Talk:Mediation/Archive 1

Archive 1

archive of old (April 2002 and prior) talk on Talk:Mediation. Please do not edit this content, unless it inaccurately matches the April 14 2002 version. It's very old stuff. Boud 21:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I took the liberty of separating the article into US and non-US sections. If this presents a problem, please let me know so we can reach some sort of agreement. F. Lee Horn, forrest_horn@hotmail.com

--

Sorry, wiki don't work that way.

The article as written was far too focused on the lawyer's idea of civil mediation between equal-power parties, rather than on a general description of the guarantees mediation assumes and why its different from conciliation, negotiation, mindful mediation, peace processes, and judicial systems. Also why it is often refused in favor of other means (legal or even violent) of settling disputes. It seems to do all that now, without removing the precious lawyers' distinction that the precious U. S. lawyer wants to make. If this presents a problem, get back to me at 1-800-EAT-SHIT

--

Well, that's certainly an interesting attitude for someone who presumes to be an authority on the process of mediation. Since I'm not a lawyer, I really wouldn't know about "the precious lawyers' distinction that the precious U. S. lawyer wants to make." If you're not prepared to negotiate on the content of this article, I suggest you're unqualified to write it.

F. Lee Horn, forrest_horn@hotmail.com --

Whoever did the most recent hack removed the material relevant to political processes, which is unwise. Negotiations (and mediations) always start with opposed positions, else they wouldn't be happening. The issue isn't negotiation, it's prior clearance by email. That's impossible for our many anonymous contributors. What you are really saying is that no anonymous party can participate in this concept of negotiation, which is unacceptable here. So you've failed to understand the scope and constraints of the real problem, and whatever you deleted, you should probably read carefully again.

Since it was quite complicated for me to re-order the article, maybe the result was not so excellent, but it seems to me that we are now talking about something that more naturally resembles the concept of mediation as we poor unwise folks can roughly distinguish it.

Your content was not removed, it is perhaps in a different position inside the article, but very little edits have affected it, just to insert the possibility that other people too outside, in the real world, can say something of non-immediately-abominable. This does not mean at all that you are wrong: it only means that other people too might risk to guess (by pure chance or due to other similar incidents) to have different ideas on the matter.

Mediation needed to be described (IMHO) first of all for what is relevant in the work of millions of professionals and customers (then we might discuss which field should better represent it), after this there is enough space left for additional contents, that are still there, in fact. I added a sub-voice for politics and diplomacy, as you may see.

I had it the other way around: the very specialized legalist idea of "mediation" as a subset of harms reduction, diplomacy, de-escalation... I think that is more accurate.

Yes, in politics/diplomacy, I miss a way to imagine it possible that anonymous parties can be "parties" in a mediation process. I repeat and confirm: I just cannot imagine what obligation is able to provide, and with which efficacy, with which warranties, a party that cannot declare itself? Which is the role you would reserve for an eventual party that should assume obligations "to do"?

party that cannot declare itself or has no standing is often the one that holds up the deal... and is certainly a difference between mediation and harms reduction and negotiation and peace processes in the large... if any participant in a mediation is representing the interests of anyone else, or has limits on what they are permitted to negotiate, then "legally binding ON WHO WHERE" becomes very significant.

I might be sad about the position of such an aventual party, but perhaps it is not mediation that can apply in these cases. We are not talking about the single men: the Organisation "X" can well send Mr."Y" to take part into the treaties, and Mr Y can be anonymous. The organisation simply cannot.

Mediation requires, as it is not developed in the article (and this is a failure of mine, while I was at it I could have put it with better evidence), that the parties can reciprocally offer the assumption of some responsibility. Outside the legal and economical side (but economic factors have to be expressed in a legal contest, in order to allow mediated pacts to be accompanied by concrete warranties), which responsibility can offer an anonymous party? It is not its fault, sure, but it cannot. Therefore this would not be a correct mediation process: one party would be in a non "equal" position, having to respond of pacts, while the other would not (of course, it would promise, but which would be the practical warranty?).

