Talk:Robert McKenna/Archive 1

Exorcisms

What is there to discuss, diligens, that sentence was horribly awkward. What is your justification for revert? Gimmetrow 17:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It is recommended by WP that when you do more than mere grammar changes but actually remove some content, that you should first propose what you are going to do and explain why. Could you tell me specifically why you think that portion is awkward and why you removed some content? (Diligens 17:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

No it isnt. Quit playing wikilawyer again. He made changes you didnt like so you reverted. A better rule is "Don't be a dick" I can't think of a polite way to put that. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Dominick, why did you violate policy by editing the very thing you already knew was just under discussion? (Diligens 20:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

WP policy is to be bold and improve text. Perhaps you should explain why the changes I made were more than mere grammar changes or otherwise objectionable? The sentence had multiple subordinate phrases and was poorly constructed. The only "content" I can identify is the notion that exorcisms are an "use of priestly powers", which is at best tangential to an article on a person. Gimmetrow

Yes, but everyone can still be bold while simultaneously following the policies and guidelines. You have discerned correctly what content was removed. Some people have deeper reasons for adding things, that someone else may not easily be aware of at first glance. That is why I wish to discuss the removal. I think it should not be removed (though I am not against the possible restructuring of the sentence). Most of the public does not know that every priest, by his very ordination, has the power to exorcise demons. There is a set ritual for it among the several other rituals in the book of Roman Rituals. I feel this is important because the combination of the ignorance of the public, as well as the twisted media attention often given his exorcisms will easily result in making it look like he was doing something odd that priests shouldn't be doing. It simply gives a false impression without it, and by correcting that impression it will also be teaching the reader an interesting fact about all priests. The article is about a man, and should accurately portray his actions. As for being a compound sentence, I will hold that off for now. (Diligens 20:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

OK, let's see how we can improve this. How about this?

Bishop McKenna is prominently known for performing exorcisms [1]. While exorcisms are not in themselves unusual for a Roman Catholic priest to perform, some of his actions have been sensationalized in tabloid journals or psychic research groups such as the Warrens [2] [3] [4]. One exorcism he performed in 1985 in Warren, MA was featured in the Boston Herald and later recounted by the same reporters in the book Satan's Harvest (Dell Publishing, 1990, ISBN 0440205891).

This has the benefit of verifiable references to some of the tabloids. Gimmetrow 21:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Added footnote links look good enough to me. (Diligens 16:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

I think that is very well done! There is only one slight change I would suggest. Bp. McKenna makes no profit from this priestly duty, fasts heavily before peforming them, and is most often displeased with the write-ups that follow by those who intend on making a profit. You seem to have a knack for writing, maybe you could fit that in in some way? I think it is necessary because altough the tabloids themselves can be verified as existing, what they report cannot. (Diligens 21:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

NPoV Better:

McKenna has been noted for performing exorcisms[5]. While exorcisms are not in themselves unusual for a Roman Catholic priest, some have been sensationalized in tabloid newpapers or psychic research groups such as the...

using a load of adjectives do not add to the tale. Dominick ^(TALK) 00:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've read this a few times, and I still find the some in the second sentence unclear, but I've reworked this to include input above. Any problems with this now, diligens? Might be good to have a reference to the claim that he doesn't profit from the books/movies. Gimmetrow 01:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Whatever else that is listed should have documentation. As far as no profit, that is not remarkable for an exorcism, or at least any Roman Catholic service. Dominick ^(TALK) 03:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Views

I think the changes you guys have contributed are very well. However, I gave a fair and legitimate mix to the use of the titles Fr. and Bishop while referring once to him as simply McKenna. I think it is fair enough not to include the thing about the profits; it is basically implied already. I added a bunch of other information I know about this subject. I changed "theory" to "thesis" because that is what it has been called, and because it merely applies Church philosophy to a situation as philosophy was designed to be applied. Considering that a 1980 view was already quoted, I added other information there to show some of what else he believes. (Diligens 11:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

You've added quite a bit of unsourced content. I think the stuff on sedeprivationism repeats content from another article and should be reduced and linked. As for his witty comments, I would guess he is not really "notable" for that in an encyclopedic sense. Finally, the argument applying sede impedita to current events seems like original research, and even if it can be referenced (the catholic encyclopdia is not a reference to the argument) I suspect it belongs on the sedeprivationism page.

