Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-20/Clarence Thomas
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Clarence Thomas |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 01:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Mediator(s) | Vicenarian (talk · contribs) |
| Comment | Closed as stale. 20:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC) |
Request details
[edit]Where is the dispute?
[edit]Clarence Thomas Talk:Clarence Thomas Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Clarence Thomas
Who is involved?
[edit]A short list of the users involved, for example;
- User:RafaelRGarcia (tangentially)
What is the dispute?
[edit]In ordinary usage, it is understood that a person described as being on the "far right" is an extremist. That is its usual connotation in the United States, and its exclusive connotation elsewhere in the English-speaking world. In the context of a BLP, when numerous reliable sources exist that offer all sorts of descriptions of a judge, thereby allowing us to choose between several descriptions of that person for which a citation can be offered, should we choose the needlessly inflammatory one ("far right"), or should we select a more accurate (and more NPOV) description from among the available sources (such as "conservative")? (See also WP:CHERRY.)
user:MastCell, aided off and on by User:RafaelRGarcia, wanted to include a quote that branded Clarence Thomas as being "far right." We can stipulate for present purposes that the source is sufficient. This is not sourcing (whether the quote can be included), but content (whether the quote should be included). It appears to me that MastCell's argument is that the latter question is moot if the former is answered in the affirmative. I understand him to claim, in effect, that the mere existence in a reliable source of any information necessarily requires inclusion in Wikipedia and ends any debate on the propriety under WP:BLP of the material's inclusion or description: If a reliable source said it, dadgummit, we should present it as if it was the straight dice truth. But no policy requires that, and BLP casts grave doubt on it at an absolute minimum (I would say that BLP prohibits it, but you needn't accept that proposition to agree with me). This phrase is inflammatory, unnecessary, and presented as neutral analysis despite being merely someone's (and it's not clear who that someone is) opinion.
I have tried to compromise, proposing on the talk page and in edits that we select a source that more accurately and neutrally assesses Thomas. He won't compromise. [1] I have taken the matter to BLPN, where the only two users to comment substantively have both rejected MastCell's position, one of them in quite some detail. [[2] He won't budge. [3] Intervention would be appreciated.
Tentatively withdrawn MastCell has disclaimed intent to continue editing the article.[4] Since Rafael was also involved, I will leave this request formally open for now to see if he joins MastCell or continues to seek inclusion of the quote.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
What would you like to change about this?
[edit]I'd like a topic ban for MastCell, and the exclusion of his claim that Thomas is of the "far right." Mastcell has already promised to leave once only to return ([5]), so simply telling him to follow BLP and hoping that he won't be back isn't going to cut it. I want to ensure that our article doesn't brand Thomas as an extremist by way of cherrypicking a misleading and prejudicial quote.
How do you think we can help?
[edit]All other avenues have failed, so this is the next logical place to go. This case begins with MedCab trying to get it through to MastCell that his distaste for Thomas, and desire to smear him as an extremist (whether through his own words or by lamppost journalism through source selection), does not override WP:BLP.
Mediator notes
[edit]We can't - and don't - topic ban people. If you can think this can be done with discussion - and I wouldn't underestimate the skill of the mediators coming through medcab atm - then this can be accepted. But nothing draconian like a topic ban. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- So long as the removal of the material sticks, I have no particular attachment to how that is accomplished. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Administrative notes
[edit]It's been a few days since the above withdrawal, and no further conflict appears to have arisen at the article. I am going to close the case. If the dispute reappears, feel free to open a new case. Vicenarian (T · C) 20:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)