Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Firestone 2

First Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

The first Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Firestone Tire and Rubber Company failed because of User:Cls14 comments:

"Agree, although unsure about the process (have read help page but not sure what happens from here!)" [1]

Here is the explanation, by Admin User:Shyam Bihari, who closed the original case: [2][3]

If all the involved parties are interested and ready to assume good faith then you may consider making a fresh request again.[4]

I went ahead and created this new request, as all parties are interested and ready to assume good faith. Travb (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation start

Ive agreed to take on mediation. Id like a brief summary of each of your views on these issues only (for the moment): "Is Bridgestone now the same company as Firestone?" (merge?) (merge history?) "Should the Firestone Liberian controversy remain in the main article or be split?" "What is a NPOV source?" Please be as brief as possible. Concise language demonstates 1. your understanding that I dont have all the time in the world 2. your powers of language, hence I can more easily understand you and give greater weight to your argument. Thanks. -Ste|vertigo 00:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of user views - Topics for Mediation

Mobile 01

User Talk:Mobile 01

Is Bridgestone now the same company as Firestone

Firestone was an American company that was purchased by Bridgestone in 1988. Wikipedia currently has an article Bridgestone which is about the parent company. This article has sections about the major subsidiaries. Wikipedia also has an article Firestone Tire and Rubber Company which is about the American Firestone company and it's history. It has been suggested that the two articles be merged now that Firestone is owned by Bridgestone. I do not agree with this merge. There is already a section in the Bridgestone article about the subsidiary Firestone as well as links to the wiki article Firestone Tire and Rubber Company for further reading. I feel that should these articles be merged, then either a lot of the Firestone History will be lost or the Bridgestone article will become too huge.

Should the Firestone Liberian controversy remain in the main article or be split

There is a section on the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company relating to this issue and a separate article on the issue itself. I feel this issue warrants more than just a section in the firestone article and should have it's own article as do the other issues mentioned on the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company page such as the Firestone vs Ford Motor Company controversy. This link shows how these topic were being covered prior to the edit war. Original Version

What is a NPOV source

Is a source such as WWW.STOPFIRESTONE.COM[5] a biased and obviously anti Firestone web site, a suitable source for citation for this article. Likewise, are Bridgestone and Firestone web sites suitable sources for citation. I would suggest that the StopFirestone web site is not suitable whereas the Bridgestone and Firestone web sites are. While this may seem like a double standard, I believe that the corporate sites are valid sources of information but that a web site aimed solely at promoting Anti Firestone Propaganda is not.

Mobile 01^Talk 02:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travb

User Talk:Travb

Removed my initial comprimise below.

Is Bridgestone now the same company as Firestone

As Mobile 01 states above: Firestone was an American company that was purchased by Bridgestone in 1988. Bridgestone uses Firestone's history as its own. (evidence supplied if necessary) Type in: Firestone on google, ever single page (at least in the top 10) has the Firestone-bridgestone logo.

Should the Firestone Liberian controversy remain in the main article or be split

No, I can site policy guidelines for how to split an article. The history of this section is that after several bridgestone employees failed to remove this section, Mobile 01 split off the article.

What is a NPOV source

stopfirestone.org and bridgestone.com are not NPOV sources. Everything else on the page, Los Angeles Times, museum.tv, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Money magazine, Fortune, Business Week, CNN, unmil (which is simply a pdf copy of the plaintiffs liberian brief) with no commentary, are NPOV sources.

RebelAt

User Talk:RebelAt

Is Bridgestone now the same company as Firestone

Yes and No. Its a subsidiary, in the same manner that Pepsi and Kentucky Fried Chicken are the same company, but also separate entities. In terms of pages, they absolutely should have separate articles.

Should the Firestone Liberian controversy remain in the main article or be split

It probably should remain in the same article, at least in brief. If the information on the controversy is lengthy enough, have a link to a larger, fuller article.

What is a NPOV source

An NPOV source is a source without an apparent bias and has an expressed purpose to offer a neutral point of view.

