Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-11 Fatimah
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Fatimah |
| Status | closed |
| Request date | 03:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Parties involved | Itaqallah (talk · contribs) |
| Mediator(s) | Vassyana |
| Comment | One party blocked indefinitely for repeated acute disruption. No dispute left to mediate. Closing case. |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Fatimah]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Fatimah]]
Request details
Who are the involved parties?
- Itaqallah (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
- Enforcing Neutrality (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
What's going on?
User:Enforcing Neutrality's view
The "Death" section in the article is a sensitive issue, and both the Shi'a Muslim and the Sunni Muslim views should be well represented. The Shi'a view was unfortunately very badly represented. I expanded the paragraph citing al-islam.org and al-shia.com as well the books they supply as references. User:Itaqallah repeatedly reverted my edits, arguing that both websites are "polemical" and "highly unreliable" to represent the Shi'a point of view. I pointed out that al-islam.org is the most cited and visited Shi'a website on the internet, and has been cited by Columbia University here (as a main reference on Islam), the British Academy here, the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade here and the George Mason University here, among other places; al-shia.com is run by the office of Sistani, the foremost religious authority in Shi'a Islam. Regardless, I removed mentions of the websites and kept the historical books supplied by al-islam.org. User:Itaqallah contended that al-islam.org, being the "polemical" and "partisan" website it is, is most likely to lie about the sources and misrepresent what is actually written. I spent hours looking for the books online and locating the texts in question, to find that the sources are properly cited and al-islam.org reports exactly what the sources say. User:Itaqallah, then, amusingly, decided to argue that the books themselves, which include History of the Prophets and Kings, The Complete History, al-Isti'ab and Al-Imama wa al-Siyasa among others, are unreliable. Again, I'm trying to represent the Shi'a point of view and not impose the story, despite the many references, as a historical fact, and the version of the story User:Itaqallah is so determined to keep off is held by almost every single Shi'a Muslim.
User:Itaqallah's view
The above summary is "Enforcing Neutrality"'s own personal perspective. The dispute surrounds source usage - which in many cases is highly inadequate. Interested parties may read through the discussion at Wikipedia:RSN#Fatimah. "Enforcing Neutrality" insists that partisan religious websites may be considered reliable sources, even when they tendentiously cite 'opposition' literature. He cites web directories in support of this - but being listed on such is certainly no assertion of reliability, of academic peer review, of vetting of material, or of quality control - things which may be expected from a reliable source. I have in fact given an example of how such websites misuse primary sources for their own agenda. Unfortunately, "Enforcing Neutrality" fails to mention this above in spite of having been informed of such, as well as curiously omitting any mention the RSN discussion that he himself initiated, wherein the editors who commented found issues with the standard and nature of sourcing used. ITAQALLAH 17:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- I looked over the case and history. I am digging up sources about Fatimah from the Shia perspective. I have started a subpage below to collect high-quality sources that can be used for the article to appropriately present the Shia perspective according to the available reliable sources. In this way, the Shia view can be properly presented and solid quality sources will be used. What do you think? Vassyana (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- That sounds good. ITAQALLAH 19:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent. It seemed like the essential points (we shouldn't use unreliable sources, the Shia perspective should be represented considered her central place for them) could be addressed by simply seeing what the reliable sources have said about the topic. Give me a few days to continue doing research and collecting sources, and then we can see what we should fashion from them. Vassyana (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think the article already did mention the Shi'a perspective. A number of the academic sources mentioning the conflict between Abu Bakr/Fatimah (i.e. EoI) do not seem to explicitly connect this incident to her death, even when discussing from the Shi'a perspective. The main issue I have is the inappropriate use of sources and their synthesis in the context of the discussion. In any case, the article should fairly represent the Shi'a perspective (or any other perspective) based upon what is related in the academic sources. ITAQALLAH 21:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent. It seemed like the essential points (we shouldn't use unreliable sources, the Shia perspective should be represented considered her central place for them) could be addressed by simply seeing what the reliable sources have said about the topic. Give me a few days to continue doing research and collecting sources, and then we can see what we should fashion from them. Vassyana (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- That sounds good. ITAQALLAH 19:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Sa.vakilian's view
Due to the long lasting editorial wars I haven't participated in the article since a few months ago. However, this is my last edition in that section. As I understand, Fatimah al-Ma`sumah,chapter one written by Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah is reliable secondary source to introduce Shia narrations in this case. I don't insist on using Peshawar Nights which may be considered as a polemical source. For more historical accounts you can refer to Umar at Fatimah's house.
In addition, I think we don't need to use al-islam.org and al-shia.com except the cases which have reliable and authentic author. I guess there is agreement among us to use reliable sources wherever they've be found[1].--Seyyed(t-c) 07:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
What would you like to change about that?
When the article's protection expires, Itaqallah is most likely going to revert it back to his version. I'm seeking the community's assistance in helping us resolve this issue. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Enforcing Neutrality (talk • contribs)
Mediator notes
- Case submitted. Enforcing Neutrality (talk) 03:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- As User:Enforcing Neutrality has been indefinitely blocked for the reasons outlined here (continued disruption, sock of indefinitely blocked editor), I am withdrawing myself from mediation as it now appears redundant. ITAQALLAH 00:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Administrative notes
Discussion
- Potential sources Vassyana (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)