RutgerH

Hi RutgerH, I noticed a comment you made at the Talk:Chip Reid and was going to add a welcome template to your talk page. I notice from your edits however that you seem to be pretty up-to-speed on what policy and guidelines are already. So, rather than just drop a template, I'll just stop by and say Hi, and welcome! Happy editing. ;) — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 19:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Warning

To make it official, your acting unilaterally against consensus on the Pope Benedict article can be seen as disruptive and may result in being blocked. The National Catholic Review is an independent source, not "in house" written by one of the most respected journalist on the subject of the Vatican. It is up to you to show that the source if not reliable, and your claim that the word "catholic" proves it is not reliable is not sufficeint to do so. Continue disrupting the article, despite the warning you already received on the articles talk page, and you may be blocked. I came to this article because of the current ongoing edit warring that stemmed from your desire to put in controversial FRINGE material.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Under what policy are you making that claim? Please link to the disruptive edits I made to the article or the unilateral action. Biased editors cannot form a consensus. How many times do I have to repeat that I opposed including that information but also opposed labelling it as fringe? It is not up to me to show the source is unreliable and it's even bolded on WP:RS so you won't miss it. Stalking, harassment and false claims about other users are clearly personal attacks. RutgerH (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The policy is that this was discussed on the articles talk page and you are the only person who believes the source to be unreliable. You were warned by two people on the articles talk page that if you made unilateral edits that it would be reverted---and when you did so a third admin reverted your edits and concurred that the source is reliable. You are the one who has consistently shown a strong bias on this article. From your desire to insert a fringe theory of an individual into the article to your misguided belief that a source is not reliable if it has the word "catholic" in it. You go to Editor Assistance seeking help, where the person who responds says "the whole idea [of the legal suit] is silly." Three admins who aren't involved with the article (myself, thaddeus, and NuclearWarfare have spoken in opposition to your edits. Evidence has been presented as to the sources reliability, all you've done is say that, "It has the word Catholic in the name, therefore it has to be unreliable." So far you have not remade the edit that was reverted, but if you do so, you are running the risk of being blocked.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So your policy, not wikipedia's. Cite the policy or drop it. I've already added to a noticeboard but since you're an admin it's clear that won't be enough. I did not make a unitlateral edit against concensus and you can't cite it becasue it doesn't exist so stop that false accusation.

I opposed the fringe theory's inclusion so that's false as well, how many times would you like me to repeat it?

I opposed the fringe theory's inclusion...twice enough?

That's not my belief but it's a nice strawman to again support a clear agenda. On any other topic you wouldn't accept it. I can't see Nuclear's note, could you cite it? You are involved in the article and so is ThaddeusB and to claim otherwise is again being ridiculous. I've also specifically stated policies and what sections are relevant which you're ignoring. It doesn't matter how many people, user or admins, you can get to support your agenda. RutgerH (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No the policy is that you do not disrupt wikipedia. There is no support to remove it. So far you have not re-introduced the material. I am, however, thankful to see that you are finally acknowledging that the case was a fringe theory. Nuclear is the admin who reverted the edit and cited a page wherein he writes Dawkins has denied this, and it is rather trivial in the overall picture---eg WP:UNDUE an argument that you repeatedly rejected.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You claim I'm being disruptive but you're clearing ignoring the user who obviously is. The talk page history speaks volumes as does that users contributions and their edit warring. I don't like to ask but it has to be done. Are you a catholic and/or christian that views the Pope as gods representative on earth?

Because it's not undue (we'll continue here rather than on the admin page?). I've read through the undue policy and I don't see it. Not being facetious (me) what is the exact line or phrase in that policy that makes you think that? I specifically stated why it's not fringe as the policy clearly states once a theory gains acceptance by a notable figure it's no longer fringe. The user attempted to argue that person wasn't notable and was a blp violation etc etc. which was false. Hitchens idea, he went to Dawkins who was going to refer him to another human rights lawyer but Robertson came along. I did fail to make that clear enough initially so that might have clouded any opinion of it.

Regarding the questionable sources I don't comprehend how you can claim we can represent such a statement as a fact when it's made by a newspaper which is clearly run by catholics, for catholics to promote a catholic agenda. Would you disagree with those last three statements? RutgerH (talk) 08:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agreed from my very first post on the first subject that it shouldn't be included yet you and the other user continued to misrepresent my position. Would you disagree with that? RutgerH (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

And I don't think it's fringe, I was just using your wording. RutgerH (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to get to bed... have to wake up in 3 hours. But let me ask you this: In an article on the Pope, how many pertinent issues can you think of that might go into the section on Sexual Abuse in the CAtholic Church? I can think of half a dozen legitimate issues that have a stronger claim than the theory of a lone lawyer in England. I mean everybody who sees that case knows that it isn't going to go anywhere and won't materialize. Thus, it is a non-issue. There are a lot of other issues whose mentioning would be more appropriate. It fits UNDUE because this fringe theory aint going no where and there are other issues much more deserving of inclusion than it. Now if it does go somewhere, then that changes everything. If the pope were to be arrested then it would be notable. As is, it is not worth mentioning in the article, to do so would be to give undue weight to a fringe theory.