The "real problem", my dear, is that mediation is often less known rather than described or claimed for. It sounds well this word, always well. But the word has a meaning of its own, that at a professional or scientific regard is less extensive than often suggested by common language.

About what is unacceptable here, I hope you will graciously explain me, instead, why it should be acceptable to change the meaning of words, unless Wikipedia is here to promote a revolution of common senses. If it could be possible to use words in a creative form or to extend their sense and meaning (and it happens) in art matters, it is not useful instead, nor perhaps appropriated, when regarding professions, techniques or other well determined matters. The chairs I have around the table in my kitchen are the same object of a throne, and they are used in exactly the same way, they have the same function; but it would be a too extensive interpretation to affirm that I bought so many of them just to avoid riots and revolutions at dinner time. So, we don't commonly refer to them as "thrones". We call them "chairs".

About email prior clearances, I don't exchange private corrispondence with other Wikipedians and the system does not have my private address. I conclude you weren't telling that to me.

Yes, I removed question marks, given that one usually expects to find in an encyclopedia some answers, rather than other questions (that here have their reserved talk pages). -- Gianfranco

questions are quite important in subtitles, and useful to bridge between sections. the ideal encyclopedia might consist of nothing but questions as titles...

It seems that our jurisprudential friend has taken what was a perfectly clear and concise article about nediation and turned it into a prime example of why many people mistrust lawyers. This is the sort of thing which poses the true hazzard for The Wikipedia, not the poor dolts who come in here to simply leave the online equavilents to grafitti and vandalism. Unfortunately, I now have to upload another page for my website with an explanation of mediation laymen can understand. Barristers can't seem to comprehend that the rest of us like digestable information, not legalistic obfuscation. And I have no problem with all and sundry knowing exactly who I am and where they can reach me: F. Lee Horn, forrest_horn@hotmail.com.

Dear friend, I am not the "jurisprudential friend" you are contesting, but I made some additions (the last ones) to the article and I do hope we are _all_ here to making it (easily) better of what my limited means could allow me. So, please, let me ask for your help in giving mediation a good article, as I believe it deserves a "good" one.

So, if you really wish to discuss recent additions, please do it here. If you feel you are in a deep constrast with some of the concepts here expressed, let us know. Here, and not in your website, please, or not only, at least. There is no evident reason for external detours, by now.

No one is right and no one is wrong a priori in these works. But, as well, I personally experienced that no one is being ignored a priori here, when he explains the reasons that are behind and before his thoughts. I won't ignore your objections if you will consider me capable of reading them here; I sincerely will not, even if I got effectively quite irritated when (presumedly) you deleted all what was not related with "legal" mediation, the reason for my istinctive irritation being the fact that (presumedly) you gave no explanation at all. (I sincerely apologise if it wasn't you that widely deleted my previous additions, but the IPs are very similar and seem to belong to the same ISP of yours).

Nevertheless, as said, I am here to hear your objections. Here.

As a more general question, can you explain me, please, why an article should necessarily be concise to be "perfect"? Your perfect concise article left no space for forms of mediation other than legal dispute resolution methods.

Unfortunately, someone thinks that mediation only regards legal disputes, while I honestly cannot confirm this, since the number of commercial mediators is very likely to be overwhelmingly greater than the number of mediators in legal disputes. Not to talk about financial mediators: do you really have more legal mediators than banks in your town? These are Coprolitic concepts, perhaps, maybe too scholastical classifications, but never been denied nor replaced with more "modern" or more elegant definitions. At a practical regard, are there more real estate agents in western world or legal mediators?

Thus, other content was added in the aim of making this article complete, and not a partial definition. Concise was not perfect in this case.

