Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/2006 Lebanon War/Archive I

< Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation‎ | 2006 Lebanon War
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Daniel in topic Jayjg
Title

Mediation

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to thank you for being able to resolve this issue in this matter. I am an interested party, but am somewhat less involved than the two editors listed on the mediation page. I am not sure where to note that, so I am stating that here. I do not expect to add a great deal, since the two main parties listed are much more involved in this than i am. I appreciate the willingess by all concerned to approach this by using this constructive process. thanks. --Sm8900 00:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Sm8900. I understand your position. I am more-than-happy for you to add to the discussion on this page, even if you don't consider yourself a party as such. Cheers, Daniel 05:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Kicking this off

Latest comment: 16 years ago33 comments6 people in discussion

Greetings!

I would like to thank you all for agreeing to Mediation. Taking that first step by agreeing to work together to solve a dispute is a major step in the process, as it shows a commitment to finding a solution desirable by all. As a first measure, I would like us to decide a venue for mediation. After I list each method, I'll give a few benefits and issues with using each one.

Public Mediation via this talk page
  • Benefits of this would be a central place where we can all keep a close eye on, and are familiar with.
  • Issues with this are that it allows scrutiny by uninvolved parties, who sometimes try to interject their opinions.
Private Mediation via the MedComWiki
  • Benefit of this is that the mediation would be private and confidential, on the Mediation Committee's private wiki hosted offsite.
  • Issue with this is requiring users to register with our offsite service, and having to remember to check that site, in addition to Wikipedia.
Mediation via IRC
  • Benefit of this is that we can quickly discuss issues, rather than waiting for replies from people.
  • Scheduling times is difficult, and sometimes the instant nature causes people to speak more harshly.

I'm perfectly willing to go with any of the methods, provided this group has consensus on what to do. Daniel 05:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation medium preference

  • Public — George [talk] 06:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Private — would probably be quickest, especially considering we have been through similar steps. --Shamir1 22:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
To help me better weigh these options, can someone clarify what the actual goal of this mediation is? Thanks. — George [talk] 00:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The goal of this mediation is for me to help you find a comprimise article title, and a comprimise regarding what sources used. Daniel 01:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Please allow me to clarify my question. First, will discussion focus on (a) trying to convince either Shamir1 or myself that the opposing viewpoint is the correct one, or (b) discussing possible alternative compromises? We've had many long, drawn-out conversations on this proposal. In the latest such discussion, Shamir1's reply to my questions regarding any possible compromise suggestions led me to believe that he isn't interest in compromising. He stated:

"compromises are not always necessary or correct... I have been consistent with my stance. I think you are the one that needs to compromise... i do not believe this needs to be compromised, especially since there is no viable opposing viewpoint."[1]

Second, is the intended result of this mediation to (a) move the article to the title we agree to, if we're able to find such a title, or (b) to open yet another move request for said title? The proposal Shamir1 has put forward has failed to achieve consensus twice now in the just last couple months, and I'm not comfortable if the goal of this mediation is to circumvent the existing consensus by dropping other editors out of the discussion. However, I also feel that it's too early to propose a new page move unless we can achieve some meaningful progress. To quote the administrator who closed the latest move request, Stemonitis:

"I would suggest that the only course of action which will not lead to immense ill will is to forget about it. There have been too many move requests already, regardless of which side you are on. The majority opinion seems to be in favour of the current situation, and against any further attempts to change it... this doesn't seem to be a situation which can be mediated. Contentious statements can be re-worded in a way that is acceptable to a greater number of people, but a title is either one thing or another. Perhaps return to the topic in a few months if it still bothers you, unless you really want to stir up a hornets' nest of acrimony and bile."[2]

Thanks. — George [talk] 01:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, firstly in response to the move issue.
I was of the understanding that the dispute over naming centred between you two only. On reflection, this would be incorrect as a generlisation, given the attention that this article has recieved. I therefore suggest that the parties who are parties to any move-request mediation effort be added to this mediation. My goal was to find a comprimise that all parties could agree to, so we could move it to the new location per agreement here; not merely find new ideas for an RM. As Stemonitis said and you indicated, the RM's for this article haven't been terribly successful in finding a comprimise version. My job is to help you find one, but following a different approach than an unassisted RM. So, therefore, yes is the response to "the intended result of this mediation to (a) move the article to the title we agree to, if we're able to find such a title", so I am of the opinion that everyone involved should be a party to this mediation, at least on the move issue.
In response to the sourcing issue, I won't go 'round the facts: I do find Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Archive41#Further name discussion to be worrying. Mediation requires a good-faith attempt from all users to find a comprimise. If a user doesn't want to comprimise, there's nothing the Mediation Committee can do. To Shamir1: are you willing to comprimise on the sourcing issue? If you aren't, and maintain your stance as linked above, that's fine - I will not address such a dispute in this mediation, but rather only the naming issue (as above). To George: If you aren't satisfied with what you percieve to be Shamir1's unwillingness to comprimise, you are welcome to withdraw your assent to this mediation, as such participation is voluntary. Of course, I would rather you don't if possible - I'm committed to resolving this dispute, if such a thing is possible - but I am obliged to inform you about this option. Daniel 03:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm okay with the mediation resulting in a page move, or concluding without such a move (depending on where the discussion leads, and whether or not it achieves consensus), provided that it isn't used a tool to circumvent the opinions of other editors. That is why I favor the public mediation.
I don't plan to withdraw from mediation at present, but I do want to be sure that the time we all spend here ends up adding some value to the article, whether that means changing to Shamir1's proposal, changing to some third option, or reaffirming the consensus for the current title. We've gone through two very long move requests for this proposal before, but even when the consensus is to not move the article, Shamir1 tends to resurface the issue in the following days or weeks. If Shamir1 isn't interested in the possibility of compromise, and he is just going to file yet another move request after this one, then I'd almost rather save us all a lot of time and let this go straight to arbitration committee. For now, though, I'll try to continue to assume good faith, and stick with this mediation. — George [talk] 07:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict) To George, please allow me to represent my ideas. Cherrypicking quotes, while completely ignoring the context is bad form. To quote an administrator, and an editor who actually saw nothing wrong with the George's title, George has not shown any evidence that for the current title being correct or the proposed title being wrong. George, if there were consensus, we would not be here. Please be sure to note that consensus is not the means of naming an article per the naming conventions, and that consensus is not achieved by polling, nor is it an alternative to discussion, all as per WP policy. Nothing is being circumvented. I just do not want to be doing what has already been done and said.
The current title was moved from 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict without any use of or reference to sources, and, obviously, no consensus. No one even bothered with the naming conventions. George, actually, said he was "neutral". As for this, he never and still has not said any Wikipedic objections to the proposed name. When an admin asked what his problems with the title were, he said it minimizes the damage done to Lebanon. He never once, not once compromised, despite the image he is trying to paint me as. I am unsatisfied with his unwillingness to compromise. During the name change to this name, he had no objections. Yet now with this, he objected it from the very start. I truly didnt see any compromise; its either one title or another, isnt it? And its not like i was being offered one. I am fighting for a title, not a word in it. I am sorry George put my comment like that before I even made my case to you. I was being very honest and still am. I am very up mediation.
How followed up are you with the situation? Basically, I and other editors searched the news world for names. Many were found (including last summer's war, the 34-day, the war between Israel and Hezbollah,...) scattered in news stories. News stories are important. They do, however, cover one event of the war. When looking into summaries of the war published by news and other sources, that makes it easier. Many newspapers have full coverage reports of major events.
Without any bias, I searched for such summaries for this war and posted them. (I will re-post them.) I also looked for, as the naming conventions ask for, scholarly sources. As for summaries of the war, absolutely none used the title "Lebanon War". Obviously, if they do not use the title on their summaries, we should not use it on ours. I encourage any editor to click, view, and examine all of the sources brought up.
In regards to mediation, I hope you can help us stay on track and see what objections are valid. I know it may look scary at first, but I think if we stay on track this can move on easily. I encourage you to review the sources. --Shamir1 08:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This is probably a futile request, but can we hold off on discussing the details of the mediation until we at least decide where to discuss it? — George [talk] 08:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Before we get going, some background reading might prove helpful Daniel. This is the timeline of move discussions (all dates are 2007):

