Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Falafel

The discussion has been going on for about 3 days. There hasn't been a single editor that supported the change Veritycheck wanted to make. On the other hand, has has tried to change the article 3 times in this time (and I suspect another 3 times as an IP before starting to discuss). He has also announced after these 3 days that "consensus building has failed", opened an RfC, GAR and now this. I don't know if you'd call this forum shopping or abuse of process, but I really don't see any reason to enable this kind of behavior. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Extended comment from Cptnono

Instructions on the page say to bring extended comments here. The following is why I think this mediation is a poor and unneeded idea:

Too many editors jumping in who have not cared about the article for months. Too many attempts at dispute resolution still open. Talk page discussion that has gone nowhere even though two editors (including myself) have still accepted modification of the line even if the original research needs to be disregarded. A new user who rocks the boat this much (to the point that he requested it be delisted from good article status) is not someone who I want to engage with in mediation. And I do not want to engage in mediation with editors who ignored the article until a juicy political issue came up. The line has a reliable source. A few other reliable sources have been provided to back it up for the most part. Modification of the line is an option but a knee-jerk reaction calling for its complete substitution with original research is something that isn;t even worth discussing further.Cptnono (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad the primary issue seems to have been resolved in the text. But you apparently don't accept this resolution. You are still claiming that the Ynet article is a solid source, even though its author has no particular expertise in food history, and gives no evidence for his position -- and even though Veritycheck has brought evidence that it is incorrect. (Whether that evidence is good enough itself to be a RS for the article is another matter.) As for ignoring articles "until a juicy political issue came up", AndrewDalby and others (including myself) have a longstanding interest in Middle Eastern food history. I have tried to keep nationalist biases out of all these articles, regardless of where that leads. For example, I spent considerable effort on the baklava article arguing against the usual Greek claim, even though I am of Greek origin myself. I added information to the avgolemono article about its possible Sephardic Jewish origins. I have removed Palestinian boosterism in articles like kanafeh. So I do not appreciate your aspersions about my "political" motivations.

Some sort of intervention is needed here. Nationalist boosterism is not good for Wikipedia and neither are these endless Talk discussions. --Macrakis (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Update

The offending contentious sentence, “Israelis brought falafel to Europe and the United States sometime in the 1970s.[6][dubious – discuss]“, was removed from the article on 04:43, 22 September 2011 by Ravpapa. No one has since attempted to reinsert it.

This sentence, along with its dubious citation, combined with the behaviour of a few editors seeking to suppress numerous other citations that refuted it by reverting the article were the crux for this request for intervention. As long as the aforementioned fallacious sentence remains out of this article, the article stands up to fact and reflects reality, albeit further verification is needed whether “The custom of eating falafel in a pita stuffed with salads began in Israel, [6]” as stated in the article and based on the same dubious citation is in fact true. I am currently looking for citations to show it is not.

Whatever the case, if the former sentence is to be reintroduced at a later time, it must be stricken, or at minimum, modified to show that it is indeed controversial in nature. Moreover, the inclusion of contradicting statements and their supporting citations, namely as shown in the article version 23:25, 19 September 2011 and/or any future supported edits must be allowed in the article to illustrate clearly that the sentence is indeed contended by other sources. Reverts/Edits by editors who seek to obfuscate this or outright delete such information must not be tolerated.

If this criteria is met, I will personally be satisfied that GA is met and that this dispute is resolved.

Finally, for the record - this discussion, Dispute over statement, "Israeli entrepreneurs brought falafel to Europe and the United States sometime in the 1970s.[7] and citation" is recorded to have began on 19:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC) - 8 days preceding this posting. There have been more than 40 further contributions by at least 11 different editors on the topic. Veritycheck (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Andrew Dalby

I avoid formal processes (such as this might be) whenever possible, so I may not have the necessary experience to comment usefully, but still ... :) My impression is that there was an unwise insistence on one source, and therefore on one undocumented view of the history; the reliable sources noticeboard was asked, but couldn't help in this case; Veritycheck correctly saw that mediation would have to be requested. The problem appears now to have been solved anyway, but the route Veritycheck followed was reasonable. Andrew Dalby 08:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Reverting and Editing continues

Unfortunately, the dispute has not ended. Veritycheck (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

How on earth did this mediation request pop up? It doesn't appear on the article talk page, and I can't find any formal request for mediation. I just happened on it by chance. Is this really a serious mediation discussion, or should we move these comments back to the talk page? (or not - doesn't seem to be anything new that hasn't been ground to dust already on the talk page?) --Ravpapa (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)