Misplaced Pages

:Requests for mediation/America: Imagine the World Without Her: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:20, 20 January 2015 editVictorD7 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,648 edits →Issues to be mediated: Additional issues 2-5.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:12, 10 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(9 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 41: Line 41:
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]

*]
*]


==== Issues to be mediated ==== ==== Issues to be mediated ====
Line 57: Line 59:
*# Should the notability and/or credentials of the individual authors quoted matter to inclusion discussions, or just the publication they wrote in? *# Should the notability and/or credentials of the individual authors quoted matter to inclusion discussions, or just the publication they wrote in?
*# Is it appropriate to include a paragraph featuring multiple Huffington Post bloggers personally criticizing D’Souza over his legal issues, giving that very brief “handcuff” scene more coverage in the article than any other scene, when a counterweight segment including quotes from a Wall Street Journal interview with nationally prominent legal expert ] and a Washington Times editorial were deleted? *# Is it appropriate to include a paragraph featuring multiple Huffington Post bloggers personally criticizing D’Souza over his legal issues, giving that very brief “handcuff” scene more coverage in the article than any other scene, when a counterweight segment including quotes from a Wall Street Journal interview with nationally prominent legal expert ] and a Washington Times editorial were deleted?
*# '''Comment''', I see this is a mediation that involves the ongoing discussion on the status of Breitbart.com. This is an ongoing discussion on ], one which attempts to ] the non-] equivalent, in the United States, of the '']''. Therefore, IMHO, anyone involved in the discussions regarding Breitbart.com on RSN should alsobe invited to this mediation.--] (]) 05:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


==== Parties' agreement to mediation ==== ==== Parties' agreement to mediation ====
Line 63: Line 66:
#Agree. ] (]) 18:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC) {{reply to|Collect|Arzel}}I changed the wording of the second question because of comments below. I think it captures what is at dispute better. However, the nature of the source is in dispute, I believe. I would ask that Arzel and Collect reconsider taking part in mediation. If this does not capture what is in dispute, we can work together to capture it.] (]) 18:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC) {{reply to|Collect}} I have reworded the question. I hope it better meets what it in dispute. I agree there is a consensus that ] is ] for its own opinions and viewpoints. However, I disagree there was ever a consensus that it should be included in the article. If that wording is still problematic, I would be happy to change it and work towards wording that best defines what is disputed by both sides. In any case, I hope you will reconsider your decision not to take part.] (]) 20:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC) {{reply to|VictorD7}} I added the two editors you suggested. As for question #2, the article uses the source in many places, and not simply the one quote. Also, if you feel there are other issues that need to be discussed, there is a section in which you can add that. I think you should consider taking part] (]) 22:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC){{reply to|Collect}} The question asked for the RFC was "Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for its own film review?" The consensus is only yes to that question, not that it should be included. However, I still invite you to make that point and take part.] (]) 22:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC) {{reply to|VictorD7}} If one takes even a short read over discussions linked above, I think one comes to the conclusion that many editors believe ] is ]. This has been a major point of discussion for months. As such, I think question 2 is important. Second, I also believe that sources like the ] should not be used. However, those sources have not been discussed for months, and per ] I did not include them in this request. However, I would certainly work to gain consensus to remove them. As far as reverting my edit, I will do so to show ]. However, I do not feel the material should be in the article. I would also ask that you show ] and agree to this mediation.] (]) 00:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC) #Agree. ] (]) 18:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC) {{reply to|Collect|Arzel}}I changed the wording of the second question because of comments below. I think it captures what is at dispute better. However, the nature of the source is in dispute, I believe. I would ask that Arzel and Collect reconsider taking part in mediation. If this does not capture what is in dispute, we can work together to capture it.] (]) 18:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC) {{reply to|Collect}} I have reworded the question. I hope it better meets what it in dispute. I agree there is a consensus that ] is ] for its own opinions and viewpoints. However, I disagree there was ever a consensus that it should be included in the article. If that wording is still problematic, I would be happy to change it and work towards wording that best defines what is disputed by both sides. In any case, I hope you will reconsider your decision not to take part.] (]) 20:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC) {{reply to|VictorD7}} I added the two editors you suggested. As for question #2, the article uses the source in many places, and not simply the one quote. Also, if you feel there are other issues that need to be discussed, there is a section in which you can add that. I think you should consider taking part] (]) 22:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC){{reply to|Collect}} The question asked for the RFC was "Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for its own film review?" The consensus is only yes to that question, not that it should be included. However, I still invite you to make that point and take part.] (]) 22:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC) {{reply to|VictorD7}} If one takes even a short read over discussions linked above, I think one comes to the conclusion that many editors believe ] is ]. This has been a major point of discussion for months. As such, I think question 2 is important. Second, I also believe that sources like the ] should not be used. However, those sources have not been discussed for months, and per ] I did not include them in this request. However, I would certainly work to gain consensus to remove them. As far as reverting my edit, I will do so to show ]. However, I do not feel the material should be in the article. I would also ask that you show ] and agree to this mediation.] (]) 00:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
