Regarding Anonymous edits[edit]

Don't know that it matters, but some of the edits attributed to me from 71.34.208.220 were made by my wife and not by me. Also, Athanasius303 is 206.188.34.200 as I stated in the request for arbitration.

Regarding section on Strong Negative POV.[edit]

I hope it is not inappropriate to include here information that I believe supports my personal point of view that Schuckardt's church is some type of cult. I admit I have a strong NPOV regarding Schuckardt just as Athanasius303 has a strong positive point of view on his religious superior. I try very hard not to have my POV reflected in the wording I use in the article itself, but I do think it is the majority point of view that Schuckardt's church is a cult. I believe the POV that Schuckardt is the last bishop on earth or represents the true Roman Catholic Church is the minority point of view. For this reason, I believe it appropriate to include in the article cited references reflecting the majority point of view using neutral language. Athanasius303 has been somewhat successful keeping cited, negative material out. I show below some of the widespread sources from the last few years that regularly refer to Schuckardt's church as a cult. I have about 20 more articles from the 70s and 80s in which Schuckardt is referred to as some type of cult leader. Definitely, there is a great deal of third party evidence that former members spanning 30 years uniformally consider him to be a cult leader.

The King County Journal reported in the article "Alleged cult molester surrenders." on Nov. 30, 2005O "One of two young men wanted by police for allegedly molesting a young boy while living with an Eastside group known to many as a cult."

The King County Journal article also has: It's most likely that the cult is shielding or hiding them, said King County sheriff's spokesman Sgt. John Urquhart. This breakaway group is not recognized by the (Roman Catholic) church. They're a cult.

Jason King of Una Voce of Western Washington: This cult is separate and distinct from the Catholic Church, King said. It's not recognized by the archdiocese. This cult doesn't even believe that Pope Benedict (XVI) is the pope.

Joe Scarborough, MSNBC Nov. 23, 2005: "Experts and victims are blaming the Tridentine Rite group, a cult, for the scandal that has struck a church near Seattle." Also quoted is Kevin Raleigh, Son of a Tridentine Memeber: "I believe it’s a destructive cult. I believe it has nothing to do with religion. And I make that observation 13 years ago after reading a book by Steve Esan. It’s a destructive cult. It’s actually a very secret society."

King 5 News, November 4, 2005 has this headline: "Investigators: Eastside cult faces sex abuse claim"

Channel 9 News out of Denver on 11/3/2005 in the article "Denver Family Tries to Free Mother from Religious Cult" has this quote: "The "Bishop" convinced two of the Raleigh children, Rose Marie and Peter, to leave home and become part of his reclusive and tightly-disciplined cult.

It also has: "His cult has been the subject of news reports about physical and sexual abuse, and Schuckardt himself was arrested on drug charges in California."

Seattle Times 11/25/2002 "The Sect Behind the Shroud" be Susan Kelleher containes this quote from the Bishop who consecrated Schuckardt in 1972: "Within two years, in 1973, Brown said in a letter to Schuckardt that "Your group has become a personal cult of Francis Schuckardt and cannot call itself Catholic."

There is an inside view and an outside view. Part of the outside view, that of former members and Mount advocates is a sort of inside view. Viewed from totally outside, it is just a small church with unusual views and practices. Fred Bauder 01:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought perhaps this provided the necessary evidence that even the true outside view is not that it is a small church but rather a small cult. Thank you for your time. Bernie Radecki 02:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on deletion of material from Talk page[edit]

This discussion may belong in the relevant policy Talk page, but I think it would help if we could clarify the issue of one editor removing messages by another editor from an article's Talk page as 'defamatory' or 'personal attack' on the subject of the article. I guess it boils down to this. If an editor has unsourced personal knowledge related to the article, and presents it in the Talk page to generate discussion and possibly induce other editors to find appropriate sourcing for the alleged facts, is that acceptable? It seems to me to be a very delicate balance, as on the one hand we want to preclude defamation of anyone from anywhere on WP space, on the other hand we do want to present properly sourced known criticism, eventually in the article space, and muting the voices of editors with personal knowledge could impede the source-finding process. One suggestion I have is to declare a time limit on any allegation or personal knowledge statement made in the Talk page. If an editor comes up with a critical allegation, that has a reasonable chance of being found in an acceptable record, we give it, say, 7 days to be properly sourced. If the time expires and no appropriate source material is found, then the allegation is removed and a brief note is left to summarize the allegation in a very broad and neutral way and to state that no acceptable source was found for it. I think the summary is needed to prevent a repeated cycle. Anyway, I think some recommended guideline is needed for this recurring situation in Talk pages of controversial topics. Crum375 16:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is Ok to discuss your personal experience or opinion, but in order to be included in the article some source must be found other than personal experience or opinion. I notice these revelations have been somewhat repetitive. They upset supporters (or the supporter) of the Church without adding information which can be used in the article. Fred Bauder 23:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. First, I am not a party in any way, purely an observer. Second, it is clear that to include personal experience in the article an appropriate source is needed. My question here was whether in the Talk page it is acceptable to recount personal experience. Apparently, in this case some editors deleted other editors' comments which were based on personal experience. Thanks, Crum375 01:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I misspoke above. Unsourced libelous information may be removed wherever it is found. "Shot on sight" Fred Bauder 12:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

another clarification request[edit]

"13) Libelous material may be removed from talk pages as well as from articles. However, this does not extend to negative expressions of fact or opinion that are not libelous."

Does that mean it's forbidden to remove stuff from talk pages that's non-libelous but that's a privacy problem? E.g. the person's phone number. If that's not the intention, I think some rephrasing is called for. Phr (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course it's not. That's not a positive or negative expression; it's inappropriately personal information—a different class of problem—and should also be shot on sight. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A dispute of this nature (details omitted and a bit more complicated) took place recently and might be ongoing, thus the question, and the desire to avoid having this arbcom decision create another lever for wikilawyering with. Phr (talk) 06:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7) Bishopschuckardt.com is a website which presents the positions of Bishop Francis Schuckardt.[edit]

I see this has not passed. I am not sure the significance of that. The website can be used as the sole source of the subject of the article's beleifs right? Does the failure to pass just mean that this point should never have been voted on in the first place? Bernie Radecki 15:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a proposal which I made in good faith. I have not asked the basis of others' opposition to this as a finding of fact. Do you doubt it is authentic? Fred Bauder 21:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that it is Francis K. Schuckardt actual words because it lacks his flair and rhetoric. It is possible Schuckardt's poor health may prevent him from doing the actual writing. I would guess it was written by Athanasius303 (Fra. John). I agree it appears to accurately reflect Schuckardt beliefs and I would imagine it meets with his approval. Fred, I still do not see the significance of this point not passing. Is it still OK for Athanasius303 to use the website as his sole source for Schuckardt's theological beliefs? Bernie Radecki 02:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]