| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | ||||||||||||
|
Mediation Case: 2006-04-20 Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Westminster and other pages for Catholic diocese and bishops
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
- Request made by: Kevin McE 19:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Westminster, Archdiocese of Southwark and many other pages relating to RC diocese and bishops, which will be idenbtifiable from the contribution pages of myself and other disputants.
- Who's involved?
- Myself, Roydosan, anonymous 1 and anonymous 2 (It is unclear whether these are other people, or Roydosan pre-registration)
Clarification anonymous 1 is me failing to log in. Roydosan 10:25 21 April 2006
- What's going on?
- On pages relating to Catholic diocese and bishops in England, this/these editors has been posting links in a very selective manner, I believe in order to use Wiki to increase awareness of an organisation to which they have a loyalty, but which has the support of a very small proportion of the Catholic population. In the case of Westminster, for example, there are 216 parishes and 140 organisations listed on the diocesan website, but only one of each had been selected to be added as links.
- What would you like to change about that?
- I believe that non-NPOV inspiried selection of links is tantamount to non-NPOV editing. It is obviously not proper for the Westminster diocesan article to have links to 216 parishes and to 140 organisations, and so I believe it should have none, or perhaps only those to the Cathedral parish and the most essential elemants of diocesan structure. At present, we seem to be heading towards a 3 reverts violation.
- If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
- not a problem: if I deserve a reprimand, I have no need to hide such.
- Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?
- This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do
- what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.
- With a little more experience using wikipedia, and if I am not considered to have been too irresponsible here, yes, time permitting.
_____
Both parties seem to be willing to accept a compromise with a paragraph along the lines of.
Diocese XYZ provides masses in Uikranian (possible link), Polish (possible link), Latin (Link to diocese specific LMS site), Spanish (possible link). They provide educational services at the high school level (possible link)... I'm trying to finalize the compromise. jbolden1517 Talk 03:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Formally accepted by Roydosan 16:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC).
I think we are ready to move to implementation. We are going to do one sample together. Roydosan can you pick a diocese you know well enough to write the above paragraph for? It can either be one with an already existent LMS page or without (just let me know on the diocese talk page). Leave a message here with a link to the wikipedia article. jbolden1517 Talk 17:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The links are gone and Roydosan has been responding slowly indicating a possible lack of intererest. There has been some discussion privately but with long breaks between updates. I'm going to wait another week and then close this out if nothing has changed. jbolden1517 Talk 22:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Paragraph ready to go up I will post it within the next 24 hours. Roydosan 12:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
New mediator needed I have put this case back into the in need of mediators section, hopefully a new mediator will be back here to respond shortly. Cowman109 Talk 22:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
We have statistics on size of LMS relative to English faction and it looks like it is well under 1%. There are serious question about whether this method of counting is heavily skewed due to institutional biases.
Regarding size, notes in plaintext are Kevin, notes in italics are Roydesan.
East Anglia: 9 Masses per month, in 6 locations: in a diocese of 121 Churches and other Mass centres, there are 132 priests listed as working in the diocese(source: www.eastangliadiocese.org.uk): if they each celebrate only 5 Masses per week (an active priest working in a parish is more likely to celebrate about 10 per week) this would equate to 2640 Masses in a 4 week period: the LMS Masses are less than 0.5 % of Masses celebrated. (I have not looked up the equivalent statistics for other diocese, but East Anglia is a relatively small diocese).
Middlesbrough: In this diocese there are 84 parishes and Mass centres. I would assume that each parish has at least 2 Sunday Masses, and a Mass most weekdays. The Middlesborough LMS site reports that there is one Mass per month in the diocese, and links to an on-line petition requesting the bishop's concession of a second. This petition has 6 names on it. It also links to a message board: this has had 8 messages posted in the current calendar year. I believe that the LMS in Middlesborough, on this evidence, can accurately be described as fringe.
This is not the case at all. Latin Masses are also said in two other churches in the north of the diocese (in Staithes & Ugthorpe) – though not arranged by the LMS A petition undertaken about 5 years ago raised over 600 signatures calling for Sunday Masses within the diocese. The current petition has raised over 200 over a period of 6-8 weeks. The online petition was not advertised by the LMS and is not indicative of support.
Clifton: The LMS Clifton site carries the following message " The Bishop has stated (in a letter to our Clifton Representative) that he has been generous in giving permissions for weekdays but he thinks that on Sundays people should attend the modern rite. " I believe that this says something significant about the bishop's thoughts about the place of the LMS in the Catholic community of his diocese.