#I didn't know I was still really involved with this, but sure. Agree. ] (]) 19:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC) #I didn't know I was still really involved with this, but sure. Agree. ] (]) 19:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
#Agree on the condition that all involved parties strictly observe ] and that this will be enforced by the mediator. I'm tired of trying to forge compromises with editors who treat an attempt to compromise or discuss as an excuse to sling mud. ] <small>(])</small> 19:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC) #Agree on the condition that all involved parties strictly observe ] and that this will be enforced by the mediator. I'm tired of trying to forge compromises with editors who treat an attempt to compromise or discuss as an excuse to sling mud. ] <small>(])</small> 19:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
# Decline The RfC on the article specifically settled question 1 and Mediation is ''not'' the means to alter ] on what is already settled. ] (]) 20:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Note: Changing question 2 is not relevant - the fact is that Question 1 has ''already been fully discussed and consensus reached'' - mediation is ''not'' the place to overturn a consensus already reached - really. ] (]) 19:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC) The consensus was to '''include''' the review, that one does not ''like'' the consensus at an RFC is insufficient to expect mediation to impose anything at all contrary to ]. Cheers. (I misread the bit about adding two editors and thought you had addressed the line to me) ] (]) 22:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC) (Actually I did not misread the bit -- the OP seems to conflate me with another editor here and pinged me for the claim) ] (]) 22:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC) # Decline The RfC on the article specifically settled question 1 and Mediation is ''not'' the means to alter ] on what is already settled. ] (]) 20:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Note: Changing question 2 is not relevant - the fact is that Question 1 has ''already been fully discussed and consensus reached'' - mediation is ''not'' the place to overturn a consensus already reached - really. ] (]) 19:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC) The consensus was to '''include''' the review, that one does not ''like'' the consensus at an RFC is insufficient to expect mediation to impose anything at all contrary to ]. Cheers. (I misread the bit about adding two editors and thought you had addressed the line to me) ] (]) 22:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC) (Actually I did not misread the bit -- the OP seems to conflate me with another editor here and pinged me for the claim) ] (]) 22:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
# Decline The RfC already settled this issue. Little more than a continued attempt to litigate the issue in different areas. ] (]) 01:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC) # Decline The RfC already settled this issue. Little more than a continued attempt to litigate the issue in different areas. ] (]) 01:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
#Agree. ]] 02:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC) #Agree. ]] 02:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
#'''Agree'''. I am only marginally involved (I responded to the RFC, but have not edited the article)... however, looking at the talk page since I last commented, I think mediation is needed. Many of the involved editors on ''both'' sides have reached the point of ], and it will take "official" mediation to break through that attitude. I agree with those who say that the RFCs settled the second issue - there is indeed a clear consensus that breitbart.com ''is'' reliable in the context used (ie it is reliable for a statement of ''opinion'') - but there is ''not'' a consensus on the first and third issue. I think the mediators should focus on helping editors determine the DUE WEIGHT issue... whether the opinion expressed in breitbart should be mentioned in the article, and if so... ''how''? ] (]) 14:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC) (note... since I wrote the above comment, the second question has been edited. This does not change my opinion as to the need for mediation) ] (]) 16:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC) #'''Agree'''. I am only marginally involved (I responded to the RFC, but have not edited the article)... however, looking at the talk page since I last commented, I think mediation is needed. Many of the involved editors on ''both'' sides have reached the point of ], and it will take "official" mediation to break through that attitude. I agree with those who say that the RFCs settled the second issue - there is indeed a clear consensus that breitbart.com ''is'' reliable in the context used (ie it is reliable for a statement of ''opinion'') - but there is ''not'' a consensus on the first and third issue. I think the mediators should focus on helping editors determine the DUE WEIGHT issue... whether the opinion expressed in breitbart should be mentioned in the article, and if so... ''how''? ] (]) 14:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC) (note... since I wrote the above comment, the second question has been edited. This does not change my opinion as to the need for mediation) ] (]) 16:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
