Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-05/Number One (Star Trek)

Where is the dispute?
Not sure if there's a dispute exactly yet, but there is one developing at Number One (Star Trek)

Who is involved?
Myself;

- and two others (so far);
 * User:sdoradus
 * User:Dogru144
 * User:Thumperward

What is the dispute?
A user had noted that Number One was not a name but a rank: "Since the very first Star Trek episode, some have interpreted her title as being a proper name."

The result was criticized by Dogru144 on the grounds that no reference was provided (there were crosslinks to other wikipedia articles, but these had no references themselves). He thoughtfully posted a brief description of his action on the discussion page, noting the whole article had too many such unreferenced statements.

I restored the edit after locating references, and placed a note on the discussion page also.

Another noted "This has led to some confusion among fans". This led to a comparison with the three seconds-in-command; Number One, Spock and Riker. I (sdoradus) provided background on the traditional British naval rank.

Later I provided a note that the three characters were of different ranks (Lieutenant, Lieutenant-Commander, and Commander respectively), which helped explain why Commander Riker was "Number One" to Picard, but Lieutenant-Commander Spock was not "Number One" to Kirk.

Thumperward yesterday (2009-11-05) deleted some 2300 words of what he described as "original research". There was no elaboration on the discussion page.

It's not possible to satisfy both Dogru144 and Thumperward. One would have the content deleted if no references are provided, the other would delete the references.

What would you like to change about this?
Without some discussion, I would regard such a large delete as akin to vandalism. But a shorter less descriptive page could in principle be an improvement.

I gather that "original research" is contrary to some fundamental Wikipedia policy, but can't actually see how providing references and material drawn from the canonical fiction itself counts as that. It doesn't really matter, because the real issue is the contradictory wishes of two other users.

How do you think we can help?
Some third-party evaluation is desirable here. But whatever final text is decided on, on past form it will need some sort of protection.