Novaseminary (talk | contribs) →Rejection statement: discuss reversion |
|||
Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
I removed the following sentence: "But a number[citation needed][weasel words] of professed Christian groups, especially anti-Catholics and fundamentalists, generally reject the notion of "separated brethren" as having any Biblical validity or importance, and don't generally recognize or accept the designation.[9][original research?]" I did so because the citation was to a purported example of this phenomenon, not a description of it in a reliable source. A statement such as this must be supported by a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], not good-intentioned [[WP:OR|original research]]/[[WP:SYNTH|sysntehesis]]. [[User:Novaseminary|Novaseminary]] ([[User talk:Novaseminary|talk]]) 16:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC) |
I removed the following sentence: "But a number[citation needed][weasel words] of professed Christian groups, especially anti-Catholics and fundamentalists, generally reject the notion of "separated brethren" as having any Biblical validity or importance, and don't generally recognize or accept the designation.[9][original research?]" I did so because the citation was to a purported example of this phenomenon, not a description of it in a reliable source. A statement such as this must be supported by a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], not good-intentioned [[WP:OR|original research]]/[[WP:SYNTH|sysntehesis]]. [[User:Novaseminary|Novaseminary]] ([[User talk:Novaseminary|talk]]) 16:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
:I again removed this sentence that was reverted by Sweetpoet. This is the type of assertion that needs a good reliable sourced. It does not have one. [[WP:VNT|Wikiepdia is not about truth, it is about verifiability]]. All this sentence needs is a cite that is not [[WP:OR|original research]]. [[User:Novaseminary|Novaseminary]] ([[User talk:Novaseminary|talk]]) 14:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Don't remove valid facts simply because you don't personally like them == |
== Don't remove valid facts simply because you don't personally like them == |
Revision as of 14:13, 15 June 2010
Rewrite flag
I added this flag because I am concerned this article is moving toward POV. To the extent it is neutral, it is not much more than a dictionary definition, which is, of course, not what WP is. I had proposed merging this article in Catholic Church and ecumenism which seems to have irritated this article's creator--he was blocked for removing the discussion banner. I changed my mind and withdrew the suggestion (the discussion is here: Talk:Catholic Church and ecumenism#Separated_brethren_merger_discussion) but I still remained concerned about this article. I have added fact tags to specific sentences I think need to be supported and reworked or removed. Novaseminary (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- NOT ALL of the article needs to be "re-written entirely" as you claim because of personal bias and uptightness......the intro definitely does not... and neither does the "History" section. Citations maybe, but not a total re-write. You're being disrespectful and unfair, sir, and I don't like it..... You need to leave your uptightness and whiny issues and nonsense out of Wikipedia. I'm not perfect, I know. But neither are you, and neither is anyone.
- If you had put simply a "citations needed" tag, that would be different.....because that is sufficient...but you dogmatically put a "total rewrite" tag, when that's simply not fair, true, or even sane. The intro and the second section don't need a total "re-write" to warrant that tag you put. Also, on the discussion page for this article, you lied when you said that I got blocked because I removed the discussion tag on the other article. That's not really why. I got blocked for supposedly breaking the 3-revert rule. Not simply for removing a tag in general. (and you were "warring" too, as WP Policy says that "warring" is NOT only breaking the 3RR, although it can include that. And you were reverting back and forth yourself...nobody's perfect.)
- I know that you have contributed greatly to Wikipedia, and I don't discount that. I try to be fair and objective about everybody, including people like you. You've done decent work on articles, I know. But your dishonest inaccurate sloppy unreasonable uptightness at times can make that overshadowed. I'm just being honest. We can learn from ANYONE. I ALSO have contributed greatly on Wikipedia in just a matter of months. Clean-ups, tweaks, meaningful and needed additions, removal of vandalism, and whole sections added to articles by me, that I knew should NOT be separate articles, creation of articles, fixes, additions of good and appreciated images, and important edits. So you being so dismissive is not cool or reasonable.
- And also, your careful edits and additions are, of course, welcome, as is the case with anyone. This article belongs to NO one specific person. In fact, I was hoping some people would get on this and expand it. Etc.
- Like the See also links issue on this, you did have a bit of a point on, I must admit. But I must disagree (even if I never created this article originally or edited it at all, I'd be saying the same thing) that the WHOLE article needs to be "re-written." You seem to have elements of truth, but then exaggerate the matter. But again, your contributions to improve this article, I of course would appreciate. But not a total dissing of it. Also, not all those "citations needed" tags were needed at the end of each sentence, when it was already stated and referenced in other parts of the article. (But that's a more debateable issue). Also, removing a reference from an Anti-Catholic Protestant website was not warranted, as the whole point of that last paragraph was talking about the VIEW of Anti-Catholics and Fundamentalists....and how they basically reject "Separated brethren" as being valid. Open for discussion though, I admit.)
