| Revision as of 23:54, 20 June 2005 editEd Poor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers59,216 edits participants (heading← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:23, 21 June 2005 edit undoDuckecho (talk | contribs)659 edits →DiscussionNext edit → | ||
| Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
| :::I'm retired and have no life, consequently I'm here every day. And, I have to keep the camel's nose out from under the tent. It has been my observation that although traffic is definitely higher during the week, rarely do three days go by that all of the major players haven't weighed in at one point or another. Three to four sounds about right. No more than four, though—that seems an eternity here. ] 23:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) | :::I'm retired and have no life, consequently I'm here every day. And, I have to keep the camel's nose out from under the tent. It has been my observation that although traffic is definitely higher during the week, rarely do three days go by that all of the major players haven't weighed in at one point or another. Three to four sounds about right. No more than four, though—that seems an eternity here. ] 23:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) | ||
| == Ready for some discussion under Significance of court findings? I'll start == | |||
| I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here, and I may be partly to blame. I discussed it in response to you, Ed, on the talk page several days ago. The essence of it is this: disputes on fact are taken to our courts every day (and I'm speaking solely of the American court system here). Trials are held, evidence is admitted, testimony is taken, cross examination is conducted, witness affect is observed, all in an effort to divine the best truth. When the judge (or jury) has heard, seen, read, all of the evidence and testimony, they render a decision and issue a ruling. Where before there were the '''opinions''' of the parties, now a court has made a finding of '''fact'''. | |||
| For our purposes this fact has at least two significant properties: | |||
| :*it will naturally approximate the POV of one of the parties; and... | |||
| :*because it is fact (not opinion; since, as a judgement, it is incontrovertible outside of the legal process) it has a neutral quality which will be nearly congruent with the prevailing party's POV. | |||
| Despite that congruency, it is not, however, inherently POV itself—it is a neutral fact. | |||
| Generally that entire process takes place only in the court of first instance. Should the party who does not prevail wishes, they may appeal the decision. Subsequent courts up the chain of appeal, and occasionally on crossover to the Federal system, are called upon to review the judgement. At the very least they will review the legal decisions (sustained or overruled objections, reconciliation of the decision with the facts, legality of jury instructions, if any, and any other potentially reversible errors brought to its attention). On occasion, the appeal court may look closer, examining the evidence, reviewing the testimony, etc. (in fact, the Florida 2nd District Court of Appeals did just that after the 2002 trial). They don't get the witness affect (in his decision in the Terri's wishes' trial, specifically Greer made note of body language, pregnant pauses, etc.—that is affect), but they get most everything else. | |||
| As I understand it, they have four options, affirm, overturn, refuse to consider (which has the effect of affirm—that is, the previous court's decision—if the first appeals court overturned, and the higher court refused to hear, the decision of the court of first instance remains overturned), or remand (sometimes with instructions). It is this process that tends to smooth any errors that may have crept into the process of litigation—sort of the internal checks and balances, as it were. And it's the reason why ''courts '''''can't''''' rule any way they like''. They are compelled to consider the evidence and follow the law, and it's assumed by all parties that they do. That doesn't mean they don't make mistakes or make bad decisions. What we can depend on is that all things considered, the process is quite dependable, and in fact, it's the only process we have. | |||
| In any event, at the end of the process (when all appeals have been heard, all decisions have been made), we are left with either affirmation of the original judgement, or an alternative judgement. Either of these have the same properties as the original judgement: it is fact, and it is likely congruent with one of the parties' POV. It still, however, as fact, is inherently NPOV itself. | |||
| Thus, with all of that, my argument is that citing court findings is not POV pushing. It must be inherently NPOV, particularly if the entire appeal process has played out. | |||
| If in fact, wikipedia has stated the court's ruling as its neutral position, then of course the overturning of the court's ruling must cause wikipedia to adjust its position to be in concert with the law of the land. A great many segments of society have to do the same occasionally. One other thing to consider: there is a '''huge''' segment of the population who does not understand the process. We cannot allow that ignorance to compromise our consideration of the inherent neutrality of court findings of fact. ] 01:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:23, 21 June 2005
Ground Rules
- Mediator: Ed Poor
- Only those parties who have agreed to Mediation may post here.
- I will refactor this page, so that the top unresolved issues are always at the head of the page.
- As much as possible, please add all comments to the bottom. Try to avoid "threaded" discussions.
- "Seek first to understand, then to be understood"
Participants
Those that have voted for mediation
Others who seem to favor mediation
Mediator's Summary Section
Significance of court findings
The two main positions seem to be:
- Whatever the courts rule is true so Misplaced Pages articles should go along with that
- Unstated corollary: if a court ruling is overturned, Misplaced Pages's "view of the truth" should make the same flip-flop
- Courts can rule any way they like, but it's just another point of view
- See Misplaced Pages:POV - as recently updated by yours truly. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:22, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Concern that contributor voices might be stifled
- On-going, day-to-day changes to the article will keep happening and can't be stopped unless the page is locked.
- Having a separate room could hurt more than it helps
Personal imperfection of the Mediator
- I may not be the best qualified person for this job, but I've done rather well in the past. Shall we give a go?
Length of time for issues to remain open
- Some want half week to a week.
- Is this long enough?
Discussion
"I've been asked by ghost to step in as Mediator. How do you feel about that? And where (if anywhere) shall we discuss all this?"
- Hi. I feel fine about it.Probably on Talk:Terri Schiavo but I'm not attached. FuelWagon 23:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Now on my watchlistFuelWagon 20:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Ed. I asked you because: a)Yours was the only name I recognized on the list of Mediators at the time (Mgm hadn't made the list yet). b) I'd seen you be involved in controversial subjects before that seemed to have reached resolution. I have two concerns we should vent now. First, you were sucked into a controversial subject (Gitmo) on which your neutrality was questioned. Second, there have been heavy edits to the NPOV page recently, of which you've been a part. I mention this now only because I want to give you the oppurtunity to address them now, rather than have them jack-in-the-box later.
