Talk:Mediation

message: I've noticed a lot of redundancy on this article. Especially in the process of meditation. Preperation is repeated at the end again and I will look into deleting it.Dprice12 (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy 

message: * The main definition of mediation on this page focuses on mediation as it is practiced in law.  This definition is inadequate and US-centric, which sees mediation as an alternative to litigation.  A better definition would be the one used in Bush and Folger: Mediaiton is a "process in which a neutral third party with no power to impose a resolution helps the disputing parties try to reach a mutually acceptable settlement."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peopletalk (talk • contribs) 10:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't looked this article recently with a critical eye, but like all articles it can be substantially improved (often by removing the "improvements" of others). I suggest revising a paragraph at a time rather than a wholesale rewrite. That way if you throw the baby out with the bath water no one will put all the bath water back in to save the baby. But if you feel piecemeal revisions will not work create Mediation/Temp and do a complete revision there before you replace the main article. Fred Bauder 15:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Reverted deletion by Paul August): This article has far too many lists.  Not sure about the best way to fix this, but several pages of lists is not brilliant prose.  If Edivorce has a great vision for this page, I think the temp page creation may be the best method of fixing up the article.  This temp page could be submitted to Wikipedia:Peer review before inclusion in this page, resulting in something that's agreeable to many and doesn't end up being abandoned or diluted by reinclusion of crud from the current version after its adoption.  I think that Edivorce is a great user to create this rewrite, provided that he suitably addresses mediation outside of the (somewhat narrow) scope of the legal profession. - JustinWick 15:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Ed, (can I call you Ed ;-) I wouldn't worry too much about the above discussion, If you look at the history, you'll see its really very old. Paul August ☎ 17:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i shifted the old stuff to an archive page - see at top - to avoid further misunderstandings... time heals all wounds Boud 21:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: It seems to me that 
:the adjustment and the refining of the accessory aspects
is putting the cart before the horse. Surely, after discussing and analysing various solutions, first it makes sense to adjust+refine the preferred solutions before going to accessory aspects (meaning additional stuff?). While waiting for someone who knows the subject better, i've adjusted and refined the line to:
:the adjustment and the refining of the proposed solutions
i hope this is a good solution that i've proposed. If not, we might need help from a mediator ;).
Boud 21:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the adjustment and the refining of the accessory aspects 

message: This page could do with a clean-up.  One thing i would suggest is perhaps a disambiguation of the various meanings of mediation.  The quotation at the beginning seems to hint at the basic prinicple behind mediation, but then the article seems to focus on dispute resolution (in a list form).
Mediation can be used in many contexts
*Dispute resolution (there are many different domains and approaches)
*Mediation in the terms of Computer-mediated communication (e-mail, chatrooms, videoconferencing.
*Mass mediation (TV, intenet, radio, newspapers).
*Statistical mediation. 
*Mediation of action and reality through tools (activity theory).
*Mediation of thought and language through signs (semiotics). 
Perhaps disambiguation might give a way of making this article a little more focussed. Any thoughts? MattB2 (yet to set up a user page!)
.........................................
This law page should not be the top direct link to the search "mediation." The legal use of the term "mediation" is not acceptable as a primary definition of the term "mediation."  ("the act of mediating; intercession"http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mediation, or something akin to the raw concept itself, not its usage in law.) The search "mediation" should link to the disambiguation page, not the law page.  There are other equally important kinds of usages of the term "mediation". Otherwise, this link is mediated.
I propose that "mediation" be defined on the disambiguation page as reading:
.....................
* Mediation is the middle element and stage of a transformational process. A mediator reconciles otherwise disparate elements of a process or a polarity into a third, or new, entity.
.....................
PlasticDoor (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Need for disambiguation?