This has been an interesting learning adventure (I had no idea there were so many unattached bishops and variations on sedevantism out there) but I would rather put my time elsewhere. Ultimately, I don't find him particularly "notable" for his sedevacantist views (he didn't even originate his own flavor), but for his involvement with certain publicized cases of the paranormal. Gimmetrow 15:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't like redundancy either, but where an article is known especially for a particular thing, I think it makes sense for a precise and concise overview. Those two witicisms he is especially noted for by those who know him; the comments at the same time reveal not just his personality but his position. I know for a fact that "sede impedita" is what conforms to his position; I had inquired about it years ago. The CE quote fits right in because it is authoritative and mentions a pope going into heresy, which is what the Cassiciacum Thesis is centered on. What do you do when an article deals with something that an editor knows first hand to be true, or else personally knows people who can give testimony? I don't call either original research, and you can't expect books to have info on currently living people. (Diligens 16:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

No references, so it can't be included. They will be marked. As an aside, CCL 413 section deal with this, even if the Pope were not Pope, he would still be able to exercise all the rights of the office. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The way the Cath. Encyc. quote is used is almost exactly parallel to the example in WP:NOR. It advances a new thesis rather than reports that so-and-so holds a thesis. First-hand information is also original research, I think. If you had a website with his writings, then you could reference the website to report that he says so-and-so. I would also suggest that if you have that much first-hand information, you might be too close to the subject. Gimmetrow

I concluded that a while ago. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Notability

When I first started looking at this and related pages, I thought that simply being an unattached, sedevantist bishop was enough to be "notable." I don't think that is the case any more, because there are so many of them. A number of those listed in Category:Sedevacantists or Category:Sedeprivationists are, to this outsiders eyes, not notable. Wiki isn't a list of every independent bishop in the world and their lineage. For instance, for what is Geert Jan Stuyver notable? Nothing that I can identify. Guerard des Lauriers appears to be notable because he apparently initiated a particular sedevacantist thesis (though even that isn't clearly referenced in his own article). In my opinion McKenna is notable mainly for the exorcisms, and only secondarily for his views. I think it would be sufficient to say that he subscribes to and/or popularizes the sedeprivationist thesis of the bishop who consecrated him, with a (short) description and a link to the sedeprivationist/cassiciacum page. Gimmetrow 17:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Then the article is about exorcisms and we shorted the sedeprivation part? Dominick ^(TALK) 17:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"Shorten", yes I suppose that is my suggestion.

Tense, schmense. Thanks Dominick ^(TALK) 17:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Dominick, the words of Gimme are discussion, not solely representative of final consensus. Stop jumping the gun because you are vandalizing the article by doing so. (Diligens 18:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

I'm out for now, and I don't support either side in the developing edit war. Gimmetrow 18:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No worries, it is over now. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Dominick, Gimme is neither taking your part, nor mine. That means you and I are discussing this and your opposition to mine is not consensus. Let's start at number one. Why did you remove the name of his Chapel? If you don't continue the discusion, you forfeit consensus. (Diligens 18:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

Scroll up and read. Not notable except for his exorcisms. Chapel is not notable, lots of people start chapels, and are not notable. I am willing to leave his status as a non-notable renagade "bishop". Don't threaten people. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Gimme's opinion is NOT consensus. Are you saying it is? This is a discussion page and I didn't even get a chance to respond to Gimme yet. Now, why did you remove the name of the Chapel where that bishop has been living since 1973? Either discuss or by WP rules you forfeit consensus. That is not a threat, it is a fact. (Diligens 18:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

I think that McKenna is not notable except for his exorcisms. Wikipedia rules are pretty clear. Didn't you understand that above? Dominick ^(TALK) 18:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What YOU think is not automatically consensus. Start discussing. Why did you remove the Chapel name? (Diligens 18:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

I just answered you. Gimme and I both agreed that the only notable thing was that he performed exorcisms. The Chapel Name is not notable, lots of people start chapels, and are not notable. Scroll up and read the discussion. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Gimme did not comment on the chapel, just on whether excorcism or position was more notable. Besides that you and Gimme together don't make consensus - That is called simple majority which is against WP rules which you just violated. On top of that there is no WP rule that says you only have to have ONE notable fact in an article, that would be absurd. Articles have a slew of facts about a person. Where born, where residing, etc. You violate WP rules left and right. Now start giving a real answer why you removed the chapel name. (Diligens 18:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