#Agree. It's clear that the RFC did nothing to address the issues with this source. You have some editors who claim it solved question #1 and other editors who say it solved question 2, and it did neither. I'd rather have an un-involved mediation committee review the information than having a random third party with previous relations with involved editors making a closing judgement.] (]) 16:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC) #Agree. It's clear that the RFC did nothing to address the issues with this source. You have some editors who claim it solved question #1 and other editors who say it solved question 2, and it did neither. I'd rather have an un-involved mediation committee review the information than having a random third party with previous relations with involved editors making a closing judgement.] (]) 16:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
# <insert>Update: '''Agree'''<insert>As others observed, the reliability issue has been , and since the dispute here is over Breitbart's "own opinions and viewpoints", #2 is frivolous if not nonsensical. Regarding content inclusion, continually having left leaning editors single out the primary conservative source used in the section for removal after their previous attempts to gain consensus for purging the source failed won't resolve the issue. It's unacceptable to keep focusing on Breitbart while ignoring the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Media Matters, Salon.com, Slant, Indie Wire, and numerous other leftist sources currently quoted for their opinions in the article. While mediation may be called for, this structure is a nonstarter. If meaningful mediation is to occur at all, at the very least it would likely require a comprehensive approach to the article's opinion quotes, with the focus being on faithfully upholding ]. It's also unclear why ] and ] weren't notified, since the former participated heavily in the discussion linked above and the latter posted a lengthy reply. ] (]) 21:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Update: Every Breitbart use but one is an attributed quote, with the one being a clause about the DVD release date that to my knowledge has never been challenged or complained about. I'm not interested in merely tacking on another issue ("oh but let's look at everything else too") to a mediation request that begins by singling out Breitbart, giving the discussion a slanted shape. Since there's a consensus that Breitbart is reliable for its own opinions, there's no rational, compelling reason to single out the source for removal. A content inclusion discussion should focus on weight and neutrality, which can't be divorced from the context of the rest of the article. It would also demonstrate good faith, and encourage me to participate, if you were to revert your recent removal of the Shapiro quote until there's a consensus for its removal, since the quote stood unchallenged for a month, its inclusion therefore representing the last ]. At least that would give us a common premise on which to base this discussion, and might stabilize the article until these issues are resolved. ] (]) 22:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Update: Casprings, I and others have commented extensively on the other sources recently, but I appreciate your gesture and will agree to participate. Breitbart's reliability and acceptability for use in the article was settled by the RFC consensus and shouldn't be relitigated here, but I'll add some questions that I think should guide further discussion on content. I'll also note that ] recently posted in the talk page discussion, and should probably receive a notification of this process. ] (]) 23:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC) # <insert>Update: '''Agree'''<insert>As others observed, the reliability issue has been , and since the dispute here is over Breitbart's "own opinions and viewpoints", #2 is frivolous if not nonsensical. Regarding content inclusion, continually having left leaning editors single out the primary conservative source used in the section for removal after their previous attempts to gain consensus for purging the source failed won't resolve the issue. It's unacceptable to keep focusing on Breitbart while ignoring the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Media Matters, Salon.com, Slant, Indie Wire, and numerous other leftist sources currently quoted for their opinions in the article. While mediation may be called for, this structure is a nonstarter. If meaningful mediation is to occur at all, at the very least it would likely require a comprehensive approach to the article's opinion quotes, with the focus being on faithfully upholding ]. It's also unclear why ] and ] weren't notified, since the former participated heavily in the discussion linked above and the latter posted a lengthy reply. ] (]) 21:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Update: Every Breitbart use but one is an attributed quote, with the one being a clause about the DVD release date that to my knowledge has never been challenged or complained about. I'm not interested in merely tacking on another issue ("oh but let's look at everything else too") to a mediation request that begins by singling out Breitbart, giving the discussion a slanted shape. Since there's a consensus that Breitbart is reliable for its own opinions, there's no rational, compelling reason to single out the source for removal. A content inclusion discussion should focus on weight and neutrality, which can't be divorced from the context of the rest of the article. It would also demonstrate good faith, and encourage me to participate, if you were to revert your recent removal of the Shapiro quote until there's a consensus for its removal, since the quote stood unchallenged for a month, its inclusion therefore representing the last ]. At least that would give us a common premise on which to base this discussion, and might stabilize the article until these issues are resolved. ] (]) 22:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Update: Casprings, I and others have commented extensively on the other sources recently, but I appreciate your gesture and will agree to participate. Breitbart's reliability and acceptability for use in the article was settled by the RFC consensus and shouldn't be relitigated here, but I'll add some questions that I think should guide further discussion on content. I'll also note that ] recently posted in the talk page discussion, and should probably receive a notification of this process. ] (]) 23:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
#'''Agree'''. No objections to mediation. If we have a method to make consensus clearer, why not? ] (]) 01:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC) #'''Agree'''. No objections to mediation. If we have a method to make consensus clearer, why not? ] (]) 01:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
