Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-24 Cognitive dissonance

Mediation Case: 2006-05-24 Cognitive dissonance
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: Johanneum 20:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place? Cognitive dissonance (see talk page) about: free minds


 * Who's involved? Johanneum  (me) and Antaeus Feldspar




 * What's going on? We can not agree on wheter an external link is appropriate. Antaeus does not seem open to other possibilites.  Our conversations are going no where.  I do not want an edit war.  Sorry, should have been clear on link. You are right though.




 * ''What would you like to change about that? It seems the link should not be part of Cognitive dissonance.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?Username: Johanneum   Really no need to be discreet.


 * Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case? Sure but my time is limited.


 * 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.



Mediator response
Could you clarify what link is under discussion?

I'll tentatively guess it's the last one, When Prophecies Fail: A Sociological Perspective on Failed Expectation in the Watchtower Society by Randall Waters from the Bethel Ministries Newsletter May/June 1990 (now the Free Minds Journal). If this is the case, well, since NPOV is the issue. . . this part of the NPOV page relates, I think.

''But it's not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct.''

This might be a good way of sidestepping the controversy: it seems to me that this link isn't exactly about cognitive dissonance, but more about Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians, which is already linked to from the Cognitive Dissonance page. Moving it there would be my suggestion.

Also, if an external link can be found that presents opposing views on the issue, that might be a good replacement.

...or did I get the wrong link? ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WillBriggs (talk • contribs).

Requesting update

This case has not seen activity since late may. Is it still active? If not, I will close it due to inactivity. Thanks. Cowman109 Talk 17:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have closed this case due to inactivity. Should further troubles arise, I would recommend making a new case request. Thanks. Cowman109 Talk 06:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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.