Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Recognition of the Armenian Genocide
Status	Closed
Request date	10:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	User:Gazifikator and PBS
Mediator(s)	The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 07:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Recognition of the Armenian Genocide]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Recognition of the Armenian Genocide]]

Talk:Recognition of the Armenian Genocide#RFC: UN Sub-Commission

• Gazifikator
• PBS

The dispute revolves around what to include and where to place the information in the section Recognition of the Armenian Genocide#International organizations. The talk page section listed above details the progress and lack of progress made, and the last two reversals of the text is a good indication of where the dispute is currently

• Revision as of 21:49, 24 June 2009 PBS "rv see talk page"
• Revision as of 04:08, 25 June 2009 Gazifikator "Undid revision 298443429 by Philip Baird Shearer"

There are three issues that the reversals indicate are still a problem:

1. Whether the independent detailed paragraphs negate the need to include mention of organisations in a separate list, or if the paragraphs are part of the list.
2. Related to number (1.) the placement of the paragraphs.
3. Whether mention should me made that the Sub-Commission is defunct and whether to include mention that it was a think-tank.

This section should explain what you'd like to be looked at, and what you'd like to be changed.

The parties to the dispute have moved someway to settling their differences (initially PBS did not want any mention of the UN in the section, and initially Gazifikator did not want a detailed paragraph, but the devil is in the detail, and we need a third opinion to try to sort out these last remaining issues.

We apologize for the delay. Is this still an issue? If so, I would be glad to help. Firestorm ^Talk 23:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry did not see this message. Yes the dispute continues. --PBS (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let's open this one up. I see three main disputes listed above. What I would like to see now is a short statement from each party detailing their positions on each issue. From there, we can start discussion on how to best resolve them. Keep in mind that the Mediation Cabal focuses on content disputes, not user content. Firestorm ^Talk 15:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]