Talk:Francis Schuckardt/Archive 3

Untitled

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Francis Schuckardt#Article_probation

Article probation ran for an initial period of three months, ending on October 19th, 2006. It may be extended by the Arbitration Committee if thought necessary.

---

I knew Bishop Schuckardt and find it a shame that so much of the grap his enemies had been peddling to media sources for so long was given a voice on such a fine site as Wikipedia. May he rest in peace. 201.219.44.142 (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC) South of the border.

Fair use rationale for Image:Schuckardt.jpg

Image:Schuckardt.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Schuckhardt's Response to Criticism

This needs to be written so that it's very clearly NNPOV--at points it appears that WP is embracing Schuckhardt's POV as fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by TallNapoleon (talk • contribs) 08:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Apart from changes in form and wording to try to make it neutral, a basic problem with this section is that the references are OR. For example, regarding whether men and women should sit on different sides of the church, the references are to St Cyril of Jerusalem and St Augustine, rather than to a source that shows that Schuckhardt himself claimed this. It changes it rather to a proof that Schuckhardt was right, which is not the point of a Wiki article. And all the points in this section that are referenced to papal documents, etc, suffer the same defect. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

To the people who keep undoing my edits

Most of my edits are stylistic or grammatical. Very few have to do with POV. Nuns, brothers, clerics, etc. should not be capitalized. Linking Chicoine's name again is reasonable. Changing the criticism section into a list seems reasonable as well. If you have any issue with specific changes that I have made, please post here and we can discuss. Also feel free to edit parts of what I changed. However simply undoing it is not constructive. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If I may project – I suspect that there are several things at play here which have been causing editors to delete your changes.

A neutrality tag was posted on this article in the past. Since the posting of that tag, the article went through Binding Arbitration, and the Arbitration Committee essentially approved the article in its current form. Your posting of the neutrality tag, once again, has the appearance of overriding the Committee and rehashing issues thought to have been settled. That’s not a good idea.

Changing “Church officials” to “Schuckardt officials” in line 23 immediately after the newspaper quote uses the term “church” seems to indirectly deny that they are a church, and that has the appearance of being your opinion and that would, of course, be POV.

Changing “other charges were” to “many of Schuckardt’s beliefs and policies” presumes facts not established. It is a fact that they were charges; it is not a fact that they were more than that. Putting the criticisms in list form, however, I think was a good idea. Donalcone (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, those are good reasons. My main reasons for changing "church officials" to Schuckhardt's officials" was because it came immediately after a bit referring to the mainline Catholic Church, and so I felt that it was vague whose officials were being referred to. I looked at the newspaper quote before it, and it did not use the term "church" to describe them.

With regards to the list, I think the "other charges were" was a bit awkward and seems to imply that many of these charges were not well established when at least some were. The problem is that some of these are criticisms for things that he clearly explicitly did (the smoking bit) and some are just allegations. I'm not sure what a good lede to the list would be--do you have any ideas?

As regards the neutrality tag, I think it's pretty clear that at least some of the items listed after it are written as though from Schuckhardt's POV, which strikes me as problematic. For instance, consider the following:

"Men and women are indeed obliged to occupy the opposite sides while in Church. This custom goes back to the earliest days of the Catholic Church and was taught by the Fathers of the Church.[21] St. Augustine roundly condemns those who would criticize this practise.[22]"

That looks pretty NNPOV to me. I'm not sure how to fix it, but I think it needs to be. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the neutrality issue – when this article went through Arbitration it had been tagged as a NPOV violator. The Committee heard arguments, made a ruling and probated the article for a number of months. Because they classified it as a biography, it qualified for a less stringent NPOV policy than do most Wiki articles and perhaps that is why it seems to you to a NNPOV; essential it is, but under the present instance, allowed. In considering that Arbitration has okayed it in its present form, it seems to me that you are essentially attempting to resurrect an issue that has already been raised and decided, and I don’t think that that is a good thing. I would ask that you remove the tag and limit your editing to those items that do not change the basic content of the article. Thanks. Donalcone (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

K, I'll remove the tag. I may still make some minor changes to this section, though--not content but stylistic. I think adding a few phrases like "Schuckhardt pointed out..." and so forth could help dramatically. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Donalcone (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)