Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ken Mehlman

Ken Mehlman

There is a new edit war on this article. This time, regarding the inclusion of a report by the NAACP which gives a grade of F to 98% of Congressional Republicans on matters of importance to the African-American community. The mentioning comes

Involved parties

• Asbl (talk · contribs)
• Makgraf (talk · contribs)

fuck Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request:

Article talk pages:

• Talk:Ken Mehlman [1]

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

• Talk:Ken Mehlman#NAACP discussion
• Request for a 3rd opinion. Did not work out (see Talk:Ken Mehlman#Third opinion).

Issues to be mediated

• Under the section Republican Party chair, Mehlman's speech to the NAACP is mentioned, in where Mehlman indicates a new approach by the Republican Party to the African-American community. 6 months after the speech, the NAACP issued a report giving an "F" to 98% of Congressional Republicans. The dispute is over whether to include the report.

Additional issues to be mediated

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.

• --Asbl 11:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Agree.
• --Makgraf 05:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Agree.

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Accept.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll be glad to help out here. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

First, a request I have of both parties: that you keep this page watchlisted; this is so that we can proceed as effectively as possible. In addition, I want to make sure that both of you are comfortable with doing this on the article talk page and on this page; if either of you feel uncomfortable doing that, please, by all means, let me know (feel free to email me.) After that, we can proceed! Thanks again for your cooperation. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Added to my watchlist (both this page and Ken Mehlman. --Asbl 01:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Added to my watchlist. Thank you for taking the time to help resolve this issue. Makgraf 05:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Great! Okay, first, let me sure that I understand this correctly: the following is the paragraph in debate.

Although Mehlman's speech seemed to suggest a new approach towards the African-American community, the NAACP's Congressional Report Card for 2005 gave 98% of Congressional Republicans an "F" on issues of importance to the African-American community [8]. George W. Bush's approval rating among African-Americans falling to 2% in one poll [9]

Is that correct? If so, Makgraf, why do feel that the paragraph should not be included? Asbl, why do you feel that it should be included? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Response from Asbl

I believe the paragraph should be included because the report is a measure of how successful Mehlman after making the pledge 6 months earlier for the Republican Party to have a new relationship with the African American community. He made the pledge to the NAACP, so I think it is important to have the report from the NAACP included. For the record, I am not the one who included the report in the article. It was added by Brian Murphy, and I put his contribution in the proper context. For some reason, Brian Murphy has not been interested in the article after posting his one edit. --Asbl 03:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Response from Makgraf

I object to the first sentence in the paragraph, the second sentence was added by me in an attempt to find a compromise way to show that even after Mehlman's speech great divisions exist between the Administration and the African-American community. I object to the first sentence because the metric used in the report is flawed. It is not primarily about African-American civil rights issues (the ones mentioned are generally symbolic things) or issues of specific importance to the American-American community. Rather it measures mainly spending and trade issues with a fair amount of general and highly specific liberal cause celebres. Here are some examples of what lawmakers are graded on.-

6. TOUGHENING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE H.R. 6 / Energy Policy Act of 2005 / Hastings Amendment Amendment offered by Congressman Alcee Hastings (FL) to expand the definition of environmental justice, direct each federal agency to establish an office of environmental justice, and re-establish the interagency federal working group on environmental justice.

10. PROHIBIT FEDERAL SURVEILLANCE OF LIBRARY RECORDS H.R. 2862 / Fiscal year 2006 Commerce – Justice – Science Appropriations / Sanders Amendment Amendment by Congressman Bernie Sanders (VT) to prohibit the federal government to acquire library circulation records, library patron lists, bookseller sales records or bookseller customer lists.

14. ALLOWING EDUCATIONAL TRAVEL TO CUBA H.R. 3058 / Fiscal 2006 Transportation – Treasury – Housing Appropriations / Lee Amendment Amendment offered by Congresswoman Barbara Lee (CA) to prohibit funds in the bill to be used to enforce regulations preventing travel to Cuba by academic institutions. The Lee amendment failed on June 30, 2005, by a margin of 187 yeas to 233 nays.

Now, setting up environmental justice offices, not getting library circulation records and letting scholars go to Cuba may be fine things. But it is unfair to brand lawmakers who don't agree with them as anti-African-American (or at least unsensitive to their issues). Plus the most egregious example of all is that lawmakers who voted to put an African-American woman on the 2nd highest court in the land (Janice Roger Brown to the DC Circuit) were docked points for it in the survey.

Again, I'd like to reiterate that using the poll numbers supplies the same meaning (despite Mehlman's speech there are still significant rifts between Republicans and African-Americans) but is objective not subjective and doesn't brand Republicans as being opposed to African-Americans for their positions on unrelated issues. Makgraf 07:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to respond to Makgraf's arguments

• Why does s/he feels that s/he has the authority to challenge the NAACP on what is and what is not important to African American issues?
• Even if the three above sited criteria are objectionable to Makgraf, those are 3 out of 23 issues upon which the NAACP used to grade members of congress.

