| Revision as of 08:32, 9 April 2008 editJaakobou (talk | contribs)15,880 edits →What's going on?← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:22, 10 April 2008 edit undoSceptre (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors79,164 edits reNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Medcabstatus | {{Medcabstatus | ||
| <!-- Mediator, please change from new to open when accepted, to status closed when the case is closed. Remember to remove the mediation request message from the article talk page when closing. --> | <!-- Mediator, please change from new to open when accepted, to status closed when the case is closed. Remember to remove the mediation request message from the article talk page when closing. --> | ||
| |status = |
|status = OPEN | ||
| |article = Saeb Erekat | |article = Saeb Erekat | ||
| |requestor = <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 19:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC) | |requestor = <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 19:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| |parties = Jaakobou, Nickhh | |parties = Jaakobou, Nickhh | ||
| |mediators = ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 17:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| |mediators = | |||
| |comment = | |comment = | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| === Mediator notes === | === Mediator notes === | ||
| I'm accepting this to give some guidance on guidelines and policies; don't squeeze my neck based on your opinion of the case. | |||
| If I am correct in my assumption, this article is about a living person. We should be very careful on how we balance things in these sorts of articles. I'm not making any judgement on the sources; that can be made on the talk page. | |||
| There are two main objections to the section: the first is that the "controversy" section takes up about two-thirds of the page's code and source's. Looking over your version, there is some blatant NPOV violations (i.e. air-quoting the word ''massacre'') The second is the existence of a section titled "controversy": such a word implies a point of view right off the bat and is discouraged per ], ], ] and ]. | |||
| The first will require some tending to. Try to reduce the number of sources and the POV so a reader doesn't get any impression: remember, we don't call ] a terrorist (we say "MI6, the DHS, etc. have classified bin Laden as a terrorist), so we shouldn't say things about people of lesser notoriety. The easy way to deal with the second is to get rid of the controversy section, and try to integrate it into talking about his political career. If this has proved helpful, thanks. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 17:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| === Administrative notes === | === Administrative notes === | ||
Revision as of 17:22, 10 April 2008
| Misplaced Pages Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Saeb Erekat |
| Status | OPEN |
| Request date | Unknown |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Parties involved | Jaakobou, Nickhh |
| Mediator(s) | Sceptre 17:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC) |
Request details
There is a long going dispute over the "controversy" section in the article. After 7 months of discussions it's clear that some form of official/semi-official mediation is needed.
Current conflicting versions can be seen here: .
Who are the involved parties?
What's going on?
Version supported by Jaakobou has been built up from a small criticism compromize achived in September 2006. In September 2007 an editor insisted the event was not notable and ever since there'd been discussions and further source inspection leading to a larger and heavily sourced version. Frankly, after 7 months of being forced to inspect each and every source and prove (to my recollection) 14 high quality sources considered this event serious, I'm not willing to go back to the mini-version I've agreed to back in 2006; certainly not after I've repeatedly suggested this compromise before (and during) being forced to do much work. In any event, Nickhh version is inappropriate being that it's (a) untrue to the sources found, and (b) uses no sources at all for the biggest controversy. Jaakobou 19:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC) minor clarification 08:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
What would you like to change about that?
- Go back to the well cited encyclopedic version. Jaakobou 19:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Mediator notes
I'm accepting this to give some guidance on guidelines and policies; don't squeeze my neck based on your opinion of the case.
If I am correct in my assumption, this article is about a living person. We should be very careful on how we balance things in these sorts of articles. I'm not making any judgement on the sources; that can be made on the talk page.
There are two main objections to the section: the first is that the "controversy" section takes up about two-thirds of the page's code and source's. Looking over your version, there is some blatant NPOV violations (i.e. air-quoting the word massacre) The second is the existence of a section titled "controversy": such a word implies a point of view right off the bat and is discouraged per ], WTA, CRIT and ].
The first will require some tending to. Try to reduce the number of sources and the POV so a reader doesn't get any impression: remember, we don't call Osama bin Laden a terrorist (we say "MI6, the DHS, etc. have classified bin Laden as a terrorist), so we shouldn't say things about people of lesser notoriety. The easy way to deal with the second is to get rid of the controversy section, and try to integrate it into talking about his political career. If this has proved helpful, thanks. Sceptre 17:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)