Talk:Francis Schuckardt/Archive 2

message: :(Template removed from talk page Gimmetrow 15:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I want a phrase which identifies to a casual reader that contemporary Rome does not recognize him. Casual readers would not undertand "pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic" as a special codeword - they would probably assume he was made a bishop before 1960.  Do you have another suggestion?  How about "This bishop is not officially recognized by Rome."  I had thought of that before - my concern was that a casual reader might get the impression Rome doubts he is a bishop, but with "this bishop" and "episcopal orders" is it a problem? (Questions of validity are too much for a little infobox.)  Better?  Gimmetrow 05:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [...] There is no debate that Schuckardt is a recognized bishop of the Tridentine Latin Rite Catholic Church. This seems to be more factual and therefore more NPOV than any other term.  Bernie Radecki 17:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That is a good point. The Catholic Church based in Rome under the Pope is by definition the Roman Catholic Church. No editor can contest that since it is a fact. The term "Catholic" is vague as there are numerous churches with that adjective such as the Old Catholic Church, the Polish National Catholic Church, the Independent Catholic, the Ancient Catholic and Liberal Catholic Churches or in Schuckardt's case, the Tridentine Latin Rite Catholic Church. The Old Catholic Church is the Old Catholic Church because that is how they and others identify the name of their church. The debate about a "true" church or "lawful authority" is irrelevant to a neutral editor. There is no church with the title "Post-Vatican II Church" or "Pre-Vatican II Church" since there is no church in the phonebook under that title. It is for this reason that I suggested to Gimmetrow to just state that the man or woman is the bishop of whatever the name of the church they belong to is.  Bernie Radecki 04:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The text

message: One of the obstacles encountered with this article has been the lack of editors who do not have a bias due to their own experiences with the subject of the article. Here is a website http://www.theroguebishop.com/forums/ that contains copies of third party sources (newspaper articles, newsletters, news reports, trial information, etc.) that pertain to the activities of Francis K. Schuckardt covering the last 35 years. If an unbiased editor would like to peruse these articles, it may be very helpful for the effort to improve this article in Wikipedia. Bernie Radecki 21:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invitation to editors 

message: :Negative, Bernie. I have attempted to post pertinent published articles on the website you reference, only to have them removed by the administrator, presumably you or George. "Roguebishop" appears to be operated by those who "have a bias due to their own experiences with the subject of the article".
:It would be disingenuous to provide this site as an impartial source.
:As I recall earlier, one of you made the statement that you were going to "start your own website" so that your own views would be unrestricted by the Wikipedia philosophy of concensus.
:While the website may indeed contain legitimate third party material, it has been my experience that you are filtering out additional third party material that conflicts with your point of view. Please correct me if I am wrong. Have you deleted pertinent third party material from your website? Gabriel Joseph
::You are absolutely right that your post was deleted from the website. It was deleted by me. Where you are mistaken is that it was deleted on purpose and that it was deleted because of its content. I thank you for the oportunity to explain. I am a new administrator at the rougebishop website and I attempted to move the excellent article you posted from the forum you had placed it in into a new forum dealing specifically with the theological position of Francis K. Schuckardt. During the process of moving the article, I didn't unclick a box so it left the article not only in the new position but also in the old position. So when I deleted it from the old position, it also unfortunately got deleted from the new position. I could find no way to undelete it. I immediately emailed to you a message detailing what happened and apologizing for my mistake. I also encouraged you to post the article again. I do not know why you did not receive the email. It is always a bit tricky to observe an action of another and then divine the individual's motive. I myself am not good at it and have found that it is a very difficult to guess correctly. I think there are many excellent editors involved with Wikipedia. If one of them is willing to get involved with improving this article, I don't think it is in anyone's best interest to discourage them. Bernie Radecki 18:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Editors Beware''' 

