Jump to content

Talk:Traditionalist Catholicism/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

This is a talk_page archive covering the month of December 2005. Click on the first link under the page title to see current discussion, or click the second link for an overview of the archives.

Unprotection

Due to the controversial nature of this article, please do not make any significant changes without first obtaining consensus. // Pathoschild 02:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Traditionalists talking about traditionalists : forgetting about Marcel Lefebvre and/or his 1988 excommunication

Whoever pretends to have a God NPOV view?? I will happily agree with the more traditionalists around you that NPOV is a relative thing, explaining this editing conflict. No human beings have absolute truth. However, please allow non-traditionalists to write on this page, if you want it to achieve one day the status of a featured article. Waiting until now to talk about Marcel Lefebvre, the archbishop founder of the Society of St. Pius X, and of his 1988 excommunication is not only silly, but plain historical revisionism.

Of course, if the article is about "catholic traditionalism", dividing between those who don't recognize the actual Pope and those who, such as Lefebvre, do even though relationship with the Vatican has been, during the years, strained, it is unthinkable to speak about Lefebvre - or his excommunication - in the 50th line. Moreover, Wikipedia articles having sub-sections, one must not assume that the whole article is read each time, as most Wikipedian use hyperlinks or fast-reading. Henceforth, if you wish to talk about St. Pius X, then you will have to talk about its founder, Marcel Lefebvre, and his excommunication. This is a Church decision, whether you agree or not with it is not a problem for Wikipedia.

Continuing to delete edits is just a sign of intolerance, and certainly does not argue in your favour or understanding of XXth century philosophy. Encyclopedia are born in the "Age of Enlightenment", as well as tolerance. I don't know if most people today believe in its ideal of a NPOV, but most do believe in the virtue of tolerance, as did Voltaire a long time ago...

If you wish to do irrelevant amalgams between Joan of Arc and Marcel Lefebvre, so be it... Let me tell you that this automatically makes one familiar with catholics traditionalists and Lefebvre immediately think of Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of french far-right political party Front National, which each year celebrate Joan of Arc's death as a martyr against English...

Kind regards however our incomprehension may be, we will have to find a consensus... User:Kaliz

The entry isn't about priestly societies. Where they are mentioned, they are briefly described -- in the appropriate sections (each has its OWN entry). Your agenda is clear insofar as you could not limit yourself to mentioning the excommunications in the appropriate section, but mentioned them no less than FOUR times all throughout the article. The one mention of yours remains -- in the appropriate section.

Mentioning SS. Athanasius and Joan of Arc is not some "irreverent amalgam"; in fact, both are extremely relevant to the meaning of "excommunication," especially with regard to St. Athanasius. If mentioning St. Joan of Arc brings to mind Le Pen, then what can be done? The mention of Christ and St. John brings to mind Hitler in the eyes of some. So be it.

I have no idea what you think it relevant to bring up 20th c. philosophy, and am astounded that you'd put forth Voltaire as some paragon to emulate, and to a traditionalist Catholic yet. Used2BAnonymous 18:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Kaliz, I added the entry to the Traditionalist category, DA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Traditionalist_Catholic&diff=30326151&oldid=30223384

And the excommunication of Lefebvre IS mentioned in the APPROPRIATE CATEGORY. Used2BAnonymous 19:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Voltaire was not looking to be a good Christian, but that does not disqualify him from being right on tolerence. Kaliz is right. Can't mention the SSPX without that pesky excommunication. Dominick (TALK) 19:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Used2BAnonymous is saying this is not an article about priestly societies, but names SSPX in the first entry. And agreeds to name its founder, Marcel Lefebvre, only in the third entry. And, after a while, his excommunication following the controversed 1988 ordinations of four bishops. But only comparing it to Joan of Arc, heroe of Jean Marie Le Pen (who's strenght was to gather various far-rights movements inside the Front National - is this history?). Traditionalists, if you want to use Wikipedia, well, you will have to accept other people's interferences. IF you don't and abuse of editing conflict, you're in for a long, long struggle... with the Devil, of course! (unsigned User:Kaliz)

Please sign your comments, toujours - toujours. Dominick (TALK) 19:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

That "pesky excommunication" IS MENTIONED, Dominick. Get with it.

There is only one entry, Kaliz. As to the rest of your post, speak English. Used2BAnonymous 19:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, sorry guy! replace "entry" by "section", and you will understand it. This article should also be listed in Category:Religion and Politics. Sorry for the broken english, i am surely not as knowledgeable as you. But I do know my history. Ridiculous deleting of edits always bring about locked pages. Good for you, as this enforces your POV. This dispute will not be cleared as long as only traditionalists edits are conserved. User:Kaliz (sorry for forgetting signing, User:Dominick who apparently has been since a while trying to enforce a little bit more NPOV perfectly understood who & what is discussed here... Cheers!

ZUT! Your endorsement has doomed me Kaliz. Dominick (TALK) 20:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"'Ridiculous' deleting of edits always brings about locked pages"? What if what is being deleted is ridicuous, such as saying the same thing over and over in 4 different paragraphs?

