Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-01 John Prescott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-08-01 John Prescott 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-08-01 John Prescott

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Johnprescott'ssecretlovechild 22:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

...John Prescott

Who's involved?

...User:Viewfinder

User:Badgerpatrol

User:Arwel_Parry

and me

What's going on?

... Dispute as to whether allegations printed in a UK newspaper as to a the size of a prominant politician's penis (I'm serious), and other allegations made by a woman with whom he had an affair should be printed on wikipedia. The issue seems to be over whether said info is relevant, and whether it should be included on wikipedia on the grounds of taste. I've included my comments on the talk page.

What would you like to change about that?

... I think they are relevant and should be printed, at the moment I appear to be in the minority of those who have discussed this, but I'd like to see what the consensus of other wikipedians is. (This is my first time going into dispute resolution so apologies if I've made mistakes along the way) I thought it better to get advice from others rather than launch into a reversion war.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

... By all means work openly.

[edit] Mediator response

Find me three verifiable sources other than blogs that can assert your statement and I'll consider taking the case. Otherwise, the large penis claim fails WP:OR and WP:RS and really shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Cheers! CQJ 14:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's not verifiable. It does not belong in WP. Tsetna 16:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm told that a compromise may have already been reached in this case - is that true? If so, this case could be closed before it is even accepted. Could someone clarify this, please? Thanks. :) Cowman109^Talk 17:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion section below. I was the party who accepted the wording by Terriers Fan, but if you wish to challenge it then you are free to do so. Viewfinder 21:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Discussion

Since I seem to have been dragged into this on the basis of a one line comment made a month ago, I will just point out that we are discussing the UK Deputy Prime Minister here. Those opposed to the proponent's view consider that the length of the DPM's member is inherently unverifiable and therefore should not be included in Wikipedia; any other source of information is original research and therefore cannot be included in Wikipedia; that the source cited (The Sun) is explicitly named in WP:V #Sources of dubious reliability, and therefore the information the proponent is attempting to include fails the Biographies of Living People policy. Note also that Jimbo Wales has recently commented on the wiki-en mailing list on the need to remove trivia/cruft from biographies of living people. -- Arwel (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This case is possibly now resolved. TerriersFan introduced this alternative wording on 2 August 2006:

"The Mail on Sunday broke the news in extracts from Temple's memoirs. These included a range of salacious allegations that were subject to extensive media comment."

One of the parties listed above has supported this wording and no one has as yet objected. Road Wizard 20:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

So is the case over? --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 16:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems like it. I think the secret love child dissappeared, and I really wasn't looking forward to seeing pictures of John Prescott's "Member of Parliament" anyways. :-) CQJ 04:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)