The Bishop wrote again to the LMS rep to state that he was mistaken to interpret this statement as meaning he planned to revoke the permissions already given for Sunday Masses. Regular masses are arranged in a rota of different churches.
Arundel & Brighton: I cannot find any link to the website that R says exists: the most appropriate looking page has a redirect to a list of Masses indicating that there are, in the 2 months May-June 2006 a total of 8 LMS services in this diocese.
The website is currently down. It was up a couple of months ago.
Portsmouth: One church has a weekly service, the cathedral has one Tridentine Mass per year (my research showed no other Catholic cathedral hosting a Mass under the auspices of the LMS), two other parishes offer 3-4 Masses per year. Although a Tridentine Mass centre in Oxford is listed on this site, Oxford is not in the diocese of Portsmouth.
As for no other Catholic cathedral allowing Latin Masses under the auspices of the LMS this is completely incorrect. Masses have been held in Westminster Cathedral at least once a month (and a Latin novus ordo every weekday. Hallam and Lancaster cathedrals have also had Latin masses
Leeds 3 venues are used, none of which are churches owned by the diocese.
This leaves out a lot of information. The bishop of Leeds has requested the LMS to move their Sunday masses to the cathedral once the renovation is completed. He has also arranged for 8-12 younger priests to be trained how to say the traditional mass. Hardly the actions of one who wants the mass to be marginalised.
Hallam: Last listed Mass 25th October 2005: there were a total of 10 Masses in the 4 months leading up to that date.
Again this is incorrect. Latin masses are held every week in alternating parishes. There is an annual mass in the cathedral.
Lancaster 4 Masses per month
Plus an annual mass in the cathedral.
Hexham & Newcastle 3 Churches have a weekly LMS Mass: two others once a month.
Northampton 3 venues: 3-4 Masses per month (although the web page also lists Masses in another diocese). Evidence provided by Kevin McE posted by jbolden1517Talk 03:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Nottingham Diocese 2 Churches have weekly Sunday & Holyday masses. Permission has been given for a third.
Westminster One Church has daily traditional masses, two other have weekly masses. Confirmations are held in the traditional rite once a year at which one of the diocesan auxiliary bishops presides. A large number of masses are arranged in other churches but not to a regular timetable.
Southwark One Church has traditional masses daily; one other has weekly Sunday masses. Five parishes rotate Sunday masses. Confirmations are held in certain years at which a diocesan auxiliary bishop presides. A large number of masses are arranged in other churches but not to a regular timetable.
Birmingham Two churches have at least one mass a week A large number of masses are arranged in other churches but not to a regular timetable.
Brentwood The bishop has recently granted permission for a regular Sunday mass centre to be established.
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
I would suggest that you leave LMS links where the page is to a specifically diocesan based website. I will then not put up links to the national LMS website. I think this is a reasonable compromise and reflects your wishes (as seen by me) to have the entry specifically related only to the diocese. I resent the implication that the existence of specific links is either partisan or theologically biased. There was no text either supporting or opposing the LMS in any of the articles and the fact that the number of links is, as you say, narrow is because others haven't added any. Maybe you should add some links to organisations that you think are pertinent to the diocese?
For your information the LMS has specific websites for the following RC dioceses:
Arundel & Brighton; Portsmouth; Middlesbrough; Leeds; Hallam; Lancaster; Hexham & Newcastle; Clifton; East Anglia; Northampton
Roydosan 1045 21 April 2006
- I would still maintain that that leaves an unrepresentative set of links. The fact that a website exists does not make it justified as a link in wikipedia. If there is no criterion for selecting links then anything less than a fully comprehensive list is a statement of preference, and therefore non-NPOV. Kevin McE 19:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I utterly disagree with that. I find the idea that a small selection of links is tantamount to stating preference and therefore in breach of NPOV is absurd. A fully comprehensive set of links is probably unnecessary on the basis that it would include many organisations which are fairly inconsequential to the life of the diocese - although I would dispute the idea that a fully comprehensive list is by itself undesirable. I would also argue that a small selection of links is justified where they have a significant impact or presence in the diocese. I believe that the LMS fits into this category and that to recognise this is not to state that one is in agreement with them or their ideals - but simply to recognise their place in the life of the diocese. The LMS plays a part in the liturgical life of many dioceses and it is right that that should be recognised. Not that this should be taken as either support for or opposition to the LMS - but merely a recognition of what it does for and in the liturgy of the diocese. In my opinion what you are proposing is basically censorship of the LMS on Wikipedia, an organisation you appear to make no effort to deny your disdain for, and that your claims that the LMS is a marginal organisation amongst Catholics is not borne out by the facts. Nor is the LMS an abstract organisation to list since it only helps to provide what was the normative rite in the Catholic Church up until 1965. I stand by the compromise offer - I believe that it is a good option in that only sites which are specifically linked to the diocese are represented - rather than the non-diocesan specific national LMS website. Roydosan 0030 24 April 2006
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
First off, let me state that I am not the official mediator for the case. I am keeping an eye on it until another mediator can be located. It would appear that both contributors have a decent grasp for pastoral care within the Archdiocese, so I have no concerns in those regards. I have made some recent comments to the "disputed section" to help build consensus for the article's standing.
