Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-11/Saoirse Ronan

Where is the dispute?
On discussion page under "RfC: Determining Actress as Being Irish or American" LOCATED HERE

Just a list of the users involved. For example:


 * User:Unitanode
 * User:RyanGFilm
 * User:Hammertime2009
 * User:Themfromspace
 * User:Peregrine Fisher

What is the dispute?
Actress Saoirse Ronan was born in the United States (automatically making her an American citizen according to American law) and she lived here until age 3 when she moved to Ireland. Since both her parents are Irish she was also automatically given Irish citizenship at birth as well (according to Irish law). The opening paragraph lists her solely as Irish. I corrected it to say American. It was reverted by User:Unitanode. I then tried discussing this with him as well as other users and cited the policy for MOS of biographies as did user User:Themfromspace which states that the country of birth needs to be in the opening paragraph. I, as well as User:Themfromspace and User:Peregrine Fisher offered the compromise to list her as an "American-born Irish Actress." User User:Unitanode refuses to let any reference to her American birth be recognized in the opening paragraph. I pointed out that this compromise was implemented on actress Nicole Kidman's article (since the same dispute had been had on her talk page as well).

On a side note, the part of the MOS policy for living persons which states that the country of birth should not be included unless it is relevant to the person's notability - I believe it is relevant because she became famous making American movies. I have stated this in the discussion as well.

What would you like to change about this?
I would like it if someone could bring this matter to a close because User:Unitanode has caused a stalemate. Myself, as well as other editors want it to state "American-born Irish Actress" as a compromise and he refuses to acknowledge the MOS for Biographies policy I sent him and the resolution of dispute on Nicole Kidman's article that I referenced.

How do you think we can help?
I would like it if someone could step in and say "Policy states this and this. Therefore it should this and that in the article," or, "The compromise proposed by RyanGFilm, Peregrine Fisher and ThemFromSpace is, or is not acceptable for the following reasons..." I think if a mediator stepped in and did that that it would bring a close to the issue because it would be information from a non-biased person with experience in policy.

Mediator notes
Firstly, a mediator is not going to step in and make those decisions, that's up to the parties to form a consensus. Secondly, Unitanode has declined mediation. Therefore, i'm marking this case closed. The Wordsmith Communicate 16:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
I'll make this very simple. RyanGFilm wants to include an inaccurate descriptor in the lede of the Ronan article. It's been explained to him at the talkpage why that's not acceptable. He then started an RFC about it. No one agreed with him there. So now he tries this. It's classic forum-shopping, and it's not acceptable. As I said, I'll make this simple. I decline to enter any form of mediation with RyanGFilm, as there's absolutely no need for it, except in his own mind. Unit Anode  05:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One correction: based upon RyanGFilm's blatant misrepresentation of both policy and fact, Themfromspace seemed to be taking some kind of similar position to RGF's. Be that as it may, this guy has no policy and no facts on his side, and there's nothing to mediate. Unit  Anode  05:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)