Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-11-13/List of common misconceptions

Where is the dispute?
List of common Misconceptions. Talk page. Section:Flashbulb Memory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions#Flashbulb_memory

Who is involved?
TheThomaswastaken/72.187.199.192/72.187.99.79 and Cresix.

What is the dispute?
Whether it is 'common' to believe strong memories (flashbulb memories) like the ones on traumatic days (9/11 or the challenger crash) are stronger than normal memories. Note: the fact is that they aren't more accurate, but that is not the point in contention. Only whether it is a common belief that your most vivid memories are more accurate than some less vivid memory.

What would you like to change about this?
The article. I don't want to change the tone of the conversation. I want to settle the issue, but evidence doesn't seem to be persuading the guy and he didn't want to do consensus by conversation (mutual agreement). He wanted to call a vote, nobody has weighed in on the vote.

How do you think we can help?
Just weigh in on the vote. Read about flashbulb, read a peer-reviewed article stating that people who have flashbulb memories are confident (strongly believe) they are accurate. Read a study saying 35% of people watching the Challenger crash developed flash bulb memories. Say it is common. Note: flashbulb memories aren't more accurate, that's not really the question here.

Mediator notes
Accepting case for the time being, but from discussion on the article's talk page it doesn't seem that mediation is appropriate in this instance. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's really just one user (the OP here) being opposed by several, which could be why he didn't notify us - he wanted to try an "end around" play. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
My opinion: ask anyone where they were when 9/11 happened, they will tell you, with certainty, many details. They believe it is burned into their brain. This is common knowledge. The fact that I had to argue for hours with a person who doesn't recognize it as common is ridiculous. How can a page improve if a person stalks it and removes well-sourced material, that shouldn't even need a source.

Note: "When Harry Met Sally" had a line about this phenomenon. Harry complained that he asked his much younger girlfriend where she was when Kennedy died. She responded, "Ted Kennedy died!?" That movie is officially dated. TheThomas (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The above explains the core problem: A user who thinks that because he reads some research somewhere, that it automatically becomes (1) unarguably true and (2) notable. Basically, it's original research. P.S. I don't think we were notified about this "mediation", although it was several weeks ago, so it might have got lost in the shuffle. P.P.S. I know exactly where I was when JFK and 9/11 happened, and no amount of research can prove otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked my archives and I was definitely NOT notified of this so-called "mediation". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Nor was I notified, and I'm directly named above as a party to the dispute. This issue was discussed rather extensively on the article's talk page. This is an example of one user trying to assert unilateral control over the consensus process repeatedly over a period of months and not accepting the fact that he does not form a consensus of one person. Both before and after requesting mediation here, he restored the item with his "consensus of one". The first time he tried to do it "under the radar" editing as an anon and not leaving an edit summary. When called on that, he made this request for mediation. When that didn't get a response for a couple of weeks, he again restored the item with the edit summary "Added back in due to lack of consensus or reasoning for removal". I also agree with Baseball Bugs' assessment that this is original research. Note also that some of this user's suggested additions to the article have been accepted with little discussion, so we have taken the time to consider his ideas and, when necessary, discuss. Cresix (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong, but I think I've been as active in the discussion as you have, but I'm guessing that if he posted the both of us, it would have been obviously 2 against 1, and a mediator would have said, "See ya." But by coloring as 1 against 1, he makes it look more like mediation is somehow necessary. It fits with the general pattern of disregarding the rules and trying to make his way be the rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. You contributed to the discussion at least as much, if not more, than I did. Subterfuge and refusal to accept that there is no consensus are part of this editor's consistent style. Cresix (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In cases like this, it's hard to tell if the user is deliberately malicious or merely incompetent. But either way, he's got it wrong. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion is now taking place on the article talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)