Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:12, 13 June 2009

Note: Messages left on this page will be replied to on this page.

Talk archives

2003-2004 Archive 1 2005 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 2006 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 2007 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 2008 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 2009 Archive 16 Archive 17

Today's motto...

Mediation: Roman Catholic Church

Thank you for your comments on the talk page of the mediation regarding the Roman Catholic Church article. Please note that this is a mediation between several parties who were in dispute regarding the name of the Church. The mediation has been in progress since January and participation is restricted to those editors. Sunray (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This so-called mediation seem to be mostly (now) an effort to build up suport for an illegal name-change (an issue not even listed in the orginal filing I see) in an artifical enviroment so that it can sprung on the community later on and be pushed through. Since restricting input seem awlfuly contrary to of consensus and community discussions, if there really is a policy on this restricted input please point it out to me. --Carlaude 08:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that Carlaude is continuing to make comments about this mediation even though he has already been informed by you that it is restricted. It seems clear from his comments to you above and also his continued comments on the mediation page that he has no intention of respecting this. I would appreciate it if you could take some further action about this. Thanks. Afterwriting (talk) 07:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Showing me any real policy on this restricting of input is all the further action that is needed. --Carlaude 08:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

My response is here. Sunray (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have three questions

I made an edit today--one edit--to the article Carrie Prejean and have not made an edit to the article in days, but yet another editor reversed my ONE edit and then reported me on the 3RR notice board. I find this to be a clear use of Misplaced Pages to win a debate about article content and direction. Prejean was called a series of negative things by Perez Hilton, most of the words are contemptuous and vile, such as the b-word and c-word. There are editors that believe that each and every one of Hilton's use of those words MUST be included in the article about Prejean. Now, I don't see the need to have an article about Prejean dominated by the words and comments of ONE individual (highly negative words at that) dominate the life story of Prejean. It is tantamount to having the words of Saddam Hussein concerning George W Bush dominate the Misplaced Pages article about Bush. It violates Misplaced Pages avowed goal of NPOV and it violates BLP. Now, I know that consensus in Misplaced Pages editing is one of the goals, but consensus does NOT override other valid Misplaced Pages ideals such as BLP. There can be a compromise made where the gist of Hilton's highly negative opinion is included in the article, but at the same time it does NOT dominate the life story of Prejean. Prejean is notable for many, many reasons, not just her public fight with Hilton. She is notable for being a successful model; she is notable for participating in Deal or No Deal; she is notable for being the current Miss California USA; and she is now notable for being a TV personality. My first question is: Can you at least review the article and see if the second, third, fourth, and fifth repetitions of the b-word and c-word violates BLP? I believe that it does. And my second question is: Is it appropriate to make a report on an editor for violating 3RR even though that editor has only made one edit? And my third question is: Is misusing 3RR to win a debate on the proper interpretation of BLP appropriate? I don't think so.--InaMaka (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Warren

is not too helpful while Mediation proceeds (albeit it looks like one person is seeking to derail it by going to another admin asking to have the article unlocked .) and of course an edit from the mediation page stating the intent for more process. Collect (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no intention of derailing the mediation. Please AGF. I'm actually amazed that you guys settled Prop 8 and this renewed my confidence on wiki processes. Thats why I'm looking into Rick Warren again. The article has been protected for a very long time now and thats why I requested unprotection. I have no intention of adding anything that is being discussed in mediation. However, you refused to discuss civil unions in mediation so thats why I'm talking about it in the talk page. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

RCC Canvassing

Carlaude (talk · contribs) now appears to be canvassing the participants of RCC trying to get his point across. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Queen's University Cultural and race relations

I added some more material racism dealing with experience of some individuals of colour. Some people have undone the changes I made afterwards relating to some of the experience documented by Queen's Journal. They were removed by some Queen's Graduate members saying it is irrelevant. I think it is very relevant and should be put in the open so it could be addressed so things can be changed and society as whole can move on. Queen's Journal has been doing an excellent job at it. I plan on adding some more information on wikipedia. Just wanted to make sure you were aware of it. We can't let emotions or pride distort the truth even if someone went to Queen's and they don't like seeing problems at their school raised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior1867 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think mediation is needed at this point — just discussion on the article talk page. Robert Sutherland is an important historical figure for Queen's and I think that the "History" section needs to reflect this. Also, the incident of expulsion of Black students after World War I is significant. But does the rest of the information have the same level of historical importance? I've made some changes. Take a look and if you have concerns, let's discuss them further on the talk page. Please bear in mind that editorial decisions are made by consensus. A collaborative approach usually results in a better article, in my experience. Sunray (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Award

-

Awarded to Sunray for patient endurance and healing touch in mediating the difficult Roman Catholic Church name issue. You conducted yourself in a very professional manner, you kept everyone focused on the task at hand and dealt patiently with difficult hotheads (like me and others!) along the way. You may have a future in divorce counseling or union/business mediation. NancyHeise 02:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

valid community-wide exercise in consensus building

Sunray, while I have could find on that page a policy on excluding people from mediation-- now that you have-- you have to see that the results of such mediation is not a source of real consensus.

Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Committee/Policy states:

Under no circumstances will mediation between a small number of parties be substituted for a valid community-wide exercise in consensus building.

You cannot impliment any ideas of a small number of people as if they are the result of a larger consensus. Changing the name of Roman Catholic Church‎ has implication for hundreds or even thousands of articles and page on many Misplaced Pages projects. Since is not just a debate if this or that name is more common, but grounded in weather or not Catholic Church‎ can be considered NPOV or POV, you have to allow the real Misplaced Pages community to partisipate. I am sure that in many areas of life Roman Catholic are in the minority, but non-Roman Catholics are in the minority here and you have to give the minority a chance to partisipate.

Even if to think that this small group of people have consensus on changing the name on the article for vaild reasons-- reaons no one in the mediation could or would point me to-- then you have to beleve that consensus on such issues will happen again if the step of letting the larger community partisipate it not steamrollered with in an effort to get this mediation over with. --Carlaude 10:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The three options are all valid, IMO. Option 1, which is based on WP:BB, also allows for community consultation (but after the change). Your point, speaks to whether it would be the wisest choice. I trust the participants to determine that. I am well aware, though, that no action in WP is absolute. Sunray (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

My points are not only to whether it would would be the wisest choice. Being "bold" when it is sure to be objected to is just disruptive. Maybe you should try working better with the wider Misplaced Pages community. --Carlaude 19:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Queen's

The Warrior appears to have de-camped. While I found his presentation inappropriate, I do think he may have a point about the importance of the Henry Report. I note that articles for several other universities deal with recent controversy. For e.g., an internal memorandum that expressed concern about undergraduate student satisfaction at Harvard , and controversy and court cases about affirmative action at Michigan .

Despite the placement of this in the "History" section of the Michigan article, I think that if we do add something to the Queen's article about Henry, it would be better to place it in its own section (possibly titled: "Henry Report." It would have to be written in a scrupulously neutral fashion. What do you think? Sunray (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. It is notable since it does reveal something about a significant problem. I think it should be written in the context of "lack of sensitivity to diversity" rather than racism, and in a succinct non-evaluative/objective/neutral manner (i.e. more like "historical news" rather than the strong, subjective POV that espouses that Queen's is a bad place full of racists, which was the POV of The Warrior). Other editors may finally get involved and have better ideas.BC_{talk to me} 21:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think the focus on sensitivity to diversity is spot on. I will draft something and flash it up on the talk page in the next few days. Sunray (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism, Sustainability page

OK, I am struggling with reverting this one, shall I leave it to your superior expertise? It's vandalism, pure and simple. PS Did you get the Head=em bit???--Travelplanner (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that. Now fixed. Sunray (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I see what happened. 96.240.173.100 tried to fix it but didn't use the "undo" feature and so missed some. Sunray (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

RCC/CC title

I deeply regret not having noticed this before the proposal was moved to the main Talk page: there is a false statement on which I feel obliged to comment. I did comment already on the idea expressed, but this even balder statement of it somehow escaped my notice. I am posting my comment here before doing so more publicly later:

While the proposed changes of the opening phrase and of the note are acceptable, it is not at all clear that the proposed change of the title is acceptable, especially since the main reason (as indicated by the use of italics) put forward for changing the title is false: "Catholic Church" is not "the" name used by the Church to describe itself. It is only one of the names used by the Church to describe itself. Soidi (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Roman Catholics dislike the label "Roman Catholic Church" as a suggestion that theirs is only one of several equally valid churches; where as other Christians aver that the label "Catholic Church" presumes it is the one uniquely valid church. Walsh, Michael (2005). Roman Catholicism. Routledge. p. 19. Online version available here