Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/History of Georgia (country)

This Request for mediation has been closed.
This case was closed because: "Unsuccessful: Lack of participation of one party.".

Case was closed at 21:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC).. Parties: If you wish to resume this mediation, please file a new request.

Click 'show' to view case details

Welcome to mediation

Wikipedia, at its best, is a collaborative editing project. However, disputes happen. Often they can be an opportunity for learning; sometimes their resolution can result in a better article. However, please do not expect the mediator to do all the work. Your goal in this mediation is to resolve the dispute. I'm here to facilitate that.

To achieve the above goals, I suggest the following groundrules:

Keep posts concise and to the point (e.g., 200 words per post should usually be adequate). Concise statements help others to understand your point of view.
Base your comments on policy wherever possible.
Please keep it civil and comment on content, not the contributor.

I would like each participant to make a brief opening statement. Please answer the following questions:

What is the purpose of this map?
What are the relevant policies/guidelines?
What are the key issues to be resolved?

I look forward to your responses. Sunray (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opening statement by Aregakn

Greetings Sunray. I want to first thank you for volunteering for our case! As to your points:

1) If you mean the map that is presently on the page, I cannot tell for sure. If you mean a map of the Roman Empire: a) The map was there when I read the article and my goal was to improve it. b) In my view, as I said in the 3O, the paragraph of the article is about the Kingdoms of Colchis and Iberia and the conquest of them by Rome so it shows the territorial relevance of those 3. This is why I think such map was there.

2) For this issue I’d site 3 main rules: Reliable Source, NOR, Image Use.

3) As I pointed in the request, I think there are 2 issues to be resolved: a) The compliance of a historical map made by an editor to Wiki rules and b) The change of the created map to a scanned, referenced historical map

Looking forward, Aregakn (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Aregakn. Regarding your first statement: Neither of the disputed maps seem to illustrate the territorial boundaries of the two kingdoms with respect to the Roman Empire. On the other hand, there is another map in the article that does. I am thus unclear what value the disputed map adds to the article. What is your view about this?

With respect to your second comment: In WP:IUP the section "Adding images," specifies four criteria for uploading images. Would you be able to clarify which of these you think applies?

Looking forward to clarification on these points while we await the opening statement from Iberieli. Sunray (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you, Sunray!

1) I must ask you to have watched the map I offer more carefully. We had the same problem with 3O. You are, probably, watching only the borders of countries wich are made bold and colored. You must be able to see 3 states bordering Rome in the region north to armenia (the borders are marked as dots but not colored): from left to right - Colchis, Iberia, Albania. In the created map those 3 kingdoms are united under 1 name "Iberia", thus having no relevance to the reality.

I will take another look at the map you mention. Sunray (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2) I didn't get the second question. Can you, please, clarify? Is it about the published map or something else?

Looking forwart to hearing fromy you. Aregakn (talk)

I am looking for your understanding of which of the criteria apply to the maps in question. Sunray (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think for the created map applies the "You own the rights to the image (usually meaning that you created the image yourself)" and the scanned map is in public domain. Aregakn (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images that that a user retains the rights to are not permitted in Wikipedia. The section on "User-created images in the Image use policy states: "All user-created images must be licensed under a free license such as the GFDL and/or an acceptable Creative Commons license. They may also be released into the public domain, which removes all copyright and licensing restrictions..." In terms of image use, it seems to me that both images are acceptable. Thepm, in his third opinion, pointed this out. Would you be willing to concede this? Sunray (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the terms of copyright, yes. I never argued about it. Aregakn (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought that one of your arguments was that the user-created image was contrary to policy in some way. Sunray (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You understood it right, but it didn not concern the copyright rules! Aregakn (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's pursue this further once we have heard from Iberieli. Sunray (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to talk about it, but I think I should now. How long do you think the limit for waiting should be? At least an opening could've been made by now, I think. Aregakn (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked him to let me know when he will be available. Sunray (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunray, thank you for your efforts!

But if there is no will to continue the mediation, then probably there is sense to go directly to arbitration. For more than 20 days, though having strongly "pushed" the possibility of solving the issue through these processes and when I applied agreeing to mediation, Iberieli has shown no interest in it. Though having time to edit other articles he had no time to make an opening statement. I even start thinking the reason for this is that the article is protected on the Original Research map.

