User talk:Sunray/Archive18

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.[1] 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 ^(talk) 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 ^talk 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia article about Bush. It violates Wikipedia avowed goal of NPOV and it violates BLP. Now, I know that consensus in Wikipedia editing is one of the goals, but consensus does NOT override other valid Wikipedia 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

[2] 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 [3].) 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 ^talk 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.

Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 ^talk 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 Wikipedia community. --Carlaude ^talk 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 [4], and controversy and court cases about affirmative action at Michigan [5].

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)

I've (belatedly) drafted something about the Henry report that we might insert into the article. I decided to do it in a quiet corner [6] so as not to attract the attention of POV warriors. Would you be willing to take a look and see what you think. If you consider it worth pursuing, please go ahead and make editorial changes/additions as you see fit. Sunray (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good - neutral, in a historical vein, and not too long. I don't see any obvious editorial changes that need to be done. I think it's a valid inclusion to an overview article. I would say lets put it in and see what happens. BTW, do you have an affiliation with Queen's?BC_{talk to me} 23:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Wilco. No I don't have a direct affiliation with Queen's. I did live in Kingston, though, so I have an affinity for Queen's. I have a pretty good feel for the culture and can understand the university's struggles with this issue.

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)

I don't understand the problem. Clearly there is more than one name. Our task is to pick the name that the Church most commonly calls itself. Try this: Do a google search of the vatican website (website: www.vatican.va "the Catholic Church"). Substitute any name you wish for "Catholic Church." Let me know what you find. Sunray (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how to do a Google search on the www.vatican.va site. I just did a search with the site's own search function, and got confirmation that "Roman Catholic Church" is also used on that site as a name for the Church. But there is no need to do even that, since you admit that "there is more than one name" used by the Church for self-identification. In that case, how can we say that CC is the name used by the Church to describe itself, when it is only one of the names used by the Church to describe itself? Maybe you meant that CC is the name most commonly used by the Church to describe itself, as you are now saying and as I too accept. But that is not what you have put in the text. What is in the text is the claim that CC "is not only the most common name, but the name (singular, exclusive of all other names) used by the Church to describe itself". This claim is even stressed by italics. Soidi (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[ "the Catholic church" site:www.vatican.va ] would be the correct search string. Gotta get off the computer now, but I hope that helps; if you don't know the exact syntax, Advanced Search will do the same thing. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Practically the same result as by using the site's own search function: "Roman Catholic Church" is one of the self-identifying names that the Church uses. Was there ever any doubt? So on what grounds do we justify speaking of a different name as "the" name, when it is no more than "a" name? It may be "the most frequently used" self-identifying name, but it is not "the" self-identifying name. As Sunray has said, "clearly there is more than one (self-identifying) name"; so we can't speak of any one of them simply as "the (self-identifying) name". Soidi (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that "RCC" was a self-identifying name. I said it was a name used. There is a difference. If you think that there is a question that CC is the name most commonly used by the Church, we should establish our search method and parameters. If you look at the three statements of our findings, though, it is pretty clear. As to whether CC is a self-identifying name. It does seem to me to meet the criteria specified in WP guidelines. What am I missing here? Sunray (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you are missing anything. You agree, I think, that the Church uses more than one name to refer to itself (self-identifying names, as opposed to names applied to it by others). The expression "the name used by the Church" (as if there were no other) has now been corrected, though by someone less courteous than you. Soidi (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church

Hey Sunray- thank you for letting me be in the discussion as well. From what I can tell- from a 3rd party observer (someone who theologically can care less whether it is Catholic or Roman Catholic in the name), the name should be Catholic.

I do have a Bias toward Catholic Church- being Catholic myself- but I think a 3rd party observer would agree with me anyway.

Thank you for letting me be in the discussion! --Rockstone35 (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Cut and paste move

Is there any particular reason that you moved List of national founding fathers using cut-and-paste, instead of the move button? There was no history at the title "List of national founders", and I thought that since you've been on Wikipedia for a long time, you'd know that cut and paste moves are a very bad idea for copyright reasons. I've history merged the page; I specialise in this work, and found the article through this list of history merging candidates. If you moved any other page using cut-and-paste in the past, let me know and I'll try to fix it for you. Regards, Graham87 12:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot think why I did that. I know how to do page moves. Thanks for fixing that. Sunray (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Second Sustainability PR

Hi Sunray, I was glad to help with the first PR, but I'd rather not do a second one. This is a huge article that probably should be reviewed by someone entirely new to it and perhaps by a scientist before going to FA. You might ask someone directly who is on the PR volunteer list at WP:PRV to have a look. I would also suggest re-submitting to PR through the regular process. If you get more than one review this way, so much the better. I would advise against taking the article straight to FAC. Glancing at the "Reference" section (a quick way to see how editors have handled small details), I see three problems that would annoy FAC reviewers: (1) page ranges take unspaced en dashes rather than hyphens; (2) some of the citations are broken or incomplete; (3) the date formatting in the citations is inconsistent. WP: MOSTIME#Full date formatting has details about the dates. These may seem like nitpicky issues in the larger scheme of things, but FA represents Wikipedia's best work. Finetooth (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE gives a good answer to your question about citations in the lead. Finetooth (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping - World Forestry Congress

Hello Sunray,

Thanks for all of your contributions, tips, message, advice and also for returning! I could just sense your presence being there... eh eh... your help is most appreciated, special thanks for highlighting what exactly I must do and which section sof Wikipedia I could use as reference. Will complete this in the next coming days-meanwhile, great act of solidarity, thanks!Isiaunia (talk) 09:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

WFC

Big thanks to you, Sunray. I've noticed and am already working on it. Will contact our fellow Wikipedian as soon as I'm finished - trying to at least quickly fix this. Yes, asking what needs be done is a great idea!

Again, thanks for all the tips and suggestions- I remmeber sending out a message asking for help and, Lo!, I've been listened to :-) Isiaunia (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Notice

[7] With this edit you have changed the result of mediation. It could be argued that your edit is an abuse of your position. I note also that during the mediation, you consisently failed to warn certain editors when such editors made false and provoking comments disparaging of other editors, but instead predominently warned one editor when that editor replied to the false comments. It could be argued that this shows a pattern of mediator abuse. Please consider your actions carefully. Gimmetrow 17:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

WFC - contact with Sherool

Hi Sunray-dropping a line to say that, I've writtent to Sherool on the talk page he opened for the World Forestry Congress. Have you edited the image I usedfor the XIII WFC logo? If so, many thanks - it reads wonderfully! Isiaunia (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, dear Sunray. That is exactly what I've just done - have copied and pasted my comment on the Talk Page and let him know that all of the required changes have been done, to the best of my understanding of the Wikipedia guidelines for non-free images. I have clicked the button, Save, and your kind message was in my talk page. Coincidence doesn't seem to exist ;-) Isiaunia (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive 22

Not sure if you've noticed, but you might have moved the above archive to the wrong place... ;) TheLeftorium 20:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, my bad. I fix. Sunray (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

By the time I got there, RHaworth had already fixed it. Thanks to both of you (a body can't even screw things up around here anymore). :) Sunray (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

But the Archive 22 article still exists? It needs to be deleted. :P TheLeftorium 20:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I've requested speedy deletion. Sunray (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Closing statements for mediation on Roman Catholic Church

Could you leave one on Talk:Roman Catholic Church as well? Not everyone will be watching the subpage and we should, as a courtesy, let people know what's happening and why. I support the conclusion of the mediation wholeheartedly. I just want to minimize any grousing that follows the implementation of the conclusion.

--Richard (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good point. I've done that. Sunray (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said...

On 13 June 2009 I posted a fairly detailed objection to what seems a clear instance of inserting words out of thin air and claim they are from a "souce."

I did stop following all the arguments in detail after a while-- to keep my blood pressure down-- but I am fairly sure no one addressed this issue, ever. If no one objects to this change to the note-- it can only be interprated as consensous for this change. Xandar did sak a question but I asked him for clairification on his homepage here-- rather than guess what he was asking for-- and he never answered. He either did have an answer, didn't really care much about the issue, or only wanted to ask a retorical question hoping some point would be made. At the very least the issues is unresolved. I guess don't really see how it would have been unless someone took up the issue again from scrach, but before I post this again, can you confirm-- as far as you know-- that this was not adressed latter somewhere else? And of course, if so, exacly where --^{Carlaude:Talk} 20:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

POV in the new note

As some of the participants are aware, but have not addressed, the new explanatory note cantains unsouced allegations, namely:

“ the name "Roman Catholic Church" is disliked by many Catholics as a label applied to them by Protestants to suggest that theirs is only one of several catholic Churches... ”

(1) While I am sure Protestants have used the term, so have other Christians, NonChristians, and as is clear elsewhere, "Catholics" have used the term of themselves.

