozens of more edits make it impossible to insert the original sentence save from reverting back to my (or whoever else) version. Citing an entire section is not ridiculous. I don't need your encouragement, wikipedia is a place for collaboration and you and your buddies unilaterally fucked up the article and removed any progress I and others made before going to talk. POV tag stays. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:24

Also, I replaced the POV tag with one that is more accurate. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

To me, your language seems very heated. I have been not been working directly with anyone else on the article, so your charge that we "unilaterally fucked up the article" seems completely unwarranted and seems like a comment on contributor and not on content. I have requested an outside opinion on the issue of the templates and I would still encourage you to enumerate specific issues within the sections you are complaining about.--99.130.163.56 (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I collaborate as far as productivity is concerned. But you did "unilaterally fuck up the articke" by merging in poof and fluff into the article with lengthy and *yawn* rationalizations in talk. From my account almost all your "progress" has been removed. Be glad you haven't been blocked. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you an administrator who blocks over content disputes now?--68.251.187.176 (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok then.--68.251.187.176 (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC: POV Template usage

To summarize the section above, I only feel that a tag for the article should be included if specific problems are listed. I feel that the editor who places the tag on the article should be making edits to "fix" the article, and not just labelling sections POV without a proper explanation. I am seeking the input of other editors on this matter. I would also appreciate input on whether the article should have a "Criticism"/"Controversy" section (or whether this should be throughout the article) and whether there should be a lot of coverage of reaction to Baradei's investigation of Iran (or whether this is more appropriate for other articles).--99.130.163.56 (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment from RFC As a point of principle, yes, POV tags need to be accompanied by an adequate explanation of what the problem is. The degree of specificity can be argued over, but it should be more than mere justification for adding the tag: it should be a starting point for somebody wanting to fix the problem. That said, in this particular case the article does look pretty obviously unbalanced. A big part of the reason for that is that it's going into far too much detail which doesn't belong here, but should be elsewhere (eg IAEA, nuclear program of Iran). Somehow the editors have collectively completely lost sight of the fact that this is supposed to be a biography. Rd232 ^talk 00:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It was fairly balanced and concise, and about HALF AS LONG a month ago. 2 IP users came and fucked it all up then demanded everyone specify each little problem that was wrong...problems THEY created! Leave the tag, hopefully it will draw people to talk instead of giving the false impression that all is well. Considering noticeboard if these IPs don't play ball. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well the version from a month ago ([2]) doesn't impress much either, but at least the structure was slightly better and the content not all over the place. I've had to get rid of a bunch of WP:NOT#NEWS violations (by deletion) and basically content forking of Nuclear program of Iran (by dumping the section there) and the Viewpoints section ("urgh", to quote one editor's recent comment...) by merging it into the career. Now how about those who actually want to be editing Nuclear program of Iran go and do that, and anyone who's left and wants to write a bio on this guy do some research on his first and second terms, plus the non-Iran stuff of his third. WP:UNDUE, hmm? Rd232 ^talk 02:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I took the liberty was re-adding 2 paragraphs of criticism which was in the original version. I don't know how we can mush it around the rest of the article so I just made a section. I also believe we should add more on ME approach toward Israel. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I pretty strongly disagree with what you are doing - re-adding this BS as a Criticism section. It is entirely your opinion that this particular oped/person is notable. You need to give some argument or evidence that it is. I, for instance, offer the following argument: the Glick oped allegation about Baradei supporting the mullahs is extremely tendentious BS and absolutely unworthy of inclusion, because the IAEA refers to the Security Council based on its own investigation and opinion, not what any individual state claims. Now, since nobody here seems to care about BLP issues, and I have neither the time nor the energy, I'm going to wave a flag at WP:BLPN. Rd232 ^talk 03:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, how is a reference from Israel corroborated with a RS newspaper (not promotion site as the article heavily relied on before) not notable? Plenty of bio articles have criticism sections. I know they aren't preferred but I don't see how this could go anywhere else. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

verifiability is not notability. cf Wikipedia:Coatrack and WP:UNDUE. Rd232 ^talk 03:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I never said it was notable based on its verifiability. How is it undue? It's a direct criticism of a crucial happening. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think including an op-ed without including the official positions of multilateral organizations and governments makes sense. If you're going to include perception or reception, you have to bring it from multiple sources. Rd232 suggests this entire discussion of reception should be done in other articles (IAEA, Nuclear program of Iran, etc.) and this makes sense to me. So I would still like it if Wikifan12345 could explain why the template is currently on the article. The article can't be improved if no one says what specifically is wrong or how it should be fixed.--99.130.163.56 (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• (Pointed here by the note at BLP/N) -- I think the POV tag ought to be removed - on balance, I think this article is actually in pretty good shape (in the revision shown as I write this comment). I've left a note on Wikifan's talkpage advising that he may want to disengage from this discussion and editing this article, although he is currently blocked for 72 hours anyway. Avruch ^T 16:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

After the touch-up that has been done, I think the article is in better shape too. I'm going to temporarily step back from editing to give others a chance to comment. Could you also comment on whether you believe the article should have a "Criticism"/"Controversy" section and whether you believe there should be a lot of coverage of reaction to Baradei's investigation of Iran? Thanks,--99.130.163.56 (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think "praise" and "criticism" sections are the way to go. Relevant content should be worked into the appropriate sections, i.e. criticism of his work in various areas should be included in the description of that work. Avruch ^T 13:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't comment. I was blocked for edit warring. I disagree, I consider the praise and criticism sections necessary. Accusations of bias and POV are valid, but these types of commentaries must be heard. If you can merge criticism/praise appropriately, have had it, but that's not what happened before. IP users loaded the article with never-ending supply of fluff and irrelevant content, understating (and at times completely removing) even remote criticisms. I think a criticism/praise or controversies section will make things easier, and if and when there is a time where users can moosh ideas together, then that's fine. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

First, it would be nice to specify in your RfC WHAT TAG you are referring to, especially in BLP. In controversial bios like this with lots of vandalizing Anon IPs I'm pretty hard core and think {BLPdispute|date=April 2009} should be permanent. Then put line tags on specific problems. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It was the "neutrality disputed" tag, if I remember. A dispute tag should have an underlying actual dispute. A history of IP vandalism or one-off comments doesn't constitute a dispute worthy of a permanent tag. Avruch ^T 15:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I see it now. Must be going blind. A problem with articles like this is BOTH sides of any dispute will consider things POV, so that can go up and down, depending on which side is disatisfied. But there is no doubt that people should specify problems in talk and even put tag in the section where there are most problems. Then it can come down for whatever period of time people think it's NPOV. Of course BLP dispute includes ongoing POV disputes, as well as keeping it clean of non WP:RS material. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming you forgot about the anonymous (IP) civil-POV pushers, who viciously (yet cordially) refused to allow a POV tag remain, demanding users "specify" every little thing that's wrong. Their month of editing was eventually removed almost entirely, surprise there. As far as I'm concerned, a POV tag should remain until the article is balanced and neutralized to a reasonable extent. Remember - articles don't start off balanced. We assume the lowest, and move from there. Prove to me the article is balanced, that's a good start. And a person so controversial as ME cannot be treated, like say...an apple. I suggest users post edits that a larger than a paragraph in talk. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The removed edits were to balance material that you inserted which was also removed and it was removed as extraneous and not as a POV issue. And the article looks fairly balanced to me as it is, and I don't think a tag belongs in the article indefinitely and arbitrarily.--68.251.185.77 (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no one needs to prove to you that a tag doesn't belong. If you want a neutrality disputed tag to appear on the page, then the IP editor is right - you need to dispute specific parts of the content for specific reasons. I'm not sure what you mean by "ElBaradei isn't an apple", or "assume the lowest." Perhaps you should explain? Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 15:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if you were involved in the article 1 month ago, you would understand. I'll simplify things, since comprehension is clearly in obstacle in this discussion: A) 2 IP users, one of which is currently disputing the tag, trashed the article with fluff and BLP violations for more than 3 weeks (check the hist for more info). I told them what they were doing, gave some examples but at their editing rate, it was extremely difficult to keep up. B) The IP users eventually had ALL of their edits reverted to a much earlier state by an admin. C) During the entire editing process, IP users would continually remove the POV tag, demanding editors be "more specific." As far as I'm concerned, a general dispute as been established with a reasonable level of details provided, bad and unapologetic editing has occurred, and users still want to argue about a POV tag. Tired of this civil-pov pushing that is responded with indifference and bizarre support. The IPer should feel lucky they haven't been punished. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

For sake of record, the BLP violations were the op-ed which you were trying to include, and your material was also reverted out of the article. In fact, I am now much happier with the aritcle. Requesting reasoning for a tag seems hardly controversial.

"The IPer should feel lucky they haven't been punished": I find this striking when you are the one who has been repeatedly blocked. I also would remind you that it is much more productive to focus on the content of the article.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how previous versions of the article or the history of behavior of some editors is really relevant to the article today, and to the discussion we are having right now. I'm not interested in debating blame for past versions, or assigning culpability for warring or inserting bad content in the past. The question before is us not "has there been a dispute in the past" because that is irrelevant for whether or not a tag belongs today. The question we need to answer with this RfC (and, if we're being honest, it has already been answered in large part) is "is there a current dispute, of specific article content, that merits a tag?" I'm perfectly open to discussing any particular dispute you may have with the article as it stands, and so it appears are others. What we need from you is to tell us what it is that you want to change specifically, so we can get to it. It's a simple request really, and the only way to move forward. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 03:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Previous disputes are crucial in recognizing POV concerns. Just as an article going through 7 AFDs, prior arguments should be considered at all times, especially in a future-argument that relate almost identically. The IPers actions destroyed the article and deterred most from even trying. Ok, back to the present. Here are some neutrality concerns: First, the article contains very little information in regards to ME's (and by far his most defining actions with the IAEA) dealings with Iran's nuclear program. To be blunt, the current section royally sucks. The section starts at 2007 to the present, which is bizarre considering ME's major involvement dates back to the early 2000s. That is where the juicy and notable material can be found. Compare the Iran section from 1 month ago. Unfortunately a few editors were upset over the title, and at the time I think it was necessary. But for now, ignore the dubious heading. Much of the information within that section hardly compares with its current state. Heads of state demanding ME be impeached, accusations of allowing Iran to further its alleged-nuclear program, and direct commentary from WSJ...all gone. No rationale, no explanation. ME has said a lot of weird things, but none of that is in the article. And when faced with intense scrutiny from several governments and organization in 2004, ME turned to Israel and decided to categorize it with Iran.. This is important. Neutrality should be taken very seriously here, but the fact that NONE of this is in the article is suspect. Actually, it isn't suspect. It's a freaking conspiracy. ;) So, shall I be more specific? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been staying out of what looked to me like a pissing contest. But finally Wikifan has identified a specific problem with the current content of the article. I agree that this section is a problem. I'm not sure if it's a POV problem so much as that it's a piece of crap. The discussion would have to begin with ElBaradei's initial reports to the Board, in particular the weasel words he put in the November 2003 report, which effectively prejudiced the whole process since then of dealing with Iran's safeguards violations. It appears that he was guided more by fear of U.S. action than by his responsibilities under the IAEA Statute. There are probably some parts of the current section that are worth keeping, but as a whole it needs to be rewritten.

In addition, there should be a section on the IAEA role in Iraq. I think that needs to be there to counterbalance the Iran section. That is a case where ElBaradei got it right and the United States got it wrong. It's also the primary basis for his Nobel Peace Prize.

Again, I'm not sure these are POV problems, but they are key examples of the unrepresentative selection of facts for this article. NPguy (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can edit the article, so perhaps someone should edit it then? (This keeps in mind that we use reliable sources and adhere to BLP concerns.)--75.2.19.152 (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As the poster of the RfC I feel the initial concerns have been addressed. I'm not sure if it should stay open or closed and I think the discussion should continue but possibly under different talk sections.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, good. I'm adding the POV tag since all concerns have been addressed with little objections. Hopefully that will attract more editors to integrate the mentioned issues. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

From what I read above, if you have a concern then you should add it (as long as it is within the constraints of WP:RS and WP:BLP). The tag is not meant to gather reader attention, it is to let readers and editors know there is a dispute about specific content proposals. While you have been specific above, I don't see anyone challenging your proposal as long as it is within Wiki guidelines.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh? The tag is meant to warn readers there is a POV concern and encourage them to help edit the article. There is a content dispute, a very major one. A content dispute you haven't recognized. You removing the POV tag is a challenge. I will TRY and add the material but it will be difficult without creating a criticism/controversy section like before. Merging takes quite some time and will likely result in an immense amount of reverting. I've provided several actionable POV concerns. Concerns with references, references that were *important* in the article a month ago. So not only is this a POV concern, we have editors consciously removing cited material. Editors who still believe a tag isn't necessary. If you agree with my POV, fine. the article still suffers from a lack of neutrality either way, so the tag stays. Tag is not dependent on a discussion consensus. See for more info. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A dispute over wanting to place a tag? As far as I can tell, other editors have said that criticism/controvery sections are discouraged and that the material belongs put in throughout the regular article and that a tag belongs only in cases where there is a specific content dispute.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy that you've outlined some substantive concerns. Improving the coverage of the Iranian nuclear program issue is probably warranted, although the best solution may be a relatively short summary section with a link to the Nuclear program of Iran article. Having said that... the clear consensus of this RfC is that the tag doesn't belong. Believing that the article should be expanded to include a particular subtopic isn't the same as establishing a neutrality dispute. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 15:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We have basically three versions of the same section. The version Wikifan linked to above, the version posted below this section on the talkpage, and the live version of the article. The linked version and the talkpage version suffer from the same problem; they aren't unbalanced, as such, but they have the feeling of throwing everything against the wall. We should aim at something a little more organized, I'd think, and quite a bit shorter. I think the current section on the live page does a fairly good job of that, but it could use some expansion to include earlier events and a fuller description of the controversial nature of his involvement. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 15:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No, we have two versions. The below version is trash and violates BLP. POV tag is justified, I provided explicit rationale and simple "oh, it's all unbalanced" is very concerning. This isn't a matter of a consensus. You don't want a POV tag because it negatively reflects the status of the article. But the status of the article, in blunt terms, is crap. Disruptive tactics are evident and many IPers should consider themselves lucky they haven't been blocked. I will reiterate: Stop. Removing. POV. Tag. Tag is not dependent on whatever personal beef you have. Bolded for important: If actionable POV concerns exists, and evidence is explicit and comprehensible, a POV tag is necessary and the exclusion of it reflects the objectivity of the editors involved. This is wikipedia policy. We cannot give the false-impression that this article is a set-and-done B class masterpiece. It sucks, it should be start IMO. I am asking you to cease and desist, refusal will force us into a lengthy administrator intervention. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There was an RfC discussion which lasted for about two weeks. I don't want to put words in any of the users' mouths, but there seemed to be a consensus that the article was fairly well balanced, that people should specify problems in talk, specific reasons for the specific problems should be given, and you should be actively making other edits to the article other than just repeatedly adding the tag. There can't be a dispute if no one is disputing anything you have proposed. And to include a particular subtopic isn't the same as establishing a neutrality dispute. I don't know where you got the item you are quoting, but in other words, you haven't provided POV concerns (especially with specific explicit and comprehensible evidence). On top of that, no one has disputed anything you have proposed and there is nothing actionable. Even you yourself haven't done anything actionable to the article other than readd the tag.

And not to repeat myself, but you aren't an administrator and I disregard your opinion. I find it ironic to hear you say this actually.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said, POV tag is not dependent on consensus. I've provided explicit POV issues, issues that were seconded by a fellow editor. I am doing my best to AGF according to your posts, but failure to recognize this is a major concern. Like I said, a month ago I was highly involved in the article. I was the one who put that information in. Almost all of it was later removed by IPers. Their editors were later removed to an almost complete extent without punishment. I spent probably, I don't know maybe a couple days explaining how they continually denied a POV tag based on a "consensus" and "lack of details regarding POV." Similar to your concerns. In response to your disagreement, I still provided an immense amount of evidence to back up my claims, even though that kind of argument is rarely necessary. It is clear you don't want the tag and will continue to fight it regardless of the article's neutrality status. I will add a different dispute tag and notify an administrator momentarily. Wikifan12345 (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You haven't provided explicit POV issues, you have said sections are lacking and everyone has agreed with you. That means you or anyone else can start writing the material which is missing. You haven't provided any actionable items that anyone disputes, nor have you provided explicit and convincing evidence of POV concerns. I would just encourage you to start the subsection you mentioned above. I think the issue was already explored through the RfC, and I would also welcome a third opinion.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I did. I provided several examples with sources to back them up. Whether your dispute them or not is irrelevant. I will be happy to start sub-sections but your removal of the POV tag infers that you believe there is not a neutrality issue, when there is. I encourage you to read up on neutrality rules because obviously you don't understand. Hopefully 3rd opinion gets here soon. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Rework, section on Gaza comment removed

I've reworked some text of the article a bit. I don't think its too long, but the organization made it a bit hard to follow. I've also removed this section below, because I don't think its really relevant to the biographical nature of the article. Comments unrelated to his public role, and which don't seem to form a significant thread in his life or relate to a pattern of activity, should probably be excluded unless there is some greater context to put them in. Avruch ^T 15:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Collapsed content
The following is a content that has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
In January 2009, ElBaradei protested the BBC's decision not to broadcast a television appeal by aid agencies for victims of the airstrikes against Gaza following the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict by canceling interviews scheduled with the company. Although BBC officials said it refused to air the appeals in order to remain unbiased during the conflict, ElBaradei claimed the refusal "violates the rules of basic human decency which are there to help vulnerable people irrespective of who is right or wrong."
The above is content that has been collapsed for improved usability.

Rework, reception removed

Just noting the following material was removed from the main article. --68.251.187.176 (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Reception of Nobel

Jack Straw, foreign secretary of the United Kingdom, welcomed the decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to the IAEA chief. The foreign secretary said the award highlighted the watchdog's role in "preventing the further proliferation of nuclear weapons". "This is also a very great achievement for Dr ElBaradei and I would like to offer him my full-hearted congratulations and that of the British government for his expert leadership of the IAEA secretariat over the past eight years," Straw said. "This award coincides with his reappointment by consensus at the recent IAEA general conference," Straw continued.

Senior Kremlin aide, Sergei Prikhodko, described as exceptionally right the decision to award IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei the Nobel peace prize. "ElBaradei is a man of peace, not war. Russia has always supported and will continue to support the efforts of this man who stands outside of politics and handles practical issues in the interests of the world community," he said.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice quickly offered her congratulations to the director-general. Rice said, "At a time when there is a danger that nuclear arms will spread both to states and to terrorist groups, and when nuclear power again appears to be playing an increasingly significant role, [the] IAEA’s work is of incalculable importance.” The White House said "U.S. officials are looking forward to continuing to work with ElBaradei". John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, said he would agree with the secretary's statement congratulating the director general on his acceptance of the award.

Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post claimed in an op-ed that the decision should not be surprising "given the Nobel committee's open anti-Americanism and embrace of terrorists and their state sponsors." Glick has claimed that "in his five-term [sic] tenure at the IAEA, ElBaradei has used his power to facilitate the proliferation of nuclear energy for military purposes", citing the United States confrontation with Iraq over its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons as an example. ElBaradei has said that he has "been validated" in concluding that Saddam Hussein had not revived his nuclear weapons program. Glick also wrote that "ElBaradei took four years to refer Iran to the Security Council" and that what she called his "determined and illegal defense" enabled the "mullahs" to develop their program without fear of sanctions or military action. According to Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute, the Director General transmits reports to the Board of Governors while it is the Board of Governors which has the responsibility of reporting non-compliance to the Security Council. The IAEA Board Of Governors reported Iran to the Security Council in a rare non-consensus decision with 12 abstentions. Iran has insisted that its nuclear activity is "quite peaceful" and that its referral to the Security Council was a "political move". ElBaradei has said fears that Tehran could one day use its technology to build a bomb are not a technical but a political issue.

Israel conveyed "the heartiest congratulations" to the Agency and to the Director General on being awarded the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize. "This is an unparalleled honor that explicitly recognizes the importance of the Agency's missions of promoting global peace and stability, and of the unique role of the Agency is countering further proliferation. It also recognizes the personal contribution of the Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei to carrying out these missions over the last years," Israel said. Shimon Peres, then Vice Premier of Israel and also a former Nobel Peace Prize winner, said, "ElBaradei is a worthy winner, although not the perfect choice." "There are holes in the (IAEA) apparatus for deterring a culture of nuclear weapons, as in the case with Iran, but the agency certainly has done much in the prevention of nuclear weapons from reaching dangerous hands", Peres said.

South African President Thabo Mbeki also offered congratulations, saying the IAEA had performed valuable tasks central to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. "The award is a personal tribute to your integrity and professionalism as head of the Agency and a well deserved recognition of the impartial and authoritative role of the IAEA," Mbeki told ElBaradei.

Singapore hailed the Nobel Peace Prize win by ElBaradei. "The award recognizes your contribution and that of the IAEA to world peace through its good work on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and the safe and peaceful use of nuclear technology," Singapore's Foreign Minister George Yeo said in an October 2005 statement.

Reactions to role in addressing the nuclear program of Iran

Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei with US Secretary of State Colin Powell on January 10, 2003.

In 2009, Reuters reported the US "pledged a cooperative, multilateral approach to solving world problems" and that the United States planned to voice support for the IAEA in a plan to double the agency budget in phases. Reuters also reported the US would be more ready to engage with other nations. The US State Department also quoted an IAEA report in 2009 expressing its concerns about Iran. ElBaradei has urged Member States which have provided information to the Agency to agree to the Agency´s sharing of this information with Iran. ElBaradei has further said he is "hopeful that the apparent fresh approach by the international community to dialogue with Iran will give new impetus to the efforts to resolve this long-standing issue in a way that provides the required assurances about the peaceful nature of Iran´s nuclear programme, while assuring Iran of its right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes".

Dr. Kaveh L Afrasiabi, author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy, said ElBaradei has been downplaying Iran's cooperation for some time, raising the ire of Tehran. Afrasiabi further says ElBaradei has given himself "the license to speculate on the timeline when Iran could convert its peaceful nuclear work into weaponization" which is irresponsible and inconsistent with his statements on other states. Interviews and surveys show Iranians in all groups favor their country's nuclear program including a full fuel cycle program and that most also believe that nuclear weapons are contrary to Islam.

In a 2007 report, ElBaradei says that Iran has been "truthful, in general, about key aspects of its nuclear dossier." Iran also points out that ElBaradei has highlighted the lack of evidence to prove Iran is after a nuclear bomb and that ElBaradei says Iran is meeting its obligations to allow inspectors into its nuclear sites. Iran further says that the IAEA chief has consistently verified non-diversion in Iran's nuclear program and has said that his investigations show no military aspect in Iran's program. According to the Tehran Times political desk, ElBaradei has reaffirmed in December 2008 that Iran's nuclear activities are "legal". ElBaradei has noted that unless Iran implements the transparency measures and the Additional Protocol, the Agency cannot provide assurances about undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran. ElBaradei has said that contrary to the requests of the Security Council and the Board of Governors, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities. ElBaradei has urged Iran "to implement all measures required to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme at the earliest possible date and to unblock this stalemated situation."

In November 2007, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz said "the policies followed by ElBaradei endanger world peace. His irresponsible attitude of sticking his head in the sand over Iran's nuclear programme should lead to his impeachment." ElBaradei has said a perception among Arab nations that Israel has undermined the Non-Proliferation Treaty is a major obstacle to global 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," ElBaradei wrote.

ElBaradei has noted that former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said "from the U.S. perspective, I served with distinction". Rice, when discussing ElBaradei's work on Iran and other issues, further said that the pair had "worked together very well" and that she appreciated his "stewardship of the nonproliferation regime". Danielle Pletka and Michael Rubin accused ElBaradei in a Wall Street Journal op-ed of being "a deeply political figure, animated by antipathy for the West and for Israel on what has increasingly become a single-minded crusade to rescue favored regimes from charges of proliferation," and claimed that ElBaradei has repeatedly attempted to remove content harmful to Iran from his reports and pressured IAEA officials to follow suit. In February 2008, after the Agency's report on Iran's nuclear programme, commentators Ray Takeyh and Joseph Cirincione wrote in the Financial Times: "The point that Mr ElBaradei's critics miss is that he is judiciously achieving the goals that they seemingly desire the disarmament of the Islamic Republic." They added: "Instead of sanctions, the west should appreciate that a nuanced diplomacy of reconciliation could both regulate Iran's nuclear programme and help stabilise the Middle East". "It is the much maligned Mr ElBaradei that has paved the way for success," they wrote.

The International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors has commended the "Director General and the Secretariat for their professional and impartial efforts to implement the Safeguards Agreement in Iran, to resolve outstanding safeguards issues in Iran and to verify the implementation by Iran of the suspension". The United Nations Security Council has also commended and encouraged "the Director General of the IAEA and its secretariat for their ongoing professional and impartial efforts to resolve all outstanding issues in Iran within the framework of the IAEA". The five permanent members of the Security Council have released similar comments.

The Non-Aligned Movement has said it shares IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei's view that a previously implemented work plan was a significant step forward. The Non-Aligned Movement has also reiterated "its full confidence in the impartiality and professionalism of the Secretariat of the IAEA." "NAM recognizes the IAEA as the sole competent authority for verification and expresses its full confidence in the professionalism and impartiality of the IAEA. In this regard, NAM strongly believes that all issues on safeguards and verification, including those of Iran, should be resolved only by the agency, within its framework, and be based on technical and legal grounds," the Non-Alignment movement said in another statement. Deputy of the Arab League Secretary General Hesham Youssef has assessed ElBaradei's reports on Iran and Iran's cooperation with the agency as positive. The Arab League has also agreed with ElBaradei's proposals to come together with Iran on diplomacy.

Third Opinion

I came here because of an RfC about the placement of a POV tag. I've read most of the above discussion. Right now there is no POV tag on the article so there is no way to answer the RfC question. As to the 'third opinion' - third opinion about what? What is the question? Dlabtot (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

They are both regards in to the same question of whether there should be a POV tag on the article. I thought the result of the discussion so far was that the placement of the tag was inappropriate, so I did not feel this tag belonged on the article. There is a pretty long discussion about it above.

In summary, I have said the tag should only be there if there is specific reasoning, things which can be done to remove the tag, and an effort by the placer of the tag to improve the article. Wikifan12345 has argued that a subsection could be added to the article or that the placement of the tag will attract editors to the article. I have argued that I don't agree with the placement of the subsection, that Wikifan should add it, and that the tag doesn't belong unless there is a dispute. It doesn't seem the discussion should be this lengthy, but I feel the placement of the tag is inappropriate.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The third opinion has seemed slightly redundant to me, but I have welcomed it as a way to get another opinion and hopefully end the endless back and forth discussion.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

As I've said, I already read most of the discussion above. I don't need it summarized. POV tags are indeed meant to address specific issues. Third opinion tags are also meant to illicit answers to specific questions. Absent specific POV concerns that can be addressed, there should not be a POV tag. Similarly, absent some specific question, there should not be a third opinion tag on the article. Dlabtot (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I see from the edit history that the 3O tag was placed by Wikifan12345, so my question is directed to Wikifan12345: What is the question or dispute about which you would like a third opinion?? Dlabtot (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, I did not see the new section until just now. I felt the 3rd opinion would the quickest and least painful way to solve the issue. Since you've read the discussion, I'll keep the repetition to a bare minimum: The IPer believes no POV tag is necessary, and for awhile considered the article balanced and demanded "enumerated, detailed complaints." Ok, I did that. I specified, that post can be found here: Heads of state demanding ME be impeached, accusations of allowing Iran to further its alleged-nuclear program, and direct commentary from WSJ...all gone. No rationale, no explanation.. Sources corroborate claims. I felt this was a solid case and added the POV tag. At first it seemed the IP agreed with me, but then told me to basically edit and improve the article, while still dismissing the need for a POV tag. I decided to respond more directly: If actionable POV concerns exists, and evidence is explicit and comprehensible, a POV tag is necessary and the exclusion of it reflects the objectivity of the editors involved

IP response: I don't know where you got the item you are quoting, but in other words, you haven't provided POV concerns (especially with specific explicit and comprehensible evidence). On top of that, no one has disputed anything you have proposed and there is nothing actionable.

The IPer claims he doesn't dispute neutrality (and thereby agreeing with my posts) but what he fails to understand is that the neutrality issue must be recognized and stated up-front. For the IPer to essentially say, "I agree with you, but I don't like the tag.." after I provided a thorough and detailed examples of how the article suffers from POV is suspect. 3rd opinion man, do you feel the article warrants a POV tag? My goal is to put a tag that will caution editors of the POV problems and assist in improving. Without a tag, the illusion that the article is solid in terms of objective coverage will continue. My hostile tone might be a concern for you, but understand that this article was literally an abused sandbox for over a month until an admin removed almost the entire article for violating BLP. These were the same editors who claimed the article was fine, NPOV, while removing every controversial and critical source of ME. Let me know if you need further clarification. At times editors can get lost in my posts. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we try this: Without referring to previous arguments or disputes, but just talking about the article as it is now, could you briefly say why you think the article needs a POV tag? And what changes could be made to the article that would in your opinion, improve it to where it didn't need the tag? - Dlabtot (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, I believe my arguments are thorough and "enumerated" as requested by the IPer, but if you want brief: The article needs a POV tag because it suffers from a lack of neutrality (duh, lol.) The edit warring, borderline vandalism, and habitual violations of BLP made it extraordinarily difficult to improve the article without strong resistance. This resistant mostly centered around the claim that the article was 'neutral' and 'balanced.' When the article begins to represent all POVs (and not become dependent on promotional sites like it once was), then a POV tag will no longer be necessary. This was my original argument, but then users wanted details....you get the idea. In terms of changes, a a total rewrite might be necessary. This was suggested by another editor above. The article totally excludes ME's actions before 2007. 2000-2005 were his most important and notable years. His dealings with Iraq's nuclear program is nearly entirely omitted aside from a few sentences, as is his response to Iran's program which dates back to 2001. Considering how much of this information was already in the article at some point, and was dubiously removed during the 1 month of trashed edits by the IPers, not only suggests a lack of neutrality, but abusive behaviors from involved editors. Am I making sense? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

When you refrain from focusing on past battles, yes, you're making sense. I agree that the years 2000-2007 are woefully under-represented. The section labeled Re-election for third term is terrible. It is telling that a reader of the article will learn that he won the Nobel Peace Prize, but almost nothing about the work he did that led to this. But while I understand that you feel frustrated and vexed, I'd suggest, perhaps rather than focusing your energy on a POV tag or the history of the conflict in this article, a short break and then small, incremental improvements. I really can't emphasize enough how much I would discourage a misplaced focus on Wikipedia process, the real or imagined faults of other editors, or bad feelings leftover from prior disputes. Dlabtot (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

My question to you is: In light of all that has been said, do you feel a POV tag is justified? If not, is another suitable tag that will warn editors/readers that a neutrality/coverage/factual/balance issue exists to speed up the improvement process? Aside from using a criticism/controversies section which is highly discouraged, it might take me more than a month to fix the article alone and that's assuming I'll have the energy. Wikipedia=collaboration. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If you must have a one-word answer, no. I don't see a skew in POV, I see an almost total lack of coverage of the most significant portion of the man's career. I don't know if there is a tag that sums that up and I don't think it matters. (a) Anyone with even a glancing familiarity with his career will notice the glaring omission without a tag (b) even someone with no knowledge of him at all, with even basic critical reading skills, will notice something is missing, and (c) there is no deadline, if you've got the money, you could take a trip to Tahiti (with no laptop), and when you got back, the article would still be here to edit. Dlabtot (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I'm still feel inclined to provide a tag because regardless, the article still suffers one way or another. I was considering the following tags:

{{Article issues}

As far as I'm concerned the information I've provided certainly warrants some sort of tag. Articles get off on a lot less, and ideological/personal opinions towards subject matter can not be ignored. I also might revert the article back to C or start class when applying the numerous amount of coverage/balance/organizational issues that IMO hardly meet B class quality, though I'm tired of reverts lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I should participate much in this discussion since it seems to actually be going somewhere, but as a suggestion {{Histinfo}} and {{Expand-section}} might be good templates. Subsections could also be added for his first and second term (this is where the tags might be placed). There isn't a need to reply to this.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the unbalanced tag is pretty fair compromise. It is not dependent on a dispute but rather the content within the article. It's been established without dispute that certain subject areas have gained more coverage than others, like unnecessary expansion on events of little importance compared to ME's 2001-2005 dealings. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced is still a POV concern tag and it has also been fairly well established that this isn't a POV issue, just an issue of coverage of certain events. So I think you should have a discussion with this user, but tags aren't going to stay if they don't belong. Restructure, Histinfo, and Expand, are all perfectly valid but POV and Unbalanced are not because they denote a POV concern which there isn't. I don't see what needs a whole lot of clean-up but this could be the case as well.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's not a POV issue. Expand makes perfectly good sense to me. Dlabtot (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Confused: If an article lacks certain viewpoints (which I've demonstrated), is that a balance issue? How is it not? Expanding infers a neutral coverage but simply a lack of information. Like a stub...Wikifan12345 (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't give the answer you were looking for. I had thought that perhaps I would keep this article on my watchlist and try to continue to help, but I think that would be a test of patience that is beyond my capabilities. Good luck to all. Dlabtot (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "looking" for a certain answer. To infer such an accusation questions your objectivity. I'm simply confused. If the article lacks historical information, it could very well suffer from a deficiency in mandatory balance. It seems the sources provided show the article is titled towards a certain and explicit POV. Does that not warrant a balance tag? "Historical info needed" is a borderline euphemism for the real issue at hand. Perhaps a dispute resolution is needed to answer such questions. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If you really can't figure this out, the past two weeks have been dispute resolution. Why not put effort in to adding information about years which you currently feel are missing? Think what two weeks of proactively editing the article could have done.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

When I say dispute resolution I mean a formal process that is observed by a qualified administrator(s) and/or editors. Why don't you put in the effort in adding the information which you dubiously considered important, yet persistently resist the need for a tag to corroborate your endorsement. Here's an experiment: you insert the material. I want to see if you are capable of doing so. If not, your partisan stance will be clear and further major discussion-issues should be under moderation. This might not be an isolated incident if a precedent has been set. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what material you would like to see inserted and I feel there is slightly less of a burden on me since I am not the one who is continually insisting that there is something wrong with the article. My point is that I don't object to your objection with material being missing from the article. But I'm not really sure what exactly you feel is missing from the article because it still needs to be documented more thoroughly. So just document it in the article and hit two birds with one stone.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 04:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, your tone and approach since I started watching this page has been consistently combative. It may not come across to you that way; perhaps what seems merely confident or forceful to you is what others see as angry and demanding. In any case, I think it would help collaboration here and ultimately the content of the article if you made a greater effort to be collegial in your comments and your editing. Your regular threats of seeking administrator input (despite the simple fact that administrators have no authority over content disputes) would be one good activity you could stop, as a sign of good faith. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 01:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Nathan, I was never combative before. As I said, for over a month IPers (not usernames IPers) literally trashed the article with BLP violations left and right. They removed cited material, most of which was criticism of ME. The administrator deleted practically everything the users did, but did not reinstate most of the cited material that these IPers viciously deleted without rationale or apology. At this point there is no excuse as I have provided diff in article history and exact sources used before. For someone to say "I'm not sure exactly what material you would like to see inserted " is one big slap in the face and makes me think he never even read my posts. that just pisses me off. My threat of administrator has resulted from continuous civil POV pushing. Good faith is assumed, but good faith is not indefinite nor infinite. I can readd the criticism/controversy section like before. At least it will provide a temporary fix until editors feel something truly is missing instead of playing the ignorant card. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's your apparent inability to focus on substance rather than "he said she said" which makes discussions with you so much less productive than need be. Then when people don't take the time to unravel the "he said she said" to get to the substance, you get upset. You see a conclusion here? Rd232 ^talk 11:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've re-merged the Criticism section, having done that before a while back, but someone re-created it. See Wikipedia:Criticism. Also there are many, many newspaper opinions related to these issues, there is no justification for picking a couple, so those I deleted; the Jerusalem Post paragraph also combined a number of sources as if it was the Post's opinion, which is WP:SYNTH among other issues. It's not like these issues aren't covered in enormous detail elsewhere (Nuclear program of Iran), there is no need to WP:POVFORK here, especially as it's a WP:BLP. Also we must remember that the IAEA is not a one-man band, its research and reports are not done by Baradei personally; he is the figurehead - so again these issues shouldn't be hashed in such detail here. Instead we need more on Baradei's life and career as a whole. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article about Mohamed ElBaradei, remember? Rd232 ^talk 11:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I really don't want to overrun the article with reactions and replies, but I feel that just including negative assertions from the U.S. and Israel isn't balanced. For example, the IAEA Board of Governors and U.N. Security Council would be the primary judges of ElBardei. Including other assessments is fine, but I also think that they should be representative and this his reply should be given if he has made one. The problem is that this all takes a lot of space. If someone could summarize in a representative way, I think this would be very helpful.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

And simply ommitting their concerns isn't balanced. A lack of controversy/criticism/negativity when such things exist is imbalance. And that was the problem with the article before. You might consider the IAEA and UNSC as the "primary judges" but that isn't our decision to make. The US is on the UNSC so their POV is obviously relevant. Israel's is as well, especially when ME tried to class them with Iran. RS's (like Jpost, WSJ, etc..) that provide commentary on relevant topics, and aren't simply saying "ME is a bad dude" should be put somewhere. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerns shouldn't be piled into a Criticism section, which is extraordinarily poor style and tends to become WP:COATRACK and problematic for WP:BLPs. Also anon is right - IAEA Board of Governors and UNSC are the primary judges; that is a statement of fact. US criticism may be relevant since it's the major player on UNSC and Israel where it's directly affected, but WP:WEIGHT means ensuring a balance and IAEA and UNSC should have greater weight. And since there is more than enough from these official sources to create problems of excessive content, we should absolutely ignore the opinions of random newspaper commentators unless the opinions themselves can be shown to have had some effect on events. Rd232 ^talk 02:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

So wait, if an opinion happens to not influence a turn of events, we don't include it? Uh? Can you provide rules/policies that affirm such? This "primary" judges rationale is also confusing. Criticism sections aren't taboo either, in fact according to the policy inclusion is dependent on the article itself. I totally don't like the idea of removing mountains of cited material simply by virtue of not being nice and I do not see how that somehow relates to WP:WEIGHT. IAEA and UNSC can have all the weight they want. But excluding a common criticism that isn't unique to a specific newspaper doesn't add up. Please provide rationales for the rules, 3 in one paragraph is quite a lot. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Think about it this way, do we include every single opinion about ElBaradei which could be construed as positive? For example, where is the op-ed by a paper in South Africa which espouses ElBaradei? Or what about all the positive Egyptian papers, since he is from Egypt? How many op-ed writers have written a piece about ElBaradei? The IAEA Board of Governors and UN Security Council seem like relevant primary judges since at least the Board of Governors is the one in charge of coming up with a Director General. The op-ed in the South African newspaper may not be as relevant because it may have just had a few people in South Africa read it, and thus it didn't have much of an impact on the life of ElBaradei (the subject of the article). Notice the way other biographies[3][4][5] read.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I agree with a previous editor that Wikifan has pursued his agenda on this article in a needlessly combative and unconstructive way. Nonetheless, I agree with him that we should not give too much weight to the pubic pronouncements of the Board of Governors and the Security Council. Those formal statements are political compromises among divergent interests, and do not necessarily reflect what members of those bodies really think. Despite these positive pronouncements, quite a few members of the Board and the Council are profoundly disappointed with ElBaradei. I think it's pointless to tally up favorable and unfavorable opinions. That does nothing to improve the value of the article. Better to simply report the facts. NPguy (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't want the article to be a laundry list of positive and negative opinions either. Surely you think the IAEA Board of Governors and the U.N. Security Council are better than polemic op-eds though?--75.2.19.152 (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a strawman, of course, to list the alternative as "polemic op-eds." In this case, I don't think citing the Board or the Council is particularly informative. It's like reading a letter of recommendation - they always say positive things and are taken with a grain of salt for that reason. In some cases, a well-reasoned criticism may be more informative. But at this point it would probably improve the article to scrap all the opinions and add more facts.

I don't think organizing this by first, second and third terms is necessarily the right structure. I'd like to see a section on Iraq to match the one on Iran. Possibly also one on promoting international approaches to the fuel cycle. Maybe something on his increasingly pubic statements on the Middle East and on nuclear disarmament. In the latter case I might quote critics who say he has used his office for political purposes in areas outside his responsibility. Of course if would have to be balanced, but as with his handling of Iran I think these criticisms are an important part of the story. But if I had to choose between having an overwrought debate over balance and cutting all the commentary, I would pick the latter. NPguy (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I endorse NPguy's rationale and am willing to compromise. I absolutely agree the back rubs from IAEA and whatever flowery language they offer needs to be reduced significantly. Also, I believe op-eds from Jpost, WE, and other extremely notable RS should be included somewhere. These criticisms aren't fringe or out in space, they are common and qualified by evidence. Many similar articles contain criticism, why shouldn't this one? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine with the structure proposed if someone would actually edit to that instead of just throwing flags on the article. I would also prefer cutting all commentary, but if there is going to be some then it should be balanced with other viewpoints and reaction. And my problem with sources such as the JPost piece by Glick is that they make basic factual errors (such as ElBaradei having a "five term tenure" at the IAEA). Finding someone at least half way credible (Bolton, AEI Scholar, Heritage Foundation Scholar, etc.) would at least be an improvement over op-eds which don't appear to have much editoral process.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

this is the problem. It is not your job to declare what is fact/fiction/"objective." JPost is an RS. Credibility/truth is irrelevant. I encourage to read through wiki policy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that this is a blatant and obvious mistake. ElBaradei is currently serving out his third and final term. If an error this obvious made it in to the piece, then it clearly wasn't checked very thoroughly (if at all). WP:RS indicates reliable sources should have an editorial process. The guideline is even tougher for WP:BLP. If she slipped up with this basic fact, she in all likelihood made more serious errors as well.

And I'm not saying don't include anything. I am just saying find someone with some credibility. Simple mistakes as this undermine the argument trying to be made anyways.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. We don't find "credibility." That is not our job. Criticism of ME is rampant, the JP editorial is not unique. It should be included (RS, unlike IAEI, HFS, etc..), and saying it lacks "credibility" is quite odd. We can't continue to use the people who pay ME to support/critique his actions. We might as well copy and paste his official bio from the website. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I was suggesting you find criticism of Baradei which is reliable and I was noting that John Bolton, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Heritage Foundation might be places which are halfway reasonable to start looking. There might still be other potential problems, but this would at least be a step in the right direction. I am sure there are plenty of other places. Glick just isn't reliable (she made at least two blatant factual mistakes in her op-ed).--75.2.19.152 (talk) 03:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Jpost is reliable. John Bolton is a person. Glick is a report at the JPOSt which is a reliable source. You identifying "blatantly factual mistakes" is irrelevant and is OR if it your reasoning behind its exclusion. I'm AGFing here, but you need to wikipedia policy because you clearly do not understand it. I believe you've become too attached but that is my opinion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

As a source of thoughtful commentary, newspaper Op-Eds are not generally very high value. The threshold for getting published is not high, and analyses are necessarily brief and overly stark. Better to use academic journals, think tanks, etc. Bolton, whose campaign to oust ElBaradei is noted in the article, is not particularly temperate either, but he is at least representative of a right wing perspective. Criticism of ElBaradei is not limited to the right, however. NPguy (talk) 07:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post articles are reliable, and JPost op-eds are reliable for the opinion of their author. However, WP:V says

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

Apart from the strictly inflammatory nature of her piece, Glick says "In his five-term tenure at the IAEA, ElBaradei has used his power to facilitate the proliferation of nuclear energy for military purposes" and " ElBaradei took four years to refer Iran to the Security Council. His determined and illegal defense of Iran bought the mullahs four years to develop their program without fear of UN sanctions or military action against it."

ElBaradei is currently in his third term and has indicated that he will not be pursuing a fourth, let alone a fifth, term. Further, it is not the IAEA Director General or IAEA Secretariat which has the responsibility, or even the ability, to report Iran or any other problematic nation to the Security Council. This responsibility and ability is reserved for the IAEA Board of Governors (which as it happens reappointed ElBaradei unanimously and has continually commended his work. Further, the Security Council he was somehow supposed to unilaterally refer to has also unanimously lauded ElBaradei for his performance).

So Glick is perfectly entitled to her opinion that ElBaradei had two terms which the rest of history failed to record and she is also perfectly entitled to her opinion that the IAEA Director General should have unilaterally violated IAEA Statute to try to get the case to the Security Council over the heads of the IAEA Board of Governors. Those views can be expressed over in her article if they are some of her more representative or notable quotations. But they don't belong in other articles, and especially not a biography of a living person. I'm not saying don't include any criticism. I am just proposing that you identify some other sources of information which are more reliable/credible. There should surely be some American or Israeli thinktanks or publications which do this if criticism of ME is even halfway as prevalent as you say it is.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

For example, quoting former Vice Premiers of Israel or U.S. Secretary's of State has more notability and reliability. I have just replaced the op-ed with a quote from Rice. Her opinion is slightly more notable due to her position, and it is slightly more reliable since it was quoted directly and subject to an editorial process.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant. People are not substitutes for Reliable sources. I am going to provide you with a list of rules, please read them. If this is your rationale for constantly deleting RS than I have to go to dispute resolution. You need to understand this to continue editing the article: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. criticism and praise for BLP. We have more than 3 sources that back up the Jpost argument. In fact, Jpost wasn't even the first to challenge ME's role in facilitating Iran's nuclear build-up. You told me to go "edit the article" and continued to deny the tag. OK, we did that. But now that I edit, you still remove the info. I need to know if you are understanding this. I feel a consensus is no longer obtainable if you do not understand WP:Verifiability or the concept of the need for primary (Rice, ME's buddies), and secondary (Jpost commentator, WSJ reporter...etc..) Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Glick's op-ed just isn't a reliable source because of its inflammatory rhetoric and multiple factual errors, and the fact that this is a BLP just accentuates the point. Other editors have agreed with this reasoning. If you really like the material, you can even add it to Glick's article. I don't understand your objection to Rice's criticism which I replaced with. Could you just look for notable and reliable sources to use?--75.2.19.152 (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability is one of 3 core policies of BLP's. You identifying "inflammatory rhetoric" (what does that mean?) and "multiple factual errors" is, again, totally and completely irrelevant. Rice is a person, not a newspaper. Her statement are just as reliable as any other person. You cannot substitute secondary sources with primary sources. Either this is a serious misunderstanding of the principals of wikipedia or just don't want "inflammatory" information in the article, which is understandable. Do you agree to dispute resolution? Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's not be too hard on Glick. There is a grain of truth in her criticism that ElBaradei delayed reporting Iran's non-compliance for four years. By my count, it's more like two and a half. By inserting weasel words in his Iran reports, ElBaradei gave the Board of Governors license to delay that report from November 2003, when the IAEA issued its first comprehensive report, until March 2006. But surely there's a more reliable source for this criticism. NPguy (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There may or may not be a grain of truth in her criticism, and her position on the issue shouldn't even be relevant. An inflammatory op-ed with factual mistakes simply doesn't belong in a biography of a living person. I have no problem including a given perception as long as it is reliable and notable. So if the issue is specifically the perception of weasel words in his reports, just find a reliable source for it. Glick isn't a reliable source. Including perceptions or similar perceptions is fine, just find a reliable source such as a government, a newspaper article, or a scholarly journal.

