Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-09 Zero Mostel

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Zero Mostel
Status	closed
Request date	16:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	emerson7
Mediator(s)	Diligent Terrier, PhilKnight (talk)

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Zero Mostel]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Zero Mostel]]

Request details

Two editors have failed to agree on certain format changes to the article Zero Mostel that were made by user:emerson7. While some changes have been resolved between the editors, several issues still remain that are being disputed.

Who are the involved parties?

user:emerson7 and user:Ron g 16:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on?

The issues that cannot be agreed on:

emerson7 has made the following changes:

1. emerson7 has removed a pic that he believes should not be in the article as it is not free. Ron g believes this pic should be there as it has a valid rationale and is a good likeness of the subject (the other pic in the article shows the subject in character and on a rare performance and so bares little resemblance to his public persona).

2. An image that contains text has been decreased in size by emerson7, quoting a policy regarding images. The size decrease prevents users from reading the text in this image. Ron g believes this should not be treated as an image as it contains text only and should be read as part of the article. The only reason it was added as an image in the first place is to disable editing to this text (official HUAC minutes).

3. A "Professional Relationships" section which used to appear below the main article and which pertains to the subject's relationship with other actors has been inserted in the main body of the article by emerson7. Ron g maintains that it interferes with the flow of the article and belongs at its bottom (in the same way that "Legacy" sections appear at the bottom of biographies, not in the main body of these biographies).

4. emerson7 has removed the mention of the subject's children from the infobox.

The full history of this argument is in Talk:Zero Mostel under "Emerson7 changes".

What would you like to change about that?

Ron g: I believe that Emerson7 used the argument of policy to push changes that diminish the article, and to which there is no consensus (the article has been in existance for years and no one else over the years has suggested/made these same changes). I believe that emerson7's interpretation of the policy is loose, and that this policy does not apply to the changes he has made. Ron g (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator notes

I'd be willing to mediate this case provided that both parties agree to me as a mediator. Please state so below, if yes. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 22:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Ron g (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --emerson7 23:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initial discusion

...what happens next? --emerson7 20:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi emerson7, what changes do you want to make to the current version of the article? PhilKnight (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article already incorporates emerson7’s changes. I’d like to reverse them per the explanation above. Thanks. Ron g (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

addressing each of the items above in the section: #What's going on?:

1) without commenting on the subjective argument over the 'likeness' or 'resemblance' of the subject, the current image used in the infobox, image:Zeromostel.jpg, is a public domain, unrestricted, free image. the two previous images supported by Ron g, image:Mostel producers.jpg and File:Mostel60.jpg were both uploaded under a fair use license making them both ineligible for placement in the infobox. in any case, per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, and the license template {{Non-free fair use in}}, any rationale for 'fair use' of those images fails as they illustrate a subject for which a free image exists.

2) image:Mostel HUAC.svg is a graphic representation of a text document, and is used as a reference within the article. it is not intended to be directly read as text in the article. should readers wish to read the document, all they need do is click it.

3) in my estimation, the title "Professional Relationships" speaks for itself. its current placement in the article under career is more correct than an adjunct postscript at the end.

4) after much deliberation, the inclusion of children and parents in the template {{infobox actor}} was deprecated, and removed from the template in march 2008. since the data is not displayed, there is no reason for the dead field to remain.

i am completely convinced that ron g's primary concern is with the quality of the article. he has spent hours tending it, and i readily acknowledge his efforts. however, with regard to each of the edits in question above, as well as other edits i've made, i just don't agree that the article has in any way been diminished. --emerson7 22:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

1. The problem with the image:Zeromostel.jpg pic is that it portrays Zero Mostel in character as part of a rare appearance in a play that is all but unknown today. He is unrecognizable in this pic, so this is not a good likeness of him. This would be the same as using a photo of Edward Scissorhands as the sole representation of Johnny Depp – it may be him but it doesn’t tell you what the actor looks like.

2. I believe the image – a segment of a testimony -- is meant to be read as part of the article, and it was only entered as an image rather than plain text two years ago in order to preserve its format and protect it from edits.

3. Of course, we can include many relevant items in an article and prove that all of them are connected to the subject matter and so must belong there. However, these anecdotal or subject-specific inclusions tend to dilute the main article and interrupt its flow, which is why they are usually added at the bottom. This is why “Legacy,” “Influence,” “Honors,” and “Claims of…” segments always appear postscript and not as an integral part of the article.

4. This is not critical to the appearance of the article so I won’t contest this change any further.

Ron g (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i have no further comments other than to reiterate the arguments supporting my position. --emerson7 21:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise no further comments. I'm ready for the mediator's decision. Ron g (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my initial suggested compromise is:

1. The non-free image isn't reintroduced.

2. The testimony image is enlarged so the text is readable.

3. The 'Professional Relationships' section is moved down so it's immediately before the 'Notes' section.

4. Following Ron g's comment, I understand this is no longer contentious.

PhilKnight (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Ron g (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no objection, I will make the changes as discussed above -- Image size and "professional relationship" -- revert. Picture and mention of children in template -- leave emerson7's changes as-is. Ron g (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes

Discussion