More to the point the cited souce does not attripute this to Protestants; it attributes it just to others and Wikipedia should only attribute it to others."

(2) The reference cites only a basic info about the book and a http address at books.google.com that will be a dead link once the book falls below sales quotas someday. It should quote the source, Walsh, Michael (2005). Roman Catholicism as such:

“ A good many Roman Catholics object to the epithet 'Roman'. They do so for a variety of reasons. One is that... calling them Roman rather suggests that there are other, equally valid, kinds of Catholic, such as - and in particular - Anglo Catholic. Another reason why the term is disliked is because it is sometimes used by those hostile to Roman Catholicism to suggest that its adherents do not really belong to the nation in which they live, that they are somehow 'foreign'... cannot be loyal citizens of their native land. ”

If the whole quote is deemed too long including part of it could be fine.

(3) Since RCs have theological reasons for objecting to "Roman Catholic Church" then (to not be POV) you have to include the theological reasons of other Christians for objecting to "Catholic Church."

Non-RC Christians, object that rather than merely being under the implication that their Church is "one of other, equally valid, kinds" of Christians, Catholic Church implies that every other church is not even "one of other, equally valid, kinds."

“ ...many 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 object that the label "Catholic Church" presumes it is the one uniquely valid church.... ”

Wikipedia:Describing points of view#Usage_note says "Wikipedia should describe all major points of view, when treating controversial subjects."

Wikipedia:Describing points of view says "An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikpedia's NPOV policy."

--Carlaude ^talk 11:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have reliable references that make the points about the term "Catholic" that you think should be in the note? Xandar 12:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bring this to my attention. With respect to your first two points, you note that Walsh does not use the term "Protestants" and I think you are correct that it is misleading to do so. It seems to me that a fairly simple change to the note might address this concern. For example, by simply eliminating the word "Protestant" or substituting the word "others" for it the statement conforms to the citation. I will propose this change.

Your third point is more complicated. You state that to be neutral one must include all points of view. While this is true, there is a qualification in the policy with respect to undue weight. The policy on naming requires us to select the name that an entity uses to refer to itself. Thus it may be misleading, in explaining use of the names, to mention what other churches think the name should be. If we were to include the statement about other Christians views, it would also be necessary to quote the reason why the policy restricts us from considering this. This all seems like a long way round to get to the point of why we have chosen to name the article "Catholic Church."

Nevertheless, if you think that this is something that participants in the mediation have overlooked, we could certainly raise it on the talk page. Let me know if you want to do that, and whether you want to raise it or you would like me to do so. Sunray (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of Carlaude's points. However, I would like to suggest that we consider the focal point of the mediation to be the question of whether or not the Catholic Church has an "official name" and whether the name "Roman Catholic Church" is used in official documents and contexts. I believe those issues have been resolved through the mediation process. Other issues such as are mentioned by Carlaude above have been discussed in the course of the mediation process but were NOT the central points in dispute. Thus, modification of the text to address these other points can be discussed on the Talk Page without reference to this mediation process which is now closed. This kind of thing is exactly why I wanted to assert that the text of the Note not be considered "cast in concrete". --Richard (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed that the mediation is closed and I did not intend to imply that I would re-open it. I meant that this could be a subject for discussion on the talk page. While I might participate, it would not be as a mediator. Sunray (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your input.

Yes-- if you are willing-- it one of raised the issue on talk it would be quite appreciated by me; I think it would genarate more consideration. If not I can still post something verymuch like above.--^{Carlaude:Talk} 05:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Susty citations

Hi Sunray - that's fine of course, and thanks for plodding on with the formatting. I will have a look too, and if you handball any problems to me that you find I will try to iron them out, starting with the one you mentioned. Granitethighs (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

For starters, you might want to take a look at Finetooth's comments above. He used a very nice tool called checklinks to look at external links. For starters, you might check that out. The ones shaded in red (uh, salmon?) are dead and need replacing. Sunray (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I was also wondering whether we should start a log for needed actions on the article talk page, in case anyone else wants to help out. What do you think? Sunray (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)