Fairness And Accuracy For All

User Talk:Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All

Is Bridgestone now the same company as Firestone

Should the Firestone Liberian controversy remain in the main article or be split

What is a NPOV source

Bobblehead

User Talk:Bobblehead

Is Bridgestone now the same company as Firestone

At this point in time Firestone is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bridgestone, so it's hard to argue that they are different companies. However, having said that, prior to 1988 they were two different companies and the purchase of Firestone by Bridgestone did not make Firestone's history Bridgestone's. As long as the Firestone article sticks to the pre-1988 history I see no reason why it can not remain as its own article. An example of this would be McDonnell Douglas which merged with Boeing in 1998. McDonnell Douglas had a full history prior to its merger and as such it is worthy of its own pre-merger article. The Liberian controversy is a tricky wicket and I'll try to cover in the next section.--Bobblehead 04:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Firestone Liberian controversy remain in the main article or be split

The Liberian controversy began prior to the 1988 purchase by Bridgestone and continued after the purchase. In order to give the topic justice, it seems that having the full Liberian controversy in its own article is most appropriate. However, having said that, completely removing the topic from both the Firestone and the Bridgestone articles doesn't seem appropriate to me. I would prefer that each article contain a summary of the part of the controversy that the company was responsible for. The Firestone article would contain a summary of the pre-1988 issues, while the Bridgestone article would contain a summary of the post-1988 issues and both articles would contain links to the full article.--Bobblehead 04:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is a NPOV source

I'm not sure of the purpose of this question? Whether or not a source is POV or not isn't a reason to include it or not include it in an article. The only thing that matters is whether or not the source is reliable or not. If POV were a valid reason for not include a source, the New York Times could not be included as a source in articles because it is viewed as having a Liberal bias and the Washington Times could not be included as a source in articles because it is viewed as having a Conservative bias. Or, if you want a more related example, if POV is a valid reason for not including a source, then the Bridgestone/Firestone corporate website can not be included as a source on the article because it is obviously biased in a pro-Firestone direction and stopfirestone can not be used because it is anti-Firestone. You can't draw a line saying only anti-Firestone sites can't be included, the line would have to be drawn on both sides of Neutral. But like I said, POV is not a reason to not include a site as a source. Discussion of the validity of StopFirestone would be better placed on whether or not it's reliable or not. To which I say, unless there is some evidence provided to the contrary, it is reliable. The site is supported by a number of reliable agencies that would be discredited if StopFirestone were not a reliable source of information related to the lawsuit. --Bobblehead 04:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morton_devonshire

User Talk:Morton_devonshire

Is Bridgestone now the same company as Firestone
- Reply. For our purposes here, it doesn't matter whether a company has been acquired by another. So long as they have a significant notable history as separate companies, we should describe each company separately, as the reader would expect to find an article about each subject. Of course, each article should mention that a merger has occurred, but that shouldn't prohibit two articles, particularly for U.S. readers, where Bridgestone and Firestone were separate brands for a significant period of their time as consumer products. A similar example would be Time Warner and AOL -- although they have common ownership today, on Wikipedia we have two articles, as each brand has significant notable history as a separate brand in the United States. MortonDevonshire Yo · 19:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should the Firestone Liberian controversy remain in the main article or be split
- Reply. Yes, so long as the Firestone Liberian controvery remains a notable subject, it warrants a separate article. I assume at some point that the issue will not be newsworthy and we can delete the article and merge it back into the Firestone article, but for now, it remains notable under WP standards. MortonDevonshire Yo · 19:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is a NPOV source
- Reply. Stopfirestone.com is a "questionable source" according to Wikipedia standards, and we cannot cite it here. Specifically, our rules prohibit citing sources where:

A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves.

Source: WP:SELFPUB. MortonDevonshire Yo · 19:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cls14

User Talk:Cls14

Is Bridgestone now the same company as Firestone

From a European perspective it certainly is. The company is known here as Bridgestone-Firestone as Bridgestone bought Firestone. However the two WERE seperate companies and so Firestone should have it's own article with Firestone history up until it was taken over.

Should the Firestone Liberian controversy remain in the main article or be split

Depends on how much information we can get about it. There should not be a large amount about it on the Bridgestone/Firestone article as it is not a major part of the companies history, neither is it all that well known about (in the UK anyway). However I have no problem in there being a lengthy article elsewhere if there is information available.

What is a NPOV source

If you are talking about the Liberian controversy then a national news broadcaster such as the BBC or CNN would be good. However I don't think the BBC have ran a story on it (can be checked if necessary). As for other sources I imagine they will be biased one way or the other.