Hopefully that is helpful. — George [talk] 08:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but please note that I along with others were not present at that votes, as well as the reasons for some of the proponents. Many of them took the opportunity to name the war themselves--what they personally would call it. Still, there was no reference to outside information. I dont know what Wikipedia would be without sources. --Shamir1 08:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of being fair, is there a problem with having it here? This way, it seems to be semi-private/semi-public. Any ideas? --Shamir1 08:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I fully support having it here. Did you think public meant on the 2006 Lebanon war talk page? This page is where discussions voted as public take place. — George [talk] 08:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I assumed. This is not what I prefer though. I do believe we both can get ahead of ourselves and that the discussion could be scrutinized. I also believe it would take much longer. I am anxious to get start and so I am willing to start here, although I do hope you see my reservations. --Shamir1 08:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd consider private discussion as long as (a) those who have been involved in the page move discussions are invited, and (b) other editors familiar with the aticle have the opportunity to join. The problem with just having me is that even if you're able to convince me to support your proposal, a majority of other editors involved in previous discussions would still disagree with the move, and I'm not comfortable circumventing other editors. Maybe invite the editors who discussed page move requests, and add a message on the 2006 Lebanon War talk page letting any other editors who are familiar with the article and want to be involved to message Daniel for an invite or something. — George [talk] 09:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
While it is obvious that you and I are the main guys involved, I dont have a particular problem with others too. The problem is it can so very easily get off track and be scrutinized by others opinions, as well as repeat ideas that have already been said. Opinions are essential to discussion, obviously, but they must be relevant. If I see it getting out of hand, I will ask to be moved to a private discussion. For now, we can continue. --Shamir1 09:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I would very much like to include everyone else who was substantially involved in the move request(s). Can you please list their names in the party section on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/2006 Lebanon War, and drop them a note to say "come by here, and either agree or disagree to mediation" or similar? Daniel 10:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but as I mentioned above, the only ones substantially involved were George and me. Other comments were usually brief and numbered very few. --Shamir1 10:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't have time tonight to send out invitations (as I'm going to bed soon), but my short list would include Iorek85, Tewfik, Flayer, TheFEARgod, Sm8900 (who already expressed interest in joining the discussion), Italiavivi... not sure who else. Those are the names that I recognized as having been involved in discussions beyond one sentence (or having edited the article) when I looked through the move requests. Maybe Kendrick7 too, though he didn't take part in the last move request, and it looks like he got blocked for violating 3RR on The Holocaust article... I'll try to look at throwing out invitations to see who wants to get involved in this again when I wake up. — George [talk] 11:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Good call on Jayjg. He didn't really state an opinion, but he asks good questions, and it's always helpful to have more administrators around. :) — George [talk] 00:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As much as I want an end to this, I don't think a compromise is really an option. As I've stated before, I would fully support Shamir's title if it was the (outside of wikipedia)consensus name for the conflict. I would oppose any title that wasn't shown to be supported by a consensus of news sources, academic sources, and other sources, because it doesn't comply with naming policy. Even if I was happy to compromise, the "law" is the "law"; as Shamir has argued many a time, this title is not based on opinion, but policy. It isn't at all a question of which title people like better, or which is the most neutral, it is simply a question of what the public calls the war. And that can't be decided by compromising here. Iorek85 01:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

