Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 137

First statement by volunteer moderator

I see no evidence that this case has a moderator. If so, will the moderator please so state? If not, I will be the moderator. Here are the ground rules. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Concise posts are more informative than overly long ones. Comment on content, not contributors. I expect every participant to check on the status of this case at least every 48 hours and to answer questions within 48 hours. As noted, please do not engage in threaded discussion with other editors. Address your comments to the community or the moderator (there isn't any real difference). Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Discussion at the article talk page may be ignored by accident. Will each participant please summarize, in one paragraph, what the issue is about the article and how it either should be changed or how it should be left as is? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

First statements by editors

I'll be brief. My view is that the proposed text from my earlier noticeboard post should be added to the article and then not be reverted out by the editors here. The question is whether to exclude the prose above, along with the underlying views and sources reflected. A few specific policy arguments have been raised, but on a more general level, it is argued that a WP editor is empowered to force an exclusion of expert commentary based on the editor's own belief as to whether the source is right. That is, if a particular user believes an influential figure's view is wrong, can he forcibly prevent other users from reflecting it in a centrally related article—thereby allowing the first editor's unpublished personal legal theories and political preferences to override both important source material and the activity of other editors? Alternatively, can the view be excluded if it is claimed to be a minority view? Isn't this all specifically forbidden by each and every sentence that appears in the first paragraph of WP:V? Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Before continuing the content disputes, I would like to know: 1. Who are the present participants? 2. What happens if at least one of them does not accept your mediation? 3. What happens if one of them does not submit his statements after 48 hours? Yagasi (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

First, I will answer the questions of User:Yagasi. The participants are any editors who have submitted statements or otherwise agreed to take part in mediation. If at least one of them does not accept mediation, I will make a decision whether it will be useful to continue mediation with less than all of the editors, or whether I will close the case, and will probably recommend an RFC in that case. If an editor does not submit a statement within 48 hours, but discussion is still continuing by other editors, the lateness will not be noted and discussion will continue. If discussion stalls for 48 hours, with no comments, the case will be closed.

One editor, DMTPWA, has submitted a statement that I do not find helpful, because it doesn't identify what text they think should be included or excluded. It is also argumentative in using very non-neutral words such as "forcibly prevent" and "force an exclusion". Maybe that is what the other editors are doing, but we need to talk about article content, not contributors.

Once again, be concise in stating what article content should be included or excluded. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

My statement is as follows. Wikipedia's declared fundamental principles include: being an encyclopedia written from a neutral point of view and having no firm rules. It does have policies and guidelines that are in effect and must be respected, but these may be changed at some time in the future. As I summarized above, some of effective policies and guidelines were violated when the genocide related issue was repeatedly removed, first under a claim of fringe theory, then under a claim of editor consensus on the fringe. The most concerning was the third revert when the so called "consensus" was established without even mentioning a single reliable source. If a group of editors is eligible to establish such a kind of consensus and remove text based on opinion of prominent legal experts, then this must be properly disclosed to the community and to the public. However WP:RS requires articles to be based "on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority view". In conclusion, I would like to state that the text of the third revert or the text proposed by the filing participant should be included in the subsection (or section) "Continued criticism" of the article. Copies of both texts will be added to the mediation. Yagasi (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

I asked the editors to provide a concise statement as to what text should be included or excluded. The above statement, which is only about the policies and not about the specific text, is too concise on the point of the text (containing nothing about the text) (as well as being argumentative). Will each editor please state concisely, in one paragraph, what they want included or excluded? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Third statements by editors

I'd like to try again to get another editor Neutrality involved in this discussion. That editor earned an editor's barnstar for edits to the page in question and was very active on the issue in dispute, but has not responded yet on this page.

There's one point above that I did not address in my initial comments. That is the claim by Beres that Iran might withdraw from the NPT and rely on the JCPOA as permission to nuclearize. First, this is not a legal opinion and therefore cannot be considered a claim by a subject matter expert. Second, it overlooks the fact that the JCPOA is actually premised on Iran's continued adherence to the NPT. Abandoning one in favor of the other is not an option. NPguy (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Forgive my delay in responding - I have added a comment above. Neutrality^talk 00:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Former Closing Statement by Former Moderator

I made this statement, and am now asked to allow the case to be re-opened. Here was my closing statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am having to close this case as failed. After asking three times for concise statements of how the article should be changed or left alone, I have received, first, a lengthy statement of Wikipedia policies, second, a lengthy statement of Wikipedia policies, third, a wall of text. Even if it is true that the other editors are trying to suppress the presentation of a minority viewpoint by misuse of the fringe policy, the filing party isn't presenting a concise summary that permits mediation. At this point, I would recommend that the approach that is most likely to resolve this dispute would be a Request for Comments. However, I would strongly advise all parties that the wording of the RFC should be neutral and concise. If the RFC is either non-neutral (e.g., argumentative) or overly lengthy, it will not establish consensus and will just allow continued quarreling. So a neutral concisely worded RFC is the most likely way to resolve this issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I am now marking this case available for another moderator. If a moderator does not accept this case at this noticeboard, the participants may request formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Accepted Case By New Moderator

I accept the role of moderator in this dispute. I will be here at least once every 24 hours, to moderate the dispute. Please explain the issue and I'll see what I can do to resolve it. The Platypus of Doom (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

First Volunteer Moderator Statement

Please explain the issue in one reasonably-sized paragraph. Do not make it too long, no longer than 8 sentences. Explain what the problem is, what your proposed solutions are, and notify everyone in the case if they haven't been already. If possible, discuss the problem civilly with other users. I will check in once every 24 hours, all users are expected to check in once every 30 hours, or as much as possible. The Platypus of Doom (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The case in a nutshell by editors

A fragment of the article, based on the opinion of prominent lawyers published in three independent RS, was entirely excluded. The lawyers have expressed concern that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was not in full accordance with the terms of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The fragment was reverted — first under a claim of fringe theory, then under a claim of editor consensus on the fringe — as a result of giving undue weight to the personal views of Wikipedia editors compared with the legal opinion from RS. The primary issues of the case are: 1. Is it appropriate to include in an article on international treaty/deal, particularly on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, criticism or other legal opinion on it given by prominent lawyers? 2. Can such a criticism or legal opinion be excluded from the article due to the above claims or these arguments prove the contrary? Yagasi (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The exclusion of the above "proposed text" numbered 1-3 is based on an agreement among a few editors that the material in question represents "fringe" viewpoints. Despite the agreement by multiple editors, this argument is essentially based on the assertion by a single editor that he is a better source of legal analysis than highly influential legal experts whose views have been vetted and published by reliable sources that are subject to professional editorial control. The editor also claims that, having reviewed certain pieces of primary source material himself(!), he does not believe the experts' legal views are correct, and thus on the strength of this personal analysis, they should not only be treated as fringe views, they should actually be regarded as not being legal views at all—despite the fact that the authors and publications do present them as legal views, and despite the fact that, in the first instance, it was the established legal expertise of the authors that led to their views being selected by the RS's to supply published discussion of the JCPOA. There is no basis whatsoever for the claim that these exclusions reflect proper editing; in fact, these editor claims are clear original research even though the editor has not tried to include them in article prose. Since the material in question is well in keeping with all applicable policies, and since the arguments for exclusion have no validity and no support in WP policy, the reversions should cease. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

First proposition by editors

I propose to agree that the reverted fragment should be restored and, if somebody has concerns about a specific detail of it, this can be disputed here as the next stage. Yagasi (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Yagasi (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Second Moderator Statement

Okay, those were good summaries that explained the problem at hand. Can you give me more information about the lawyer who is being discussed? The opposing side, please present your counterargument. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Second statement by filing party

The disputed commentary is sourced to four authors who are all very prominent legal academics and/or lawyers, with two having extensive experience in government policy-making or advocacy roles. The first is a renowned academic, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, who at 25 years old became the youngest full professor at Harvard Law School, where he has remained; he enjoys an endowed chair; (extended bio here). The second is renowned constitutional lawyer David B. Rivkin who served in the administrations of two U.S. presidents, has specialized in international public law and litigation before the International Court of Justice, and has testified before the U.S. Congress numerous times on various legal matters; (extended bio here). The third is former U.S. Justice Department and Department of Energy lawyer Lee A. Casey, co-author of the Rivkin piece, who represented 26 states in a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of certain Medicare revisions contained within Obamacare; (extended bio here). Finally, we have Louis René Beres, an international law professor who has written numerous books on nuclear policy as well as hundreds of scholarly and opinion articles in publications like The Harvard National Security Journal (Harvard Law School), the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, and the Journal of the U.S Army War College, as well as all the top newspapers in the U.S. (NYT, WaPo, WSJ, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, etc.); (extended bio here). Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Note by editor: As I mentioned on the NPOV noticeboard, long before the JCPOA talks Professor Irwin Cotler has analyzed the Iranian incitement to genocide and called the international community to fulfill its obligations to prevent genocide as announced in the Genocide Convention. Irwin Cotler is an Emeritus Professor of Law and a former Director of the Human Rights Programme at McGill University, former Canada's parliamentarian, Minister of Justice and Attorney General. He is considered an expert on international and human rights law. Cotler has taught as a Visiting Professor at Harvard and Yale, and has written extensively on war crimes justice. Cotler has served as Special Advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the International Criminal Court. Yagasi (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Opposing views

Haven't we done this already? See the summaries of he dispute by NPguy, Neutrality, and Vesuvius_Dogg above. NPguy (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Copy-Paste the argument if you want, if it's short enough. Please give specific examples, though. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

What do you want specific examples of? NPguy (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

NPguy, Just copy paste the first argument, or give a description, link to the talk page, and state your case. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of repeating points that are directly above on this talk page. But here goes:

The first and largest problem with the cited claims about the genocide convention is that they appear to be without legal merit. There are assertions about what the Genocide Convention requires and prohibits that lack support in the actual text of the Convention. The convention is focused on actions of persons and enacting criminal penalties for such actions. I could find no obligation to prevent threats of genocide, though incitement to genocide is punishable. So each of the legal claims is an extrapolation that departs significantly from the actual obligations in the convention. Since none of the sources appears to make an actual legal argument (i.e. an argument based on specific provisions of the Convention) it seems appropriate to treat them as fringe political views rather than serious legal claims.

The second difficulty is the argument that Iran has acted in a way that triggers the convention by allegedly threatening genocide against Israel. Most analyses indicate that statements by Iranian officials that Israel should not exist are rhetorical and political arguments, not actual threats. But there are serious sources who treat these as serious threats, so it seems appropriate to recognize this view.

But the argument that this supposed threat of genocide requires other states to refrain from any agreement with Iran unless Iran abandons its supposedly genocidal threats is extraordinarily broad. As far as I can tell, it is completely unsupported by any theory of domestic or international law. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which the proponents have not provided.

Two other editors, Neutrality and Vesuvius_Dogg, have made supporting statement above, but I leave it to them to (re)state their positions. NPguy (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I, too, don't understand the need to copy-and-paste my previous statement, but here it is:

I heartily agree with, and endorse, the statements of Vesuvius Dogg and NPguy. There is not much more to add. Perhaps this is not an issue of fringe so much as an issue of undue weight; the weight of consensus is not to include this text regarding extremely marginal arguments. The article, as it stands now, extensively discusses supporters of the agreement and critics of it. To add the quite marginal views that some editors would like to would not be encyclopedic.

Dontmakemetypepasswordagain argues that his desired text must be included because it is "published in three independent RS." That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of inclusion. Just because something is published does not mean that it deserves to be quoted or cited to. (This is particularly true with the Beres piece, which is a blog-style piece published in a specialty Capitol Hill newspaper, The Hill—which is reputable for news purposes, but neither scholarly nor of wide circulation. If this was a more substantial analysis published in, say, the journal Foreign Affairs, it might be a different story).

In particular, policy certainly does not dictate that the view contained in every op-ed be included in every article, particularly when the article covers a very broad topic and the views expressed in the op-ed are quite marginal.

Moreover, to the extent that the views of the authors of the pieces at issue are significant, we already quote two of the three elsewhere in the article. To add yet more text about their views would simply be undue weight.

Neutrality^talk 16:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with NPGuy's explanation and reasoning. I've said that while I prefer the material be deleted, if it is to be included, it should not be written so as to misrepresent the Genocide Convention and its requirements. Even Beres concedes that "the language of the Genocide Convention does not explicitly require any such precise enforcement" regarding genocidal statements or incitement. Perhaps that sentence should be quoted, so that a Wikipédia reader would understand that these supposed legal arguments are wishful interpretations, not grounded in historical practice or understanding? I've read the treaty and various op eds (or should we call them "motions"?) and find them highly novel from a legal point of view. Also, it should be noted Dershowitz's offhand comment was apparently made to NewsmaxTV and quoted on that non-RS site, making it problematic to give it weight on Wkipedia given that he has not published nor made this argument elsewhere, to my knowledge.

For what it's worth, I don't recall making more than a single edit on this issue, though I did comment on the JPCOA Talk page.

Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Third Moderator Statement

Please discuss the problem civilly. Make your points in this discussion. I will take part, and after it comes to an end, we can resolve this case. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I am opening the discussion. Please discuss the problem, and find a solution. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the article is quite long and many opinions are presented in it, but none of them discuss genocide. Is not the opinion of recognized legal experts on this issue significant enough to be presented in relation to this international treaty/deal? I think it is. Yagasi (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not convinced on how valid that opinion is. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Rivkin and Casey wrote: "The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide imposes an affirmative obligation on all convention parties to prevent genocide and threats of genocide. Iran remains publicly committed to Israel’s elimination, an unequivocal threat of genocide in violation of the Convention." No other legal experts' opinions were introduced here to disprove this. Yagasi (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, @NPguy:, your opinion? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

As I said in my original comment, the claim that the Genocide Convention requires or prohibits certain actions, if made as a legal claim, should be backed up by a legal argument that cites provisions of the convention and principles of international law. None of the cited sources makes any such argument. The convention is not a difficult read, but it is difficult to find provisions that support the claims being made. I would also point out that Beres is not a lawyer, so he cannot be considered a subject matter expert with respect to his legal claims.

The reason I am pressing for stronger legal arguments is that the claims being made are extraordinarily broad. They are extrapolations that leave many gaps in reasoning that need to be filled in. NPguy (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The convention is not a difficult read, but to interpret it you need special skills. I have already presented here an example of a very wrong interpretation of the Convention by a Wikipedian ("I could find no obligation to prevent threats of genocide..." But let us look at it in another way. Whom would the community prefer to choose for representation in court, a lawyer mentioned here or one of the Wikipedians taking part in the discussion?

The authors of the pieces about genocide prevention have addressed specific audiences, but that has not made their opinion less accurate. According to the bio Beres lectures and publishes widely on matters of international law. Yagasi (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@NPguy: it's not common for opinion articles in newspapers to be laden with legal citations and technical arguments—nor is there any requirement that we use an academic source in the first place. Moreover, I don't see any "gaps" in the reasoning that is presented.

