Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-23/F-22 Raptor
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | F-22 Raptor |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 16:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Parties involved | User:EricLeFevre, User:Askari Mark, User:65.188.37.65, User:Skintigh, User:Hcobb, User:Fnlayson |
| Mediator(s) | User:GrooveDog |
| Comment | Beginning mediation; awaiting confirmation that all parties will accept Mediation |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|F-22 Raptor]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|F-22 Raptor]]
Request details[edit]
Where is the dispute?[edit]
Who is involved?[edit]
What is the dispute?[edit]
The F-22 is a very, very controversial weapons program whose funding is in doubt due to a conflict between the previous BHO budget request and action in the Congress, including a vote in the Senate on 21 July, 2009. A controversy section was added to the article by myself and a few other editors outlining the motivations for why Congress pulled the plug and why key players like Pres Obama, Sec Gates, Sen. McCtain, and Sen. Levin all opposed it. That section continually gets deleted under the guise that its information is "redundant," "biased," or "original research" even though it is none of those things. It should be noted that the version some editors prefer uses sources almost exclusively from industry groups responsible for making components of the plane and thus have a clear financial conflict of interest. This issue has been hashed out on the talk page here and here. Examples of entire section deletions can be found: [1] [2] (deleted controversy section re-added) [3] [4] [5]
What would you like to change about this?[edit]
I would like to consolidate information into a single "Controversy" section instead of having that information dispersed throughout the article. This would enhance readability. I would like this section to contain information outlining the motivations for cancelation and link to both conservative biased and liberal biased sources explaining that opposition crosses ideological lines.
How do you think we can help?[edit]
Mediate away. EricLeFevre (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Mediator notes[edit]
If all parties are willing to accept mediation, I'd be glad to take this case. Everyone simply should sign underneath this comment using four tildes. (~~~~) GrooveDog (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Administrative notes[edit]
01:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC) - Notified all mentioned participants that Mediation has been accepted. GrooveDog (talk)
Askari Mark (Talk) 01:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Fnlayson (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
Why shouldn't the debate over the cancellation go in the cancellation section, to the extent that the added notes would be of historical interest? Hcobb (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Criticism/Controversies sections just serve as magnets for NPOV additions without proper balance. These dedicated sections are largely discouraged at WP:Criticism. There are a fair bit of negatives in the F-22 article already (high costs, & maintenance). -Fnlayson (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
My biggest annoyance was not the cost, but the limited capabilities. That's why I dug through the references and created the Upgrades section to show the things the aircraft lacked and what (if anything) was being done to fix them and at what price. (Word for the day: SAIRST) Hcobb (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have no problem at any time with mediation, but I do feel the request is premature. The issue is only now beginning to be discussed on the article Talk page (having taken somewhat too long to make it there per WP:BRD). The full issue to be mediated, though, is not altogether clear, but in general appears to be how best to incorporate criticisms of the F-22 program in an NPOV and balanced treatment. Alternatively, it might be a more specific difference on whether or not to include such material in a stand-alone "Criticisms" section, which many experience WP editors have found to be problematical. Perhaps the initiator could be a little more clear on this. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)