I would agree to dispute resolution, but I don't understand why it wouldn't just be easier to just find a reliable source. I added criticism to the article, I'm not trying to censor anything. Using mistake-ridden op-eds undermines the stance they are meant to represent.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is an example which could be used to replace it:

Ambassador Jackie Wolcott, former Special Envoy for Nuclear Nonproliferation: "Iran fully understands this, so naturally it sought to exploit ElBaradei's--shall we say-- nuanced verdicts, its political base, and the West's penchant for consensus negotiations to influence the content of the various multilateral resolutions on its nuclear program."

The criticism could be

Ambassador Jackie Wolcott, former Special Envoy for Nuclear Nonproliferation, has said Iran was able to exploit ElBaradei's "nuanced verdicts" to influence resolutions on its nuclear programs.

If you don't like this, just look for another. I think it would be a lot more productive than arguing. If you are still unhappy, then I guess you should do another round of dispute resolution.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Individuals are not substitutes for RS. They aren't comparable. Articles need both primary and secondary sources, and the Jpost criticism is corroborated by several other RS. This isn't simply a dispute, you don't seem to understand the concept of WP:VERIFIABILITY or reliable sources. Whether you disagree with a source for inclusion is irrelevant. If it passes the above guidelines, it is a canddidate for inclusion. Dismissing it under the pretense of "inflammatory rhetoric" or "lies" is not valid nor "productive." I'm trying to help you here, reading those links will be very beneficial to this article. Do you still want to do a formal, dispute resolution? Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole point is that I don't believe it passes the guidelines which you are citing, and since it fails to meet these criteria I do not believe it belonds in the article. I'm not calling her right or wrong on her position, I am saying that the mistakes and tone in her article make it clear that it wasn't subject to enough of an editorial process for a BLP. I am open to dispute resolution if you don't want to examine including another source besides Glick. You might start by making a posting at the reliable sources or BLP noticeboard. I still think you might have more luck just finding another source though.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing "you" don't believe it passes the guidelines. That is in fact my point. You are contesting the inclusion of the source based on your opinion of the source, i.e "rhetoric, lies, misinformation, etc..." Whatever interpretation you've made is completely irrelevant. I cannot emphasize this enough. Jpost passes WP:VERIFIABILITY, as does the WSJ, CNN, and every other secondary RS that has affirms the idea of ME exacerbating Iran's build-up of nuclear weapons. You not only deleted Glick, but the WSJ, and every other non-person criticism. If I remember, the Israel president edit was deleted by you and only reinstated after a thorough (yet unnecessary) rationale. The belief that individuals are somehow more reliable, or can be a substitute for secondary media doesn't make sense. I cannot find a policy that endorses such view. I will be filing a dispute resolution notice soon. Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me Wikifan is just being disputatious and not really making an effort to improve the article in line with Wiki policies and practices. I agree that the Glick op-ed is not a reliable source, for most of the reasons cited by the IP editor. I was simply pointing out that one of those reasons - the supposed intemperance of its criticism of ElBaradei's role in Iran - was not entirely persuasive. It should not be hard to find other sources - reliable ones - that support this point. But I also think we should be judicious in piling opinions into this article. Subtraction (removing fluff) may be as good as addition for maintaining balance. NPguy (talk) 09:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Wolcott would be reasonable for "nuanced verdicts" and the perception that this led the BOG to take longer to refer Iran's case. There is also a piece here which briefly discusses criticism about Libya and A.Q. Khan. I think I some minor amount of opinion may be good, but that it should be selective, notable, and reliable. Otherwise the article will just be a back-and-forth like the talk page has recently degenerated in to.--71.156.94.174 (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet your removals still violate WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:TRUTH. You cannot continue removing cited material, (WSJ, JPOST) under the pretense of "not reliable, find something else." And again, primary sources are not the same or comparable to secondary. I'm not disputing Glick's alleged-errors but relative to ME supporter soundbites, it's certainly a step-up. I think we could rephrase, to something along the lines of "Caroline Glick (who is a notable Israeli journalist) believes ME's tenure/role/whatever at the IAEA encouraged/faciliated/enabled/whatever Iran's build-up/establishment/creation/whatever of nuclear weapons." Does that not seem fair? I don't think dismissing an entire editorial that clearly is supported by facts based on a few "factual errors" (zomg, 5 terms instead of 3...oh noes!!!") If we were to do that to every source, the article would have no references. This again goes back to WP:TRUTH Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, I just don't think the Glick op-ed is a reliable source suited for a BLP. Also, Glick is basically a primary source about Glick's opinion, so I don't really see your point there either. If you can find those kinds of factual errors in some of the other sources then maybe you should point them out and we could look at removing them. I just don't feel Glick is reliable. Like I said, maybe seek comment on the BLP or RS noticeboard for input. Or find the criticisms which Glick is making just repeated in a reliable source even.--71.156.94.174 (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What you "like" and what is "reliable" are not mutual. Caroline Glick is a notable journalist herself, and the Jerusalem Post is a reliable source. I see no reason why we can't include Glick's allegation (she cites evidenc) other than you not liking it. And Glick is a secondary source, not a primary. "Opinion" is relative, the entire article is opinionated. It is built on opinion and rhetoric, POV and agenda. It has to be because there such a lack of consistency and reliability in everything ME does. He isn't Jonas Salk. to be honest I've never experienced such resistance before in a BLP. Can we include a Caroline Glick soundbite without a revert? We can use the WSJ to corroborate, CNN to verify Iran's nuclear pursuits. As I said, there is such a horrible lack of information prior to 2007 that this inclusions is more than justified. Either that, or a total and complete rewrite is needed. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The U.S. asserted in 2007 that Iran ceased its weapons program in 2003, the CNN article is from 2002, so this position might be outdated. Again, a mistake-ridden op-ed isn't reliable enough to include in a BLP.--71.156.94.174 (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The US has asserted many things, the current gist Iran is continuing it's nuclear program. Nothing is "outdated." Even if Iran became a democracy and blew up it's nuclear facilities, we don't remove historial info. Op-ed is reliable. It is written by a notable journalist and supported by a reliable source. You've identified minor "factual errors" and have over-stated their importance. If we apply your concept of reliability, half of the references should be removed. Many of the statements, views, and positions could be challenged. Very little is "concrete." I am inserting the jpost article. Please provide a rationale that is substantiated by wiki policy. I did, citing "doesn't comply with BLP" is not enough. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The gist is that the U.S. believes that Iran halted its weapon program in 2003 while the IAEA says it has seen no evidence of a weapons program. The Security Council has called on Iran to cease enrichment as a transparency or confidence building measure, while Iran has said that it is entitled to civilian enrichment under NPT.

The Glick op-ed is not reliable. Factual errors and an op-ed are not reliable for a BLP. Where are the errors you keep pointing to in the other sources? Could you enumerate? And "doesn't comply with BLP" is certainly a rationale for removal.--71.156.94.174 (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You continue to say Glick is not reliable. Guess what? It passes the guidelines. Provide a guideline that disproves Glick's reliability. I could just as very well say your edits (which are becoming increasingly supported by non-RS) don't comply with blp guidelines. So no, just saying "doesn't comply" is not enough rationale for removal. As I said, provide a guideline that disallows the inclusion of Jpost, WSJ, NY, CNN, etc. Op-eds are reliable in the context of an op-ed. We don't say, promote it as fact. It is opinion, it is a notable opinion, a notable reaction. This is a BLP, not a centralized subject like Apple or United States of America which rely on concrete source material. Virtually everything in the article are statements made from officials, politicians, etc. They can all be challenged and disputed for their factual reasoning, but that is again irrelevant. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been assuming good faith (relatively) but at this point the article has become strained by a lack of collaboration. You tell me to expand, I do. I even use secondary sources, (NYT, WSJ, Jpost.) but you remove those as well. Primary sources (IAEA, politicians, topic-organizations) MUST be balanced with secondary. Passing of those primary sources as factual evidence is false. I also identified dozens of non-RS that you included. They are far less reliable than Glick or any of the sources I listed. Similar controversial BLP-articles, such as Richard A. Falk, Norman Finkelstein, Alan Dershowitz are supported by an immense amount of so-called "controversial" op-eds. Their reliability is subject to WP:VERIFABILITY, and their truthiness is totally and completely irrelevant. Not to mention you inaccurately cited the NYT article, removed the source, and changed their base to some institute. At this point I suggest you provide a thorough rationale (supported by guidelines, not "isn't reliable) before doing major edits. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, please provide a summary for your edits. Forgetting every now and than is ok but major editing requires a summary (short-hand is ok). Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit again: For a full elaboration on general issues, I wrote "suggestions" for improvement. I've identified several problems with the article that go beyond disputed reliable sources. I encourage you to read it before editing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Addtions

I rephrased some sentenced and reduced quotations. At times it seemed entire sentences were pasted and copy with little effort in paraphrasing. I corrected the Shimon Peres inaccuracy (he is President of Israel, that is not mentioned.) I also moved around some paragraphs and added more RS. I also expanded the Intelligence Estimate as it was selectively-quoted and did not appear to be an accurate representation. I'd like to eventually add Elbaredei's quest to categorize Israel with Iran in terms of nuclear empowerment, as well as his dealing with Libya and Pakistan. All sources are RS's and meet Wikipedia:Verifiability standards (1 of 3 principal guideline of BLP rules.) (Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This paragraph is not supported by an RS: On May 23, 2007, the IAEA issued a report, that Iran continued uranium enrichment contrary to demands of the Security Council. The IAEA added that the UN nuclear agency's ability to monitor nuclear activities in Iran had declined due to lack of access to sites. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I also added a reference tag. I've identified too many primary sources that are not substantiated with reliable secondary sources. Primary sources can be used for quotations, but typically a secondary is needed to verify "facts." BLP rules strictly prohibit a total dependency on primary sources if secondary sources exist. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you know the difference between primary and secondary sources? Primary sources are the reliable ones. Secondary sources are the ones that need substantiation.

The added reference by Pletka and Rubin is a useless red herring critique. It attributes to ElBaradei a fact of life, that it's hard to find covert nuclear programs. Did U.S. intelligence do better? It also illustrates why organizing this around ElBaradei's three terms is silly. It should be organized around events and issues. Iraq. Iran. Multilateral Nuclear Arrangements. Recent edits are not improvements; just replacing one axe to grind with another. I'm not going to jump into the now, because I don't have time to keep up with other obsessed editors. But if this calms down I might go back to try to fix the damage. NPguy (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless. Pletka and Rubin are notable, New York Times is notable, editorial is noted. It is made explicitly clear this is an op-ed, a reaction, not an "official report." They do cite an Intelligence Estimate (read it) that accused Iran of pursuing a covert nuclear weapons program since the 1980s. I agree with the sectioning, Iran, Iraq, etc. What bothers me the most is the total dependence on non-RS. unknown sites, almost blogs, Tehran Times, China News, etc. I rephrased many of the quotes and halfed some of the sections. The over-use of these sources violate BLP - reliable sources. The NYT editorial and interview, Jpost, CNN, however are RS. They are not passed off as science or truth. These notable people and media refer directly and explicitly to ME, that cannot be ignored.

And some statements were totally irrelevant (Putin saying "Iran does not have nuclear weapons.) I also added more sections and rearranged some paragraphs. A few sources were referenced incorrectly and a couple others were practically plagiarized. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism: "the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work". All Wikipedia content is attributed, so there shouldn't be any plagiarism and I don't see any.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Copying and pasting entire sentences from news is plagiarism. What you cited was a general definition. Wikipedia has it's own guidelines: Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Plagiarism: "Directly copying either copyrighted works or works in the public domain and failing to give the sources of material based on them indirectly or copied from them directly is plagiarism". It looks about the same to me. If you are talking about copyvios then the material just needs to be paraphrased and this can be done fairly easily.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep reading. Copying and pasting paragraphs (unless it's quotes, though that has conditions) and just tagging it with references is still plagiarism. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, if the information is attributed then I am not seeing the major problem. The article might need a few paraphrases, but I think "plagiarism" is pretty overblown.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Overly-dependent on primary sources.

A user said 2/3 of the references are non-ME (personal) and secondary sources.

I'm posting all references to show that is not the case. I do not know how to post references without the article so here it is:

update: If someone can tell me how to post the entire reference list without the article or copying and paste individual links, let me know.

This was in response to the section that you had placed the tag in. The article currently has 53 non-IAEA sources.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That is 84% of the total sources, by the way.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-IAEA does not equal primary sources. Primary sources include records, documents, statements made by officials, biography sites (Nobel, award pages, etc...). Most of the article overwhelming relies on primary sources. And a disturbing amount of non-reliable secondary sources are used. Here is a count of unreliable and primary sources:

not RS -Xinhua News Agency x 2.

nont RS - People's Daily (China) x 2

not RS - The Indian Express x 1

not RS -Asia Times x 1

unverifiable biography x 1

Nobel Prize sourcing x 2

IAEA references x 6 (possibly 7)

not RS - Arms Control Association references x 2

not RS - WPC x 1

(some RS) - x 15 references for Awards

We have between 20-22 certified reliable secondary sources, many of which I recently put in. And some of the secondary sources double as primary. So 1/3 of the sources (out of 62) are reliable. And we can assume a few of those act as primary also. This is totally unacceptable IMO.

Suggestions? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So is your complaint that the article is "overly-dependent on primary sources" or that there are too many secondary sources?--76.214.104.121 (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace reliable? I am not sure why the Nobel Prize Committee and Arms Control Association would be unreliable either. By most accounts, these are fairly respected organizations. For example, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace works with the U.S. government and academia. The group also has a number of experts who publish peer-reviewed material.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Carnegie is primary and is used in the highly non-notable Award section. Arms control is not reliable, and Noble is a primary source and again is used in the Award section. I'm not disputing your rationale. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Carnegie is secondary because it is reporting about a separate award which he won. The Nobel is not being descriptive, it is simply stating the fact that he won their award. And why isn't ACA reliable?--76.214.104.121 (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The ACA has worked with Carnegie and is also listed in the Library of Congress, among other items. They also publish Arms Control Today, a magazine focused on non-proliferation which carries articles from those in the field.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Carnegie is a "secondary" source, but not in the way you represent it. It is still sourcing a highly-non notable Award section. Nobel is a primary because it is supporting his winning of the Nobel Prize. ACA isn't in the RS database. Whatever research you've done, is, as I've said dozens of times, 100% irrelevant. The article is still loaded with non-RS. These sources aren't pertinent to the central topic. Review above source listing for more info. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So Carnegie is a perfectly reasonable source for documenting that ME won an award. What is unreliable about citing the Nobel Committee to say ME won the Nobel Prize? What official database of reliable sources do you have which ACA doesn't appear in?--76.214.104.121 (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a reliable primary source. I never said Nobel was unreliable. Wikipedia has a page that lists all RS I think. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, I am getting really confused and am retiring for the night. Hopefully this can get worked out in a week.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions to improve article

I feel the article lacks balance in terms of source material and organization. I think we could definitely remove much of the material to improve flow and syntax.

A) Many information in the term sections could also be used in the Role in addressing Iran. I believe we shouldn't section each of his terms, notability is practically limited to Iran and the Middle East, and various defenses for his actions. I think we should just have and all-encompassing section, using basic information and general information.

B) Role in addressing Iran needs to be expanded and also reduced. For starters, I think we should rearrange commentaries according to area of expertise. The current section is messy and jumps all over the place, with criticisms couched in between ME statements. So one section could be solely on his role of addressing Iran (no commentators). While another section could be "Reactions" where we put comments from politicians, government officials, notable journalists etc. We can only include responses from ME or the IAEA if it is a direct retort to the statement. We cant balance with a general explanation that was never directed to Rice, Obama, etc. That is a crucial component of BLP.