Even more moreover, the aim of WP content policies is to reflect significant published viewpoints, not to rebut, challenge, or otherwise take a stand against them. Making sure WP articles don't take sides in a public debate is the whole point of NPOV. You're coloring outside the lines. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

If he is not a lawyer, why should he be included, if this is not his area of expertise? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The title of Beres is Professor Emeritus of Political Science, International Relations, Terrorism, and International Law at Purdue University. The title was granted by the university and under this title he should be introduced. He taught International Law at universities and published dozens of law articles in academic law journals. Yagasi (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: the details of Beres's C.V. reveal a rather large number of books, journal publications, panel memberships and speaking engagements on topics of foreign policy, international law, and nuclear policy and strategy. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 03:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

One avenue we have not explored is what other legal scholars think of some of these arguments. For example, here is an effective rebuttal of Rivkin and Casey: More Weak Arguments For The Illegality of the Iran Deal, by Jack Goldsmith, former Assistant Attorney General in the George W. Bush Administration. A key quote from that article: "That Convention does not by its terms, as they say, 'impose an affirmative obligation on all convention parties to prevent genocide and threats of genocide.'" This is in line with my previous commentary, which Yagasi mocks above.

I took another look at Beres's CV. Although his CV does not list a legal degree or other formal legal credentials (which is what I looked for at first), he did teach international law and has quite a few publications on on international law. Despite those apparent qualifications, his arguments are not credible. To take one example with which I am familiar, the claim that "Here, the most ominous risks have to do with permitting Iran to enrich uranium after 15 years. These plainly ironic allowances contradict the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)" is - if intended literally - mistaken. Enrichment per se does not contradict the NPT.

That's all for today. NPguy (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Somebody else posts a numbered list of "a few quick responses" on a blog he founded, therefore we exclude the more prominent, actually published view by arguably more prominent authors—because reasons? Sorry, can you connect the dots for me? And FWIW, I am adequately persuaded that you do not agree with the published view by Rivkin et al. and that you do agree with published views to the contrary. That established: so what? This is not sarcasm, it is a serious question. Why should a significant published POV be excluded because you disagree with it? That's directly contrary to numerous policies, but especially NPOV and WEIGHT. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The key quote from Jack Goldsmith — "Convention does not by its terms, as they say, 'impose an affirmative obligation on all convention parties to prevent genocide and threats of genocide.'" — looks very strange, since:

• (2007) In its judgment in the Bosnian Genocide case the International Court of Justice decided: "The ordinary meaning of the word “undertake” is to give a formal promise, to bind or engage oneself, to give a pledge or promise, to agree, to accept an obligation."
• (2009) Professor of Public International Law at Liverpool University Dominic McGoldrick wrote about states that were parties to the Genocide Convention: "Thus, the Contracting Parties had a direct obligation to prevent genocide."
• (2011) Cotler called "the international community... to fulfill its obligations under international law, including the obligations to prevent genocide and to punish incitement to genocide, as announced in the Genocide Convention."
• (2011) Andreas Zimmermann, Professor of Public Law, European and Public International Law at the University of Potsdam, wrote about genocide: "With regard to genocide, the situation is, given both the wording of Article 1 of the Convention, as well as the 2007 judgment of the ICJ, relatively clear-cut. In particular, the Court has determined that the obligation to prevent, which the Court perceived as due diligence obligation amounting to use any means 'as the circumstances permit', does not presuppose any territorial link of the State obliged to take measures to prevent genocide. Rather all States, depending on their capacity effectively to influence the actual perpetrators of genocide, have, according to the Court, to employ all means reasonably available both de facto and de jure to them, so as to prevent genocide so far as possible."
• (2015) Rivkin and Casey wrote: "The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide imposes an affirmative obligation on all convention parties to prevent genocide and threats of genocide. Iran remains publicly committed to Israel’s elimination, an unequivocal threat of genocide in violation of the Convention."

Yagasi (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC) Yagasi (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Evidence of Iranian incitement to genocide was presented in the article "Combating State-Sanctioned Incitement to Genocide: A Legal and Moral Imperative" by Cotler. While negotiating with Iran the P5+1 states, each of them separately and all of them collectively, had at their disposal the means to influence Iran (which was interested in lifting economic sanctions on it) to stop the genocidal declarations of its current leaders. After the JCPOA was agreed by the parties without any provisions against "direct and public incitement to commit genocide", the P5+1 have much less means to comply with their obligation to prevent genocide. As far as I can remember, nobody asserted here that other States should "refrain from any agreement with Iran", as some participants of the discussion claim, but a better deal could be achieved. Yagasi (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@NPguy: this dispute has already festered for 8 months. You have had quite enough time to marshal any policy arguments you think support the exlusion of these POVs. Please do not delay your participation in this discussion any further; it's been almost 48 hours without a response from you. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been busy. For now i'll just add that the chain of logic is extraordinarily tenuous. First: does the Genocide Convention require any specific action against a purported threat of genocide? That is in dispute. Second, Does Iranian rhetoric against Israel -- that the country should not exist -- constitute a threat of of genocide? This is very much a minority position, if not a fringe. Third, does this combination require parties to the Genocide Convention to refrain from any dealing with Iran that might be of any benefit to Iran? The is the boldest, most extraordinary extrapolation of all. If it were true, all of the P5+1, the entire European Union, and many other states would be in violation of the convention.

This is what led me to conclude that the claim simply does not pass the laugh test and does not deserve to be taken seriously. So no, I haven't given it a lot of thought, just as I don't spend a lot of time wondering whether the Earth is flat. NPguy (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@NPguy: Please remember to be civil. You actually have to support your argument. While I don't believe it's a fringe opinion, it may be in the minority. If you do not discuss the problem, I will let Yagasi and Password do what they want with the article. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: thank you. I would like to add the following. I apologize for the length; thus far, I have avoided responding to NPguy's arguments regarding the subject matter itself, but now I have responded further below. But first, regarding the relevant policies:

While I think that the "majority/minority" dichotomy is a bit fuzzy in certain fields, such as law, where there are rarely if ever any "objectively correct" answers, at a minimum I think it has been shown that the disputed view is no less than a "significant minority view" as delineated in the "Due and undue weight" section of WP:NPOV:

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from a September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

The latter of these two approaches—i.e. the second bullet point—is precisely what Yagasi and I have done. All the named sources are prominent in one or more of the following fields: law, political science, nuclear weapons policy, and international diplomacy. In particular, Dershowitz and Rivkin are so prominent that they can fairly be described as "luminaries" in the field of law.

Notice also that the first bullet point refers to "commonly accepted reference texts". I doubt there is any such source showing that NPguy's preferred view is so well-established that it is actually a clear "majority opinion". Certainly, no such source has been shown thus far. Nor does the fact that the agreement was not widely rejected do anything to prove the prevalence of either view. All it shows is that the political authorities signing the deal judged that it would be better to enter into the deal, than not to do so. Laws and legal norms and principles get ignored all the time—by legislative authorities, by judicial authorities, by political executives, and indeed by the general public. The fact that the deal was signed does not show that there were no valid concerns regarding Iranian behavior viz. the Genocide Convention which cast doubt on the propriety of the deal.

Moreover, NPguy's stated opinions on the subject matter itself, besides being fully irrelevant to content in WP article space, appear to be laden with straw-man argumentation. For example: Nobody's accusing Iran of genocidal threats against Israel because of some ho-hum abstract suggestion "that the country should not exist". That is pure sophistry. Rather, we're talking about repeated threats of mass violence, including thinly veiled threats of nuclear annihilation; just a few months ago Iran launched empty ballistic missiles (which are only useful for delivering nukes and other WMD) inscribed with the message "Israel must be wiped out". Iranian government news services even said the purpose of the launches was to show that Iranian missiles could hit Israel, and a spokesman added that "Israel would not last long in a war".

