Talk:Francis Schuckardt/Archive 1

message: It seems Francis Schuckardt has an advocate here. One who even indicates others shouldn't edit. I don't know enough about it to judge this Francis Schukhardt person. Although some of these edits seem rather spurious. Catholicism doesn't consider adultery any kind of excuse for divorce and never did. In fact the Council of Trent specifically forbade divorced people from remarrying even if they were the spouse being cheated on. There's other oddities too.--T. Anthony 06:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On closer reading this is become very close to POV with much of the sources of new information being Stuckhardt himself.--T. Anthony 06:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also Miranda Prorsus went on to say It is one of television's advantages that it induces both old and young to remain at home; it can have, as a result, considerable influence in strengthening the bonds of loyalty and love within the family circle, provided the screen displays nothing which is contrary to those same virtues of loyalty and chaste love. Although he wanted people to avoid TV he deemed immoral he was clearly indicating even kids watching TV can be a good and fine thing. (Although I'd concede the article may have been too biased the other way before)--T. Anthony 07:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh I was likely overheated that day. Don't worry about it. Just try to keep a balance as he clearly has detractors no matter how much you admire him.--T. Anthony 15:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

message: Would the person who is editing the page create an account and identify him/herself.
It looks like you have added some good factual information and provided extensive citation.  Thank you.
I would caution the editor, however, to avoid using any language that is based on opinon and not fact.  For example, changing "felt the need" to "recognized the need" regarding the perceived need to accept episcopal consecration to "preserve Apostolic succesion" is a matter of opinion.  It is a fact that Schuckardt felt the need, it is debatable if there was a real need.
Keep the writing professional and objective.
--James Reyes 23:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: This article needs a complete rewrite as it fails to meet the standards of Wikipedia.  Particularly, the sections on Schuckardt's expulsion from Mt. St. Michael.  It's a sloppy article.
James Reyes:
I agree that it is a sloppy article and a rewrite is called for.  It was out of deference to keeping your original write as complete as possible that the editing took on such a clumsy nature.  Let's keep the partisan accusations out and stick to verifiable facts.  We would then have a useful piece of historical information.  -  Frater John
I think the problem here is the value that is placed on various facts. From your perspective, Schuckardt is a pretty important guy.  You think he is the only true Catholic bishop in world, and if that were true, if he were the sole caretaker of 2,000 years of Christian tradition, I would agree with you totally.  You give importance to his decrees of excommunication, etc, such as his "excommunication" of Chicoine, for example.  In my opinion, a vast majority of readers would find it wholly irrelevant.  It doesn't have the same historical significance as the excommunication of Queen Elizabeth I by Pope Pius V, for example, not by a long-shot.  I don’t want to see the article littered and needlessly inflated with irrelevancies which are really only important to 100 or so people in the whole world.
Please refer to the Wikipedia NPOV policy on Undue weight.  I know you doubt my sincerity, Frater John, but I don’t have an ax to grind here.  I feel we have both made quality contributions, you especially, to this article and I sincerely wish to see this article mature into a quality article with NPOV. --James Reyes 07:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete Rewrite 