But you can still edit the article the way you feel it could (with your contribution) render a better idea of mediation. A little effort more, for prior consensus, will be deeply appreciated this time. But please do follow here the discussion and the article that you yourself started here. :-) -- GianfrancoI took the liberty of separating the article into US and non-US sections. If this presents a problem, please let me know so we can reach some sort of agreement. F. Lee Horn, forrest_horn@hotmail.com

--

Sorry, wiki don't work that way.

The article as written was far too focused on the lawyer's idea of civil mediation between equal-power parties, rather than on a general description of the guarantees mediation assumes and why its different from conciliation, negotiation, mindful mediation, peace processes, and judicial systems. Also why it is often refused in favor of other means (legal or even violent) of settling disputes. It seems to do all that now, without removing the precious lawyers' distinction that the precious U. S. lawyer wants to make. If this presents a problem, get back to me at 1-800-EAT-SHIT

--

Well, that's certainly an interesting attitude for someone who presumes to be an authority on the process of mediation. Since I'm not a lawyer, I really wouldn't know about "the precious lawyers' distinction that the precious U. S. lawyer wants to make." If you're not prepared to negotiate on the content of this article, I suggest you're unqualified to write it.

F. Lee Horn, forrest_horn@hotmail.com --

Whoever did the most recent hack removed the material relevant to political processes, which is unwise. Negotiations (and mediations) always start with opposed positions, else they wouldn't be happening. The issue isn't negotiation, it's prior clearance by email. That's impossible for our many anonymous contributors. What you are really saying is that no anonymous party can participate in this concept of negotiation, which is unacceptable here. So you've failed to understand the scope and constraints of the real problem, and whatever you deleted, you should probably read carefully again.

Since it was quite complicated for me to re-order the article, maybe the result was not so excellent, but it seems to me that we are now talking about something that more naturally resembles the concept of mediation as we poor unwise folks can roughly distinguish it.

Your content was not removed, it is perhaps in a different position inside the article, but very little edits have affected it, just to insert the possibility that other people too outside, in the real world, can say something of non-immediately-abominable. This does not mean at all that you are wrong: it only means that other people too might risk to guess (by pure chance or due to other similar incidents) to have different ideas on the matter.

Mediation needed to be described (IMHO) first of all for what is relevant in the work of millions of professionals and customers (then we might discuss which field should better represent it), after this there is enough space left for additional contents, that are still there, in fact. I added a sub-voice for politics and diplomacy, as you may see.

I had it the other way around: the very specialized legalist idea of "mediation" as a subset of harms reduction, diplomacy, de-escalation... I think that is more accurate.

Yes, in politics/diplomacy, I miss a way to imagine it possible that anonymous parties can be "parties" in a mediation process. I repeat and confirm: I just cannot imagine what obligation is able to provide, and with which efficacy, with which warranties, a party that cannot declare itself? Which is the role you would reserve for an eventual party that should assume obligations "to do"?

party that cannot declare itself or has no standing is often the one that holds up the deal... and is certainly a difference between mediation and harms reduction and negotiation and peace processes in the large... if any participant in a mediation is representing the interests of anyone else, or has limits on what they are permitted to negotiate, then "legally binding ON WHO WHERE" becomes very significant.

I might be sad about the position of such an aventual party, but perhaps it is not mediation that can apply in these cases. We are not talking about the single men: the Organisation "X" can well send Mr."Y" to take part into the treaties, and Mr Y can be anonymous. The organisation simply cannot.

Mediation requires, as it is not developed in the article (and this is a failure of mine, while I was at it I could have put it with better evidence), that the parties can reciprocally offer the assumption of some responsibility. Outside the legal and economical side (but economic factors have to be expressed in a legal contest, in order to allow mediated pacts to be accompanied by concrete warranties), which responsibility can offer an anonymous party? It is not its fault, sure, but it cannot. Therefore this would not be a correct mediation process: one party would be in a non "equal" position, having to respond of pacts, while the other would not (of course, it would promise, but which would be the practical warranty?).