Don't think you're the only one who claims to know History. I do wish, though, that if you are going to go on about Lefebvre, you'd at least spell his name correctly and get the relevant dates right.

And you think Dominick is trying to enfore a little bit more "NPOV" around here? Ha:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Traditionalist_Catholic&oldid=27252888

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Traditionalist_Catholic&oldid=26913199

Now, what does this page have to do with politics anyway?

(WP:RPA) Used2BAnonymous 21:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

(WP:RPA) Dominick (TALK) 21:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected

Protecting this page. Please work this out through dispute resolution or talking it out. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

We have been doing the dispute resolutions and trying to assume good faith. That went out the window when people got "credentialed" so they can vote. This ended badly. I would love binding mediation, but that is not possible. Dominick (TALK) 20:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, one can't vote without getting "credentialed," so what the hell did you expect? For traditionlist Catholics to do nothing as the entry about them is overtaken by conservatives who hate them, who think they are "militant" "not official Catholics," and who want every paragraph in this entry to mention the alleged excommunication of a Bishop of one priestly society -- a society this entry isn't about in the first place and which has its own entry? Used2BAnonymous 21:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
As such I've proposed formal mediation on the talk pages of all the active editors. The Mediation Council is intended to resolve precisely this type of dispute, regardless of how many people are on one "side". // Pathoschild 21:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I went to them before early on. I got a brush off. Dominick (TALK) 21:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The request may have been rejected because editors are expected to attempt the first step in dispute resolution first. Of the first step, negotiation, we've now covered nearly every method (discussion, RFC, informal mediation) but one, the survey. Since this is a religious question, I doubt a survey is appropriate. The only steps remaining are formal mediation and the last resort, arbitration. In order for formal mediation to be feasable, the editors involved must agree to it. // Pathoschild 22:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for Protection

I requested for protection of the page given the idioitic edit wars between, principally, U2BA & Dom.

Although I disagree to some extent with U2BA, I believe her version is more accurate. From what Kaliz has been adding, I can only say that he is, with apologies to the norms of parliamentary language, an ignoramus; a condition aggravated by bad logic and an even worse grasp of the English language.

Dom is but slightly better, once again with apologies; he knoweth not what he speaketh.

I always believe that one should not meddle with subjects on which one does not possess sufficient knowledge, and I practise this myself, prefering to avoid entries where I am ignorant of the subject matter(s).

That, unfortunately, does not seem to the policy that most Wikipedians follow. I have been protesting, but no one has been paying attention.

The Siegenthaler case only proves my point. For two days now continously, the Times of India (Bombay) has been carrying articles on the Siegenthaler-Wikipedia controversy, which does no credit to Wikipedia.

The online article reports:

I phoned Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder and asked, "Do you ... have any way to know who wrote that?"
"No, we don't," he said. Representatives of the other two websites said their computers are programmed to copy data verbatim from Wikipedia, never checking whether it is false or factual.
Naturally, I want to unmask my "biographer." And, I am interested in letting many people know that Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible research tool.

Wikipedia is changing (under duress), but those changes are cosmetic, not fundamental.

To be useful changes, a proper system of peer review and examination of competence on subject matter should be imposed.

If an encyclopedia is worth contributing to, and if an entry is worth contributing to, for potential editors, it should also be worth their while to prove their competence by draft pages appended as annexures to an entry before being found worthwhile to be incorporated into main text.

However, Wikipedia is constructed on the Communist principles of anarchy (see Che Guevara) and it is only legal punitive action that compels it to made certain modifications to its management policies.

I am no fan or advocate of either Mel Gibson (or "Passion") or of Hutton Gibson (but I esteem his early work against the Modernists, parallel to Patrich Henry Omlor's), and unlike Siegenthaler, neither pere-fils have bothered about Wikipedia and its malicious campaign of slander against Mel Gibson and his private chapel, the Holy Family Church at Malibu. I took on myself that responsibility, because I hate lies and falsehoods, but I was always frustrated. It was finally an anonymous editor, a Lefebvrist (SSPX), who rationalized that entry. Ironically, the official SSPX is venomously anti groups such as the Gibsons.

Regards.