message: Bernie Radecki:
Your analogy about "George Bush has gray hair.  A gray-haired man was seen robbing a convenience store" is not applicable to the factual situation here.  The first is an attributable fact, the second is not.  The fact of Chicoine's excommunication and the fact of the Church's corresponding penalties are both attributable fact.  You say that "by putting these two facts together, you imply there is a relation."  Exactly! - there is a relation, which is why both facts are relevant to the article.
The verifiable facts should remain and you should allow the reader to connect their own dots and draw their own conclusions.  Wiki is not an op-ed, it is an encyclopedia.
Regarding the modern Catholic Church acknowledging the validity of Bishop Schuckardt's orders - read the article.  It shows that they acknowledge the validity of orders of the Old Roman Catholic Church.  There have also been personal statements to the same, but I don't have them readily available.
I believe any objectively-minded person who reviews the non-constructive attacks and non-verifiable "personal experiences" that have been removed from these discussion pages, will agree that they were properly removed and removed in conformity to Wiki standards.  The discussion page was not set up to be a back door to get around verifiable facts and I will continue to remove them when that is their obvious objective.  If you or others want to make personal attacks, you'll need to find a different forum to do it in.  Fra. John    3/9/06
To Julie Czapla:
I removed your "unbelievable fiction" section because it does not follow Wiki policy.  If you read this discussion page and access the history section of this page, you will see that it was not done in secrecy.  I am also removing your latest attack for the same reason.  Please take the time to read policy requirements and keep your input to constructive and verifiable facts.  The discussion page was designed to work out conflicting ideas regarding the article in question, not to aire your personal feelings or to personally criticize editors.  Fra. John   3/9/06
To Fra. John:
When you dispute verifiable first hand eyewitness accounts of history aren't you really closing your mind to the truth?  Without going into a mud slinging war, I was also present [deletion] You can't change what you don't acknowledge.  Some good things came out of "the community" - I don't deny this and many of the leaders were simply well-intentioned [deletion].  Looking back, its hard to believe that many of the religious who were making these decisions were just kids themselves.  [deletion].  Steve Lavagnino 23:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion Page not a Back Door for Non-verifiable Statements or a Forum for Personal Attacks

message: Fra John:
In keeping with Wikipedia's policy of no original research, I have removed the rather lengthy section that demonstrates Schuckardt's reasoning for believing Pope Paul VI to be a heretic. Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. I have bracketed the words "Papal Infallibility" and "Sedvacantism" so that the interested reader can go to those Wikipedia pages for an indepth look at those topics I think you will agree that the article is getting too long and by removing material that is covered elsewhere, it will aid readability. There may be other sections that may benefit as well.  Bernie Radecki 3/14/06
:Bernie Radecki:
:I've reinserted the section you removed that explains why and how Bishop Schuckardt came to the conclusion that the post-Vatican Council II popes could not be true popes.  I did so because it does not fall under original research, but under the Wiki's overriding policy of NPOV under the subtitle of Religion: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape."  Also under heading of Controversy, it states: "An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views…"
:You state above that the article is getting too long, so you removed something you didn't like and then in the same breath you added something to it that was to your liking.  A flagrant example of practicing a double standard.  All relevant information should remain, whether anyone likes it or not.   Fra. John   3/15/06
:Fra. John, (I assume you are also Athanasius303):
:Instead of adding Schuckardt's reasoning on Sedevacantism to this page, why not deal with it on the Sedevacantism article? Perhaps Schuckardt has had his views published in a reliable source over the 35 years that he has held this view. You could cite the source and people could read it there. Sedevacantism is an minority view that is adequately dealt with elsewhere. (Look at the Wikipedia Sedevacantism article) Remember, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If there is a reputable source that has published Schuckardt's original research, cite it and move on; but don't write out Schuckardt's reasoning in this article. Remeber, there are 3 primary policies: NPOV, No Orginal research, and verifiability in a reliable source. They all should be balanced. Bernie Radecki 02:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal or original research regarding Schuckardt's argument on Sedevacantism

message: John Francis, Aren't you concerned that Schuckardt acts alone, that he is not connected with any other traditional bishops?
*It is of some concern, but we are unwilling to water down Catholic doctrine for the sake of companionship.
Aren't you concerned that the only priest in the group is Fr. Barnes and that Schuckardt hasn't ordained any other priests for years.
*Your information is not wholly correct.  Same answer as above.  I believe the international average of priest/parishioner is 10,000 to 1.  Even in the most “Catholic” of countries the ratio is over 1,000 to 1.  We are well served by Father and are most fortunate to have him.
[Removed for claiming Schuckardt is a brawler. Bernie Radecki 19:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other topics

