| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 21:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Mschiffler ( talk) |
| Mediator(s) | NicholasTurnbull | (talk) |
| Comment | No acceptance received from the other named party in the dispute. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC) |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother#Chua's_defense (end of section)
Who is involved?
- Mschiffler ( talk · contribs)
- 152.3.106.154 ( talk · contribs) — User has not responded to requests for participation. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Acceptance of Mediation
Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it:
- -- Mschiffler ( talk) 21:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I will participate. Ncip ( talk) 20:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
What is the dispute?
The dispute is about whether a particular quote should be kept or removed. It is a quote by the author of Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, Amy Chua, from an interview with the German magazine Die Zeit. So far the anonymous user has twice removed the quote, first on March 16 and then on March 22. He justified his action first by alleging that the quote was not in the article quoted. When he was disproved, he accompanied his the second removal by asking who translated the original quote and who translated it back. When prompted to use the discussion page of the article he did not take up the offer, but instead removed the quote for the second time.
What would you like to change about this?
I would like the following:
- A statement from a third party, perhaps on the discussion page of the article, stating that the quote should be kept until a discussion has taken place on the talk page.
- A suggestion from a third party that the anonymous user registrates.
- An invitation from a third party to the anonymous user to accept an offer for mediation.
- A confirmation that the translation back to English quoted in the article is an accurate translation of the German quote, which I reproduce here: "Ich meine, da erzählt eine wahnsinnige Person von lauter verrückten Dingen. Niemals würde ich die Stofftiere meiner Kinder verbrennen – das war ein Stilmittel, eine Übertreibung. Ich habe viele Situationen zugespitzt, um meine Position klarzumachen."
- If these steps are taken and neither of them nor any other suggestions by the mediator resolve the dispute, arbitration or blocking the IP address would be options.
How do you think we can help?
A mediator could be the third party that undertakes the first three steps above. Any other suggestions to resolve the dispute would also be welcome from my side.
Mediator notes
Hello there Mschiffler: I'll do my best to help you; however, there are some serious issues I need to discuss with you before I continue with the mediation case.
- Acceptance of mediation: There is a second user who has accepted mediation, a new user by the name of Ncip ( talk · contribs). Is this the anonymous user that you discussed in your mediation request?
- Your requested outcome: I'm afraid the Mediation Cabal cannot handle content issues as such; we deal with disputes, rather than get directly involved in what Wikipedia includes (or does not include) in articles. We can of course handle the disputes about content, but cannot get involved with the issues relating to the content itself. In addition, we cannot suggest that anyone registers or tell people to keep content in articles until discussion has finished. Can you please tell me whether you meant to ask the Mediation Cabal to do this, or rather instead these are just things you would like to see? The trouble is that, even if this is just a desired outcome, it is not an outcome that can be achieved through mediation. In addition, we would request that during mediation, no threats of arbitration or blocking are made, since we need both of you to talk in good faith.
Please let me know your thoughts on this. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for offering to help. I do not know if
Ncip (
talk ·
contribs) is the same user as the anonymous user. Perhaps this question should be addressed to
Ncip (
talk ·
contribs)? I understand that as a mediator you cannot handle content issues as such and that you just offer to mediate disputes about content. I do believe that a mediator can help convince anonymous users to register, but if this is outside of the scope of this mediation that is ok. In any case, there have been no more anonymous edits since this mediation request was posted so this may not be an issue any more. I am also fine with not mentioning arbitration or blocking during the mediation. Concerning the assumption of good faith you have probably seen the comments by
Ncip (
talk ·
contribs). An apology by
Ncip (
talk ·
contribs) for questioning my motives would certainly be helpful to move the process ahead. I also suggest that we confirm that both parties assume good faith on behalf of the other party and that they have no conflict of interest concerning the subject of the article. Once these things have been clarified, I think that we will have a much better basis to discuss the issue of substance, i.e. if and, if yes, how the statements by Any Chua in the interview should be included in the article about the book. If you suggest another way to proceed based on your experience as a mediator, I am open for suggestions.--
Mschiffler (
talk)
13:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ncip: Can you confirm whether you are, or are not, the anonymous IP mentioned by Mschiffler? I assume that you may be because you have accepted mediation here, but your confirmation on this is required.
