Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Juan Cole

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Resolved:

A party withdrew from the process.

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

Juan Cole

[edit]

Involved parties

[edit]

Articles involved

[edit]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

[edit]
  • WP:AN/I Armon filed an AN/I against csloat; it was determined to be without merit, but the admin recommended mediation
  • csloat contacted the admin about further deterioration of the dialogue that he perceived as resulting from disruption by Armon

Issues to be mediated

[edit]
  • Background - This is a BLP of a well-known academic who also maintains a weblog about current affairs; the controversies stem from issues raised on his weblog.
  • Issue 1 - should there be four long paragraphs of discussion about an appointment to Yale that Cole never received? (Armon says there should be; csloat believes 2 sentences is more than enough)
  • Issue 2 - should the article include an attack by another academic (Efraim Karsh) on Cole's expertise along with Cole's response? (Armon says yes, csloat says the attack is not notable).
  • Issue 3 - should the article include an attack on Cole's alleged "new antisemitism" sourced to questionable periodicals (Frontpage Magazine and Middle East Quarterly)? (Armon says yes; csloat says no).

Additional issues to be mediated

[edit]
  • How much "criticism/controversy" is appropriate for a WP:BLP about an academic such as Cole?
  • What is an appropriate standard for notability of such controversies? (an admin who has occasionally entered the discussion on talk has proposed that such "controversies" should be commented on by a neutral third party in a WP:RS; according to such a standard, the "Yale" controversy would be somewhat notable, whereas the "new antisemitism" controversy would not.)

Parties' agreement to mediate

[edit]
All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.

Decision of the Mediation Committee

[edit]

Accepted.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 02:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should the involved parties agree, I will be happy to take this case. To make it clear, I am not a member of the mediation committee, but am hoping to take this case to gain valuable experience and a deeper understanding of mediation through MedCom as part of an application to become a mediator. Could the involved parties please sign below indicating their agreement (or lack of) and their preference towards public or private communication. Thanks Martinp23 18:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It can do, but should you wish, we can mediate through email (see here for some reasons that this may be preferred). Martinp23 16:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry didn't state public or private preference: Public <<-armon->> 01:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou - we'll be conducting public mediation on the talk of this mediation page (at least to start with). I'll post some instructions there Martinp23 22:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.