Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-04/Eulsa Treaty

Where is the dispute?
Eulsa Treaty; Talk:Eulsa Treaty

Who is involved?

 * User:Elmor
 * User:Phoenix7777
 * User:Caspian blue
 * User:Nihonjoe
 * User:Tenmei
 * User:Winstonlighter
 * User:Ryuch
 * User:Aocduio
 * User:Historiographer
 * User:Valentim
 * User:Anthony Appleyard

What is the dispute?

 * 1) A move of Eulsa Treaty to Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty or 1905 Protectorate Treaty was proposed and posted at WP:Requested moves on August 8.
 * 2) There was opposition, but without explanation other than some treaties have Japanese names, i.e. Treaty of Shimonoseki.
 * 3) The move was re-listed on August 31 with the word "protective" deleted from the proposed article title (Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905).
 * 4) Those opposing the move added nothing further despite repeated invitations and opportunity to do so.
 * 5) A neutral administrator closed the thread for lack of consensus.

What would you like to change about this?
[[Image:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg|thumb|right|180px|Parsing argument content &mdash; acknowledging categories of constructive comments:
 * Refuting the Central Point * Refutation * Counterargument ____________ Identifying remarks which are unhelpful: * Contradiction * Responding to Tone * Ad Hominem  ]]
 * On one hand, we do not know what to do.
 * Elmor, Phoenix7777, Nihonjoe, Tenmei, Winstonlighter and Valentim affirm by their comments that consensus is achievable.
 * Caspian blue, Ryuch, Aocduio and Historiographer oppose without expressing a view about consensus.


 * On the other hand, in terms of the graphic pyramid at the right, Tenmei construes mere contradiction as uninformative; and in the absence of refutation or counterargument, mere opposition without any supporting rationale is null.
 * Phoenix7777 construes objection without explanation as effectively void or voided.
 * Anthony Appleyard construes opposition as proof of the absence of consensus.

How do you think we can help?
The goal of mediation is two-fold: (a) to select a neutral name for this article; and (b) to establish a collaborative process for selecting neutral names for other articles which have not been identified.

Mediator notes
I will mediate this if acceptable to the parties. Hipocrite (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I will close this as stale in two days if none of the parties respond. Hipocrite (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have closed this as stale. Contact me if you would like it reopened. Hipocrite (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I have restarted the discussion, at Talk:Eulsa Treaty, listing at the start for clarity all the alternative names that I could find. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)