I gave you answers. You just didnt like them. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh my. How can 2-1 be a consensus? I agree with parts of what both of you are saying, but between Dominick's quick editing and Diligens' bias, I don't want to be claimed as part of any consensus. I made a suggestion. Again, I said I think McKenna is known primarily for the exorcisms, but given that he is notable for that it is fine to make some brief comments about his views. Ideal if the views relate in some way to why he does exorcisms. Chapel name seems fine. No offense to McKenna, but the comparison I come up with is Michael Cox who is notable because of Sinead O'Connor and a publicity stunt with a boat. Without those he wouldn't be notable (IMO), but given those his particular views and so forth can also be mentioned. Gimmetrow 18:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I was sorry you backed out. His bias would not permit anything but the most glowing language for this person. Yes I was a quick editor. I didn't consider that a systemic defect like a PoV boas. (OOPS unsigned by me Dominick ^(TALK))

Despite the initial revert, Diligens seemed to like my eventual edits - consensus achieved by incorporating all inputs. It's foreseeable that doing quick edits without input will break a consensus. Gimmetrow

OK is the name of the chapel at all notable. Lets start there. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Not notable Dominick ^(TALK) 19:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is, Dominick, we both say you didn't have consensus and we are the only other two here, so it is a fact. Two weeks ago I corrected you for violating simple majority, and here you do it again. You will have to discuss if you want to make changes.

For both of you, you cannot tell there is a bias unless you give the discussion a chance. Discussions are not one-sided, and they can conceivably last for several responses. I didn't even get one response on the notability issue. I can agree that McKenna is most notable for exorcisms. However, there is no WP or logical rule that says a person can have only one notable thing in his life. Articles can contain many notable things. If you don't agree then you have a LOT of deleting to do on WP!

Furthermore, each of the templates I removed was accompanied by a reason of proof in the edit summary. Wikipedia rules say that as long as the source can be verified, then it is sufficient, and it can merely be a web site. The man is living, and his chapel address and phone number are easily searched on Google in a couple of seconds, and can be used to verify from the horse's mouth (or pen) anything I have written. I have also mentioned the CATHOLICS FOREVER newsletters were filled with his position, and gave the years. Such length of years and amount is definitely in the forefront. No other publications has written so much on that thesis. I have copies of them spanning years. You are supposed to give discussion ample time. You may have a point, however, about redundancy, but that wasn't finished being discussed above. (Diligens 19:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

Out of the three editors we agreed and you didn't that is consensus that just happens to be simple majority. He isn't notable for forming a chapel, the mere formation isn't notable and his support of sede privation are not notable. There are many people that do that, who don't get listed in wikipedia. As far as the standard, no publication that talked about his exorcisms also talked about him doing any of those other things, they didn't even mentions that the exorcisms were illicit under Canon law. You need to replace fact templates with references. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Simple majority is a violation, that is verifiable WP rule. And if you stubbornly think 2 here is sufficient, then realize that both me and Gimmetrow (2 people) said we didn't reach consensus before. Dominick, are you now trying to promote the idea that WP articles can have only ONE notable thing mentioned and nothing else? (Diligens 19:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

Please dont play wikilawyer, you are not good at it. When there are three editors, then two make consensus, thats a pretty simple concept unless you are trying to be dense. I am saying anything except his Exorcism and that he is a renegade Bishop fail to be notabile on wikipedia. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not playing lawyer, I am using brains - and here it is in black & white from Wikipedia, "simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate". Furthermore, you cannot support your invented princple that only notable things are allowed in WP articles. Support that. (Diligens 20:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

You are? You should read the standard of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons form my "invention". It is not simple vote counting, if there are three editors. Two support and one opposes for bad reasons. It wasn't vote, we had an idea and didnt wait for your imperial permission. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You violate the rule of working toward consensus if you don't include a person you know is there to discuss. And I have just researched about notability too, and you are once again mistaken. Notability is merely a guideline, not a rule. But MOST importantly, that guideline is only there to determine IF the PERSON should have an article or not. If yes, anything can go in the article, notable or not in itself, because once a person is of interest, people are interested in the smallest of details of that interesting person. You personally are not interested in the man (in fact it appears you wish he didn't exist), so you are not interested in the details, but the man is of interest to the public. Not only are his exorcisms newsworthy, but a person who believed JP2 was not a true pope is extremely interesting to people. So this idea of individual notable facts is not even a guideline on WP. Gimme did have a point about redundancy, but that was barely even started to be discussed. (Diligens 20:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