- Again, if you had just put a "Citations or clean up" tag, I would NOT be this annoyed, or probably not even annoyed at all necessarily. But you went beyond that with a rude and unfair and inaccurate "total rewrite" tag. Huh?? Not everything (I'm not chopped liver, so stop treating me as such) has to be totally completely (helloooo) "re-written". What is with you? The intro is basically fine, the second section is basically fine.........maybe the third section could use improvements.
- But to re-write the whole article? When you say things like that, you tend to lose some credibility in a way, as just being an uptight nit-picker. And I know that you're more than that. And I actually appreciate how Wikipedia Admins and Editors keep things strict and careful. As it should be. The biggest and most popular online encyclopedia should have important rules and regulations and care-taking. But sometimes personal tastes are mistaken for policy, and things can go overboard the other way. Some of my friends on Wikipedia almost can't believe this. And it's insulting to me, and overall inaccurate. And it's an unnecessary overbearing approach. AND, ALSO, IT'S JUST YOUR OPINION.......not a fact. An opinion that may be considered, of course, but not necessarily automatically accepted or agreed with.
- Because believe me, I do try VERY HARD to be NPOV on everything, in fact, I go out of my way to do that. And I have removed blatant POV on many articles. Opinions or disputed positions presented as dogmatic fact. So careful re-wordings are in order sometimes. In this Separated brethren article, there was no real provable opinion stuff here, but just cold objective matters. Of how Roman Catholicism views this or that, and how maybe other professed groups view the matter. And there's documentation. And so it's not really true that I was POV on this. I tried hard exactly NOT to be that, in fact.
- You let personal tastes dictate your habits on Wikipedia sometimes, rather than let WP Policy itself (as I already demonstrated with the "when to merge" and "notability" and "stand alone sourced subjects" issues) guide a lot of it. You THINK you follow WP Policy, but you seem to go by your own interpretations and likes and dislikes. If you don't like a wiki link, you remove it. Even though good-faith and accurate additions should NOT be reverted. Just cuz YOU think something is "tangential" doesn't mean everyone else in the world might. etc etc etc..........just cuz YOU have issues with how some parts of an article are presented does NOT mean the whole article needs to be re-written, or that everyone other Wikipedian would see it your uptight way.
- The intro and many parts do NOT to be "re-written". So your tag saying that is removed. If you wanna put a Citations or Clean up tag thingy, well that's more reasonable. But a total re-write tag is nonsense, and not warranted. Thank you. And as I said, your good-faith help and contributions are welcome and appreciated....Sweetpoet (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Unnecessary "Undues"
the fact that the Roman Catholic Church does not consider everyone who professes Christianity as "brothers in Christ" or "brethren" is stated basically RIGHT BEFORE, with the whole Mormon thing, and reference. Stop second-guessing everything I do and say and write, and go crazy with the wiki tags for every little thing that you have trouble piecing together, bro. It's getting annoying. For some reason you miss the obvious. And WP policy does NOT require a reference for EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE especially if the point was ALREADY STATED AND REFERENCED IN A PREVIOUS PART OF THE ARTICLE. The Mormon thing states the point. Case closed. If you have a big problem with this, then take it to the Talk page.... (and by the way, I put a reference for the "re-baptize" thing with the Orthodox Church with Catholics...a different matter though). Sweetpoet (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Take a look at WP:V ("Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."). Novaseminary (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, I tried putting the thing as a "heading" but for some annoying reason the Heading drop-down thing was not working when I clicked it like 5 times (it's working now though). Anyway, point taken about the wiki reference if it's not a valid reference (I can find another one, or you can if you want).
