Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-03-11/Life-death-rebirth deity

Request details
The article "Life-death-rebirth_deity" has effectively been taken over by the two first-named parties above, Eugeneacurry and Ari, and all other contributions presenting material differing from their views have been blocked and reverted for many months, as is clearly evidenced on the "Discussion" page. That page records the pathetic and futile attempts of contributors differing from the reverters to get their contributions and citations into the article, over the past six months or so. The dispute may be older than that, but the Discussion page clearly shows that it has been an on-going problem involving the blocking of many different contributors.

The reverters give a travesty of the views they disapprove of, even daring to suggest that the most recent well-recognized scholarly authority on the subject, Tryggve Mettinger, actually supports wholeheartedly the reverters's own views when his publication on the subject actually is devoted to refuting those views. On this, see Footnote 2 in the main article, which quotes Mettinger out of context and effectively has him implicitly mocking his own work. And on the seriousness of Mettinger's challenge to the reverters's views, see the "Discussion" page where I quote extensively from a review of his work in the Journal of the American Oriental Society (2003). However, this has not moved the reverters: no indication that there is any serious and responsible scholarly disagreement or debate currently on this subject is allowed into the Wikipedia article. A hint of why this is so important to the reverters is given on the Discussion page, where Ari claims that it is proven that the central Christian drama of Jesus as dying-and-rising god is not derived from the pagan cults of the Graeco-Roman period and cannot be included in the topic nor discussed in this connection by real scholars, for the Jesus cult is entirely derived from Judaism - a paradoxical claim, one might note, when there are no dying-and-rising gods in Judaism. Ari is concerned not with the subject itself, its truth or otherwise, but simply wishes to close down discussion to protect Christian theological claims.

Apparently in furtherance of this claim, Ari and Eugeneacurry travesty the few scholars they do admit have argued for the existence of pagan dying-and-rising gods. Sir James Frazer is mentioned only to mock him, without regard for any positive aspects of his The Golden Bough. Franz Cumont, who was accepted as the leading academic authority on Graeco-Roman cults for most of the twentieth century, from around 1900 even well beyond his death and through to the 1970s, is merely mentioned in passing and solely in terms of his including Jesus in the dying-and-rising complex. This reference to him, in addition, is only given in a list of others with this opinion who are rather kooky occultist writers, thus insinuating that he was one of their number and was not a responsible scholar at all. These insinuations are false. Furthermore, his contribution was not focused on Christianity per se but on amassing huge documentation relating to the pagan cults themselves.

A further failing in the article is that it pays no attention to the central cultic dynamic or ritual pattern that most dying-and-rising cults shared, according to those scholars who have confirmed the existence of these cults (including Cumont and Mettinger), namely that devotees or initiates could share in some form of a sacramental meal consisting of the risen god's body, now present in the stable crops and/or in wine, and thus participate in the divine life and its triumph over death. This ensured or gave a foretaste of salvation in the after-life. Another form of the same pattern was being drenched in the blood of a sacrificial victim symbolic of the god, as in the Mithraic mysteries (Cumont had a famous monograph on this). These cultic patterns, and variants thereof, go back into ancient Near Eastern cults, according to those scholars of ancient Near Eastern religions who confirm these patterns. On the other hand, the existence and forms of these cults have also been the subject of scholarly debate and disagreement. None of this discussion is dealt with in the article.

My own contributions have been treated as disdainfully as earlier dissenters, but unlike them I refuse to enter into long revert wars or to go away. Not wishing to enter into revert wars, after my first contributions were erased I refused to make more, but I warned them that I would seek Wiki mediation if they refused to modify the article themselves to reflect the actual state of scholarship. They have mockingly refused to do so, and thus I now lodge this complaint and request mediation. I would like all the previous contributors whose efforts have been wiped from the article, including Ceezmad and Nikopolyos, to be alerted to this mediation so that their contributions can be invited and respectfully treated in the future.

I also get the impression that the article on this subject presently in Wikipedia is very different from what it was even a year ago, before Ari and Eugeneacurry got to work on it. It even seems that the Discussion page has had its own contents wiped, with discussion before December of 2009 omitted. The few comments that reflect an earlier stage of the article suggest it was quite different and more detailed and responsible in its scholarship. E.g., under the heading "Talk," there are references to discussion of various Greek gods and myths of resurrection that no longer appear in the article itself. Perhaps Fuzzypeg, who comments here, can be invited back?

Where is the dispute?
This section should explain where the problem is. Link to the articles where the dispute is taking place. The article is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-death-rebirth_deity

Who is involved?
I have already given that list under the heading above, "List the main parties involved in the dispute."

What is the dispute?
I have given this above, under your heading "Request details."

What would you like to change about this?
See my long comment under "Request details."

How do you think we can help?
The contributions of those who differ from Ari and Eugeneacurry must be allowed expression, simply to reflect the actual state of scholarship on the subject. The reverters must be prevented from taking over the article and wiping other contributions. If nothing else succeeds, perhaps Ari and Eugeneacurry should be completely blocked from the site. Hopefully, however, it need not come to this.

Mediator notes
I'd like to take this case but I need to make sure that the other editors you've identified are aware of this request for mediation. If you could confirm it we can make a start. Cloudbound (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)