message: Trentw (talk • contribs) has created a number of articles I suggest be merged into this one. They're over-specific, and possibly original research. 
*Responsibilities Regarding Confidentiality in Mediation
*The Uses of Mediation in Preventing Conflicts
*Legal Implications of Mediated Agreements
eaolson 03:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merges

message: I've finally found some free time :) ,  so have had a proper chance to look at this article in detail.  
It seems to me that there is a great deal of good information here, but its layout is haphazard, which makes it confusing.  There is also a lot of information that is repeated in various guises in different sections (namely: what mediation is; and what the mediator tries to do).  I also feel that it is a bit too focussed on mediation in Australia - although I appreciate that that's where a lot of new ideas/developments are coming from (the move to accrediation being a good example), the mediation culture in Oz is light-years ahead of anything we have here in the UK and is probably far ahead of the US and most of Europe.  
The referencing also needs to be looked at - a lot of it comes from one source (Boulle 05).  As the article points out, mediation means many things to many people, and varies wildy within and between various contexts, so a wider range of references might be appropriate.  At the moment, the second half especially reads as being largely anecdotal.
As for the merges, IMHO they offer a good view of important aspects of mediation, the difficulty is incorporating them into the article as it stands.  I believe that it would just confuse things further - adding more information to wealth we already have here.  If the article is revised, then they should be considered as part of that revision.
I'd suggest piecemeal revisions of a few paragraphs at first, to see where that takes us.  I also think that a rationalisation of the article might help - if we can cut some of the repeated information and perhaps organise the topics in a more coherent manner, this could be a much improved article.
Any suggestions/comments?
MattB2 14:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merges and Article Rationalisation 

message: I don't want to sound counter-productive.  I am just a reader interested in this subject.  There is a lot of good stuff about different types of mediation, history, suitable environments, choice of mediators, legal implications etc.  But does anyone have any information they can insert into the article about how to actually do it?  So you sit the two combatants down at a table... and then what?
Lets see if I can help. Sorry for the lack of references, I'm doing this off-the-cuff and my books are in my office where I have mediated for more than 17 years and from which I have taught the subject at the university level for more than 11 years. This is my first attempt to participate in Wikipedia. If this is considered for publication I'll perfect the citations and add others.
The mediation process is generally described as 7 step process: 1. Mediator's Opening Statement; 2. Initial Statement by the Parties; 3. Agenda Setting; 4 Surfacing of the Conflict, 5. Caucus (optional); 6. Closure; 7. Agreement Writing.
 
In step one (Opening Statement) mediators provide "informed consent" (SPYDER Mediation Ethics and Standards) and open the session by describing the process, advising that mediation is confidential (See Ca. Evid. Code 1118 et seq.; Uniform Mediation Act, USC section ???) identifying any rules (no name calling and no interrupting are common), advise parties that mediators are neutral and have no power to decide the outcome.
In step 2 the mediator solicits a summary from each party. In practice, especially where professional negotiators such as lawers are involved, mediators often request a Mediation Brief prior to commencing the session eliminating this step. But the step shouldn't be eliminated because this is often the first time parties have been forced to actually listen to the other's position. It also provides valuable insight into parties' perceptions of the issues and character of the conflict.
Agenda Setting allows the mediator to structure negotiations around the various issues that need to be discussed and/or resolved. This is often called framing (Goffman, et. al.; Fisher & Ury) For example, in divorce cases the issues are commonly division of property and debt, child custody, visitation, child support and spousal support. In civil litigation the issue is often limited to how much if any amount will be paid to settle the case. In collective bargaining, intra- and international negotiations this step may become quite involved often with parties demanding preconditions (actually a tactic) to the commencement of negotiations.
Surfacing of the Conflict involves an exploration of the issues, their character, clarification and reframing, identification of parties needs and desires. A considerable body of research and literature identifies this process as key to resolution (Walton; Goffman; Fisher & Ury Getting To Yes;) and to the production of good agreements. As surfacing progresses Integration (Walton) takes place and agreements emerge. 
Caucus is where mediators meet with parties privately. In practice, many mediators separate parties immediately after the Mediator's Opening Statement or after the initial statement which helps mediators maintian control where conflict is intense, but impedes Surfacing of the Conflict. Caucus may also be tactically to buy time, to de-escalate heated discussions, and to overcome impasse. 
Closure is a statement by the mediator advising parties that mediation is over and includes a statement summarizing the agreement (or areas of agreement if agreement is not completely reached) and reminding parties that everything said,everything written and everything prepared for mediation is confidential. 
Agreement Writing may be done as part of closure, or outside of the mediation session. Sometimes agreements are not be written at all as in (California) small claims court cases where agreements are simply read into the court record. Generally written agreements are the only thing that is non-confidential. In California written agreements arrived at through mediation must contain language stating that they are intended to be non-confidential (Ca. Evid. Code section 1123??)
Lawst (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A Question 

