Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-04 Criticism section of James R. White article

Mediation Case: 2007-02-04 Criticism section of James R. White article
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: StIrenaeusOfLyons 05:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)StIrenaeusOfLyons


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Talk:James White (theologian)


 * Who's involved?
 * ... User:StIrenaeusOfLyons, User:Flex, and User:Eugeneacurry.


 * What's going on?
 * ... See-saw battle of criticism and reversion.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * ... I believe the criticism is not original research, and is verifiably true based on published, reliable, sources.


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

Mediator response
Hi, there. StIrenaeusOfLyons, as a neutral uninvolved party (I'm not acting as a mediator in this, but as a third opinion as it seems to be all this case needs), I must indeed confirm that the criticism section you are trying to add is inappropriate for the article as it consists of Original research as you are analyzing evidence to support your own criticism of the subject of the article. If you would like to add some sort of criticism section, it should be from published sources that specifically criticize them, not from an editor's analization of other literature to refute his points. Therefore, there does not seem to be much to mediate, so I will close this case if there are no objections. Cowman109 Talk 17:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If there are no objections I will close this case. --Ideogram 18:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Closing. --Ideogram 01:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.


 * I don't have a problem with a Criticism section but the one StIrenaeusOfLyons has inserted and reinserted monopolozies the page. This seems more than a little unfair to James White for while he may be a controversial figure he is not a monster.  I would be satisfied if the criticism section was shortened to something more in keeping with the size of the article and only enough examples were cited so as to be credible; the never ending list of counterexamples seems more like a hysterical reaction than a responsible criticism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eugeneacurry (talk • contribs).


 * I would fully support a criticism section based on reliable sources rather than one editor's understanding of the matter. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 17:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Considering StIrenaeusOfLyons's edit history it seems that this user is essentially embarked on a hatchet job regarding James White and not reasonable and responsible editing in general. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eugeneacurry (talk • contribs).


 * The criticism section StIrenaeusOfLyons supplies not only monopolizes the page as suggested above but is also original research, as I have said in edit comments and explained in greater detail at Talk:James_White_%28theologian%29. Essentially, my point is that the Church Fathers were not criticizing James White (how could they have been?), so StIrenaeusOfLyons's list of (ambiguous) quotations from them in this context constitutes original research with the synthesized conclusion "Therefore, White is wrong" (don't say it with an Elmer Fudd voice). --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 17:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur with Cowman109's proposal above. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 13:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)