Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story 2

message: To kick off the mediation, I would like to ask each party to make an opening statement that addresses the issues to be mediated – whether each link and reference should be included in its respective article. Please include rationale for your position(s), but try to limit your statement to a couple paragraphs. Additionally, please refrain from posting rebuttals under the other party's section, although you are free to include counter-arguments in the course of your own opening statement in your own section. -- tariqabjotu 15:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening Statements

message: My general attitude is to  have the issues outlined on the project page included:
*I support the inclusion of Issue 1 (see main project page);
*I support the inclusion of Issue 2 (see main project page);
*I support the inclusion of Issue 3 (see main project page);
*I support the inclusion of Issue 4 (see main project page).
The reasoning of this is:
*that the article is more than a summary of a conference, and provides valid and important analysis/opinions about the subject matter, along with links to full articles on various issuse that fall under the articles subject; thus it is useful to the wikipedia entry as to warrent a link in the external links section in the very least;
*that although a review of a work that has a separate entry on wikipedia it can also go on the author's page as its sufficiently about the author as much as her work;
*that the review, while it may be an amateur work has gained notablity wihtin the press and academia, and thus is fine for the external links section; that is has a POV is good (one of the reasons we have an external links section).
*that Professor Gao, although is not directly quoted expressing an opinion on the book in the entry, is referenced in the article that is quoted, mentioning Prof. Gao's talk on the subject, making his reference in the article completely relevant and part of reporting exactly the the source we quotes says, in the same context. Further research revealed Prof. Gao is working on a new book with a whole chapter on the matter. Thus, mentiong Gao, just like he author of the source we quotes does, allows the reader this useful informatoin about Prof. Gao's interest and involvment with this subject matter.
Giovanni33 05:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Giovanni33

message: My general attitude is to not have the issues outlined on the project page included:
*I oppose the inclusion of Issue 1 (see main project page);
*I oppose the inclusion of Issue 2 (see main project page);
*I oppose the inclusion of Issue 3 (see main project page);
*I oppose the inclusion of Issue 4 (see main project page).
The reasoning of this is:
*that the article is only a summary of a conference, also lacking detailed referencing of any opinions/analysis and thus is not significantly useful to the wikipedia entry;
*that a review of a work that has a separate entry on wikipedia should not go on the author's page;
*that the review is an amateur work and highly POV in places/of mixed quality;
*that Professor Gao is not quoted expressing an opinion on the book in the entry and thus any reference to him in the article is largely irrelevant.
John Smith's 15:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: John Smith's

message: For the record, I have a couple ideas in mind about how we might be able to wrap up this point (and Point Two), but they are dependent on Giovanni's response to my request to orient his position in relationship to WP:EL as well as to the responses (from both parties) regarding whether there are other reviews in the current External links section. -- tariqabjotu 06:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if I answered that question but the two standards under which this link suffices inclusion per policy, I find is under the first category #4, that says what kind of links should be included: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." As well as #4 for links to be considered: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."Giovanni33 05:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright then. Well, the trouble with the points you mentioned is that their descriptions of the potential external links mention meaningful, relevant content and knowledgeable sources, descriptors that, unfortunately, are rather subjective. The description of the author of the review as knowledgeable is particularly suspect because, as both you and John pointed out, the author is an "amateur" (or "just some student"). As for meaningful and relevant, I'm not sure you and John will see eye-to-eye on that in the near future. I'm not saying we should not attempt to go further, but I'd like to suggest that the other external links may be sufficient. John says (in one of his more recent comments here) that there are other external links that are reviews. Can you agree there are other external links that serve as reviews (perhaps that are more meaningful and/or relevant than this disputed one) and that there are other links that "contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources"? -- tariqabjotu 18:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry been super busy at work. I'll get to this by tomorrow. Thanks.Giovanni33 01:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so busy as to edit other articles. I don't see how you're taking this seriously if it's your lowest priority on Wikipedia. John Smith's 22:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, my other edits are two minute edits. This one is more important so I want to give it more priority, hence it takes longer and requires that I respond here when I have some free time. So its not lowest priority, its highest priority. And, stop making accusations that I'm not taking it seriously.Giovanni33 00:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intermission 2