User talk:Sunray/Archive32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mediation/United States

In your instructions, you mentioned "As an option, you may take an additional 200 words to speak about how your interests may align with those of other participants." Initially I placed an entry within one editor's "statement" section, but then removed it. Where does it belong? In a discussion section below Statements? In addition, I agree with Golbez in three respects, but have questions/reservations about his conclusions, which he could answer with sources/references. How do I make those known? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Some thoughts. 1) Participants should probably address questions to the mediator on the mediation talk page. 2) The intention of my suggestion about interests was to look for "how your interests my align with those of other participants." The idea here is to begin to look for common interests. In conflict we tend to focus on differences not commonalities. To get resolution, it is often productive to look for common interests. 3) Yes we should have a discussion section, but let's hold off until participants have all had a chance to make their statements. As to references, it might be a good idea to have a sub-page for reliable sources. Would you be willing to set that up? Sunray (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, this is my first mediation, I am unsure how to proceed, I thought it would be more efficient to ask procedural questions here, but I guess the whole section could be transferred to the mediation page. I would like to contribute, but I am on the wrong side of the "digital divide" here I'm afraid, --- I could set up a sub-section for reliable sources on the mediation page? Thanks for your patience. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I favor listing the incorporated territory and population thereof as primary with the territory and population of incorporated and unincorporated as secondary. The incorporated territory is uncontestedly part of the US while the unincorporated territory is debatable. Given that, it seems most reasonable to list the uncontested figures first. However, I have decided that I am no longer interested in participating in the case. --Khajidha (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know that you will be leaving the mediation. Sunray (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Refactoring

As noted on the mediation talk page, another editor, in response to your request to shorten the opening statements, acting in good faith, refactored my statements of agreement. One comment that I made was omitted. I would like reassurance that, in the future, my signed comments will not be refactored by other participants. (As mediator, if you think that there is something wrong with my comments, you are in control. I hope that you won't find it necessary to delete or hat my comments, but you have that power. I don't want anyone else to do that in good faith.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that participants should not refactor others' comments. I avoid doing that myself. I will put a note to that effect on the mediation talk page. Sunray (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Indirect but Strong Personal Attack - Also General Bad Blood - Also Need for Mediation Advice

Golbez wrote, about The Virginia Historian: "I would very much prefer if you would refrain from ever speaking for me. You have made it clear you will falsely represent me, so I don't want you to represent me at all, whether it be true or not." We know that there is bad blood between these two editors. Can you, as the mediator, try to stop them from introducing low-intensity odors into the mediation discussion? Also, Golbez appears to have said at least twice that he is ready to "bow out" of the mediation. Since his concerns about consistency (which I thought I shared) were part of the original problem that brought us here, I don't think that mediation can continue without his involvement, unless he is bound by it anyway (which we could do by RFC, but that would be contentious). Mediation certainly won't be useful if he isn't involved and reserves the right to engage in hit-and-run personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your concern. I saw that comment shortly after Golbez made it. I viewed it as a request. One part of it is borderline, imo: "You have made it clear you will falsely represent me..." I agree that that seems indicative of bad blood. However, TVH did not dispute the statement, which I see as an indication of good faith. Both editors seem invested in the mediation, although Golbez is asking a question about the scope. I have responded with a "progress update" on the mediation talk page. Sunray (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A little background (United States mediation)

just so you know, Dispute resolution in March 2013 came down to familiar names and phrasing [1].

  • Can you live with… The United States of America (USA or U.S.A.), commonly called the United States (US or U.S.) and colloquially as America, is a federal republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district. ... The country also possesses several territories in the Pacific and Caribbean. — yes: TFD, Golbez, older=wiser first choice (Bkonrad), CMD.
  • Can you live with… The United States of America is a nation state governed by a federal constitutional republic, consisting of fifty states and a federal district as well as several territories. It is commonly called the United States (US, USA, U.S. or U.S.A.) and colloquially as America, The territories have differing degrees of autonomy. — yes. TheVirginiaHistorian, second choice older=wiser (Bkonrad), Collect, Gwillhickers, Mendaliv, RightCowLeftCoast.

Consensus discussion led by Mendaliv on United States Talk page included this exchange, with TFD adamantly opposing:

  • The United States (US or U.S.), commonly called America, and officially the United States of America (USA or U.S.A.), is a federal constitutional republic that includes fifty states and a federal district, as well as other territories and possessions.