#'''Agree.''' <s>I expanded the article from to 50 kb, adding the "Production", "Political commentary", and "Proposed legislation" sections and expanding the "Marketing", "Release", and "Reception" sections. I did not have much issue with referencing Breitbart.com, especially since I expanded the political commentary to be largely from mainstream sources, but this improved balance has apparently made no difference in discussion. In other words, a number of entrenched editors are sniping at each other over a single paragraph while the rest of the article has evolved, which has made the Breitbart.com content more marginal.</s> ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 17:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC) #'''Agree.''' <s>I expanded the article from to 50 kb, adding the "Production", "Political commentary", and "Proposed legislation" sections and expanding the "Marketing", "Release", and "Reception" sections. I did not have much issue with referencing Breitbart.com, especially since I expanded the political commentary to be largely from mainstream sources, but this improved balance has apparently made no difference in discussion. In other words, a number of entrenched editors are sniping at each other over a single paragraph while the rest of the article has evolved, which has made the Breitbart.com content more marginal.</s> ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 17:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Line 76: Line 79:
#'''Agree''' --] (]) 19:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC) #'''Agree''' --] (]) 19:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
#'''Agree''' I believe the previous RfC conclusively established consensus (at that time) for the inclusion of the Christian Toto review on behalf of Breitbart (including both potential ] issues and ] issues). The later comments by Ben Shapiro were not include in that RfC (in my opinion), and while Breitbart was considered a RS for its own opinions on the movie itself Ben Shapiro's comments at least potentially opened problems for ] which were not accounted for in the RfC (I do not believe the BLP claims are valid, but that goes to the heart of the current matter). That said the Ben Shapiro comments were added, and sat on the page for a month before an objection was raised on the talk page, that to me shows that they (at that time prior to the objection raised a month after addition), had consensus by editing. Currently we appear to be in no-consensus as to the removal of the Ben Shapiro comments and mediation would appear appropriate to at least attempt to break that no-consensus result (a real consensus either way is better then no consensus if it can be resolved). --] (]) 03:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC) #'''Agree''' I believe the previous RfC conclusively established consensus (at that time) for the inclusion of the Christian Toto review on behalf of Breitbart (including both potential ] issues and ] issues). The later comments by Ben Shapiro were not include in that RfC (in my opinion), and while Breitbart was considered a RS for its own opinions on the movie itself Ben Shapiro's comments at least potentially opened problems for ] which were not accounted for in the RfC (I do not believe the BLP claims are valid, but that goes to the heart of the current matter). That said the Ben Shapiro comments were added, and sat on the page for a month before an objection was raised on the talk page, that to me shows that they (at that time prior to the objection raised a month after addition), had consensus by editing. Currently we appear to be in no-consensus as to the removal of the Ben Shapiro comments and mediation would appear appropriate to at least attempt to break that no-consensus result (a real consensus either way is better then no consensus if it can be resolved). --] (]) 03:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
#conditionally agree : i have not been as heavily involved as some of the participants, so if a smaller number of editors is more manageable, feel free to remove me. -- ] 01:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
#'''Decline''' – As my wikibreak is winding down, I note that the RfC on these issues has (for the second time) been resolved. – ] (]) 22:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


====Decision of the Mediation Committee==== ====Decision of the Mediation Committee====
Line 82: Line 87:
:*First, please avoid commenting on one another's acceptance or rejection comments. If you believe other issues should be mediated, or clarified, list them in the other issues section provided above but, again, please do not discuss or respond to them in any other way. If the case is accepted for mediation and a mediator agrees to take the case, the mediator will sort out and negotiate the issues to be mediated at that time. :*First, please avoid commenting on one another's acceptance or rejection comments. If you believe other issues should be mediated, or clarified, list them in the other issues section provided above but, again, please do not discuss or respond to them in any other way. If the case is accepted for mediation and a mediator agrees to take the case, the mediator will sort out and negotiate the issues to be mediated at that time.