Could you please state your opinion on not making at least an opening statement having other activities on wikipedia going on. Do you think it has sense to continue the mediation if there is no will for it from the other party or it is better to go to arbitration directly? Aregakn (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes mediation is delayed. This delay is not yet outside the bounds of acceptability. As to arbitration: This is a content dispute and ArbCom avoids ruling on content disputes. This is the right forum for settling this matter. Sunray (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think this is a content dispute and not a regulation breach? I have noted it, if you remember. ANd I also asked what those boundaries were. Thank you Aregakn (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have had an outside opinion that both images are within guidelines. From the discussion above, I am not persuaded of anything different. We can discuss it further here, but I don't see any indication that this is a matter for arbitration. Sunray (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you and Thepm for helping to make some sort of a boost for the discussion to continue on mediation. I am almost sure it will help.

If you see no/little connection of the created picture not being made in accordance to the regulations, maybe we shall open a new passage for this issue and start discussing it, until Iberieli "arrives"? Aregakn (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is very sad to see no cooperation at all from Iberieli and quite disencouraging to see the ignorance of messages, questions and requests by the mediator! Aregakn (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am always disappointed to see a mediation go sideways. Sunray (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opening statement by Iberieli

Moving towards closure

I would like to discuss my closing remarks because it bears on how this issue may be regarded in the future. Thepm, who was asked to give a third opinion, summarized his views on my talk page [1] as follows:

Neither map seems necessary.
If either is to be used, then the scanned map should be preferred.
If the created map were updated to show the boundaries of Colchis and Iberia, then the created map should be preferred.

I think that Thepm's advice is worth consideration. What is your reaction to his first point? Sunray (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see why the issue of the created historical map was not discussed and I have expressed my opinion about how the map is relevant to the paragraph. Can't think of anything else to say. Aregakn (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you are referring to what Thepm refers to as the "scanned map" or the "created map"? Sunray (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the first primary issue in the paragraph "issues to be discussed" of this mediation request:

Primary issues
The compliance of a historical map ([4]) made by an editor to Wiki rules.

Where the word "made" was probably wrongly expressed "created", which Thepm refers as the "created map".

The map has 0 references (actually it's silly to try to make the map of the whole Roman Empire without academia and topologists working all together), contradicts with all the published mapping of the Roman Empire of that period, has many mistakes in topology and many more issues. These were the problems I thought could be discussed. The only "plus" is that is easier to read, and with no doubt I agree to that. Aregakn (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you for your opinion on Thepm's first point. Would you be able to give me your views on that? Sunray (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not really see such a direct question from your side. To be true I already made my point about it. I don't see a very big necessity in the map of the empire. But why not to have it, when it is directly relevant to that very paragraph of the article, and if it exists? This is what I don't get. Any reason? Aregakn (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that the map ("Ancient Georgian Kingdoms of Iberia") is clear enough. Thepm identified problems with both the other maps. I also find both the created map and the scanned map to be problematic. For an overview, the created map gives the reader the best perspective, but you have raised objections to it. The scanned map shows almost the same territory as the "Ancient Georgian" map, so it provides no advantage, and, as Thepm notes, it is not clear. Sunray (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you noted it, the "Ancient Georgian Kingdoms of Iberia" (why kingdoms, I don't know) is also a user-made map, though published on his own (not notable) promotion website. The only map which is published properly is "Kingdoms of Colchis and Ber" in that Article. I brought the issue of the "created map" to the discussion, because that map is used in multiple articles (for instance Kingdom of Iberia etc.) and this mediation could help solve those problems as well. If you have a look of usage of that created map you can see how many articles have it and taking all of them through Dispute Resolution process one by one will be too long and inefficient. Aregakn (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were they not both Kingdoms through periods prior to Roman conquest? Sunray (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... So? Aregakn (talk) 08:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said, in your previous post: "why kingdoms I don't know."

This was a lot of work. Wonder if it was needed, though...

What do you think of this one [2]? All the problems are addressed here, mine, 3O, yours. Aregakn (talk) 09:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It shows the extent of the Roman Empire. However, it does not show Iberia and Colchis, during the period discussed in the article text. Sunray (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are mixing the exact map of the period, with the subject of mediation, I think. I don't see why you want to connect those 2. If you have a different map for it that is academic, then show it. If you are goin to discuss the 1st issue of this mediation, then I'm ready. Otherwise, I'm done with this talk as I don't see it bringing anywhere and just circuling around, winning some time, for I don't know what. Aregakn (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your views. Sunray (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never could we concentrate on 1 subject, so, my pleasure to have expressed my observations. Aregakn (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just in case, if an automatic archiving might work. Aregakn (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation closed

This mediation is being closed as unsuccessful as one of the two parties (Iberieli) did not participate. It had been left open in case he returned. This did not happen and two months have now elapsed. In closing, I would comment that the third opinion provided by Thepm, seems to be good advice to guide decisions regarding the disputed maps. He said that, in his opinion, "Neither map is necessary." I am in agreement with that opinion. Sunray (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]