Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-03-14/John Birch Society: Difference between revisions
Will Beback (talk | contribs) (request) |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 08:30, 16 March 2010
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
| Article | John Birch Society |
| Status | New |
| Request date | 08:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
Contents
Request details
Where is the dispute?
Who is involved?
What is the dispute?
This dispute concerns how to describe the John Birch Society. The modifier "far" had been added and deleted in 2009. In January, an beginning editor removed sources and changed "far right" to "center-right".[1] That was reverted, and another editor changed ti to "extreme right".[2] That was deleted for lack of a source.[3] It was restored with a tertiary source,[4] then deleted as being an inadequate source.[5] It was restored and better sources were added.[6] Thaen it was deleted again, this time on account of BLP because the article refers to living people, and the sources were also deleted.[7][8] The remaining, unsourced sentence, "The society is on the right of the American political spectrum", was deleted as pointless.[9]
This when I became involved. I started searching for sources to support the most common characterizations of the group. I added excerpts of sources to the talk page. I found 26 sources for terms including "ultraconservative", "extremist", and "radical right", and about 46 sources for "far right". Talk:John Birch Society#. I proposed a sentence to cover all of these terms, using the formula of "it has been described as...", and added it with three sources for each term.[10] Then the term "far right" was moved out of that sentence into the lead.[11] It was deleted entirely, but that was reverted.[12][13] Deleted and restored, twice.[14][15] Deleted by an anon as part of a major overhaul,[16] which was reverted.[17] Deleted again, this time on the basis that "exceptional claims require exceptional sources",[18] and restored on the basis of being unexceptional and well-sourced[19] Deleted again, this time because the sources were not "relevant",[20] and restored.[21] Another source was added (out of the growing list on the talk page).[22] It's deleted again, replaced again with the unsourced "center-right",[23] and reverted.[24] And deleted,[25] and restored.[26] It was deleted again, this time on account of it being a "libellous" personal opinion,[27] and restored.[28] Deleted,[29] restored,[30] deleted,[31] restored,[32] and finally protected.
Meanwhile the matter has been discussed in several threads on the talk page, in an RfC: Talk:John Birch Society#Is the John Birch Society far right?, and on two noticeboards: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 58#John Birch Society and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Is the John Birch Society "far right"?. I am open to compromise, but The Four Deuces and others apparently believe that the term is inaccurate and must not appear in the article at all.
What would you like to change about this?
The editors need to agree on wording that reflects the preponderance of sources and is acceptable enough to all editors that there won't be any edit warring over the term.
How do you think we can help?
The hope is that informal mediation can help editors come to an agreement.