While some of your comments really confuse me, I think you make some really good points; I hope I am not misinterpreting it. You are absolutely right about how the title should not be based on opinion. When looking at many comments, that was all some users said. That does not pass the naming policy. Consensus (or in some cases, multi-consensus for various names) alone does not leave us with any specific name. Obviously, there is more to an article title than a vote by a few editors on Wikipedia. To address some of your comments, there is consensus among news sources with Israel-Hezbollah war, sometimes used differently, you get the picture... But that alone, also, in this case is not enough for this complicated issue. Currently, Iorek85, I sincerely hope you have taken a look at the summaries I collected. There was no bias in showing them. None of these summary articles have used "Lebanon War" for the title. The closest would be the one or two Israeli news sites who used "Second Lebanon War" in their mini-encyclopedia article, since that is what it is known as in Israel. But Iorek85, I really am nodding my head at some of your comments. I think it somewhat clarified what I meant by compromise. So, I hope you can too be objective and review sources fairly, it is that which can reaffirm the proposed title's qualification under the naming policy. Thanks. --Shamir1 01:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, I'm hoping we can hold off on discussing the proposal itself until the mediation location is finalized, and the other parties have responded. I'm pretty sure all the discussion thus far is going to get archived as soon as that is done, so there's little point jumping into the middle of the discussion before we even start. Also, I'm hoping we can take a more granular approach this time around, analyzing the specific Wikipedia policies and guidelines one at a time, and determining what evidence constitutes meeting those requirements. — George [talk] 05:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I'm planning on starting fresh when we get everyone here. Daniel 05:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
But I'm so eager! :) Iorek85 08:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I begin to show interest in Shamir's proposal for name. But, I have to mention a few things.
  • First, I get really mad when I see his construction of the name and no-one bothers the more correct version Israeli-Hezbollah War. Why? When we used the first name - Israel-Lebanon - it was a name of geographical meaning, as it didn't imply that there was a war between Israel. and Lebanon, but on the area where it was taking place. Similar to the South Lebanon conflicts. So, the proposing name should not reflect that meaning as one of the parties mentioned isn't a geographical location - Hezbollah. So Israel in adjectival form and Hezbollah not since it is a foreign name and no forms exist. I find it more natural, again: Israeli-Hezbollah War.
  • Second, that proposal should work without neglecting the 1982–2000 South Lebanon conflict, also then an Israeli-Hezbollah War.
  • So to make me vote for the new proposal there should be two stimulants: changing the form of the name, and renaming the 1982-2000 war in a similar manner. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this was the right place for these comments of mine... --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Right place, wrong time probably. :) We're still trying to round up the parties to mediation, and finalize where to discuss the dispute. — George [talk] 10:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Right. The South Lebanon conflict is a separate issue, and a separate conflict. After we decide on it, we can look into Israel vs. Israeli. --Shamir1 18:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm here. I appreciate everyone's input. Please feel free to keep going. thanks. --Sm8900 18:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the real issue to decide which title has a consensus supporting it? I thought that is the main basis for deciding what titles of articles should be. thanks. --Sm8900 18:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I saw that there was considerable support for having Jayjg listed as a party to this case. He was removed in this edit (with a strange edit summary). I'd like the parties' views on whether Jayjg's status as a 'party' has changed. Daniel 09:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with him as a party.. i just figured at this point, if we have enough people, let's go ahead and proceed. If we put someone as a party to this matter, and they don't respond, then the mediation will never begin. However, once we do start, anyone is still free to come and offer their views at any time. And I for one would welcome his views, as always. thanks. --Sm8900 13:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
That's probably a good approach, given Jay is more of a 'commenter' and less of a 'disputant'. I can start, therefore, as soon as I hear from Flayer either way. Would one of the parties please poke him on his talk page? Cheers, Daniel 04:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Daniel. Appreciate it. --Sm8900 13:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. — George [talk]
From my poking: "I don't wish to join the mediation talks for the time being. Thank you anyway. Flayer 07:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)"[3] I'm going to mark him as declined on the mediation page, but I think we can get started. — George [talk] 19:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Flayer doesn't seem to be a 'major party', so I don't feel that his decision not to participate requires this case to be rejected. Lets kick thinks off (archiving this, by the way). Daniel 02:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/2006_Lebanon_War/Archive_I&oldid=1137450501"