message: *The Catholic Church has always taught the principle of equivocation (mental reservation).  In a nutshell, one may withhold the truth (not lie) from someone who does not have a right to know it.  This principle goes back to apostolic times and was used by the first Catholic Himself, Jesus Christ: “Go you up to this festival day: but I go not up to this festival day, because my time is not accomplished… But after his brethren were gone up, then he also went up to the feast, not openly, but, as it were, in secret.” (Gospel of St. John 7:8-10)  God of course knows all things, and He knew that He would be going.  But He is also incapable of lying (“Who can neither deceive nor be deceived”), so how does one explain this?  The fathers of the Catholic Church taught that since He was incapable of lying, that what He did was to equivocate.  So no, it is not a form of lying at all.
Isn't it true that the enemies of Schuckardt's group are basically anyone and everyone who disagrees with Schuckardt being the only true remaining bishop of the Catholic Church? (Rose)
*This in partisan nonsense.  Most if not all of our Church members get along very well with their neighbors, fellow employees and other non-Church associates.  The second greatest commandment is to “love thy neighbor” and this is something our Church has always taught.  Fra. John   Athanasius303 20:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Catholic Church teaches equivocation

message: *Darn. I knew Fra. John would elucidate us all so he put back in what I took out of Rose's posting. I know I shouldn't have taken it out in the first place and I have apologized to Rose on her User page. I was thinking the ends justify the means. Or maybe the ends justify the means if the greatest good is served by lying? Or maybe if the good of the most people is served? Or maybe the good of the individual lying? Kant points out that this type of thinking results in choas. So he had this categorical imperative: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law." Kant also stated "A human being who does not beleive himself what he tells another has even less worth than if he were a mere thing." Human communication looses its value when the lying is permitted so Kant considered truthfulness the basis of all duties. (Yes, I know Kant wasn't Catholic, but he has many respected points in the area of ethics. His views definitely are opposed to the situational ethics that some people practice.)I had often wondered why Fra. John claims certain things not to be true when there are many eyewitnesses to attest to the truth of the claims. Fra. John has given me the answer.  Where the heck is that mediator? I wonder if the mediator has a right to have his quesitons answered? I know I have asked Fra. John many questions directly and he hasn't answered them. Now I know why. Bernie Radecki 22:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Fra. John's view on equivocation.

message: *Fra. John: You wrote a few paragraphs above: "The Catholic Church has always taught the principle of equivocation (mental reservation). In a nutshell, one may withhold the truth (not lie) from someone who does not have a right to know it. This principle goes back to apostolic times and was used by the first Catholic Himself, Jesus Christ". I thought your "nutshell" sounded familiar. You are actually paraphrasing Horace Mann, an American Unitarian educator held in high regard by some, who lived from 1796-1859. He wrote "You need not tell all the truth, unless to those who have a right to know it all. But let all you tell be truth." I can't believe what you wrote about me below! Where is that mediator? Bernie Radecki 21:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bernie Radecke's Opinion of Source of Fra. John's principle of equivocation

message: *Please clarify an important matter for the article's sake. You have added text in the article stating that Shuckardt has never said he was a pope. Yet, on this page, 2 individuals have stated that he told them that he was. My mother-in-law told me in the early 80s that he was pope. A current sister of the CMRI order at Mt. St. Michaels told me that the mother superior of the CMRI sisters during Schuckardt's days in Spokane was telling others about Schuckardt being mystically crowmed pope. An ex-member from TLRCC in Seattle has recently informed me that she was in a large group of adults who were told by a religious of the TLRCC that Schuckardt was mytically crowned pope. And of course, as stated in the article, Denis Chicoine made this allegation in 1984. Now, Wikipedia policy regarding civility requests that I assume you are working in good faith. So I am trying to reconcile this contradiction. In light of the seriousness of this issue, I would like you to tell me if you fill this is an issue on which you can equivicate. I believe this is very relevant to the article and our continued working to improve the article. Hypothetically, if you knew that Schuckardt claimed in any way to be pope, would you tell the truth about it if asked directly? I have posted this here instead of your User page since others may be interested in your answer to this apparent contradiction. Bernie Radecki 21:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To Athanasius303-> I will leave your personal attack on me alone, but how can the topic of Schuckardt's claim to be pope be outside the scope of a biography on Schuckardt? It is critical! How can we work together on this article if you retain this attitude? I admit I am biased. Otherwise, why would I be interested in this fringe article? I think I can still write in the article with a neutral point of view. As I stated to you about a month ago, there are many legitimate, published sources that contain unflattering information on Schuckardt's church and his activities . This information belongs in the article. You fight its inclusion in the article and that is the primary reason I asked for mediation. The combination of your admitted view on equiviaction coupled with your refusal to answer a relevent question on an important article point compounded by your stand that this critical question is outside the scope of the biography moves me toward despair.  Bernie Radecki 22:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A direct question for Fra. John

