Group 3 Dispute Results

• I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adamic_language would be an interesting dispute to get involved in--active and juicy. I'll post a comment on the talk page. If you guys think another topic would be better just post it here or by email and I'll participate later tonight (11pm-ish?). I totally forgot about this until now and promised by boyfriend I'd go salsa dancing-- sorry! Jendawson 17:44, 6 January 2008 (EST)
• i think the dispute is fine, my only concern is that all 5 of us have to comment individually according to the assignment, which makes for an unsightly/ungainly dispute resolution process. I think we should probably coordinate our responses so that we have some hope of resolution. Jumpingdeeps 18:35, 6 January 2008 (EST)
• Looks like a good dispute to me, too, but I'll keep an eye out for others. Re: coordinating responses, I agree that it would probably be more effective if we all chime in with the same view (provided we all agree on that view). I also don't think we need to wait on other responses before posting our own, since it seems they are seeking input from any interested editors. Amehra 19:15, 6 January 2008 (EST)
• Jen -- thanks for finding a good dispute. I spent about an hour earlier today looking for something interesting, and got hopelessly lost in all the acronyms & policy. Unfortunately, I have plans with my wife tonight and won't be around much, but will take a closer read and post some comments tomorrow morning. Incidentally, I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if we comment individually; however, if the group feels that we should formulate a single position, I'm game as well. Rlumpau 21:07, 6 January 2008 (EST)
  • Hm, I don't so much mean by coordinating that we need to formulate a single position as much as vet a few ideas/understand the controversy among ourselves so that we're helpful in resolving the dispute. Jumpingdeeps 21:20, 6 January 2008 (EST)
    • I'll be on gchat for the next few hours - feel free to join a group discussion there (as Jumpingdeeps suggests). sí 21:25, 6 January 2008 (EST)
      • I think that we might have missed the vibrancy wave of this dispute. The discussion seemed to be most bitter earlier, when editors were arguing over the presence of information about Mormon ritual invoking the Adamic phrase "pay lay ale." While testy at times, it seems to have been somewhat resolved - a "vote" was taken, separate section for "pay lay ale" favored, and a couple people agreed to come up with something. Whether "In Mormonism" should be broken out seems to be something relatively new, and I don't think there are sufficient voices on the yes-it-should-be-broken-out side to warrant our involvement. (The only comment I see about the issue is by Snocrates, who feels as though the present inclusion is fine.) Please let me know if I'm way off. Or if other non-HLS editors respond to Jen's comment in the near future, that would certainly be relevant. sí 22:42, 6 January 2008 (EST)

• Savith, Deepa, and myself have come up with an alternative dispute to pursue, about trimming a portion of quoted text in the Wall Street Journal article. This seems to us to be somewhat more straightforward (in terms of figuring out the points at issue) and thus perhaps better for our group to tackle. Thoughts? Amehra 22:35, 6 January 2008 (EST)
  • The dispute Arjun mentioned is about the inclusion of a five paragraph quotation critical of Murdoch (and specifically his supposed tendency to lie about not interfering with his possessions). sí 22:42, 6 January 2008 (EST)