Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Extraordinary rendition by the United States
Additional issues
[edit]The mediation is about content, not the conduct of any editor; however, I have simply followed the prescribed steps in dispute resolution. The RSN, 3O, and RFC show that most editors agree that the WPC white paper is a reliable source and the combined opinion of U.S. Senators, Ambassadors and Congressmen on this topic is notable. Regarding neutrality, the WPC is nonpartisan and consist of Democrats and Republicans (i.e. Edward Brooke, the WPC's first Chairman and current Chairman Emeritus was an elected Republican Senator and Attorney General from Massachusetts.)--Ccson (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- No this is about your conduct, because the RSN, 30 and RFC don't say anything of the source: THe majority of the RFC says no it is not a reliable source, and even the one who tried to compromise, you didn't take his advice, you only said you did and your reverted back to your own version. This is about YOUR inappropriate conduct, and if you continue to misrepresent what happened, I'm backing out of the mediation. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the guide to filing mediation says to ensure the mediation in this forum is about content, it also specifically says it cannot be about conduct, that's I why I made the clarification. I can't misrepresent what's easily avialable for other editors to read. Jeff's gave a "weak no" and his comment regarding the WPC as a reliable source was "although to be precise my objection is not that the WPC fails as a reliable source" which is what you alledged on the talk page and the question I posed on the RSN 3O and RFC–what else could they be responding to except for the question I asked?
- No this is about your conduct, because the RSN, 30 and RFC don't say anything of the source: THe majority of the RFC says no it is not a reliable source, and even the one who tried to compromise, you didn't take his advice, you only said you did and your reverted back to your own version. This is about YOUR inappropriate conduct, and if you continue to misrepresent what happened, I'm backing out of the mediation. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I did take his advice; if you review prior history, you'll see no board member name was listed in my original text. He "suggested" using Charles Rangel's name, but there's Senator Brooke who was the first Chairman, I don't see how one name trumps the other. I chose to use the example set by Jet magazine and indicated the chairmans of the WPC when citing their opinion. I thanked the editor for his resoltution and indicated I would use the example set by Jet when citing the opinion of the WPC. I have no problem listing Charles Rangel if that will solve the problem. thanks.--Ccson (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- What he suggested was to use the name alone, as in, "Chuck Rangel says XXXXX...." Not, "The WPC, which includes Chuck Rangel, etc." You did the exact opposite of what he said, and he called you out on it. The point that EVERYONE has been trying to make to you, in the RFC, on the RSN, etc. is that the WPC is a complete non sequitur when it comes to Extraordinary Rendition. What they have to say is unimportant because they are NOT NOTABLE on the subject, just like Hannah Montana, a notable figure, is not an acceptable source for a scathing criticism of Extraordinary Rendition, in an article that's already overly full and overly critical, and not at all balanced. IT's called Undue Weight, and the information you're trying to insert is nothing that isn't already said elsewhere in the article. That's why it is inappropriate. So no, you didn't listen at all to what the editor on the RFC suggested, you did your own thing. I personally don't think his suggestion is all that great because it doesn't address the undue weight issue, but at least it addresses the poor source issue. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hannah Montana is not a government elected or appointed official. My goal is not to look for what persons or groups have to say for or against ER. While reading the WPC report I read about ER and since I believe in the reputation of its 9 members I entered their opinion. Rangel and other government leaders opinion is noted in the WPC since they are listed in the paper as an author. No author has come out and said this is not their opinion. Jeff's opinion also addressed the reliable source issue, another user addressed he undue weight issue but you berated him, so it appearst that you only read and accept what supports your POV. Jeff says the opinion can be entered, however a use in the 3O disussion says it could be used as long as the article states it is just an opinion. What we're looking for is a compromise all all editors, not that one editor's opinion trumps all others. I misunderstood Jeff. Let's wait to see if the mediation committee accepts this because we remain at an impasse. thanks.--Ccson (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- The WPC is not a government elected nor appointed official either. Your argument fails. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'll give you the last word for this section. thanks--Ccson (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- The WPC is not a government elected nor appointed official either. Your argument fails. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)