If you discussed instead of telling us they things would be easy. The guideline also talks about what should be in there, consensus is against your position, thats a shame. Dominick ^(TALK) 22:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. Diligens, you brought attention to this article with talk on another page. IMO, It read like a defense of his views (an apologia) more than a report, plus grammar issues. It seems clear that you know and support the man. We fixed a few things in the phrasing and NPOV. The way of further improvement is neither to add more apologia, nor to cut things out (on possibly shaky grounds) leaving a bad impression. Both ways lead to POV. I don't want to be used as a club for one side to beat up the other, so I signed off when it seemed that was happening. You might consider reverting back to my version and editing (slowly) from there, though I agree thesis is better than theory. Gimmetrow 03:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you are here, Gimmetrow. I have appreciated your edits. Dominick says he is glad you are here, but he is blatantly ignoring the fact that you say there has been no consensus. He violates rules left and right and doesn't answer direct questions. I believe he is not a Wikipedian at heart. I don't ask for you to use a club. I ask that a discussion be a discussion and that points are responded to directly. Say what you think for the sake of truth. You must realize that you and Dominick were mistaken about Notability. I read the explanations of that and notability is ONLY for an article's existence, not the details. The rules also say that positive things have precedence over the negative in biographies. That is not PoV. I am all for going slowly into each and every edit, and discussing it first. You must wait for a response and not be hasty. I agree that an explanation of his position is better left for a link to an article on that position. However, you must realize that there is GOOD, BETTER and BEST in this world, and we should be satisfied with mere "good" when consensus cannot be reached. It is "good" to have some redundancy, because there is no policy against it. The main things Robert McKenna stands out for in his life is his exorcisms and his position, and some redundancy is pefectly acceptable (good). People who act like "anything less than best is bad" do not have a proper Wikipedian mentality. There is nothing PoV about explaning a person's position. It merely and simply reveals the person's position. You not agreeing with his position has NOTHING to do with PoV. PoV is in respect to the editor, not the view of the person who is the subject of the biography.

Do you see Dominick's extreme bias trying to get rid of a simple fact as to what Robert McKenna's chapel has been called since 1973? YET....look over at the article on Bernadette Soubirous, and see that Dominick hasn't made any objections to that very long biography and its details. No removals and no citation or fact templates inserted. He has just requested the POV template be removed. That is not what I am getting at, but this is an excellent example of bias and double-standard. You will see that biography mentions things about this person such as:

1. she was a shepherd
2. she was born on the 7th
3. it was southern France she lived in
4. her father was a miller and her mother a laundress
5. she waited at tables
6. the school she went to was free
7. she was gathering firewood
8. she braided altar cloths and vestments in the convent
9. here sickness specifically was asthma
10. the portion of her body affected was her knee
11. her exact age when she died

Okay. She was not notable for any of these ordinary things and they have nothing essential to do with notability. The answer is that the person herself has notability, and that is all that matters. After that these are common facts that could pertain to anyone. Why doesn't Dominick delete them? Why doesn't he insert citation templates everywhere to make sure each statement has direct support? I think the answer is obvious.

Let's discuss things normally, and wait for the other to respond. Discussions are not simply comprised of one response. Discussions can last, and discussions go in both directions, so points and questions must be responded to directly. Discussions must wait a good 24 hours. You give people a chance to respond because they have a life to lead outside of WP. (Diligens 13:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

Wasn't even my article. Her story since she is dead, is quite notable. [personal attack removed]. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not your article either, so what does that have to do with anything? What does being dead have to do with anything? Quite notable, or just plain notable, it doesn't make a difference as long as the article is there. (Diligens 14:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

Read the standards and discuss them there. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[Dominick removes whole paragraph by Diligens claiming "rv WP:RPA"]

Ah, I see, remove a whole paragraph because something within it you think is a personal attack without saying what it is! Keeps me guessing, right? Remember, the WP:RPA states, "It has often been abused by malefactors". Now that you have read it, we are back to discussing. If you don't plan on discussing, why would you edit this Talk page? (Diligens 15:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

I dont have much to say since that isn't about this article. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I am referring to discussing the article. You can glance up at the history now. You know I have been asking you to discuss things and you persistently avoid it. Why are you here on this Talk page?

Do you deny that notability is only to decide the existence of an article according to WP?

Even though you see that Gimmetroy and I say you don't have consensus, you think you do anyway by yourself?

There, you have two direct questions I would like answered (the latter two). Please answer each with a Yes or No? (Diligens 15:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

Please answer each with a Yes or No?

Why are you here on this Talk page?