:*Second, please also remember that while mediation proceedings are privileged and cannot be used in subsequent proceedings (especially, but not only, at the ], statements made during the acceptance phase are ''not'' privileged. :*Second, please also remember that while mediation proceedings are privileged and cannot be used in subsequent proceedings (especially, but not only, at the ], statements made during the acceptance phase are ''not'' privileged.
::For the committee, ] (]) 18:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC) (chairperson) ::For the committee, ] (]) 18:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC) (chairperson)
*'''Reject.''' Failed to satisfy ] #5, "A majority of the parties to the dispute consent to mediation." For the Mediation Committee, ] (]) 14:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


{{Medcombox/bottom}}<noinclude>]</noinclude> {{Medcombox/bottom}}<noinclude>]</noinclude>

Latest revision as of 22:12, 10 February 2023

America: Imagine the World Without Her

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.
Editors involved in this dispute
  1. Casprings (talk · contribs) – filing party
  2. Collect (talk · contribs)
  3. Erik (talk · contribs)
  4. Scoobydunk (talk · contribs)
  5. VictorD7 (talk · contribs)
  6. SPECIFICO (talk · contribs)
  7. BullRangifer (talk · contribs)
  8. Elaqueate (talk · contribs)
  9. Gamaliel (talk · contribs)
  10. Obsidi (talk · contribs)
  11. Arzel (talk · contribs)
  12. Srich32977 (talk · contribs)
  13. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs)
  14. Moxy (talk · contribs)
  15. Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs)
  16. MastCell (talk · contribs)
  17. Blueboar (talk · contribs)
  18. 1990'sguy (talk · contribs)
  19. Mr. Guye (talk · contribs)
  20. Dmrwikiprof (talk · contribs)
  21. RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)
  22. Herzen (talk · contribs)
  23. Isthisuseful (talk · contribs)
  24. DHeyward (talk · contribs)
  25. MrX (talk · contribs)
Articles affected by this dispute
  1. America: Imagine the World Without Her (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.
Primary issues (added by the filing party)
  1. While there is consensus that Breitbart.com is a WP:RS for its own opinion and viewpoints, there is still a dispute on if material sourced by Breitbart.com should be included in America: Imagine the World Without Her. The bases of the dispute is outlined in the following two questions.
  2. Is Breitbart.com a WP:RS or Misplaced Pages:Questionable sources for anything but its own opinions and viewpoints? In other words, should Breitbart.com be used to cite anything other than its own viewpoints on the movie.
  3. What WP:Weight should Breitbart.com opinion on the movie be given in the article? Even if it is WP:RS for its own opinions what weight, if any, should be given to the opinion and viewpoint of breitbart.com.
Additional issues (added by other parties)
    1. If Breitbart.com is determined to be a Misplaced Pages:Questionable sources but is reliable for its own opinion, what type of materials do "should only be used on material about themselves" apply to and is it still limited from making "contentious claims about others"?
    2. There seems to be a consensus that the article should cover the political reaction to an explicitly political movie, but should it cover both broad sides of the political reaction to it, or just one? If both, then does Breitbart represent a significant portion of the conservative view?
    3. Is it appropriate from a WP:NPOV standpoint to single out Breitbart for potential removal from an article that currently quotes opinions from sources including (but not limited to) The Huffington Post, The Daily Kos, Media Matters, Salon.com, National Review, The Atlantic, The Guardian, The National Journal, The Daily Beast, The AV Club (run by the satirical site The Onion), Slant Magazine, etc.? (shorter than listing every source with the same questions listed for Breitbart above)
    4. Should the notability and/or credentials of the individual authors quoted matter to inclusion discussions, or just the publication they wrote in?
    5. Is it appropriate to include a paragraph featuring multiple Huffington Post bloggers personally criticizing D’Souza over his legal issues, giving that very brief “handcuff” scene more coverage in the article than any other scene, when a counterweight segment including quotes from a Wall Street Journal interview with nationally prominent legal expert Alan Dershowitz and a Washington Times editorial were deleted?
