Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-05-30/Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Where is the dispute?
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Who is involved?
A short list of the users involved, for example;



What is the dispute?
Reliable sources, in particular non-English reliable sources have been removed from the article. This is potentially affecting the judgment of editors about the notability of the article's subject and an ongoing Merge discussion about the article. In particular,
 * has removed multiple sources, including from major national TV stations, from the article
 * has removed information sourced to the BBC, stating "This article isn't about Gage". (Richard Gage is the leader of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and Richard Gage redirects to the article.)
 * has removed information sourced to a local newspaper from the article, stating "probably got their information from our article!" (The number "640", which was sourced to this newspaper, has never been mentioned in the article. The editor has not removed a statement sourced to a non-WP:RS web site that is part of the same sentence.)

What would you like to change about this?
We need a clarification about how to apply the relevant guidelines of Wikipedia with regard to reliable sources. In particular:
 * Are non-English sources relevant, and should they be included in articles, especially if they provide more detailed information than English sources?
 * Is information about subjects that are redirected to a particular article relevant for that article?
 * Is information about the leader of an organization, insofar as he is acting as leader of that organization, relevant to an article about the organization?

How do you think we can help?
While I have no particular experience in how mediation is done most effectively, I would make the following suggestions:
 * Mediators can point out which, according to their opinions, are the relevant policies and guidelines that we need to follow.
 * Mediators can encourage the involved editors to put any decision about a merger or deletion of the article on hold until the content dispute about the article itself is being resolved.

Mediator notes
Might take me a while to sift through the discussions. If you'd like, I can also mediate on the talk page (which I prefer)... but only if there are only a few people talking at once. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for getting involved in this matter! I don't know how many people will talk when you post a comment. I think the talk page is a good place for the mediation, as most people who have posted to the talk page are probably somehow involved. Many views have already been expressed at the talk page, so a general question or comment will probably only result in a restatement of these views. More specific questions are probably more likely to lead to a more focused discussion. I'm not sure whether we need mediation in the form of an extended exchange of views, or whether we actually rather need a somehow "enhanced" Third Opinion here. Regards. Cs32en  18:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm drafting up some stuff. I would be much appreciated if you mentioned on the article's talkpage that you filed this request. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)