Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-12 Sweetest Day

Request made by: Isotope23 19:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

Sweetest Day article is disputed.

Who's involved?

User:Miracleimpulse, User:Isotope23, other editors have been involved in the discussion/edits but I have no idea if they would be willing to be party to this.

What's going on?

User:Miracleimpulse disputes the version currently at the namespace. Other editors have come to something of a consensus that the current version is NPOV and well-sourced, but this is a small group of editors. User:Miracleimpulse favors the version here User:Miracleimpulse/The_Sweetest_Day_Hoax. Tag was originally removed by an admin but reintroduced by User:Miracleimpulse. I opened an RfC, but that generated very little input. We appear to be at an impasse and the arguments are just going in circles here; nothing new is being added to the discussion. I'm wholly open to incorporating some of the sourcing that User:Miracleimpulse has uncovered in his personal investigations (and in fact have already incorporated some of his sources in the past) provided it is done in a NPOV way. This has been the sticking point though because there is an obvious disconnect as to what constitutes NPOV, factual, sourced information (as can be seen by the 2 different version of this page as well as the talk page and archives.

What would you like to change about that?

I'd appreciate some outside perspective here. If a few editors who has never edited this article could look at the differing versions (and possibly the related talk pages/AfD discussion) and provide some outside input. I don't want to spend the next however many months going back and forth on the tag and content and I think some outside perspective might be helpful because User:Miracleimpulse has indicated in the past that he belives I am a "shill" for the candy industry, so I don't think my input hold much weight with him.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

I have no problem with working this out publicly on talk pages for the article and on my personal talk page. I can be emailed through the usual link if someone needed to contact me privately. Presumably if this is accepted that fact that there is mediation underway would be posted on the article talk page and User:Miracleimpulse would be made aware of the mediation process?

Mediator response

Compromise offers

Discussion

Please do not close this case until all facts are added to the Sweetest Day article. Please allow at least 60 days. Thank you! Miracleimpulse 14:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addhoc, the following references in the Sweetest Day article are from advertising websites which promote Sweetest Day, and none of the statements made on those websites are sourced in any way:

2. Retail Confectioners International

6. Sweetest Day History and FactsThe Romantic.com

13. Sweetest-Day Metromix blurb from The Chicago Tribune (this one will probably disappear soon anyway)

It is my understanding that company and advertising websites are not recommended as sources for Wikipedia articles because they present an obvious commercial bias (they want to sell Sweetest Day products). In your opinion, are these advertisements considered reliable references on the Sweetest Day article? Thank you. Miracleimpulse 09:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think references 2 and 6 are being used fairly responsibly. Reference 13 could be improved, we are currently using it to support the concept of a "Hallmark holiday". I'll keep the case open as you suggest.

Addhoc 11:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll close the mediation case, if the dispute is resolved...

Addhoc 23:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm fine with it being closed.--Isotope23 23:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute seems to be resolved. Sweetest Day hasn't been edited for a week and half, so I assume Miracleimpulse finds the article to be acceptable. --Transfinite 05:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is a joke. This mediation was a sham. The Sweetest Day article is being used for promotional purposes and in no way chronicles the true history of the event. Addhoc, this dispute is not resolved please re-open the case. Thank you! Miracleimpulse 21:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll reopen and request that another mediator gives a second opinion...

Addhoc 00:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]