User talk:CQJ/Russell Tribunal

Discussion of the Issues
The Russell Tribunal dispute mainly dealt with proper placement of content. Nobs filed an advocacy request on the AMA Request page, and I picked up the case and started working with it. He and I had several conversations back and forth via e-mail, and I jumped in and started to read the actual article, diffs, and talk space and made an attempt to explain the different views at hand. The main issue of contention was whether or not Nobs' content, relating to Gulag Archipelago author Solzhenitzyn's comments to Bertrand Russell, was appropriately placed within the article. I ended up almost getting into it with the other disputant, -Rob, but brought it all home on good terms. Nobs and I figured that an RfC would be the best route to go:

''The primary question at hand is upon request of nobs, who wishes to accomplish the following: Nobs believes that the entire Tribunal page needs to be reviewed, including external links. Nobs' primary intent is to make all contemporaneous information for the Russell Tribunal to be made available to the reader to that they may draw their own conclusions. Thus, a request for other users to read and comment on the discussion and the article is being requested.''

Resolution
The RfC did not produce the fruit that we felt it might. Both users backed out of editing the article, sadly enough, and it remains in its revised and final form to this day The case was resolved at 2325 EST 15 May 2005. No further action is anticipated at this time and the case is being moved out of the active AMA docket.