Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:20, 30 June 2006 editWiarthurhu (talk \| contribs)3,092 edits oops← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:21, 30 June 2006 edit undoRenamed user FoctULjDYf (talk \| contribs)4,596 edits →New Requests Next edit →
Line 55:		Line 55:
	==New Requests==		==New Requests==
	<center><big>'''New requests immediately below this line.'''</big></center>		<center><big>'''New requests immediately below this line.'''</big></center>
			==F-14 Tomcat==

			===Involved parties===
			*{{user\|Mmx1}}
			*{{user\|Wiarthurhu}}

			'''Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:'''
			Provide diffs showing where {{tl\|RFMF}} was added to the talk page(s) of the involved article(s), and {{tl\|RFM-Request}} was placed on the talk pages of the other parties.

			:'''Article talk pages:'''
			:*]
			:*]
			:*]

			:'''User talk pages:'''
			:*]

			===Other steps in ] that have been attempted:===
			Having used article content RfC previously with little success in drawing in additional eyes, and given the very specific nature of the information in dispute, I posted informal RfC's on ] and ] in the hope of drawing interested and qualified editors. Indeed, this succeeded in drawing two editors to comment, resulting in a unofficial truce on the ] article and talk page (I agreed but Wiarthurhu has not expressed it verbally, but has also refrained from editing the page in question. However, given that the content in dispute has spread to other pages, I feel a mediation is appropriate at this time. Wiarthurhu has expressed openness to mediation, though has not specifically assented to the one I am posting now.

			===Issues to be mediated===
			*Is the following content, which in slightly modified form has been inserted in three articles and currently (at the moment of the unofficial truce) resides on two, supported by ]?
			<blockquote>
			Few will recall that it was McNamara who directed the Air Force to adopt the Navy's ] and ] fighters. But he is best remembered in aviation history as the father of the debacle that was the TFX / ] dual service fighter project. His experience in the corporate world led him to believe that adopting a single type for different missions and serivce would save money. He even insisted on the General Dynamics entry over the DOD's preference for Boeing because of commonality issues. The F-111 pioneered perhaps too many new technologies such as swinging wings and pylons, afterburning turbofans and even the only operational ejecting crew escape cabin. Popular media heralded the fighter than could fly slow and fast, fly farther with more payload, and shoot down planes from farther away from any other plane.

			A product of the age of missles, the one item missing from the laundry list that was the TFX specification was the decisive factor in all previous air battles, maneuverability. Starting in 1965, US pilots in supersonic jets in Vietnam were shot down by post-Korean vintage ]s in alarming numbers. Grumman dutifully reported that the F-111 would be "unable to cope" in a dogfight, and was much less maneuverable than the ] that was then tasked with downing MiGs. The Navy's ] would prove an utterly embarrasing and expensive failure, cancelled and replaced by the nimble ]. The Air Force F-111 suffered extensive problems and accidents before it was effective in the single role of medium bomber. A lasting legacy of the F-111's lesson in how not to build a fighter would be that the US would ultimately develop not one, but 4 more new highly successful air superiority fighters essentially similar to the F-4 in payload and speed. The shadow cast by the accountant's approach to fighter design was so thoroughly discredited that planners stripped multiple roles from both the ] and ] until the 1990s. The F-111 project is often remembered as one of the most spectacular failures in aviation history, at least in terms of its initial cost saving objectives. However, it is a somewhat fitting footnote that the Australian Air Force will proudly fly their F-111s long after the retirement of the naval TFX replacement, the ].
			</blockquote>
			*More specifically the content issues are:
			:*Should wikipedia state that the F-14 was designed with maneuverability as a primary consideration?
			:*Should wikipedia state that the TFX was cancelled primarily due to its lack of maneuverability?
			:*Does the quoted passage above accurately reflect which is cited.

			===Additional issues to be mediated===
			*What weight do we assign to sources not available to other editors for examination, and what weight should be given to them if they conflict with openly available sources?