- But again, this other matter of you going wiki tag crazy over every little sentence, is unnecessary in this case because it's already basically stated in other parts of the article JUST BEFORE, with the Mormon matter and the "Trinitarian Baptism" Only matter, that the Roman Catholic Church does NOT consider all professed Christian groups as their "brothers". THE POINT IS ALREADY THERE AND REFERENCED. And WP Policy does NOT necessitate the citing and footnoting of EVERY SINGLE THING UNDER THE SUN in an article, especially if the overall point was already-stated and already-referenced. I'm not sure how you're missing how the point is already there with the Trinitarian Baptism and "Mormons are not considered by Catholics as 'separated brethren'" thing right there just before. Otherwise I could simply use the same reference source for that other sentence in the very next paragraph if you want. Also, I told you that YOU CAN FIX AND SOURCE THE ARTICLE too if you want. I took a break from this the past few weeks. I want others to elaborate on this. Why can't you, if you think it's lacking in various places? Anyway, though, as I said, the thing there is already pre-stated and pre-referenced, with the Trinity, Baptism, and Mormon points.....peace.Sweetpoet (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I only added the particular tags after you removed the general top-level tags. You suggested that I add more particularized tags on Talk:Separated brethren. Novaseminary (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- But again, this other matter of you going wiki tag crazy over every little sentence, is unnecessary in this case because it's already basically stated in other parts of the article JUST BEFORE, with the Mormon matter and the "Trinitarian Baptism" Only matter, that the Roman Catholic Church does NOT consider all professed Christian groups as their "brothers". THE POINT IS ALREADY THERE AND REFERENCED. And WP Policy does NOT necessitate the citing and footnoting of EVERY SINGLE THING UNDER THE SUN in an article, especially if the overall point was already-stated and already-referenced. I'm not sure how you're missing how the point is already there with the Trinitarian Baptism and "Mormons are not considered by Catholics as 'separated brethren'" thing right there just before. Otherwise I could simply use the same reference source for that other sentence in the very next paragraph if you want. Also, I told you that YOU CAN FIX AND SOURCE THE ARTICLE too if you want. I took a break from this the past few weeks. I want others to elaborate on this. Why can't you, if you think it's lacking in various places? Anyway, though, as I said, the thing there is already pre-stated and pre-referenced, with the Trinity, Baptism, and Mormon points.....peace.Sweetpoet (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, that's fine, and I do appreciate that. But I have to say that I am bit annoyed at your message on my talk page. First of all, I did not actually "revert" or "undo" anything. As I left the point alone about the inappropriate wiki reference. And I only manually undid your wiki tag thing TWICE. Not three times. Whereas YOU actually reverted already about 3 or 4 times!!!!! This is the problem with you, and it's EXASPERATING......you only see stuff in other people (real or imagined stuff), but NEVER SEE IT IN YOURSELF, EVEN WHERE WITH YOU IT'S ACTUALLY WORSE!!!! YOU are close to violating the 3RR rule, most likely, and in fact, it looks like you already may have. So should you be blocked? for that? if that's the case, but you don't see me making an issue about your habitual reverts and edit warring. YOU ALREADY WENT TO 3 REVERTS AND EVEN BEYOND, WHEREAS I ACTUALLY DID NOT YET. Not actually. So not sure why you think I'm "close to violating the Three Revert Rule. Check thyself, man. For real.
Reference put in again
OK, I hope this is sort of ok with you. In that spot, that you have an issue with, about "not all brothers in Christ", I put in the same reference (which I'm sure you'll probably have a problem with too for some reason) that dealt with how Roman Catholics only view "Trinitarian Baptism" as valid for consideration as "separated brethren" and the point with how the R.C. Church does NOT consider "Mormons" as their brothers. The general point is there. So I simply referenced it again. I'll fix it again though, with the right tag thingy.Sweetpoet (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
A better reference for the "Orthodox re-baptize Roman Catholics"
This here is a good and fairly solid (IMO) reference source for the issue in question....And it's in the article now. ^ Orthodox Information Center - Orthodox Baptism - From Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XIII, No. 1, pp. 2-6. Sweetpoet (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Protection
The article has been protected for one week due to edit-warring. Please try to reach agreement on the talk page. Drive-by comments in edit summaries are not a substitute for a proper discussion. if you are deadlocked, a WP:Request for comment is a way to bring in outside views. This can avoid continuing a lengthy two-person revert war. See WP:Dispute resolution for other options. EdJohnston (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Verifiable sources
though I understand your concerns about reliable sources, and your tags on that (which I left alone, by the way), I just have to say real quick that "Catholic Answers" is a KNOWN verified and fairly solid source for Catholic Apologetics and doctrine. It does (this has already been confirmed over the years) give the basically official Catholic "Answers" and explanations and views on various subjects, including this one. Catholic Answers is NOT some fly-by-night flash-in-the-pan thing that some Catholic who owns a pizza place on the corner slapped together 2 years ago. It's been around a LONG time now, and is recognized and approved by various Catholic officials. And C.A. was simply telling official Roman Catholic position on what THEIR view on groups like "Mormons" would be, in this specific matter. The Mormon thing has been WELL-KNOWN already, from the Catholic perspective. It's not conjecture or supposition.