"I might could live with this one." --Golbez (talk) 1:15 am, 24 February 2013, Sunday (1 year, 11 months, 30 days ago) (UTC−5 [2]

— You will notice how very close this last draft language is to our mediated Proposal Y, which Golbez once "endorsed". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. Sunray (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Collapsing of My Questions and Not a Reply to Them

You collapsed some of my comments, but left TVH's reply to them, addressing me, outside the collapse. That was very confusing, because TVH appeared to be replying to something that I didn't say. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

You want to start to get statements of agreement. So do I. But I can't start agreeing unless I know what I am being asked to agree with. If I feel that I am being pushed to start agreeing with things while having to unhide things to see what the agreement is, I won't be able to agree. I don't think that I am being that difficult; I just want to know what issues are the blocking issues. If I shouldn't ask what is being said to be horrible, then why not hide the "horrible" comment rather than my puzzlement about it? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

If you were clumsy in deciding what to collapse, then I understand. But if you think that I shouldn't be asking questions about harsh statements, then maybe either the harsh statements should be collapsed or maybe I would prefer to see a more active style of moderation. Maybe I don't understand. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I note that you were upset at my collapsing of your comments. I was aware that you might feel that way, but hoped that you would understand. I realize that you came later to the discussion and were just reacting to what others had said. What I was trying to do was to separate specific comments relating to the proposed text. Collapsing text is necessarily arbitrary. One has to start and end somewhere. I tried to use the litmus test: "does the comment relate to the proposed text." I thought about omitting the part of TVH's response where he was replying to you, but he did get back on topic, so I left it. I would be happy to consider restoring any text that you think needs to be included. Sunray (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Poll of choices at U.S. RfM.

I made an attempt at setting up a simple format for editors to follow my example and indicate which of the leads are supported in a first-second-third choice format. I think that it would be helpful if you would ping each of us just below the section header “Poll of choices, additional proposals”. Thanks in advance, I am afraid that my initiative alone will not carry all participants to the table. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the initiative. I will keep my eye on how many participate and ping the others. Sunray (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Trying to thread the needle

I have sent a variation of this post to each of the participants in the mediation, hoping to trigger a response --- leaving out Golbez as he as asked to be left alone on this subject...

At U.S. request for mediation, trying to thread the needle in the poll returns between B1-2 “national jurisdiction", and C1-2 “federal republic consisting of”,
D.2. The United States is a federal republic consisting of 50 states, as well as a federal district and other territories in its national jurisdiction. [note]
This can be parsed in various ways which accommodates the major divisions among editors as I see them, with an eye to include ALL initial participants.
  • a) The federal republic consists of 50 states, as well as a federal district and other territories. or,
  • b) 50 states, a federal district and other territories are in its national jurisdiction. -- or —
  • c) a federal district and other territories are in a non-state status. — or —
  • d) a federal district and other territories in its national jurisdiction but outside the federal republic.
I do not believe d) is a correct inference from the ambiguous statement, so I would like a clarifying footnote citation from the State Department “Common Core Document” to the U.N. Committee on Human Rights, noting Item 22: "The United States of America is a federal republic of 50 states, together with a number of commonwealths, territories and possessions." and, item 27: “...outside the 50 states and yet within the political framework of the United States. These include persons living in the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands." [3].
Any thoughts in response to this redraft, --- or any main principles up front, in response to Sunray's invitation below for a priori Principles-for-objection before trying to reach an accommodation or redraft among the poll responses?

So far, only Robert McClenon has responded, but I only recently posted the last three today...copy editing each post towards the 200 words as I went along... I agree with you that we are close to agreement, if we can overlook the tangents, disruptions and baggage of the past ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Sunray (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Legally trained versus historically trained?

Despite real differences between those legally trained and this historically trained, I find it difficult to believe that both in the Dispute Resolution of 2013 and the Request for Mediation of 2015, a two-man tag team can thwart 3-1 majorities with the complaint there is no consensus to include U.S. islander citizens in the U.S. for the 21st century.

The point is to edit the lead U.S. article sentence to include islanders judicially held as “aliens” and a “danger” to the American republic a century ago. They are no longer. The Insular Cases are gutted by sequential Congressional action in the post WWII modern era. The remnant of territory “unincorporated” is internal taxes and tariffs “in a domestic sense”. Congress by mutual internal self-determination in plebiscites, has made citizens/nationals, provided elective self governance under protections of federal district courts, and made participation in the nation's councils by delegate Members of Congress within the constitutional political framework of the United States.

This is the sourced conclusion of six scholars, none opposed. The only counter is editor original research interpreting gutted court cases with a point of view which is anachronistic in the 21st century. I refuse to believe that one editor declaring a process where he is in a minority is an “abortion” can ruin three months collaborative work among eight editors. Of course no one wants to replace Golbez as the administrator on the U.S. page; his presence would be missed if he carries through on his threat to quit on the United States article Talk page and retreat into making his wonderful maps.

But how to gain final endorsement of the consensus; I've yielded to the only actual proposal stated by Golbez, but he reverted his proposal before allowing discussion, almost as though he did not want to say anything which might be agreed to? When I agreed to his draft lead sentence, he said he would withdraw it out of "spite". Can one bad apple really spoil the barrel amidst collegial collaboration? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is not necessarily unanimity. I've clarified, on the mediation project talk page, what is needed in order to hold, or hold up, consensus. Sunray (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Lede formulation

I hope older/wiser and I have hit on a formulation for the lead sentence which can carry a consensus at the United States talk page. I solicited the opinion of a frequent editor, and found she agreed with our lede. The key seems to be presenting the U.S. islanders as “of” the United States, -- "native born" per the Census -- by geography, national jurisdiction, political framework, — avoiding any tangential reference to territory status as “a part of” the U.S., — however gutted the judicial “unincorportated-1901” may be in the contemporary era in the eyes of scholars and for the islanders themselves.