--Asbl 17:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well first of all I don't find those 3 issues "objectionable". Why should the government be able to look at library records or tell universities where and where not to go? My opinions are not the issue. The issue is that congressional Republicans who think otherwise lose points on a survey measuring attitude to African-Americans! The 3 out of 23 (actually I put 4, but who's counting) is also somewhat misleading because many of the other issues are repated twice (e.g. CAFTA, budget) so they represent quite a bit bigger percentage of the metric then they appear. If the grading those 4 issues were to switch then many republicans who got an "F" would not (e.g. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ)). Second, it's not just those 4 issues as I said before, it's what issues are ranked. Here's how the specific African-American issues are scored. JUNETEENTH TRIBUTE, unanimous; FUNDING FOR HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES 416-8; HEAD START OUTREACH TO AFRICAN AMERICAN AND HISPANIC AMERICAN MALE TEACHERS, 401-14. But the majority of the issues aren't like these. They are general trade, spending and liberal issues. There may be nothing wrong with these but it is unfair to penalize Republicans for being Republicans. The Southern Strategy specifically targeted African-Americans. The issues that the NAACP picked that specifically target African-Americans now are passed with overwhelming support. And by what authority may I dare challange the NAACP on anything? On none. I have no intrinsic authority. My arguments will or will not support my position. That's the way of the Wikipedia.

Anyway, you have not provided any positive evidence on why this flawed survey needs to be included while the poll numbers communicate the same information. Makgraf 20:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Makgraf, I support having BOTH the poll numbers and the NAACP study listed in the article on Mehlman. I don't think the poll numbers are a substitute to the NAACP study. They are complementary to the study. --Asbl 20:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. So, let me make sure I have this correct after reading your replies here: both of you think that the article should mention, in some fashion or form, that Mehlman's appeal to African Americans has been ineffective? Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that's a fair characterization. --Asbl 22:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply; I'll wait for Makgraf to confirm this before proceeding. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Makgraf 18:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Great! Can you both explain why you feel either the poll or the survey is unique and/or contributes to the article significantly? In other words, out of the various polls, surveys, and "report cards", what do you think makes these two distinguished from the others (or not distinguished), and why do you feel that these two should (or shouldn't) be included? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Polls are a good way to measure how people fell about things in a pretty objective way. The fact that as little as 1 in 50 African-Americans approved of the Republican President months after his Party Chairman promised to mend relations is a pretty stark illustration. By contrast, the survey is too subjective and flawed for the reasons shown above. It also seems superflous to have two things showing the lack of reapproachment, one gets the point across just as well (and this is after all, an article on Ken Mehlman, this is an aside on an aside). Now I'm not attached to this particular poll, per se if someone can suggest a better poll or sets of polls (say one measuring support when Mehlman made the speech vs. now) that'd be great. Makgraf 03:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• • The poll is good, for the reasons enumerated by Makgraf
  • The NAACP report card is even better, because it is a measure of what the organization which Mehlman chose to deliver the promise of a new beginning, thinks of the fulfilment of the promise.