As for fringe, it is fringe, as explained on the Pope Talk page. The fact that a person may be a notable lawyer does not negate the fact that he can still hold a fringe theory.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 09:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer any of my questions so if you want to discuss this further start with those. RutgerH (talk) 09:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've read through the undue policy and I don't see it. Not being facetious (me) what is the exact line or phrase in that policy that makes you think that?

I don't comprehend how you can claim we can represent such a statement as a fact when it's made by a newspaper which is clearly run by catholics, for catholics to promote a catholic agenda. Would you disagree with those last three statements?

I agreed from my very first post on the first subject that it shouldn't be included yet you and the other user continued to misrepresent my position. Would you disagree with that?

RutgerH (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You argued that this [the British biologist/popular science author calling for the Pope's arrest arrest] could be a "major event both in his life and the church and very much deserving of it's place in this article" (I would say it could be a major event in the biologist's life, not in the pope's). You then used most of your energy to argue this wasn't a fringe position but failed to produce any evidence except the fact that Christopher Hitchens, a popular science author and one British human rights lawyer advocated this position - which hardly proves that this is a credible/mainstream view. If you didn't succeed in conveying that you opposed the inclusion of this material (it didn't seem like that at all to me), I don't think it's my or Balloonman's fault. Jeannedeba (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You're still misrepresenting it. Hitchens, not Dawkins and this is what I actually said.

As it stands and as it's being reported this could very well be a major event both in his life and the church and very much deserving of it's place in this article. However I don't want to start a edit war so lets wait and see what other editors have to say on the issue.

I provided clear evidence and cited the policy which neither of you responded specifically but rather made wild claims or continued to misrepresent my view which you're still doing. Cease and desist. RutgerH (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No. You insist that this fringe theory deserves mentioning in the article even though it lacks any meat. Right now, it is merely a theoretical argument which could be used, but that nobody except for the proponents give much credence to. We've tried to explain to why this is a FRINGE theory and UNDUE, but you appear unwilling to or unable to understand those basic principles. You seem to think that just because a notable individual says something that it makes it worth including---which is not the case. Including this would be a violation of both Fringe and Undue. If it ever turns into a more significant event, other than a hypothetical one, then it might warrant inclusion. At this point the idea that the Pope could be arrested for crimes committed by the Catholic Church are nothing more than speculative law---a fringe theory. A theory that we have both acknowledged could go into the article on the scandals or into the article on the lawyer making the speculative theory. But as of right now, does not belong in the main article on the Pope.

You insist that a source, for the sole reason that it has the word "catholic" in it, is unreliable. You fail to recognize that sources can be "catholic" and still reliable---even on subject related to catholicism. Being a catholic magazine does not mean that it lacks editorial oversight and review. It does not mean that it won't do due dilligence or be reliable. Your argument hinges entirely upon the notion that one word in the title negates even the possibility of objective reporting or reputation. That is a clear bias on your part. Neither of us have advocated anywhere that a non-catholic source is better or worse than, yet you pretend that we hold to a position that says only catholic sources can be used. Nowhere have we said or advocated such a position.

Those are the facts. You have yet to show where we have not allowed criticism of the pope or Catholic church in to the article, but you lay level upon level of criticism showing your personal bias.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 12:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I will concede one point to RutgerH here: I am "involved" in the sense that I won't be taking administrative actions on the article. I have complete confidence in my ability to act neutrally, but I will refrain for the purpose of causing drama. That doesn't, however, mean I won't request another admin to do so if the need arises (and based on the two edit wares in two days, we are certainly headed in that direction). --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No I don't insist it deserves inclusion in the article at this moment. I have always insisted after the initial comment by another user that it shouldn't be included for recentism reasons I just objected to the use of WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP and whatever other policy people were simply throwing at it incorrectly. I've cited the line in WP:FRINGE for my reasons and but you're still ignoring that.

My wanting to exclude that information isn't just because of the word catholic it's because it's a questionable source that wasn't backed up by a mainstream, verifiable source. I asked for a reliable source to further verify such statements of fact yet none could be found. Again you're misrepresenting my position.

Show me the 'level upon level' of criticism.

Thank you ThaddeusB I'm glad you're able to step back a bit. Perhaps you can talk some sense into Balloonman whos 'not involved' (despite 30 or so comments on the talk page). RutgerH (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm involved now, but I came to this discussion because of this fringe theory. And as for reliable sources, John Allen is about as respected as you can get. The source was not questionable, and the only reason that you gave that it was questionable was "hint it's in the name". But if there are other reasons than the fact that it has the word catholic in the title, then please let us know what they are. The magazine, is after all, independent of any ecclesiastical oversight (EG it is not run or controlled by the any religious organization.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You claimed to be not involved well after most of those comments. That was not my reason and you're being disingenuous to continue to say so. If your arguement was so strong and accurate you wouldn't need to constantly misrepresent me, create strawmen or make false accusations. If it's such a well known fact about such an important person you could provide dozens of mainstream, reputable sources. You can't. RutgerH (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)