Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Joseon Dynasty
Status	Closed
Request date	06:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	User:Historiographer, User:蘇州宇文宙武, User:Jpatokal, User:Kuebie
Mediator(s)	Vicenarian (talk · contribs)
Comment	Closing as stale, only one party agreed to mediation. (04:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC))

For the purposes of this mediation, at Joseon Dynasty only, although many editors are also involved in other Korean disputes.

• Historiographer (talk · contribs)
• 蘇州宇文宙武 (talk · contribs)
• Jpatokal (talk · contribs)
• Kuebie (talk · contribs)

...and a large cast of anons.

There are two primary points of contention:

• Whether Joseon was a "sovereign" state
• Whether Joseon was a "vassal state" of Qing China

This version of the article is the "sovereign/not a vassal" version, while this is the "not sovereign/was a vassal" version.

An edit war leading to temporary protection and several 3RR blocks has been raging for several weeks now. Attempts to source third opinions at WP:KOREA and WP:HISTORY have been unsuccessful.

Both sides have marshalled a number of sources to support their view. A mediator's assistance in reviewing those sources for reliability and possibly proposing a compromise wording would be useful.

Hello, my name is Vicenarian and I have volunteered to be your mediator. I hope we can work together to find a solution to this dispute. To get started, I would ask that all interested/listed parties sign below to indicate their acceptance of mediation and of me as mediator. Thank you, and I look forward to a productive and civil discussion with all. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 09:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept. Jpatokal (talk) 10:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has been a month since this case was accepted and not all involved parties have agreed to mediation, I'm afraid we cannot continue. If the dispute continues, and the parties agree to mediation, please feel free to open a new case. Regards, Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 04:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I was asked to comment here, not sure if this is the right place to post, feel free to move to talk page or wherever)
I have protected this article once because of the extended edit-warring, and blocked User:Historiographer once for reverting to his preferred version without rationale right after the protection expired. Discussion here seems to have reached an impasse (in that no one is listening to it anymore and it's serving no purpose) and mediation is sorely needed. Personally I have no opinion either way on the content, and am not familiar enough with Korean history to really care which version is more accurate; I am just upset by the amount of edit warring I see there. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There will be an edit-warring again. --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]