--Asbl 07:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, great! So both of you agree on the inclusion of the poll citing Bush's approval rating with African Americans, but disagree on the inclusion of the NAACP survey? If that is correct, Asbl, would you mind reiterating why you feel that the NAACP survey is significant simply because it was the organization to which Mehlman gave the speech to? Makgraf, would you mind reiterating as well why you feel that the survey is flawed? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That's correct we agree on the inclusion of the poll, and disagree on the inclusion of the NAACP report card (you called survey). The reason I believe the report should be included, is that it is a measure of the organization's response to Mehlman's speech (which he gave to the organization). I believe that if there are any controversies as to whether the NAACP does a good job of fighting for issues of importance to the African American community, that would belong in the NAACP article, not in the Ken Mehlman Article. --Asbl 15:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC) (more comments added --Asbl 15:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC))
  • I believe the survey is flawed because it unfairly deducts points for– some issues unrelated to African-Americans, others that are general trade and spending and voting to put an African-American on the second highest court in the land. The issues that are African-American specific that are graded, in general, have high Republican support. Makgraf 02:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• • • Okay, so you two disagree on the inclusion of the NAACP report card. Is there a link to the the report card? The link in the article [2] isn't working for me; I'm not sure what the issue is. (Maybe it's because my computer crashed today and all my settings were lost. I'll try the link again later after playing with my browser.) (it appears to have been my browser. Apologies.) Regardless of that, Asbl, is the report card widely accepted as significant and indicative of the Republican relationship with African Americans? Makgraf, is it widely accepted that the report card is considered flawed in relation to African American issues? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's a wide acceptance about a lot of aspects of the Report Card, per se. However there is a widespread acceptance about, say, establishing environmental justice offices as not being a specific African-American issue. And given there are other, better, ways to show African-American disenchantment with the Republicans... Makgraf 04:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • • I have not heard of the Report until I saw Brian Murphy add it to the article. It was educational for me, and I think it enhances the article about Ken Mehlman. --Asbl 20:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • Thanks for the responses! So Asbl, Makgraf thinks that the report card isn't widely accepted. Do you agree with that, that some people might dispute its significance? Makgraf, Asbl says that it adds significantly to the article. Do you agree that it does offer another perspective on the issue? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 13:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• So far, the only objection I've seen to the report card is from Makgraf. If Makgraf can reference additional objections, I would not mind adding to the article that the report card is controversial. --Asbl 14:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Well I've not really researched what people are saying about the NAACP report cards (off the top of my head [3] has a reference to it being biased against Republicans. I don't think that including it offers another perspective on the issue. If the other perspective on Mehlman's speech is that there was a lack of reproachment between Republicans and African-Americans, then the poll does it better. There's really no reason to add in another factoid, and if we are why not something about Hurricane Katrina or something? This is, after all, an article on Ken Mehlman. If it's to show that the NAACP didn't react well to the speech it seems a imprecise and roundabout way of doing it (aside from the fact it's flawed). Why not just say, but the NAACP still dislikes Republicans? But why is that noteworthy? Mehlman may have given the speech there, but the GOP has really not made any effort to get along with the NAACP (Bush, remember, didn't speak there). Makgraf 04:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Great! So how about a revised wording still including the report card, but not placing as much emphasis on it currently? Would this be acceptable to both of you? (if it is, I'll go ahead and propose such a wording if neither of you wish to do so) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • Well, for the reasons I stated I think the report is deeply flawed and shouldn't be in the article (not suprising as it was added by a user who habitually vandalizes articles: [4], [5], [6]). But despite all that if it's a compromise that could resolve the issue I would reluctantly support its inclusion if it was contextualized and deemphasised. Makgraf 08:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I would support Flcelloguy's attempt at rewording the context for the NAACP report. The user who added the report to the article did not put any context, so all context is mine, and I would certainly be open to someone else suggesting a different context. I take exception with Makgraf's assertions that Brian Murphy "habitually vandalizes articles". The three examples Makgraf cited were of Murphy adding POV to articles. That is not the same as vandalism. In the specific case of Ken Mehlman, Murphy did not add any POV, as he did not even attempt to put the report in any sort of context. --Asbl 16:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry but, for example, adding "Support of complete idiocy" to the Republican platform is vandalism. He usually vandalizes by adding unsupported POV and insults (and you can add POV by just inserting a link, to use an extreme example, inserting a link to a white supremecist website to "rebut" a civil rights article) Makgraf 17:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Great! I'll come up with a wording shortly, then. In regards to any other user's contributions: discussing whether the contributions are vandalism or not won't help us resolve the current issue; it won't do anything but exacerbate the situation. (Though I do wish to point out that vandalism is editing an article with a malicious intent to cause harm; POV editing is general is not considered blatant vandalism. However, I make no assertions regarding those edits, and do request that we don't discuss them here. Thanks a lot!) Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

How's this wording? It uses the cite.php system to place a footnote at the bottom of the article. (I'll convert the whole article shortly, instead of using external links). Let me know what you think:

"Although Mehlman's speech seemed to suggest a new approach towards the African-American community, most have considered the approach to be unsuccessful, with several polls indicating that Republicans have not improved in terms of African-American approval. "

A Washington Post poll shows that George W. Bush's approval rating among African Americans fell to 2% at one point, and a report card issued by the NAACP gave "F"s to a majority of Congressional Republicans, although the report card covered a wide variety of issues, not all dealing directly with African Americans.