WikiSceptic 05:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The chat here shows that it is going to be hard to reach an agreement here. Traditionalists here are afraid of what this page says about them, mainly because of the "influence" of Wikipedia (even though everyone has understood that this so-called influence is relative to its credibility, hence to its being "mainstream"). But traditionalists may probably be the only one who care to bother checking on this page frequently enough. The Wikipedia question is: if traditionalists refuse any intervention from other mainstream catholics or, worse, unbelievers, will Wikipedia let trads talks about themselves, or will it, just as it did for Daniel Brandt, prohibit from edit those people who don't care to let other points of views be taken into account? As we can see, if the debate yesterday started from a conflict edit (caring to say that the founder of SSPX, which seems to be taken into importance in this entry, was named Lefebvre, and that this Lefebvre found SSPX in reaction against Vatican II, and was excommunicated in the late 1980s, but, as should also be said - not to defend Lefebvre's point of view, but because it is the Vatican's policy -, this does not mean that SSPX is considered sedevacantist), well the debate apparently has taken a turn on regretting Wikipedia's construction on a "communist principle of anarchy" (interesting concept), symbolized by Che Guevara, which allow it for "ignorantum" (who don't even pray in latin) to edit their spelling mistakes. Well, if the mistakes were only of spelling, i'm sure you would all absolve us of any sin, wouldn't you? User:Kaliz

However, Wikipedia is constructed on the Communist principles of anarchy (see Che Guevara) and it is only legal punitive action that compels it to made certain modifications to its management policies.
What a silly statement. Everytime a sedevacanist gets heat they appeal to the gnostic principal of secret knowledge. Communism/socialism/collectivism is not at all anarchism. Che Guvera was a bandit. What wikipedia does is based on the open source paradigm, no different than what lawyers and doctors do, they share information openly. They allow people to use the information freely like a doctor does. Then one step further they let anyone contribute.
Where this failed here is that we had people like U2BA who wanted to prevent an article from including a group that opposed his pet group. Then U2BA got some friends here, started a forum article called "wiki war" and other "take back the net" schemes, and when they met opposition started playing games with the process here to game the system. When you can't assume good faith anymore, an administrator should have stepped in. That "Wikisceptic" knows U2BA real gender, lets me know they are using a third party forum to communicate, another violation of assume good faith. We have a "wiki war" directed by another group, to edit pages for a PoV twist.
There were not a recent edit war with me and U2BA, Lima made a good edit and I thought it should stay. U2BA and meatpuppets hindered the ability of other editors, like me and Lima, to edit this article by blind reverting. It may not have been the best approach to re-revert the changes. Pathos tried to hold a vote, anyone with the right number of edits was able to come two meatpuppets directed by a third party forum to get 100 edits by changing on or two characters 100 times, and boom, the vote is in doubt.
As far as the protection issue goes, I would not have taken it as far with the SSPX edits, but Kaliz was right. I was willing to let the SSPX status get downplayed in order to fix the problems of inclusion of non-"Vatican bashing" traditional Catholics. Kaliz was not willing to let it slide, thats his right. Now we can see that U2BA is not capable of working with someone constructivly, without gaming the system. Dominick (TALK) 13:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Rebuttals

Pathoschild, I hope that you are impartial. I am beginning to wonder. So, please tell me, is the following message also contrary to the requirement against personal attacks?

This is in response to the posts by Kaliz and Dominick in response to mine.

It is extremely sad to see you (Kaliz) determined to prove yourself immature. Saying so may be contrary to Wikipedia's policy, but I do not know any other way of calling a spade a spade.

I have strong doubts about the usefulness of this exercise, but, on the principle that not answering will persuade my correspondents that they have succeeded in vanquishing me, compels me. I will therefore attempt a detailed rebuttal.

The chat here shows that it is going to be hard to reach an agreement here.

That chat is by me, who was never a part of the conflict on this entry. How, therefore, does it prove that "it is going to be hard to reach an agreement here"?

Traditionalists here are afraid of what this page says about them, mainly because of the "influence" of Wikipedia (even though everyone has understood that this so-called influence is relative to its credibility, hence to its being "mainstream").
  1. Who is "everyone" who possess this unanimous understanding? And does Wikipedia possess infallibility and indefectibility where it comes to stating the truth? Kaliz's words imply so.
  2. What evidence exists to substantiate the gratuitous slander that "Traditionalists" are "afraid" "of what this page says about them"? That one somewhat "Traditionalist", Used2BeAnonymous has fought with Dominick, who is now being joined by you, Kaliz?
But traditionalists may probably be the only one who care to bother checking on this page frequently enough.

See 2 above. But certainly, Used2BeAnonymous cannot be construed to represent "All Traditionalists", since she is the only one "Trad" who has been checking up frequently.

And as for frequent checking up, why are you, Kaliz, and Dominick too, so obsessed with it, if only "Trad"s are?

You can't both have your cake and eat it too!

The Wikipedia question is: if traditionalists refuse any intervention from other mainstream catholics or, worse, unbelievers, will Wikipedia let trads talks about themselves, or will it, just as it did for Daniel Brandt, prohibit from edit those people who don't care to let other points of views be taken into account?

How does one retrieve some sense out of this longwinded question, is what I wish to know!

But, I can still beg the question: What is the evidence provided that "Trads" wish to monopolize the page, and exclude any other viewpoint? Some evidence can be provided, or are we to take Pope Kaliz's words as 'Ex Cathedra' statements beyond question?