Cls14 20:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Response

Travb

I have kind of lost interest in this article. I will offer a comprimise for Mobile 01 (her and I are the central figures in this debate). Then we maybe can close this RfM today.

the POV Stopfirestone.org is actively policed by me, I make sure the link never goes on the firestone/bridgestone page.
Firestone Liberian controversy remains split
I actively police that the Firestone rollover controversy remains a split article.
Firestone is merged into Bridgestone
The Firestone table which another user removed, goes back on the page, in the modified version we discussed. I will actively fight for it to remain on the page. If it is removed for longer than a week, despite my best efforts, then the Firestone and Bridgestone page is split again, no complaints. (Caveat: the table maybe radically changed, but it will remain on the page, I will do all the research if necessary to avoid the copyvio deletions)
After this, if you wish mobile01 (if you don't want me "policing" the page), I will unwatch the page, but check back every week and later, in time, every month. You can alert me anytime if anyone is trying to add back stopfirestone.org or delete the table you created, I will help you. But this comes with a caveat, if large sections which I helped write are again removed, especially referenced material, I put it back on my watchlist until the issue is resolved. I have unwatched several articles many times before, with many articles.

Please respond on my talk page, or if the rules allow, here.

What do you think Mobile01? If you agree then we can put it forward to everyone else. This RfM can be closed tonight. I hate haggling, so this is a pretty firm offer, I am laying all the chips on the table.

Travb (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile 01

I agree with the majority of what Travb proposes. I do have some objections though.

The Bridgestone and Firestone article should remain separate. I have seen nothing convincing me that wikipedia will be best served by the proposed merge. The two articles are quite distinct and while they share the same parent company that is not reason enough to merge them. Kentucky Fried Chicken(KFC), Pizza Hut, Taco Bell etc etc are all owned by the same parent company and yet maintain their own articles.

The 100 year history table was started by another user but was done badly, I edited that table the same day it was placed on the article and made it better looking. I am currently working on an update for this table in my wikispace, which I will insert later.

The Liberian article should be improved as new information becomes avalable on the current case. The section in the Firestone article should be returned to how it was before the edit war. The Alien Tort claim section should be removed from the firestone article as it has no relevence to firestone. It is a sub related issue of the Liberian article and should be covered there.

Basically I had no problem with the Firestone article the way it was before Travb made major revisions and then had it protected. It was tidy, well referenced and served its purpose. The well referenced material which Travb keeps talking about is a CNN article from 2005 which actually states that it is unfinished and may be updated. The other is an obscure reference in PDF format from www.unmil.org which no longer exists. In my opinion this is hardly well referenced material.

So basicaly my views are

that the Firestone article be returned to 99940616 and then anything added since then worthy of inclusion can be put back in.
that the Bridgestone article and Firestone article remain seperate.
that the Liberian article remain seperate and it be improved on.

Mobile 01^Talk 00:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travb

Well, I tried. Please refrain from calling my offer a "threat" and question my genuiness. I felt a little hurt and defensive. What would you suggest as a comprimise Mobile? You state your wishes, but I see no comprimise offers. Travb (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile 01

Bridgestone may well use the Firestone History as it's own when referring to it's Firestone operations. It most certainly does not take the Firestone history when referring to Bridgestone corporate. Bridgestone is a Japanese company and it is very proud of it's heritage as displayed on it's corporate website which gives a complete and accurate account of the companies history. Firestone is not even mentioned until the late 1980's.

Travb

I think Mobile01 summed up the reason we had to go to mediation in the first place:

"I do not offer any compromise as this is not my function."

Mediation is created when compromise fails. It is the first step towards arbitration because editors refuse to comprimise. Please don't state things which you have not investigated.

The sources Travb cites in his answer are not the sources he claims to have entered, these are other sources entered by other editors.

The vast majority, if not all of the sources are my own. I would appreciate if you retract that statment. RE: This is an old debate which was closed out and no such evidence was proven to that effect. I respectfully disagree that wikipedia violations, some of which are only created several days ago, are "old". I also disagree with this statment "no such evidence was proven to that effect." Take for example the archive edit war where you consitently removed my comments on the talk page, some only one minute old. Actions speak louder than words. You summed up your edit history in one sentence: "I do not offer any compromise as this is not my function." I will be away from wikipedia for a couple of days. I am tired of this prolonged edit war. Every single one of my referenced edits. several hundred words, to the Firestone page have been deleted by Mobile 01 and the bridgestone employees. I continue to offer comprimises to Mobile 01, and she has refused. I am going to ask the admin to close this mediation. Since no comprimise seems possible, and I am growing weary of these accusations and tactics, binding arbritation appears like the only solution, where I can clearly lay out the history of Mobile 01 willingness to "comprimise". Please close the mediation Travb (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Business

