Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-23 Opus Dei

Mediation Case: 2006-05-23 Opus Dei
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Alecmconroy 19:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Opus Dei


 * Who's involved?
 * Two different blocks of users. I'd pick myself and Thomas S. Major as representative of the different viewpoints.


 * What's going on?
 * There seems to be two competing assessment of the article in its current form. Many of the editors who have done the bulk of the work on the article feel the current article is neutral.  Several different people have posted the opinion that the current version of the article is biased in favor of Opus Dei.


 * Some of the specific criticism that have been levelled at the article include: That the tone may be overly theological rather than encyclopedic, that there may be a preponderance of praising quotes, that critics of Opus Dei may be under-represented and overly dismissed, and that many of the images may be overly-positive.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * So far, the differences are very friendly and more philosophical than concrete. I personally feel that the page is overhwelmingly non-neutral.  But many people, after a thorough reading of Wikipedia policy and style guides, feel that the current page complies with the relevant rules and recommendations.  If the page is non-neutral, I would like help communicating, to help the other group of editors understand the ways the article needs to be improved.  Alternatively, perhaps I'm misunderstanding the neutrality policy, and the page does, in fact, do a good job of accomplishing neutrality-- in which case, I'd like help understanding where my own thinking is askew.


 * Thus far, I haven't tried to make any majors changes to the article, because there isn't any kind of consensus about which way the article should go. The one specific change I am seeking is for the NPOV dispute tag to be added to the top of the page and left there until a major rewrite occurs or until many of the critics of the current article change their mind about a dispute existing.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * Public is fine.


 * Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?
 * This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do
 * what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.


 * Not at the moment, but some day perhaps.

Mediator response
I will take.

I am the mediator in this case.

Please post any further comments in discussion.

Geo.plrd 22:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

 Notice of Closure 

Whereas Alecmcconroy has requested that this case be closed; I therefore declare this case CLOSED.

Geo.plrd 22:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC), Mediator Cabalist of the Mediation Cabal

Evidence
Please report evidence in this section with for misconduct and  for 3RR violations. If you need help ask a mediator or an advocate. Evidence is of limited use in mediation as the mediator has no authority. Providing some evidence may, however, be useful in making both sides act more civil. Etiquette: Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less.

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.