C) Reducing quotations. We should focus more on paraphrasing. I'm not 100% familiar with copyvio rules but I think we are bordering plagiarism.

D) Reorganization of the entire article. Reduction in awards (not notable) section and limit to notable awards (Nobel Prize, for example). Expand more on his background, I think we find more information outside of his IAEA biography.

E) Reduce non-RS secondary sources. The Tehran Times, China News, etc... are not quality sources. Using them occasionally is OK, but at this point there are more non-RS secondary than there are RS. I find it rather odd how there is such a focus on RS sources like Jpost yet a lack of care for extremely unreliable (and downright propagandist) Tehran Times. Using that source to defend/criticism/promote/source information regarding ME is potentially libelous. Unless it is a platform for Iranian opinion (actual, not editorials...like one-on-one interviews) we should remove most of the references.

F) 2/3 of the sources are not secondary RS. A claim was made in the edit history, a rough count says otherwise. This is a major issue, for an article so long and with so many details, for it to be majority-dependent on questionable references is concerning. This should be our prime concern.

Please feel free to add any more suggestions for improvement. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Me and North Korea

ME recognizes North Korea as a nuclear-capable state. source. Where can we put this? Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Article protected

I have fully protected this article for now, so that content disputes can be sorted out here rather than on the article. Kevin (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a shame the article had to be locked, but maybe it is for the better if the problems can be solved here first.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be plenty of discussion here which is good. I'm willing to act as a mediator if you wish, although we may need to cover old ground so I can catch up. Kevin (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would find it unfortunate to go through the same process again, but am of course open to it. I might encourage you to talk to some of the other editors since Wikifan and I seem to be the ones most involved in dispute. You would probably get a better picture that way.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it very discouraging how unreliable sources continue to support evidence, while users remove cited RS and claim they aren't reliable. Several paragraphs also contained extensive plagiarism, and at times edit warring became apparent when poorly sourced or non-notable content was being removed. Around a month ago the article was reverted to a bare-bones state by an administrator because several IPers violated BLP guidelines. Many of those IPers are still editing the article. Further info can be found on the above discussions, though some of it is quite heated. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace isn't unreliable. An op-ed from Caroline Glick may not be suitable for a BLP since it didn't know how many terms ElBaradei had been Director General and because it thought ElBaradei had the legal authority to refer to the Security Council.

Plagiarism by definition can't occur with material which is attributed, so I think this is just a simple confusion.

--76.214.104.121 (talk) 02:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So what do you each see as the way forward from here? Kevin (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would see the current article or a version of it which has been trimmed. The trimming would take place by reliability or relevancy but not by viewpoint. This might mean that all op-ed's are removed, that all commentary is removed, etc. I would object to including American doctors or op-eds but not Iranian ones, for example.

I also think the ElBaradei's awards are relevant to his notability. For example, the Greatest Nile Collar is Egypt's highest civilian award.

--76.214.104.121 (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good question. I've provided extensive BLP guidelines to support my edits. IPer routinely uses his POV of reliability instead of wikipedia's. He has, at times, bordered in the OR range. Caroline Glick is a notable journalist. The Jerusalem Post is a reliable source. She explicitly refers to ME. Whatever truthiness issues you have is totally irrelevant. It is an editorial, not a government report. This issue is suspect because the IPer has been inserting non-reliable sources to back up similar info. Many from China, Iran, India, and Asia. Never have I experienced such intense resistance to remove clearly inappropriate content while, in my own terms, zealously defending the removal of reliable-sourced cited content. And this is simply the tip. I rearranged the entire body, removed several examples of plagiarism, rephrased over a paragraph of material, and discovered over half the article's secondary sources are not reliable. It seems anything remotely critical of ME is removed. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So the dispute here would be over an op-ed by Caroline Glick. The reasoning would be that she wrote an op-ed which is critical of ElBaradei. I have objected that the op-ed calls ElBaradei a "fifth term director general" when he is currently serving his third and final term. She also opines that "ElBaradei took four years to refer Iran to the Security Council" while this ability is strictly given to the IAEA Board of Governors by IAEA Statute. I have said I would have no problem with including other material criticial of ElBaradei, but that I don't find this source reliable. I would be perfectly happy to remove all op-eds, but I feel that if a JPost one is included, then certainly Iranian ones will be as well.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The dispute isn't just about Glick. You also removed WSJ and NYT sources. Again, "you" (keyword) don't find it reliable. It is reliable. Certainly more than the Tehran Times and Chinese news sites which you have used. This whole if "Jpost is allowed than my preferred sites" should be used reeks of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I may seem slightly hostile admin but this has been an unrelenting experience. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The WSJ and NYT are in the current version and they can remain as long as there are op-eds from other publications as well. As a general rule of thumb, I think we would be better with no op-eds at all, but if we are going to include them then we should at least get a variety of them. Anyways, I will be back tomorrow.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You removed all the editorials several times. I have the diff's to prove. As a general rule of thumb....reliable sources are reliable sources. Editorials are crucial in a controversial figure like ME. Editorials can be from other publications as well if they are reliable or are attributed to a notable journalist. Some guy in Iran isn't notable. Wait, are you saying your rationale for removing RS content was because it was not balanced with positively-spun editorials? If so, that is concerning. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Multiple other editors also took issue with the Glick op-ed, apart from its obvious errors. In general, material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link. Because Glick managed to assert that ElBaradei was in his fifth term in 2007 and because she believed the director general had the ability to report to the Security Council, I believe that this op-ed in general did not undergo a very thorough editorial process. Mixing all of this together, it seems inappropriate for a biography of a living person.

And on the other issue you raised, I think Wikipedia should counter systemic bias by presenting more than just a Western viewpoint.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 05:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not multiple others disagreed with Glick is irrelevant. She passes the guidelines, unlike half of the references in the article. Your investigation of Glick, is, again, OR. She is a notable journalist writing for a reliable source. And ElBaradei can address and provide updates to the UNSC as director the IAEA. ME reports to UNSC. Glick is writing an editorial, also known as an opinion piece. She does provide various happenings (like Iran's nuclear weapons program fully exposed in 2002 which ME responded indifferently to.) It "seems" is again, irrelevant. It fits well with BLP guidelines. We aren't phrasing her statements as truth. We're phrasing her statements as....her statements. Just as we phrase every statement by x person as their statements. The statements made by Rice, Peres, Iranian doc, all contain disputable and perhaps factual inaccuracies. Yet those are irrelevant. You've taken a particularly obsession with Glick, and have now "balanced" it out with a non-notable Iranian "doctor" here. This is your rationale: "an Iranian doctor and author is just as reliable as an American one. you can't just present one viewpoint." This kind of attitude is unacceptable under BLP guidelines. By virture of being an Iranian doctor does not make you more reliable than an American one. I agree we should strive to make this a worldly-topic rather than Western-focused, but consciously omitting RS and replacing them with other RS (or non-RS, in your case) to create a false neutrality is totally and completely backward. And plus, ME's actions are almost entirely exclusive to the West. Opinions from Iran and the Middle East suffer from an extreme lack of reliability. You can quote the Tehran Times in the context of the Tehran Times, but you can't use it as a secondary source. This goes for all non-RS under most conditions. Several editors have endorsed the view that this article is overwhelming consumed by non-notable or redundant information, and a complete rewrite has been suggested. I agree with that. Perhaps it would be best if someone sandboxed a copy of ME and then pasted into the current article when it meets BLP guideliens to an acceptable extent. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that there has been a request for comment and a 3rd opinion sought, and yet you both are still arguing as much at each other as over content. Continuing in this way will not resolve the dispute, so I suggest you try something else. I asked above how you both saw the way forward, and I would like to hear your views on that without mentioning specifics of article content or sources. I'm more interested in seeing if you can agree on a method for resolving the dispute before working on the actual dispute. Kevin (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This goes beyond content. I believe a tragic misunderstanding of BLP guidelines has occurred in a significant number of edits by various users which has forced us into this mess. I mean, do I really need to point out what sources qualify as an RS? If the site has a communist flag in the corner, you assume.....:D. Suggestions have included enumerating specific problems. Done. IP encourages adding said problems. Done. Guess what? Reverted and removed. All that time wasted. So, we get an RFC. Same deal, not a lot of change but a frustratingly amount of fluffy discussion (edit: However, the 3O believed the article did not meet BLP requirements and was overloaded). It took me awhile to fully understand BLP guidelines, and today I still refer to the rules when in doubt. Even so, one of my articles was recently deleted for not qualifying. So considering this, I made an effort to show the editor the rules and demonstrate the my edits fall under the guidelines, while much of the article does not. That of course went nowhere.

At this point all I can suggest to "resolve this dispute" is for an editor such as myself or another person, perhaps with administrator moderation (like yourself) move a copy of the article to an empty sandbox and edit the article according to BLP. The IPer believes the article's current state is satisfactory, or at least the state before my edits. Likely a new version would also be disputed and probably reverted but, I can't think of anything else aside from one of us being eternally blocked. I really don't want to rewrite an article because I don't think I'd ever finish it. I believe the chances of failure would be much lower with experienced BLP editors. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would see either accepting the results of previous discussions or agreeing to actually abide by the results of a new discussion. I have also recommended the Reliable Sources noticeboard or BLP noticeboard as possible places to gather feedback about individual sources. Again, I am perfectly willing to explore these options, but it seems kind of pointless unless both editors are willing to not only engage in the process but also accept the results of the discussion.

I don't want to argue for eternity, but I also feel there are some sources which simply are inappropriate for a BLP. I think the best thing would be to agree to have a new discussion, and then to agree to abide by its results. Or to agree to abide by discussion which has already taken place. So I am willing to engage in a discussion and go with what people say. I would just like to see that there is an end to the tunnel.

Though I don't completely understand the sandbox proposal, it seems alright in theory. I am just trying to identify an eventual endpoint to the discussion since it has been ongoing for awhile. I think the process is worthwhile, but that the editors have to accept the results of the discussion. You can always wait a while and then have a new discussion later. But a discussion without ending or without results seems pointless.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if users edits continually violate BLP guidelines while expecting other editors to dismiss sources "they don't like" I don't see how a reasonable consensus is obtainable in the foreseeable feature. If my POV is even somewhat accurate, hopefully Kevin (who I presume is an admin?) will inform you of the importance of WP:VERIFIABLE, WP:TRUTH and questionable sources. Logical fallacies are expected in the average dispute, but as far as I'm concerned a significant amount has been almost solely dependent on them to promote edits. If the IP can verify his edits with BLP guidelines, or even a general-wiki policy, perhaps a consensus can be reached. Until then, this is...in my POV, an editor's dispute according to his version of the truth and what can't and cannot be put in. Does this qualify as ownership of the article? I don't know, I await for Kevin's opinion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If anyone missed the edit, here is a lengthy response to the claims that Glick is not reliable and further elaboration on the rules/regulations notable to ME. Wikifan12345 (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You haven't really specified what you consider a violation of BLP guidelines (removing an unreliable op-ed?) Anyways, the question was about a way forward. So I would be okay with a sandbox, but you haven't answered whether you would be willing to accept the results of a previous or new discussion. Either of these would obviously be fine with me.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I really haven't specified? You've said that several times, typically after a thorough and lengthy post. I'd like this article to be locked, either temporarily or permanently until the article reaches bare-minimum BLP guidelines. It seems every edit that the IPer doesn't like is removed with little rationale, and his instance that we "balance" reliable sources with fringe or propaganda sites (Tehran Times, some back an unknown Iranian doctor wrote) demonstrates his lack of consideration for BLP. I've assumed good faith, directed him to rules more than twice, yet he continues. Hopefully my attitude isn't considered beyond the ordinary, but this has become extremely frustrating. If you want to say "enumerate specific problems," don't say it. I'll simply link you to the 6 posts where I specified individual problems with rules to back them up. The article speaks for itself. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So locking the article indefinitely and working on a sandbox. I still don't understand why you can't say you would accept the results of a previous or new discussion.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What results??? I wish you would be more straight-to-the-point in your POV. You present x argument, I explain why it is wrong. You present x source (Iranian doctor), I explain why it is wrong. You present BLP violations across the board (extensive quotations, misrepresentation of sources, over-dependence on non-reliable secondary sources for "facts," over-use of primary sources (some unreliable), reverts without rationale - which could be considered vandalism considering how many times it has occurred, etc..). I've responded to each little detail, even including explicit guidelines showing you why a lot of your edits do not fit within wiki standards. But most importantly, I've thoroughly explained why this article doesn't meet BLP guidelines. And now, of course, you ask me why I will not accept the results of a previous (there were no results), or "new" discussion (this discussion?). Kevin, am I doing something wrong here? I'd appreciate your commentary. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)To answer what is going wrong here, I see that you often come across as argumentative, and you have made comments on the contributor rather than the content, which has led to an adversarial rather than collaborative editing atmosphere. There needs to be a greater willingness to compromise on both sides, better explanation of concerns (linking to policies such as WP:BLP, WP:V or WP:NPOV are often unhelpful without explanation) and a common goal needs to be set if you both want to move forward. Kevin (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If I were to mediate here, I would propose something like the following:

• First, stop talking about the article
• Set behavioral conditions for participation
• Set a common goal
• Make a plan for how to get to that goal (the next 4 points could be that plan)
• Agree on the policies that are relevant to this article
• Draw up a rough article outline (maybe just section headings and what relative size they should be)
• Work through sections one by one using the common goal as a yardstick to check against
• Repeat until finished

This is only a suggestion, and for it to work you would both have to commit to it. Alternately, there are other methods of dispute resolution available. Kevin (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments on behavioral conditions for participation

I think that if we are going to go through another discussion that there should be a signal upfront that there will an acceptance of the results of the discussion.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments on a common goal

I think a common goal would be reaching a stable version of the article which adheres to the policies which should apply to this article.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments on a plan to reach the goal

I think each of us should first commit to accept the result of this discussion, and then work through each of the steps which Kevin has provided. So I think we should first establish a goal, then identify releant policies, then form an outline, and finally hash out actual sections.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments on policies that are relevant to this article

I believe a partial listing of policies relevant to this article include:

• WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL for the discussion here
• WP:RS, and specifically "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used."
• WP:V, and specifically "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."
• WP:BLP, and specifically "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link"
• WP:NPOV, and specifically "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources".
• Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Any biography for the notability of awards.

--76.214.104.121 (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments on a rough article outline

I endorse Kevin's proposal, especially the "policies relevant" part. Dispute resolution is also a suggestion I am considering. Can we keep the article locked until this dispute is resolved? I can't see how we could collaborate actively while the article is available to edit. As you can see in the history, the majority of the article's current state resulted little or no discussion.

My outline proposal:

Lead

Personal background (short)

Early career (current not referenced whatsoever, definitely needs to be reduced.)

IAEA Director - General activities as director, dealings with Libya, Iran, Pakistan, very very general.

Delete tenure sections, way too fluffy and not necessary.

Role in addressing nuclear programs (ME only. Reduce IAEA praise/endorsement. Refer to support/praise/commentary from RELIABLE sources.

-Iran (most important)

(reactions)

-Pakistan

(reactions)

-Libya

(reactions)

-North Korea

(reactions)

-Israel

(reactions)

-Any other countries I'm missing

Perhaps a performance section, assessment from the IAEA and/or UNSC.

-Awards - currently 16 references out of 62 are used for the awards. Outside of the Nobel and a few others, the rest are a direct copy and paste from an IAEA bio (and in the same exact order.) Plenty of BLP's have awards and rarely do we have to enumerate every single one. IMO Nobel is certainly enough, might not even need its own section.

I would like for the article to become 100% reliant on RELIABLE sources. Use of quotations significantly reduced, more paraphrasing, and shorter paragraphs. I imagine we can reduce the article by 25% with the above outline.

Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC) edit: Also, when I link to policies, I always provide thorough explanations. I can list some diffs, I know discussion is bloated which makes it hard to read. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You kind of skipped the first few steps. First, stop talking about the article. Then we agree on behavioral conditions and a common goal.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, outline is there. Behavioral: Move focus away from the individual to the actual edits. Edit according to BLP guidelines, I think it should be strictly BLP for now. No more, "I don't think it is reliable." Also, major edits, or edits that include deleting material, should be mentioned in talk first. In fact, I think all edits should be put in talk unless it is grammar or syntax. Perhaps edit in a collaborative sandbox before moving to article. Goals: (see outline), Edit according to BLP guidelines. Hopefully Kevin can expand upon that since he is probably more knowledgeable. I still think article should be locked until we can come to a reasonable (BLP-reasonable) consensus. Either that, or *ugh* formal dispute resolution. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that's too many topics - or rather too many countries. The key ones are Iraq and Iran. Maybe North Korea, and there's the beginning of a story on Syria. After that the next most important is ElB's proposal to multilateralize the nuclear fuel cycle. I'm wary of having separate "reactions" sections. It seems to me the reaction is part of the description.

Whether an article contains demonstrable falsehoods should be a criterion for reliability, no matter where it was published. Rather than insisting on a particular source in spite of disputes, let's try to agree to use sources that are beyond dispute. A little more flexibility would be welcome. NPguy (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"Let's try to agree to use sources that are beyond dispute": That's exactly what WP:RS and WP:BLP want, so it is odd when WF continues to cite them. I think Iran, Iraq, and then "Other" would be good sections.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to Glick, it is an editorial. It his her opinion. This "dispute" has boiled down to certain users not considering them reliable. That's a very fair argument, but when similar users are inserting non-notable and highly unreliable (at times, propaganda news services) into the article as supporting evidence, I find the sincerity hard to accept (i.e, POV issue.) Plus, NYT, Jpost, all pass Wikipedia:Verifiability. What certain people say is their business, not ours. Just as we quote Rice, ME, Presidents, and other reporters, whatever fallacies or inaccuracies within their statements (and there are plenty of them) is not grounds for exclusion. Now, if Glick was writing an "official" assessment on behalf of an unreliable source, yes removal could be justified. But I've been reading through the diffs, rules have been broken. Rationales such as "If we use American source, we can also use Iranian source" sceams POV-pushing. That's a hostile accusation, I know, but for such a controversial figure it is unacceptable. Balancing out reliable sources with non-notable Iranian doctors who happened to have written a non-notable book praising ME, is totally and completely absurd. I know Kevin wants to take the focus away from the individual but until individuals recognize basic rules, such as using reliable sources and not China News, we'll continue to be at square 1. Forever. I do agree we use sources that are beyond dispute. But beyond dispute according to BLP and wikipedia policy. If some user is continues to remove sources they don't like even though BLP guidelines say differently, that does not qualify as a "dispute." At least, not a fair one. There is some rule for that, someone else can find it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

By certain users, I think you mean you are the only one in any of the previous discussions who has argued for Glick's inclusion in the article. I think after the previous discussion about Glick it should be reasonable to not include her and just look for other sources which are more reliable.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, Xinhua is just as reliable as Voice of America or the BBC. They are all being used to report facts anyways, not make subjective and qualitative assertions.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'll take this discussion to mean that another form of dispute resolution is preferred. If you change your mind, please both drop a note on my talk page. Kevin (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Xinhua News Agency is not a reliable source. Voice of America is subsidized and controlled by the United States government. BBC is in a different league. For comparing those three sources is why the article does not meet BLP guidelines. I am not attacking you personally, I'm not attacking you at all. I am however criticizing your edits. If you consider that an attack on yourself, I don't know what to say. I do regret my rather hostile attitude that originated earlier, so for that I will apologize. Since mediation and RFC haven't solved this dispute, and users cannot come to an agree on what BLP rules apply to this article, and opinions of edit processing has remains unchanged, I highly suggest we move to a more formal dispute or claim of incidents. Can we keep the article locked until then? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Kevin has suggested a formal mediation process as well, so I think it would just make sense to have further discussion about article layout, reliability of sources, etc. there eventually. Until then, I don't see if there is much of a point in having the same discussion over and over.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There are several levels of formal mediation. I'd like to the article to be locked until disputes or resolved. Users will just take their disputes out on the article leaving little incentive to discuss. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So you have a choice now. I am willing to mediate if you both agree, using my suggested process, or some other agreed method. Or you can go to WP:MEDCAB or WP:RFM. Any of these methods require you both to agree to mediation as the way you wish to move forward. If you list the case at WP:MEDCAB, I will take it on unless either of you object. I do see that you both want to resolve the dispute. Kevin (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer a more formal, binding, and hopefully administrator-based process. I see the MEDCAB is more geared towards volunteers, and considering how we've come to no reasonable agreements under similar mediation (3O), I naturally have doubts. What do you suggest? Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I made 3 suggestions in my last post. I don't know else I can suggest. Kevin (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

For reference, I would be open to any of the above mentioned.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

At this point I will only be involved in formal mediation. RFCs and 3Os haven't worked. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So it looks like this is done with RFM, I am willing for this but I might let you initiate it.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned my bias would prevent me from representing the dispute accurately. Perhaps an uninvolved 3rd party can? Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think your concern with less formal means of mediation may be misplaced. All my suggestions would involve a neutral mediator helping the two (or more) of you understand each others views so that when the mediation is over, the article is in a state that all parties are happy with, and because all the parties are happy, there is no sudden rush to revert to any preferred state, which I think is your fear. It would be a quite different process to the RFC and 3rd opinion you have tried to date. Formal mediation is also a voluntary process, does not result in a binding decision, and will likely be rejected if a more informal mediation has not been tried. Kevin (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There isn't really an "enforced outcome" mediation option - formal mediation doesn't entail administrator oversight, the focus is still on having parties come to an agreement. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 13:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I will try not to repat myself, but I would be happy with formal or informal mediation. An informal mediation might make more sense at this point.--68.251.184.4 (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I signed up for one type of mediation at a different article about a week ago. Everyone has to leave a comment saying, "Agree to abide by the outcome etc..etc..." Can we do that? I don't know what that is called though. We've already done informal mediation, 3O and Kevin. If anything, I find some of the current edits and approach to the article as a violation of several core BLP policies. Perhaps we need to do a dispute resolution? Something more binding and perhaps holds editors accountable for their edits rather than a "state your position - here is my observation - this is what I suggest." sort of deal. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What you're describing is arbitration, but I'm pretty confident in predicting that any request for arbitration will be declined by the committee. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 19:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why it would be. We've done informal mediation, that didn't work. I identified several blatant violations of BLP from users. The article has a 2 month history of BLP violations, with some of those users who edited the article extensively during that period continue to edit. Considering this, I would prefer a formal, binding decision. I predict an unregulated process will simply be dismissed if it doesn't go a certain way. And plus, for a mediation we have to come to a mutual agreement of some sort. If you read the posts above, that hasn't happened yet. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"The article has a 2 month history of BLP violations": Removing mistake-ridden op-eds or arguing that Xinhua is as reliable as Voice of America? I think you might actually read this policy.--68.251.184.4 (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Failure to recognize the irrelevance in whatever mistakes users infer in editorials, and comparing Xinhua (communist propaganda) to BBC, while exclaiming both are "reliable sources" with total and complete seriousness. Yeah. I don't know the rules on VOA since it is part of the United States government. I assume good faith in the context that some users truly don't get how BLP works, so I've provided all the policies and highlighted where each issue fits. If editors continue to dismiss editing outside of their own while repeating the same mantra, I don't know what to say. Those who are fixated on reliable media (Jpost, NYT, CNN) while erroneously acting indifferent towards blatant unreliable sources, and at times propaganda-sources, is a cause for concern. I think we either need to go to noticeboard or dispute resolution - a formal, binding resolution. And penalties for those who violate it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The only formal, binding form of dispute resolution is WP:ARBCOM, who will not make a ruling on the content anyway, and as Nathan says are highly unlikely to accept the case. You say above that you have tried informal mediation, but if you are talking about my discussions here, those have been trying to get you to accept some form of mediation, which you have not. I really think that you should assume good faith that something less than ARBCOM will help resolve this. Kevin (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have assumed good faith. Continually violating BLP guidelines in spite of exposure makes it difficult for me to continue doing that. Inserting propaganda and unreliable sources while dubiously removing RS media is very confusing. We've done 3O. That went nowhere. You've agreed to mediation, I said ok and offered some suggestions. That hasn't gone anywhere and editors are still reverting back to Glick (see IP above.) I'm the one that initiated the mediation processes. The 3O, semi-protect, and asking users to explain their edits in discussion. Had I not done that, nothing would have changed. So try and give me some credit here, ok? :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To show my own effort, I initiated the original RfC and have tried to suggest other sources outside of the op-ed which I have taken issue with. I guess it makes sense to ask directly. Would you be open to each of these options? (simple Y/N please)

• Kevin leading an informal mediation
• WP:MEDCABAL
• WP:RFM

--68.251.184.4 (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent ec)I'm not knocking what you both have achieved to date, and you are both still talking which is a lot more positive than many disputes here. I think you both want to have this dispute resolved, and it's just a matter of taking the first step. How about this: if I act as mediator and an agreed solution is reached, I will make efforts to ensure that agreed content is not altered without consensus. Any party could also point to the mediation and put the onus onto those wanting to make changes to form a consensus first. My only real conditions to act as mediator are that everyone agrees to go down that path, and that we take it one step at a time. If you both agree, then first I'll archive this page just to make editing easier. Then we can draw up a plan at the top of the page and mark items off as we go. What do you both say? Kevin (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

RFC was in response to my POV tag. You've taken issue with the editorial for personal reasons. It passes BLP guidelines, and you haven't voiced any concerns over the unreliable, propaganda, and other opinions spread throughout the article which you and several others inserted. Just to clear things up. Yeah, I'm open to all the mediation types you listed, including Kevin's proposal. But if users continue to not respect BLP rules (at least the core principals), I will take this up with the noticeboard or an experienced BLP admin/user/etc. That is obviously the source of our dispute, and that should be our primary goal outside of actually correcting the problems with the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've taken issue with the opinion-editorial because it couldn't even get straight how many terms ElBaradei was Director General. Many other editors have expressed the exact same sentiment with the Glick source. I have already suggested you place the Glick issue on a noticeboard. I also think a number of experienced BLP admin/users have already weighed in on the matter.

The Xinhua source is a completely separate issue, and it is being used to relay the fact that a particular group made a particular statement. Xinhua employs over 10,000 people (10x Reuters). The quoted statement has also been picked up by a plethora of outlets, so there are plenty of other sources to corroborate that the statement was in fact made and that it isn't being made up as "communist propaganda". For example, the same information may be found here and here, among other places.--68.251.184.4 (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And the Times of India must be Communist propaganda too.

So what kind of propaganda is Voice of America?--68.251.184.4 (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

OK, I see you are both happy for me to mediate. One question before we start, as I don't like making assumptions. Is there just the one IP editor involved in the discussion? Kevin (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes.--68.251.184.4 (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. We can get started then. I'm going to archive this page first for ease of editing. Any useful discussion can be brought back out.

1. Agree to mediation as a method for resolving this dispute  Done
2. Elicit participation from other users  Done
3. Agree on the process  Done
4. Set behavioral conditions for participation  Done
5. Set a common goal - working on this now
6. Make a plan for how to get to that goal (the next 4 points could be that plan)
7. Agree on the policies that are relevant to this article
8. Draw up a rough article outline (maybe just section headings and what relative size they should be)
9. Work through sections one by one using the common goal as a yardstick to check against
10. Repeat until finished

Discussion on the process

This is my suggested means of reaching a resolution. Make changes as you see fit until we're all happy. Kevin (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. Elicit participation from other users
   2. Set behavioral conditions for participation
   3. Set a common goal
   4. Make a plan for how to get to that goal (the next 4 points could be that plan)
   5. Agree on the policies that are relevant to this article
   6. Draw up a rough article outline (maybe just section headings and what relative size they should be)
   7. Work through sections one by one using the common goal as a yardstick to check against
   8. Repeat until finished

I thought we could make it clear that this should be done in a reasonably step-by-step manner, and that it also might make sense to solicit input from other editors as well to arrive at a better conclusion and to try to avoid a back-and-forth.--68.251.184.4 (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I suspect others may be less interested in turning up until step 5, but feel free to invite anyone. Kevin (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Solicit input from editors outside of the dispute? I disagree. I believe all users involved in the mediation must have an edit history or be an administrator/requested neutral opinion (by mediator)/editors who belong to related boards. But allowing opinions from random users would likely turn this into a POV match up, especially when most of them don't know the lengthy history behind this dispute. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Kevin - a fair warning. The above IP, as well as the other 72 IP, have been involved in prior disputes with me. I would hate to see "friendly" users endorsing x side solely based on their POV or collective agreement on other articles. This is very common in controversial Israel/Palestinian/Middle Eastern articles. Therefore, I believe involvement of "invited" users would influence the integrity of the mediation. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit: If editors were to be invited, I believe Kevin should be the one to submit requests. We as disputing editors should not be allowed to ask for opinions from friendly users. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'll keep an eye on any excessive POV problems, and will deal with them as required. At this point the history of the dispute is less important that getting the content right, and so long as they are neutral other editors could be quite helpful. User:NPguy and User:Nathan have been involved here, and may have useful opinions. Kevin (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've invited the 2 editors I noted. I don't see many others who have been involved here recently. If we reach any points where agreement cannot be reached, other opinions can be sought as needed. Kevin (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There opinion might be useful but there involvement was minor. I don't think Nathan even edited the article. edit: And Nathan sided with the IP, though I might have to look at the discussion archive. I sent you a message, I think it is important. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Every editor's opinion is important, and we should not be resistant to those who might help. Everyone is going to take a side at some point, so I don;t see that as a particular problem. It is important that we focus on the content (when we reach that point). Kevin (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine but I don't want to see users aside from yourself eliciting friendly editors to opinion stack. We can't be naive, there is a mountain of evidence that supports similar incidents on wikipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the rest of the process? Kevin (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Rd232 was also involved in a fair amount of the previous discussion, but I suppose someone else can invite him if they want.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I was invited to join this process. I don't expect to be heavily involved, but may chime in occasionally. NPguy (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, I was happy with the rest of the process for resolution if everyone else was.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

An outline of the problems I've identified:

• There is a statement in the archives that ElBaradei's earlier terms need expanded coverage, and no one disagreed.
• Everyone seems to agree that "Criticism of..." sections are substandard and should be avoided.
• We argued over a POV tag, held an RfC, and the consensus of the RfC was clearly that a POV tag was inappropriate in the abscence of a specific POV problem. I realize that Wikifan disagrees with this outcome.
• There has been discussion about the editing history of the article and other conduct. I think we should leave this stuff behind - we should avoid assigning blame or throwing accusations unless it becomes absolutely necessary, and to me it seems like we are still at the point where dispensing with that for now might allow a consensus form of the article to emerge.

In terms of core problems, what am I missing? Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 21:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll be brief:

• Fix the over-dependence on extremely unreliable sources.
• Reduce balancing criticisms with non-notable figures.
• End excluding RS while merging questionable sources to support facts (this is a major issue and could potentially lead to a libel accusation.)
• Reduction of IAEA/Me general mantra to counter specific claims. I.e, x says x about ME. Countered with a general opinion from ME. Unless ME responds directly, we can't continue to couch in general responses. We could potentially counter every accusation with a statement made by ME years before or years after.
• Reduce awards section. No BLP has such a lengthy award section. Nobel is fine, a little mention on the honorary degrees, but everything else is non-notable. Some BLPs have hundreds of awards, but we don't include all of them. And like I said before, the awards were a direct copy and paste from the IAEA. Even in the same order.
• Re-organize sections. Axe "first term, second term, third term etc.."
• Edit according to strict Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons standards, specifically the three core principals: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:No original research. Those should be the first pages we go to during disputes. No more "I don't like." A POV consensus cannot replace basic BLP laws.