message: Fra John. I have taken adequate time today to review the policies of wikipedia.
1) Verifiable statements are anything from reputable writings including media. They want us to write in our own words. We are not here to verify whether the article or work is true, but to use it as a basis to write an article. According to the policy, an individual needs sufficien verifiable facts to sustain a spot in Wikipedia. The only verifiable sources are those written against Schuckardt(media reports). Your reign of Mary or whatever it is you use is not sufficient because it is not accessable. You are in clear violation of this because your proof is insufficient and it adds unecessary fat to the article.
2) Personal attacks are those directed toward an individual. "Schuckardt is the leader of a desstuctive cult," is simply a statement not an attack. Most of the edits you make are not personal attacks but rather statements. Again you are in clear violation of this point.
3) This one I'll give you, this is not a personal forum, although, we express valid points that you consider personal attacks. And, you don't give straight answers.
4) NPOV or neutral point of view, deals with conflicting points of view. We clearly have this in the article. It also states that if someone is directly involved with an article subject, he or she SHOULD NOT CONTRIBUTE. The reason being is that they will be bias. You are directly involved with Schuckardt and you clearly state that you admire him as an individual. You are in violation of this policy. We are not because we have nothing to do with him and this article is only about him.
Don't preach to me about being in violation of wiki policy, because I see your bias in using wikipedia as a platform to push your group's point of view. The truth of the matter is that Schuckardt is a contoversial subject and the facts are this(for the last time): 
:1) He started a group in defiance of Vatican Council II
:2) He received an illicit Ordination and Consecration from the Old Catholic lineage
:3) He imposed stringent rules on the faithful 
:4) He was using massive amounts of perscription drugs
:5) He was denounced for being fanatical and for homosexuality
:6) He fled Washington 
:7) He operated his organization in different States and settled in the Seattle area.
:8) He continues to impose these fanatical rules and control while being elusive
Fra these are not personal attacks, but the facts whether you agree or not. And I can provide the evidence. The Counterclaims section and Aryan Nations section have NO merit in the article and should be removed. You have yet to show me the evidence. As for what I have written, there are no personal attacks and if you remove one word you will be in violation.
George Wagner 28 MAR 06
:George Wagner:
:Continue to read Wikipedia and you will see that Bishop Schuckardt passed all criteria for have an article about him.
:Accusatory comments are personal attacks (read Wikipedia policy again).  Simply because some media outlets have given voice to his detractors by accusing him of heading a “destructive cult” does not mean that it is a verifiable fact that he is heading a destructive cult.  What is verifiable is that he has been accused of being a cult leader, not that he is one.  There is a big difference - ask any lawyer or judge.
:That I am biased in his favor I have made clear from day one.  That fact that you are biased, if not admitted, is clear from your statements.  Having a bias is not a disqualification for editing Wikipedia.  I’m sure the majority of the articles written were done so by someone having a bias; who would write something they are ambivalent about?  What Wikipedia forbids is to write in violation of their Neutral Point of View Policy. Wikipedia’s policies regarding religion and controversial people clearly give me a voice in this article.  You state that Wikipdia “states that if someone is directly involved with an article subject, he or she SHOULD NOT CONTRIBUTE.”  I cannot find this statement anywhere.  If you could direct me to it I would like to look into it.
:The list of “facts” you stated are for the most part not facts, but subjective judgments and opinions by you and others.  To state your opinion as a fact, especially when it is hurtful to the reputation of someone, is a personal attack and proper material for removal.  There is no policy supporting the airing of opinions on this site, especially negative opinions which have as their motive or end result the damage to someone’s reputation.
:I’ve argued ad nauseam the Aryan Nations subject.  Be patient and allow the mediator to weigh in.  The court records of sworn testimony by a Sheriff’s Deputy constitutes a verifiable fact. 
Athanasius303 19:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Answers for Athanasius303

message: Concerning the proper use of Wikipedia Talk Pages, please note: 
*“Article talk pages are used to discuss changes to the particular article.”  
*“[T]he purpose of a talk page is to help to improve the contents of the main page, from an encyclopedic point of view.  Questions, challenges, excised text (due to truly egregious confusion or bias, for example), arguments relevant to changing the text, and commentary on the main page are all fair play.”
*Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject.  Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it’s an encyclopedia.  In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject.”
This is the purpose of the article talk pages.  Nowhere in the four corners of Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines can be found the anti-Schuckardt people’s rationale for including material not relevant to the article.  If it’s there and I missed it, please direct me to it.  If it’s not there, then it’s material that is not proper to the article and removable according to Wikipedia policy.
Regarding all of the hubbub about my removing portions of these talk pages which I believe violate Wikipedia policy: in addition to their policy of no personal attacks, Wikipedia also provides to editors the right to remove material not in keeping with their policies under various other contingencies:
*Under libel and defamation: “Potentially libelous or defamatory statements not CITED and SOURCED to verifiable sources should be removed.” (Emphasis in original)
*Under Wikipedia Etiquette: “[T]o show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who if permitted would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here.”
*Under civility: “Strike offensive words… remove offensive comments on talk pages…”
There are more policies and guidelines than these just cited, but time does not permit me to post them right now.  I believe all of these policies support me in my conduct of extracting personal attacks and the few other pieces that I felt necessary to remove due to some other violation.
Regarding the anti-Schuckardt group deleting questions and answers not in keeping with what I firmly believe is their own bias:
*Under vandalism: “Deleting the comments of other users from the article Talk page, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism.  Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate…”
I am thoroughly convinced that the Radeckis, Wagner, Pipan, Rose,… have a single purpose in editing this article and this talk page: to damage Bishop Schuckardt as much as possible.  I believe any objective reader of these pages would come to the same conclusion.  Since they have not been able to achieve this with any notable success in the article, they appear to me to be trying to accomplish this task in these talk pages under the shadow of sophistry.  This kind of conduct should not be tolerated and they should cite what policies support this kind of behavior.  If they are unable to cite any such policies, then I would hope that they would, on their own, cease doing it.
One final thing, since Bernie Radecki seems to have convinced the other anti-Schuckardt editors to refrain from editing the article until mediation has had a chance to work, and since the purpose of the article talk pages is to discuss changes to the article, I don’t see any purpose for anyone adding further comments on this page that does not deal directly with the mediation process.  These talk pages seem to have taken on a life of its own!  Can we reach consensus on that?   Is there someone out there who would not benefit from a cool down period? I know I would.  Thank you. Athanasius303 19:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am for a complete stoppage of any additions to the article or the talk page. I do not think the lawyering regarding Wikipedia policy is going to improve peoples attitudes since there is a plainly divergent view on fundamental issues. I am stopping until an arbitrator helps. Bernie Radecki 22:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misuse of Article Talk Pages

message: Hello. I've been assigned to mediate the supernumerary disagreements that have taken place here. Please visit the mediation page  with any comments on the issue. I'll try to help find a consensus on the wording and material included in this article. All opinions are welcome. If you have any issues to air, please post them on the aforementioned mediation page. Danny Pi 22:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I left a post on the mediation page that time was tight for me right now and that my silence did not constitute consent.  The objective here is to reach consensus with the help of the mediator, not to implement his suggestions without the other side having an opportunity to weigh in.  Athanasius303 08:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Both the changes were minor and the second one was not related to an area of contention and I beleive it greatly improves readability. I am reverting back so that improvement is not lost. 'Catholic Church' can always be replaced with another phrase at a later date if that is what mediation determines is proper. Your point of not editing now is well taken, but the benefit of my second edit justifies my revert. Bernie Radecki 16:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes are related to areas of contention.  Please see mediation talk pages for further debate.  Athanasius303 16:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Only the change regarding the term 'Catholic Church' is an area of contention and those changes were very minor. This is a minor thing. As I stated today on the mediation page, out of courtesy, I will not edit further; but we both need to show a little flexibility. Bernie Radecki 18:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: I have made a minor modification to the article implementing the mediator's suggestion regarding using the term 'Catholic Church' to mean the commonly held meaning of the current church centered in Rome under Pope Benedict XVI and the hierarchy in union with him. Bernie Radecki 02:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I left a post on the mediation page that time was tight for me right now and that my silence did not constitute consent.  The objective here is to reach consensus with the help of the mediator, not to implement his suggestions without the other side having an opportunity to weigh in.  Athanasius303 08:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Both the changes were minor and the second one was not related to an area of contention and I beleive it greatly improves readability. I am reverting back so that improvement is not lost. 'Catholic Church' can always be replaced with another phrase at a later date if that is what mediation determines is proper. Your point of not editing now is well taken, but the benefit of my second edit justifies my revert. Bernie Radecki 16:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes are related to areas of contention.  Please see mediation talk pages for further debate.  Athanasius303 16:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Only the change regarding the term 'Catholic Church' is an area of contention and those changes were very minor. This is a minor thing. As I stated today on the mediation page, out of courtesy, I will not edit further; but we both need to show a little flexibility. Bernie Radecki 18:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding using the standard meaning of 'Catholic Church' 

message: Wagner, Radecki and others have been seeking to have me banned from editing this article on the grounds of personal involvement.  I have purposely tried to keep out of the fray of this issue because I thought it would degenerate into personal attacks or some other useless distraction.  But as it appears that they are not willing to let it go, I will now address it.
On the very top of the Discussion page, I identified myself so everyone would know who I am and where I am coming from.  My opponents here have yet to do that regarding themselves, so I will do it for them.
Bernie Radecki, Frances Radecki, George Wagner, Laurie Pipan and Rose Offenhauer are all former members of the TLRCC under Bishop Schuckardt.  The three women are all ex-Nuns of the Congregation founded by Bishop Schuckardt.  All of them at one time adhered to the very beliefs this article is expounding about Bishop Schuckardt, but sided with Chicoine in 1984 and have since adopted a new set of beliefs.  Most, if not all of them, currently belong to the Church established by Chicoine in 1984.
This puts them in a neutrality dilemma, because to justify their current stance, they have to justify siding with Chicoine in 1984.  Demonizing and denigrating Bishop Schuckardt gives their position credibility; demonstrating the reasonableness of Bishop Schuckardt’s position calls into question the justification for Chicoine’s revolt and erodes the credibility of their position.  They are not neutral.  They have a personal stack in all of this.
Furthermore, I believe their actions demonstrate their personal involvement; a simple read of the article’s Talk Pages should convince any objective person to the truth of this.  Here’s an example of how partisan at least one of them is.  On 5/12/03, George Wagner sent an email to one of our clerics, which said in part: “I will stop at nothing to see you crumble because your very existence is mocking God and tarnishing the Traditional movement.”  Sounds like personal involvement to me.
Why is any of this relevant?  Because they want to remove my input on the grounds of personal involvement.  But because they themselves are personally involved, removing my input would simply allow their form of partisanship to win the day, and that would do violence to Wikipedia’s NPOV policy.  A NPOV is better achieved by opposing parties working out their differences, rather than by removing an opposing party from one side only and allowing the other side free reign to edit at will. Athanasius303 05:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fra. John’s editing opponents – just who are they?