YES

Do you deny that notability is only to decide the existence of an article according to WP?

YES (duh!)

Now lets go back to this article. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Somehow you missed my words "the latter two". I'll wait for the answer. (Diligens 15:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

Stop it. This is way too much fuss. I brought up notability as a point of discussion, not a club for Dominick to use. My intent was to improve the article by sticking to easily verifiable facts, and not repeating extra information from the sedevacantist and traditional catholic articles. Unless his views are published on a website or in some easily accessible book, I don't personally think their coverage should be expanded, and could be cut back some. That is my opinion and not a license for Dominick to edit away. Ordinary, non-controversial facts are not a problem (dates, places), but views seem a little different. A neutral article, stating facts, would in my opinion give a better impression of Bishop McKenna than one with lots of religious rhetoric. Something to think about, Diligens? Gimmetrow 16:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't trying to use you to club Dilgens. Like I said at the end of the last foolishness, "Lets work on the article". I think the gushing about his founding a chapel, not making profit, how witty, and other stuff isn't what belongs. It would be like saying Abraham Lincon ate apples. It is hard to keep me from getting snippy with a person like Dilgens. My apologies. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Gimmetroy, having you here is a breath of fresh air and an atmosphere of sanity. I can easily work with you. You have so far stated that Dominick did not have consensus, and that he was rashly editing. If he doesn't admit it, he will make this collaboration impossible. I have many times repeated to discuss the article, and Dominick refuses to address my points. Dominick's last "Let's work..." is only to get away from answering a direct question about his not having consensus by himself. This is not fussing. This is crucial to continuing collaboration. You admit dates and places are not a problem but Dominic has a deep and inimical problem with the name of a traditional chapel existing since 1973. WP:RPA I merely thought of adding the chapel because according to WP rules, personal contact with the source itself is sufficient for verification, and by adding the Chapel, finding the address and phone number on Google takes seconds. If you have an article on a living person, and that person is easily accisible, it is even more sufficient than somebody's Web site that can claim a fact. The horse's mouth is the ideal. Dominick's violations of consensus have made this collaboration falter, and it appears that is precisely what he is seeking. (Diligens 17:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

Horses mouth violates WP:NOR and is unverifiable by any person editing wikipedia. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It says nothing of the sort, and it is understandable then why you give not details; you can't. If a reporter or webmaster calls the horse's mouth to verify facts and then types them in a site or newspaper, that transcription is verification. And if anyone contacts the horse's mouth directly and just as easily, that also is equal verification. Explain why the latter is not trustworthy and the reporter/webmaster is. (Diligens 18:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

Horses mouth is unpublished thats what it means. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The nutshell is cracked:

1. The addresses of people are published in public directories.
2. If an address is not published anywhere, the policy says only if it "serves to advance a position".
3. Advancing a position is in reference to the editor of Wikipedia, not the subject of the article, otherwise you would not be able to say in the article of King Henry VIII what he believed was wrong with the RCC.

Why don't you want the name of the Chapel printed? (Diligens 19:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

You are asking a question that I never opened. I said that he started some chapel is not notable and not important to the main reason he is notable. Like I said original research is not permitted. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The address is published and does not support a position. Your turn Dominick. Gimmetroy? (Diligens 19:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

Nope sorry. I am done listening you troll. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Good, you forfeit any benefits of participation in the discussion. Plug your ears and run from reason. Gimmetroy it is your turn? (Diligens 20:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

I have just wandered in as I saw a comment on a Wiki Alert. As a third party, I would say that there is plenty of server space. Someone's address is not a contentious fact. No one should object to it. I have been reading about Original Research a great deal. I do not believe an address qualifies in any way, shape, or form as Original Research. It is a fact, not a concept or an argument. You are all too intelligent to be spending your time on this aspect of the article. How about adding some citable reference to something the subject of the article has said or done. He has consecrated a lot of bishops. Has any religious publication commented on that? Has there been any articles on him from a third party besides on the topic of excorcisms? Does this guy have a parish, a convent, a seminary. Has he published anything? If you want some advice, the article is not too long. There is plenty of room for facts. Just because one party does not think it important, doesn't mean a fact can't be inputted. I can assure you, you will find much more important things to argue about! Just a third party's two cents, but it seems obvious to me that the name of a chapel is surely admissible. Bernie Radecki 00:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

THe objections I had were framed as "I don't want the establishment of a chapel to be in the article" and were invented by Dilgens. He added a lot of fluff gushing about his "personal" friend, and wriging the article with unpublished facts about McKenna. Read the discussion when I answer he asks again and is badgering. You can't fluff an article about apersonal friend. Dominick ^(TALK) 03:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Dominick is presenting untruths here. The article already said "residing in Monroe, Connecticut since 1973", and I merely changed it to "residing at Our Lady of the Rosary Chapel in Monroe, Connecticut since 1973." I said nothing about founding or establishing it. I also said nothing about being a friend nor did I say "personal". Yes, indeed, read the discussion and see that Dominick must be confusing this article with some other project he is currently involved in on Wikipedia. What he says is false. He is also inventing his own rules about "notability". Anyone can see that when you read WP guidelines about biographies, the concept of notability only applies to deciding whether an article should be created. Once it is created, any facts are fair game. Anyone can go and read the guidelines about this. Yes, they are GUIDELINES, which means they are merely helps to wikipedians, and nobody can insist that someone even abides by them, but that is even beside the point because notability of individual facts is not even a guideline, and anyone who tyrannically insists otherwise is violating multiple Wikipedian policies. Dominick also shows his Double standard as he finds it perfectly allowable in the Bernadette Soubirous article to allow such things as I number-listed above in this discussion - the most ordinary facts that are not notable at all, but common to thousands of people. Dominick's approval of them shows by his request on the Talk page there to remove the warning about PoV. (Diligens 04:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC))

I came back for a second. I took a peak at the previous version of the article and did see some sentences that did not have any references. I get concerned when an editor writes what the subject of the article thinks or feels when there is no published citation showing that it is actually what the subject thinks or feels. Nothing wrong with adding non-contentious facts like the name of a church, but in other areas, having a citation from some published source that states what the subject thinks or feels is a standard that no one can complain about. If you can't find anything published by or about the subject (no references from the subject's own website!) then maybe the individual isn't notable enough in that area to have something about his thoughts or feelsing in that particular area added top the article. If you are a friend or any enemy of the subject of the article, the standard still applies. This is the only chance NPOV can be ensured in my mind. Of course, another editor has often complained that I am either incompetent or devious. Bernie Radecki 07:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Bernie. My only motivation is diabolical, according to the "Great Authority". Dominick ^(TALK) 11:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Who, then, is this "Great Authority" you speak of, by name? (Diligens 13:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC))

Reorganization

I reorganized the article in a way I think flows better. Some notes on the changes here.

• Didn't understand what "of the First Order" meant.
• Line about the ORCM name being hastily chosen belongs in ORCM article.
• Views on bishop Thuc are in his article, so deleted dissident and re-fixed the article link, again
• Included concise statement of cassiacum thesis, hopefully it's accurate. Expanding it further doesn't read well, and should go in the cassiacum article anyway - that one needs attention too.
• Moved quote to connect with cassiacum, seemed a good fit.
• It seems like he has taken referrals from the Warrens, so tried avoid the impression he had no connections
• Other simplified language

If this seems OK and fairly stable, suggest archiving and clearing the talk page. Gimmetrow 21:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough to me. I just made a few alterations. I agree about leaving out "First Order" because people would not generaly understand and is not necessary as I believe all Dominican priests are so anyway. I am considering adding in about the Dominican Religious Sister order he has founded back around 1980. Having about 12 religious sisters in full habit as it was before the 1960's is a prominent fact of interest to the public. (Diligens 22:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC))

You've gone back to this phrase at least once before, and I don't understand why.

Cassiciacum Thesis developed by his consecrator, which maintains that the papal claimants since Paul VI have not been true popes due to their public heresies, with the added philosophical distinction that they have only been popes materially but not formally.

Why not by des Lauriers? Why maintains instead of states? If they are popes materially why use papal claimants which seems to say something else? Also the material vs. formal needs context. It seems that formal here means having authority, so why not just say that? This would give:

Cassiciacum Thesis developed by des Lauriers, which states that the popes since Paul VI have not been true popes due to their public heresies, but have only been popes materially without having papal authority.

• I am familiar with the subject. The "des Lauriers" is really not his name, it is more of an added title. His last name is Guerard. People screw this up a lot. Since it was immediately following the name of his consecrator already with mention that he was consecrated, it seems best to avoid abbreviating his name altogether and just say "consecrator".

• Then you should fix the article on him. I think "his consecrator" sounds awkward but it's tolerable.