That's all for now. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That all sounds reasonable as far as it goes. I did see you and the IPer discussing the sourcing issue; personally, I would exclude both Xinhua and VoA and severely limit any use of opinion columns (op-ed is sort of a NY Times-specific phrase that refers to a position in the physical paper, interesting fact). Xinhua and VoA are mouthpieces - intended to present the government view of the world. While the BBC is government sponsored, it differs from the other two in that the editorial control is independent - more analogous to NPR, really. I try not to rely on opinion columns because they present the imprimatur of an organization known as a reliable source but typically undergo only the most basic fact-checking (dates, names, events). In other forums there have been many discussions on sources that are reliable for some purposes but not as reliable for others; newspapers are a case on point, because the scrutiny on reporting (which has the reputation of the paper behind it) is much, much greater than that for opinions. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 22:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Editorials from reliable sources are valuable in BLPs. There is no rule endorsing the idea that they should be excluded. I understand the resistance since there is a mountain of not-so-pleasant criticisms, but we can't simply exclude them because of that. Xinhua isn't just a mouth piece, it's communist propaganda. Period. VoA isn't in the same league, but again its reliability is questionable because it is financed and run by the US government. BBC is subsidized by the British government but not administrated by it (supposedly.) Whatever factual inaccuracies notable journalists make in editorials is totally and completely irrelevant. Just like an inaccuracy or disputed evidence from ME, Rice, George Bush, Osama Bin Laden, we can include it if it comes from a reliable source. We of course quote in the context that it is x person's commentary, and not "this are the facts, says x." ME is a controversial figure. Similar BLPS: Richard A. Falk and Alan Dershowitz both include editorial references. Plus, the claim of reliability ultimately rested on a users "opinion" of the editorial, and not actually wiki policy. However, the real problem is the complete and total omission of notable facts. 4 paragraphs on IAEA spin and ME pimping is not particularly notable. Coverage on Israel, Iran, and especially the United States must be merged, and should be the primary focus. We need information prior to 2007, barely anything has happened since then. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There were plenty of other sources which reported the same thing as Xinhua and Voice of America, so I think it would be very easy to just change where the ref tags point to while leaving the verifiable content the same. I believe the inclusion of the op-eds is different, specifically when the op-ed contains basic mistakes within it and has claims which aren't repeated in any other reliable sources. Are we to the point of discussing problems with the article yet? I was thinking we should identify some basic guidelines first.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No there weren't. Notice the previous versions, very few paragraphs sentences had more than one source. I can post the diff if you like. I've directed you to several similar BLPs that rely on editorials for commentary. All are from reliable sources, mostly The New York Times. Whether you identify "mistakes" is again, totally, 100%, completely, absolutely irrelevant. Unless they are totally erroneous, like ME is a Mormon from China who works for the Central Intelligence Agency, we can include it, especially if it's from a reliable source. Seeing as how the article relied on unreliable sources so disturbingly before, I think at this point any claim against excluding reliable sources shouldn't be taken very seriously. Kevin said to focus on the article rather than the individual, but I have to post this. Here you couch in a totally unreliable source by a non-notable Iranian doctor: for commentary. Why do you demand we axe Jpost/NY but allow silly books from Iranian doctors? I'm sorry if you don't like the criticism, I've seen your edits and I know how you want the article. That is fine, I'm willing to collaborate. But Jpost, NY, CNN, any site with editorials all fall under basic BLP guidelines. I've identified 3. I can post more BLPs that have editorials, some with mistakes (oh noes!). Can we get to the article now? Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I was pointing out that there are plenty of other sources which do contain the exact same material, and that the statements are not subjective assertions but verifiable statements of fact.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If we are agreed on the next steps, then setting behavioral conditions is next, then set a common goal. Are we agreed enough on the process to move on? Kevin (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

What are we agreeing on? Several of us have identified problems as you requested, but a consensus has not been reached. I'm just not familiar with the process so pardon my ignorance. ; D Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

What I wanted to get sorted out first was a plan for how we will resolve the dispute, rather than how we will fix the article. I know it seems slow and you want to get to the article, but I have a reason for doing this. For weeks you have been disagreeing on virtually everything, and I want to get you working on something collaboratively before getting to the details of the article, where the real differences lie. What I want to agree on next is the numbered plan above. Kevin (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a problem I've identified. The organization of the article around ElBaradei's three terms is artificial. Better to organize around prominent issues, in a more or less chronological sequence:

• Iraq
• North Korea
• Iran
• Libya (maybe)
• Multilateral Control of the Fuel Cycle
• Nuclear Disarmament (maybe)

Some have suggested adding Israel and Pakistan to the list. I don't see a significant functional role for ElB in those countries. NPguy (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

good list. I think Israel could be merged with Iran. ME made an attempt to categorize the state with Iran's nuclear program. There was never an investigation, but it did get a significant amount of media coverage. Currently the IP has reported me for personal attacks or something, here. This is a serious hindrance to the mediation process. We all agreed previous disputes would not be brought up (I could have just as well posted an incident report for the IP). Anyone who has an opinion feel free to add. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Getting back on track

To get back on track, I would like you both to either suggest changes to the numbered steps above, or tell me you are happy and we can move on. All this discussion on the content is useful, but premature. I am as keen as you all to get to the article, but am a firm believer in having a plan of action first. Kevin (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

At this point I more concerned about a potential block because of the noticeboard report filed by the IP. If and when that is cleared up, then the mediation should continue. Since you are leading the mediation perhaps you could suggest a speedy close at the noticeboard? It could take over a week before a decision is made. I don't want to get blocked mid-discussion here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No-one is going to block you as a result of that discussion. I can probably close have closed the discussion there. Kevin (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Shall we proceed? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes please. Kevin (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with the list above..--99.162.60.191 (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll amend the list at the very top and start the next section. Kevin (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to any of the proposed rules/goals. Ultimately the goal is to have a better article, but I agree that the immediate goal is to get out of the rut of having extended arguments over its content. NPguy (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Behavior during mediation

1. Refrain from commenting on other's motives, biases etc.
2. Avoid characterizations of arguments made by others (i.e. "XYZ's opinion is ridiculous")
3. Leave the past behind. Nothing good can come from dredging up history we are all aware of.
4. Make a good faith attempt to understand the positions of others.

We've probably dealt with most of this anyway, but this is my view. Please add or edit as required. Kevin (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This looks good to me.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about leaving the past behind. Obviously rehashing past arguments is unproductive, but if the arguments were about something, we should perhaps crystallize that something rather than exclude it from discussion. NPguy (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I should clarify, I'm not talking about useful content discussions, just the "he said this in March" kind of thing. Kevin (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Now what? NPguy (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As soon as Wikifan12345 says he is happy with these guidelines we can move on. Kevin (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree with the terms. Can we extend the lock? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've extended for a month. Kevin (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Setting a common goal

I'd like some input from the parties here before I make any suggestions here. Kevin (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Substantively, I'd like to see the article become more

• balanced, with a focus on factual narrative but a minor admixture of favorable and unfavorable commentary.
• historically representative, addressing the key issues ElBaradei was actively involved in, e.g.:
  • Iraq
  • Iran
  • Libya
  • Multilateral Nuclear Arrangements for control of the nuclear fuel cycle
  • Nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament

Procedurally, I'd like to see flexibility from editors, particularly on the selection of sources of commentary. NPguy (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Flexible is relative. If commentaries fall under BLP guidelines, such as verifiability and reliable sources, they should be included. Only when commentary is redundant, encourages undue weight, and/or not notable should we consider exclusion. I think rules-of-editing need to be established pronto. Major edits and deletions should be preceded by collaborative discussion that follows strict BLP rules.

E.g: Opinion/personal POV < guidelines. Not sure how important MNA and NND is. This article is about ME. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you guys see a way to word this goal as a single sentence (or two), remembering that the ultimate goal is to serve our readers? Kevin (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

How about: To have a historically representative and balanced biography of ElBaradei which is in line with Wikipedia content policies and guidelines.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, historically representative and balanced biography that is dependent on reliable sources and is edited according to the 3 core principals of BLP. Period. "Balance" can be debated and argued forever, which is why wikipedia policies exist - to serve as a reminder about what should be in the article and how it should be written. Hopefully we all agree on this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there are 3 core policies of Wikipedia, not specifically of BLP. And there are clearly varying opinions of what a reliable source is, but again I think this process should help with that.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh? Reliable sources cannot be debated. Tehran Times and phony Iranian doctors are not reliable sources. Here is a common issue: Editing has become personalized. Disputes have boiled down to "in my opinion," "I think," "I believe" etc..etc..rather than focusing on core BLP laws. As stated by Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, the three core guidelines are: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research. Most important clause:

“ The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. ”

I'm not targeting you or attacking you or alienating you. I'm simply providing required reading. To say "there are clearly varying opinions of what a reliable source is" demonstrates a lack of understanding of not only BLP guidelines, but wikipedia rules in general. This is simple simple stuff. Once users get this then we can move on to actually editing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't say you were attacking me. Secondly, if you were trying to get semantical about it they are actually policies of Wikipedia in general, not guidelines specific to BLP individually or "BLP laws". In fact, these standards are even stronger for BLP. On what basis do you assert that Dr. Kaveh L Afrasiabi is a "phony Iranian doctor"? That would sound like an "opinion" which you deride, and as far as I can tell your opinion is rather unsubstantiated.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with semantics. Balancing reliable sources with a non-notable book written by a non-notable (and likely phony) doctor is not appropriate for wikipedia, and certainly not BLPs. If we can't get beyond this, I don't see how we can continue. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I wish you would clarify your phony doctor statement.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

We need to wheel in the rhetoric a bit here. As for a goal, it is a given that we will comply with WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V, so they need not be mentioned at this stage. Kevin (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

So how about "To have a historically representative and balanced biography of ElBaradei". To further the discussion, maybe just modify the wording or make counterproposal(s) without providing reasoning.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, cause the current version is a totally balanced and representative biography of Elbaradei. ;D Yes, we do need to wheel in the rhetoric. But there should be an understanding the propaganda news services are not reliable sources and cannot be used in any articles (with a couple exceptions), and this is doubly so for BLPs. Users must take responsibility for their edits (perhaps that should be a goal). Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Your sarcasm here is not helping fix the article. At this point we are not discussing sources or content; what I want from the two of you is a common goal, that you wrote yourselves. If you can collaborate on one or two sentences now, the rest will be much easier. Kevin (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

My comment was in jest. A reasonable response to an unreasonable view of BLP guidelines. I wrote a common goal (copy and paste BLP guidelines), IP disagrees. What's next? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think jest is not a good method of holding a debate after the previous animosity. It is much too easy to take the wrong way. I've also asked, and you have agreed, not to characterize the view and opinions of others. Please be careful to avoid such characterizations in future. As for what is next, discuss amongst yourselves which parts of the proposed goals you like, which you dislike and see if a common position can be found. Kevin (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

this isn't a matter about views and opinions. I'm not attacking the IP's "character." I'm not attacking anything. If we can't recognize failure to appreciate basic rules out of fear of offending then I don't know what to say. My "proposal" was more or less based on basic guidelines. There was no, "I think", "I believe" etc... I want this article edited according to strict BLP rules. That is it. This was the IP's proposal: "To have a historically representative and balanced biography of ElBaradei which is in line with Wikipedia content policies and guidelines." this isn't good enough. there is no need to say historically representative and balanced biography, that is a suspect inclusion and is vulnerable to interpretation. I provided explicit BLP rules and general wikipedia practices. This article shouldn't be about the user or their version of history or balance. It's about the references, and we cannot discriminate (i.e, I don't like this). Everything the IP has said is exactly the same rationale he gave in previous disputes, and you see where that went. It's hard to not confront someone's ideas and proposals if you misconstrue it as an attack on the editor in question. I'm not gonna lie. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I know the ground rules say not to rehash old arguments, but that seems to be what is happening. There was a long-running disagreement over an op-ed that Wikifan wanted to cite as a "reliable source" and others (myself included) thought unreliable because of factual errors. Wikifan has been unwilling to consider the use of alternate sources that reflect similar viewpoints but were more reliable. Others (myself included) have been unwilling to use this source for the reasons cited. So both sides have been inflexible on this point. It's not clear to me how to resolve this through mediation without adjudicating that disagreement on its merits.

One point for Wikifan to consider: I recognize the criticism of ElBaradei as having a legitimate basis and deserving space in this article. Using an error-ridden source to make the point has the effect of undermining the credibility of the viewpoint. The viewpoint would be represented more credibly if based on a different source that did not have such evident defects. Why not look for such a source? NPguy (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll sort out that part of the disagreement when we get to it. For now, I think it is important to collaborate on something simple, to get the ball rolling. Kevin (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, NPGuy proposed having an article which has "a focus on factual narrative but a minor admixture of favorable and unfavorable commentary" and "addressing the key issues ElBaradei was actively involved in" as a goal. I think this could be a starting point. I think we discuss policies in step 5.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there is an obvious misunderstanding of how we use sources. Whatever "errors" you identify is irrelevant. If its commentary from a reliable source, we CAN use it. Doesn't mean we have to, but we can. The rationales give to exclude do not apply, ever. Just as we don't exclude the error-ridden phony report by the Iranian doctor (pimping ME), or the errors/confusing rhetoric stated by ME, or the errors stated by George W. Bush, Osama Bin Laden, etc...all do not matter. Caroline Glick of Jpost is a reliable source. Heck, Caroline Glick herself is notable enough for inclusion, even if she said ME was a communist b@stard. Other editorials, by the NYT, WSJ, etc...can all be used because they are reliable sources. And errors like "5 terms" instead of 3 has been blown way out of proportional. It is not a major error. In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used. Considering users felt it was ok to use China/Iranian propaganda as sources and nobody pointed that out besides myself (and no one seems to care still), demands to kick out Jpost, NYT, WSJ, and editorials that might not paint an "accurate portrait" (i.e, gushing praise) should not be taken seriously. This isn't a simple disagreement over an op-ed, it is a disagreement over the entire editing process. The article speaks for itself Kevin, and I want to fix it, according to strict BLP guidelines. No interpretation, no opinion, no this-is-how-i-think-the-article-should-be-edited. No one has yet to use a guideline that forbids editorials, even those with "errors." Please post one if you can. For every source used, it should be screened by BLP guidelines. Every. single. source. Can we agree? Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we should agree on a goal right now, but I have said I am willing to replace VoA, Tehran Times, etc. with other sources which say the exact same thing if necessary. And as for a guidelines about Glick, WP:V#Questionable sources says:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves.

--99.162.60.191 (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post is a reliable source. Caroline Glick is a notable journalist. This isn't a questionable source. Tehran Times is a questionable source. This is a questionable source. This is a questionable source. This is questionable source. This is questionable source. Press TV is questionable source, in fact it's Iranian propaganda. And we have one, two, and three in the article. Who put in these sources again? We need accountability Kevin. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure when you became the supreme and unquestionable arbiter of reliability. The problem with your argument is that except for the opinion of the Iranian doctor, the other sources simply relay statements of fact which are repeated in multiple other reliable sources. Glick is being used to convey a polemic and fringe opinion, and she makes at least two factual errors in her article. And you never did substantiate your claim that he was a "phony Iranian doctor". Is it just that you can state an opinion or make a claim about something and it is true without having to provide any support?--99.162.60.191 (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no. Jpost is in the wiki database. It is a reliable source according to wikipedia. No, propaganda cannot be corroborated by other sources. If it was, those sources would be in the article. The iranian doctor is phony by virtue of being a non-notable, unimportant, pimp-piece for ME. Can you rationalize Press TV, China propaganda, and the Tehran Times? All sources which you put in? As I said before Kevin, editors must be held accountable for the sources they use. I'm not accusing the IP or anyone of wrong-doing, I just would like to see a nice, simple explanation that verifies there inclusion according to strict BLP codes. I've done that for all the sources I used. Please, we are all listening. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Kevin, does it not seem fair that editors understand the simple concept of no-propaganda? Really, it should be mandatory. Own up to your edits, or don't edit at all. If I continued to couch in Press TV, in say...george w bush in spite of warnings, I'd probably get blocked. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

So what about the "American propaganda" of Voice of America? I don't know what reliable source database you are talking about, and I don't know how you think the Iranian doctor is phony.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

VOA is not promoted as an independent news service. Plus, you put in the source, not me.