Nor is anyone suggesting that parties to the Genocide Convention must refrain from taking any dealing "that might be of any benefit to Iran"; but, that said: not giving permission to enrich nuclear fuel today—and permission to build nuclear weapons in ten years—to a nation that has repeatedly stated its intent to destroy a tiny country containing 1/3 to 1/2 of the world's Jews, does not seem like an outrageous suggestion for preventing genocide. After all, how hard can it be to stop threatening to wipe out a foreign country? Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dontmakemetypepasswordagain: @NPguy: Do you think a wording like "so and so has criticized the convention because...... but some scholars claim that this opinion is not valid" would work? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

(back to the flat Earth and Convention discussion) This chain of logic belongs to the International Court of Justice in the Bosnian Genocide case. The Court has interpreted (paragraph 438) the means of action as follows: "As indicated above, for a State to be held responsible for breaching its obligation of prevention, it does not need to be proven that the State concerned definitely had the power to prevent the genocide; it is sufficient that it had the means to do so and that it manifestly refrained from using them." The historian Professor Robert S. Wistrich wrote in April (!) 2015: "TODAY, ONCE more, we see a deafening silence from Western leaders and decision-makers whenever Iran threatens Israel with total destruction. The subject is not even on the agenda in the nuclear negotiations... Such Western silence over Iran’s genocidal anti-Semitism and hegemonic ambitions (so reminiscent of the 1930s) will in the longer run boomerang dramatically against the West."

"The convention against genocide provides that nobody can help or aid genocide," Dershowitz explained the issue very plainly to the Newsmax TV audience. "And by giving them that money, we're aiding genocide." But some Wikipedians prefer to ignore the evidence presented by Cotler, remove quotes from Dershowitz (to hell with the person, the video record is shown on a "non-RS site"?), and not giving this encyclopedia a lot of thought. Yagasi (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The question whether the statements by Iranian leadership look rhetorical is not relevant. The Convention does not condition the act of "Direct and public incitement to commit genocide" on existence or absence of rhetoric. Rhetoric was not even mentioned in the 2007 judgment of the ICJ. In 2012 the website of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei declared that there is religious "justification to kill all the Jews and annihilate Israel, and Iran must take the helm." These words did not prevent you, NPguy, from claiming on the talk page in 2015: "Does Iran want to kill all Israelis? Nothing I have seen suggests that it does." Do you think that non-Jewish Israelis would remain alive? Yagasi (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC) Yagasi (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: in principle, absolutely yes. I'm committed to fairly representing significant viewpoints on the subject, as I think that is Wikipedia's #1 job in any controversial topic. That said, I would like to at least explore whether there is any better sourcing for a rebuttal than a single law professor's kinda-sorta self-published blog post that contains a single 96-word bullet point on the subject, among a list of "a few quick responses". The blog post was made less than 24 hours after the article it attacks—and even includes an admission by the author that he hasn't bothered to research some of the claims he makes—suggesting that it is at best an off-the-cuff response (literally Monday-morning quartbacking as you can see from the datestamp) and not a piece that was seriously considered, researched by the author, or vetted/reviewed by others.

Nor does the Goldsmith paragraph address the claims by Beres at all.

The blog post's conclusion also stops just short of saying that the administration has concocted a thin and hypertechnical legal rationale for allowing the deal to go forward; it says nothing about whether it is good policy—or consistent with the goals of the Genocide Convention—for the U.S. to grant its nuclear imprimitur to a nation that has made genocidal nuclear threats. @NPguy: you seem pretty well-versed in the arguments in favor of the deal; is there anything similar in a newspaper or perhaps something else with traditional editorial oversight, or at least vetting and review of articles by persons other than the authors? If a 96-word bullet point in a borderline self-published blog post are the only sourcing we've got, I'd be a bit reluctant to present that as a serious rebuttal.

Second, a small comment regarding the wording. Personally, I think a number of policies are better served when two conflicting views are presented in two separate sentences. I can elaborate later if you find that approach acceptable, but I just think it's easier for the WP editorial voice to avoid taking sides when the content is written that way. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dontmakemetypepasswordagain: I would go for the second option, make a small comment regarding the wording. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, and I realize that this may seem to be a step backwards, but I want to keep the focus on the merits of these claims. This is a at least a two-level question:

• First, does Iran's harsh anti-Israel rhetoric constitute a threat of genocide? Does Iran plan or intend to commit genocide? This is essentially impossible to prove, one way or another, since it depends on inferring Iran's state of mind (as if Iran were a person rather than a complex society) and becomes clear only in hindsight. There are important political figures who have made this claim (not least Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu), so ti cannot be dismissed as fringe. But Iran's rhetoric has been fairly consistent over many years, and yet Iran's overt acts have generally been limited to its support for proxy attacks by Hamas and Hizbollah. This suggests a more limited intent. And the governments dealing with Iran have not acted as if they believe Iran actually intends a genocidal attack against Israel. So I think it is only fair to judge this claim as unproven. Comparing the circumstance to Bosnia or other cited cases, there are huge differences in both the degree of imminence of the threat and the capacity to act on such a threat. The striking thing about all such cases are that they involve attacks by the ruling government or an occupying military against people already under their control. The genocide convention was designed to address that type of circumstance. I am not aware of any acts of inter-state warfare that have been considered genocide.

• Second, does the genocide convention require or prohibit any specific actions to prevent genocide? It has very specific requirements to treat acts of genocide as crimes, and arguably for states to prevent acts of genocide on their territory or under their jurisdiction or control. And the arguments above about preventing genocide in another country would apply to cases where the facts are clear, i.e. when genocide is imminent or has begun and urgent action is needed to prevent its onset or spread. As best I can tell, none of the governments involved believes the genocide convention imposed any specific requirements with respect to the JCPOA and Iran.

Frankly, I haven't seen a lot of rebuttals to these claims (about the JCPOA and the genocide convention). I think they are simply dismissed as so ridiculous on their face that no rebuttal is needed. That has been my view from the beginning.

I have to correct the discussion above on one more point. The JCPOA does not give Iran permission to acquire nuclear weapons after ten years. Quite the opposite, the JCPOA is built around Iran's explicit commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons. For Iran to build nuclear weapons would be a violation of the JCPOA. NPguy (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

First you have told the community that your arguments were based on an "effective rebuttal of Rivkin and Casey" by the Goldsmith post (this was your single source). Now you are telling us that any link between the JCPOA and the Genocide Convention is "so ridiculous on their face that no rebuttal is needed." You may change your mind (accordingly you supporters can change their mind too), but this does not relieve you from addressing all the reliable sources that find a substantial link between the JCPOA and the Convention.

Your personal "view from the beginning" is being discussed since September 2015 causing a delay of many months (not just of a couple of days). I think that your current two-level question is just a fallacy of relevance. Anyway, the answer for your first level question can be found, for example, in the already cited article "Deadly comparisons" by the historian Wistrich who inter alia wrote that "for the first time since Hitler’s Reich we have a powerful state formally inscribing anti-Semitism as a state doctrine." An answer for the second level — does the Genocide Convention require any actions to prevent genocide? — has already been given. Yagasi (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@NPguy: I would have thought this was abundantly clear, but I have not spent dozens of hours my evening and weekend time engaging in this "discussion" because I wanted more detail on your personal views. Please discuss sources and policies, otherwise I'm afraid I don't see the point in continuing. This is plain tendentious editing, a refusal to get the point. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@NPguy: @Dontmakemetypepasswordagain: @Yagasi: Would it be okay to put Yagasi's and Password's material in the article, but whoever is making these changes is to state that this is a minority opinion in the text? I don't think it's fringe material, but I don't think it is the majority opinion by a long shot. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I would invite Neutrality and Vesuvius_Dogg to comment. Perhaps we should also invite an editor who is an expert on the genocide convention to comment. None of us is such an expert.