Thank you so much for taking the time to respond User:CLS14, I appreciate all your work on Bridgestone and look forward to working with you some more in the future.Travb (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your hard work Bobblehead, your views were very helpful when I was actively trying to stop the bridgestone employees from removing well sourced information. We go back almost a year now, correctTravb (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RebelAt, I appreciate your time in being an unofficial referee and teaching us all, myself included how to be a better editor.<Travb (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, thanks Mobile01 for teaching me how to build conensus by focusing on the good qualities of fine editors such as yourself. I will now distribute barnstars to those who help me much more frequently than I did before. You have made the article a better article. I really love the table you first created...Travb (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile 01

Mediation seems to be getting off track which is really a shame. We are here at mediation because the content of the article is in question. An article that up until the 11th January was quite well balanced and informative. One user, Travb - Took it upon himself to make over 40 edits to the article on 11th January, thus changing the articles contents considerably. This user then had the page protected by an admin, which prevented any other editor from reverting his mass edits. Mobile 01^Talk 00:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile01, the point of this mediation is to discuss the content of the article, not the actions of Travb. If you have concerns about Travb's actions, take it to WP:RFC. Your latest tirades have added nothing to the mediation and are solely for your own purposes and could be considered counter-productive to the mediation. You have not been innocent in what lead to this mediation and trying to characterize this as solely the fault of Travb is revisionism. How about we wait for Stevertigo's decision and continue from there instead of trying to turn this page into a soapbox. --Bobblehead 02:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken on board your comments and have removed my "Tirades" as you put it. This mediation is as a direct result of the 40 edits Travb made to the article, As far as I am aware there were no issues on the Firestone page before that date. The Liberian content had been discussed and the content in the article at that time was sufficient. As an editor of that article yourself you are fully aware of the state of the article before and after Travb made his 40 edits. I take offence at your implication of my having anything to do with bringing this to mediation. Your statement "You have not been innocent in what lead to this mediation" shows an obvious bias against me personally and I do not appreciate you attempting to sway opinion in that manner. Am I to assume by your comments that you agree with what Travb did, his 40 edits and the way he protected the page there after? Mobile 01^Talk 04:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<sarcasm> Oh yes... You are completely right, Mobile01. I'm completely biased against you. Matter of fact, there is a grand conspiracy against you and I'm the ringleader. </sarcasm> But seriously, I have other ways in which to counsel Travb, so just because you don't see my comments to him on this page, don't assume I'm not making them. --Bobblehead 06:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never for one second assumed you were not counselling Travb, his comments in his "thank you" (above) were an obvious indication that the two of you were collaborators. But I thank you for your honesty in disclosing it publicly. I also never for one second assumed you would answer my question either. P.S. I would give sarcasm a miss if I were you, your not very good at it; Homer. Mobile 01 ^Talk 10:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, for people that are collaborating, Travb and I sure do hold different opinions on matters. I seem to recall that during Travb's sockpuppetry case against you and his hoping to get you blocked, I was suggesting you only get a warning for the third person reference to yourself and counseled to make sure you logged in before editing on the anon edits he found. Seriously, the point of this mediation is to improve the quality of the article and to move beyond the events leading up to this point, not rehashing them over and over again and jump at shadows. Perhaps you should try and assume good faith or else this mediation will lead nowhere. --Bobblehead 19:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tried that originally, my comments here were focused purely on the mediation topics and nothing else. travb was the one who started dragging up the old cases and sockpuppet suggestions. As for my comments to you, I only started after your comments appeared to be getting personal and attacking me. If you want to go back to nuetrality and focus purely on the mediation topics, thats OK with me. Mobile 01^Talk 00:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third Party Comments

A third party comment ... I don't believe the focus should be on finding NPOV sources so much as finding reliable sources. Is StopFirestone.com a reliable source? If they present false information and they're found out, what have they got to lose? Dino 13:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, though there are claims made by sides which can be represented. -Ste|vertigo 08:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What stops StopFirestone.com from printing false information, the same thing that stops Bridgestone/Firestone from printing false information, their investors. But other than that, you're right, it's reliable sources that is the criteria for whether a source can be used, not NPOV. --Bobblehead 06:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think you can make that statement and still keep a straight face. While Bridgestone and Firestone may well answer to shareholders for the rise and fall of the share price, I doubt one shareholder would mind a little Pro-Spin for the company if it kept their share prices up. Looking at that list of partners (not investors) for Stopfirestone.com, I have grave doubts any of those groups would care if the facts were slanted in such a way as to promote their goals either. I would still maintain, that while the corporate site may well only attempt to show the good side of the issue, it should still be considered reliable in what it does say, however an organisation that by it's very name has an agenda to push may not neccessarily follow the same rules.