message: It would be helpful to have a clearer portal to the entry on mediation.  
I support merger of Alternative Dispute Resolution, Conflict Resolution, Dispute Resolution, Appropriate Dispute Resolution pages.
I've been working in the field for some time and earned a graduate degree & juris doctorate focused in ADR (or whatever term best fits for you).  The semantics debate in law reviews and in the field itself seems to have died down, as the field has become more established and integrated into the judiciary and businesses.
I would suggest directing searches for Alternative Dispute Resolution, Conflict Resolution, Dispute Resolution, Appropriate Dispute Resolution to one page where information can be consolidate.  There are wonderful resources on each of the respective pages but each page differs.
Perhaps a section to a unified page could be added discussing the evolution of the name of field.  All the names of the field tend to be used interchangeably but groups may have different preferences based on common usage due to their geographic region, industry, role or educational program.
A unified page would also help educate potential ADR consumers, litigants, the judiciary, industry and the bar.  Separate linked pages could focus on particular processes (example: mediation, consensus building, arbitration, etc.), applications and related organizations.
(Crossposted in Conflict Resolution, Dispute Resolution, Appropriate Dispute Resolution, etc).
--Iceweaselqueen (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support for Merger of Alternative Dispute Resolution, Conflict Resolution, Dispute Resolution, Appropriate Dispute Resolution 

message: Please put the following into the external lniks if you would like - thank you, Philip [e-mail address deleted by User:Ukexpat] "* www.mediationworld.net Free global mediation resource - news, articles, legislation, mediation schemes, training standards, etc."
:That link does not comply with Wikipedia's external link policy as its sole purpose seems to be promoting your organisation and therefore will not be added. – ukexpat (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New external link request 

message: I came to this page to learn more about mediation, but I gave up after the intro because the article is so long - and broken into so many sections - that I don't even know where to start. It could use some reorganization. Ground (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article could use some improvement 

message: The hatnote has legitimate information about mediation in it. It should be integrated into the body of the article, and removed from the disambiguation section. Gyro Copter (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overburdened hatnote 

message: While there is a separate header for South Africa, other information contain majority about Australia and some other countries. Editors on this topic can follow up on that. thx  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.114.205 (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country specific information 

message: I find the following sentence confusing in terms of content:
Mediation is a "party-centered" process in that it is focused primarily upon the needs, rights, and interests of the parties.
The criticism is: 
a) In the context of mediation, rights belong to a different category than needs and interests.
b) Feelings are missing. 
As far as I know (I've a mediation company), needs, feelings and interests are the primary objects of mediation (category 1). Rights can only be derived from them in the context of mediation (category 2). 
In any case, it seems to me a linguistic confusion here by letting terms follow disorderly one another in a sentence, terms that belong to two different categories;
needs, rights, interests = category 1, category 2, category 1.
I am therefore proposing a change.
Replace
Mediation is a "party-centered" process in that it is focused primarily upon the needs, rights, and interests of the parties.
''
by
Mediation is a "party-centered" process in that it is focused primarily upon the needs, interests, and feelings of the parties.
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominik Sobacki (talk • contribs) 09:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Object of mediation