• As for maintains or states I could probably ask why you are asking me because it seems you prefer the latter for some reason. Be that as it may, they are basically the same in denotation, but there is a connotation to maintains that corresponds more with something deeper philosophically and more lasting argumentatively, which it has been.

• "states" is more neutral.

• They are simply "not true popes", that is why "papal claimants" is appropriate. You have to understand the philosophy to understand. The term materially is not what it appears unless you know Scholastic philosophy. I don't think anything else needs to be said about it because there is a link to the thesis that should explain it for people. Saying "not true popes" is crucial, and saying "for public heresy" is crucial. And they being "not true popes" already implies no authority, so it doesn't need to be explicated.

• OK, if you think it's crucial.

• Just for your sake, a man is composed of body and soul. When someone says "human" or "man" they always intend it philosophically to be "formally", but it need not be explicated. When a man dies and his soul is separated, the body can no longer be called a "man", it becomes a "cadaver", which is an entirely different entity. You can cut up and bury a cadaver, but you cannot do that to a man. However, philosophically, the cadaver is considered a man "materially" but not "formally", nevertheless we can say categorically that "it is not a man". The loss of his spiritual soul caused this, but, like Lazarus, it could return, and for all of us, will return in the last day. For a post-vatican II man that is a papal claimant, he doesn't have the soul of the papacy but nevertheless has the lesser legal control of administration that is normally part of the papacy (the body). Were the man to regain supernatural faith by renouncing his heresy, he would remove the obstacle and gain the soul of the papacy, having supernatural faith and being Catholic, and become categorically a true pope. That is the best I can do for people who don't know the philosophy. (Diligens 23:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC))

• Would this be OK? "...Cassiciacum Thesis developed by his consecrator, which states that the papal claimants since Paul VI have not been true popes due to their public heresies, but have only been papa materialiter." Gimmetrow 00:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. (Diligens 00:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC))

I added illicit everything else is palitable. Bigger fish to fry ATM. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough to add something about that, but it actually begs the question because consecrations without papal mandate are allowed in the Church under extraordinary circumstances. I will have to think about this one. (Diligens 03:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

If there is a bona fide emergency. Few buy into the perpetual emergency theory. Dominick ^(TALK) 03:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There are precedents in history for consecrations without papal mandate. Those particular emergencies were not perpetual, and were also minor in comparison to a situation of a pope becoming a heretic, which the Church says can happen. It's what they call the argumentum a fortiori. The Church has also taught from Scripture that in the end there would hardly be anyone with faith left, and that wouldn't be perpetual either because the end would come. (Diligens 03:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

If you found an article that quotes the bishop as to the reason he has done these consecrations without a papal mandate, would you consider it acceptable to add it to the article? Or if there was a statement that he had made regarding this being the end times? Bernie Radecki 14:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is already directly implied in the fact that the popes are not recognized as true, for how can you get approval of someone who you believe does not exist? However, it would be good for a footnote if you found some quote showing the teaching of the Church about how papal mandates have not always been required. For instance, Pius XII approved of consecrations without papal mandate behind the Iron Curtain when the tyranny did not allow for any contact with Rome. The Church must go on. The CMRI site has an article listing several historical names of clergy having been consecrated with papal mandate, but I don't know their source. Would have to write CMRI. (Diligens 15:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

Unless the quote is directly from McKenna, it really belongs in one of the articles on sedevacantism or sedeprivationism. Beware of shifting the article too much in his favor. As it stands, this article has no real criticism of him, and in fairness probably should have something to the effect that the official Catholic Church considers him excommunicated. Likewise, I felt it OK to downplay his connections with the Warrens in order not to slander a living person, but I could easily see someone taking the opposite view as it can be referenced. Gimmetrow 16:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, people tend to lose sight of WP policy where it demands that NPOV be considered inseparably from Verifiability. That means that if all the Verifiable truths are all positive, it is perfectly acceptable to leave it all positive. It is only when what is actually verifiable opposes itself equally that it must be wording to conform to that equality. Frankly, for an article to mention that a man doesn't believe there have been true popes since 1965 and that the brunt of ostensible Catholic hierarchy are heretics and have lost their authority, is quite heavily negative (as far as the general public is concerned) though verifiably true - the average person thinking immediately he is a nut. I am perfectly welcome to find verifiable truths to make that more positive. The rule says that positive takes precedence to the negative in biographies of living people. Robert McKenna has been a bishop publicly for 20 years now and has never been excommunicated by the men at the Vatican. It would be OR to claim to the contrary based on decisions made about Abp. Thuc and his own discipline coming from the men in the Vatican. (Diligens 16:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