As we can see, if the debate yesterday started from a conflict edit (caring to say that the founder of SSPX, which seems to be taken into importance in this entry, was named Lefebvre, and that this Lefebvre found SSPX in reaction against Vatican II, and was excommunicated in the late 1980s, but, as should also be said - not to defend Lefebvre's point of view, but because it is the Vatican's policy -, this does not mean that SSPX is considered sedevacantist), well the debate apparently has taken a turn on regretting Wikipedia's construction on a "communist principle of anarchy" (interesting concept), symbolized by Che Guevara, which allow it for "ignorantum" (who don't even pray in latin) to edit their spelling mistakes. Well, if the mistakes were only of spelling, i'm sure you would all absolve us of any sin, wouldn't you?

I repeat: How does one extract some sense out of the above longwinded gibberish? Or, another question: Does the ability to unload huge quantities of gibberish prove a higher intelligence or, on the contrary, a lower intelligence, one that is incapable of expressing itself without indulging in a meaningless multiplication of words? Interesting question, but I can only scratch my head for an answer.

But from what little sense I can make out, I can state the following:

  1. The edit war did not begin "yesterday". It was on for days on end. Wake up, Kaliz, this page did not spring to life when you condescended to descend upon it!
  2. When we are talking "Traditionalist Catholic" Lefebvre is not relevant. Lefebvre does not constitute the sum of "Traditionalist Catholicism", no, siree! He is accepted by merely one party or faction, the SSPX and its affiliated religious and lay groups (which is larger than merely the SSPX, and which larger thing I call "Lefebvrism"), and so talk of Lefebvre must be confined to places where he is relevant. So much should be obvious to anyone with any sense.

Now, for Dominick.

You quoted from me:

However, Wikipedia is constructed on the Communist principles of anarchy (see Che Guevara) and it is only legal punitive action that compels it to made certain modifications to its management policies.

And said, What a silly statement. Everytime a sedevacanist gets heat they appeal to the gnostic principal of secret knowledge.

Why is it silly? What and how does something qualify to be "gnostic", or are you merely indulging in a gratuitous show of words without meaning?

How does public discourse qualify as "gnostic", when gnostic implies hidden, exoteric knowledge conveyed only to the select? Pray explain yourself.

Communism/socialism/collectivism is not at all anarchism.

Are you absolutely certain? I believe that Communism is a form of anarchism. There is, of course, no true anarchism, for men cannot survive without a hierarchy, and that is also true of Communism. But possession of a hierarchy does not disprove that Communism is merely a form of anarchism. It is anarchism because it seems to destroy all forms of natural human hierarchy that are mandated by Natural Law. And, if you know your Communism, you will know that in the long term, Communism sees itself fulfilling the Anarchist dream of the "state withering away"! Communists and Mere Anarchists only disagree as to the means to the end, not the end.

Che Guvera was a bandit.

(WP:RPA) I cannot agree more with you on this!

What wikipedia does is based on the open source paradigm, no different than what lawyers and doctors do, they share information openly.

Have I advocated that information not be shared freely, and to one and all? Then why this gibberish?

They allow people to use the information freely like a doctor does.

Are you certain that doctors and other professionals always, universally, and as a matter of course, permit people to use information freely? Can you substantiate that?

Where this failed here is that we had people like U2BA who wanted to prevent an article from including a group that opposed his pet group.

As far as I know, it is my understanding that U2BA is a lady, the "Vox Clamantis" of some discussion list somewhere in the U.S. And, as far as I know, she was not trying for an exclusively "Traditionalist Catholic" slant to the entry, but trying to keep out slanderous and mischievous misrepresentations, such as those being crudely made over the last two days by your bosom friend and accomplice, Kaliz (Yes, I know that you have just made his acquaintance, but you hit off and recognize in each other a kindred spirit).

Then U2BA got some friends here, started a forum article called "wiki war" and other "take back the net" schemes, and when they met opposition started playing games with the process here to game the system.

If she did that, hurry up and call in the Admins. They will put a stop to any nonsense.

That "Wikisceptic" knows U2BA real gender

What are you angling at? That there is collusion between me and her? (WP:RPA) I know who she is because I interacted with her in public on Wikipedia and followed her to that discussion list, but have not been a regular there, since I do not agree with her, especially her rules that obligate "Traditionalist Catholic Ecumenism". I told her so.

they are using a third party forum to communicate, another violation of assume good faith. We have a "wiki war" directed by another group, to edit pages for a PoV twist.

I do not know why that should be alleged as bad faith. Wikipedians on Wikipedia too form associations based on common interest, so there is no big difference. If they had formed in response to Wikipedia, and had gone into an independent url just to keep themselves secret from the rest of Wikipedians, you could accuse bad faith. Right now, it does not stick.

You must also prove bad faith in outside groups; there is no restriction, as far as I know, for groups united by a common interest, taking interest in articles that interest them. If there is, you must prove bad faith before you allege it.

Pathos tried to hold a vote, anyone with the right number of edits was able to come

The vote and who were qualified to vote was never clearly stated. I did not have 100 edits on this entry, but U2BA invited me to vote, and I only did not, because I was not sure that I was eligible. But I did suggest a compromise....