- Mschiffler: I'm afraid we can't negotiate apologies out of people in the course of mediation, nor would we suggest that an apology is required by a disputant before mediation begins. If parties choose to apologise as a result of the mediation discussion, that is very welcome and a good thing; but the Mediation Cabal nor its mediators would not permit this to be mandated as an initial step. I agree, of course, with your latter suggestion that an assumption of good faith is made (this is one of the crucial parts of a mediation discussion). We cannot however predicate the mediation on the basis of a forced declaration that there is no conflict of interest; either parties wish to participate in the mediation, or they do not, and the Mediation Cabal can and will not permit preconditions to be set by parties. I'll make suggestions on how we should proceed once Ncip has confirmed whether he/she is the anonymous IP, and you've confirmed your understanding that the Mediation Cabal can't get people to apologise and nor are cases allowed to contain preconditions such as declarations of no conflict of interest. --
NicholasTurnbull |
(talk)
15:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Nicholas Tunrbull:Just to clarify:I did not write that an apology is required, nor that it is a precondition. I just wrote that it would be helpful. I welcome the mediation and I am not setting any preconditions. I welcome your agreement with the suggestion that an assumption of good faith should be made and I am looking forward to your suggestions on how to proceed once Ncip has responded to your question.--
Mschiffler (
talk)
19:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Wonderful, we'll do what we can to help. :) We're waiting for Ncip ( talk · contribs) to respond. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Nicholas Tunrbull:Just to clarify:I did not write that an apology is required, nor that it is a precondition. I just wrote that it would be helpful. I welcome the mediation and I am not setting any preconditions. I welcome your agreement with the suggestion that an assumption of good faith should be made and I am looking forward to your suggestions on how to proceed once Ncip has responded to your question.--
Mschiffler (
talk)
19:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
No,I am not the IP, but I did undo the article revision. Justification has been given on the discussion page. Ncip ( talk) 19:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Alright. So Ncip ( talk · contribs) is not the IP named in this mediation request. For mediation to proceed, the anonymous editor must indicate his or her acceptance of mediation, either as an anonymous editor or with an account. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hello Msciffler and Ncip: I'm afraid we still haven't had any confirmation through from the anonymous editor that they are willing to go through with the mediation, even though I had placed a request on their anonymous talk page some time ago. Is the dispute still ongoing -- perhaps the anonymous user is using a different IP to edit and is not aware of this page -- or has the anon editor disappeared and the issue is over? --
NicholasTurnbull |
(talk)
15:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hello. I think we should discuss the issues that have been raised in the debate with Ncip on the discussion page of the article. This debate has superseded the earlier and not very elaborate debate with the anonymous user who now seems to have withdrawn. My suggestion remains to include in the article the relevant parts of what Amy Chua said to the journalist from Die Zeit. This could be done through paraphrasing, as Ncip suggested on March 24 before the debate took, in my view, a wrong turn. What I consider relevant for the subject of the article is her explanation of her motives and her statement that she exaggerated what she wrote in her book. While the second statement is subject to interpretation, I would let the reader make that interpretation. This suggestion leaves out of the article what I believe to be the most controversial and ambiguous part of the quote where Amy Chua called herself, perhaps jokingly, "crazy" or whatever the original words were that she used. Your views as a mediator would be helpful, since I believe the arguments have been exchanged and a fresh view could be helpful.-- Mschiffler ( talk) 19:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Closed. The other party in this mediation has not responded. If there is an active dispute involving other parties, please feel free to file another request. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Administrative notes
Discussion
The first request is out of the question for two reasons:
1) There is no "quote". There is only a translation from English to German and then back into English, and 2) the brief and out-of-context excerpt translation from the lengthy Die Zeit article can be erroneously interpreted (either innocently or by design) as a confession by Amy Chua that she is a mentally unstable person who fabricated the stories in her book.
The only thing that remains is what, if anything, can be pulled from this German-language interview for the encyclopedia article. In the paragraph in question, Amy Chua is vociferously defending herself, but it is clearly not the "insanity defense". This discussion is now underway on the "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother" discussion page and Mschiffler is welcome to take part. Ncip ( talk) 20:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Article | Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 21:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Mschiffler ( talk) |
| Mediator(s) | NicholasTurnbull | (talk) |
| Comment | No acceptance received from the other named party in the dispute. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC) |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother#Chua's_defense (end of section)
Who is involved?