No one has taken exception to using Golbez' unproposed proposal to leave the US/DC area in the info box with a footnote reporting the U.S. “states and other areas”. But only one other has endorsed it. Does Golbez as a silent partner make a working consensus of three? In any case it seems that the issue which brought us here should be resolved as unobtrusively, uncontentiously as possible -- and a footnote may be the answer for a mediator  Done.

Procedurally, we again have some exchange, then a five + day pause. I wonder if the lede and note are sufficiently hammered out among the parties to justify your pinging us all for a final round up. It seems that if I try to do it, it is met by a resounding wait-and-see-a-week response. I think that participants in the mediation believe they have already made their approval/disapproval known on the fundamentals, and see no reason to reiterate their position on the incremental changes. If we are done with the amendments, maybe we can wrap up at your summary and final call. Who posts to the mainspace, to the Talk page?

Do you have a format/formulation for an RfC? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work. RfCs are fairly straightforward: Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Some things we should think about: 1) What projects should we include? 2) Is the wording of the RfC clear? and 3) How will the discussion be moderated? I am away for a few days this week--though I will look in on the page. I should be able to moderate next week and can ask another mediator to join me. Sunray (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

REverted edit

Hi

I noticed that you reverted my edit to the Colin Maud article, wrt to Colin's family. Why don't you want mention of his son?

I've restored that edit. While the wording is a tad awkward, it seems factual. Sunray (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

RfM/U.S. -- May-June

The Gnome, RightCowLeftCoast and TVH have approved the recap lede sentence and note over the last 20 days. Is it time to ping the others to confirm the consensus?

Projects in an RfC at Talk:United States might include United States, Geography, Politics. The RfC might be worded,

Shall we adopt the lede sentence written at the Request for Mediation describing the geographical area of the United States for the general reader as sourced to State Department and scholarly publications? The implication for the info box is to footnote the total area of the “States and other areas” as reported by the Census.
"The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major territories and various possessions. [n]
"Note: The federal district is Washington DC. The five major territories are American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands. The nine smaller island areas without permanent populations are Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Atoll, Palmyra Atoll, Wake Island, and Navassa Island. U.S. sovereignty over Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo (Petrel Island) is disputed. See U.S. State Department, Common Core Document to U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, Item 22, 27, 80.— and U.S. General Accounting Office Report, U.S. Insular Areas: application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997, p. 1, 6, 39n. Both viewed April 6, 2016."

The RfC draft leaves out any mention of the contentious technical aspects of constitutional status in the territories and possessions, as does the draft lede sentence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Sorry to have been MIA. I was away and since I've been back, have been playing catch-up. Yes, I agree with you. we need to ping the other participants for a final look. I will do that shortly. Sunray (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Just a thank you for your good offices. I trust it is not considered uncivil to challenge unsourced illogic with a) citation for counter-sources on the substance, b) logic textbook citation for false reasoning and c) attempts at "settlement" compromise language for the minority. I've copy edited my remarks down to 193 words to meet the previously stated 200 word limit for the RfC. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Where is your summary? I'm having some difficulty figuring out exactly what we intend to post for the RfC. I think that we should try to assemble exactly how we want the RfC to appear. Perhaps I will establish a new section for that.
BTW, I've boxed some of your recent remarks on the mediation talk page. I've used the term "Off topic," but frankly they are ad hominem. A word to the wise... Sunray (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Close to the finish line

An unwarranted opinion, if I may, regarding the pending mediation process on the "United States" entry. We're nearly there! You may consider taking things without haste, in stride, and letting things develop a few days more. Do not let "mediation fatigue" overtake the process. Great work so far, if I may so, by the mediator! -The Gnome (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Mediators don't always get positive feedback. It is also good to get your perspective on timing. Sunray (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Helping hand

Hey Sunray, let me know if you need any help with your US RfC. I'd be happy to lend a hand if that would be of benefit to you, the participants and the process.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 11:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

That's great! The draft RfC can be found here. I would appreciate any thoughts/suggested modifications you have. Would you also be able to take a look at the "Some additional issues" section below that and let me know your reaction? I'd be particularly interested to hear any thoughts you might have about #3. Participants are currently deciding on whether/how to present the summary table they prepared. I'm hoping that they will opt to include it as I think it summarizes the issues well. I will be away next week, so I imagine we will be able to get going during the week of June 22. Does that work for you? Sunray (talk) 05:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, sounds good. I'll look at the items you've suggested.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Here are my comments:

  1. As a newbie its not clear to me in the RfC draft proposal where the 'note' will appear. Right after the sentence? or as a footnote at the end of the lead. This should be made clear in my opinion.
  2. I like the suggestion by one of the MedCom participants that they all agree beforehand to avoid responding to each other's statements and that they agree not to challenge or respond to the comments of other RfC participants as well. It will still be an issue but it will be less of an issue and easier for us to facilitate if we have some prior agreement to reference. They should make their initial RfC statement and then walk away and let the chips fall where they may.
  3. I don't think its necessary to mention talk page guidlines as part of the RfC.
  4. The default duration for an RfC per WP:RfC is 30 days. To avoid controversy I suggest we go with the standard time.
  5. I don't think we should define how we will evaluate the RfC except to say we will use existing policies and guidelines such as WP:RfC and WP:Consensus.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Please ping me when the RfC starts (or I'm needed for something else). I look forward to working together! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Incivility on US Mediation Page

You might want to admonish one or two editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC statement exceeding 200 words.

TFD has created a statement of over 200 words using the guise of extended "footnotes". Can they be removed or collapsed in a box, "TFD extended comments"? It seems to violate the spirit and letter of the RfC directions, creating a wall of text. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You can avoid walls of text by restricting your comments to your statement. You began a new thread, surely likely to exceed 200 words if not checked that says, "The US does not proclaim itself illegal...." That misrepresents what I wrote and invites me to add to the pointless discussion. What I wrote was, "Some scholars have argued that the territories are part of the U.S. and consequently current government policy is illegal. That is a minority opinion." Mentioning a minority opinion of scholars is not the same thing as saying it is the position of the U.S. In fact I stated that the U.S. does not claim territories are part of the U.S., hence their position that the constitution does not apply in full to them is in their view legal.
I realize you disagree with me, but it is unhelpful to misrepresent me.
TFD (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Your assertion is an error of fact, the USG does claim the territories as within its constitutional framework to the UN, as sourced. You launch into unsupported speculation on your own authority. No scholar supposes them "external" to the US as you have previously asserted, that is a term of your own making. The federal system allows for considerable flexibility in territory self-governance. No scholars in sources used by the Mediation argue that "the US government policy [in the territories] is illegal." You have provided no source of such a claim by the straw man "minority" opinion of unnamed "scholars", which is, in any case, besides the point of the Mediation proposal concerning the geographic extent of the US. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, wait, it's a TFD post besides the point to create a wall of text on Sunray's page. Your statement of over 200 words should be truncated at 200 words in a collapsible box, or otherwise managed to conform to the guideline if you persist in violating procedure. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I did not mention the UN in my statement in the RfC or in my posting above, so do not know why you are bringing it up. I explained my position to you years ago and you have had lots of time to prepare your own statement without dragging out the debate. I have likewise pointed out to you that your position misrepresents sources and is logically incoherent, but am quite willing not to dissect it again in the RfC. TFD (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Some observations:

  1. The 200 word limit was a request from the mediator to participants in the United States RfM. It is only a suggestion for the RfC.
  2. The idea of putting the footnotes into a collapsed box seems like a good one to me. TFD: Would you be willing to do that?
  3. TVH, I note this comment: "Oh, wait, it's a TFD post besides the point to create a wall of text on Sunray's page." This seems a clear example of focussing on the contributor rather than the content. You have been around WP long enough to realize that it is usually wise to follow Wikipedia:Etiquette, no?

Sunray (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected. TFD is entitled to his 175 word statement, but not the 925 bibliographical essay. He is entitled to his narrative, and I quote with notes removed:

"The position of most legal experts as well the Supreme Court of the United States, the executive and Congress is that the unincorporated territories of the United States are administered by the United States but not part of the United States. The legal position was settled in the Insular cases, which is still good law. As a consequence, the Constitution does not apply in full, although it does protect the fundamental human rights in those territories. Recently, the Supreme Court has decided that these same rights apply to detainees in Guantanamo Bay. However, other provisions do not apply. Hence there is no birthright citizenship in American Samoa, there are different federal tax rules, etc.

The U.S. government treats the territories as part of the U.S. for some purposes and has for example extended by legislation birthright citizenship to four territories. That has not changed their constitutional status.

Some scholars have argued that the territories are part of the U.S. and consequently current government policy is illegal. That is a minority opinion."

But he is not entitled to 1100 words. The RfC states, "Initial Statements of 200 words, max". Keithbob said he would await your return before taking action. Although it would be best for TFD to do it himself, so as to make up a box-able bibliography. The reference box for the Mediation Source table used in the Statement by Alanscottwalker numbers about 200 words, for instance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a case of WP:TLDR to me. Sunray (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC collapsible boxes

