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)
Several editors have objected to the statement in the "Feminism" section that the neoliberal turn within mainstream feminism has contributed to the popularity of Hillary Clinton, and have repeatedly deleted that passage. Rjensen argues that because the cited source does not VERBATIM say "Clinton is a neoliberal," that characterizing her in that way constitutes "reading between the lines" and is therefore a contentious statement. Jensen also alleges that "no other major RS makes any such allegation." But while the cited source does not say so verbatim, it very clearly identifies Clinton as being within the neoliberal tradition as described in the rest of the Neoliberalism entry. I believe a neutral reader of the original source will have no doubt about the authors' characterization. And it is false that "no other major RS" characterizes Clinton as a neoliberal (see, among many others, <ref>Liza Featherstone, ed., "False Choices: The Faux-Feminism of Hillary Rodham Clinton" [London: Verso, 2016]<ref>). Most of the other editors, apart from Rjensen, agree that Clinton's policies can be fairly characterized as neoliberal, but allege that she is being "singled out" by her inclusion in the entry. My response is that Hillary Clinton is arguably the most visible example of neoliberal feminism, and thus merits mention in the section on "Neoliberal feminism."
Rjensen and others have also alleged that the original source does not come from a Reliable Source, based on ad hominem, redbaiting attacks on the journal where it originally appeared (see Talk page for details).
One user, "The Four Deuces," contends that a claim must enjoy "universal acceptance" to merit inclusion in a Wikipedia page. But very few statements on Wikipedia---including many statements on the Hillary Clinton page and the Neoliberalism page---in fact enjoy that level of acceptance. In this case, since the argument is (somewhat) contested, it is properly characterized as a legitimate but contestable claim of the article's authors. The passage deleted by Rjensen frames the argument in precisely that way---not as universally accepted truth, but as an argument supported by evidence.
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.
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 request under the discretion given to the Chairperson under prerequisite to mediation #9 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". I would first recommend that advice on the reliability of the source be sought at the reliable sources noticeboard and then, if it is reliable, that advice about whether or not it is original research to say that the source supports the assertion be sought at the original research noticeboard. Alternatively (or in place of that) you may seek some other form of dispute resolution first, with the dispute resolution noticeboard (linked above) being recommended. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