- Mschiffler ( talk · contribs)
- 152.3.106.154 ( talk · contribs) — User has not responded to requests for participation. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Acceptance of Mediation
Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it:
- -- Mschiffler ( talk) 21:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I will participate. Ncip ( talk) 20:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
What is the dispute?
The dispute is about whether a particular quote should be kept or removed. It is a quote by the author of Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, Amy Chua, from an interview with the German magazine Die Zeit. So far the anonymous user has twice removed the quote, first on March 16 and then on March 22. He justified his action first by alleging that the quote was not in the article quoted. When he was disproved, he accompanied his the second removal by asking who translated the original quote and who translated it back. When prompted to use the discussion page of the article he did not take up the offer, but instead removed the quote for the second time.
What would you like to change about this?
I would like the following:
- A statement from a third party, perhaps on the discussion page of the article, stating that the quote should be kept until a discussion has taken place on the talk page.
- A suggestion from a third party that the anonymous user registrates.
- An invitation from a third party to the anonymous user to accept an offer for mediation.
- A confirmation that the translation back to English quoted in the article is an accurate translation of the German quote, which I reproduce here: "Ich meine, da erzählt eine wahnsinnige Person von lauter verrückten Dingen. Niemals würde ich die Stofftiere meiner Kinder verbrennen – das war ein Stilmittel, eine Übertreibung. Ich habe viele Situationen zugespitzt, um meine Position klarzumachen."
- If these steps are taken and neither of them nor any other suggestions by the mediator resolve the dispute, arbitration or blocking the IP address would be options.
How do you think we can help?
A mediator could be the third party that undertakes the first three steps above. Any other suggestions to resolve the dispute would also be welcome from my side.
Mediator notes
Hello there Mschiffler: I'll do my best to help you; however, there are some serious issues I need to discuss with you before I continue with the mediation case.
- Acceptance of mediation: There is a second user who has accepted mediation, a new user by the name of Ncip ( talk · contribs). Is this the anonymous user that you discussed in your mediation request?
- Your requested outcome: I'm afraid the Mediation Cabal cannot handle content issues as such; we deal with disputes, rather than get directly involved in what Wikipedia includes (or does not include) in articles. We can of course handle the disputes about content, but cannot get involved with the issues relating to the content itself. In addition, we cannot suggest that anyone registers or tell people to keep content in articles until discussion has finished. Can you please tell me whether you meant to ask the Mediation Cabal to do this, or rather instead these are just things you would like to see? The trouble is that, even if this is just a desired outcome, it is not an outcome that can be achieved through mediation. In addition, we would request that during mediation, no threats of arbitration or blocking are made, since we need both of you to talk in good faith.
Please let me know your thoughts on this. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for offering to help. I do not know if
Ncip (
talk ·
contribs) is the same user as the anonymous user. Perhaps this question should be addressed to
Ncip (
talk ·
contribs)? I understand that as a mediator you cannot handle content issues as such and that you just offer to mediate disputes about content. I do believe that a mediator can help convince anonymous users to register, but if this is outside of the scope of this mediation that is ok. In any case, there have been no more anonymous edits since this mediation request was posted so this may not be an issue any more. I am also fine with not mentioning arbitration or blocking during the mediation. Concerning the assumption of good faith you have probably seen the comments by
Ncip (
talk ·
contribs). An apology by
Ncip (
talk ·
contribs) for questioning my motives would certainly be helpful to move the process ahead. I also suggest that we confirm that both parties assume good faith on behalf of the other party and that they have no conflict of interest concerning the subject of the article. Once these things have been clarified, I think that we will have a much better basis to discuss the issue of substance, i.e. if and, if yes, how the statements by Any Chua in the interview should be included in the article about the book. If you suggest another way to proceed based on your experience as a mediator, I am open for suggestions.--
Mschiffler (
talk)
13:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ncip: Can you confirm whether you are, or are not, the anonymous IP mentioned by Mschiffler? I assume that you may be because you have accepted mediation here, but your confirmation on this is required.
