| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Atonement |
| Status | closed |
| Request date | Unknown |
| Requesting party | Skolstoe |
| Parties involved | PieWalker |
| Mediator(s) | Lurker |
| Comment | Mediator requests assistance. |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Atonement]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Atonement]]
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
Request Information
- Request made by: Skolstoe 11:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- ... Talk:Atonement page and Atonement pages
- Who's involved?
- ...Skolstoe(myself) and so far PieWalker but I imagine others will join soon...
- What's going on?
- ...The article on atonement is not a neutral, historical account, but rather has been hi-jacked by editors trying to implicitly include their own personal opinions into the text. Perhaps most specifically Mormons using the page to put across their beliefs. There is a confusion between the individual theories of HOW atonement works, and the doctrine of WHAT atonement is. Thus the paragraph on "Adam's fall" is actually linked to a certain theory rather than being inherent in the overall doctrine of atonement.
- What would you like to change about that?
- ...I have no problem with people holding different beliefs on the subject, but do think that perhaps contributions should be made to the pages explicitly on the different theories (ie mormonism holds a modification of the Anselmian thoery and thus their comments should be on that page). An alternative would perhaps be to make more explicit sections and then have people acknowledge that their personal beliefs do fall under a section rather than being representative of the topic as a whole.
- I feel that the edit I made yesterday is fair to the cause of representing the "bare bones" of what atonement actually is. The subsequent reversion is heavily biased to Anselmian theory, and latterly to Mormonism in particular. (again let me reiterate I do not have a problem with Mormon beliefs, however feel they should maybe expand them in a more appropriate place!).
- Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
- ...Don't mind
Mediator response
So far I've made a suggestion that the LDS-specific material is better off in its own article. I thought this would be an acceptable compromise, but it hasn't been widely accepted. It still looks as if a revert war is on the cards, but at least people are talking.
I'm a newbie mediator, any more experienced mediators fancy looking at this and suggesting how we proceed? Lurker talk 12:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
No activity. Closing case. -- Ideogram 03:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
Discussion
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.