Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Harvey W.Scott (sculpture)

Harvey W.Scott (sculpture)

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


 * Articles affected by this dispute


 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
 * Talk:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Another_Believer

Issues to be mediated

 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)
 * 1) I added phrase "of Mount Rushmore fame" with respect to "Gutzon Borglum", other party states that it is not needed. He further states if "someone seeking information about either Borglum or Mount Rushmore can do so at the appropriate articles." I raised a concern that readers may not be aware of the connection of sculpture creator to Rushmore, and would have no incentive to read further on borglum or rushmore.

The whole mission of Wikipedia is to increase human knowledge,inspire learning, or to raise awareness of a subject matter,. For example when presented with a work of art, there are two categories of people, there are those who want to be challenged, who don't want to be told what to believe, and there are others who ask what are they looking at and why should they care?. I believe most people are the latter, you only have a small window of opportunity draw a person's attention to the subject matter. I had concerns that Mr Borglum may have been overlooked if it was not known he had a connection to the Rushmore. By his own admission, the other party readily admits he was not aware of said connection.

Furthermore, I do not believe I committed any social harm (acted in good faith, nor did I vandalize or break any copyright laws). Also, any digression from the article subject matter was minor,not a whole paragraph or a multi-page excursion just four words. If anything at all I hoped to create a deeper appreciation of the scott sculpture, the creator,and mt rushmore


 * Additional issues (added by other parties)
 * Additional issue 1
 * Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) cancel/ it seems a resolution was found. MrX2077 (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) I am not refusing to participate, but I don't believe this mediation is necessary. We can simply discuss the article's content on the talk page. Besides, I think a solution has been determined, and I have way more things to worry about than this one small clause. Thanks. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Reject. As withdrawn by filing party. Kudos to the parties for working out their differences. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)