Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jews for Jesus 2

This Request for Mediation has been closed. This case was closed at 17:29 26th of February 2007 The reason given for closure was: The dispute has been resolved. Parties: If you wish to resume this mediation, please file a new request.

[edit] Jews for Jesus 2

[edit] Involved parties

• Seraphimblade (talk · contribs)
• Jayjg (talk · contribs)
• Homestarmy (talk · contribs)
• Ramsquire (talk · contribs)
• Humus Sapiens (talk · contribs)
• Mackan79 (talk · contribs)
• MPerel (talk · contribs)

[edit] Articles involved

• Jews for Jesus (Talk)

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

• Extensive discussion on article talk.
• WP:RFC diff

[edit] Issues to be mediated

• 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?

[edit] Further Reading

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

• WP:WEASEL (Weasel Words).
• WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View).
• WP:CITE (Cite Your Sources).

[edit] Additional issues to be mediated

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

[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.

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

[edit] Parties' re-agreement to mediate

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

[edit] Decision of the Mediation Committee

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

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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 ^{[T • C]} 20:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This cases has been approved by User:Danielrocks123 (a current Mediation Committee member) to be mediated by a trial committee member. (source). Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 03:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'll take it. This has been on the books for a while. -Ste|vertigo 22:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Double-mediator case: User:Anthony cfc and User:Stevertigo as of 13/1/07.
  • I do not accept Stevertigo as a mediator, only User:Anthony cfc. Stevertigo has been involved in many disputes with me, and it was entirely inappropriate that he volunteer for this in the first place. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 ^{[T • C]} 00:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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 ^{[T • C]} 22:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)