Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-07-24/Barbara Boxer

Where is the dispute?
This Dispute is taking place on Talk:Barbara_Boxer Specifically in sections 6 and 7.

Who is involved?
The list of the users involved. For example:


 * User:Tarc
 * User:Bentheadvocate
 * User:Dayewalker
 * User:Muboshgu
 * User:Rodchen
 * User:Loonymonkey

Acceptance of Mediation
Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it:
 *  BE  TA  17:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hrm, would have been nice to receive a notice that one has been named in one of these rather than find it by chance of a malformed tag on the article talk page. Anyways, I emphatically reject, decline, or whatever verbiage is formally needed here.  This is a single editor who is edit-warring against consensus on the article talk page.  There's nothing to be done here that isn't already handled at the local level. Tarc (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the dispute?
I don't understand exactly what people are objecting to when I try to add Barbara Boxers' objection to "ma'am". I keep getting the run-around, for example, someone says it's not notable and I answer with only articles need to be notable then the person says it's undue weight and I answer with a number of reliable sources, then they go back to well it's not notable. I can't help thinking that they aren't saying the real reason why it doesn't belong there.

When someone's famous, people start to mimic them and parody them, it comes with the territory, like judge judy for example, being referenced in an episode of "the Practice". I think this incident documents the people's reaction to her fame and personality as a famous person, leading to a more well rounded understanding of her, in an encyclopedic sense. it's a reference to popular culture.

What would you like to change about this?
I want to explore whether this discussion can change their mind, or their minds can't be changed because they've decided that they don't like it and they can't be reasoned with.

How do you think we can help?
I think we need more structure so we can actually pin down what the arguments are, and the responses to them so we don't go back to the ones already made. Maybe if a neutral party asks the questions we can finally get straight answers from each other.

Discussion
This is nothing more than forum-shopping by a single editor, there is nothing to mediate. Consensus is clear on the page, with the involved editors unanimously opposing this editor's proposed additions. Additionally, this editor attempted to canvas one of the two editors who would seem to agree with them from the previous discussion that took place several months ago. (The other editor advocating this position, not mentioned here, was banned as a sockpuppet about a week before this editor became active). --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not correct though, I've been on here since 2007. :o) -- BE  TA  19:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You were inactive for 3 years between 2008 and a few weeks ago. Correct?--Loonymonkey (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I was mostly editing via IP, but this is immaterial. -- BE  TA  20:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

There are two wikitests that I as see relevant to a section such as this (i.e. a section covering a particular event in the life of a person, institution, or idea). The first is that it should satisfy each of the guidelines for WP:EVENT. There are 5 requirements: two for the event itself, and three for the media coverage. I propose that any section that does not meet each of these five components should probably be removed. Those requirements are: The second test is whether it meets the criteria of WP:WEIGHT, which state that undue weight should not be given to a particular event in someone's life. Put another way, the sections of an article should be proportionally long as they are important. One way to assess the appropriate length of a section (a method proposed by another Wikipedia editor and I agree with) is to determine what proportion of reputable sources, independent of the subject's own control, concern the event in question. If 10% of books, media coverage, and high-brow articles about Barbara Boxer concern the 'call me senator' incident, then a section of good length should be written. If it's less than 3% maybe a line or two should be included in another section dealing with media coverage. If it's less than 1%, it probably should be cut. My inclination from what I've read so far is that this incident may warrant a line or two in a 'media' section, nothing more and probably less. NBruschi (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The event must have "lasting effects"
 * 2) The event must have "significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group."
 * 3) Media coverage of the event must have "Depth of coverage"
 * 4) Media must have "duration of coverage... beyond a relatively short news cycle".
 * 5) Media must have "wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance" and do not "simply mirror or tend to follow other sources