Mobile 01^Talk 10:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobblehead, "reliable sources" is all but defunct. It has been superceeded by ATT, which does not conflict with NPOV (the prime directive) in the way RS did. According to NPOV, all views are presented in balance. According to ATT, all views are attributed to their source. We do not present the claims of either the company or its critics as fact. They are claims and articles need to characterize such statements as claims. It is up to the reader to read all sides and make a judgment. It is up to us the editors to shape articles in a way which is allows them to make such a judgment without influence of bias. PS: RS contains the caveat "whenever possible" WP:RSWP. -Ste vertigo 11:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)-Ste vertigo 11:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure "reliable sources" is all but defunct? I wasn't involved in the merger of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS, but WP:ATT still contains a sizable section on the usage of reliable sources. The usage of the term "whenever possible" is not an opening to use unreliable sources, but to show that a secondary source is preferable to a primary source. WP:ATT also seems to restrict the use of "questionable sources" to topics about themselves and the use of "self-published" sources only when it is the page of a well respected researcher and the source is used in regards to an area of their expertise. My comment above was not saying that information can not be included used in the article if it is POV, but that the threshold for inclusion of a source to support that information is not NPOV, but that it is reliable. Basically, if I include information in an NPOV manner, I can use the Bridgestone/Firestone corporate site as a source. I could always be wrong, but I don't think I am. --Bobblehead 18:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator Comments

Im quite happy with the way this has progressed thus far. I think that youve all solved most of your issues simply by laying out your arguments in a plain and ordered way. Im going to comment in more depth tomorrow, but my impression is that there will be no mergers of articles. I agree with this. There are a couple people who havent commented, I note. Someone (Travb?) pointed out that stopfirestone and firestone are POV sources. This is an interesting point, in that for a lot of businesses, the official history is often unchallenged, while something which has a direct opposing agenda is obviously POV. Trav has a point here, and because naturally Firestone has some input in this article, so too do prominent critics. That said, things need to be presented in proportion, so the point being is that even biased sources are in their own way still sources. More tomorrow. -Ste|vertigo 10:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile: "I would suggest that the StopFirestone web site is not suitable whereas the Bridgestone and Firestone web sites are. While this may seem like a double standard, I believe that the corporate sites are valid sources of information but that a web site aimed solely at promoting Anti Firestone Propaganda is not."

I disagree, per NPOV. NPOV does not support such a exclusionist judgement. -Ste|vertigo 07:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that the web site www.stopfirestone.com is a valid NPOV source? Mobile 01^Talk 04:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im saying that your concept of "NPOV source" is misguided. Thats not what NPOV means. Read it - it means represent all relevant points of view and attribute those views to sources. The concept of WP:RSWP doesnt apply to areas where disputes exist and where we cannot reasonably make an unbiased judgement in favor of one over the other. -Ste|vertigo 08:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I am understanding you correctly (and please comment further if I am still not getting it), The section in the article on the Liberian Controvesy, if completely referenced by anti-firestone sources would in itself be POV. Likewise if the section was reworded to take the opposing view point and referenced by only pro-firestone sources would also be considered POV. However if both sides were equally represented, with both view points covered, and sources cited from both anti and pro firestone, then in balance the section becomes NPOV. To do this would take up a lot of space and would suggest then, that the proposal to have a seperate article to completly cover this topic properly is the way to go. The smaller section in the Firestone article could easily be adapted to briefly cover both sides and link out to the main article.

Mobile 01^Talk 09:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You understand. It was my understanding that people agreed to keep all three as distinct articles. Where article size is constraining, we expand. -Ste vertigo 11:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily the sources that make a section POV or NPOV, it's mostly how the section is written. If an editor were to link to a Chicago Sun-Times news article reporting on the case, but only included one side and used wording that was overly favorable to that side, then that as well would be POV. As an example, if an editor were to write "The workers on Firestone's Liberian plantations are treated like slaves.[6]" that would be an "anti-Firestone" POV even though a BBC article was linked. In this case a rewrite to Attribute the statement to a UN report, that two, not all, of their plantations were accused of treating its workers like slaves is necessary, and Bridgestone/Firestone's response to the accusation should be included as well.

