Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:50, 21 May 2007

General problem, probably long term - dispute on how to properly include cited material in proper NPOV manner.

Hello Medcab

We need some help with mediating the Landmark Education article. Some editors have been removing well sourced edits from the article on the basis that consensus trumps NPOV policies , or that minority views cannot be presented on Misplaced Pages I will assume good faith and for the time being state that they are just being unbelievably misguided.

Editors who wish to have the information presented into the article are doing so on the basis that the edits are well sourced, and are therefore admissible. Such editors are open to appropriate adjustments being made to those edits in context. Jeffrire 08:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment to Mediators: The above framing of the issues is how one side of the issues being dealt with would articulate. Some of the above is even factually inaccurate (I believe). For instance, I would be surprised if Jeffrire Can show one entry on the talk page where an editor expressed that "consensus trumps NPOV". That is merely weasel-wording on Jeffrire's part- misstating other editor's positions in order to invoke sympathy in newcomers to the conversations. Alex Jackl 21:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments from involved editors

Comments by DaveApter

Just a quick comment for now - Jeffrire has framed the summary in manner which begs the question under dispute. It is not that he is a standard bearer for upholding the NPOV policy and others wish to ignore it. The issue is rather that other editors differ from his judgement that the material is in compliance with the NPOV policy. Also that the sources are in some cases far from reliable, that the sources sometimes do not support the assertion made in the article, and that what is being put forward is opinion rather than fact without a notable individual or identifiable population being shown to hold that opinion. DaveApter 14:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Lsi john

I had no knowledge or experience with Landmark Education prior to joining wikipedia editors on 28-March-2007.

With all due respect to Jefrire, the above is not an accurate portrayal of the situation. I do agree that lengthy repeated discussions, regarding the material in question, have failed to yield productive results and it may be time for mediation.

While some editors may disagree on specific points, by and large the majority of editors are open to compromise on the wording, provided the end result contains relevant material that is worded in an NPOV manner.

One important point in particular:

• The foreign language sources use the word 'sectant' which properly translates to 'sect'. Jeffrire has refused to accept this proper translation and repeatedly insists that Landmark Education is a cult.

Thank you for your time and attention.

I look forward to accurate citations which properly reflect the material being cited in an NPOV manner.

Lsi john 14:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Spacefarer

While I don't edit a lot, at the request of Jeffrire, I took the time to add comments, and they have not been addressed. I am concerned that the artilce stay balanced and NPOV with reputable sources, not just individual opinions. Spacefarer 16:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Sm1969

I have edited on and off on this page, and, over the period of about 1.5 years, the article has gone in circles, with A) wholesale deletions of sourced material and B) overrepresentation of insignificant minority positions (which should not be included by NPOV guidelines) and C) overrepresentation of significant minority opinions (which should be given due representation, but not overweighted). Numerous articles have been created surrounding Landmark Education on non-notable people and subjects to create a basis for portraying Landmark Education in a negative light, and such articles have also been administratively deleted for violating policies on notability and attacks. The LE page has gone on and off protection, yet the problems with certain editors persist. We are a long way from a neutral, accurate and informative article, and have been circling (at best) that objective for about 1.5 years. Sm1969 18:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments by AJackl

First off , the framing of this mediation request is ludicrous and a PERFECT example of the kind of spin and POV work that has been done on this article. Few editors would say that the above is the issue. None of us have argued that "COncensus trumps NPOV" AT ALL. We have argued consistently that the mass reverts being done by these users to a single old version of the article is a POV attack against the article and contains POV-pushing, non-notable, and non-relevant, information. The framing of this mediation request is the kind of use of weasel words I find most objectionable about what has been going on in this page. Alex Jackl 21:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have edited on this page for some time. In the interest of not repeating material I concur with users DaveApter, Sm1969, SpaceFarer, and Lsi john above. I have been frustrated over time with the lack of compromise, have been exhausted by dealing with bulk reverts of contentious, POV, insignificant minority-view (IMO) material (however cited and sourced it is). DaveApter tried to create a discussion frame which was mostly ignored and then it worked because the page was protected and the editors that actually wanted to work on content started showing up once the edit warring disappeared and for a few weeks/months we worked together and got the page to a reasonable state. Then EstherRice and Jeffrire picked up where Smee left off and the assault began again. I would love to work out the issues but I don't have much faith and am tired of mass reverts happening with no (or little to be more accurate and fair) discussion of the content or response to factual concerns except "this is highly sourced material". I hope this process makes a difference but I am sure glad the page is protected. Alex Jackl 21:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• User:AJackl seems to only be able to describe his opinions regarding the issue by personally attacking other editors - most amusing, and yet, highly inappropriate, and especially not conducive to any form of constructive polite dialogue through a Mediation process. Smee 23:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC).