Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:56, 8 December 2014

Primate (bishop) issue

(moved to Talk:Primate (bishop), where it belongs. Esoglou (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Holy See - special relations

Hi, as far as I can remember the light green colour ("other relations") was used for Russia before full diplomatic relations were established some years ago. However, the relations between Russia and the Holy See were to a certain extent reciprocal - as far as I can remember Russia had some sort of liaison office in Rome (which was later converted into full fledged embassy). I don't know if a similar reciprocity in the case of Vietnam exists - if yes, I'd certainly agree with colouring Vietnam in light green. Gugganij (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I leave it to you, since I do not find the question interesting enough. The list of papal representative offices in the Annuario Pontificio puts apostolic delegations in italics, as for Laos, but of course treats Vietnam as it does the other countries to whom it has accredited a diplomatic representative. In the case of Vietnam alone, the representative is not an apostolic nuncio. On the other hand, Vietnam does not appear in its list of countries that have diplomatic relations with the Holy See and so have the right to accredit an ambassador to the Holy See, even if, as in the case of small distant countries in the Pacific, they have not exercised that right. Periodic higher-level meetings between the Holy See and Vietnam are held to discuss problems, and it was at one of these that appointment of a non-resident representative of the Holy See to Vietnam was agreed. He is an official representative to the government, unlike an apostolic delegate, who is a representative to the church in a country, but not officially to the government. Establishment of diplomatic relations awaits agreement on problems that doubtless include principally a mechanism for the appointment of bishops. So there are official relations with the government, but not diplomatic relations. To me, that means "other relations". Esoglou (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Come to think of it, the Holy See-Vietnam situation is a mirror image of that between Britain and the Holy See for many decades. During the First World War, the Holy See accepted the appointment of a diplomatic representative of Britain (resident in Rome indeed), but did not demand to have a nuncio to Britain, and continued to have in London an apostolic delegate. Esoglou (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your elaboration. I don't care either way. If it is indeed a representative to the government than a change is certainly justified. I updated the map with Vietnam in light green. Gugganij (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Esoglou (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Rampage

2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 sure went on a rampage, didn't he. Well, I think I've cleaned it all up. I left alone his innocuous edits and those to Canadian bishops. It seems reasonable that Canadians should use British forms of address. Otherwise it's all cleaned up and reverted. Let me know if you spot him again, eh? Elizium23 (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I had not noticed the rampage. I did of course notice the reverting of my edit, and that set me examining a different question instead. I fear the result of my examination may stir up opposition, but I think it is well sourced. Esoglou (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, the question of Cardinal style of address? No, I think you're quite correct. There's another editor who's been changing those to match as well. For whatever reason, I thought the old form was still viable but evidently it is deprecated with a vengeance. I will not use it anymore. Elizium23 (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I have failed to find web support for my idea that "Your Grace" is not used in the United States. Obviously not by the Episcopal Church, which has no archbishop. But is there a source that says it is not used by the Catholic Church (at least the Latin Church) in the United States? I'm sure in the United States it is used (and doubtless "Your Beatitude" and the like too) by "independent" churches and episcopi vagantes. If you can find something, would you attend to the statement here? Esoglou (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't find a source that specifically says "Your Grace" is not used, but I have plenty of sources that say "Your Excellency" is used instead, so I have added one where you suggested it. Elizium23 (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The "Your Grace" claim for the United States must have been inserted rather recently: the section on usage across the Atlantic speaks of a contrast with United States usage. Esoglou (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It was added in this edit by an anonymous with no talk page (a huge red flag, always) and almost all of that edit is bogus and should be rolled back. Elizium23 (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

He's back. I have posted an SOS to WT:CATHOLIC. He is using bad sources such as Canadian and Maltese articles which say "His Grace so-and-so" to support his assertion. Elizium23 (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm terribly sorry that I appear to have so distressed you two editors with my work. My intention is, and has always been, to assist this project - not to disrupt it. But it seems that you two have taken a somewhat proprietary approach to the articles I have worked on. Specifically, in Elizium23's rush to revert, other valuable edits were also lost: like the uniformity I brought to every article, so that all the archbishop's articles now display the honorific The Most Reverend. I also corrected articles which erroneously claimed it was proper to refer to archbishops as monsignors. But that wholesale revert approach threw out the good with the bad. Also, as I have invited opposing sources which definitively say that I am incorrect, I also appreciate that you both concede (at least to each other) that so far, you haven't found any. If you can't fully acknowledge that I may be correct, perhaps you can at least acknowledge a willingness to work with me? Rather than viewing me as a disruption, vandal or nuisance. For I am none of those. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry. I don't think you are a vandal or just a nuisance. Keep editing, but remember that a wiki, whether Misplaced Pages itself or Wikihow, is not a reliable source, and that sources about usage in other countries or about the United States more than a century ago are not reliable sources for current United States usage. Esoglou (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you accuse me falsely. I was very careful not to revert you but only change "His Grace" to "His Excellency". I did not revert where you had made other, constructive edits. So please don't say things that just aren't true and are verifiably false by checking the edit histories. Elizium23 (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Did you not have to self revert here in your haste to undo my edits - only to realize you were editing a Canadian archbishop who absolutely does use the style "Grace?" And did you not wholesale revert my edits before discussing them on my talk page? What's more, even after I responded on my talk page - and in courtesy, posted the response on your page so that you didn't miss it, did you not simply remove it from your page with no response? And offered no response on my page either? But instead, in addition to your post at WikiProject Catholicism, you came here to complain of my so-called "Rampage?" So actually, no, I didn't accuse you falsely. If anything, I didn't accuse you fully. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD. I explained in each individual case, and also here, and on the Wikiproject page, why your edits, based on no reliable source pertinent to current United States usage, could not be maintained, until or unless they were provided with proper backing. Esoglou (talk) 07:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• You removed 3 other reliable sources simply because you didn't like WikiHow as a source. You then replaced those other reliable sources with no sources of your own. And you did all that, unilaterally, while we were in the middle of discussing it. I could revert you again on that basis alone, but it seems that one of us violating 3RR is sufficient. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

By "three others" I presume you mean those about a) the US of a full century ago; b) Malta; c) Canada. For present-day US usage, I gave you sources to present-day usage in the archdioceses of the United States archbishops: a) Salvatore J. Cordileone; b) Timothy Broglio; c) George Joseph Lucas; d) Gregory Michael Aymond; e) Jerome Edward Listecki; f) Allen Henry Vigneron; g) William E. Lori. I thought that was enough. Esoglou (talk) 07:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• You, were, saying?

Or did you honestly need more? 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I do so gladly. Rather, I don't fully revert, which would restore the invalid sources, but I insert in their place the good sources that you provided for Myers. Esoglou (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

There was absolutely nothing "invalid" about those sources. They just didn't support the conclusion you wanted to reach. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Since two of them say nothing of the US, which has ecclesiastical usages different from, say, South Africa (for instance, is a bishop Right Reverend or Most Reverend?) and the other is a century out of date, I don't see those as saying anything sure of the title of Myers or Cordileone, Broglio, Lucas, Aymond, Listecki, Vigneron, or Lori. You do, it seems. Esoglou (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

So, using your "logic", I suppose we shouldn't be using the Bible as a source either. Since, using your standard, it's "centuries out of date." Apparently in your world, all things must have an expiration date - even when they necessarily don't. Now if you had said that you found something later, which required a style change, that would have been one thing. But you found nothing. And you replaced it with nothing. So in the absence of that, your argument is just as capricious, arbitrary and ill-advised as... your actions. To say nothing of the other sources you removed, which - by your own rubric - were current. As to the question of Right or Most Reverend, this seems pretty clear: Most Reverend. As to the issue of the U.S. - again, using your "logic", all future sources on this project would have to be vetted as "country specific." Obvious nonsense. The purpose of the sources was to prove that the style was, again, in current use. Period. If you felt they needed to achieve more, then it was your responsibility to replace them with better sources that you felt did. It was not your place to remove reliable sources - which you never denied they were - only to replace them with nothing. That is also arbitrary and ill-advised. It also violates WP:UNSOURCED. But unfortunately, it is clearly consistent with your editing pattern. To wit: mass reverting those sources and replacing them with nothing - in the middle of our discussion about them - and violating WP:CCC - in the process. Was there some kind of fire in your world that compelled such precipitant action during the discussion? None that you ever bothered to identify. Because you didn't even have the courtesy to say you were going to make those reverts. Even when you knew we all were discussing them. That's not WP:BRD. Frankly, that's cowardice. Because you knew that at that moment your actions would very likely not have gone over very well. Even from editors who may have, by the end, agreed with you.

Finally, and I do mean finally, because this is clearly unavailing: both you and Elizium23 would be very well-advised to review WP:PROJ, as you both appear to have taken an undue and proprietary interest in these articles. Elizium23's topic concern below is a perfect example. "He's back" seems to be a favorite Elizium23 refrain, as though shock should be expressed when someone else has the temerity to contribute opposing points of view that fall outside of Elizium23's narrow and exclusionary canon. Much like the early screed I encountered about "a sedevacantist, heretical organization that does not represent Catholic teaching or the Church."

Per WIKIPROJECT, you both need to be extremely mindful, and proceed as though you are well aware, that: "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles." Just as you two would also be well-advised to review WP:TAGTEAM. Neither of you owns articles and your project does not imbue you with any extraordinary dispensation to act as though you do. Either alone, or in tandem, neither of you are the WIKIPOLICE.

Also, once again and not unpredictably, you moved the goalposts. You never specified what you found so amusing in your letter. Yet the moment I tried to contribute - suddenly, and after the fact - you defined the parameters to exclude my contribution. Gee, where have we seen that show before?! Regrettably, you demonstrate time and again that you are nothing if not consistent. But perhaps, moving forward, some small nugget from this colloquy and disquisition will sink in and some adjustments in behavior, however slight, may result. I don't find you to be a bad or unreasonable editor, Esoglou. In fact, I credit your dedication to this project. But I do find that you have gotten into a pattern of editing that runs afoul of some of this project's own policies. Comfort breeds imprudence. I also find that both you and Elizium23, your partner in crime, could go a long way toward being more inclusive of contributors, IP and otherwise, who do not belong to your little cabal. Perhaps, that's part of the reason why Dcheney expressed reluctance to agree with Elizium23 on the project page. Also perhaps, if you just remind yourself daily that this project is not your own little fiefdom, and working on it is a privilege: then in future, your judgment - and your actions - will be tempered accordingly. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Lloydbaltazar redux

Seems to be back. What do you think? Should we do the needful? Elizium23 (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You have a sharp eye, but I fail to see anything to go on as yet. If it is the same person, he has so far been remarkably reticent. Esoglou (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism

I don't know what is going on here. I may appear as a random editor, but I have seen what is happening. This article has been fully protected several times this year. It has never been fully protected since 2012 until summer 2014. Perhaps you can file a request for sanctions at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, can't you? I don't want the article to suffer any more disputes. If you can't, then I'll ask someone else. --George Ho (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you can do it yourself here, where (far from the first time) I have been asking that an editor discuss disagreements instead of repeatedly reverting to her own text. I am refraining from explicitly requesting sanctions or even making a clear implicit request. The closest I have come to doing so was my recent, "Can you not get the parties to discuss?" Esoglou (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I must have given you the wrong link. The link should have been Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests. Perhaps request mediation? --George Ho (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I confess I did not look up the first link you gave: I just picked up the mention of sanctions, and answered accordingly. I have also imagined that the intervention by Master of Puppets would be like what you are now suggesting. For now, I am waiting to see if Master of Puppets or someone else will get Roscelese to dialogue instead of being selectively deaf and dumb. If you think a mediator would succeed, do call one in. On my side there will be no objection. Because he not only gives serious attention to observations made by all sides, but also is interested in advancing sound sourced knowledge of the topic, Bromley86 has been very successful in clarifying the Jeanine Deckers question. It would be wonderful if someone would do the same for the other question(s). Esoglou (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

As we must admit, this topic is controversial. I tagged it as such in the talk page, and I added "BLP others" to help readers consider the content further, especially on the living persons. Accusing one person of advocacy without evidence would violate WP:AGF policy, but doing advocacy violates WP:NOTADVOCACY also. Shall I call for mediation request then? --George Ho (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, I brought up a discussion here instead because I want to prevent any more protections. I don't want the article to go down the same path as Mass killings under Communist regimes, which has been fully protected indefinitely and whose topic is very controversial. --George Ho (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

...I'm having second thoughts on the mediation thing. It is intended for content disputes, but extending dispute to a user conduct will make mediation ineffective. I would like to hear your viewpoints on events that led to several protections, but explaining would be suitable at either mediation or arbitration request. In other words, this is a user page. --George Ho (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking an interest in the problem. I too would much prefer that this article were edited like any other. As frozen, it is, from my point of view and that of some other editors, unbalanced, since most of it is as in the increasingly one-sided version to which Roscelese kept reverting in spite of difficulties raised and adjustments attempted, which she dismissed out of hand, blanket-reverting them on grounds of a non-existent consensus. (On the positive side, it must be said that, although the freezing of the article preserves nearly all of Roscelese's slanted edits, it does have the advantage of preventing her from adding yet more and making it necessary to correct them.) I have attempted to deal with the problem piecemeal, making one adjustment at a time and allowing time for discussion before attempting another. For a short time, this seemed successful. But when it came to three such adjustments, and the process I was attempting was clear, Roscelese again reverted all of them, without discussing any. Through intervention by other editors, advances have been made on two of the three: the Deckers question, and that of presenting what one source says as unquestionably true by excluding any mention of contradictory information (although the contradictory information is given by all other sources!). For the third, we only need intervention by someone else or an answer by Roscelese herself to explain her repeated insistence that a primary source says the opposite of what it clearly states and of what a reliable secondary source gives as its meaning. Please read this and make up your own mind whether what Roscelese is doing is reasonable. If you don't want to tell me what you think of it, you need not do so. Just look at it. Esoglou (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

She mostly cleaned up sources misinterpretations and strictly balanced passages except the Jeanine Deckers info, which is another story. If she hasn't admitted to being a lesbian, why suddenly remove her denial? I'll discuss this with her soon. --George Ho (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what sources misinterpretations she cleaned up and what passages she strictly balanced when she said that

"circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable"

means

"as homosexual sexual activity is not always compulsive, any culpability that pertains to it is not therefore mitigated by natural orientation";

and when she said that the secondary source's statement that

"The Congregation's point can perhaps be illustrated by a simple analogy: kleptomania is a persistent psychological impulse to steal even in the absence of economic need. ... the more compulsive the disorder, the more reduced is the moral culpability for one's actions."

also means that the Congregation said that the culpability for a homosexual act is not mitigated by homosexual orientation.

On the Deckers question, Roscelese is joining in discussion, which is all that I have been asking. The problem is that she refuses to defend by reasoning (but only by edit-warring) her insistence that a primary source that speaks of reduction and even removal of culpability means, on the contrary, that there is no mitigation of culpability, and that a secondary source that says that, the more compulsive a persistent pscychological impulse is, the more reduced is culpability, is also declaring that the impulse does not reduce culpability. Esoglou (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I presume you will see what happened on Roscelese's page to my apology to you for my insufficient clarity. Esoglou (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I was referring to this diff. --George Ho (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Then it appears that you have not looked at what I asked you to look at, where Roscelese insists, solely by edit-warring, and never by reasoning (by discussion), that, when the primary source, Homosexualitatis problema, section 11 states that culpability for homosexual acts can be diminished or even removed entirely, it is really saying that homosexual tendency in no way mitigates culpability for homosexual acts; and that, when a writer in The Linacre Quarterly] states that, according to that document of the Holy See, that homosexuality, like kleptomania, reduces culpability for one's actions, he is really saying that Homosexualitatis problema is really declaring that homosexual tendency in no way mitigates culpability for homosexual acts.

That is what I am complaining about: Roscelese's insistence through edit-warring on these apparently nonsensical claims and her concomitant refusal to explain by discussion what grounds she believes exist for her claims. Since she has now accepted to discuss her previous excluding by edit-warring sourced information on Deckers, that is no longer a complaint by me against her. Esoglou (talk) 07:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Dictionnaire des provocateurs

Roscelese told me that you were exploiting an inaccessible source for your own advocacy or something. Here is the below passage:

Jeanine Deckers (d. 1985), was known as The Singing Nun or Sœur Sourire, and was a Belgian singer-songwriter and at one time a member of the Dominican Order in Belgium as Sister Luc-Gabrielle. After leaving the order, she is reported to have begun a lesbian relationship with Annie Pécher. She herself never admitted being a homosexual, and she was said to be maintaining a chaste life.

1. Simmonds, Jeremy. The Encyclopedia of Dead Rock Stars. Chicago Review Press. p. 204.
2. Thierry Ardisson, Cyril Drouhet, Joseph Vebret, Dictionnaire des provocateurs (EDI8 - PLON, 2010, ISBN 978-2-25921285-4)
3. Gordy, Margaret (8 February 1979). "'Singing Nun' makes comeback". Youngstown Daily Vindicator. Retrieved 14 November 2014.

I hope you can explain why an inaccessible French dictionary is cited. I wonder if you really have a possession of the French edition, dictionnaire des provocateurs (Dictionary of Provocateurs). --George Ho (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you really find that book inaccessible by the link given? Bromley86 had no difficulty in accessing it and declaring it a reliable source. A commentator on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard had no difficulty in accessing it. (It seems to have become next to impossible – for me – to access information on the archives of that noticeboard, but maybe you will be more successful.) Even though unable, she said, to access the book, Roscelese declared that it appeared to be a low quality-source anyway. But I was able to write, on Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, where it still is: "Roscelese has deleted information that Jeanine Deckers never admitted being a homosexual. This is stated in a book that, while admitting she had not examined it, Roscelese declared to be 'a low-quality source anyway'. For this view she won no support whatever on Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard, where it drew the response that the book had a reliable publisher and: 'It's even got mainstream media coverage that describes it favorably as a curated collection of stories of "provocateurs".'" It is strange that an Internet source that I can now, as then, access, that Bromley86 could access, that the Wikipedian who commented about it on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard could access, could not then be accessed by Roscelese and, it seems, cannot now be accessed by you. Would you please check again? Esoglou (talk) 07:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)