| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Falkland Islands Sovereignty Dispute |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 14:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Wee Curry Monster talk 14:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC) |
| Parties involved | Langus-TxT, Pm7ar, Apcbg, Keysanger, Wee Curry Monster |
| Mediator(s) | User:Jeffwang |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
Editors Langus-TxT and PM7ar wishe to edit
Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute#Argentine position on Falklanders’ citizenship to simply state that under Argentine law the people of the Falkland Islands are Argentine citizens. Whilst there are legal opinions that under the principle of
jus soli this may the case, there are other legal opinions that state the situation is not so straight forward. Equally statements by the Argentine government describe the people as an "implanted population" and "illegal" which seem at odds with the simple statement.
The discussion is going round in circles, it isn't productive and it is getting unnecessarily heated. The talk page discussion is impossible to follow with multiple issues raised, all of which engender heated discussion and reams of tendentious argument. I would hope that informal mediation may help.
Who is involved?
Acceptance of Mediation
Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it: ColourPsychOGraphy
- Wee Curry Monster talk 14:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- -- Keysanger 17:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- pmt7ar ( talk) 19:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Langus ( talk) 03:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC) I don't agree with every statement above
- Apcbg ( talk) 05:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Noting that mediation may also be of benefit with respect to the second paragraph in the section as well. Pfainuk talk 09:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
What is the dispute?
There is disagreement about the coverage of the multiple viewpoints on the topic and the simple statement the two editors wish to make.
Amendment by Langus: There's two separate questions regarding this dispute:
1. Is Argentine legislation inconclusive regarding Falklanders citizenship, as currently stated?
- 1.1. If it is conclusive, should we include it? (I remember Keysanger alleging WP:SOAP)
2. Should we include a mention to a bill proposed by a respected Senator, but that has no chances of becoming law? -- Langus ( talk) 16:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- (add)...mentioning it as relevant to the Argentine position, without any repercussion or sign of notability worth of mention provided.
- 2.1. If it is notable to mention:
- 2.1.1. Should we expose the proposed solution of a single man (authoritative on the matter) as the position of the whole country?
- 2.1.2. Should we give it more importance to the hypothetical effects, and no mention that it was dismissed and closed by the parliamentary process?
- 2.1.3. Is misleading stating that it was "submitted before the Argentine Senate and Congress", confusing the institutions with the buildings? The bill was submitted to the physical building that also holds the Senate, but was dismissed by a reviewer commission, never reaching Congress or any legislative chamber. pmt7ar ( talk) 16:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
What would you like to change about this?
I believe the discussion needs structure, tackling one issue at a time. At the moment, there is a lot of shouting not much listening.
How do you think we can help?
One of the things that needs to be fixed is the walls of text, with people talking past each other. Simple statements backed up by sources to support claims and take baby steps.
Mediator notes
As this is a page about a dispute, I think simply putting both opinions would be okay. Why not? -- J (t) 14:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- That is my point, both opinions should be stated not just one. The argument that this is "just" the Argentine position and stating "just" the Argentine position is not one sustainable under our policies.
- I see people are busy raising multiple issues, may I suggest focusing on one?
