Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Banu Qurayza

message: Hello Bless sins, Str1977 and Jedi Master MIK.  I'm Shell Kinney (feel free to call me Shell) and I'll be mediating this case if you'll have me.  You will want to watchlist this page to keep abreast of the discussions.
As always, mediation is voluntary. In this particular case, its also important to note that I am not currently a member of the Mediation Committee but have been asked to help out in this case since all committee members are unable to take on any new cases at this time.  I do not believe I have any conflict of interest with this case and I have a background in religious studies (hobby, not professional), however if for any reason you feel I would be inappropriate as a mediator for this case, you may choose to decline and wait for a committee member to become available.  Declining me as a mediator will not be held against you in any way.
Please note below whether or not you agree with me mediating this case by adding "I agree" or "I disagree".  I look forward to working with you. Shell babelfish 10:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pending clarification of what precise issues are to be mediated (or in other words, with the caveat that the the above does not accurately portray the points of conflict), I accept Shell as mediator. Str1977 (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you as a mediator. Before, we proceed, can you briefly explain what your role will be to help us in settling this dispute. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree for you to be mediator. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Shell, Thanks for accepting to mediate this. I have been at times involved in this dispute, so, if it is okay, I'd like to join in the mediation. Thanks, --Aminz (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

message: Here was my position:
*I think usage of the terms like "massacre" or "execution" does not add any real information to the article once we have mentioned that they were killed and the number that were killed. 
*The common meanings of the term "massacre" and its connotations imply illegitimacy. One can find the meaning of the term here : "The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly" - The term originally comes from the Old French macecle, macecre meaning butchery, shambles. It has the killing cruelly connotation.
::(Added at 21:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Added at 21:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (21:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Aminz 

message: *Is the word "massacre" accurate? Yes, as a great mass of people were killed.
*Is it neutral? I think, in the end, yes because it accurately describes the even better than any other word. That massacres are not seen as positive things today by most people is a matter of judgment on their part. That doesn't make the term in itself POV. 
*Certainly, the term does not imply illegitimacy.
*However, since there are concerns about the term being problematic, I have already reduced its usage to its minimum, three occurences: the title of the picture (which reflects that the event indeed has a common name), a quote, the title of a link and the headline for the section describing the massacre. In places were a verb was need I have replaced it with variations on kill.
*Yes, the term is used by academic sources to describe the event. And importantly, it is the only term that describes the whole thing. "Aftermath" really does not work and "Execution" ...
*"Execution", strictly speaking, begs the question of what is executed? The verdict is executed. Execution also implies that there was some sort of formal verdict resulting from a trial - which is not the case here (and punishment is worse on this account). Therefore I reject the term no matter how many sources use it. There is no Wiki-policy that requires us to follow a majority on this (and as stated, massacre is used as well).
*Keep in mind that because "massacre" apart from occurences that are quotes is included only once, it is only this one occasion (the section headline) that can be subject to the dispute.
*Bible translations are not relevant here. They are (good or bad) translations of existing texts), not encyclopedic articles newly written. Str1977 (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Str1977

message: Massacre is used in three instances. I dispute its use in all instances (in this case to be used in the lead) but two (its usage in the title of a painting, and its usage in an Ibn Ishaq quote).
;Massacre
I assert that the term is non-neutral. To back up my claims, I refer to:
* Oxford dictionary ('...a brutal slaughter')
* American Heritage dictionary ('...cruelly')
* Merriam-Webster dictionary ('...atrocity or cruelty', 'a cruel or wanton murder') 
* Chambers reference ('cruel and indiscriminate killing...')
* Dictionary at Encarta ('the vicious killing...')
:*Collins English dictionary('savage killing...'){Added 04:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Bless sins

message: I'll try to be short and simple seeing as most of the points seem to have been stated:
*Massacre by definition is POV, I do not see why we have at least all been able to agree to that.
*Execution while still not necessarily encompassing the whole issue is much more NPOV and implies a lot less.
*Execution points to execution of decisions as well as the execution of the BQ men.
*Killing I have no problem with either though yes I do realize that it only gives part of the final results.
*Aftermath I have no problem with as it is general and NPOV as possible when giving the situation though yes I realize that it could only work for the title.
Jedi Master MIK (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Jedi Master MIK

message: This page seems to be deserted. It is most probably due to the Christmas break. I hope the discussions continue after New Years.Bless sins (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its very likely that everyone has some kind of holiday celebration or something similar that is keeping them busy.  I've added some new comments in reference to the most recent discussion to give everyone something to look at when they come back from their break.  Hope all of you have a wonderful holiday season. Shell babelfish 03:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I was on wikibreak during Christmas and will resume activities in a short while. Str1977 (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: No discussion?

message: What about the issues that are part of this mediation, aside from "massacre vs. execution"? Str1977 (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a list under issues to be mediated. If we can finish up with the first point, I think everyone would be like to move on to something new. Shell babelfish 16:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So we have to solve the biggest problem first before we can also address easier issuses? What if we can't? Str1977 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If everyone involved in the mediation would like to move on to another issue for now, or open another one to discuss at the same time, I would have no problem with that.  As for not being able to solve the problem, you guys seem to be headed in the right direction to achieve a resolution, but if you can't agree, then you may have to decide to go with the majority consensus or maybe just not be able to solve that issue at this time. Shell babelfish 22:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am with you hoping for the best but I am also expecting the worst. I don't intend to lay this on your doorstep but rather addressed all participants. Str1977 (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Other issues

message: :Its clear that we have reliable sources stating that the Qurayza chose Sa'd and I see no reason to exclude that from the article.  If Str1977 wants to give details about what sources he thinks are unreliable on this point, we can discuss that.  If he wants to give details on another proposed wording or another major point of view that needs to be included as well, we can discuss that too.
:I think it would be helpful from now on, if everyone involved tried to help work on a solution.  That means instead of saying "no, i cannot agree", tell us what you can agree with or tell us how you would like to change things (and yes, some of you are already doing this). Shell babelfish 21:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree to whatever is within the limit of what the sources say. I'm ready to negotiate with the wording Str1977 proposes, prvided the wording respects WP:V and includes whatever the sources say (without an OR).Bless sins (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving on

message: Since some people have muddied the waters, let me reiterate that the scope of this mediation is the article Banu Qurayza, no more, no less. Str1977 (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope

message: Since Str1977 has now indicated that he will not stop the personal attacks nor abide by instructions of the mediator or the structure chosen for the mediation, I have no choice but to close the medation. Thank you for your time. Shell babelfish 18:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Closing case