Two meatpuppets directed by a third party forum to get 100 edits by changing on or two characters 100 times, and boom, the vote is in doubt.

If there was any so-obvious manipulation, you should have been able to get Admin arbitration. Did you try? I got a prompt response when I asked for protection.

(WP:RPA)

Regards.


WikiSceptic 14:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiSceptic 14:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

followed her to that discussion list Exactly, goes to collusion. As far as admin problems, so far no response, I don't blame them. They are NPoV, and frankly this is low on the list as they see it as a sectarian battle. As far as this debate, you were not a party to it. Dominick (TALK) 15:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Taking an invitation to go to a forum outside of Wikipedia does not prove collusion. It only proves that one went out, took the invitation. (WP:RPA)
As for the admin Patoschild, I object to selective criticism. That is my beef; my response gets targetted, but the provocative personal attacks that preceded it does not. This is totally unacceptable.
It may be that Patoschild knows you on this entry and has interacted with you and other contributors for some time, and so tends to consider you known quantities. That does not justify the onesidedness. I am no vandal, and I do not indulge in mischief or miscreancy, and I resent any unsubstantiated allegation that I have perpetrated such things.

WikiSceptic 15:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment guidelines

Please keep discussion focused on editorial collaboration. Wikipedia is foremost an encyclopedia and a community, not a battleground or message board; personal attacks of any kind are prohibited. All editors are further strongly encouraged to assume good faith; please don't make any accusations you are not ready to thoroughly defend. When speaking of or responding to other editors, try to set an example in civility and tolerance. Remember that the sole purpose of article talk pages is to collaborate in writing an article. If you wish to address another user, please do so on their talk pages (but remember to remain civil). // Pathoschild 18:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

My apologies for replying. Dominick (TALK) 19:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

The recent rough consensus vote failed to achieve a clear decision. Following the dispute resolution process, editors may either continue discussion, hold a general survey, or move to the Mediation committee.

Continued discussion will proceed exactly as before, with informal mediation attempting to direct editors towards consensus. The goal of continued discussion is to achieve a total consensus or, failing that, a significant majority of 75% support from all editors.

A general survey can be held for Wikipedia-wide comment as the final step in the Negotiation phase of the dispute resolution process. The draft of this survey would be drafted by the neutral mediator and revised by discussion with and among the editors. The survey would then be posted to gather opinion from the wider community.

It is now possible to move to the second phase, which involves formal mediation by the Mediation committee. This involves a more direct mediation by a highly experienced mediator. See Requests for mediation to see this process in action.

All editors are encouraged to discuss these options. // Pathoschild 18:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Support Lets go to mediation. Dominick (TALK) 19:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Support Definitely... I mentioned this on your talk page, I'll mention it here too though. JG of Borg 19:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Support going to mediation - Continued discussion as before is certainly useless. The idea of gathering opinion from the wider Wikipedia community attracted me very much, especially since I have no doubt about what would be the prevailing opinion of a group wider than those involved here. But I see that [surveys] attributes very limited efficacy to such surveys: "Using a survey may be useful because some people who disagree will nevertheless recognize and accept the consensus opinion of the community." For a Wikipedia article, I would unreservedly accept Wikipedia-wide consensus or even clear majority opinion, but would others? I am therefore in favour of going straight to mediation. From what I understand (perhaps wrongly) of the rules, there is no certainty that even that will bring about a conclusion. But it seems we must go through that process before applying for something more binding. Lima 20:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Mediation is fine by me. I want it noted for the record, though, that Dominick has been removing comments from the Talk Pages again and is now following me about removing TOTALLY RELEVANT links to various pages at the Fish Eaters Website, calling those links "spamming". Two examples I've found so far:
  • Removed a link to a page on Twelfthnight from an entry called Twelfth Night: [1]
  • Removed a link to a page on Catholic funerals from an entry called Requiem: [2]
Cut it out, Dominick. Used2BAnonymous 06:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
That would be most appropriately noted to the formal mediator. // Pathoschild 06:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Totally unrelated. Dominick (TALK) 10:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not opposed to mediation. Something has to be done. Malachias111 12:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Draft Request for Mediation

All active editors have agreed to formal mediation. Please review the draft Request for Mediation that will be submitted to the Mediation Committee at User:Pathoschild/Sandbox. If you would like any changes made to this draft, respond here or on my talk page. // Pathoschild 17:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Again I have to object to inclusion of non-editors who are here only to PoV twist and exclude other PoVs. Dominick (TALK) 17:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Such matters would be best addressed during formal mediation. If the formal mediator feels that certain users are acting in bad faith, he will have the experience and tools to correct the situation. // Pathoschild 17:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Not a problem, thanks. Dominick (TALK) 18:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems that just about all the editors who've accepted mediation have made some improvements to the draft. It's already quite good as it is now, and introduces the mediator to the dispute very well. Please notify me when you're satisfied with it. // Pathoschild 04:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I am kind of unclear as to how mediation works, Pathoschild. Are we to use the sandbox to present our entire "case"? If so, are we to do that now -- and in the "A" and "B" sections? Or are the "A" and "B" sections there now for quick summaries? And what is the comments section for? I used it, but apparently wasn't supposed to...