To date, the discussion in the two sections “Enumeration of the territories” and “Sources” could be collapsed into respective boxes labelled “Mediation participant comments". TFD has suggested the solution for "Sources", The Gnome has noted the potential problem at "Enumeration of the territories". This would avoid the wall of text off-putting to editors invited to the RfC. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a good idea. Sunray (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Keithbob collapsed "Sources" into "Mediation participants side discussion", then let Golbez and me talk through his concerns ... we ended up with
Alternate A lede and note - without possessions enumeration Alternate B lede and note - without any enumeration
The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major territories and various possessions.
Note: The federal district is Washington DC. The five major territories are American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands. There are eleven smaller island areas without permanent populations. See U.S. State Department, Common Core Document to U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, Item 22, 27, 80.— and U.S. General Accounting Office Report, U.S. Insular Areas: application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997, p. 1, 6, 39n. Both viewed April 6, 2016. --- US Legislation or regulation varies in definitions of the “United States” in four ways, preponderantly including the five major territories as a) 50 states, DC, five territories and possessions, see Homeland PL 107-296.Definitions (16)(a), b) 50 states, DC, five territories without possessions, see FEMA 44 CFR 206.1.Definitions(26), c) 50 states, DC and four territories without American Samoa, see Immigration 8 U.S. Code § 1101.Definitions (38), d) 50 states and DC alone, see IRS 26 U.S. Code § 7701.Definitions (9). Viewed July 5, 2016.
 The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five territories and various possessions.
Note: See U.S. State Department, Common Core Document to U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, Item 22, 27, 80.— and U.S. General Accounting Office Report, U.S. Insular Areas: application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997, p. 1, 6, 39n. Both viewed April 6, 2016. --- US Legislation or regulation varies in definitions of the “United States” in four ways, preponderantly including the five major territories as a) 50 states, DC, five territories and possessions, see Homeland PL 107-296.Definitions (16)(a), b) 50 states, DC, five territories without possessions, see FEMA 44 CFR 206.1.Definitions(26), c) 50 states, DC and four territories without American Samoa, see Immigration 8 U.S. Code § 1101.Definitions (38), d) 50 states and DC alone, see IRS 26 U.S. Code § 7701.Definitions (9). Viewed July 5, 2016.

...with me favoring Alternate A enumerating the five major territories together larger in population to each of the 26 smallest states, and Golbez favoring Alternate B, I think. Alternate A would give Golbez 70% of his proposed copy edit. The primary advantage to both is that they do not enter into areas of international territorial law, relative to "disputed" or "administered" territory, an aspect of the initial proposal addressed by PointsofNoReturn. The links from "possessions" go to United States Minor Outlying Islands#Islands which does not differentiate among the list of eleven. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Ghouta mediation

I'd like to avoid things getting personal and I think you were entirely within your right to collapse that side discussion. But I'm going to find it difficult to participate in a mediation involving Erlbaeko as long as he's leaving messages like this on my Talk page (with no apparent provocation, looking back at my recent editing history). -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

That message was a response to your latest post in the mediation. This one. My post there was a warning, not a threat, and I have not been trying to sabotage the mediation as you accused me for. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Would the two of you be willing to cease this pattern of interaction? It would be helpful if you each deleted the posts referred to above. I would prefer not to get into a long back-and-forth about who did what/when. So would you be willing to do that now? If you both do that right away, without further conflict, we can move on. That would be in our mutual best interests, imo. Sunray (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't recognize the distinction between "threat" and "warning" that Erlbaeko wants to make, and I think his post in that mediation thread was provocative and uncalled-for. I'm happy to let the discussion end there in the collapsed threat, but personally, I'm not inclined to remove my response to that comment while it stands. Erlbaeko previously tried to derail the mediation and push matters to arbitration, and launching a personal attack on another involved editor and threatening to get them blocked from editing Wikipedia is likewise unconstructive behavior. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I regret that you do not wish to remove your comment. Please desist from speaking about one another. Sunray (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: [4] Just for your information. The "Reply to"-template did not work for some reason. I noticed it on my watchlist, but did not get any notification. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try again. Sunray (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. However, it still did not work. I am not sure why. The syntax looks ok. Case sencitive maybe? Or something with the signing? See Template:Reply to/doc. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
The only thing that might have caused that was a lower case "r" in "reply to." I have tried it again on the mediation talk page. Let me know if it works this time. Sunray (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Nope. I did not get any notification. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
It might be because the ping, reply-to, etc. templates only ping when the signature tildes are processed. So, if you edit them in after the signature's been added, it won't work. There's more info at Template:Ping. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks for that interesting exposé on Template: Ping. Perhaps I will try it again. Sunray (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: [5] Can I remove MVBW comment? As he say, he is not a part of the mediation. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

No that would be contrary to policy. Sunray (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Can you remove it? He has already been asked to stop participating by Andrevan. Ref. [6]. The comments Andrevan are referring to are here: [7] Erlbaeko (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I could remove it, but on what grounds? He is a former participant and MVBW isn't committing a personal attack. Is there some other policy that is being offended? Sunray (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that we are not going anywhere if we keep returning to invalid policy arguments.[8] As the former madiator said "if a theory is being pushed by a major world government or it appears in the Associated Press sourced to a mainstream commentator, that's not a FRINGE theory.". I would not have any problem with explaining that to him if he was a part of the mediation, but he is not, and I don't think he doesn’t know. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Speaking about "fringe theory", I meant something explicitly defined in the guideline, namely that "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea" - this is precisely the problem with including your text, in my opinion. This is a very much valid policy-based argument.My very best wishes (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
If you were a part of the mediation, maybe you had noticed that I have asked for sources that support your "mainstream idea". Erlbaeko (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
MVBW would you be willing to rejoin the mediation? I think that this discussion that you and Erlbaeko are having is central to the mediation. Sunray (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I do not have time for this. At most, I might be able to quickly look through the article and fix a few things, but prefer not making any changes during the ongoing mediation. My very best wishes (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough you have other things that you deem more important, or more pressing, right now than the mediation. Would you be able to refrain from commenting on the mediating talk page unless we agree that you will be participating? Sunray (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, sure. There is an article talk page for any comments on the topic. My very best wishes (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Item 3