I'm really not sure what this process is supposed to do, but I remain no more persuaded that these views deserve recognition than before this started. If these views are to be presented, there needs to be some sort of contrary view of at least part of the claim. Perhaps there is room for presenting opposing views on the question of whether Iran's rhetoric constitutes a genocidal threat. For example, there is this piece in Ha'aretz. There are a few others, but I'm less sure of their reliability. This is where a subject matter expert could help. NPguy (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: What about just stating Goldsmith's view in detail? I suggest the following:

"Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith wrote a post in response on the Lawfare Blog, disputing Rivkin and Casey's claim that the Genocide Convention imposes any affirmative obligation to prevent threats of genocide. Goldsmith also argued that the deal would not have been unanimously affirmed if the 15 signing nations had viewed the lifting of restrictions on Iranian ballistic missiles as a violation of the Genocide Convention; Goldsmith dismissed such a view as 'a very speculative stretch at best'."

@NPguy: Suggest a few sentences presenting the Ha'aretz piece in further contrast to the view that the threats are serious? Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The disputed fragment should not be wiped off the WP. I hope the question of minority/majority opinion will be irrelevant in the future. Goldsmith's view may be included. Peter Beinart is not a lawyer. His opinion may be added if the Robert Wistrich's opinion is included. The edit summary should say: Consensual edit achieved through DRN mediation - details at the talk page; the talk page should include a link to the archived DRN case. Yagasi (talk) 06:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Can someone ask an editor who is a lawyer or knows a lot about international law to comment? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@NPguy: I agree with NPguy that a subject-matter expert might be helpful here. I also remain unpersuaded that the views which are sought to be included - which are quite marginal - belong on the JCPOA page. This is not to say that content on Iran's threats could not be presented on some other page (e.g., Iran–Israel relations or Genocide Convention). To draw a very rough analogy, the encyclopedia has a lot of great articles on political repression in the Soviet Union, but we don't try to shoehorn them into articles on international agreements where they are not relevant, such as START I or the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Neutrality^talk 13:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Critical and other legal opinions on JCPOA should be integrated into the article. Otherwise WP:Criticism and NPOV will be violated. Yagasi (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I saw ThePlatypusofDoom's request for an international law expert. While I'm not thoroughly familiar with the Genocide Convention and scholarship in it, I'd be happy to do some research and answer some questions. The threshold question I see is whether the Genocide Convention prohibits "threats" to engage in genocide. My initial impression is that it's an open question and has been considered an open question in the legal scholarship. Harmen van der Wilt comments at reasonable length about this in a book chapter in 2012. He mostly discusses "incitement to genocide" cases tried before the ICTR, notably contrasting the Bikindi case with the Nahimana, Barayagwiza, Ngeze case. Towards the end, though, he spends some time considering the issues of Iran and the speech directed towards Israel, ultimately referring to an article by Susan Benesch on the subject.^[1] Benesch, at the time a teaching fellow and adjunct at Georgetown Law, considers a "reasonably possible consequences test" and applies this approach to the Ahmadinejad case, but ultimately concludes that it is highly unlikely that the ICC or ICJ would take on such a case.^[2] Interesting case. I'll be reading some more. Hopefully I'm not misunderstanding what the question is, though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Susan Benesch wrote in her article: "In a forthcoming article, Professor Gregory Gordon makes the case that Ahmadinejad did commit incitement to genocide". Would you add Gordon's article to your list? Yagasi (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Benesch is referring to a symposium article by Gordon, who at the time was an assistant professor at University of North Dakota law school (i.e., he's probably not one of those off-the-wall symposium papers that the journal took because it couldn't find anything else... which I've seen happen before). I will note that an acquaintance of mine, Douglass Cassel, also participated in that symposium, and he's 100% legit where international human rights/international humanitarian law/corporate social responsibility are concerned. Just from reading the abstract, it sounds like Gordon hits many of the same points that van der Wilt does, though in the context of a 67-page law review article. I would say it's probably a good source. Gordon does take serious note of, for instance, Alan Dershowitz's contention that Ahmadinejad's speeches probably violate the Genocide Convention and Rome Statute, as well as potentially violating domestic laws that have been given universal jurisdiction.^[3] I'm not so sure about the third one in light of what happened with Pinochet in Spain and the UK, and with Kiobel in the US. Universal jurisdiction is kind of on the outs right now. The other two do not appear to be fringe, though I wouldn't characterize them as the obvious interpretation of those documents on that basis. The US House of Representatives did adopt a resolution condemning Ahmadinejad's comments. Even if it's easy to dismiss that as political maneuvering and the obvious move of an ally of Israel, in terms of Wikipedia policy it kind of lends a lot more prominence to the argument that there's a controversy worth mentioning. Of course, I can't say from these older documents that Ahmadinejad's statements back then have a bearing on the JCPOA something like eight years later. I'm sure something touches on public statements of the Iranian government (or more appropriately, Iranian politicians, given the ICC handles individuals), but I haven't looked hard enough yet. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion, Mendaliv. You seem to have focused on the question of whether Iranian statements constitute incitement to genocide. To my mind, the more critical questions here are what third parties are required to do or prohibited from doing to prevent acts of genocide. NPguy (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

To my mind, the questions of your research should deal with the issue as defined in the subsection The case in a nutshell by editors. Iranian incitement to genocide may be one of the questions. Yagasi (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'll look into that, but my initial reaction is that there is virtually never a mandate to do something affirmatively with a State that has a policy of genocide in the absence of UN sanctions or treaty obligations explicitly (and I mean explicitly) to the contrary. For instance, engaging in some form of trade with a State that itself is actively engaging in a variety of human rights abuses is, as far as I know, not prohibited by default. The interesting thing about the Genocide Convention and Rome Statute is, as I hinted above, it addresses individual wrongs rather than State wrongs. The Genocide Convention basically sets up a regime where States Parties authorize their nationals who engage in genocide to be brought before a Nuremburg-like tribunal, but ideally before a domestic tribunal in the State where the crimes occurred. The Rome Statute does the same for the ICC. States themselves, even governments, are not themselves subject to the jurisdiction of those tribunals, and those treaties don't say anything about State responsibility other than, perhaps, setting up regimes by which reparations might be paid to another State.
But your question is more about whether a third State might, for example, continue to engage in trade with a State that has engaged in some internationally wrongful conduct. I believe that mostly it's a moral imperative to decline to permit trade with such a State, rather than one of controlling international law. Other third States might engage in countermeasures against the State that continues to trade. It's also possible that the trading State has some domestic law requirement forbidding trade that it enacted when it ratified a particular treaty. Since the previous discussion is so long, could someone link to the sources that are claimed to support the obligation? I'd like to take a look at those. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Please read paragraph 174 of the Bosnian Genocide case and search here for Andreas Zimmermann. I will provide all the links later. Yagasi (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Below is the list of sources:

Some of the sources that support obligation of States to prevent genocide

1. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), ICJ General List № 91, Judgment of 26 February 2007
2. Dominic McGoldrick (2009). "State Identity and Genocide: The Bosnian Genocide Case". In International Law and Power: Perspectives on Legal Order and Justice. Edited by Kaiyan Homi Kaikobad, Michael Bohlander. ISBN 978-90-04-17587-7
3. Irwin Cotler (2011). "Combating State-Sanctioned Incitement to Genocide: A Legal and Moral Imperative". In Confronting Genocide. Edited by René Provost, Payam Akhavan. pp. 131–150. ISBN 978-90-481-9839-9
4. Andreas Zimmermann (2011). "The Obligation to Prevent Genocide: Towards a General Responsibility to Protect?". In From Bilateralism to Community Interest: Essays in Honour of Judge Bruno Simma. Edited by Ulrich Fastenrath, Rudolf Geiger, and others. pp. 629–645. ISBN 978-0-19-958881-7
5. Rivkin, David B.; Casey, Lee A. (July 26, 2015). "The Lawless Underpinnings of the Iran Nuclear Deal". The Wall Street Journal
6. C. J. Tams, L. Berster and B. Schiffbauer (2014). Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: A Commentary. ISBN 978-3-406-603317 {{isbn}}: Check isbn value: checksum (help)-4

Yagasi (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC) Yagasi (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Break

I have to put a break here, I don't want to scroll down all the way. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

An important quote from the policy on identifying reliable sources: "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications."