When does the mediation begin? Will it all take place on that sandbox page? Thanks... Used2BAnonymous 06:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I apologize for not being clearer on those details. The sandbox is a draft of the request for mediation, and is intended to quickly summarise the dispute for the formal mediator. When all the editors are satisfied with the draft, I will present it at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and ask all editors to post their support of the request.
Once all editors have joined, you may choose your own mediator or be assigned one. You'll probably be asked to choose a representative among your group, who will listen to and speak for the group; it's possible to change representative during the process. Should any user or group withdraw from formal mediation, it will be ended immediately. I will not be part of the remaining process, though I will follow it.
Generally, you will continue discussion with an expert mediator's guidance towards consensus. The mediator is not empowered to make a final decision in the case. The rest will largely depend on the mediator and their assessment of the dispute, but you'll be explained all you need to know. You will also be encouraged to ask any questions you wish answered, privately if desired. It all sounds very formal and bureaucratic in my explanation above, but the mediator will do their best to put you at ease, explain everything, and resolve all disputes.
Edit: the comments section is intended for use on the formal mediation page, and shouldn't have been included in the sandbox. It's essentially where discussion will take place, though the mediator may rename it. The formal mediation will begin as soon as the case has been presented to the Mediation Committee, all editors have agreed to the mediation, and a mediator has accepted the case. The discussion will take place on the Request for Mediation page or a subpage thereof, on IRC, or through email as per decision between you and the mediator. // Pathoschild 06:48 07:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again, Pathoschild. That explains and helps a lot... Used2BAnonymous 08:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"Alternative term"

What is "the alternate term used by Group B to describe the inclusive definition"? Lima 19:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Unless I've misunderstood, one of the arguments put forth by Group B is that the inclusive definition would be better described as "Conservative Catholics" in a seperate article. The article Conservative Catholics was created October 8th for this purpose, and changed into a redirect to this page October 23rd. If this is not or no longer an argument of Group B, I apologize and invite correction. // Pathoschild 19:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Group B has used the term "conservative" not for traditionalist Catholics in the inclusive meaning, the meaning attributed to the term by Group A, but for a different, equally exclusive group, namely, those traditionalist Catholics to whom the inclusive definition applies minus those to whom the exclusive Group B definition applies. To use the "cats" analogy: not Felidae inclusively, but exclusively non-domestic-cat Felidae. Lima 20:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I took the term to mean everyone who is a traditionalist but doesn't make faces when the Pope speaks. Dominick (TALK) 21:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


Feel free to edit the sandbox. // Pathoschild 22:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Group B does not believe there is such a thing as a "traditionalist Catholic in the inclusive meaning." Those Catholics are, in the real world, called "conservative Catholics," "neo-conservative Catholics," or simply "Catholics" (also "neo-Catholics"). The only reason Group B assents to including mention of "the inclusive meaning" at all is ONLY because Group A won't go away, but Group B does not consider that the ideal at all.

Group B's preference would be for Group A to go work on their own entry (especially since Group A has never said what must be said about the so-called "inclusive meaning" Catholics other than "they exist" and that they don't believe the papal oath is genuine). Barring that, Group B votes for keeping the so-called "inclusive definition" in the summary alone and out of the rest of the article. Debates with traditionalists can go in the "Relations with other Catholics" section or into an as yet not existing section made just for the purpose of dealing with "trad" vs. "conservative" debate. Used2BAnonymous 23:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thats too bad then. This article is about traditionalists and you don't speak for all of them. Period. Dominick (TALK) 01:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't discuss in the sandbox. As soon as everyone's satisfied with the basic summary of their position, the request can be submitted to the Mediation Committee. // Pathoschild 02:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Dominick, this article is about traditionalists and you don't speak for any of them. Period. Used2BAnonymous 03:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You mean, he doesn't speak for any of your definition. That is precisely the problem, you don't seem to get that that's what you're actually saying, and that your definition is just one of many definitions. JG of Borg 03:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
PRecisly, she thinks she speaks for all traditional Catholcsi, in one swoop. Dominick (TALK) 04:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not a sedevacantist, but I can write about them objectively. I think the Vatican II documents might be perfectly orthodox if interpreted in light of tradition, but can write objectively about those who don't. All those just mentioned who think differently than I are also traditionalists. You are not. Not just anyone is a traditionalist Catholic. The term has meaning. You think it means anyone who just likes the traditional Mass, but the term is not used that way the immense majority of the time in the real world. Used2BAnonymous 04:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that you don't speak for every traditonalist. That is the real world. The Vatican II documents are indeed perfectly orthodox because as the Pope has said, they must be interpreted that way. The red herring you think makes ytour case, that "typical", which means in your eyes "liberal", interpretations of VII separate traditionalists is not even the position the Church holds. Dominick (TALK) 11:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Would it not be best for Group A, alone, to edit the Group A view, and Group B, alone, to edit the Group B definition in the sandbox? Is it not the purpose of the exercise to present each one's point of view? Lima 05:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, to both questions. // Pathoschild 05:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