Additionally, if an editor linked to the Bridgestone/Firestone corporate site in order to support statements negative towards the company, that too would be an "anti-Firestone" POV edit. Conversely, if an editor linked to StopFirestone's website to support statements that were positive towards the company, then that would be a "pro-Firestone" POV edit. Granted, in both of these cases it'd probably be a good idea to find another source as chances are the source as a whole does not support that claim, but rather the claim is a nugget buried behind either Pro- or Anti-Firestone POV.--Bobblehead 21:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It's not necessarily the sources that make a section POV or NPOV, it's mostly how the section is written." Certainly. But what's relevant is how other editors treat sections which are written with a slant - do you remove them and cry "POV/RS"? Or do you rewrite them and add sourced counterbalancing statements? If there are no counterclaims, it can still be written in a more neutral way. There of course is a behavioral problem of dealing with POV people and their promotional tactics. We have to treat this separately from the actual content. -Ste vertigo 11:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Yes. POV is generally not a good reason to outright delete a section. Every attempt should be made to rewrite the section in an NPOV manner and to find a RS to introduce a counterbalance. The only time I'd consider outright deleting POV is if it is completely unsupported by a source and it was completely outrageous. If it's unsupported by a source but isn't completely outrageous I'd give it a {{fact}} tag and let it sit a week before considering a deletion. Outright deletions tend to cause edit wars which makes a POV editor even more POV. Always better to work with 'em and find an NPOV manner to present what they want to add. --Bobblehead 01:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol

I never realised some people could get so heated about Wikipedia, especially about an article regarding a tyre company! However it is good to learn about the mediation process. Cls14 09:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of this has anything to do with an article in wikipedia. It is about one editor making 40 edits to the article on one day to completely change the article content to his own version and claiming that everyone wanted it his way. Many edits he replaced had been removed or reworded previously and discussed on the discussion page. It is about another editors attempts to return the article to NPOV. It is about preventing an editor from claiming ownership and resorting to page protection (after he got his edits in place) to prevent any further editing of his version. It's about wiki stalking and false accusations of sockpuppetry to further that editors cause and to discredit the other. People will always get heated when they are being repressed, whether that be by a fascist government, the school yard bully or a wiki editor.

Mobile 01^Talk 01:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improper tampering of discussion

Mobile, you removed some of the comments you made,[7] stating in comment the reason was because I suggested it. I did not, and removing the text as you did gives the reader the impression that my admonishing comments directed at your comments are instead directed at Travb's comments. Please restore them now. Note, if you want to correct yourself in talk pages, a simple ~~strikethrough~~ will suffice to indicate your change.-Ste vertigo 23:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the comments based on a request from another user[8] and also based on your suggestions that my comments were not appropriate. If you remove/strike your own comment, "a lot has transpired on the page since then and it's starting to get ugly." Your comments here are notably ugly. Please keep it civil." so as to restore the correct flow, then all will be hunky dory again. While I realised that leaving your comment behind would alter the perception of your comment, it would have been totally wrong for me to delete it, I assumed you would do so yourself immediately, once you realised it no longer applied.

Mobile 01^Talk 04:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you may not be familiar with our sensitive customs for handling talk pages. Altering the comments of others is forbidden. While removing your own comments is less so, doing so in a way that changes the meaning of other comments is not permissable. You did not alert me to the change, so assuming I would notice was unwise. I understand that you want to sanitize your comments. You have my permission to remove my comment. -Ste vertigo 06:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Mobile 01^Talk 22:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where are we?

A lot has transpired on this discussion so far and I am wondering if we are actually getting anywhere with the mediation. Could the mediator give a response of his opinions of just where we are at and what if any decisions/suggestions/agreements have been agreed so far. Thanks. Mobile 01^Talk 22:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ive been busy. I'm more interested in your view about where things are at. -Ste vertigo 06:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we have decided that the Liberian article ramains seperate and that we do not merge Firestone with Bridgestone. I think we have also covered what is POV and NPOV. I have made some changes to the article last night and today, adding a few images and cleaning up some of the duplicated statements. Please everyone have a look at the current article and offer your opinions. If everyone is happy then we can close this out and let the mediator get on with other issues. Mobile 01^Talk 22:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I feel I am in over my head here. I really don't know all that much about Wikipedia to play with the big boys. For what it is worth I definitely feel that the Liberian issue should be seperate. Whether or not the two company pages merge is not all that much of an issue to me although if you put a gun to my head I'd say they should be merged. Cls14 23:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have no issues with the Firestone page. One thing I will add is that I never knew Firestone still have international factories/outlets which operate soley with the Firestone name. Cls14 13:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like how the page appears presently. Hopefully, it works for everyone else. Good work folks. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 00:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, people. -Ste vertigo 00:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]