Mediation of this dispute has been completed. The case pages should not be edited.
|
For an explanation of why the case was closed, refer to the talk page or contact the Mediation Committee
Formal mediation case | |
---|---|
Article | Occupy Wall Street ( talk) |
Opened | 03 May 2012 |
Mediator | Lord Roem ( talk) |
Status | Closed |
Notes | None |
All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page.
This issue concerns a few paragraphs of text (various headings) which describe the economic background, complaints, and surrounding economic issues related to OWS. Due to the fact that the other parties have not fully stated what they feel is wrong with the various versions, it is difficult to say what the dispute really is. That is part of what we need mediation for.
I recently rewrote the section to take into consideration the objections of Amadscientist and The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous. However, the new section was removed [1] over the objections of myself and Equazcion, and contrary to the policy explanations of User:Dreadstar and User:Littleolive oil. There was only one sentence which seemed to be objectionable to those removing text, although they agreed that the sentence was factually true. I rewrote the section yet again, [2] to take objections into consideration. It has been agreed between all parties participating on the DR/N, including User:RegentsPark who is an outside party helping us, that mediation is the necessary next step.
Background: It would help any mediator to read this article by economist Joseph Stiglitz, which gives a broad background and makes clear how overarchingly important per WEIGHT the section in question is. The Wikipedia section merely summarizes the themes in this article and gives them more specific statistics.
Would anyone mind if I join in here ? I do not know if it is procedurally correct to allow me to do so, but I'd like to participate, as it might mean that NPOV-type tag in the reactions section could be taken down finally. Can I go ahead and add myself into the discussion? Penyulap ☏ 01:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
A primary issue: the automatic classification by some of a dispute over sources and weight, as well as OR as manifestly POV. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 18:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.
Mediation of this dispute has been completed. The case pages should not be edited.
|
For an explanation of why the case was closed, refer to the talk page or contact the Mediation Committee
Formal mediation case | |
---|---|
Article | Occupy Wall Street ( talk) |
Opened | 03 May 2012 |
Mediator | Lord Roem ( talk) |
Status | Closed |
Notes | None |
All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page.
This issue concerns a few paragraphs of text (various headings) which describe the economic background, complaints, and surrounding economic issues related to OWS. Due to the fact that the other parties have not fully stated what they feel is wrong with the various versions, it is difficult to say what the dispute really is. That is part of what we need mediation for.
I recently rewrote the section to take into consideration the objections of Amadscientist and The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous. However, the new section was removed [1] over the objections of myself and Equazcion, and contrary to the policy explanations of User:Dreadstar and User:Littleolive oil. There was only one sentence which seemed to be objectionable to those removing text, although they agreed that the sentence was factually true. I rewrote the section yet again, [2] to take objections into consideration. It has been agreed between all parties participating on the DR/N, including User:RegentsPark who is an outside party helping us, that mediation is the necessary next step.
Background: It would help any mediator to read this article by economist Joseph Stiglitz, which gives a broad background and makes clear how overarchingly important per WEIGHT the section in question is. The Wikipedia section merely summarizes the themes in this article and gives them more specific statistics.
Would anyone mind if I join in here ? I do not know if it is procedurally correct to allow me to do so, but I'd like to participate, as it might mean that NPOV-type tag in the reactions section could be taken down finally. Can I go ahead and add myself into the discussion? Penyulap ☏ 01:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
A primary issue: the automatic classification by some of a dispute over sources and weight, as well as OR as manifestly POV. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 18:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.