Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-15 Todd Russell Platts
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-06-15 Todd Russell Platts
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
[edit] Request Information
- Request made by: Nsb2119 03:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- Article - Todd Russell Platts (NPOV dispute)
- Who's involved?
- myself and user FebrileCortex
- What's going on?
It is my belief that FebrileCortex is violating Wikipedia's NPOV standards by inserting politically-biased language into the article on Congressman Todd Russell Platts. FebrileCortex will not respond to my requests to him/her to discuss my concerns but continues to edit the article. UPDATE: FebrileCortex has now responded on the article's discussion page though mediation is still necessary.
- What would you like to change about that?
I would like an impartial mediator to view these changes, determine if they are in fact blatant violations of the NPOV standards, and if they are violations, help address the situation.
- If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
My talk page is fine.
- Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?
I am a relatively new user and do not know if I have the experience necessary to be a mediator.
-
- This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do
- what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.
- ...
[edit] Mediator response
[edit] Evidence
In my opinion, all of the changes posted by FebrileCortex are NPOV violations and I will list them below:
• Changing “elected official” to “a politician” - This person is an elected official and FebrileCortex changes it to a term with a more negative connotation. Alone, this is not as egergious as the others, but taken into context of all the changes I believe it should be reverted to “career politician.”
• Changing “moderate” to conservative and removing “despite the conservative nature of his district.” – According to the nonpartisan National Journal 2005 VOTE RATINGS, Congressman Todd Platts has a conservative rating of 61.5 which would qualify him as a “moderate.” According to CNN’s Election 2004 Election Results (posted on their website) the three counties which make up his Congressional district appear to have voted for George Bush over John Kerry by close to a 2-1 margin which would qualify that district as “conservative.”
• Removal of all information that suggest Congressman Todd Platts is a moderate and replacing it with, “for instance, he voted 90% of the time with Rep. Tom DeLay, who recently resigned after being indicted, and more than 80% of the time with George W. Bush. – FebrileCortex has removed valid information that supported Platts’ classification as a moderate and replaced it with politically-biased rhetoric. Stating that a political candidate “voted x% of the time with y,” is commonly used by both Democratic and Republican political campaigns to tie opposing candidates with unpopular members of their party.
• “Platts has pocketed five automatic annual pay raises since taking office.” – All members of Congress receive automatic pay raises so I fail to see why it is worth mentioning in this single member’s article. I imagine this was inserted to tie Platts to an unrelated pay raise within the Pennsylvania state legislature, which was largely unpopular with voters.
• “After five years in office, he still hasn't authored a significant piece of legislation.” – Obviously a statement that someone has not authored a “significant” piece of legislation is a politically biased opinion.
• Changing “changed his views,” to “flip-flopped,” – This one speaks for itself.
[edit] Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
[edit] Comments by others
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
