Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-13 Bahai faith

Mediation Case: 2007-02-13 Bahai faith
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: Altrafton 01:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The talk page of the Baha'i Faith.
 * Where is the issue taking place?

Jeff3000 Zazaban MARussellPESE
 * Who's involved?

I have proposed an edit. The editors of the page all hail from the Baha'i faith, and despite my presenting published evidence of my claim they deny even the chance of including merely under a theory (which I had conceded I would accept). The other editors stated that my opinion was too marginal yet I cited that the pages for other religions contain criticism, and even The Holocaust page contains something on Holocaust denial.
 * What's going on?

I would like the relevant information included in the page (even if as a theory or as a link to another page that does not receive their endorsement). I want someone not from the religion represented on the page to have a look at my evidence, if they see it fit for the page, put it in, if not then I can accept that.
 * ''What would you like to change about that?

It does not matter a great deal how this is handled, so long as people take published evidence (in major journals and by reputable publishers seriously and give equal weight to these).
 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

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



Discussion

 * Small point of note. Notable, verifiable information that passes muster on NPOV, WP:V, etc., should of course be included in general.  However, the consensus reached through many many months of repeated discussions with Baha'i and non-Baha'i editors on various Baha'i-related pages has been to avoid a separate section for criticism, but rather to integrate such notable facts within the article text, or that of relevant sub-articles.  More literate approach, more neutral, less likely to become an "A vs. B, C vs. D" style list of claims and counter-claims.  Such an approach is very CNN, but not so useful for an encyclopedia.  I haven't yet read all the thread/talk but in general attempts to add criticism have been much more effectively phrased as notable facts, rather than extra POVs. --87.69.68.249 22:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Second small note. Case submitter asks for equal treatment of journal-references.  That doesn't fit with WP:NPOV.  That something exists and is peer-reviewed, doesn't mean it's notable. (See Jimmy Wales comments referenced on NPOV). --87.69.68.249 22:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem has been resolved in a acceptable manner. Thank you.Altrafton 00:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)