Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jews for Jesus 2

Jews for Jesus 2
 view edit delete watch Filed: 02:47, January 4 2007 (UTC)

Articles involved

 * Jews for Jesus (Talk)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

 * Extensive discussion on article talk.
 * WP:RFC diff

Issues to be mediated

 * Are qualifiers such as "many" and "most" appropriate to use when a number of examples are sourced, or do they constitute an unacceptable use of weasel words?
 * Is the making of blanket statements such as "Jewish organizations oppose..." appropriate when only the positions of some such organizations are sourced, should each individual organization be named, or should a qualifier such as "several", "many", or "most" be used?
 * Is it appropriate to make statements which present the majority side of a debate as correct when the opposing side is clearly a very small minority, on a page devoted to the minority group?

Additional issues to be mediated

 * Is the inclusion of the Christianity banner appropriate in the article on Jews for Jesus?

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.


 * 1) Agree. Seraphimblade 02:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. Mackan79 03:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree. Homestarmy 13:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Agree.Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Agree. -- M P er el ( talk 22:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Agree. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Parties' re-agreement to mediate

 * 1) Agree. Homestarmy 03:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. Seraphimblade 03:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree. -- M P er el ( talk 03:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree. Mackan79 13:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Agree. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Agree. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Agree. Jayjg (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee
Accepted, hoping that mediation will not stall out this time.
 * For the Mediation Committee, ^ demon [omg plz] 16:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Pending my current Mediation Committee nomination, I am willing to mediate this case on behalf of the Med Com. My style of mediation will be identical to that I operate on my Med Cabal (and AMA) cases. Awaiting the decision of a member of the committee, Anthony  cfc  [ T &bull; C] 20:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This cases has been approved by User:Danielrocks123 (a current Mediation Committee member) to be mediated by a trial committee member. (source). Anthony  cfc  [ T &bull; C] 03:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll take it. This has been on the books for a while. -Ste|vertigo 22:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * '''Double-mediator case: User:Anthony cfc and User:Stevertigo as of 13/1/07.
 * I do not accept Stevertigo as a mediator, only User:Anthony cfc. Stevertigo has been involved in many disputes with me, and it was entirely inappropriate that he volunteer for this in the first place. Jayjg (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am only in the back seat on this one, and will read things over occasionally as things progress. This is Anthony's case. I have been involved in several disputes with you Jayjg because you sometimes write in a way which is not clearly neutral. May I ask why you think my volunteering was inappropriate? -Ste|vertigo 05:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please let us not argue; Stevertigo has stated he is taking a backseat. I trust you are happy with this Jayjg? Hoping for peace, Anthony cfc  [ T &bull; C] 00:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine. Jayjg (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your co-operation; it is much appreciated, and is by far the most efficient format of achieving a successful mediation to the dispute we are focusing on - rather than having to solve additional disputes. Once again, thank you for your co-operation - I respect and thank you for it. Regards, Anthony cfc  [ T &bull; C] 22:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)