This wording, I believe, places less emphasis on both the poll and report card; the text in the article focuses on Mehlman himself and the results, saving the details (which don't deal directly with Mehlman) for the footnote. The footnote describes both the poll and report card, but places less emphasis on both. Again, let me know what you think. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think you did a great job with the alternate wording, though I think it should be "most not dealing directly" instead of "not all dealing directly". Makgraf 19:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the last fragment "although the report card covered a wide variety of issues, not all dealing directly with African Americans" is somewhat superfluous and sounds like weasel words, if that's what it takes to end this dispute, I'll be more than happy to accept it. --Asbl 04:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you accept the wording "although the report card covered a wide variety of issues, most not dealing directly with African Americans"? Makgraf 05:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Change "most" to "some" (you youself cited only 4 out of 23 issues). I also think we should change the word "directly" to "exclusively", as the issues in questions directly affect African Americans, just as much as they affect anybody else. --Asbl 12:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • It's a good point about "exclusively", we should use that word. But I think it should be most. The Senate had no issues that were exclusive to African-Americans (out of 20), though it did have 1 about civil rights (the rest are budget, trade and confirmation issues). The House had 4 issues that were exclusive to African-Americans: (#s1,12,18,19): all of which, I might add, passed with overwhelming Republican support). It also had 3 other civil rights (as in non-exclusive but affecting) issues (#s 2,9,11) and 3 civil rights issues unconnected to African-Americans (#s3,17,20: these are about religious discrimination for faith-based groups and broading hate crimes to include actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability). This is out of 23. So that's 4 out of 43 that are exclusive to African-Americans (i.e. 91% non-exclusive). Even if you're generous and throw in the civil rights issues, that's 8 of 43, or 81% non-exclusive. So I think that we should have the wording: "although the report card covered a wide variety of issues, most not dealing exclusively with African Americans". Makgraf 20:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • How about using either "several" or "multiple"? Both connote a number more than "some" but is less specific than "most". Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Several" works well with me. --Asbl 06:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Why exactly should we have a less specific word though? I always thought that to avoid weasel words and being wishy-washy we should choose language that's as specific as possible. "Exclusive" has a very specific meaning that does lead to the conclusion that "most" of the issues are not, in fact, exclusive. The only way I could see using "several" is if we went back to the less specific "directly". Multiple is better, but I don't know how it can fit into the sentence we're working with. Makgraf 21:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the replies! It seems we're almost reached a compromise. Regarding the use of "most", "several", or "multiple": "most" is indeed more specific than either of the latter two. However, Makgraf, do you have anything to back your assertions of what does and doesn't constitution something dealing exclusively with African Americans? Asbl, would "multiple" also be an acceptable wording to you? (Makgraf, I'm thinking the wording with multiple would look like this: "although the report card covered a wide variety of issues, multiple ones not dealing exclusively with African Americans". The only difference is adding in the word "ones" to refer to issues.) Let me know! Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • Well exclusive has a very speciifc meaning as dealing only with. By definition, CAFTA (free trade with central america), Judicial confirmations, the budget, gun policy and the aforementioned Cuban trips or Environmental Justice Offices do not exclusively affect African-Americans. The only ones that are exclusive are the 4 I mentioned above (and even one of those are iffy because one is also targeted to Latinos). My orginal suggestion was going to be "the vast majority", but that does have some interpretation in it (what is vast? Maybe it's 95% instead of 91%?). But "most" or "the majority" is just a statement of facts. "Multiple" seems kinda clunky and it does still connote that it's a minority that don't exclusively affect African-Americans. Makgraf 19:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • • (awaiting reply from Asbl before proceeding. Thanks!) Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• "Multiple" is preferable to "most". --Asbl 21:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• • How's this wording? "although the report card covered a wide variety of issues, with multiple ones not dealing exclusively with African Americans" It uses multiple, which both of you seem to find acceptable, but is slightly reworded to have less of a connotation that it's either a minority or majority of issues. I hope we can conclude this issue shortly. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I like this wording. --Asbl 16:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It's good, but if we're not going to have a connotation of a majority then we should use something less extreme than "exclusively". What about primarily or mainly? Makgraf 02:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
      • You have worn me out. I'll go along with either "primarily" or "mainly" just to bring this to a conclusion. --Asbl 05:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
        • K so "although the report card covered a wide variety of issues, with multiple ones not dealing mainly with African Americans" it is. Issue resolved. Makgraf 06:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I apologize I've taken a long time to getting back to you two; I've been extremely busy. Good work, though! I'll take a closer look at this tomorrow or soon and see if we can wrap things up. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• I apologize yet again for not having the time to take care of this case. As you can tell, I've just been swamped the past month or so and haven't had as much time as I would like to mediate. I see that the changes have been implemented and that both of you seem to consider the issue resolved. I just wanted to confirm this before "officially" closing the case. Feel free to bring up any comments you have, or any thoughts you have on the process. Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I concur. --Asbl 12:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd like to thank you for your help and for your time. As to comments about the process I'm not particularly happy. Asbl's comments about me acting in "bad faith" and that I was trying to "impose [my] POV that the NAACP is "just another garden-variety beltway liberal organization" are still there on the history page. Neither of which were true. Also well I respect the compromise I do think that the wikipedia is worse off because of it. The whole incident left a bad taste in my mouth. Makgraf 02:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I have to disagree with Makgraf. I was very impressed with the process, and how with Flcelloguy's help Makgraf and I were able to bridge the gap and come to a mutually agreed upon compromise. Lets not confuse the heat of the edit war with the mediation process. --Asbl 15:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Thank you both again for your comments and dedication to Wikipedia. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)