I have been deliberately ignoring discussion of particular sources here, because they have no part in setting a goal. We are not going to set a goal that includes or excludes specific sources, so discussion at this point is premature, as I have stated numerous times. The detail of the article text and associated sources is the last thing we will get to, after we have set a framework for the article content. When we reach that point we can have all the discussion you want on sources, but not until then. Kevin (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well can you be more explicit? References...uh, kind of make up the article. My goal is to edit the article according to strict BLP guidelines. Anything short of that is unacceptable. What do you have in mind? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you want the article to be? Npguy wants the article to be "balanced, with a focus on factual narrative", the IP suggested "To have a historically representative and balanced biography of ElBaradei". Maybe you could take those points, add your point about being compliant with policy, maybe start out with something about serving our readers.

All of this talk of sources now is just continuing old arguments, and we know that that method of resolving the dispute failed, so why continue it? Kevin (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

balance and factual narrative is all babble. It is codeword for "my version of balance and factual narrative." The guidelines have PERFECTLY crafted laws that dictate how articles should be edited. This doesn't need to be a debate. If users are disputing whether or not propaganda deserves a spot in the article, we have a problem. It certainly conflicts with "balance and factual narrative." We don't need a statement of purpose, we just need to follow the rules that every other editors do in BLPs. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems like you are not happy with the way we are progressing. Do you feel that the plan we laid out at the top of the page is no longer appropriate? Kevin (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need to add "no propaganda" as part of our "plan?" Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No, of course not. Can you answer my question above? Kevin (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, there are several plans. NPguys, IP's, and mine. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about the numbered plan at Talk:Mohamed_ElBaradei#Mediation, specifically #4 where we agreed to set a common goal. Your statement "We don't need a statement of purpose" seems at odds with that step. Kevin (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I touched the third rail here by reopening the disagreement on sources. Perhaps it will show, as Kevin said, how hopeless that path is. I'm also prepared to set aside for now the process point on flexibility and focus first on substance. My suggestions were to produce an article that is

• mostly factual, balanced, with a minor admixture of favorable and unfavorable comment; and
• historically representative (with whatever list of key events/issues we agree on).

Can we agree on these points? Are there any that are missing?

Wikifan has suggested that "balance" is in the eye of the beholder, so it's essentially meaningless. I think it's important as a first step to recognize the importance of balance, even if we disagree on the second step of how to achieve it. I would prefer to leave it to Kevin to help us work through that second step. NPguy (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, we don't need to consciously weed out critical/positive sources. If something is a reliable source, we use it. Our goal should be maintaining neutrality and verifiability. This pursuit of "facts" and "truth" leads nowhere except POV-pushing and article ownership. Previous editing disputes prove that. ME is so controversial that it will be extremely difficult to create a "factual" article. Everything is opinion, spin, and perspective. The only "factual" events are those outside of ME, like Iran's/Pakistan/whatever nuclear program. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

So could you try to condense that in to one or two sentences?--99.162.60.191 (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you willing to try that? Kevin (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, serious question? Why? Is one paragraph too long? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no. I am disappointed that you are not willing to actively resolve this dispute. Kevin (talk) 06:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

what is the dispute? NPguy posts a misrepresentation of my POV and I correct his inaccuracies. IP dubiously asks me to condense my response into two sentences without rationale. I honestly thought he was kidding. And if he wasn't, well....perhaps he is the one who is not willing to actively resolve this "dispute." Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

My thinking was that way back at the beginning of setting a common goal Kevin asked us to come up with a few sentences that we could move forward with. Since you didn't seem to like any of my proposals, I was trying to get you to come up with one..--76.214.145.216 (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't returned to this in a few days, but it looks like this process hasn't been making significant progress. If I had to identify a reason, it would be that Wikifan is convinced that there is no other possible outcome than that the article conform to his interpretation of BLP and its application to ElBaradei. I agree that this is disappointing. I think we would all appreciate it if you, Wikifan, would agree to and actually follow through on participating in a mediation process in good faith. Mediation does not mean structured debate that vindicates your position - compromise on your part will be necessary in order to come to a useful conclusion.

On a side note, I don't know anything about this Iranian doctor that has been mentioned. Assuming that he is still alive, however, the BLP policy applies to him as much as it does ElBaradei. Further mentions of him as "phony" or his work as "phony" without substantiation should result in blocks or topic bans for anyone violating BLP in that way. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 15:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's all wikifan's fault. Surprise. All he wants is for the editing process to follow strict BLP guidelines and restrict policy interpretation (as stated by IP). How demanding! He is so disruptive. The Iranian doctor was simply an example. IP posted it under the rationale, "if we can include American, we can also include Iranian." No, Nathan we can't. A non-notable unknown Iranian doctor writes a book that vaguely refers to ME (and not in specific context) is unacceptable. Especially when the edit was simply in response to my edits, which could be considered editing to illustrate a point...but again, we are supposed to forget the past. I don't see how referring to a phony doctor constitutes a topic ban. Can you provide a policy that supports such assertion? Well, then again...you said you didn't know anything about this Iranian doctor. IMO, willingly posting propaganda sites and claiming they are reliable sources (over 10 ) and reverting users who try to remove them violates all that is BLP. It is not only potentially libelous, but defeats the whole purpose of wikipedia. We might as well us The Onion. anyways. I guess no one cares though? Serious question. I think we all agree to this "common" goal, now off to the meaty stuff. Like understanding the basic policy of what are and what aren't reliable sources. Failure to do so would force us into a more pressuring mediation, and that will likely not end well. Can we agree or should I condense this into two sentences? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, there is a reason that assuming good faith is a policy. The core of it is that we ought to assume that others edit not to provoke you, or to create a terrible POV article, or to violate myriad policies, but that others have interests similar to your own. Specifically, I've seen nothing to suggest that any other editor of this talkpage is unfamiliar with the RS or BLP policies; nothing that suggests to me a willingness or desire to violate either policy, and very little that suggests they are unwilling to compromise with you on certain issues in the context of mediation. We share your goals, but we may have a somewhat different understanding of BLP and other policies than you. For example, I'd prefer to exclude both editorials and state-owned news outlets. Your approach suggests that you think no one else understands BLP, or that everyone else is intent on violating it. That simply isn't the case. If anything, you personally are polarizing this debate unnecessarily.

As for BLP and the Iranian doctor - you absolutely need to stop referring to a living person as a "phony doctor" or his work as phony. The real name of the person you are talking about is on this talkpage. That is utterly basic BLP policy. I also don't think "non-notable unknown" is really necessary - that description includes most people, doesn't it? Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 23:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've assumed good faith off and on. But honestly, I cordially enumerated the sources. All of them, from propaganda, to promotion sites, and not even half could be considered reliable. IP claimed that the propaganda sources were corroborated by reliable sources. That is totally absurd and I asked him to prove it, and he told me to condense what I wrote in two sentences. Editors cannot continue to demand good faith when they constantly violate basic core policies. And you cannot expect me to assume good faith beyond the ordinary after the IP reported me to noticeboards in spite of a well-established agreement he made here. You didn't seem to have a problem with that. If you are seriously saying nothing suggests users haven't violated or do not understand BLP policies then I insist you read the article and discussion. It's assumed violations have been made because the article was reverted to a previous state by an administrator because of BLP violations by the IP. Here is a statement you made above: "For example, I'd prefer to exclude both editorials and state-owned news outlets." This is a major problem. "I prefer, "In my opinion," "I believe," etc....is not a valid justification. Editorials go hand-in-hand with BLPs. Alan Dershowitz, Norman Finkelstein, Ban Ki-moon, and practically all controversial/critical/important figures contain editorials (all reliable sources of course) in the article. Find me a rule that restricts editorials, please. I asked you asked you guys three times. "State-media" isn't the issue. Propaganda is. Virtually all Middle Eastern media is stated owned with the exception of Israel, even praised al jazeera is owned by a despot. This argument over what is reliable sources, what should be in the article, how we should edit is becoming way too long. We have BLP policies that are standard and should be a first and hopefully only tool to decide what should be in the article. Sure, there are exceptions, but please...demanding we exclude Jpost, NYT, WSJ, while claiming an unreliable and unheard of so-called Iranian doctor (phony, IMO) is perfectly ok doesn't make sense. Now we are going to revert back to, "let's make a common goal..." and then we'll have to do this all over again. This is not rocket science. BLP is pretty easy if you read the policies. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd really like to keep any reply brief since the entire discussion is off-topic, but you said "IP claimed that the propaganda sources were corroborated by reliable sources. That is totally absurd and I asked him to prove it, and he told me to condense what I wrote in two sentences"

So, for example, the "Chinese propaganda" of Xinhua, the official press agency of the government of China which employs ten times the number of reporters as similar agencies such as Reuters, is being used to support an objective quote. This quote has been picked up by multiple other sources such as The Department of Foreign Affairs of South Africa, Global Security, AFP, The Daily Times, etc. So I suppose this is French Pakistani South African Global Security Chinese propaganda as well.

Similarly, the "American propaganda" of Voice of America, is being used to support the fact that ElBaradei objectively said he will not be seeking a fourth term. While some op-ed writers may dislike the American propaganda of ElBaradei having only served three terms (and not five), The Financial Express and Chinese propaganda also corroborate the American propaganda.

So, I don't really care which sources are used to support the material. It would be useful if you could provide support for your assertion that Afrasiabi is a "phony Iranian doctor" though.

I would again reiterate that this discussion is off-topic and that we should just be coming up with a goal right now.--76.214.145.216 (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Xinhua is being used to support facts, not quotes. Either way, it is not a reliable source and it being the state media agency of China is the whole point. You just don't understand the concept of reliable sources according to wikipedia policy, and that is the problem. You. Do. Not. Understand. What. Reliable. Sourcing. Means. Look up BLP policy, I've quoted official guidelines extensively and you've ignored it time and time again. Kevin, if editors cannot grasp this, I consider we ship this off the BLP noticeboard. They'll tell you right off the bat that propaganda news sites are not tolerated outside a few exceptions. You won't find xinhua in George Bush or tehran times in Barack OBama. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I find it completely irrelevant which source is used to support something when there are so many sources to support the same thing. At this point I think you are trying to create a fire where there is none. I also think it is sad that it takes a week to come up with two or three sentences.--76.214.145.216 (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, include a source that supports the propaganda reference. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You must have missed at least six of them above?--76.214.145.216 (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It is off topic for setting a goal - it goes back to setting conditions for the discussion. It will be impossible to pursue a meaningful mediation if we can't move beyond disputes about past interaction and assume, going forward, that we're all capable of reading and understanding policy. That we can have good faith disagreements, beyond simple misunderstanding or unfamiliarity, is a bedrock notion on Wikipedia and any community endeavour. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 00:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Right. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, the material you are trying to take issue with occurs in many reliable sources, so I don't care if Xinhua or The Financial Express is used to report the exact same information. We should be coming up with a goal. And I think the problem I think you have is relying on a polemic and mistake-ridden op-ed. Of note, DebkaFile, an Israeli open source military intelligence website, also carried the claim of ElBaradei serving five terms. So, the only problem I have seen, is an op-ed writer relying on very low quality open-source Israeli military intelligence (I would call it propaganda, but propaganda is a rumor which is used to help a cause.) It would be useful if you could provide support for your assertion that Afrasiabi is a "phony Iranian doctor" though. You might start out outside the open source Israeli military intelligence, since its record doesn't seem to be too good.

Note: This material was restored so that an off-topic reply could be given.--76.214.145.216 (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else believe Xinhua, Tehran Times, and other state-owned and universally accepted propaganda medias are reliable sources? Anyone? Can they be used in articles to support events and figures? Anyone? Hello? You having a beef with a reliable source (Jpost is a certified wikipedia reliable source, btw) while dubiously demanding we insert Iranian propaganda, along with non-notable doctors, who's fact-checking is unmeasurable, like all propaganda news sites, does not make sense. Caroline Glick is a notable journalist. Jpost is a certified reliable source. Do you dispute this? The inaccuracy you identify is irrelevant to the topic. We are quoting a reliable source in the context of a known and acclaimed journalist. You going through google and mentioning debkafile is nothing short of original research and goes beyond what sourcing requires. If you oppose Glick on ideological gtounds, I really don't care. She passes guidelines with flying colors, as does NYT, WSJ, and CNN - all sources you removed several times. Do I really need to grab a BLP noticeboard admin and clarify whether or not Xinhua can be used in BLP? Or if we can exclude reliable sources based on user-dispute and criticisms outside of BLP guidelines? Really? I can. If Kevin agrees, I most certainly will. Doubly so if it settles this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I am done replying to off-topic drivel. You are completely ignoring the conversation. Perhaps that material would be better suited for your user page, and not a section which reads "Setting a common goal". I would reiterate the goal which NPGuy and I agreed on about five days ago.--76.214.145.216 (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah okay. I amended the initial goal proposed by Kevin and endorsed the general agreement, something you violated early on. NPguy unfortunately misrepresented my POV, and then you listed more rationalizations for using propaganda, non-notable sources, etc...which I responded to the best I could. So, you had no issue continuing the discussion and now when I've offered to get an experienced BLP admin who appreciates the importance of guidelines (and not using state propaganda sources), you are now "done replying to off-topic drivel." To consider what makes a solid BLP - its references - to be off-topic, then I truly do not know what to say. I do however endorse Kevin's general proposal for mediation. But eventually we'll have to go through this again. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

So where was your proposal again? Could you just provide it within quotes?--76.214.145.216 (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

“ Yeah, historically representative and balanced biography that is dependent on reliable sources and is edited according to the 3 core principals of BLP. ”

Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Kevin said it was early to be discussing the policies, but that is fine with me if it is with everyone else.--76.214.145.216 (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, if this is our mission statement (i.e, goal that will define our mediation), then I don't see why we shouldn't include the BLP-policy denotation. After all, this is a BLP article, and the whole dispute is centered on alleged-BLP policy violations. Why leave it up for interpretation? We are just setting ourselves up for more disputes. I don't see why Kevin would have a problem with this.

I have no problem with that goal, so long as you all agree. Except for the "Yeah" at the beginning :) . Kevin (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Slightly copyedited: To write a historically representative and balanced biography that is dependent on reliable sources and is edited according to the 3 core principals of BLP.

I copied and pasted the original statement. "Year" was part of it. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I can buy that. I would like to register my annoyance Wikifan for repeatedly blaming me for setting him off on a rant. Wikifan seems to take everything personally, yet has no appreciation for how his own over-reactions turn others off. Wikifan needs to chill out. If you want good will, assume good faith. NPguy (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we are beyond good faith. You misrepresented my POV. I corrected it. I didn't attack you. I simply corrected an inaccuracy. Sorry. Maybe it is you who needs to chill out and stop taking things personally. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could both cease commenting on each others motives. Surely you can both see how unhelpful it is. Kevin (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about motives. I care about what is and what isn't in the article. I don't think propaganda sources/BLP violations/misinterpretation of policy=motivates. It might be considered inappropriate editing in the right context, but identifying motives is subjective and cannot be proven without clear statements or checkuser. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit: Suggesting NPguy to chill out is not questioning his motives. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I am tempted to respond, but - except to say that I was not question motives either - I would rather move on to the next step. NPguy (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think we've done enough here. I also think there has been plenty of discussion on the policies applicable - WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:V. I don't think any one disagrees that the article must comply with those policies. For the next section, setting out an outline, WP:NPOV is the most relevant as we decide how much content to allocate to each portion of the biography. Kevin (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)