The contention that an expert view must be published or cited in academic literature, within 8 months of publication or at any time thereafter, is simply wrong. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Read the rest of the guideline (not policy): "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." No way in hell is the op-ed a reliable source for saying that the US lifting of sanctions on Iran is a violation of international law. That's Rivkin & Casey's non-scholarly opinion. This is a basic editorial decision. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You might also find WP:USEBYOTHERS informative. As well as WP:RSOPINION. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Please pay attention and read carefully; at no point during the past eight months or during the course of this discussion has anybody suggested using these sources for anything other than statements that these are opinions held by the authors. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I think I'm going to break for the night. I appreciate that you have spent a lot of time at this discussion, but it's something of a slap in the face to have spent all this time of my own and then suddenly realize you are arguing against these inclusions as if they were being presented as statements of fact in WP's editorial voice. I get that you weren't a party to the earlier discussion, but there hasn't been a single hint that we're trying to insert this as a claim of fact. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Alright then, now we're getting somewhere! So as I noted, op-eds are reliable primary sources for the statements as attributed. So, yeah, it gives us "In 2015, Rivkin and Casey argued in a WSJ editorial that the lifting of sanctions on Iran would violate the United States' obligations to prevent genocide under the Genocide Convention." Where a primary source doesn't get you is past WP:DUE or WP:FRINGE. But as I've said before, I'm not quite to where I can call this fringe. I have that hesitation because I'm not sure about the more conservative elements in international law scholarship. One of the big problems, though, is determining quite what the mainstream is. As I've said, I've been searching. My main search terms have been "iran nuclear" genocide and JCPOA genocide, limited to 2015 and later. I've found strikingly little in terms of scholarship on any of the databases to which I have access. It's hard to prove a negative, but this is one of those cases where there's just not much out there that actually addresses this specific scenario. I'm reluctant to look to other stuff except as a means of showing definitively whether the Genocide Convention argument is fringe or is minority, but even looking there I've not found much. Most things I've looked at have dealt with questions of individual responsibility—whether the person making the inciting speech is liable under the Convention. I'm reluctant to look at "responsibility to protect" jurisprudence more generally because of how context specific these things can be: Where a responsibility to protect might be present under the NPT, the Outer Space Treaty, or the Geneva Convention, for instance, there might not be one under the Genocide Convention... or if there is, it might function differently. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to keep up with this. If I might just comment on three sources that have been discussed here: The Rivkin and Casey op-ed is a quasi-legal argument. It has a seeming legal logic to it, but without scholarly support. It strings together a chain of unsupported and implausible at best marginally plausible legal claims. The Shank article has a veneer of scholarship, but at least on the issue in question its argument seems like an ad hominem attack on Rivkin rather than a real argument. I don't think either merits inclusion. The Brennan article in the Huffington Post does not really present a coherent legal argument, but it does contain a well-selected compilation of quotes of statements of legal opinions by others. Since it is used primarily as a source for those quotes, which appear to be completely accurate, its use seems entirely legitimate. NPguy (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Does the Genocide Convention impose obligation on states to prevent genocide or you still believe it is a quasi-legal argument?

Brennan's article from the Huffington Post was referred 5 times without indicating that he is not a lawyer but an anthropologist. This is very problematic since he expresses legal opinions ("one seemingly insurmountable issue is whether Iran has the right to enrich uranium. The short answer is: Yes.", "The NPT treaty language is quite clear. In Article IV of the treaty it states: ...", "Bottom line: At present Iran has the legal right under treaty to enrich uranium.") Yagasi (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The Genocide Convention primarily imposes obligations on States to punish genocide. It also creates a responsibility to prevent genocide, and presumably a responsibility to prevent public incitement to genocide. The latter two are less well defined, and even less defined will be the responsibility of States to punish or prevent prohibited acts that take place in third States. What bothers me about Rivkin & Casey are the absolute terms in which they speak in that op-ed, and moreover presume without explanation that the sanctions regime is both necessary and sufficient to meet these obligations. Good legal scholarship has a much more reserved flavor, and doesn't generally leave such broad presumptions unexplained. I know, it's an op-ed, and they're conforming to that style. Even so, I'd prefer to omit Rivkin & Casey as not representative. I don't have nearly as many reservations with Beres, but I still think the viewpoint needs balancing. My ultimate preference would be to comment on the moral and strategic objections to lifting sanctions on Iran in light of the outrageous statements made by Iranian leadership. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Your statements about alleged presumptions by Rikvin/Casey about the necessity and sufficiency of sanctions for GC purporse are incorrect, as already noted. Rivkin and Casey simply do not argue that the maintenance of ballistic-missile sanctions is sufficient to meet Genocide Convention obligations. They do argue that it is necessary, and they quite clearly explain why—i.e., it is because "nuclear weapons delivered by ballistic missiles are the most likely means by which Iran could implement its genocidal policy".

I now affirmatively request that you stop attempting to analyze the legal source material yourself; original research, especially by an editor who presumes to evaluate an expert opinion by means of his own analysis of the legal subject matter, only clouds this discussion. I am increasingly seeing reason to doubt whether it is even good analysis. Separately, attempting to evaluate whether the view is widely held by means of your own legal analysis is downright absurd, ridiculous, and is prohibited. Although I acknowledge you have done some exploration of whether the views have been cited in legal academia, adding your own arguments of why you think the view is probably rejected is more or less explicitly prohibited by WP:FRINGE. I also affirmatively request that you not attempt to introduce non-expert commentary (e.g. Shank) to purportedly rebut expert commentary, as such an approach is also clearly prohibited and also needlessly clouds this discussion.

@Mendaliv: since you are holding yourself out as an expert, I ask you again to please confirm whether you are/are not a current law student whose familiarity with international law is limited to having taken an international-law course in law school. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Please identify any personal opinion I've tried to present here. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Mandeliv (and NPguy), getting back to the actual policy constraints at play, you simply haven't stated any actual policy basis for excluding this opinion by authority of WP:FRINGE. A significant minority opinion need not be widely accepted to be reflected in an article about the larger topic with which it is connected. It does not need to be cited in academic literature, positively or otherwise. It also does not need to be published in an academic journal. Nobody is trying to present any of these POVs as fact, or as anything other than attributed POVs, and nobody is trying to present the views in detail.

As noted, nothing in the fringe policy authorizes removal of an attributed POV simply because it is not held by a majority in academia, or simply because it hasn't been cited in academic literature within less than a year. Actually that's contrary to several clear dictates of the policy, as well as being contrary to NPOV and DUE.

The expert credentials of the authors on the subject matter are clearly extremely strong, the publications clearly extremely mainstream. WP:FRINGE is simply not triggered; the opinion is sufficiently established as a significant minority opinion under WP:DUE, per the quoted Jimbo Wales guidelines ("If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents").

WP:DUE is thereby satisfied by maintaining clear attribution of the POV while keeping summaries of the views brief. Any concerns about presenting a non-majority view are quite well dispelled by citing opinions to the contrary, e.g. the one by Jack Goldsmith—in fact, that specific Goldsmith piece conveniently includes a statement stating that author's opinion that the view was probably rejected or ignored by the nations signing the JCPOA. I have already proposed text above to present this in rebuttal to Rivkin/Casey/Beres/etc.

