Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/America First (policy)

America First (policy)

Editors involved in this dispute

1. JFG (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Stevo D (talk · contribs)
3. Liborbital (talk · contribs)
4. Kleuske (talk · contribs)
5. Tataral (talk · contribs)
6. Neutrality (talk · contribs)
7. My very best wishes (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. America First (policy) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. America First Committee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
3. America First (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at

resolving this dispute

that you have attempted

• Talk:America First (policy)#Antisemitism
• Talk:America First (policy)#To Trump of not to Trump
• Talk:America First (policy)#Arbitrary break

Issues to be mediated

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

Stevo D created the article called America First (policy) to document Donald Trump's "America First" policy, which involves domestic manufacturing, international trade, foreign policy and taxation issues. Other editors have expanded the article to include the WW2-era isolationist movement embodied by the America First Committee. Disputes have arisen regarding:

1. claimed continuity, heritage or inspiration between the 1940–41 policy and the 2016–17 policy
2. use of the 1940 committee logo to illustrate the 2017 article
3. attribution of antisemitic tendencies to the 2017 policy because it shares a name and some ideas with the 1940 movement

I have attempted to discuss the scope and advocate for separate articles about the 1940 and 2016 concepts but I failed to get consensus, as some editors believe those are clearly separate subjects while others insist they are closely related. Note that America First is already a disambiguation page. As it stands now, it is difficult to expand the article with current developments because the scope is unclear.

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

1. Agree. — JFG ^talk 22:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. Kleuske (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3. Disagree. I made only one edit on this page and made a few comments two months ago. Why I was included in the "parties"? That said, I do not see any reason not to edit it in a future, especially because this mediation reminded me about the existence of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Agree - though, is it too late for that? Stevo D (talk) 09:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Chairperson's note to all listed parties: In light of the number of listed parties, I'd like to try to prevent confusion and unnecessary discussion by making some things clear before everyone starts weighing in.

• First, if you have been listed as a party but do not care to participate in the mediation and you agree not to edit the articles, or continue discussion at the article talk page, on the matter in dispute you may say so rather than accepting or rejecting and your withdrawal will reduce the party count.
• Second, in determining whether
  prerequisite to mediation #5
  has been met conditional or ambiguous "accepts" will almost always be counted as rejects unless the condition is something which is always done in mediation anyway. If the reason for conditioning your "accept" is to contest the way the issue to be mediated is stated by the listing party or to insure that your additional issue is considered, bear in mind that if the case is accepted for mediation and a mediator accepts the case that the mediator will negotiate the exact issues to be mediated with the parties; if you are not satisfied with the outcome of that process you may withdraw from or reject the mediation at that time. Based on the party count at this time, we will need at least 4 accepts before the case can be accepted.
• Third, with this many people involved, even if the minimum number of "accepts" is met it is possible for the case to be rejected if there aren't enough parties, or aren't enough necessary parties, for the mediation to succeed (see the next subsection).
• Fourth, please understand what mediation can do. It will not hear the arguments and make a judgment as to what is correct. What it will do is to attempt to provide a moderated and guided environment where discussion can continue with a view to reaching
  consensus. While mediators work diligently towards coming to a negative or positive consensus, they also realize that "no consensus" is a perfectly acceptable result under Wikipedia's wiki concept. In general regarding the concept of mediation, see the article on Mediation
  .
• Fifth, realize that mediations typically take weeks and sometimes months to complete.
• Sixth, please do not engage in discussion or reply to other users on this acceptance page. Either just accept or reject (or withdraw, see above) and, if you care to do so, add additional issues in the appropriate section above. Be aware that the privilege of mediation (i.e. that statements and discussions made during mediation cannot ordinarily be used as evidence for any behavioral complaint, though there are exceptions) does not apply until a case has been accepted for mediation and a mediator opens the case.
• Seventh, the foregoing are just some general comments not specifically referencing this particular case except as to the number of parties. Nothing in this note should be understood to imply that the case has or has not satisfied the other prerequisites for mediation; those prerequisites will be considered if the minimum number of parties is met.

I'd strongly recommend that all parties read the

Mediation Committee policy before deciding to accept, reject, or withdraw. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply

]

• Reject. Failed to satisfy
  prerequisite to mediation #5. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply
  ]