And yet the article represents his views, and all criticisms of those views are left unstated or implied through a link. I was saying that new material shouldn't just be paraphrased opinion attributed to him, which would make the article appear a soapbox for one controversial viewpoint. If it is verifiable, fine, though an article containing (say) 20 quotes without opposing criticism might have difficulty avoiding POV. As it stands, I can live with it. On another note, do you have (or have access to) the original Cassiciacum text of Gerard des Lauriers? I've searched the web and cannot find it despite quite a few references to it. Gimmetrow 17:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have been giving some time to studying policy. You are mistaking what NPOV means. It means the Encyclopedia speaking to the reader must take into account all verifiable sources in presenting the information. What the view of the person is that the article is about is not subject to WP policy. All that needs to be verifiable is that the person truly believes it, even if he believes the moon is made of cheese and gives his proof. For instance, if you have a notable creation scientist, his own view is his, not the encyclopedia. You would then merely link-reference a biography on a notable evolutionist whose own few opposes it elsewhere on WP. NPOV is not FCC equal time applied to a WP article. I see so many people mistaking this. Since the article is about Robert McKenna, his own monthly newletters verify his position. Is your concern that the paraphrasing is not representative of what he believes? In that case maybe the article on Charles Darwin should only contain quotes? But that really is what articles are all about, people who know the subject, reference it, and summarize it. The Catholic Encyclopedia is a good example --Diligens 18:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

An article on a person noted for his views should accurately reflect that person's views. Quotes are fine. Accurate paraphrases are fine. However, I have come across articles (not the case here) where I suspect the paraphrasing includes additional argumentation meant to address later criticism. That passes from reporting a persons views to defending them, which seems to me likely to express POV unless the criticism is also reported. I haven't read through the Darwin article here, but I have seen people attribute ideas to Origin of Species that came later, and also to attribute to later thought ideas actually expressed in Origin. Both would be wrong. The CE is not a good comparision, as the articles there were commissioned and usually bear the author's name, and some clearly have a point of view. I don't have time to dig through all the WP policy pages, so if you're referring to something specific can you provide a link? Gimmetrow 19:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is a certain amount of trust involved always. You need a reasonable doubt after reading something in order to ask verification. For instance, saying something like, "I have read the Origin of the Species and don't see anything about a certain concept you bring in." A person could reply that he never implied that was in the 'Origin of the Species' but in other works by the man. I guess at that point the article author should provide something that looks like it addresses that particular point in concept, not necessarily word-for-word. Why would you be concerned that I misrepresent the position of Robert McKenna? Is there something specific, or is it just hypothetical possibility? --Diligens 20:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetical. Gimmetrow

I noticed there is a Wikipedia article intitled 'Valid but Unlawful' that could be applied to the topic of consecrating a bishop without a papal mandate. I do not know if this could be used in the article to demonstrate the "official" position of the Catholic Church in regards to Bishop Mckenna's actions. Some might say it is a stretch in that the Vatican has never addressed McKenna or his consecrations of other men personally. As far as a positive, verifiable statement, has McKenna ever made a public statement explaining why he sought consecration or why he has consecrated others? This could counter the current quotation of his that is arguably negative yet true. Bernie Radecki 04:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That is a good idea. Unfortunately there are problems with that article itself. Some things need to be excised and other things added. I still don't think an extra statement needs to be quoted from the person. It is obvious from the circumstances why something like that needs to be done based on his stand in the crisis, as I previously said. (Diligens 09:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

I remain interested in Mckenna's own view on why he consecrated so many indivduals. Currently, there is only one direct quote from the man and it is from 1980. I imagine this predated him consecrating anyone. I hate to belabour this so this will be the last time I bring it up, but I think everyone realizes the consecrations represent "crossing the Rubicon" in the Catholic world. If McKenna had a regular newsletter, surely he has addressed this critical topic. I hope that someday the crisis in the Church is resolved and at that time, an individuals intent may be critical. This article could preserve his intent. I agree, it would not have to be in his own words although that never hurts especially if the newsletter cited as reference is of limited circulation. Bernie Radecki 22:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone would be baffled as to why any bishop would consecrate other bishops or ordain priests. It is simply a part of any bishop's ordained duty to do so. Salvation of souls, spreading the Faith, strengthening the Church, making the Sacraments more available, touching more lives for conversion, etc. All the more important in times of great crisis. --Diligens 22:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)