message: The following ground rules were passed by the Arbitration Committee in the recently concluded arbitration case concerning this article and its editors.
: In consideration of the fact that the principal editors are new to Wikipedia and inexperienced in editing according to our policies no penalties will be assessed for the numerous violations of Wikipedia policies that have occurred.
: However continued participation in the editing of the article will depend on following some basic ground rules. The premier rules to be observed are Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks: you are counseled to be courteous to one another. This is a policy which extends beyond formal politeness.
:*Please do not address one another with insulting bantering language.
:*Please do not answer one offense with another.
:*Please do not remove each other's comments from the talk pages.
:The second rule to be observed is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: this policy contemplates fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject. Applied to this article it means fairly representing Bishop Schuckardt's life and doctrinal positions (without a lot of wikilawyering about where and whether they are published outside of his personal website) and the criticisms that have been made of him and his church, including a summary and links to published newspaper reports.
: The third rule is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: a conservative approach which avoids defamation is counseled. Any negative information must have a credible source. Non-controversial material (such as statements of his doctrines) may be obtained from his website. (His doctrines may be controversial but what they are is not).
For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 09:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ground rules

message: Did he die on 5 November or 11 November as some have said?
Also, what does "K - 12th grade boys" mean in the para stating the number of priests etc? Isn't this a typo?
Paragraph 1:
:"Schuckhardt was an early proponent of Sedevacantism, a theory which holds that, as a result of their alleged personal heresy, Pope Paul VI and his successors are not valid popes and therefore the Holy See is vacant."
There is a distinction here in what sedevantists believe. While the statement "as a result of their personal heresy" is accepted by many (perhaps most) sedevantists, I think is in inaccurate in describing Bishop Schuckardt's postion. I believe his position is this: "The heretical public teaching of the alleged Vatican II popes amply demonstrates that they were not true popes to begin with, because a true pope is protected from publicly teaching error by the charism of the Holy Ghost. The dogma of Papal Infallibility would be meaningless it were possible for a true pope to lead the faithful into error."
This theological distinction is important because, as the paragraph is now written, it appears that Bishop Schuckardt believes that a pope can in fact go into heresy and, resultingly, lose his authority. I have always understood his position to be this: A man claiming to be pope while teaching public heresy could never have been a true pope, because his selection/election was invalid or he was ineligible (e.g., he was a Modernist, not a Catholic).
I am reluctant to make this change without an indication from Frater John Francis that this is indeed consonant with TLRCC teaching. --Gabriel Joseph 18:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gabriel Joseph - You assessment is correct and I believe the Bishop's website supports that position.  There has been a propensity on the part of some to simply try to fit the Bishop’s positions into predefined slots; this type of editing does a disservice to all and I am glad that you are making the effort to be more factually correct.  Athanasius303 17:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Edits

message: I personally feel this section vilolates wikipedia standards. I realize that it uses bishop schuckardt's website as the basis for this statement, but it is my understanding that the website is only to be used to verify his teachings. I do not believe it is acceptable for it to be used to make derogatory, unsubstantiated statements about individuals unless those allegationscan be independently documented for validity. The section states that the Catholic Church "used their considerable influence and power to silence him. He claims that their inability to successfully challenge him in the arena of Catholic doctrine without running the risk of exposing themselves for abandoning the true teachings of the Catholic Church, made them opt for another tried and true method of dealing with one's adversary - attack the messenger in an attempt to bury his message. This organization of over 1 billion people worldwide, he alleges, has used its considerable resources to that end for nearly 40 years, sadly with great success". Some experienced editor please help me to know if these are unsubstantiated allegations and as such they are subject for immediate removal according to policy as there are libelious (OK, I can't spell so good.)  Bernie Radecki 02:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section 'Reaction of Post-Vatican II Church' 

message: I deleted a small paragraph with negative information on a man named Rick Ross. Rick Ross is not cited as a source anywhere in the article so to attack him personally is unfair. Additionally, the source given (Religious Freedom Watch) is a website that appears to be of questionable value. I know the article needs a major overhaul and I wish someone else would engage themself in it who has no personal bias. In the mean time, I might nibble away a little on obvious things, but my intent it to do very little in hopes of a white knight. I reckon soon I'll dlete the paragraph I mentioned above that also crosses the line as an unsubstantiated attack on a third party. Bernie Radecki 01:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rick Ross 

