Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-22/Golan Heights
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Golan Heights |
| Status | closed |
| Request date | 20:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Parties involved | Mainly: Supreme Deliciousness, Breein1007 |
| Mediator(s) | Ajbpearce (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC) |
| Comment | one of the main parties rejected mediation, mediation closed as unsuccessful |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
Discussion is here: [1]
The hills in this template are up for discussion: [2]
Who is involved?
Mainly:
But several others have responded at the RfC.
What is the dispute?
The dispute is about the names for the Golan hills, right now they have the hebrew names, I believe the standard, international and correct names are the Arabic ones.
What would you like to change about this?
Take a look at the last posts between me and Breein1007. [3] The conversation needs better structure and it feels like the other side are refusing to accept the sources they don't like.
How do you think we can help?
Someone is needed to take a close look at the evidence provided from both sides, and move the conversation forward to a final agreement.
Mediator notes
Mediation closed as unsuccessful, I make no comments about the merits of the case but in the light of this failure i would advise all parties to remember WP:WIN and WP:GETOVERIT and move on to focus their efforts elsewhere , I doubt that anything good can come from the continuation of dispute in this case. Ajbpearce (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Administrative notes
Discussion
In principle I would be interested in taking this case, but as I am unfamiliar with the issue I would first appreciate clarification as to the precise nature of the dispute. As I understand it the names for mountains in the Golan Heights currently are named according to the english translations of the Hebrew names, and there is a dispute over whether it would be preferable to name them by default by the english translation of their arabic names. Is that a correct summary of the dispute as you understand it?Ajbpearce (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, the names right now are the hebrew ones.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- ok to help me could you show me with this example - if the arabic names were used what would say Mount Hermonit be renamed? Would (Arabic: تل الشيخ, "Tell al-Sheikh; Hebrew: הר חרמונית, Har Hermonit) still come after the bold'ed name and the dispute relate only to the canonical name of the articles? Ajbpearce (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you take a look at the conclusions of the facts you can see that the sources specifically do not support (mention) a name change for Mount Hermonit. All other names for the hills support the Arabic, and that is those hills I support the name change for.
- So lets take for example: Mount Paras, would be either Mount Faras or Tall al Faras, but since the English sources use the complete arabic name without "Mount", that is perhaps the most preferably. And after the name the arabic script would come after and the hebrew translation and hebrew script.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- That Is not a constructive comment Ani medjool, I had not notified you of this mediation as your usererpage said that you were going on a wikibreak, if you wish to participate I would allow you do do so but only if you can temper your emotions more effectivley and work towards achieving a consensus based on what would be best for wikipedia Ajbpearce (talk)