Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-15 Dignity


 * Note: Please limit posts to this page to brief statements about the nature of the dispute until a volunteer adopts the case. Keep ongoing discussions about the topic to the appropriate talk page(s), but feel free to provide links to the talk page(s) where discussion has happened (and may be ongoing) for the convenience of the informal mediator and other parties. This will help keep discussion from fragmenting out across more pages and make it easier for a volunteer to review the case. Thanks!

Who are the involved parties?
//

What's going on?
Pyrrhon8 has created an article that is structured in the form of an academic essay with a strong bias towards a narrow opinion on the subject of 'dignity.' This seems inappropriate for the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. Cicero79 or 86.27.162.154 (myself) have created a section outlining the use of the term dignity within the history of philosophy, as well as a broad definition. I have also have attempted to remove the personal opinions in the article. Both of these edits have been repeatedly reverted and removed by Pyrrhon8. Pyrrhon8 has also renamed the section 'Dignity and Philosophy' as 'Dignity and Dogma'.

What would you like to change about that?
The article should be written appropriately to balance the use of the term 'dignity' in law and diplomacy, e.g., human rights documents and in the history of philosophy, especially Kantian thought, which provides essential background to the reasoning for this usage. There should also be a section at the top with a definition. (This has been repeatedly removed, as Pyrrhon 8 argues in the entry that dignity cannot be defined).

Mediator notes
Hi. I have opened this case. I have also slightly edited the "What's going on" and "What would you like to change about that" sections to be neutral and facts-based. — [ roux  ] [ x ] 13:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

A few ground rules:
 * I will create sections for each party to comment in. Please address all your comments to me, and not to the other participants.
 * Please keep your statements at 200 words or less, unless asked otherwise.
 * Please keep all comments on facts, and not on the past, present, or future behaviour of any other users
 * All participants are asked to refrain from any editing of the disputed article, the disputed article's talk page, or each other's talk pages until the case is concluded. Any vandalism to the article will be caught by vandalism patrollers, so don't worry about that either.
 * MedCab is not a formal part of the dispute resolution process, and cannot provide binding sanctions. Nevertheless, I ask that everyone involved agree to:
 * Abide by the outcome of this case
 * Immediately move to the next phase of dispute resolution if you are unable to agree with the final outcome

Please sign just your username below, with four tildes ( ~ ) to indicate your agreement with the ground rules and your participation in the case.

Pyrrhon8: Thank you for your message. I have decided to open a request for comment. Pyrrhon8 (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Cicero79: Cicero79 (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Cicero79