Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church



Roman Catholic Church
request links: view edit delete watch

Filed: 05:59, January 19 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

 * , filing party


 * : you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * RFC 1
 * RFC 2
 * RFC 2 resumed
 * : Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.''

Issues to be mediated

 * The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.


 * Issue 1. Gimmetrow rejects use of the terminology "Roman Catholic Church, officially called "Catholic Church" with explanatory note 1
 * Issue 2. Gimmetrow rejects use of these sources that support article text that states "officially called the Catholic Church":
 * 1)a book by Kenneth Whitehead which is the only source used by worldwide Catholic media EWTN and Our Sunday Visitor to explain the name of the Church . The editorial staff of EWTN includes this academic expert . Whitehead was featured on the program Catholic Answers which this same academic oversees.
 * 2)notable Catholic author, television and radio host Patrick Madrid
 * 3)historian Hilaire Belloc
 * 4)theologian and professor John McClintock


 * Instead, Gimmetrow wants to use snippet views of these two books, written by people who are neither Catholic nor spokesmen nor experts on the Church, as a basis for a contrary position when no Wikipedia editor posesses these books and we can't tell if they are discussing the official name of the Church as it is required by Protestant England (which is explained in the note) or if they are discussing the Roman Catholic Church which, within the Church, refers to the Diocese of Rome (as explained by Whitehead, McClintock and Catholic Encyclopedia ). Because we have no context with which to discern Gimmetrows snippets and there are no other sources that make such statements, especially Catholic ones, I and others do not feel these are reliable sources.


 * Issue 3. Rejection of consensus by Gimmetrow and two accounts that appear to be sockpuppets because they are new and have instant knowledge of Wikipedia policy - user:Defteri and user:Soidi. After Gimmetrow and Soidi rejected the use of "official name" in the lead sentence and argued the issue for several weeks with 14 veteran Wikipedia editors who responded to the first RFC, several different forms of the lead sentence were attempted but all were rejected except for the form using "official name" another vote was taken on the note to make sure editors supported use of the sources referenced and another consensus was reached . The recent FAC  shows us that 24 very veteran editors supported the article text with "official name" and of the 9 opposes, only one (Soidi) opposed because of use of "official name".  Gimmetrow and Soidi continued to argue the matter for two months filling our talk pages beginning with archive 20  and continuing for the next five archived pages

Additional issues to be mediated

 * Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.


 * Additional issue 1. Multiple issues, including relation of WP:Consensus to WP:Verifiability, the apparent violation of WP:Neutral point of view through disputed interpretation of some sources and systematic suppression of contrary views, the seemingly inconsistent application of WP:Reliable sources to the various sources (including those NancyHeise omits to mention). Gimmetrow 14:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional issue 2: Similar to Additional issue 1, whether only Catholic sources with Nihil obstat and Imprimatur can be used to as reliable sources for describing the positions of the Catholic Church, its organization, governance and history. --Richard (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Issue withdrawn based on the information provided in this edit. --Richard (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.


 * 1) Agree.  Nancy Heise    talk  05:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. Richard (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree. --Storm Rider  07:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 08:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Agree. Farsight001 (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Agree. Defteri (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Agree. Marauder40 (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Agree. Gimmetrow 14:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Agree. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Agree. Majoreditor (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Agree.  Xan dar  17:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Agree. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Agree. Soidi (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Agree.Afterwriting (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Agree. Gabr-  el  19:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Agree. Str1977 (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Agree. Secisek (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Agree. Shenme (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section ; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.
 * Accept. Normally this would be rejected because not all parties have responded, but the one party that hasn't responded yet has only made one edit in 18 months. If he wishes to join the mediation as it proceeds, he is welcome to do so - there's little point in holding things for him because it's unlikely we'll receieve an answer.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Case Taken. Shell  babelfish 17:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)