    6. Comment, I see this is a mediation that involves the ongoing discussion on the status of Breitbart.com. This is an ongoing discussion on WP:RSN, one which attempts to censor the non-liberal equivalent, in the United States, of the Huffington Post. Therefore, IMHO, anyone involved in the discussions regarding Breitbart.com on RSN should alsobe invited to this mediation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.
  1. Agree. Casprings (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC) @Collect and Arzel:I changed the wording of the second question because of comments below. I think it captures what is at dispute better. However, the nature of the source is in dispute, I believe. I would ask that Arzel and Collect reconsider taking part in mediation. If this does not capture what is in dispute, we can work together to capture it.Casprings (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC) @Collect: I have reworded the question. I hope it better meets what it in dispute. I agree there is a consensus that breitbart.com is WP:RS for its own opinions and viewpoints. However, I disagree there was ever a consensus that it should be included in the article. If that wording is still problematic, I would be happy to change it and work towards wording that best defines what is disputed by both sides. In any case, I hope you will reconsider your decision not to take part.Casprings (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC) @VictorD7: I added the two editors you suggested. As for question #2, the article uses the source in many places, and not simply the one quote. Also, if you feel there are other issues that need to be discussed, there is a section in which you can add that. I think you should consider taking partCasprings (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)@Collect: The question asked for the RFC was "Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for its own film review?" The consensus is only yes to that question, not that it should be included. However, I still invite you to make that point and take part.Casprings (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC) @VictorD7: If one takes even a short read over discussions linked above, I think one comes to the conclusion that many editors believe breitbart.com is Misplaced Pages:QUESTIONABLE. This has been a major point of discussion for months. As such, I think question 2 is important. Second, I also believe that sources like the dailykos should not be used. However, those sources have not been discussed for months, and per WP:MC/P#PRECOND I did not include them in this request. However, I would certainly work to gain consensus to remove them. As far as reverting my edit, I will do so to show WP:Goodfaith. However, I do not feel the material should be in the article. I would also ask that you show WP:Goodfaith and agree to this mediation.Casprings (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. I didn't know I was still really involved with this, but sure. Agree. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Agree on the condition that all involved parties strictly observe WP:CIVIL and that this will be enforced by the mediator. I'm tired of trying to forge compromises with editors who treat an attempt to compromise or discuss as an excuse to sling mud. Gamaliel (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Decline The RfC on the article specifically settled question 1 and Mediation is not the means to alter WP:CONSENSUS on what is already settled. Collect (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Note: Changing question 2 is not relevant - the fact is that Question 1 has already been fully discussed and consensus reached - mediation is not the place to overturn a consensus already reached - really. Collect (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC) The consensus was to include the review, that one does not like the consensus at an RFC is insufficient to expect mediation to impose anything at all contrary to WP:CONSENSUS. Cheers. (I misread the bit about adding two editors and thought you had addressed the line to me) Collect (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC) (Actually I did not misread the bit -- the OP seems to conflate me with another editor here and pinged me for the claim) Collect (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Decline The RfC already settled this issue. Little more than a continued attempt to litigate the issue in different areas. Arzel (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  6. Agree. SPECIFICO talk 02:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  7. Agree. I am only marginally involved (I responded to the RFC, but have not edited the article)... however, looking at the talk page since I last commented, I think mediation is needed. Many of the involved editors on both sides have reached the point of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT, and it will take "official" mediation to break through that attitude. I agree with those who say that the RFCs settled the second issue - there is indeed a clear consensus that breitbart.com is reliable in the context used (ie it is reliable for a statement of opinion) - but there is not a consensus on the first and third issue. I think the mediators should focus on helping editors determine the DUE WEIGHT issue... whether the opinion expressed in breitbart should be mentioned in the article, and if so... how? Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC) (note... since I wrote the above comment, the second question has been edited. This does not change my opinion as to the need for mediation) Blueboar (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  8. Agree. It's clear that the RFC did nothing to address the issues with this source. You have some editors who claim it solved question #1 and other editors who say it solved question 2, and it did neither. I'd rather have an un-involved mediation committee review the information than having a random third party with previous relations with involved editors making a closing judgement.