Wee Curry Monster
talk 16:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Should have asked before starting a mediation. If you want let's focus with the first issue and use the talkpage for the second, there was a light of consensus for removing it anyways. And I disagree, "just" the Argentine position is sustainable to state "just" the Argentine position. What do you propose, using Arabia's position to state it? Bill Gates's?. To stick to our policies and maintain neutrality, we have to state all positions. Of course you have to allow the very subject to reflect its own position. IMO the issue is on what is representative of a country position. To me, an authoritative opinion like Terragno' is important, but I have my reservation if its representative, at least when it contradicts a consented position by the rest of legislators or the administration speeches. pmt7ar ( talk) 17:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I believe I did state that in starting mediation, please note the comment "I believe the discussion needs structure, tackling one issue at a time." Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
SUBFINAL DECISION - Just put both opinions in there, as this is a page about a dispute. After all, this is Wikipedia, not Citizendium. -- J (t) 00:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Jeff, could you provide an example of how this could be done? Thanks -- Langus ( talk) 18:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think you're missing the point here. What we want to determine is not whether we should put both sides in the dispute (I believe all are willing to accept a version that does this). Rather, we want to determine how we best describe the Argentine position on this. There is, I believe, a disagreement over the facts of the Argentine position that needs to be resolved. Pfainuk talk 17:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- The best way is both way or no way. If this cannot be resolved by July 10, anything that is disputed must be removed immediately. In this grace period if there is still no agreement, I will declare a hung jury and close this case. -- J (t) 01:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Dear Jeffwang, you wrote: “If this cannot be resolved by July 10, anything that is disputed must be removed immediately.” What is disputed here is the proposed removal of a text that is long established not added during the dispute. If I am not wrong, if such a dispute is not resolved then the text stays, no? Apcbg ( talk) 11:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Deletion would be appropriate, per WP:CRYSTAL as the section is mainly legal theory about a hypothetical propisition. Its generating too much heat and light and I for one feel time is better spent writing articles. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Jeff, could explain to us what these two positions you refer to are, please? Are you talking about the British and Argentine positions or the differing views on the Argentine position? In the former case, I note that we have been unable to come to consensus on what exactly the Argentine position is, and what exactly the sources are telling us: this was the whole point of asking for mediation. If it is as clear as you imply, could you perhaps tell us what the Argentine position is? Pfainuk talk 17:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
This is all too confusing - People are telling me this and that, but I can't figure out which is which, so I declare this case CLOSED. -- J (t) 02:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Administrative notes
Discussion
I have moved the discussion, along with the statements, to the talk page for ease of use. I hope this is OK with everyone. Pfainuk talk 17:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Once a discussion is moved can it ever be reactivated ?
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Article | Falkland Islands Sovereignty Dispute |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 14:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Wee Curry Monster talk 14:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC) |
| Parties involved | Langus-TxT, Pm7ar, Apcbg, Keysanger, Wee Curry Monster |
| Mediator(s) | User:Jeffwang |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
Editors Langus-TxT and PM7ar wishe to edit
Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute#Argentine position on Falklanders’ citizenship to simply state that under Argentine law the people of the Falkland Islands are Argentine citizens. Whilst there are legal opinions that under the principle of
jus soli this may the case, there are other legal opinions that state the situation is not so straight forward. Equally statements by the Argentine government describe the people as an "implanted population" and "illegal" which seem at odds with the simple statement.
The discussion is going round in circles, it isn't productive and it is getting unnecessarily heated. The talk page discussion is impossible to follow with multiple issues raised, all of which engender heated discussion and reams of tendentious argument. I would hope that informal mediation may help.
Who is involved?
Acceptance of Mediation
Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it: ColourPsychOGraphy
- Wee Curry Monster talk 14:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- -- Keysanger 17:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- pmt7ar ( talk) 19:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Langus ( talk) 03:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC) I don't agree with every statement above
- Apcbg ( talk) 05:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Noting that mediation may also be of benefit with respect to the second paragraph in the section as well. Pfainuk talk 09:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
What is the dispute?
There is disagreement about the coverage of the multiple viewpoints on the topic and the simple statement the two editors wish to make.
Amendment by Langus: There's two separate questions regarding this dispute:
1. Is Argentine legislation inconclusive regarding Falklanders citizenship, as currently stated?
- 1.1. If it is conclusive, should we include it? (I remember Keysanger alleging WP:SOAP)
2. Should we include a mention to a bill proposed by a respected Senator, but that has no chances of becoming law? -- Langus ( talk) 16:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- (add)...mentioning it as relevant to the Argentine position, without any repercussion or sign of notability worth of mention provided.