message: On March 15, I requested help from the mediation cabal on a number of points. After two months had passed, Athanasius303 and myself had made very little progress using the collaborative approach of mediation under the guidance of DanielPi. The root of the problem, as I see it, is that the two of us have opposing viewpoints on Wikipedia policy. I was hoping that mediation could solve this core dispute, but it could not. I think the only lasting result we had was to remove 1 footnote. It is my hope that taking this article to arbitration will result in a binding decision in the areas of NPOV, Verifiability, No Orignal Research, and how these policies dovetail with the guidelines for articles about living persons.
Today, I am reverting back to a version of the article that contains segments both Athanasius303 and myself object to. Immediately, I am going to modify portions of my sections that Athanasius303 objects to and which DanielPi also said were too long. I will then leave the article alone for a day in case Athanasius303 or anyone else would like to make any changes to the article before I put in the request for arbitration. I would caution against any large scale changes. I would also caution against reckless modifications to my entries as they do comply with Wikipedia policy as I see it. In an effort to avert a revert war, I would suggest individuals only edit their own additions instead of editing another party's additions. I know it may be difficult to allow portions to remain that you ardently oppose. As I see it, the fact that the article contains material that both sides detests should make the decision of the arbitration committee easier. Bernie Radecki 15:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Radecki's modifications are in violation of Wikipedia policy.  Since they are damaging to the reputation of someone and many of them are from very questionable sources, policy allows the removal of them, which is what I have done.  The safest course here is to take these issues of contention to Arbitration and let them come to a decision - let us not presume to made decisions for them and post in advance of their decisions.  This is particularly true because Radecki has demonstrated his only interest in this article is to damage Bishop Schuckardt and his postings to just that, not to mention that many of them are outright false.  Athanasius303 17:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration 

message: Here is the link to the arbitration case. | Schuckardt Arbitration Currently, myself and Athanasius303 are the only parties listed as we are the only ones with Wikipedia accounts. Perhaps this will make the committee's task easier. Let us hope that they accept the case. I hope all are agreed that editing the article now is ill advised. Bernie Radecki 17:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to arbitration page 

message: It is clear that the Rev. Belzak has absolutely no regard for Wikipedia policy.  This is unacceptable and not in accord with the spirit of Wikipedia.  Unfortunately for him, Wikipedia is not the closed, mind-controlled environment of a cult commune, but open and democratic.  You have to tolerate opposing views even if they are distasteful to you. Simply labeling an opposing view a "personal attack" doesn't make it so. 
You cannot arbitrarily edit talk pages to suit your partisan whims.  You need to stop immediately and comport yourself according to Wikipedia policy if you choose to continue as a Wikipedia editor.
-JamesReyes 20:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dilegens - you are mistaken.  Please see section below.  Athanasius303 20:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Radecki - again you are wrong.  Do you see a pattern here?  See below.  Athanasius303 20:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disregard for Wikipedia Policy 

message: The article is now in the more formal phase of arbitration. Here is a link to the Evidence page. Anyone may enter in evidence on that page. I already have. Bernie Radecki 05:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no sense in replicating my arguments here when they will be made to the Arbitration Commitee.  Athanasius303 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: [subsequent discussion here deleted by Gimmetrow 19:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: News on Arbitration

message: Radecki - Your personal suspicions... are not admissible here for a whole multitude of obvious reasons.  This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; only verifiable and relevant material is permitted - you should know this by now.  I think perhaps a little bit of self-introspection might be beneficial to help you see how partisan you are, to me at least. Athanasius303 18:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know what you are referring to about my personal suspicions. I will admit I don't like your behaviour as an editor. I liked your brother Steve well enough to have him be a witness at my wife and I's betrothal ceremony in January of 1981. Did he ever tell you about the time he let me try to drive his diesal VW Rabbit car? I liked your brother Mitch too. Bernie Radecki 21:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: James Reyes: The notation you posted after your revert does not support your revert.  A private website recently launched does not qualify, neither do gratuitous unverifiable statements, personal "public" letters, ...  The burden of proof in on the editor making such postings; that burden has not been met.  Again I remind you: "Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion and without regard to the three-revert rule."  Athanasius303 19:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal speculation not verifiable and therefore not permitted