The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.
- Editors involved in this dispute
- Lady Lotus (talk · contribs) – filing party
- Locke Cole (talk · contribs)
- ProfessorKilroy (talk · contribs)
- Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs)
- Tenebrae (talk · contribs)
- Smyth (talk · contribs)
- Snow Rise (talk · contribs)
- Articles affected by this dispute
- Scarlett Johansson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
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)
- Should Johansson's pregnancy be added into the article when most of the WP:RS are referring to it as a "rumor" and are quoting "sources"
- Additional issues (added by other parties)
- Additional issue 1
- Additional issue 2
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.
- Agree. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully decline for the present time - While I appreciate Lady Lotus' effort to sort the matter in an amicable way, I do not think the current status of the debate requires this level of oversight and feel that the issue in question is likely to be resolved through normal editorial processes very shortly--be it through increased involvement via the RfC or developments with the sources themselves. Further, I am a very minor party to this discussion, have very little more to contribute to my interpretation that I have not set down on the talk page already, and am already involved in several time-consuming projects and discussions vieing for my currently limited wiki-time. If this changes, I may revisit this forum. Snow (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though my preference is now to include the information, since there is no consensus one way or the other, the right thing to do is clearly to wait a couple of months and the question will resolve itself. I remind everyone that this is not a serious or urgent issue. For these reasons, I will not be participating in the discussion any further, either here or anywhere else. – Smyth\talk 01:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
- I recommend that we reject this request for failing to meet prerequisite #8, "No related dispute resolution proceedings are active in other Wikipedia forums." An RfC, just filed yesterday by this same applicant, is pending at the article talk page on this issue. It should be allowed to run its ordinarily-30-day course before any other dispute resolution is considered. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC) (committee member)[reply]
- Reject. Per TransporterMan: There is another dispute resolution process active. Agreed that this can best be resolved by normal editing processes in due time. For the Mediation Committee Sunray (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