- 2.1. If it is notable to mention:
- 2.1.1. Should we expose the proposed solution of a single man (authoritative on the matter) as the position of the whole country?
- 2.1.2. Should we give it more importance to the hypothetical effects, and no mention that it was dismissed and closed by the parliamentary process?
- 2.1.3. Is misleading stating that it was "submitted before the Argentine Senate and Congress", confusing the institutions with the buildings? The bill was submitted to the physical building that also holds the Senate, but was dismissed by a reviewer commission, never reaching Congress or any legislative chamber. pmt7ar ( talk) 16:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
What would you like to change about this?
I believe the discussion needs structure, tackling one issue at a time. At the moment, there is a lot of shouting not much listening.
How do you think we can help?
One of the things that needs to be fixed is the walls of text, with people talking past each other. Simple statements backed up by sources to support claims and take baby steps.
Mediator notes
As this is a page about a dispute, I think simply putting both opinions would be okay. Why not? -- J (t) 14:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- That is my point, both opinions should be stated not just one. The argument that this is "just" the Argentine position and stating "just" the Argentine position is not one sustainable under our policies.
- I see people are busy raising multiple issues, may I suggest focusing on one?
Wee Curry Monster
talk 16:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Should have asked before starting a mediation. If you want let's focus with the first issue and use the talkpage for the second, there was a light of consensus for removing it anyways. And I disagree, "just" the Argentine position is sustainable to state "just" the Argentine position. What do you propose, using Arabia's position to state it? Bill Gates's?. To stick to our policies and maintain neutrality, we have to state all positions. Of course you have to allow the very subject to reflect its own position. IMO the issue is on what is representative of a country position. To me, an authoritative opinion like Terragno' is important, but I have my reservation if its representative, at least when it contradicts a consented position by the rest of legislators or the administration speeches. pmt7ar ( talk) 17:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I believe I did state that in starting mediation, please note the comment "I believe the discussion needs structure, tackling one issue at a time." Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
SUBFINAL DECISION - Just put both opinions in there, as this is a page about a dispute. After all, this is Wikipedia, not Citizendium. -- J (t) 00:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Jeff, could you provide an example of how this could be done? Thanks -- Langus ( talk) 18:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think you're missing the point here. What we want to determine is not whether we should put both sides in the dispute (I believe all are willing to accept a version that does this). Rather, we want to determine how we best describe the Argentine position on this. There is, I believe, a disagreement over the facts of the Argentine position that needs to be resolved. Pfainuk talk 17:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- The best way is both way or no way. If this cannot be resolved by July 10, anything that is disputed must be removed immediately. In this grace period if there is still no agreement, I will declare a hung jury and close this case. -- J (t) 01:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Dear Jeffwang, you wrote: “If this cannot be resolved by July 10, anything that is disputed must be removed immediately.” What is disputed here is the proposed removal of a text that is long established not added during the dispute. If I am not wrong, if such a dispute is not resolved then the text stays, no? Apcbg ( talk) 11:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Deletion would be appropriate, per WP:CRYSTAL as the section is mainly legal theory about a hypothetical propisition. Its generating too much heat and light and I for one feel time is better spent writing articles. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Jeff, could explain to us what these two positions you refer to are, please? Are you talking about the British and Argentine positions or the differing views on the Argentine position? In the former case, I note that we have been unable to come to consensus on what exactly the Argentine position is, and what exactly the sources are telling us: this was the whole point of asking for mediation. If it is as clear as you imply, could you perhaps tell us what the Argentine position is? Pfainuk talk 17:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
This is all too confusing - People are telling me this and that, but I can't figure out which is which, so I declare this case CLOSED. -- J (t) 02:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Administrative notes
Discussion
I have moved the discussion, along with the statements, to the talk page for ease of use. I hope this is OK with everyone. Pfainuk talk 17:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Once a discussion is moved can it ever be reactivated ?