Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Bible and violence, talk, section 10: supersessionism outside the scope

Bible and violence, talk, section 10: supersessionism outside the scope

 * Editors involved in this dispute
 * 1) – filing party


 * Articles affected by this dispute


 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
 * Talk:

Issues to be mediated

 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)
 * 1) the definition given contains a personal inference not supported by the references
 * 2) others have agreed but Jytdog has become offensively accusatory and refuses to cooperate with rewriting it
 * 3) the accusation is uncalled for


 * Additional issues (added by other parties)
 * I am not sure the issue is aptly framed. Per their edit count Jenhawk777 is a fairly new editor and their account is SPA focused on Christianity and violence and the Bible and violence. They made an initial foray to try to make big changes to both articles, left angry for a while, then came back and has drafted complete rewrites of each, at  User:Jenhawk777/sandbox  (which rewrites the "Bible and violence" article) and User:Jenhawk777/Violence_and_Christianity.
 * In my view, their initial foray came from a pro-Christian/Christian apologetics perspective and both of the essays do the same -- they are fundamentally theological and concerned with matters of faith, relegating history and sociology to the background, and both make arguments that Christianity rejects violence; scholars who say otherwise are refuted, and scholars who are argue that position are left to stand. I've raised my view of what they are doing with Jenhawk777 and they do not agree that this is what they are doing.
 * In my view there is a fundamental misalignment with the mission of Wikipedia to simply summarize accepted knowledge. We don't make arguments here; we describe what is known and what the various positions are, as WEIGHT is given to them in high quality secondary sources.
 * I am not sure if mediation is the right venue for this, nor if Jenhawk777 will accept mediation to address this more fundamental disagreement.
 * The objection to the supersessionist content that Jenhawk777 has made is in my view a manifestation of this deeper issue, and it is not surprising that they want to remove it.  (I am somewhat flabbergasted to see denial of the existence of the well-known canard, the "God of the Old Testament is violent and vengeful, the God of the New Testament is peaceful", and a denial that this canard is part of the whole supersessionist bucket of thinking.. especially as the rewrites are full of this.)  This content is in a section called "theology" and it hard to see how it doesn't belong there, in an article on the "Bible and violence". Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Reject. Rejected under prerequisite for mediation #9, that "the Committee has the discretion 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", with DRN particularly recommended in this case. Let me note, however, that if this had not been rejected under #9, I would have probably rejected it under prerequisite #5, requiring a majority of the participants to accept the case since conditional "accepts" are almost always counted as "rejects" unless the condition is something that the Committee would ordinarily do even if the condition had not been imposed. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)