Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-23 Holotropic Breathwork NPOV disagreement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

State: Closed Mediated By: TheRingess

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2007-01-23 Holotropic Breathwork NPOV disagreement 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2007-01-23 Holotropic Breathwork NPOV disagreement

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Jablett 19:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Request made by: The Communicator 23:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Holotropic Breathwork and related talk pages (Talk:Holotropic Breathwork)

Who's involved?

Currently users The Communicator, IvorJ, Jablett and Sanpho. IvorJ initially began editing on 28 December (IP address 81.145.241.211) and later contributed to the Talk page as an unregistered user, signing himself MAJ.

What's going on?

There has been lengthy debate since November last year about NPOV in relation to this article. It has centred on, but not been limited to, the criticism section. Recurrent themes are whether the length of the criticism section violates NPOV 'undue weight' overall, and whether the sources by Kate Thomas, Stephen Castro and Kevin Shepherd are relevant, have been given too much weight individually and/or violate self publishing guidelines. (see talk pages)

In addition to NPOV, there is also a question of notability. "Holotropic Breathwork" is a trademark of Grof Transpersonal Training, INC (the first of the external links, the name of which has just been corrected by Communicator to reflect this). Apart from the quotes from critics, and a single quote from the abstract of an article, the only other referenced material in the article is from Grof himself. In addition, three of the editors mentioned above are partisans sympathetic to the subject (Sanpho is a practitioner, Jablett is training, and IvorJ has experience of HB and has had personal contact with Grof). There is no reference to Holotropic Breathwork in comparable online encyclopaedias (Britannica, Encarta, HighBeam) or even dictionaries (Merriam-Webster, Oxford). There is already a passing reference to it in the more generic Psychedelic_psychotherapy. How does Wikipedia policy apply to this, for instance Wikipedia:Notability_(companies_and_corporations)?

What would you like to change about that?

We would like an external independent Wikipedia editor to clarify how WP policies apply to this article, and how we should go about correcting any violations

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

A link has been posted on the talk page and we would be happy for you to address the discussion on there.

[edit] Mediator response

Related link: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-28 Talk:Holotropic Breathwork --Ideogram 00:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have opened this case and am willing to serve as mediator. Firstly though, I want to state that I am not going to clarify how WP policies apply to this article and how the participants should go about correcting any violations (see "What would you like to change about that"). I feel that it's up to the participants to decide themselves which policies apply and how they should go about editing the article. Firstly, I would recommend that all parties forget about who might or might not be a practitioner of this particular subject. Those speculations do not help. Keep in mind WP:CIVIL and we should be able to reach consensus quickly. To get the ball rolling I suggest that all interested parties start reading WP:V and WP:CITE and WP:RS and WP:NPOV.TheRingess (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Discussion

Thanks for the offer to mediate, TheRingess. Just before you intervened, I made the suggestion that this dispute could be defused somewhat by making the rudimentary Breathwork the primary article, allowing a more informative and wideranging discussion than possible in an article about a single commercialized subtype, HB in this case. I agree that editors' practice of HB should not be at issue, but it's at least noteworthy that all those who have objected to the criticism section have no other visible editing history on WP, whereas both those who have either added criticism or prevented its removal have edited other articles. So, I'm adding WP:SPA to your reading list. Jedermann 16:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediator Comment Duly noted. Now you guys should start talking. I'm also adding assume good faith to the reading list.TheRingess (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I note from Jedermann's user page that he has left Wikipedia. Obviously it's his decision and I respect that, but I am concerned by the thought that it might be related to the current mediation, and hope that he is OK.

In the absence of any other information or contributions, this seems to leave The Communicator (currently taking a break) and myself as the only active parties in this mediation. Jablett 14:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediator Comment I think all of you did a great job talking to each other. I think it's now time to go ahead and start implementing solutions. TheRingess (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediator Comment I feel that it's okay to close this case. All interested parties are talking and they made great progress. If anyone feels the need it can always be reopened. Great work. TheRingess (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)