The "real problem", my dear, is that mediation is often less known rather than described or claimed for. It sounds well this word, always well. But the word has a meaning of its own, that at a professional or scientific regard is less extensive than often suggested by common language.

About what is unacceptable here, I hope you will graciously explain me, instead, why it should be acceptable to change the meaning of words, unless Wikipedia is here to promote a revolution of common senses. If it could be possible to use words in a creative form or to extend their sense and meaning (and it happens) in art matters, it is not useful instead, nor perhaps appropriated, when regarding professions, techniques or other well determined matters. The chairs I have around the table in my kitchen are the same object of a throne, and they are used in exactly the same way, they have the same function; but it would be a too extensive interpretation to affirm that I bought so many of them just to avoid riots and revolutions at dinner time. So, we don't commonly refer to them as "thrones". We call them "chairs".

About email prior clearances, I don't exchange private corrispondence with other Wikipedians and the system does not have my private address. I conclude you weren't telling that to me.

Yes, I removed question marks, given that one usually expects to find in an encyclopedia some answers, rather than other questions (that here have their reserved talk pages). -- Gianfranco

questions are quite important in subtitles, and useful to bridge between sections. the ideal encyclopedia might consist of nothing but questions as titles...

It seems that our jurisprudential friend has taken what was a perfectly clear and concise article about nediation and turned it into a prime example of why many people mistrust lawyers. This is the sort of thing which poses the true hazzard for The Wikipedia, not the poor dolts who come in here to simply leave the online equavilents to grafitti and vandalism. Unfortunately, I now have to upload another page for my website with an explanation of mediation laymen can understand. Barristers can't seem to comprehend that the rest of us like digestable information, not legalistic obfuscation. And I have no problem with all and sundry knowing exactly who I am and where they can reach me: F. Lee Horn, forrest_horn@hotmail.com.

Dear friend, I am not the "jurisprudential friend" you are contesting, but I made some additions (the last ones) to the article and I do hope we are _all_ here to making it (easily) better of what my limited means could allow me. So, please, let me ask for your help in giving mediation a good article, as I believe it deserves a "good" one.

So, if you really wish to discuss recent additions, please do it here. If you feel you are in a deep constrast with some of the concepts here expressed, let us know. Here, and not in your website, please, or not only, at least. There is no evident reason for external detours, by now.

No one is right and no one is wrong a priori in these works. But, as well, I personally experienced that no one is being ignored a priori here, when he explains the reasons that are behind and before his thoughts. I won't ignore your objections if you will consider me capable of reading them here; I sincerely will not, even if I got effectively quite irritated when (presumedly) you deleted all what was not related with "legal" mediation, the reason for my istinctive irritation being the fact that (presumedly) you gave no explanation at all. (I sincerely apologise if it wasn't you that widely deleted my previous additions, but the IPs are very similar and seem to belong to the same ISP of yours).

Nevertheless, as said, I am here to hear your objections. Here.

As a more general question, can you explain me, please, why an article should necessarily be concise to be "perfect"? Your perfect concise article left no space for forms of mediation other than legal dispute resolution methods.

Unfortunately, someone thinks that mediation only regards legal disputes, while I honestly cannot confirm this, since the number of commercial mediators is very likely to be overwhelmingly greater than the number of mediators in legal disputes. Not to talk about financial mediators: do you really have more legal mediators than banks in your town? These are Coprolitic concepts, perhaps, maybe too scholastical classifications, but never been denied nor replaced with more "modern" or more elegant definitions. At a practical regard, are there more real estate agents in western world or legal mediators?

Thus, other content was added in the aim of making this article complete, and not a partial definition. Concise was not perfect in this case.

But you can still edit the article the way you feel it could (with your contribution) render a better idea of mediation. A little effort more, for prior consensus, will be deeply appreciated this time. But please do follow here the discussion and the article that you yourself started here. :-) -- Gianfranco