message: The items I just removed from the article address the alleged conduct of certain members of the CMRI.  Wiki policy states: “Criticism … should be about the subject of the article specifically.  Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association.”  (Bio – living persons).  If the material removed has any place at all, it belongs in the CMRI article here in Wikipedia, not in the biography of Bishop Schuckardt. Athanasius303 17:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When reverting what I consider to be vandalism (the removal of the citations to third party material: Just because Athanasius303 doesn't like what is written by the Spokesman Review doesn't mean it is not reliable. His refusal to allow citations from third party references is the whole reason I asked for arbitration on this article. Let us not go back to square one after all the work the ArbCom did.) some other changes of Athanasius also got reverted. I think the area that he had deleted was detailing problems in the school of Schuckardt after Schuckardt left Spokane. I think the reason that is in the article is to clarify that the abuses reported in Schuckardt's schools in Spokane pre-1984 have followed him whereas abuses ceased in the schools in Spokane once Schuckardt fled. Bernie Radecki 01:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This article needs to link to the verifiable documents on that forum site. My understanding is that the WP:BLP policy about "information solely available on partisan websites" refers to attack-essays and such, not scans of actual sources acquired from a public library. Gimmetrow 03:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, the Arbitration Committee was very clear that Schuckardt's own website can be used to verify the position of Francis Schuckardt's beliefs as he is the subject of the article. I thought the other site could be referenced too, but as long as the references to the third party information remain (which I am positive is specified by the ArbCom) I am content - especially as this is Gimmetrow's recommendation and I believe he should have carte blanche on the article. Bernie Radecki 17:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible your forum site should be in the external links too, but it's just not worth arguing over right now. Compare the external links section of the article on another controversial religious figure: Fred Phelps. (That's also a featured article, meaning it's considered among the best work on WP, although it does have some problems and its featured status is currently under review.) Gimmetrow 17:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding attribution once again: Wiki policy states: “Criticism … should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association.” (Bio – living persons). The material I removed and that you reverted were "not about the subject of the article specifically" and is in clear violation of policy here.  Athanasius303 17:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As I understand it, the Arbitration Committee was very clear that Schuckardt's own website can be used to verify the position of Francis Schuckardt's beliefs as he is the subject of the article. I thought the other site could be referenced too, but as long as the references to the third party information remain (which I am positive is specified by the ArbCom) I am content - especially as this is Gimmetrow's recommendation and I believe he should have carte blanche on the article. Bernie Radecki 17:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am grateful to Gimmetrow for all of his help, but I do not believe he should be given a blank check.  While this last week or two I think he has shown some real balance, some of his early additions seemed partisan to me; that coupled with the fact that he will not identify who he is but continues only to be identified by his pen name does not alleviate my concern of ingrained partisanship on his part.  But again, Gimmetrow, I am grateful to you for recent contributions.  Athanasius303 17:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Blank check" was Bernie's term. I'm mostly interested in facilitating you two working this out. I'm Ukrainian Catholic; I knew next to nothing about this person before reading this page. I cut out the parts I found repetitive and uninteresting, beyond that I doubt I have much to edit. Gimmetrow 20:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for making that known.  Athanasius303 17:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrongful Attribution

message: Again, we seem to keep going over the same issue regarding attribution.  Again, statements need to be “about the subject of the article specifically,” i.e., Bishop Schuckardt.  The statement “that his church considers all other churches that call themselves Catholic to be in heresy” is not about Bishop Schuckardt specifically, it is specifically about “his church.”
Many of the quotes attributed to linked sources do not state what they purport to quote.  I did not remove these, out of courtesy, but I wanted to first give someone an opportunity to correct this error, if it is correctable.  Bishop Brown's page 3 is also incorrect.  I think a careful review of these links is in order before we can proceed any further. Athanasius303 19:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing concerns cont.

message: Smith - I've notice other editors seem to have the same problem with you that I am experiencing.  Wikipedia is not a place for you to post your unverifiable opinions.  There are policies enacted by which all editors must comply.  Please take the time to familiarize yourself with these policies – you will then see why your editions are not permitted and this will preclude a lot of unnecessary disputing with other editors over things which are clear cut violations.  
Failure to review review Wikipedia policy and the consequent editing in contradiction of it is indeed consisdered vandalism.  I hope you will not push this and force me to report your violations.  Thanks. Athanasius303 22:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy Violations