Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-12 Judy Marsales exclusion of content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: Judy Marsales State: Closed Requested By: Alan.ca Other Parties: CJCurrie Alan.ca Mediated By: Squad'nLeedah Comments: Awaiting final comments.

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-12-12 Judy Marsales exclusion of content 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-12-12 Judy Marsales exclusion of content

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Alan.ca 22:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Judy Marsales

Who's involved?

user:CJCurrie user:Alan.ca user:Aeon1006 - AMA Advocate (Temp)

What's going on?

CJCurrie is removing a citation I included about a politician's voting record contrary to their constituency interest and re-inserting a list of awards the politician received that are not cited. I have attempted to discuss this issue on CJCurrie's talk page, but he insists on a revert war in the article. Presently, we are at a standstill where he has agreed to leave out the unsourced awards and I have conceded to leave out the sourced voting information pending this mediation. He presently states he doesn't believe the vote is notable and that the newspaper source is not sufficient. The article otherwise remains unsourced and I have included a list of the only 9 news articles I could find about the biography subject for his comment at Talk:Judy Marsales.

What would you like to change about that?

I would like to include the cited information about Judy Marsales` position on the vote. If CJCurrie wants to move the awards list from the talk page to the main space, I expect a citation. I am flexible on the precise wording of the statement to be as close to NPOV as possible. If we determine it's unreasonable to include the Hudak vote citation, I would like alternative sourced information to be agreed upon. If we cannot find any sources for this article and it is deemed by consensus that these submissions do not meet policy, I think we have no choice but to AfD the article.

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

no, publicly is best.

[edit] Mediator response

Hi how are you guys? Im having a go at mediating for the first time, and from what i can see this is actually fairly open and shut. I hope i can help you guys out and keep within the Wiki mediation guidelines.

So here goes -

First of all, i congratulate those involved in this discussion for being able to cool down and come to somewhat of a truce while it is mediated.

I have gone through the article and discussion pages, and this is what im thinking -

If the Hamilton Spectator is a newspaper publication freely available and distributed to the public, then it is an acceptable source, and the information contained within does conform to Wiki policies. If an article freely available to the public makes a certain claim, then it is NOT POV and is able to be included here. That also goes for any opposing claims in the same way. That article IMHO is acceptable to include here. As would a freely available publication/report/article that refutes that, and in fact, having both sides of that argument would in help to create a balanced article.

As for the awards listed here, unless you can find an external source that you can cite here, then it is Original research and therefore does not meet Wikipedia standards.

In the article in its current form i see nothing that is NPOV.

As for notability, there appears to be quite a list of currently serving Canadian MPs so i can see no reason not to add this one to the list. On top of that, ANY parliamentary election is notable to its local constituents, and therefore notable enough for a Wikipedia

I hope this helps the situation, feel free to contact me on my talk page.

Squad'nLeedah 04:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Discussion

Well, we know I agree with the mediator. Any thoughts CJCurrie? Alan.ca 12:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

With respect, I will have to disagree. Most contributors who are familiar with Canadian politics seem to agree that the reference is trivial, and has no business in the article. I'm not inclined to defer to an outsider's opinion on this point. (No offense.) CJCurrie 07:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If you request mediation, you dont get to chose where the mediator comes from. I am the mediator who picked up the case, whether i am an outsider or not. You say most contributors agree the reference is trivial, i see no other users stating such here, and as far as i can tell, if this person is a standing member of Canadian parliament, its Noteworthy. However, insisting that you are not inclined to defer to an outsiders opinion would say to me that you are not inclined to defer to the MEDIATORS opinion, and as we are NOT Wiki policy, there is nothing i can do to help you here. Squad'nLeedah 14:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation User:Squadnleedah, I appreciate your opinion. However, I was looking for more of a mediation than an opinion. It turns out that the AMA advocate I had requested has been making progress on the matter and I no longer require the mediation. Thank you again for your assistance. Alan.ca 23:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)