I saw your request to (re)resolve the fringe/undue discussion next. IMHO the "item 3" section is largely unrelated to "item 4", and the former has a better chance of being resolved quickly than the latter. One other editor suggested that a bold edit might be appropriate, but that does not seem a clear quorum to me given the established expectation of major edits being run through mediation. What do you think of me attempting one BRD cycle on item 3 to see if we can achieve quick closure on that front? VQuakr (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Would you be willing to propose that on the mediation talk page? Sunray (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely willing, but I think I am in need a little more guidance. Can you explain what I might want to propose in that section in addition to my edit dated 17:37, 13 September 2015? VQuakr (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Request to join

Hello. Please may I be allowed to join in the discussion on the mediation page? I asked a question concerning its content but another editor deleted it on the grounds that I was "not participating in this mediation". My apologies in advance if it were inappropriate to put my query there. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not simply a "discussion." It is an attempt to resolve a dispute in accordance with the mediation policy. Evidently you are not a party to the dispute, so no, I can't add you to the mediation. Thanks for your interest. Sunray (talk) 08:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Understood. Incidentally, I did look at the Mediation Policy but could see nothing that explicitly forbade other editors commenting so I took the advice you gave me previously to "Be Bold; make the change". Once again, my apologies for getting it wrong. I look forward to watching this mediation play out. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Oops

I must have made that edit too early in the morning, because I clearly (mis)remember that your edit removed the context provided by the "In 2011." Cheers! ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

LOL, yes it is a common occurrence in my house that things are blurry in the moments between the time I get up and the time that first cup of coffee kicks in. I have to say though, it was me that added the "In 2011." Sunray (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Pings

FYI, I didn't get your second ping either. No idea what is going on. VQuakr (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I tried it once more. Would you be able to let me know if it worked this time? if not, I will manually contact each participant. Sunray (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Still nothing, unfortunately. VQuakr (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Rana vs Lithobates

In case you do not see it. I offered to share my email on this issue with Darrel Frost to all concerned here. If you would like it please email me. My user page permissions is set to permit emails. I do not make private emails public but have permission to use it to help in this case. It was offered to all sides of the argument. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 11:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

If you think it would be helpful in the mediation, by all means email it to me. Sunray (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Ghouta chemical attack‎

Hello, I would very much like to participate in the mediation. Is it possible? Againstdisinformation (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

If there are compelling reasons as to why you should participate and the current participants agree, it might be possible. What are the reasons for you participating? 18:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
As for other participants, the reasons can't be described as compelling, I am just very interested in the topic and I have contributed on the talk page. Also, Darouet advised me to ask you to be invited. Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again. May I consider my request granted? Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
We do not normally add participants to mediations unless there is good reason to do so. I don't yet see a reason in what you have presented. "I'm interested in the topic" doesn't cut it. Mediation is about dispute resolution between particular individuals. Sunray (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Sunray: Since "Mnnlaxer" have withdrawn,[9] I believe Againstdisinformation should be invited to the case. Btw, I used the exact same argument when I accepted to allow VQuakr to take "My very best wishes" place. Ref. [10] Erlbaeko (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I find Mnnlaxer's st atement ambiguous, so I need to clarify that. Meanwhile, would you please let me know your thoughts about who would represent each side of the dispute? I will then (again) ask for clarification of who is going to participate. I haven't heard any "compelling reason" to add Againstdisinformation to the mediation, but since you recommend it, I'm willing to put the question to participants. Sunray (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I believe one side is represented by Volunteer Marek, Kudzu1 and VQuakr, while the other side is represented by me and Darouet. From what I have seen from Againstdisinformation work on the article so far, he/she will be on “our” side. Mnnlaxer has not been active since early in August. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I can confirm that I will be on the side of Erlbaeko and Darouet. Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Sunray (talk)
@Erlbaeko: Would you be able to remind me which side Mnnlaxer has been on? Sunray (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
He was on mine and Darouets side. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
@Sunray: Have you taken a decision about my participation? There are a number of issues that I would like to see addressed. Againstdisinformation (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
As it isn't my decision alone, I have put the question of including you to the participants. Sunray (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
@Sunray: I understand that, not being a party to the mediation I should not make comments on the page. You will have noted that since I asked you to be invited I have not made any comment on the mediation page. However, since Volunteer Marek has leveled unfounded accusations against me on that same page, it gives me an automatic right of reply. Therefore, in my opinion, you should tell him to refrain from from doing this again. For my part, if I am invited to take part, I will never engage in personal attacks and will always focus on content. Againstdisinformation (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Mediation pages are generally restricted to participants. I allowed VM's remarks to stand because I had asked for them. As he didn't provide diffs, I also allowed your response to stand. However, I intended to saw it off at that. You might find it helpful to know how you are seen by others (not just VM). Sunray (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. I already knew how I am seen by a group of users comprised mainly of Iryna Harpy, Lute88, My very best wishes and Volunteer Marek, since they follow my steps everywhere. It is their right, but I would be happier if they addressed the issues on a reasoned basis, rather than launch ad hominem attacks.
With regard to the article, independent of its actual value, Seymour Hersh's report should not be described as "conspiracy theory". This terminology is a propagandized label, generally used to dismiss views without having to discuss them. I know it is widespread in the media, but they do not have the same duty of scholarly rigour as an encyclopedia. In 2003, people who claimed that Iraq did not possess WMD were regularly dismissed as "conspiracy theorists". If we want Wikipedia to be a respected and reliable source of knowledge, we have to be extremly cautious with the wording. Againstdisinformation (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
With regard to Seymour Hersh, like any other subject, our obligation is to use sources in accordance with WP:SOURCES and WP:WEIGHT. The better you learn to do that, the less likely you are to have people following your edits. Sunray (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course we have to use sources in accordance with WP:SOURCES. However WP:WEIGHT is tricky since the assessment of weight is essentially subjective. We have an obligation to cite the sources accurately, but we are under no obligation to use the same vocabulary. Profanities abound in the sources and, while we should not conceal them, we should properly attribute them to their author, as is correctly done in the Victoria Nuland article for example. Also, the proliferation of links is a clear indicator that the use of the terminology "conspiracy theory" is not neutral, it serves as a (flawed) justification. The more links provided, the less neutral it is likely to be Againstdisinformation (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the assessment of weight as being subjective. If you look at the overall policy, WP: NPOV ( a core policy of WP), you will see that weight is determined by reliable, verifiable sources and balanced within an article by editors who discuss the topic and get consensus. Wikipedia works well when editors collaborate and listen to one another. Sometimes it gets out of whack. That is why we have admins, and dispute resolution :) Sunray (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, even the "hard sciences" describe themselves as "inter-subjective". I do not see how Wikipedia could have an unparalleled claim to objectivity. Consensus is not objectivity. On the principle of consensus, it would have made perfect sense around 1615 to print "It has been established beyond doubt that the sun orbits the earth" This would have been in agreement with most reliable sources and wide consensus of the time. In fact, the Holy Inquisition did something of the kind. You may argue that this was correct at the time but, with the benefit of hindsight, one sees that they should perhaps have been a bit more cautious. The same is true for loaded terminology. By all means let's cite it, but we should not use it ourselves. Read the statements made by international bodies, they never use such language. By contrast, the English tabloids use it abundantly. Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Objectivity is not a goal of Wikipedia. Editors strive for a neutral point of view; consensus is how editorial decisions are made. If you cannot live with these basic policies, you really should think of going elsewhere. Sunray (talk) 23:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Maintaining POV re: Putin's "fundamentalists" statement

Rather depressingly, another edit war has flared up on this page more or less immediately after your indication of plans to close the mediation. If it not technically closed can you please review; if it is closed please let me know and I can escalate through the usual WP:DR channels. Thank you for your extended patience and effort with this group! VQuakr (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not watch this page for a while. Can you clarify one question, please? Did you reach a consensus during mediation to include this text as Elbraeko seem to claim in the edit summary? After quickly looking at discussion on mediation page, I did not see it. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
While it is true that no one opposed Erlbaeko's proposed text, by the time he proposed it several of the parties to the mediation were inactive. No consensus yet. Sunray (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Every single response (ie [11]) from Erlbaeko gives me less optimism that this is a dispute that will be solvable with discussion. He seems obsessed with finding loopholes and flying as close to the sun as possible rather than actually working with the group or even attempting to follow the spirit of what the policies and guidelines say. Since this is a behavioral concern rather than editorial I didn't want to burden the mediation page with it (though I can move it there upon your request), but I also don't think there is any point in continuing the mediation if it is just going to be a waste of our collective time. VQuakr (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, agreed that if this is a behavioral issue it will have to be eliminated or the mediation will not be able to continue. My comments on the mediation talk page (about consensus) are intended to begin addressing that very concern. Sunray (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I will keep quiet over there until we get started on content development again. Best of luck. VQuakr (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Re [12]: Sorry about that, but I believe you collapsed too much. The part from the old discussion is fine, but the last part of it is a new argument directly related to the last part of the sentence. I like your permission to move that part out of the collapse box. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

