Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-19 Carson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Mediation Cabal | |
| 2006-12-19 Carson | |
| Article | Silent Spring |
|---|---|
| Status | Closed |
| Requestor | cronos1 |
| Parties | Korny O'Near |
| Mediator(s) | Sebastian (talk) |
| Comment | closing, as announced |
Contents |
[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-12-19 Carson
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: Cronos1 00:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- , editing issue is taking place in Criticism section
- Who's involved?
- Myself & Korny O'Near
- What's going on?
- I inserted a description in front of one of the comments thusly: 'Industry and agribusiness advocates continue to criticize Silent Spring.'
Korny O'Near edited it out saying that one of the commentators was not a industry advocate, I reverted and provided documentation supporting this description in Talk section. Korny O'Near laughed off the documentation and proceeded to introduce extraneous and subjective views on nature of sources, Wikipedia neutrality, etc. I repeated the info twice more inviting Korny O'Near to disprove one of the documented claims. Korny O'Near called description 'controversial' without providing something to make it controversial and description deleted ('Industry and agribusiness advocates') again.
- What would you like to change about that?
- I do not believe Wikipedia is here to provide erroneous or misleading information. Passing Ronald Bailey's comments off as those of a disinterested observer and not as an industry advocate would provide erroneous or misleading information. If the description is not left intact, comment should be removed as it is spurious (I do not have a detailed rebuttal of Bailey's article at hand. I have seen one however and believe a non-partisan can see that the paragraph is obviously a hatchet job without any documentation.)
- Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
- At least initially, yes, I would appreciate discretion. I don't know what's typical, presumably email, write me at tjsherrick@comcast.net, and if its easier to mediate in some other way, we can discuss.
[edit] Mediator response
[edit] Compromise offers
Yesterday, I proposed the following by e-mail to Cronos1: "Wikipedia’s way to deal with cases like this, which worked elegantly in thousands of other articles, is: Put the facts next to each other and let the reader reach the conclusion. That Bailey is on CEI’s payroll seems to be verifiable, and that the CEI is pro-industry is verifiable, too. Why not simply put the two together?" He liked the idea and said he'd modify article accordingly. I pointed him to WP:V as a criterion. If anyone is unhappy with his changes please let me know (via e-mail, the cabale page or my talk page). If I don't hear an objection I'll close the case later today. — Sebastian 19:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[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.
