Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-23 Bosnian Genocide
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Bosnian Genocide |
| Status | closed |
| Request date | Unknown |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Mediator(s) | Jonathan |
| Comment | closing case |
[[Category:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal closed cases|Bosnian Genocide]][[Category:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal maintenance|Bosnian Genocide]]
Request details
[edit]Six editors can not agree on which version of the Bosnian Genocide article to use. One version places more emphasis on the ICJ February judgement and that the name is also an alternative for Srebrenica massacre, while the other puts more emphasis on the broader meaning of the Bosnian Genocide and less emphasis on the ICJ February judgement.
The alternative versions as of 21/23 November 2007 are:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnian_Genocide&oldid=172974837 <-- Less emphasis on the ICJ February judgement
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnian_Genocide&oldid=173267693 <-- more emphasis on the ICJ February judgement
An outstanding RFC has been in place since 16:25, 24 October 2007 but the number of respondents has not been large enough for a consensus to be reached.
Who are the involved parties?
[edit]- User:Dchall1, user:Grandy Grandy, user:Live Forever and user:The Dragon of Bosnia -- less emphasis on the ICJ ruling
- User:Osli73 and user:Philip Baird Shearer, -- more emphasis ICJ ruling
What's going on?
[edit]There are now (10:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)) four/three versions of the page:
- more emphasis on the ICJ February judgement
- less emphasis on the ICJ February judgement (similar, (same sections with the same wording -- but differ in detail in the lead section).
- 23:11, 25 November 2007 by user:Ancient Land of Bosoni with the comment in the edit history, made by him for the revert edit immediately before this one, that says "See discussion, once again this is the version agreed to by a majority in the mediation case. This article is NOT about the Bosnian genocide case, but the Bosnian genocide as a phenomena/term/opinio."
Apart from the lead section where (1) and (3) vary considerably, they contain similar sections but in a very different order. Version (2) does not contain a section on the Bosnian Genocide Case because it is argued one is not needed because there is already an article on the topic,[1][2] but the emphasis of the lead sections in (2) and (3) are similar with less emphasis on the ICJ February judgement than version (1).
What would you like to change about that?
[edit]Mediator notes
[edit]- I've taken this case up; and this is my first MedCab case. If you have any questions, please email me or go to my talk page. Thanks! —Jonathan 17:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- One question...and this is probably something tht I already know (but I've forgotten)...what is ICJ? Thanks! Signed, Jonathan • Don't stereotype 15:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Have a look at International Court of Justice, in addition to carefully reviewing Bosnian Genocide.--Addhoc (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- One question...and this is probably something tht I already know (but I've forgotten)...what is ICJ? Thanks! Signed, Jonathan • Don't stereotype 15:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm...I believe the article sounds better with less emphasis on the ICJ ruling...but I need some people to take a look. If you have any votes, write Less for less emphasis on the ICJ ruling, or More for more emphasis. Please write in the "Discussion" section below. Thanks! JonathanT•@•C 19:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Why? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- For this, however, I am letting users that are not involved state their opinion (not a vote anymore) so this can be unbiased. That is why I have posted links on my user/user talk pages, so uninvolved users can say what they think. Thank you. JonathanT•@•C 04:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Jonathan, could I suggest that you concentrate your efforts towards mediating the dispute between the parties, instead of holding a straw poll for uninvolved editors. Addhoc (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- I need some thoughts from the community before I can truly start mediating! JonathanT•@•C 16:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Also, I might need to know the things that are in the last two sections above. Thanks! JonathanT•@•C 16:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- I need some thoughts from the community before I can truly start mediating! JonathanT•@•C 16:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Jonathan, could I suggest that you concentrate your efforts towards mediating the dispute between the parties, instead of holding a straw poll for uninvolved editors. Addhoc (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- For this, however, I am letting users that are not involved state their opinion (not a vote anymore) so this can be unbiased. That is why I have posted links on my user/user talk pages, so uninvolved users can say what they think. Thank you. JonathanT•@•C 04:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Administrative notes
[edit]Discussion
[edit]This discussion is for users who are not involved. If you are involved and post a comment, it will be ignored, unless it will have major weight on the discussion, as this may cause bias in the result of community views. Thank you. JonathanT•@•C 04:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Ping. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Echoed ping? Addhoc (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Would anyone object if this case was closed? Addhoc (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Was there any 'outcome' of the mediation? Any suggestions? If not, is it possible to take it for a second round somewhere else or try some other type of conflict resolution? Otherwise, I'm afraid the article Bosnian Genocide will deteriorate to an edit war.Osli73 (talk) 08:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Oli, the options are to either revert to a version prior to the mediator's acceptance, file a new request, or consider formal mediation.--Addhoc (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)