Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/anachronism

anachronism

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Pbrower2a (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Pbrower2a (talk · contribs)
3. NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Anachronism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anachronism#Sleeper .28Woody Allen film.29 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Talk:anachronism

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

The issue is whether a character (Miles Monroe, played by Woody Allen) in Woody Allen's 1973 movie Sleeper (set in 2173) reading a 1990 newspaper (in the setting 183 years old) and catching a headline "Pope's wife has twins" would create an anachronism. Nobody can deny that clerical celibacy was a clear doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church in 1990. The Roman Catholic Church was undergoing much change of doctrine in the 1970s -- but that one has yet to appear to this date.

The better joke for 1973 about the reality of the papacy in 1990 would have been that the Pope in 1990 is/was Polish Who would have expected that in 1973 after hundreds of years in which the Pope was Italian?

Sleeper is not "serious" science fiction; it is satire of trends in American life.

I fully understand the objective of keeping inclusions concise. Wordiness is no virtue. The joke is obvious enough. The synthesis is so slight that it is trivial. The RCC continues to require clergy to remain celibate, and it elects only clergy to be Pope.

The joke appears in the theatrical version, but not in versions for network television -- as shown in the article on the movie itself.

Justification for changes belongs on the talk page.

This is the section in dispute:

On the other side, a story set in the year 2173 (Woody Allen's Sleeper) can have the protagonist discover a news article from 1990 in which a then-very-old (183 years) newspaper can have a story about the Pope's wife having children, contradicting a basic demand of the Roman Catholic Church toward its clergy.

Or as it would appear in text:

On the other side, a story set in the year 2173 (Woody Allen's Sleeper) can have the protagonist discover a news article from 1990 in which a then-very-old (183 years) newspaper can have a story about the Pope's wife having children, contradicting a basic demand of the Roman Catholic Church toward its clergy.

Such is all that I would include on the matter.

That is 55 words or numbers, which isn't unduly wordy. If you can cut this down even more, you are very welcome. Concision is a virtue.

.....

The anachronism is of a prediction (even if non-serious) of a key policy change of a high-profile institution that has not changed. That is the opposite of failing to predict such a change as the renaming of a city (Leningrad) or the dissolution of a large political entity (the Soviet Union) -- which it follows.

What would I cite for the source of the joke -- the movie itself? The bar code shows 8390428488 8 80, whatever that means.

Ironically I have removed some examples after finding fault with them. But very clearly, the Pope active in 1990 (John Paul II) did not have a wife or children.

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Well, this is premature (no RFC or DRN), and it's an open-and-shut case of original research, but... OK. Filer wants to include his original research, and I have repeatedly reverted it and explained why it's not allowed. There is nothing else to say. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Pbrower2a: I've asked a question about sources on the article talk page. Sunray (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. Pbrower2a (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Agree. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• Reject. This matter would not benefit from mediation. For the Mediation Committee Sunray (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)