Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gateshead

Gateshead

 * Editors involved in this dispute
 * 1) – filing party


 * Articles affected by this dispute


 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
 * Talk:Gateshead

Issues to be mediated
I keep reinserting as I have inserted a citation for a clear non ambiguous premise. Here is the edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gateshead&type=revision&diff=752241797&oldid=752185534 I have suggested to Samuel J Walker if he wants to get a third opinion, just say so on the Gateshead talk page rather than edit war. To be fair to Samuel J Walker he has also been respectful with regards to editing.
 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)
 * 1) I have inserted a citation from a well sourced probative document, the source comes from the Tyne & Wear historical archives at nationalarchives.gov.uk. Samuel J Walker, keeps reverting and removing the information.

Here is my (Barkleave09) case for keeping the edit: Without sounding disrespectful to anyone, it is fairly straight forward. Here is my simple straight forward case from myself for a third party reader: The citation that backs up the premise is very clear, probative, authoritive: Issue: Barkleave09 (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The premise: Part of the Gateshead County Borough until 1974 when it become part of the Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council,[1]
 * Title of the cited document: Gateshead County Borough
 * Quote from the document: In 1974, under the 1972 Local Government Act Gateshead County Borough merged with...
 * Quote from the document: to form Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (see MD/GA).
 * The source of the citation: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/rd/f55bf2c6-3190-4ba0-b5cd-100c8c6e856f
 * The probative authority of the citation: nationalarchives.gov.uk, Tyne & Wear Archives.
 * the citation in a template:
 * My argument: the premise is clear, the premise and citation match is factual and truthful, the context is clear, the citation comes from historical documents, official documents. I cannot see any reason to pull the edit down, or obscure. Though I am willing to let a third party settle this in order to stop any edit fighting and to be respectful.
 * My argument against Samuel J Walker edit revert is this: The information he reverts to is not cited. It is also ambiguous. But more importantly it has replaced a factually sourced edit that references a premise that is validated by a citation from a reliable historical document from a reliable archive, this imo makes his edit of the article regressive.


 * Additional issues (added by other parties)
 * Additional issue 1
 * My argument: I don't dispute the accuracy of the edit Barkleave09 has made, my dispute is the location of it. The information I added is from here, and my main argument is consistency. From the pages I have seen of town/cities which have been moved out of counties, their lead usually reads "historically in Lancashire/Durham/Warwickshire" etc, with a section in the government section about any other status as county boroughs/corporates. As I explained, I did not remove the citation added, just moved it to a location I found more fitting in-line with other pages. The example I gave on Barkleave's talk page was Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, which includes "historically in County Durham" in its lead and later mentions its status as a county borough in the Government section. Samuel J Walker (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Potential compromise: I've just had a brainwave. I looked at the Newcastle-upon-Tyne page which says "the city is historically part of Northumberland but became a county corporate in 1400". What I suggest is amending the lead of this page to include "Historically in County Durham (with reference), the town became part of the GMB in 1835..." It may be a bit long-winded for a lead, but it would save the potential toing and froing over this, since we both have correct information. Suggestions? Samuel J Walker (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkleave09 (talk • contribs)


 * Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree. Barkleave09 (talk) 07:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Reject. I'm going to reject this case under the authority granted to the Chairperson by prerequisite to mediation #9, "the Committee has the discretion to refuse or refer back to other dispute resolution venues (e.g. dispute resolution noticeboard, third opinion, request for comment, or additional talk page discussion) a dispute which would benefit from additional work at lower levels of the dispute resolution process." For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)