Though I might perhaps prefer a shorter statement, I accept the Group A statement as last modified at 11:41, 9 December 2005. Of course, I do so only on the presumption that the claims made by Group B in their statement may be countered later. This is important. If we felt we had to add to statement A and statement B, at this stage, rebuttals of arguments in the other statement, we would be back, almost, in the general discussion stage. So I would like confirmation that it is not necessary not even really advantageous to show at this point how unfounded are Group B claims that, for instance, Group A's policy would result in a confused article). Lima 13:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried to counter that, maybe that was a mistake. I thought Lima was objecting to the text, and I modified it. Shall we propose that both sides limit the summary to a few lines then? Right now it is am essay. Dominick (TALK) 13:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I assure you that there's no need to counter the other group's arguments at this stage. The purpose is merely to introduce the mediator to the general dispute so the s/he can have an idea what's going on. // Pathoschild 16:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion not related to the article

I may not be furiously editing and re-editing Wiki articles all day long Dominick, but I, as a traditional Catholic, have a vested interest in the accuracy of this article. If it makes me more credible to start running around and editing articles, I shall be happy to start doing so immediately. JLeigh

This is the problem. Having an interest is right, you are welcome to that PoV. Gaming the system to exclude a point of view that a sizable number of people hold is not right, and acts against NPoV. Redefining terms to exclude a class of people, is wrong, wiki-wise and ethically. So my point should be taken that those who went around creating a history to throw the vote, should not be rewarded for gaming the system. I commend you for not playing that game too. Dominick (TALK) 18:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
For reference: WP:NPOV. JG of Borg 19:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Dominick goes on about "gaming systems to exclude a point of view" after he's been going around eliminating any links he finds to any page at the Fish Eaters Website? Rich. Used2BAnonymous 23:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Formal mediation

The active editors of this article have voted in favour of formal mediation, and are currently drafting a summary of their points of view in this dispute. The previous discussion can be found in the December 2005 archive. The sandbox is being used to draft a Request for Mediation. Once all editors are satisfied that their positions are accurately summarised, the informal mediator Pathoschild will present it at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and ask all editors to post their support of the request.

When all editors have done so, they will be asked to choose a mediator or be assigned one. (Informal mediator Pathoschild will withdraw from the dispute at this point, but will follow it.) Each group will be asked to select a representative from amongst them, who will listen to and speak for the group. It's possible to change representative during the process. The mediation will end upon reaching consensus or if one or more users withdraw.

In a general way, the editors will continue discussion under the formal mediator's guidance. The mediator is not empowered to make a final decision in the case. The mediation depends greatly on the mediator and his/her assessment of the dispute. All editors will be encourage to ask any questions they wish, privately by email if they prefer. The discussion will take place on the Request for Mediation page or a subpage thereof, on IRC, or through email as per decision between the editors and the mediator. // Pathoschild 22:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion concerning the draft

Shall we both agree to keep summary to a few lines? Dominick (TALK) 16:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ideally each summary should be no more than a medium-length paragraph, but you may use more space if you feel it necessary to accurately summarise your position. I would suggest keeping your detailed arguments for later, and merely overview your position; for example, try "X term does not cover all traditionalists" without further clarifying, since that can be done in the discussion. // Pathoschild 17:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
If Dominick agrees, perhaps the first two sentences of the Group A statement are enough. What does JG of Borg think? Lima 20:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Even as it sits, the exclusive group B definition doesn't even cover all the traditionalists who are intended by the group B people to be covered. I think more than a few conclavist sedevacantists are excluded as well. We shouldn't call group A definition the inclusive, but the general definition. JGofBorg will respond in a bit, be left me a note on my talk. Dominick (TALK) 20:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I like how the Group A statement stands now, though general may yes be a better word than inclusivist. JG of Borg 23:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


My aim in accepting the Group A statement as it stands was to end discussion on it. That aim has not been achieved. I therefore feel almost obliged to point out weaknesses in the last two sentences of the statement.

"Alternate" (which gives the idea of following by turns) should certainly be changed to "alternative" (which refers to a choice between two things). The whole sentence containing the word "alternate" is little more than tautological, coming to "The term used by Group B is only used by Group B people." What it says could more effectively be expressed by making the previous sentence begin as follows: The alternative term, "conservative Catholics", proposed by Group B, who apply to it a sense different from the commonly accepted meaning, covers only some ...

The second of the last two sentences lacks a main verb, probably "is". The rules of English syntax would also require that "The attempt to redefine the term traditional that has no official definition in Catholicism," be changed to: "The attempt to redefine the term 'traditional', which has no official definition in Catholicism,". The content, as well as the grammar, of this last sentence is also difficult to understand: how does one redefine a concept that has never been defined in the first place? and how can the term "conservative" be downplayed as unofficial, when it is no more unofficial than the terms "traditional" or "traditionalist"?