And Catholic Answers is a reliable source (overall) and has been considered a reliable source for some time now, in or out of the web, on official Catholic positions. (Most people I've dealt with and talked to know this.) Anyway, bro, your concerns may be understandable, but in some cases not really all that necessary. But as I said, I would appreciate (as in reality I'm NOT really dealing with articles all that much anymore, as I have other things to do) if you could elaborate or maybe get others to work on this article even further. It's all good. Peace out, bro...Sweetpoet (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- I couldn't find any mention of the two sources I tagged at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Feel free to post there to get other editors' opinions. Novaseminary (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I see. Yeah, maybe that should be done. Thanks for mentioning it. But you do realize that just because it may not be listed in that specific thing, that does NOT necessarily for sure mean that the source is "unreliable" per se. Sometimes things happen, or lack of updates, etc. But as I said (and this can be looked up in general) "Catholic Answers" has been around a LONG time now, and is recognized and approved by various Catholic officials. As far as presenting official Roman Catholic position and doctrine. Peace...Sweetpoet (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- I never said the source was unreliable. I merely tagged it as possibly unreliable. It certanily is not a respected acadmic publication, book press, news outlet, or more traditional RS. That doesn't mean it is not an WP:RS, but something other than Sweetpoet says so should suport that proposition. And if it is an official site or the equivalent, one must be sure to be on guard for WP:UNDUE issues. Novaseminary (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I see. Yeah, maybe that should be done. Thanks for mentioning it. But you do realize that just because it may not be listed in that specific thing, that does NOT necessarily for sure mean that the source is "unreliable" per se. Sometimes things happen, or lack of updates, etc. But as I said (and this can be looked up in general) "Catholic Answers" has been around a LONG time now, and is recognized and approved by various Catholic officials. As far as presenting official Roman Catholic position and doctrine. Peace...Sweetpoet (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Rejection statement
I removed the following sentence: "But a number[citation needed][weasel words] of professed Christian groups, especially anti-Catholics and fundamentalists, generally reject the notion of "separated brethren" as having any Biblical validity or importance, and don't generally recognize or accept the designation.[9][original research?]" I did so because the citation was to a purported example of this phenomenon, not a description of it in a reliable source. A statement such as this must be supported by a reliable source, not good-intentioned original research/sysntehesis. Novaseminary (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I again removed this sentence that was reverted by Sweetpoet. This is the type of assertion that needs a good reliable sourced. It does not have one. Wikiepdia is not about truth, it is about verifiability. All this sentence needs is a cite that is not original research. Novaseminary (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't remove valid facts simply because you don't personally like them
Not all "Protestants" accept or recognize the "separated brethren" designation or notion, and that's simply a fact, that is WELL-SOURCED AND PROVEN. You should not remove the whole thing just cuz you don't like it. I'm serious. Another edit war will happen if you do this again. (And I saw your stuff on the Talk page too). You need to stop your uptight neurotic nonsense, Nova. I'm FED up with it now. You personally don't like the fact that not all "Protestants" accept or recognize the Roman Catholic "separated brethren" designation, so you'll SUPPRESS that knowledge and point, and make wholesale removals. I WON'T TOLERATE IT.
Just cuz you feel there's no good source for that fact (even though there are sources all over the place that prove clearly that "Fundamentalists" etc generally don't accept the "separated brethren" label), doesn't mean that the whole paragraph should be summarily removed by you.
This rude unwarranted biased uptight junk has to stop, sir. For real. Valid edits are one thing. But you keep going way beyond that. I'm tired of you. I gotta be frank. Cuz really, LOOK AT WHAT YOU'VE DONE FROM THE START. The disrespect came from you first. You've had issues with this article from the get-go. I'm TIRED of you and your uptightness, sir. I'm serious. Any nonsense you do again, I'll simply undo. (And don't whine again that I wrote on your talk page. Get over it. I'm done being polite or civil with you, even though I DID TRY EARNESTLY TO WORK PEACEABLY WITH YOU, but enough now. As you've proven to be unworthy of any deference or etiquette.) Again, you do this stuff again, and I'll simply undo EVERYTHING you do.
You think you can remove whole facts BECAUSE YOU PERSONALLY DON'T LIKE THOSE FACTS?? Well, sorry. But it's not happening.
It's a proven fact (and it should be noted and made known) that not all Protestants accept "separated brethren" as valid. It's NOT just "original research" or "synthesis". This has BEEN known, for a while. That "Anti-Catholics" reject the concept "separated brethren" from Roman Catholics. I did NOT personally draw that conclusion, but this has been established for years now. Not sure why you have problems with that fact. But I've detected pro-Catholic bias from you from the beginning. But whatever the reason, what you did was NOT warranted. Sweetpoet (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)