No that is what I wanted to collapse. You seem determined to include the word "fundamentalists." Why? It is a pejorative term in English and when applied to Islamists, is problematic. As various editors have said, we would have to explain its meaning. That in itself gets into editorial complexities. For example, would we include a note to explain? Do we even know what Putin meant? As not everyone writing in English agrees that the term can be applied to all Islamists, by including it, how do we avoid giving Putin undue weight? Sunray (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The same reference is used in the lede to say that the "Russian government called the attack a false flag operation by the opposition to draw foreign powers into the civil war on the rebels' side.", so the meaning should be pretty clear. I am not determined to include the word "fundamentalists", I am sick and tired of editors that suppress information they just don't like. Erlbaeko (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
You didn't answer my questions. I'm serious. Given that the word "fundamentalist" is generally pejorative, and carries different meanings when applied to Islam, how would WP be able to include that phrase? Please explain how we could do that without giving Putin's statement undue weight? Sunray (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I see no reason to explain what Putin meant with “fundamentalist” in that context. I believe it is obvious to most readers that he meant on the rebels' side of the civil war. Erlbaeko (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
We are writing for readers who may not not know the details of the situation between rebel forces and the Syrian Army, or who the rebels are. The sentence already uses the term "opposition forces." So to the less-informed reader, who are these "fundamentalists" are they the opposition forces or some other entity? I am suggesting that you stop just maintaining your position and, instead, work with me on this. I am suggesting that you try not to just reject what others are saying, but rather consider their arguments. That is what mediation is all about. Listening. Please do not respond to this unless you are prepared to take one of my questions and answer it. Sunray (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Putin wrote (in the same letter): "Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world." If you like we can use something from that in a note form or simply use an inline citation to Islamic fundamentalism. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You have failed to understand my point. In the link you provide it says: "Definitions vary of what Islamic fundamentalism is and how, if at all, it differs from Islamism (or political Islam) or Islamic revivalism. The term has been deemed "misleading" by those who suggest all mainstream Muslims believe in the literal divine origin and perfection of the Quran and so are "fundamentalists",[5] and by others as a term used by outsiders to describe perceived trends within Islam." While most of the rebel groups may be described as "Islamists" it is inaccurate to call them all "fundamentalists." Sunray (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, maybe that link is a bad idea, but you have failed to understand my point too. When Putin said "fundamentalists" he most likely meant "Qaeda fighters and extremists" and "terrorist organizations" like the "Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Btw, I fully agree with your last sentence, but we are not documenting my POV. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
You're right that I didn't demonstrate that I understood your point. Touchée. I will try harder to do that in future. However, if I may, you did express your views volubly and it would have been hard to put everything you said in a short summary. Also, you weren't listening to other participants. Would you be willing to try to do that in future? As to documenting your POV, is it not documented on the mediation talk page? Sunray (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Moving from positions to interests

My point of view regarding how policies and guidelines should be applied to disputed content is documented on the mediation talk page. Other than that I normally don’t explain my personal view. Regarding your other question. I am not sure why you said I weren't listening to other participants. I may have ignored some posts with personal attacks or posts that lack enough substance to be discussed, but I do listen and I do consider what they, and you, are saying. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

"Point of view" is a close synonym for "position." In dispute resolution it is common to try to move from positions to interests. That takes deep listening. You say that you consider other participant's comments. However, you do not often demonstrate having done so. Showing that you are considering other's comments is important. This can be done either by summarizing the other person's point or by asking a question. Often, if a statement by another participant is overly brief, an open question (i.e., one beginning with "what... or how...) is a good strategy. Here is some feedback for you: You seem to push your own point of view. The main reason that I decided to have a side conversation with you on my own talk page was to discuss this point. Wikipedia is all about collaborative editing. Editors need to moderate their own POV and strive to be collaborative in their approach. Would you be willing to show that you get this by acting accordingly?

That is it, in a nutshell. Let me know how that sits with you and then let's cap this discussion here and return to the mediation talk page. Sunray (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess I can be better to demonstrate that I have considered other participant's comments… However, my interests here is, whether you believe it or not, to write the article from a neutral point of view. That require all sides to be fairly explained, and that is exactly what I am doing or at least trying to do. It is true that I don’t push on much to explain the US/western side, or to criticize the Russian side, but I don’t have to. That side of the story is normally accepted by all editors without any need to push or argue or apply any pressure at all and most of that side was in pretty good shape before I even started to edit the article (in march 2014). So, while I can understand that it looks like I am pushing a POV, I do not agree that I am. Please, keep in mind that collaborative editing requires that all editors try to provide complete information. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jody Wilson-Raybould, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indigenous. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi Sunray, while it's true that Juan Cole has in general supported Hersh's reporting, he early on opposed the "false flag" theory and never wrote about or in defense of Hersh's pieces, after they were written. I posted a link on the mediation talk page. -Darouet (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your saying that, particularly that you said it on the mediation talk page (i.e., publicly to your co-participants). I would just add that I am not one of the participants in the mediation. It is not me you are negotiating with. All I do is ask questions and try to clarify policy. :) Sunray (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sunray/Archive32&oldid=1142794319"