			===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.'''''
			*Agree.
			'''Agree'''--] 00:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

			===Decision of the Mediation Committee===
			*'''Accept/Reject/Extend''': Reason for rejection (if rejected), additional required information (if extended.)
			::''For the Mediation Committee,'' (Mediation Committee members only.)
			----
			<center><big>Your case should look just like this when you have finished filing;</br>no commentary, no extra information, just what is required in this template.<br />'''If you choose to ignore these instructions, your case will likewise be ignored. ].'''</big></center>
			----
			</div>

	== Authorship of A Course in Miracles==		== Authorship of A Course in Miracles==

Revision as of 00:21, 30 June 2006

Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Rfm-header

Instructions

New requests should be listed at the top of the "New Requests" section, right below the template sample. All requests must use the template provided below.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Guide provides an explanation for how to file a request.
Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Sample shows the template with instructions.
Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Common Reasons for Rejection has a description of common reasons for rejecting requests.

All parties to the mediation must indicate agreement to mediate by signing the "Parties' agreement to mediate" section; any request that has not been signed by all parties within 7 days will be rejected. Please watch this page during the time the case is listed here; if additional information is required, you will be asked here, and expected to respond within the 7 day period.

Case name (Sample)

Do not edit this section! Copy the text of this section into another section and edit that.
Edits to this section will be reverted immediately.

Involved parties

Example (talk · contribs)
Example (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request: Provide diffs showing where {{RFMF}} was added to the talk page(s) of the involved article(s), and {{RFM-Request}} was placed on the talk pages of the other parties.

Article talk pages:

User talk pages:

User:Example

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

WP:RFC link
WP:AN/I discussion

Issues to be mediated

Issue 1
Issue 2

Additional issues to be mediated

Additional issue 1
Additional issue 2

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.

Agree.

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Accept/Reject/Extend: Reason for rejection (if rejected), additional required information (if extended.)

For the Mediation Committee, (Mediation Committee members only.)

Your case should look just like this when you have finished filing;
no commentary, no extra information, just what is required in this template.
If you choose to ignore these instructions, your case will likewise be ignored. Caveat lector.

New Requests

New requests immediately below this line.

F-14 Tomcat

Involved parties

Mmx1 (talk · contribs)
Wiarthurhu (talk · contribs)

Article talk pages:

User talk pages:

User:Wiarthurhu

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

Having used article content RfC previously with little success in drawing in additional eyes, and given the very specific nature of the information in dispute, I posted informal RfC's on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Aircraft and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history in the hope of drawing interested and qualified editors. Indeed, this succeeded in drawing two editors to comment, resulting in a unofficial truce on the F-14 Tomcat article and talk page (I agreed but Wiarthurhu has not expressed it verbally, but has also refrained from editing the page in question. However, given that the content in dispute has spread to other pages, I feel a mediation is appropriate at this time. Wiarthurhu has expressed openness to mediation, though has not specifically assented to the one I am posting now.

Issues to be mediated

Is the following content, which in slightly modified form has been inserted in three articles and currently (at the moment of the unofficial truce) resides on two, supported by WP:Reliable sources?

Few will recall that it was McNamara who directed the Air Force to adopt the Navy's F-4 Phantom and A-7 fighters. But he is best remembered in aviation history as the father of the debacle that was the TFX / F-111 dual service fighter project. His experience in the corporate world led him to believe that adopting a single type for different missions and serivce would save money. He even insisted on the General Dynamics entry over the DOD's preference for Boeing because of commonality issues. The F-111 pioneered perhaps too many new technologies such as swinging wings and pylons, afterburning turbofans and even the only operational ejecting crew escape cabin. Popular media heralded the fighter than could fly slow and fast, fly farther with more payload, and shoot down planes from farther away from any other plane.
A product of the age of missles, the one item missing from the laundry list that was the TFX specification was the decisive factor in all previous air battles, maneuverability. Starting in 1965, US pilots in supersonic jets in Vietnam were shot down by post-Korean vintage Mig-17s in alarming numbers. Grumman dutifully reported that the F-111 would be "unable to cope" in a dogfight, and was much less maneuverable than the F-4 that was then tasked with downing MiGs. The Navy's F-111B would prove an utterly embarrasing and expensive failure, cancelled and replaced by the nimble F-14 Tomcat. The Air Force F-111 suffered extensive problems and accidents before it was effective in the single role of medium bomber. A lasting legacy of the F-111's lesson in how not to build a fighter would be that the US would ultimately develop not one, but 4 more new highly successful air superiority fighters essentially similar to the F-4 in payload and speed. The shadow cast by the accountant's approach to fighter design was so thoroughly discredited that planners stripped multiple roles from both the F-15 Eagle and F-14 Tomcat until the 1990s. The F-111 project is often remembered as one of the most spectacular failures in aviation history, at least in terms of its initial cost saving objectives. However, it is a somewhat fitting footnote that the Australian Air Force will proudly fly their F-111s long after the retirement of the naval TFX replacement, the F-14.

More specifically the content issues are:

Should wikipedia state that the F-14 was designed with maneuverability as a primary consideration?
Should wikipedia state that the TFX was cancelled primarily due to its lack of maneuverability?
Does the quoted passage above accurately reflect the RAND Report which is cited.

Additional issues to be mediated

What weight do we assign to sources not available to other editors for examination, and what weight should be given to them if they conflict with openly available sources?

Parties' agreement to mediate

Agree.

Agree--Mmx1 00:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Accept/Reject/Extend: Reason for rejection (if rejected), additional required information (if extended.)

For the Mediation Committee, (Mediation Committee members only.)

Authorship of A Course in Miracles

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

Authorship of A Course in Miracles

User talk pages:

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

WP:RFC RFC posted June 26, 2006
Third Opinion given on June 26, 2006
Informal attempts to resolve the dispute, beginning on June 26, 2006 and ending June 30, 2006

Issues to be mediated

Note: These issues are suggestions of Kickaha Ota; the parties may wish to work with the mediator to reformulate these issues or add additional issues.

Issue 1: Do particular statements in the article violate WP:OR or Misplaced Pages:Verifiability?
- Issue 1.1: If the answer to Issue 1 is "yes", what particular statements violate these policies, and what changes can be made to correct some or all of these statements to the editors' satisfaction?
- Issue 1.2: If the answer to Issue 1 is "yes", then do these problem statements currently rise to a level that justifies placing a dispute warning tag such as{{OR}} on the article until the statements can be corrected, or would the use of {{citeneeded}} or other statement-specific warning tags be sufficient?
Issue 2: Do the parties need to pursue dispute resolution procedures, such as further mediation, to address their past grievances?
- Issue 2.1: If the answer to Issue 2 is "no", or if the parties cannot agree on how to resolve their past grievances at this time, then can the parties agree to disagree on their past grievances for now, set those grievances aside, and cooperate on the problem of improving this particular article?

Additional issues to be mediated

Parties' agreement to mediate

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Accept/Reject/Extend: Reason for rejection (if rejected), additional required information (if extended.)

For the Mediation Committee, (Mediation Committee members only.)

Beverly Hills High School

Involved parties Gunbolt (talk • contribs) Karmak (talk • contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request: Provide diffs showing where Template:RFMF was added to the talk page(s) of the involved article(s), and

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead.

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you,

was placed on the talk pages of the other parties.

Article talk pages: Beverly Hills High School User talk pages: User:Gunbolt Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted: WP:RFC link WP:AN/I discussion Issues to be mediated Beverly Hills High School article's use of a satirized article reference (Joel Stein) Issue 2 Additional issues to be mediated Additional issue 1 Additional issue 2 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. Agree. Gunbolt 20:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Decision of the Mediation Committee Accept/Reject/Extend: Reason for rejection (if rejected), additional required information (if extended.) For the Mediation Committee, (Mediation Committee members only.)

Shosei Koda

File:Yes This request does not use the required format. The filing party will be contacted and asked to properly complete this request. After an appropriate time, if this request does not use the proper format, it will be declined. For assistance in filing the request, please read the guide to formal mediation or contact the Committee. To re-file this request entirely, add {{csd-u1}} to the top of the page; and, when it is deleted, go here.

Message added by 11:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC), on behalf of the Mediation Committee.