- Mschiffler: I'm afraid we can't negotiate apologies out of people in the course of mediation, nor would we suggest that an apology is required by a disputant before mediation begins. If parties choose to apologise as a result of the mediation discussion, that is very welcome and a good thing; but the Mediation Cabal nor its mediators would not permit this to be mandated as an initial step. I agree, of course, with your latter suggestion that an assumption of good faith is made (this is one of the crucial parts of a mediation discussion). We cannot however predicate the mediation on the basis of a forced declaration that there is no conflict of interest; either parties wish to participate in the mediation, or they do not, and the Mediation Cabal can and will not permit preconditions to be set by parties. I'll make suggestions on how we should proceed once Ncip has confirmed whether he/she is the anonymous IP, and you've confirmed your understanding that the Mediation Cabal can't get people to apologise and nor are cases allowed to contain preconditions such as declarations of no conflict of interest. --
NicholasTurnbull |
(talk)
15:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Nicholas Tunrbull:Just to clarify:I did not write that an apology is required, nor that it is a precondition. I just wrote that it would be helpful. I welcome the mediation and I am not setting any preconditions. I welcome your agreement with the suggestion that an assumption of good faith should be made and I am looking forward to your suggestions on how to proceed once Ncip has responded to your question.--
Mschiffler (
talk)
19:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Wonderful, we'll do what we can to help. :) We're waiting for Ncip ( talk · contribs) to respond. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Nicholas Tunrbull:Just to clarify:I did not write that an apology is required, nor that it is a precondition. I just wrote that it would be helpful. I welcome the mediation and I am not setting any preconditions. I welcome your agreement with the suggestion that an assumption of good faith should be made and I am looking forward to your suggestions on how to proceed once Ncip has responded to your question.--
Mschiffler (
talk)
19:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
No,I am not the IP, but I did undo the article revision. Justification has been given on the discussion page. Ncip ( talk) 19:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Alright. So Ncip ( talk · contribs) is not the IP named in this mediation request. For mediation to proceed, the anonymous editor must indicate his or her acceptance of mediation, either as an anonymous editor or with an account. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hello Msciffler and Ncip: I'm afraid we still haven't had any confirmation through from the anonymous editor that they are willing to go through with the mediation, even though I had placed a request on their anonymous talk page some time ago. Is the dispute still ongoing -- perhaps the anonymous user is using a different IP to edit and is not aware of this page -- or has the anon editor disappeared and the issue is over? --
NicholasTurnbull |
(talk)
15:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hello. I think we should discuss the issues that have been raised in the debate with Ncip on the discussion page of the article. This debate has superseded the earlier and not very elaborate debate with the anonymous user who now seems to have withdrawn. My suggestion remains to include in the article the relevant parts of what Amy Chua said to the journalist from Die Zeit. This could be done through paraphrasing, as Ncip suggested on March 24 before the debate took, in my view, a wrong turn. What I consider relevant for the subject of the article is her explanation of her motives and her statement that she exaggerated what she wrote in her book. While the second statement is subject to interpretation, I would let the reader make that interpretation. This suggestion leaves out of the article what I believe to be the most controversial and ambiguous part of the quote where Amy Chua called herself, perhaps jokingly, "crazy" or whatever the original words were that she used. Your views as a mediator would be helpful, since I believe the arguments have been exchanged and a fresh view could be helpful.-- Mschiffler ( talk) 19:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Closed. The other party in this mediation has not responded. If there is an active dispute involving other parties, please feel free to file another request. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Administrative notes
Discussion
The first request is out of the question for two reasons:
1) There is no "quote". There is only a translation from English to German and then back into English, and 2) the brief and out-of-context excerpt translation from the lengthy Die Zeit article can be erroneously interpreted (either innocently or by design) as a confession by Amy Chua that she is a mentally unstable person who fabricated the stories in her book.
The only thing that remains is what, if anything, can be pulled from this German-language interview for the encyclopedia article. In the paragraph in question, Amy Chua is vociferously defending herself, but it is clearly not the "insanity defense". This discussion is now underway on the "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother" discussion page and Mschiffler is welcome to take part. Ncip ( talk) 20:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)