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  9. <insert>Update: Agree<insert>As others observed, the reliability issue has been settled via RFC, and since the dispute here is over Breitbart's "own opinions and viewpoints", #2 is frivolous if not nonsensical. Regarding content inclusion, continually having left leaning editors single out the primary conservative source used in the section for removal after their previous attempts to gain consensus for purging the source failed won't resolve the issue. It's unacceptable to keep focusing on Breitbart while ignoring the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Media Matters, Salon.com, Slant, Indie Wire, and numerous other leftist sources currently quoted for their opinions in the article. While mediation may be called for, this structure is a nonstarter. If meaningful mediation is to occur at all, at the very least it would likely require a comprehensive approach to the article's opinion quotes, with the focus being on faithfully upholding WP:NPOV. It's also unclear why DHeyward and Isthisuseful weren't notified, since the former participated heavily in the discussion linked above and the latter posted a lengthy reply. VictorD7 (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Update: Every Breitbart use but one is an attributed quote, with the one being a clause about the DVD release date that to my knowledge has never been challenged or complained about. I'm not interested in merely tacking on another issue ("oh but let's look at everything else too") to a mediation request that begins by singling out Breitbart, giving the discussion a slanted shape. Since there's a consensus that Breitbart is reliable for its own opinions, there's no rational, compelling reason to single out the source for removal. A content inclusion discussion should focus on weight and neutrality, which can't be divorced from the context of the rest of the article. It would also demonstrate good faith, and encourage me to participate, if you were to revert your recent removal of the Shapiro quote until there's a consensus for its removal, since the quote stood unchallenged for a month, its inclusion therefore representing the last established consensus. At least that would give us a common premise on which to base this discussion, and might stabilize the article until these issues are resolved. VictorD7 (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Update: Casprings, I and others have commented extensively on the other sources recently, but I appreciate your gesture and will agree to participate. Breitbart's reliability and acceptability for use in the article was settled by the RFC consensus and shouldn't be relitigated here, but I'll add some questions that I think should guide further discussion on content. I'll also note that TMD recently posted in the talk page discussion, and should probably receive a notification of this process. VictorD7 (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  10. Agree. No objections to mediation. If we have a method to make consensus clearer, why not? Mr. Guye (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  11. Agree. I expanded the article from 13 kb to 50 kb, adding the "Production", "Political commentary", and "Proposed legislation" sections and expanding the "Marketing", "Release", and "Reception" sections. I did not have much issue with referencing Breitbart.com, especially since I expanded the political commentary to be largely from mainstream sources, but this improved balance has apparently made no difference in discussion. In other words, a number of entrenched editors are sniping at each other over a single paragraph while the rest of the article has evolved, which has made the Breitbart.com content more marginal. Erik (talk | contrib) 17:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  12. Confused - Why was I named as a party to this mediation request? I've never edited the article.- MrX 18:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  13. Agree --DHeyward (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  14. Agree I believe the previous RfC conclusively established consensus (at that time) for the inclusion of the Christian Toto review on behalf of Breitbart (including both potential WP:RS issues and WP:WEIGHT issues). The later comments by Ben Shapiro were not include in that RfC (in my opinion), and while Breitbart was considered a RS for its own opinions on the movie itself Ben Shapiro's comments at least potentially opened problems for WP:BLP which were not accounted for in the RfC (I do not believe the BLP claims are valid, but that goes to the heart of the current matter). That said the Ben Shapiro comments were added, and sat on the page for a month before an objection was raised on the talk page, that to me shows that they (at that time prior to the objection raised a month after addition), had consensus by editing. Currently we appear to be in no-consensus as to the removal of the Ben Shapiro comments and mediation would appear appropriate to at least attempt to break that no-consensus result (a real consensus either way is better then no consensus if it can be resolved). --Obsidi (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  15. conditionally agree : i have not been as heavily involved as some of the participants, so if a smaller number of editors is more manageable, feel free to remove me. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  16. Decline – As my wikibreak is winding down, I note that the RfC on these issues has (for the second time) been resolved. – S. Rich (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.
  • Chairperson's comments:
  • First, please avoid commenting on one another's acceptance or rejection comments. If you believe other issues should be mediated, or clarified, list them in the other issues section provided above but, again, please do not discuss or respond to them in any other way. If the case is accepted for mediation and a mediator agrees to take the case, the mediator will sort out and negotiate the issues to be mediated at that time.
  • Second, please also remember that while mediation proceedings are privileged and cannot be used in subsequent proceedings (especially, but not only, at the Arbitration Committee, statements made during the acceptance phase are not privileged.
For the committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC) (chairperson)
Category: