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

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Eulsa Treaty
Status	Closed
Request date	20:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Requesting party	Tenmei (talk)
Comment	Parties all vacated the page.

Request details

Where is the dispute?

Eulsa Treaty; Talk:Eulsa Treaty#Requested move

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?

Parsing argument content — 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#Move? (October 2010), listing at the start for clarity all the alternative names that I could find. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)