Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-05 mung

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


State:	Closed

1 Mediation Case: 2006-10-05 mung

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-10-05 mung

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: PStrait 05:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?: Editors continue to revert my addition to the Mung article without discussion or answering the arguments I presented in discussion.; q.v. Talk:Mung

Who's involved?: PStrait (talk · contribs) (me); Muchness (talk · contribs)
What's going on?: Muchness continues to delete my additions

What would you like to change about that?: I would like my material to be included.

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

[edit] Mediator response

[edit] Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

[edit] Discussion

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.

Based on my understanding of WP:NEO and WP:RS, it is my opinion that the material PStrait wants to include does not meet Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion. I refer the mediators to the disputed content ([1]). Note that the provided references are to a) urbandictionary, b) a self-published site that uses urbandictionary and an anecdotal exchange with a friend as its only references, and c) the lyrics to a song by a band that appears to fail WP:MUSIC.

I feel that this content dispute is due to an incomplete understanding on PStrait's part regarding Wikipedia's content and verifiability policies, and I request that if mediators agree that mediation is appropriate here, they first refer this content dispute to Wikipedia:Third opinion to establish whether there are grounds for the disputed material's inclusion before proceeding. If the consensus is that this material should be included in the article, I agree participate in mediation to resolve any lingering issues. Thanks and regards. --Muchness 07:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Urban dictionary is clearly insufficient. The "self-published site" is the University of Pennsylvania lab, and is written by an eminent scholar in the field of linguistics (associate professor of linguistics at the University of Stanford). The author is not anonymous and has published in peer-reviewed journals, which meets the qualification. Muchness seems to have a misunderstanding of the antecedent of the pronoun "their," which I explained in the talk page of the Mung entry. Addtionally, Muchness's references to WP:MUSIC deals with the question of whether a band is prominent enough to receive its own entry-- it does not speak to the question of whether their published song lyrics are sufficient to imply current usage.

In any event, the continued elimination of my material seems to violate the 3RR rule, and so I feel it should be left in the general article until mediation occurs (or better arguments are presented by Muchness that actually are responsive to my arguments).

PStrait 15:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Urban dictionary is indeed not a reliable source. The information should not be included - there's no mediation necessary for this as it's a clear cut decision based on policy. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thank you. I am closing this case. Cowman109^Talk 21:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)