- We need help with developing a standard for the Terri Schiavo page, and that's been seen as a moving target. Please help us pin it down. I'm concerned that discussing a standard here stifles the voice of the larger editing base. But that may also give us room to reach agreement. If I have to choose, I'd go with Talk:Terri Schiavo. Misplaced Pages is, and should be open.--ghost 12:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That's what I'm here for. And by the way, does everyone agree to the ground rules? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:53, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
- No problems with the ground rules here. Anyone else?--ghost 21:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'm okay with the ground rules, but here's a thought that I'd like you to consider, Ed: although wikipedia is open to anyone to edit, I would like you to agree to recuse yourself from editing the article until your appointment is completed for the following reasons:
- It removes completely any appearance of impropriety when you are in the position of making decisions (as a mediator must do) that must arise if at the same time you remain active in the editing process which is in fact being mediated. This is not an accusation of any sort, but just an appeal to a common sense position of neutrality.
- I don't mean to criticize, but the article has enjoyed some first rate contributions, not only in content, but in form and style. The one edit you made didn't, in my opinion, rise to that standard, which I suspect was less editing prowess than it was new territory insofar as your exposure to the particular project. After some time spent around the group (and also in light of request #1) I would welcome your contribution.
- Because of the complexity, sensitivity, and volatility of the subject, we simply need fewer chefs just now, not more.
- Duckecho 21:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, and this edit from 3 days ago will be my last edit. Good suggestion, thanks! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:58, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Would it help if the same applied to those in this Mediation? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
- I think this is the place to have this discussion. Having voted on mediation signifies a committment to the quality of the product, and if one can't even sign on with an opinion on mediation, how can we take seriously their contribution to the mediation much less the article? Moreover, the signal-to-noise ratio on the Talk page is far too low to try and keep up with this segment of the discussion while trying to separate the wheat from the chaff there.
- Duckecho 21:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- One addendum. I've noticed some of our users are more or less active during the week/weekend. Therefore, how long should we leave subjects open? I week is too long; 3-4 days?--ghost 22:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- How long have subjects been in need of mediation? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:09, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm retired and have no life, consequently I'm here every day. And, I have to keep the camel's nose out from under the tent. It has been my observation that although traffic is definitely higher during the week, rarely do three days go by that all of the major players haven't weighed in at one point or another. Three to four sounds about right. No more than four, though—that seems an eternity here. Duckecho 23:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ready for some discussion under Significance of court findings? I'll start
I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here, and I may be partly to blame. I discussed it in response to you, Ed, on the talk page several days ago. The essence of it is this: disputes on fact are taken to our courts every day (and I'm speaking solely of the American court system here). Trials are held, evidence is admitted, testimony is taken, cross examination is conducted, witness affect is observed, all in an effort to divine the best truth. When the judge (or jury) has heard, seen, read, all of the evidence and testimony, they render a decision and issue a ruling. Where before there were the opinions of the parties, now a court has made a finding of fact.
For our purposes this fact has at least two significant properties:
- it will naturally approximate the POV of one of the parties; and...
- because it is fact (not opinion; since, as a judgement, it is incontrovertible outside of the legal process) it has a neutral quality which will be nearly congruent with the prevailing party's POV.
Despite that congruency, it is not, however, inherently POV itself—it is a neutral fact.
Generally that entire process takes place only in the court of first instance. Should the party who does not prevail wishes, they may appeal the decision. Subsequent courts up the chain of appeal, and occasionally on crossover to the Federal system, are called upon to review the judgement. At the very least they will review the legal decisions (sustained or overruled objections, reconciliation of the decision with the facts, legality of jury instructions, if any, and any other potentially reversible errors brought to its attention). On occasion, the appeal court may look closer, examining the evidence, reviewing the testimony, etc. (in fact, the Florida 2nd District Court of Appeals did just that after the 2002 trial). They don't get the witness affect (in his decision in the Terri's wishes' trial, specifically Greer made note of body language, pregnant pauses, etc.—that is affect), but they get most everything else.
As I understand it, they have four options, affirm, overturn, refuse to consider (which has the effect of affirm—that is, the previous court's decision—if the first appeals court overturned, and the higher court refused to hear, the decision of the court of first instance remains overturned), or remand (sometimes with instructions). It is this process that tends to smooth any errors that may have crept into the process of litigation—sort of the internal checks and balances, as it were. And it's the reason why courts can't rule any way they like. They are compelled to consider the evidence and follow the law, and it's assumed by all parties that they do. That doesn't mean they don't make mistakes or make bad decisions. What we can depend on is that all things considered, the process is quite dependable, and in fact, it's the only process we have.
In any event, at the end of the process (when all appeals have been heard, all decisions have been made), we are left with either affirmation of the original judgement, or an alternative judgement. Either of these have the same properties as the original judgement: it is fact, and it is likely congruent with one of the parties' POV. It still, however, as fact, is inherently NPOV itself.
Thus, with all of that, my argument is that citing court findings is not POV pushing. It must be inherently NPOV, particularly if the entire appeal process has played out.
If in fact, wikipedia has stated the court's ruling as its neutral position, then of course the overturning of the court's ruling must cause wikipedia to adjust its position to be in concert with the law of the land. A great many segments of society have to do the same occasionally. One other thing to consider: there is a huge segment of the population who does not understand the process. We cannot allow that ignorance to compromise our consideration of the inherent neutrality of court findings of fact. Duckecho 01:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)