Minority opinion by prominent expert in high-quality mainstream sourced carefully attributed, responded to with sourced rebuttal; problem solved, inquiry over, and WP readers do not die of leprosy because of being exposed to a POV that might not be the WP:TRUTH. As previously noted by an administrator not involved in this discussion, citing WP:FRINGE as a reason to exclude this well-sourced expert POV is just not a proper application of WP:FRINGE. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Repetition does not make arguments about WP policy any more persuasive. If there is a specific text proposal for presenting the view and rebuttal, that would provide something more concrete to discuss. Otherwise, we appear to be at an impasse.

Incidentally, I agree that Beeman's article is not a reliable source for the legal analysis it contains. But the article is cited only as a source for quotes (accurate ones) of official statements. One does not have to be a legal scholar to compile accurate quotes. NPguy (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, NPguy. Password, your argument is unconvincing. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

In case it needs to be said, I concur with NPguy and ThePlatypusofDoom. Not having a particular wording on the table isn't helping things. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with NPguy on his impasse claim. When the fringe argument was claimed for the first time I answered: "Apparently the fringe claim does not hold water, however the discussion is open and the burden of proof is on those who wish to remove the paragraph". When Goldsmith's piece was introduced, Dontmakemetypepasswordagain suggested adding to the proposed text as follows: "Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith wrote a post ..." I have agreed with the proposed text and with the addition to it. No acceptable proof and no RS were provided to support a fringe or the faked consensus for removal of the proposed text. So I do not understand why you agree with NPguy.

NPguy asked for an editor, who is an expert on the genocide convention, to comment. You have invited such editors and one editor volunteered to answer questions while disclosing he is not "thoroughly familiar with the Genocide Convention and scholarship in it". Now this volunteer takes an extremely active part in the discussion causing it to be destructive and to miss the goal of finding a consensus. Additionally, some of his comments about living persons seem to me intolerable. You have asked him to comment, so you can ask him to stop it. Yagasi (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I won't be leaving this conversation anytime soon. But by all means, continue to personalize this dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

There has been suggested material on the table this entire time. It is posted in this discussion with the clear label "proposed text", in boldface type. I have also written prose for the rebuttal by Goldsmith. I am of course open to making any necessary adjustments. No objections whatsoever have been raised other than that (1) the two of you disagree with the POV of the admittedly prominent expert sources, and (2) you do not agree with the policy guidelines on identifying reliable sources, which clearly state: "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications."

Meanwhile, back in the land of things that have been allowed into the article by NPguy, Beeman is being presented as a source of legal analysis. He is being cited for his cultural anthropologist's legal opinion that the official United States legal interpretation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is incorrect. This is made clear both by the WP article prose, which presents him as a legal analyst who agrees with Iran's interpretation of the NPT—and the article itself, wherein Beeman helpfully explains how the U.S. government is getting it all wrong, acidly noting the government's "important errors" and "lack of authority", as well as blasting the Obama administration for taking a "hard-line" stance against Iran and "singling out Iran for prejudicial treatment". To recap, we're citing this anthropologist and East Asian dance expert's legal interpretation and conclusions on the NPT, and you also maintain that this HuffPo piece is reliable and disinterested reporting, and acceptable sourcing for legal analysis on WP, while, for example, legal analysis in a top newspaper and the top Capitol Hill political newspaper by very prominent practitioners must be excluded because it wasn't presented or cited in a law review article; meanwhile a direct quote of Alan Dershowitz, an extremely prominent legal scholar, is to be dismissed as not being from a reliable source. No double standard, eh? Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Break

Could you each explicitly respond to the following comment by User:Masem, quoted from a discussion on the NPOV noticeboard, which is flatly contrary to the positions you are taking?:

I agree that in discussing criticism of an international treaty/deal such as this, removing the legal opinion of recognized experts under FRINGE is stretching what FRINGE is to apply to. Whether the Iran deal was legal/beneficial or not is not yet a well-established fact or widely-held opinion, and remains controversial in the news. As such, presenting what recognized legal experts say are legal issues with the deal seems completely appropriate to include. It would be different if we were pulling from a claimed legal expert with no recognition in the field, but that would be more UNDUE/WEIGHT rather than a FRINGE aspect. And while their statements that there might legal issues with an international deal can be considered an "exceptional claim", their expertise and the sources reporting them are well above the bar for "exceptional sources" to support that claim. Mind you, what they have stated, that there are legal issues with the deal, should still be treated as a claim attributed to these experts; the only way that claim will ever be verified or disproven is in a court of law. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

(emphasis added). Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Not contrary at all. Also not binding. In any event, Rivkin & Casey may be fringe—I'm still not sure yet—but they certainly aren't mainstream. There's a need for balancing, especially with respect to other, far more prominent criticisms of JCPOA. I would prefer not using their op-ed at all because of its poor quality as a source. And happily, there are other, better sources (Beres) that do the same thing. Why is this not an acceptable compromise position? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I think Mendaliv is correct in this case. Because of the results of his searches for sources, a small sentence or 2 might be included. But, this is the most that should be written. This may or may not be WP:FRINGE, but it's nowhere near mainstream. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Those who with to avoid an impasse need to present a new proposed text. The three pieces of proposed text above at best give undue weight to a marginal view. The preceding discussion suggests that there might be at most one sentence -- preferably a short one -- that presents the view in a nutshell and together with a rebuttal.

Question for Mendaliv: Why do you think the Op-Ed by Beres is any better (more reliable) than the other opinion pieces? That's not my impression. NPguy (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

My main gripe with Rivkin & Casey, and why I prefer Beres, is that the latter actually shows his work. I don't agree with some of the logical jumps he makes, especially with respect to the applicability of the Genocide Convention, but the quality of the work as a piece of legal scholarship—even if it's an editorial-type piece in a political magazine—is much better. Subjective as that may sound, it's not an unacceptable editorial basis on which to prefer a source. For example, because Beres is less catastrophizing, and provides more explanation, it makes paraphrasing and quoting him, should the opportunity arise, so much easier without violating NPOV. This is also a minor thing, but The Hill is much more scholarly for law than WSJ. It's not an academic journal, but it's definitely an improvement. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

When you took the case as a moderator there were 2 parties: the filling and the opposing. What is the status of Mendaliv? Is he opposing party #2 or, maybe, a lawyer for the opposing party? On behalf of whom he suggests a compromise?

We discuss a legal opinion published by 2 prominent professors of law and 2 recognized attorneys. To announce this opinion (or a part of it) fringe the opposing party has to present very strong evidence to prove its viewpoint. Can this be based on the ideas and ad hoc rules presented here by a party that claims HuffPo piece being a source of legal analysis?

Rivkin & Casey have specialized in litigation before the International Court of Justice and Beres is a law scholar. Why should we adopt a scholar viewpoint and reject viewpoints from the practical field? Yagasi (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

My status is a participant. I did my own research and came to my own conclusions. Let's not play the "this is a behavioral problem" game. Personalizing this dispute will not resolve it. Let's also not make this about HuffPo. Pretty much everyone here has agreed that it's a suboptimal source. Let's resolve the actual problem here. Finally, Wikipedia prefers scholarly sources. Rivkin & Casey isn't that, nor is it a source from a practicing attorney's viewpoint—I've read plenty of bar journal articles, and this isn't one. This is just an op-ed that doesn't show its work. Playing up Rivkin's or Casey's credentials isn't going to change anything. Even Nobel laureates publish bunkum sometimes. See, e.g., Brian Josephson. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Rivkin & Casey wrote: "Yet the nuclear agreement’s legitimacy in international law is far from clear. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide imposes an affirmative obligation on all convention parties to prevent genocide and threats of genocide. Iran remains publicly committed to Israel’s elimination, an unequivocal threat of genocide in violation of the Convention." What is wrong with this piece that makes you think it "may or may not be" fringe? Did you buy the "catastrophic language" or "Brian Josephson" arguments? Does the claim "The Hill is much more scholarly for law than WSJ" persuade you that there is a real possibility for fringe? We also have a balancing opinion (Goldsmith) for this piece that was presented by NPGuy and already accepted by the opposing party.

