Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	[[{{{article}}}]] ([[Talk:{{{article}}}|Talk page]])
Status	{{{status}}}
Request date	22:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Unknown
Mediator(s)	Leujohn ( talk)
Comment	MEDCAB is not the place to explain policy

There is an ongoing dispute at Avigdor Lieberman and Yisrael Beiteinu. See Talk:Avigdor Lieberman#Funny sentences, Talk:Avigdor Lieberman#Descriptives, Talk:Avigdor Lieberman#BLP issues, Talk:Avigdor Lieberman#Perception section, Talk:Yisrael Beiteinu#British sources, Talk:Yisrael Beiteinu#Kadima, and Talk:Yisrael Beiteinu#Lead.

Yisrael Beiteinu is now the third largest political party in Israel. Avigdor Lieberman is its leader. Both are labeled far right, ultra nationalist, and populist by many mainstream media sources within and outside of Israel (e.g. AP, AFP, Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post, The New York Times, Reuters, etc). I have argued that the generally accepted political ideology and alignment of a political party and a politician are some of their most important points and as such should be included in the leads of their respective articles. I do not oppose adding other labels (e.g. center right) as long as they appear in reliable sources. [1] [2]

Other editors have made the following arguments:

• Only sources from within one country can be used for articles on political parties or politicians within that country. [3] [4]
  • If there is such a policy, then articles on many political parties and politicians are violating it and need to be brought into line with it.
• Only self-descriptions of politicians are allowed in their articles. [5]
  • Again, if there is such a policy, many other articles violate it.
• If an editor views a source as left wing, it cannot be used for articles on a right wing political party or politician. [6]
• Opinion pieces are not reliable sources. I agree and have removed them. [7]
• The political ideology and alignment of a political party and a politician are not among their "most important points" and as such do not belong in their respective leads. [8] [9]
• Only scholarly sources can be used to determine political alignment, ideology, position, etc. [10]
• A statement by an official from one political party is a reliable source for an article on another political party. [11]

One editor in particular has repeatedly removed my edits but told me not to remove his. [12] [13] I have complied and left his additions alone, but he continues to remove mine without offering any valid reasons.

As of the bullet points above, these are my opinions:

Bullet point 1: I disagree with that point because there are media restrictions in certain countries that would not be neutral.

Bullet point 2: I strongly disagree with the point because self descriptions are not always true

For the others, I will leave no comment. As for your removed edits, you have shown no sign of communicating with the editor. Leave a message on his/her talkpage, and wait for a response. Leujohn ^{( talk)} 08:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I have communicated with him/her. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] I believe that the generally accepted political alignment and ideology of a politican and a political party are some of their "most important points" and as such belong in the leads of their respective articles. Mhym believes they are not some of their "most important points" and should therefore be in the body rather than the lead. JCDenton2052 ( talk) 14:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Since this dispute could apply to all articles on political parties and politicians, I would like to know which of us is correct. JCDenton2052 ( talk) 14:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Closed Case If that is the only reason you filed a case, it is not up to MEDCAB to decide. Leujohn ^{( talk)} 10:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

So should I seek formal mediation? JCDenton2052 ( talk) 12:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply