Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church/Archive 6

What is mediation?

Nancy wrote:

In response to Richard, the reason for the mediation is outlined on this mediation's project page where we listed the issues to be mediated.

NancyHeise ^talk 00:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nancy but you haven't really answered my questions so I will rephrase the first one and repeat the other two.

First question: What does it mean to "mediate an issue"? What are the objectives that you sought with regards to these issues when you requested the mediation?

Second question: What is the process that you envision for this mediation? If you don't know, I have to confess that I don't know either and so perhaps we should confess ignorance and ask Shell to provide us with a framework for this mediation.

Third question: What is the role of the mediator in the mediation process?

With all due respect, and I DO have an awed respect for you as an indefatigable, conscientious and generally good-faith editor who has done yeoman work on this article, I think this mediation is on the brink of collapse due to your intransigent stance. Now, it doesn't make sense to declare the mediation failed until Shell has had a chance to attempt to salvage it but, in the meantime, I urge you to look up the word "mediation" in your favorite dictionary and then ask yourself if your current position is furthering or obstructing the success of this mediation.

--Richard (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The intransigence here comes from defteri and co. A dispute resolution has got to take place within the rules of Wikipedia, which demand reliable sources for claims. So far Defteri, Gimmetrow and co have produced no reliable sources for their claims that the Church uses other names officially. We have produced reliable sources for the existing text. This places the onus on the OBJECTORS (not on nancy I or other editors of the existing text), to come up with something to justify their intransigent position. Defteri's argument that to quote him: " The only way in which a name could merely in practice be a one and only official name would be if no other name were ever used," is such absolute nonsense it defies description. By this rule no person, country or company could have an official name!

Richard. I fear you are getting hold of the wrong end of the stick on several counts. 1) The usage "official name" in the article was agreed in order to defray objections to the use of the term "proper name" in the lead sentence, which many thought was WP declaring an opinion. Subsequent objections to the word "official" on largely pedantic grounds are merely, in my opinion, an attempt to stop the proper name of the Church being clearly stated in the article. I am not hung up on the word "official", but it was the word chosen by editors as the best compromise, and has sourced support. What IS needed is a clear and unambiguous statement of the Church's proper name, and that it is NOT RCC. 2) The idea that the Church has no proper name is ludicrous. Catholic Church is the name used in all documents pronouncements as well as the Catechism and constitution of the worldwide church. It is the usage of the worldwide Church that we are discussing here, not the websites of odd local groups. The usage "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church" and variants is NOT the official name but is a linking of descriptors, as borne out by the changing word order historically. In the Victorian period there was a move in certain circles to use this phrase more often, but it did not gain acceptance. It is virtually unused today. 3) The claimed "issue" of "Catholic Church" having to be the ONLY name of the Church is the largest red herring yet. Most people and institutions have other names, (United States of America, United States, America, USA, US, the States...), (United Kingdom, Britain, Great Britain, England, the UK, etc. etc.) This does not stop them having a proper or official name.

The fact is that Catholic Church is the name used properly and officially by the Church. This is defined in Lumen Gentium, the Catechism, and is the official name used in the Church';s official documents and pronouncements. End of story. That is why this proper name must be clearly stated in some form in the first sentence of the article. Attempts to censor this information, and pretend that RCC is the actual, proper or official name of the Church, are not acceptable under WP rules. Yet certain people seem to be attempting this by raising endless pedantic, O.R. and unreferenced objections. I have offered a compromise that reads "The Roman Catholic Church - in official usage, the Catholic Church -" but this is rejected on the claimed grounds that there are other names in official usage. This is not true. What are these other names, where, and how frequently do they appear, and which sources state that these are official or proper names? Xandar 01:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xandar, with all due respect (and I mean this sincerely because I thought you were on the right track towards a compromise earlier today), I think it may be you who has the "wrong end of the stick" in what you wrote above. (Now, I confess, that I have been on the wrong end at times also since there seem to be multiple "wrong ends" to this stick.) However, with respect to this particular end of the "stick", I have always been at the right end. Remember, I am the one who opposed "RCC also known as the CC" because it suggests (to my mind, at least) that RCC is the proper name and CC is the alias.

But, what I mean with respect to what you wrote, is that every one of the proposed compromises includes "the Catholic Church" and attempts a way of suggesting that it is preferred over "Roman Catholic Church". Despite some recent challenges to source the preference, I don't think that point is really in dispute.

I am frustrated that we seemed to be so close to reaching a compromise and then now we find ourselves in a urination match of "Show me your sources... I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours first". Read what I wrote below about sourcing.

P.S. Note to Nancy and Xandar - yes, you're right; the compromise resulting from mediation should be in conformance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Which of the proposed compromise texts would you assert are not in conformance even if they are not sourced?

--Richard (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. Xandar's response notwithstanding, my three questions to Nancy remain unanswered... --Richard (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, in response to your questions: Mediation issues do not need to be restated once they have been stated already and I answered your question by pointing you to the project page where the issues are outlined. The issues do not state that the goal of the mediation is to find a compromise wording, it is to address whether or not we can rightfully use the consensus agreed article text that Gimmetrow "and co" have argued over for four months and whether or not the sources support the article text. Per your initial input, we considered various proposals for compromise. It soon became apparent that we would be forced to make the article text factually incorrect by adding words like "usually, in official contexts" - words that are not supported by any references even though I persistently have requested them and Gimmetrow "and co" have persistently failed to provide. Now I have added even more sources, Academic American Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Brittanica that also support the article text and still Gimmetrow and co fail to consider these supplementary sources as clear evidence against their argument. This failure to recognize 7 top scholarly sources, two of which are top encyclopedia's makes it clear that Gimmetrow and co's opposition is not about placing facts on the article's page but simply about harrassing the page's editors. NancyHeise ^talk 02:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nancy. I gathered from your edits of the last couple days that this was your perspective on the mediation but I felt it was better that you should say it explicitly than that I should put words in your mouth. This is my first mediation. Perhaps it is not your first. However, it is my impression that a mediation is not the same as an arbitration, not even a non-binding arbitration. It is not my impression that a mediation will yield you the result that you describe because a mediator is not an arbitrator or a judge. I quote from WP:RFM..."[Mediation] is a formal but voluntary process to assist individuals in developing a mutual agreement to resolve a dispute over content. Mediation does not provide binding resolution to disputes; mediators can not, do not, and will not issue rulings on disputes."

I sense that you are looking for Shell to issue a ruling regarding the acceptability or unacceptability of sources. I do not think that is within the scope of his role as a mediator.

If you do not see a way to move in a collegial and collaborative way towards a "mutual agreement to resolve a dispute over content", then perhaps it is time to end this mediation and move to an WP:RFARB.

I'm not sure that you will get the satisfaction you want at ARBCOM either. I quote from WP:RFARB...

"The committee accepts cases related to editors' conduct (including improper editing) where all other routes to agreement have failed, and makes rulings to address problems in the editorial community. However it will not make editorial statements or decisions about how articles should read ("content decisions"). Please do not ask the committee to make these kinds of decisions, as they will not do so."

IF you can convince ARBCOM that this is an issue of conduct ("harassment" as you choose to characterize it), they might accept this as an arbitration case. Or they might not. I don't know. I've read a few ARBCOM cases but not enough to speculate on how they might rule on this one. I suspect they would decline to accept it but what do I know?

So how do you end this 4-month old nightmare? I think this mediation is your best bet but only if you are willing to leave the door open for compromise.

I have tried to move us towards a compromise solution. You don't think it is my place to do that. I respectfuly disagree because I think every one of us should be trying to move towards a compromise. However, the important thing is the "movement towards a compromise". If you don't think that is something you want or can concede, then WP:RFARB is the next stop.

Once again, it seems only proper to wait for Shell's return and get his assessment of the situation and hopefully get his talents applied towards putting us back on track. However, without a willingness on your part to move towards compromise, I see little prospect for a successful conclusion of this mediation.

--Richard (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy, you recall the [1907] New Oxford Dictionary, which said "After that date it [Roman Catholic] was generally adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed"? Likewise, the view of the bishop at Vatican I that "Roman Catholic Church" was nomen proprium Ecclesiae ("the church's own name")? You've known about these quotes for months. You have now, for months, reflected only one voice in the article, while systematically refusing to remove the controversial parts or include any other voice. That's why we're at mediation, Nancy. Gimmetrow 03:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The old "New" Oxford Dictionary quote refers to the POV of the British Government, not the Church. In the Uk and some other places the Government insisted that the Church use RCC. The one unnamed "bishop" out of many hundreds, in 1870 is hardly a source of any sort, let alone an official or reliable one. Xandar 11:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you put quotes around the word bishop? He was the bishop of Brixen and a Relator at the council. Was he censured for his views? Or were they approved by a vote at an Ecumenical council? At the same time you insist on having in the article the non-official views of people like Whitehead and Madrid who apparently have no relevant credentials, and whose views have never been peer reviewed. Selection of one view for the article and exclusion of another is bias, Xandar. Gimmetrow 13:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the Mediation issue, I would like to come to a solution, but it must be one that meets the essential requirements of WP with regard to factuality and format. We can also see whether continued opposition is reasonable and based on reliable sources, rather than prejudices. Xandar 11:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xandar, your ideas of factuality in this matter are obvious not universally agreed on. Defteri (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys (or gals as the case may be), the essence of mediation rests on communication towards the objective of mutual agreement. Posturing and sniping are not conducive towards this goal. Please try to tone down or even eschew statements which are unhelpful.

--Richard (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, thanks for educating me on what arbcom is. You could have just provided a link with a one sentence explanation. NancyHeise ^talk 16:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow, Oxford English Dictionary (1907) gives us the position of the Church in England, a situation that is already revealed to Reader in the note. That scenario is not "hidden" from anyone. You seem to be unusually interested to "hide" the fact that the Church has an official name, it is difficult to find agreement when one is so willing to toss 7 different references that all say the same thing, including Encyclopedia Brittanica and Academic American Encyclopedia. Madrid and the others are just agreeing with obvious modern scholarship. It would be nice if you could too. NancyHeise ^talk 16:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]