Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jews for Jesus 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Resolved:

The dispute has been resolved.

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

Jews for Jesus 2

[edit]

Involved parties

[edit]

Articles involved

[edit]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

[edit]

Issues to be mediated

[edit]
  • Are qualifiers such as "many" and "most" appropriate to use when a number of examples are sourced, or do they constitute an unacceptable use of weasel words?
  • Is the making of blanket statements such as "Jewish organizations oppose..." appropriate when only the positions of some such organizations are sourced, should each individual organization be named, or should a qualifier such as "several", "many", or "most" be used?
  • Is it appropriate to make statements which present the majority side of a debate as correct when the opposing side is clearly a very small minority, on a page devoted to the minority group?

Further Reading

[edit]

Below is a list of relevant policies and/or guidelines relevant to the dispute being mediated:

Additional issues to be mediated

[edit]
  • Is the inclusion of the Christianity banner appropriate in the article on Jews for Jesus?

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.
  1. Agree. Seraphimblade 02:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree. Mackan79 03:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree. Homestarmy 13:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree.Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agree. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Agree. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parties' re-agreement to mediate

[edit]
  1. Agree. Homestarmy 03:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree. Seraphimblade 03:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 03:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree. Mackan79 13:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agree. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Agree. Jayjg (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

[edit]

Accepted, hoping that mediation will not stall out this time.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] 16:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pending my current Mediation Committee nomination, I am willing to mediate this case on behalf of the Med Com. My style of mediation will be identical to that I operate on my Med Cabal (and AMA) cases. Awaiting the decision of a member of the committee, Anthonycfc [TC] 20:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This cases has been approved by User:Danielrocks123 (a current Mediation Committee member) to be mediated by a trial committee member. (source). Anthonycfc [TC] 03:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I am only in the back seat on this one, and will read things over occasionally as things progress. This is Anthony's case. I have been involved in several disputes with you Jayjg because you sometimes write in a way which is not clearly neutral. May I ask why you think my volunteering was inappropriate? -Ste|vertigo 05:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please let us not argue; Stevertigo has stated he is taking a backseat. I trust you are happy with this Jayjg? Hoping for peace, Anthonycfc [TC] 00:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Jayjg (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your co-operation; it is much appreciated, and is by far the most efficient format of achieving a successful mediation to the dispute we are focusing on - rather than having to solve additional disputes. Once again, thank you for your co-operation - I respect and thank you for it. Regards, Anthonycfc [TC] 22:01, 25 January 2007 (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.