Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gateshead

Gateshead

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Barkleave09 (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Samuel J Walker (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Gateshead (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Talk:Gateshead#Gateshead_County_Borough_Citation

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

1. I have inserted a citation from a well sourced probative document, the source comes from the Tyne & Wear historical archives at nationalarchives.gov.uk. Samuel J Walker, keeps reverting and removing the information.

I keep reinserting as I have inserted a citation for a clear non ambiguous premise. Here is the edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gateshead&type=revision&diff=752241797&oldid=752185534 I have suggested to Samuel J Walker if he wants to get a third opinion, just say so on the Gateshead talk page rather than edit war. To be fair to Samuel J Walker he has also been respectful with regards to editing.

Here is my (Barkleave09) case for keeping the edit: Without sounding disrespectful to anyone, it is fairly straight forward. Here is my simple straight forward case from myself for a third party reader:

• The premise: Part of the Gateshead County Borough until 1974 when it become part of the Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council,[1]

The citation that backs up the premise is very clear, probative, authoritive:

• Title of the cited document: Gateshead County Borough
• Quote from the document: In 1974, under the 1972 Local Government Act Gateshead County Borough merged with...
• Quote from the document: to form Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (see MD/GA).
• The source of the citation: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/rd/f55bf2c6-3190-4ba0-b5cd-100c8c6e856f
• The probative authority of the citation: nationalarchives.gov.uk, Tyne & Wear Archives.
• the citation in a template: "Gateshead County Borough". nationalarchives.gov.uk. Tyne and Wear Archives. Retrieved 23 November 2016. In 1974, under the 1972 Local Government Act Gateshead County Borough merged with... to form Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (see MD/GA).

Issue:

• My argument: the premise is clear, the premise and citation match is factual and truthful, the context is clear, the citation comes from historical documents, official documents. I cannot see any reason to pull the edit down, or obscure. Though I am willing to let a third party settle this in order to stop any edit fighting and to be respectful.
• My argument against Samuel J Walker edit revert is this: The information he reverts to is not cited. It is also ambiguous. But more importantly it has replaced a factually sourced edit that references a premise that is validated by a citation from a reliable historical document from a reliable archive, this imo makes his edit of the article regressive.

Barkleave09 (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• My argument: I don't dispute the accuracy of the edit Barkleave09 has made, my dispute is the location of it. The information I added is from here, and my main argument is consistency. From the pages I have seen of town/cities which have been moved out of counties, their lead usually reads "historically in Lancashire/Durham/Warwickshire" etc, with a section in the government section about any other status as county boroughs/corporates. As I explained, I did not remove the citation added, just moved it to a location I found more fitting in-line with other pages. The example I gave on Barkleave's talk page was Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, which includes "historically in County Durham" in its lead and later mentions its status as a county borough in the Government section. Samuel J Walker (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Potential compromise: I've just had a brainwave. I looked at the Newcastle-upon-Tyne page which says "the city is historically part of Northumberland but became a county corporate in 1400". What I suggest is amending the lead of this page to include "Historically in County Durham (with reference), the town became part of the GMB in 1835..." It may be a bit long-winded for a lead, but it would save the potential toing and froing over this, since we both have correct information. Suggestions? Samuel J Walker (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkleave09 (talk • contribs)

• Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. Barkleave09 (talk) 07:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• Reject. I'm going to reject this case under the authority granted to the Chairperson by prerequisite to mediation #9, "the Committee has the discretion to refuse or refer back to other dispute resolution venues (e.g. dispute resolution noticeboard, third opinion, request for comment, or additional talk page discussion) a dispute which would benefit from additional work at lower levels of the dispute resolution process." For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)