This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John J. Bulten (talk | contribs) at 19:02, 23 September 2010 (List objections, then revert without losing improvements). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:02, 23 September 2010 by John J. Bulten (talk | contribs) (List objections, then revert without losing improvements)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Misplaced Pages Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Longevity myths |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 13:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Parties involved | User:John J. Bulten User:Ryoung122 |
| Mediator(s) | User:Atama |
| Comment | Closing the case as stale; no debate has occurred since June 2009, JJB is on a Wikibreak, and Ryoung122 is skeptical of the success of mediation. |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
The article. If you just take a glance at it you can see the notes on nearly every sentance.
Who is involved?
What is the dispute?
This is arguably one of the biggest messes of an article I’ve ever seen. Problems with it are noted everywhere and looking through the talk and extensive archive it appears there will be no end to it. It is really just a bunch of POV pushing. You have a few editors, the most notable being JJB saying that the term “myth” is being misused and plainly are against religion being referred to as myth and you have Ryoung122, a gerontology expert who takes issue with religion being referred to as anything but. It seems like Misplaced Pages:RNPOV#Religion would cover this pretty well but so far it hasn't.
What would you like to change about this?
I would personally split the article to resolve the issue. Create a page for Religious Longevity covering the various religious beliefs around longevity, and one for Disputed Longevity Claims which would claim the rest and is especially appropriate given that most of the article is contemporary by comparison. I would suggest this on the talk myself but I am certain given this all seems to be about one side winning over another I would be shot down.
How do you think we can help?
Push for a resolution rather than allowing this mess to continue.
Mediator notes
I'm closing the case as stale. There hasn't been any real debate on the issue since June 2009. Ryoung122 responded to my offer of mediation help by expressing skepticism that mediation would solve anything. JJB has not responded, and is unlikely to, as he seems to have gone on an extended break, and hasn't regularly edited Misplaced Pages for months. It's worthy to point out that neither of these editors requested this mediation, but it was requested by an uninvolved third party. -- Atama頭 19:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Administrative notes
Discussion
Laughing hard between thanks for Atama's sincerity and the staleness of the case. It turns out Atama notified "User:JJB" instead of myself because I use my initials in my sig (sorry!) and I just discovered this page. The primary former discussion was User:John J. Bulten/DR2 and the talk pages. Right now I am back in at WP, I have a path forward for the article, and Ryoung122 and I have not scraped too badly yet since my return, but there's no telling what will proceed. Open to anything within policy, JJB 23:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Greetings,
The truth is, the "mess" was made by JJB, who is injecting Christian apologism (such as the idea that Noah really did live to 950 years old, because the Bible says so) into the article. This article is supposed to be written for an encyclopedia, reflecting a mainstream, secular scientific view, which is clear that humans have not been demonstrated to have lived much beyond age 120.
I agree the article needs to be cleaned up, but I see no progress as long as JJB is utilizing the wrong standard. This isn't the place to preach what you believe.Ryoung122 17:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Significant replies to these charges already given at Talk:Longevity traditions. JJB 18:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, that's not necessarily the case. Certainly the information must be encyclopedic, and should be verifiable. But saying that the article must "reflect a mainstream, secular scientific view" isn't completely accurate. Per WP:WEIGHT, articles should reflect all significant viewpoints, not only secular ones. The key is what can be verified by reliable sources. Declaring that Noah really did live to be 950 because the Bible says so isn't right, but it might be worthy to say that the Bible claims that Noah lived to that age (this is just an example, I'm not suggesting any actual content that should be added). Anyway, it sounds like there might still be something to be worked out through mediation, so do we want to have the discussion on this page or on the article's talk page? I'm fine with either, thanks. -- Atama頭 18:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Greetings,
I agree that mediation is a good idea. What I don't agree is that John J Bulten has attempted to establish mediation AFTER his edits, which did not seek consensus or find consensus first, has basically changed everything to his POV. Mediation needs to begin with the consensus POV, not the "coup d'etat" POV.Ryoung122 18:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm willing to discuss and/or implement specific objections to my edits, which have been gradual and have been previewed on talk when significant. I don't have a problem with reverting after a specific list of objections is provided, but there should be no wholesale reversion throwing out the improvements (similar to many R has admitted in the past) with the bathwater. JJB 19:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)