 | This article was nominated for deletion on 24 June 2016. The result of the discussion was merge to Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| This article was nominated for deletion on 16 march 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
POV Fork edit
George Wagner et al:
Starting an article under a different name than "Francis Schuckardt" and then directly copying from the article on him all the negative material about him without any of the corresponding answers and counterclaims is not permitted by Wikipedia under the title of POV forks: "A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive points of view. This is generally considered unacceptable.
Furthermore, Wiki policy states that "An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant." The views expressed in Bishop Schuckardt's article defending him are neither misguided nor repugnant, but even it they were, they clearly have a place in this article.
I believe that this article should be deleted and will post it for deletion after you have had an opportunity to demonstrate why it should remain. Until then, the Answers... should be left in.
Fra. John 3/14/06
Fra John: Here is the problem: You are copying everything from the Schuckardt article and placing them in this one. These are two seperate articles and need to be left that way. The information you added is irrelevant and it appears you are on a crusade to defame Fr. Denis' good name. You have proven this in the other article as well as this one. This article should remain because Fr. Denis is entitled to have his own page just as you are or anyone else. Just because you hate the man dosn't give you any right act the way you are!
Also, your "Counter Claims" section isn't sufficiently proven. I just re-read it and the only citings you show are definitions from the Catholic Church, the one YOU don't belong to. I need documentation from your group not first hand knowledge. This also applies to the other article. So fix it or it stays gone.....
George Wagner 3/18/06
- George Wagner:
- Your are violating Wiki policy. [removal of attacks]and adhere to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Once you do that you will [removal of personal attack] statements. Thank you. Fra. John Athanasius303 21:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Fra John: But of course............... These don't resemble encyclopedia articles, they resemble a one sided view trying to discredit Fr. Denis. I am in the process of starting a website with a talk forum on this subject. The truth will be told........ George Wagner 3/22/06
The arguments for the AN are noted on Francis Schuckardt discussion. Seeing how this article is a copy of the other, the changes should reflect it. George Wagner 24 MAY 06
This one is a mess! It was just a cut and paste from the Francis Schuckardt article. It needs a major overhaul. Bernie Radecki 16:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Undisputed facts do not need citations - are you disputing his discharge as non-factual?
- I have no knowledge of it, so yes. Bernie Radecki 21:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)