Another point. Why only a small sentence or 2 might be included and this is the most that should be written? I disagree with this. Mentioning only one article will misinform the WK readers and make them think that this is a viewpoint of one lawyer only. If we examine the HuffPo piece we find out at least 3 things that were accepted when the article was written. A non-lawyer legal commentary could be included; the source need not necessarily be an academic edition; this source can be referred 5 times in the article even if it explains how the U.S. government is getting it all wrong. If we do not want to rewrite the whole article now, we should more or less keep the same line in the discussed case. Yagasi (talk) 09:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning one article is all that is needed, because this is a small minority opinion at best. Also, please stop attacking Mendaliv and accusing him of bias, you are getting close to incivility and not assuming good faith. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it looks that way. Mendaliv, sorry. I thought I was addressing his arguments. Yagasi (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dontmakemetypepasswordagain: Mendaliv is not here to exhibit his personal viewpoint. The matter is not if we agree or disagree with something, it is about how significant the opinion is. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: with respect, please, don't interrupt. Mendaliv is insisting that we directly reject a neutral uninvolved admin's policy analysis of these sources and claims, and instead do the opposite. I want to know why. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

NOTE:

If this case continues for another week and not much progress is made, I will have to close it as failed. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Break

Putting in another break. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, however I do insist on an response from Mandeliv and/or NPguy as to why we should reject Masem's policy conclusions about this source material, instead of adopting his conclusions and calling it a day. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dontmakemetypepasswordagain: This is because Mendaliv knows more about law then an admin. Unless the admin went to law school, he's the expert here. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

To my opinion, a Wikipedia editor, before being assigned as a law expert in dispute resolution, should disclose his legal credentials to the community. Yagasi (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: I thought it was pretty clear that I'm a lawyer. Mendaliv has made a number of errors in elementary reasoning and reading comprehension. He has raised several vague and uncited personal opinions about the subject matter, but that's of little consequence.

In any event, ordinary sourcing policies are not suspended just because an editor has a personal POV that a source is wrong. That's covered under the policy on soapboxing; either the editor finds a source version of his POV or he accepts that it can't be reflected on WP (because of WP:V).

Perhaps Yagasi is a lawyer, too; we haven't discussed it because it's not especially relevant. Anyway, again, I didn't request that this admin participate because he wasn't part of the dispute—but neither was Mandeliv. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please, do keep trying to make this personal. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Nothing personal, just pointing out (in response to your opinion being claimed as authoritative) that you've made analytical errors in the OR arguments rebutting the source POVs. But more to the point, personal editor OR arguments about subject matter POVs, and whether they are correct, don't matter.

Anyway, you said you don't agree with Masem's statement; Masem said all three sources and opinions were fine for inclusion given their relation to the subject matter. I happen to agree with this, because as I stated (do you want me to quote policy language again?) high quality non-academic sources in mainstream circulation are fine for stating POVs that commentators have. Yagasi also agrees.

Anyway, will you please acknowledge the editor's statement and say why we shouldn't implement it? I have posted suggested text below. Do you see any problems?

Some legal commentators argued that the terms of the agreement presented possible Genocide Convention violations. Attorneys David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey argued in a Wall Street Journal opinion article that while the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide imposed an obligation to prevent genocide and threats of genocide, Iran was "publicly committed to Israel's elimination".^[2] In an interview, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz expressed a similar view,^[3] as did political science professor Louis René Beres, who also argued that the deal might encourage Iran to quit the Non-Proliferation Treaty entirely, relying on the new deal as permission to nuclearize while abandoning all commitments under the NPT.^[1] However, Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith, writing on the Lawfare Blog, generally disagreed that the Genocide Convention imposed any affirmative obligation in this regard, and noted that the nuclear agreement had been unanimously affirmed by 15 signing nations. Goldsmith argued that it was clear any such concerns had been rejected.^[4]

References

1. [1]

   Rene Beres, Louis (September 3, 2015). "Looking beyond strategy at the still-hidden legal flaws in Iran deal". www.thehill.com. Retrieved March 13, 2015.
2. [2]

   Rivkin, David B.; Casey, Lee A. (July 26, 2015). "The Lawless Underpinnings of the Iran Nuclear Deal". The Wall Street Journal. A13. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help)CS1 maint: location (link)
3. [3]

   Greg Richter (11 August 2015). "Dershowitz: 'We're Accessories to Terrorism' if Sanctions Dropped". Newsmax.com. Retrieved 20 September 2015.
4. [4]

   Goldsmith, Jack (July 27, 2015). "More Weak Arguments For The Illegality of the Iran Deal". Lawfare Blog. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |website= (help)

To my opinion, the upgraded text proposed by Dontmakemetypepasswordagain is cautious, well balanced, and reflects the review of reliable sources held till now. The proposition should be discussed and all questions ought to be answered before any decision is taken or a consensus is achieved. Yagasi (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dontmakemetypepasswordagain: The text is too long for small minority viewpoint. Shorten it to three sentences. Also, about being a lawyer, you haven't brought it up earlier in the discussion. Why? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Concur. This is way unbalanced and completely ignores the points brought up during discussion. That said, I commend you for putting forth a proposed wording. We're moving in the right direction. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

As I've stated and others seem keen to ignore, there was never any point where there was not proposed text on the table.

User:ThePlatypusofDoom is not a participant to this discussion, and he is a brand-new editor who began his Wikipedia career six days before this dispute began. He has been on WP for about 6 weeks in total. Since he is a non-participant who doesn't seem to know anything about WP policy, I'm ignoring his demands as unsupported. In answer to his question, I didn't previously state explicitly that I was a lawyer because it was fairly obvious. More importantly though, it's irrelevant, because WP policy does not afford any special role, privileges, or powers to editors claiming to be experts.

@Mendaliv: and @NPguy: I will be including this text at the article unless you identify specific policy language showing it must be reduced for some reason. My patience for tendentious ignorance of policy is at an end. I note that you've expended an awful lot of breath complaining that you don't want to reply to Masem's confirmation that, per the relevant WP policies, all the sources and POVs are kosher for inclusion (pun intended). Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Masem's statement isn't a confirmation, it's not binding, it's not authoritative. Masem is another editor like you or me. There is no consensus to add this text. It will be reverted. This is not a dispute that will be ended by fait accompli. I strongly advise you to exercise caution before going down this road. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dontmakemetypepasswordagain: Remember to be WP:CIVIL, as you seem to be heading towards incivility. My experience doesn't matter. I also note that you have been reprimanded for edit warring before. Also, if length of Wikipedia career is a measure, NPguy would be judged to be correct, because he has been on Wikipedia longer. So, this statement is invalid. Your statement on me, the moderator has no place in this. The statement about expertise is true, but someone who knows more about the subject is probably better. I know nothing about International Law (probably a good thing, I don't have any bias). So, I defer to people who have experience in this subject. Also, I know a fair amount in the policies, do not say "Oh, he's only been here for 6 weeks" as an excuse for claiming that you are correct.

Also, You are allowed to state this opinion, just make it no longer than 4 sentences (I said 3 earlier but changed my mind). I freely admit that I am not an expert in international law. As for the paragraph, this is giving a little too much undue weight.ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Dontmakemetypepasswordagain and User:Yagasi, write your shortened version of the previous paragraph below this text: