Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/20 December 2005/Faith and rationality

Initial request

 * '''Request made by: --Jason Gastrich 19:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Faith and rationality


 * Who's involved?
 * User:FeloniousMonk
 * User:KillerChihuahua


 * What's going on?
 * The entry needs to be cleaned up for nPOV. When I put a neutrality dispute tag on the page, he immediately removed it. When I started a dialogue in the discussion page, he immediately deleted it. He is calling this a personal attack when it isn't.
 * Although a discussion is underway in the article's discussion page, KillerChihuahua is deleting the tag from the entry's page that says there is a neutrality dispute and discussion.--Jason Gastrich 20:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I'd like to put the neutrality dispute tag on the page and have a discussion about the things that are POV.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * You can contact me any way you wish. Thanks in advance.

Comments by others
Sorry, Jason, but I think it's pretty NPOV as it stands. You're the one who was trying to push a religious bias into it, with such phrases as "Believers have more evidence for God than a unicorn" (quoted from memory). No neutrality tag is needed, IMHO. --SarekOfVulcan 19:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I endorse Sarek's view. I am not a member of the Mediation Cabal (TINMC) but I ended up here for reasons I won't bore you with. I read the page, and speaking as a committed Christian I find nothing objectionable in there. It seems a pretty balanced statement of the subject. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I was about to give a list of things that needed to be cleaned up to represent nPOV and the discussion page entry was deleted. There are several things to discuss and I see no reason why a discussion shouldn't occur.--Jason Gastrich 19:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment The entry was (temporarily) removed, and replaced with the personal attack removed. So far all you've done with that is continue the personal attacks. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There are now a couple of suggestions for making the entry more nPOV. They should be discussed. More will be forthcoming.--Jason Gastrich 20:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Consensus on the article talk page seems to be that no NPOV tag is needed at this time.--SarekOfVulcan 22:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

An NPOV dispute would certainly involve more than one person upset that the consensus does not accept his opinion.Mark K. Bilbo 23:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Gastrich's NPOV dispute is completely without merit; it was motivated out of spite and for his edits failing to gain consensus. The NPOV objection reeks of sour grapes. FeloniousMonk 00:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediator response
I have to admit that I endorse Sarek's view. There is nothing objectionable in there. Like other user said it seems a pretty balanced statement of the subject.

Don't put the neutrality dispute tag on the page, you may have your discussion about the things that are POV also on talk page. Bonaparte  talk  15:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)