Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland

[edit] Involved parties

• JF_Mephisto (talk • contribs)
• Setanta747 (talk • contribs)
• Hro%C3%B0ulf (talk • contribs)
• Djegan (talk • contribs)
• dave souza (talk • contribs)
• Pernambuco (talk • contribs)

[edit] Articles involved

• Northern Ireland

[edit] Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• Talk:Northern_Ireland Lengthy issues on discussion page
• Peer Review Request Request for peer review
• Suggestion of a vote was made, but was found unsuitable on this occasion
• Rewording of the other related articles (to "constituent part") for consistency - rejected.
• Suggestion of citation for the use of constituent country was made. When provided, the citations were not accepted.
• Footnote was added to explain how the phrase might possibly be regarded as contentious. This was reverted.
• Introduction rephrased using "part" in the first sentence, and subsequently including both Constituent country and Home Nations in the context of their use in Britain and controversy over various terms. No objections have been raised so far.

[edit] Issues to be mediated

• Whether the opening sentence of Northern Ireland should be brought into line with the United Kingdom, home nations, constituent country, England, Scotland and Wales articles by describing Northern Ireland as a constituent country of the United Kingdom.

[edit] Additional issues to be mediated

• An alternative wording, should editors decide after mediation not to use constituent country. Options so far proposed are
  • constituent entity
  • constituent part
  • part
  • constituent element

• Should editors decide after mediation to use constituent country, there is an issue as to whether or not the phrase is regarded as contentious to some. If it is verified that this term is contentious, then the option of a footnote explaining this should be explored.
• Whether this rephrasing of the introduction is broadly acceptable.

[edit] Parties' agreement to mediate

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.

• JF Mephisto 13:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Agree --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Agree --Mal 00:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Agree --dave souza, talk 17:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Agree-- Pernambuco 20:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Accept:

For the Mediation Committee, —Guanaco 03:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to take on this issue to demonstrate my ability to mediate. Please tell me whether you agree to having me mediating and whether you prefer private or public mediation by replying below. --Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 08:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Exir Kamalabadi - even though you are not on the mediation committee, I would be glad of your assistance. Private or public would be ok with me. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

o.k. with me, too. I prefer public. However, if someone else requests private then that is also o.k. with me (even if it is only one user). I will accept that. - Pernambuco 00:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No objections from me either, though I thought that the issue had been more or less solved. I haven't looked at the article for a while now though. I am currently on a WikiBreak, though I may be back soon. I would request that mediation be done privately for two reasons: Firstly, I am unfamiliar with the process. Secondly, I would like to protect the reputations, as editors, not only of myself, but of anyone else involved. I would also suggest that with private mediation, more candid communication may be possible. Once again though, I was under the impression that all parties were satisfied with the last change I had witnessed. --Mal 00:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer very much if you took on this, your first mediation, in conjunction with another more experienced member of the mediation committee. This is quite a complex issue that isn't just about mediation but also about whether the desire for consensus should trump the desire for factuality. I don't wish to sound ageist, but such a young person (13?) who doesn't appear to have any particular knowledge of Britain's politics or its constitution (I believe you're Chinese) would not be my ideal candidate to appreciate the details of the current dispute nor the historical, cultural and constitutional issues that lay behind it. I don't mean this as any sort of personal insult or condescension, and I'm sure you have a great degree of personal knowledge and competence. I'd simply prefer that you take on this mediation with somebody more experienced, and preferably with a personal knowledge of British politics. I'd be more than happy for you to work alongside them though, and public or private doesn't bother me. Thanks! JF Mephisto 00:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I will try my best to find a "mentor" to do this with me. I've already contacted one of them. I would like to ask what main issues has been solved before mediation, and what issues remains to be solved. Thanks. (BTW, I don't think my age is a problem. I probably have a greater interest in politics than a lot of adults) --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!^{Join Esperanza!} 05:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

PS. Mal, when will your wikivacation end? --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!^{Join Esperanza!} 05:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

PPS. When Mal ends its Wikibreak, and Dave accepts this case, and a mediator agrees to do this with me, I would like to send you a link by email, telling you where I'll mediate. It will be on a WikiPage for convenience, but nobody will know the link except you guys, so it statisfies Mal's request for mediation to be private.--¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!^{Join Esperanza!} 05:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to accept with yourself as the mediator, either public or private mediation will be fine by me. ... dave souza, talk 10:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Exir asked: "I would like to ask what main issues has been solved before mediation, and what issues remains to be solved."

We wrote in additional issues:

"Whether this rephrasing of the introduction is broadly acceptable."

In my view, that new wording solves our problem of writing a balanced and informative article. The intro has been tweaked since then but remains fairly stable. Those of us involved in the mediation have stopped arguing about it, and it has also been free from random vandalism.

What remains is to find out if JF_Mephisto, Pernambuco and Djegan are also satisfied with the current situation. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hroðulf's assessment. ...dave souza, talk 11:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer mediation if at least one other person wants it. If not, I am with the rest and will not want mediation. I think that the minority should have a chance to get their voice heard. If they insist on mediation then I support that mediation should continue. To "give them their day in court" if you know what I mean. If not, then they will have a bitter memory of Wikipedia after they leave in disgust. - Pernambuco 22:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

So, now, everyone has agreed to stop mediation, except for JF Mephisto, who still didn't reply. If he replies and says I agree to not continue mediation, then mediation ends. Otherwise, mediation will be continued on a secret Wikipage, with the adress sent by mail. --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!^{Join Esperanza!} 00:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)