Talk:Traditionalist Catholicism/Archive 4

message: 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)
thread_title: Unprotection

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

message: Protecting this page. Please work this out through dispute resolution or talking it out. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: I went to them before early on. I got a brush off. Dominick (TALK) 21:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Protected

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comment guidelines 

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

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: PRecisly, she thinks she speaks for all traditional Catholcsi, in one swoop. Dominick (TALK) 04:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: "Alternative term"

message: 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)
replies: text: For reference: WP:NPOV. JG of Borg 19:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion not related to the article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  I'll submit the request once Used2BAnonymous and Malachias111 have signified their approval. // Pathoschild 03:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Formal mediation

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  I'll submit the request once Used2BAnonymous and Malachias111 have signified their approval. // Pathoschild 03:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion concerning the draft

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Terminology used in the Traditionalist Catholic debate]] redirects here 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pictures 

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

text: I made it clear on your talk page. I will leave it alone here, now.
#All personal attack cease, no more screaming "liar". 
#All reverts cease. 
#Any inkling of coordination someplace else ceases. 
#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)
thread_title:  Link 

message: 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)
thread_title:  SSPX and FSSP operation authority