Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-22 Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea Naming Dispute

Mediation Case: 2006-09-22 Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea Naming Dispute
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: Wikimachine 03:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Talk:Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea.


 * Who's involved?
 * Heavily Involved: Komdori, LactoseTI, Good friend100, Endroit, Visviva, Ginnre, KiteString, and Wikimachine
 * Lightly Involved: Shogo Kawada, Kusunose, 日本穣, Cla68, and Wandalstouring.


 * What's going on?
 * The article used to be called Seven Year War, as many commercial titles have been. Then, there was a move to change it to Imjin War on the basis that Imjin War is more common (based off of Google search), albeit in Korean, and that Seven Year War gets confused with Seven Years War or the French-Indian War. Then, some users began to push for the use of Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea, on the basis that nobody knows what Imjin War is, and Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea is more common (based off of Google search). At first, it was pushed off, but that was due to the Appleby, who had used sock puppets in order to gain advantage in voting and reaching majority consensus. The Hideyoshi's... advocates announced the sock puppetry made by Appleby, and immediately changed the name to Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea. Then there came the backfire by other editors who didn't like the title for obvious reasons. All of this happened while I was inactive for personal reasons. And then I returned, and found out about this, and have been trying to push back to Imjin War since.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I personally think that I am winning on many of the arguments (and key arguments especially). But the problem is that the other side is pretty smart (being homo sapiens), and can deflect offensives, manipulate arguments, avoid arguments that they are losing on, etc. In process, many of the arguments are lost. I am tired of copy and pasting those same arguments again just because they are not properly answered, or simply avoided. The other side feels the same, that I am not answering enough of their arguments. I wish that somebody would systematically make a tree-branch chart of arguments that have been made, answered, and replied. And then, from a calculative, policy debate, NPOV, see which side wins.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * I think that this should be open to everyone who has been taking part in the discussion. My e-mail address is rei0zero@gmail.com & my AIM is Wikimachine.

Mediator response

 * Greetings. There seem to be two cases for this issue right now, the other one being here. Which one shall we mediate under? Please discuss under this comment on this page, so that things don't get spread around further! Thanks for your understanding. &mdash;Xyrael / 20:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, thank you for your time on this case. I made a new case before this one, but this one seems to be a lot more informative than mine, so I think you should use it. But I have some items you might want to read as well, sorry about the confusion. Good friend100 20:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that it would probably be best if you tried to incorporate your information into the other mediation page. Does this suit you? Thank you for your prompt reply. &mdash;Xyrael / 16:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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



Discussion



 * Wow -- if I'm "heavily involved," the "lightly involved" people must be *really* lightly involved. :-) Let me say a few things regarding this case. First, when sockpuppets were discounted, there did appear to be a clear consensus which had emerged over time.  I came late to the discussion and didn't stay long, so perhaps I missed something.
 * Also, I don't perceive that there was any rush to judgment, merely a desire to not let this chaotic and overwrought discussion continue forever. I wholeheartedly support that desire.  Our tendency to get bogged down in ridiculously trivial issues like this is *extremely* tiresome.  Whatever an article's name is -- and I don't generally care as long as it is sufficiently well-chosen and well-supported to be free from further changes in the future -- we need to choose it and get on with improving the actual article.  In my perception, that choice was made and made well, and it is unfortunate that some editors have insisted on continuing to waste our collective time with this non-issue.
 * It is unfortunate that these two editors have felt excluded from the process, but they should bear in mind that dialogue is not a matter of "winning" or "losing," and that the Perfect Title is a mirage. We don't need to find the best title; we just need a title that's good enough that it will not interfere in the process of content building.  In my view, such a title is what we already have.  The end. :-) -- Visviva 04:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)