Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-07-02/Ten Commandments

Where is the dispute?
Ten Commandments

Who is involved?

 * User:Kwamikagami
 * User:Jfdwolff
 * User:Jayjg

What is the dispute?
There are three versions of the Ten Commandments. (See refs on talk page, also at Ritual Decalogue.) However, many people do not like one of the versions, because it's quite different from the other two, despite it being most clearly called the Ten Commandments by the Bible itself. A couple years ago we agreed that this divergent version should be covered at Ritual Decalogue, and that the Ten Commandments article should concentrate on the other two (the Ethical Decalogue). A year and a half ago, in Jan. 2009, I added the text of that version to the table comparing the versions of the Ten Commandments, so that the reader could see all three side by side. No details, just the raw text, linked to the sub-article. That was accepted without objection until yesterday, when JFD deleted it with the comment "this is not the place to flesh out the RD, a hypothesis that is not supported by traditional sources". Since then, JFD and Jayjg have been edit warring to keep it off the page.

Per WP:BRD, they should take it to talk rather than re-reverting, not in addition to it. So far their comments have not been convincing, and are not based on sources. For example (see talk page), "Nobody, but nobody, calls the Ritual Decalogue "The Ten Commandments", and this is the subject of this article." Well, of course no-one calls them the TCs, there are three versions! But the article covered both the TCs and the Decalogue, as synonyms, as the opening line makes clear. I provided a couple RS refs on the talk page that demonstrate that all three versions are considered versions of the Ten Commandments, not just the two that the other two editors say are the Ten Commandments.

What would you like to change about this?
I don't mind the divergent version getting an separate article, as we have it now, since it's not the Ten Commandments of popular perception, but I do think that the text of all three versions should be placed side by side for comparison in the main article, at least unless we have some consensus to delete one of them.

If the main article is to cover only the traditional account, then IMO it should be renamed accordingly, with a new main article that summarizes both. Earlier consensus, however, is that the traditional account should be covered in the main article.

How do you think we can help?
Explain that WP:BRD means that when you make a change to the consensus of an article, and are reverted, you should come to a new consensus before insisting on your changes.

Mediator notes
A more thorough review of what MedCab is not is in order, we're not here to jump in and take anyone's side. Looking at the talk page, your talk page, the protection discussions for the page, etc appears this has been quite the edit war you have been involved in. You're also accusing a former ArbCom member, who's trying to work out the dispute, of edit warring -- not a good idea. I'm closing out this case, I don't think the request was made in good faith. --Wgfinley (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course the request was made in good faith. What, you don't like the dispute, therefore it must be invalid? What kind of evaluation is that?
 * Who's the former ArbCom member who's trying to work out the dispute? No-one has presented themselves as a mediator.
 * I'm not asking you to take sides. I'm asking for mediation because a huge number of mainstream scholars, and even annotated bibles, are being dismissed as fringe, which is simply POV pushing.
 * As for protracted fights, that's what happens when mediators refuse to intervene. We have 4+ adamantly against the previous consensus, and 2 adamantly for, which is not going to end well without some kind of meeting of minds. — kwami (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrative notes
prot'd for 3 days. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)