Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/French Turn

French Turn

This mediation is now closed.-Thesocialistesq 07:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

Talk:French Turn [1]

User talk pages:

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

Nothing formal outside of article's talk page.

Issues to be mediated

Issue 1: Whether or not the information added in this diff is factual and/or POV and/or relevant.

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.

Agree. metzerly 00:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree--Jacrosse 01:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --Duncan 15:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Accept: Mediator TBA. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 04:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 04:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept my assignment to this case. I will apoligize in advance for any errors i make--- this is my first experience as a mediator... Cheers,Thesocialistesq 05:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary Business

I suppose the first order of business is to decide where the mediation will take place: on this page, or via email or somesuch... Any thoughts? Thesocialistesq 05:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking on this task, Thesocialistesq. I think it would be best to have the mediation on this page. Also, we all have a similar debate concerning the article Max Shachtman. Would you like to combine the two? --metzerly 03:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem prudent to. Same parties, same essential dispute... unless there's an objection, i'll consider them combined. Now, if the other two parties will agree to hold the discussion on this page, we can begin. Thesocialistesq 05:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea to combine them. Some of the issues could also relate to neo-conservatism. If we feel like we are taking on too much then we could break the mediation down into bits and work through them one bit at a time. This page is a good location to start. I am happy to continue by email. I have some travel coming up, but will be online almost every day. --Duncan 13:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting on Jacrosse now...Thesocialistesq 03:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. After we start I might also suggest that we take a look at Entrism, of which the French Turn is a form. We briefly got agreement on limiting French Turn to a historical discussion of what happened in the French SFIO, with everything else on Entrism. Sadly, we couldn't get that to hold. Personally, I would be happy to merge the two. It might also be useful for us to write up notes on some of the books that are mentioned in the entries, or even to start footnoting where we can. --Duncan 11:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacrosse has yet to respond on this page, but he has been stubbornly removing disputed tags from the two pages being mediated. He has been asked repeatedly to stop. Is there anything that can be done? --metzerly 06:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask him again. If he's not going to sit down, we can't get much of anywhere with mediation, and i, as mediator, am powerless to do anything but contact an admin, and ask him to bring Jacrosse in line. As i understand it, there is at least one case before the arbitration committee concerning Jacrosse that may result in some punitive action. If all else fails, we can ask them to stop him... Thesocialistesq 07:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A similar section on neoconservatism was added to Permanent Revolution by Jacrosse. We could also consider that. The references cited did not touch on the topics discussed so I deleted it last week and requested references on the Talk page. No references have been supplied. The section was reinserted last night. I have removed it, and left a comment on his Talk page asking for references. --Duncan 10:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really think further action regarding Jacrosse is necessary. I tried to put something up on the administrators' incidents board, but I don't think anyone took notice. Jacrosse rarely responds to anyone, and he's rude/curt when he does. He has been completely unwilling to compromise, as the removal of the tags shows. His antics are really sapping my will to bother with Wikipedia. --metzerly 18:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give him until the weekend. If he dosen't show by then, and continues to remove tags, i will consider him derilect and do my utmost to get an admin to act. If he leaves the article alone, he can be considered to have withdrawn from the dispute, and you may proceed with deleting the section in question.... we should do everything to avoid that, though. There IS something to discuss here. Thesocialistesq 22:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that there is something of interest here. However, the idea that the rightward evolution of the Shachtman group was a sham to turn the SP, and then Democrats and the Republicans into a Leninist front, is simply not a case that I can find being made anywhere. A good study could be made of the move of these people onto the right, and I think some of them would even be happy to be interviewed. However, the idea that this is a form of Entrism seems quite unique. --Duncan 22:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out.Thesocialistesq 22:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. He's such a good writer, and spot on with his 'it is no accident, comrades' line. I can just imagine Napoleon saying it in Animal Farm. However, this use of Leninism as a synonym for subjectivist or wilful seems quite mistaken. And certainly is not a reference for use on French Turn, since Lenin had no role in it. One might as well mention Lenin on Rabbit because Trotsky kept rabbits.--Duncan 13:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, Thesocialistesq. Should we consider moving this discussion to the talk page? --metzerly 00:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we do that? Thesocialistesq 07:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this section was only for the initial business. But I guess we're still in the "primary business" stage until Jacrosse checks in. --metzerly 07:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the discussion stays here. It will clarify the difference between Mediation and Talk. --Duncan 13:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay: a really silly suggestion, and feel free to reject it, but one, or all, of us could telephone Jack and ask him to join in. His number is on his website. --Duncan 13:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Jacrosse has posted the comment here that "I've been talking to the mediator and it seems that what you need to do is yourself find a way to rephrase rather than weaseling in the dispute tags and try to come to some agreement that way.--Jacrosse 17:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)". I thought I would post my comment here, just to keep the discussion together "I don't understand how the mediator could suggest that. Typically we would work around a disputed claim by sourcing it [In the opinion of Aaron Ardvaark ants are lovely food, however Bobby Bat says....]. However, I just can't find any source that suggests that ISL dissolution was a variant of the French Turn. Until then, I recomment that either you bring a comment by the mediator to this page or help identify some supportive sources. Seriously, have you read this claim anaywhere? --Duncan 18:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)"

FYI: Jacrosse has been blocked by User:Will Beback for 24 hours. --metzerly 21:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, i've extended the deadline from the end of to-day to Monday...Thesocialistesq 22:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it seems that Jacrosse has forfeited his spot in this mediation. Should we remove the disputed material? --metzerly 05:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed. I will co-ordinate with Metzerly and any other that wish to be involved to firstly remove the disputed material and secondly to review the sources we do have and to see what undisputed material we could add, perhaps to other pages rather than to French Turn. --Duncan 08:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacrosse, Jacrosse...I do suppose it's over. This mediation is now closed because of the failure of all parties to participate. But i can't tell you what to do to the article, i can facilitate you reach a consensus on your own. Any edits you make will be your own, and if you feel that Jacrosse is continuing to vandalize the article, you may take it up with the ArbCom or with a RfC. I am very deeply sorry to the both of you, there really was something to discuss here. Good luck in all of your further ventures, may they be vandal-free. Thesocialistesq 07:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. --metzerly 16:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]