Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-03-08/The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America

Where is the dispute?
The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America.

Who is involved?

 * User:Alcmaeonid
 * User:Ronz
 * User:68.35.3.66
 * User:DMCer
 * User:GTBacchus
 * User:Drrll

These are the latest. Historically there have been many others.

What is the dispute?
Does including a list of the professors mentioned in the title and included in the book constitute a WP:BLP violation? The title characterizes them as "dangerous." Most of these profs are living so care must be taken where they are concerned. Some editors want to apply a broad interpretation of the BPL rule. Others point out that this is an article about a book. All claims made in the book are simply the opinion of the author and are(were) presented that way. Nowhere would the article maintain that these are objective facts about the professors involved. Thus, no BLP vio.

What would you like to change about this?
The conversation has been going on for months and appears to be at a standstill. I would like to move forward and restore the list which I believe is being held up, in part, by a political agenda. I am concerned that this is censorship and goes against the open spirit of the encyclopedia.

How do you think we can help?
Please provide an objective opinion(s) on whether there is any WP:BLP violation and whether the list should appear or not.

Mediator notes
Unless any party objects, I will take this. Hipocrite (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? Hipocrite (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently resolved. Marking as closed. Hipocrite (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Mediation is not the place to get objective comments from a third party/parties - you should file a WP:RFC or a WP:THIRD if that is what you are seeking Ajbpearce (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Bear with me because this is a new process for me. Doesn't WP:THIRD apply when there are only two editors involved? As to WP:RFC: we already have dozens of opinions already expressed on the talk page. It seems to boil down to one or two editors refusing to go along with the majority. What would be the next step in this case? Thanks, Alcmaeonid (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * looking through the page more, it does seem mediation might be helpful, but what you won't get is a mediator coming along and giving a "correct" interpretation (sorry for reccomending a third opinion that was a mistake on my part), and i take your point about an RFC though i think getting previously uninvolved views might be helpful to you. If you do want ot go to mediation the next step would be to get the consent of all relevant parties to take part in mediation?Ajbpearce (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe this dispute is now settled. Alcmaeonid agreed to arbitration by Noraft, and Noraft gave an opinion that no one has disputed. See discussion --Ronz (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)