The term "inclusive" is definitely more precise than "general", especially since "general" is often used to mean "apart from exceptions". Moreover, for "general" to replace "inclusive" in the Group A statement, it would first be necessary to change the word "Inclusively" in the "Context" paragraph, and it would be very difficult to rephrase the "Context" paragraph without a serious loss of clarity. "General" could only be introduced into the Group A statement alongside "inclusive", as follows: "Both the inclusive (or general) and exclusive (or particular) definitions are accepted as valid, and both should be given coverage in the article." But I think this complication of the terminology would be decidedly unhelpful.

In spite of my strong reservations, I am still prepared to accept the Group A statement as it stands, precisely because I have been assured that the wording of the statement has very limited significance for the next stage of the process.

Lima 08:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I've rewritten both summaries to give an overview of both groups' positions without supporting details, which are best left for discussion. Please keep the word count as low as possible, and no more than a single paragraph. Note that the summaries have no effect whatsoever on the outcome of mediation, and serve only to give the mediator a general idea of what to expect of the dispute. Please notify me when you are satisfied with the draft, and it will be submitted immediately. // Pathoschild 09:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is essential that the alternative term proposed by Group B be indicated in both statements. We can't let the reader wonder what on earth the unidentified "alternative term" is.

I look forward to comments by Dominick and JG of Borg. Lima 12:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I expanded the subject and object, to make sure that the point was clear on the term. Dominick (TALK) 14:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, Dominick, but I do not think "conservative Catholic" can be called a neologism. It is quite an old expression. Lima 15:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, we can strike it out. I am not staked to the groud over that. I agree with your contention that it doesn't work to describe traditionalist Catholics. I can see where it could be applied to Catholics who attend Novus Ordo mass, and hold stricter intepretation of tradition than some mainstream Catholics. Dominick (TALK) 15:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


What does JG of Borg think? Lima 15:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, this moves so quickly, sorry I took so long to respond (finals). I like it as it stands now. With regards to the conservative Catholic thing, yeah, that term doesn't work to describe some traditionalists, as you said, it describes people like me ("Catholics who attend Novus Ordo mass, and hold stricter intepretation of tradition than some mainstream Catholics".) Anyone who is more traditional than myself I would consider a traditionalist. JG of Borg 17:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I take it that Group A is agree on its statement. Now it is up to Group B. I think, however, as I have said, that their statement should indicate explicitly what is their "alternative term". Lima 18:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll submit the request once Used2BAnonymous and Malachias111 have signified their approval. // Pathoschild 03:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The alternative term was in the summary of 9 December and was added to Pathoschild's edits of that version at 13:11, 10 December 2005. Used2BAnonymous 04:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

All users excepting Malachias111 have now accepted the draft request. The request will be submitted within 24 hours or when he accepts the draft. // Pathoschild 15:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I accept the draft as it is. It doesn't say much and doesn't really explain the case, but if that's as far as it can go for now, then I accept it. Malachias111 16:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Terminology used in the Traditionalist Catholic debate redirects here

There was consensus in the AFD debate to merge this *somewhere*, but we honestly don't know where. I think this is probably best decided by people who know something about the "debate" - the page history is always there at the redirect for you to dig into. See also Talk:Terminology used in the Traditionalist Catholic debate. Johnleemk | Talk 11:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Pictures

I added some pictures! I hope that's ok, I took them all from other articles, already on Wikipedia. JG of Borg 05:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The following link was recently re-inserted after being removed as part of a widespread linkspamming campaign spanning over 100 articles: [link removed]. Please discuss why you think this particular link merits inclusion. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Did you look at the link at all? What is is about? It's a no-brainer.

Its once again anonymous. Dominick (TALK) 13:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe the link belongs here because it is the single, most complete outline and set of instructions on Catholic devotions and customs anywhere on the Internet, and I've been to them all. Not only that, the site looks good, too, with lots of art. Malachias111 15:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I made it clear on your talk page. I will leave it alone here, now.
  1. All personal attack cease, no more screaming "liar".
  2. All reverts cease.
  3. Any inkling of coordination someplace else ceases.
  4. If any anonymous user adds the link it will be reverted.

I will leave it alone here, and on the Catholic page. Please agree. Dominick (TALK) 15:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

SSPX and FSSP operation authority

The FSSP operates with the Indult, with local authority. The SSPX operates under no leave and no local authority, claiming "emergency" jurisdiction. There is a difference how they deal with the Pope. The discussion should reflect that or we should go back to where it was before. The edit you made turns this 180 degrees around. I made a new edit reflecting this. Edit my edit instead of reverting to reflect this, and lets not start reverting again. I would rather work constructivly. Dominick (TALK) 15:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traditionalist_Catholicism/Archive_4&oldid=1088833355"