CQJ
17:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Possibly close to a resolution. Waiting on both disputants to comment. CQJ 02:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Case is 14 days without action. Both disputants have been asked if they have further information to add, if not, the case will be closed in the next several days. CQJ 00:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- This case is closed due to inactivity. Should further troubles arise, this page will remain on my watchlist. Thanks. Cowman109 Talk 06:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | ||||||||||||
|
Mediation Case: 2006-04-20 Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Westminster and other pages for Catholic diocese and bishops
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
- Request made by: Kevin McE 19:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Westminster, Archdiocese of Southwark and many other pages relating to RC diocese and bishops, which will be idenbtifiable from the contribution pages of myself and other disputants.
- Who's involved?
- Myself, Roydosan, anonymous 1 and anonymous 2 (It is unclear whether these are other people, or Roydosan pre-registration)
Clarification anonymous 1 is me failing to log in. Roydosan 10:25 21 April 2006
- What's going on?
- On pages relating to Catholic diocese and bishops in England, this/these editors has been posting links in a very selective manner, I believe in order to use Wiki to increase awareness of an organisation to which they have a loyalty, but which has the support of a very small proportion of the Catholic population. In the case of Westminster, for example, there are 216 parishes and 140 organisations listed on the diocesan website, but only one of each had been selected to be added as links.
- What would you like to change about that?
- I believe that non-NPOV inspiried selection of links is tantamount to non-NPOV editing. It is obviously not proper for the Westminster diocesan article to have links to 216 parishes and to 140 organisations, and so I believe it should have none, or perhaps only those to the Cathedral parish and the most essential elemants of diocesan structure. At present, we seem to be heading towards a 3 reverts violation.
- If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
- not a problem: if I deserve a reprimand, I have no need to hide such.
- Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?
- This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do
- what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.
- With a little more experience using wikipedia, and if I am not considered to have been too irresponsible here, yes, time permitting.
_____
Both parties seem to be willing to accept a compromise with a paragraph along the lines of.
Diocese XYZ provides masses in Uikranian (possible link), Polish (possible link), Latin (Link to diocese specific LMS site), Spanish (possible link). They provide educational services at the high school level (possible link)... I'm trying to finalize the compromise. jbolden1517 Talk 03:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Formally accepted by Roydosan 16:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC).
I think we are ready to move to implementation. We are going to do one sample together. Roydosan can you pick a diocese you know well enough to write the above paragraph for? It can either be one with an already existent LMS page or without (just let me know on the diocese talk page). Leave a message here with a link to the wikipedia article. jbolden1517 Talk 17:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The links are gone and Roydosan has been responding slowly indicating a possible lack of intererest. There has been some discussion privately but with long breaks between updates. I'm going to wait another week and then close this out if nothing has changed. jbolden1517 Talk 22:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Paragraph ready to go up I will post it within the next 24 hours. Roydosan 12:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
New mediator needed I have put this case back into the in need of mediators section, hopefully a new mediator will be back here to respond shortly. Cowman109 Talk 22:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
We have statistics on size of LMS relative to English faction and it looks like it is well under 1%. There are serious question about whether this method of counting is heavily skewed due to institutional biases.
Regarding size, notes in plaintext are Kevin, notes in italics are Roydesan.
East Anglia: 9 Masses per month, in 6 locations: in a diocese of 121 Churches and other Mass centres, there are 132 priests listed as working in the diocese(source: www.eastangliadiocese.org.uk): if they each celebrate only 5 Masses per week (an active priest working in a parish is more likely to celebrate about 10 per week) this would equate to 2640 Masses in a 4 week period: the LMS Masses are less than 0.5 % of Masses celebrated. (I have not looked up the equivalent statistics for other diocese, but East Anglia is a relatively small diocese).
Middlesbrough: In this diocese there are 84 parishes and Mass centres. I would assume that each parish has at least 2 Sunday Masses, and a Mass most weekdays. The Middlesborough LMS site reports that there is one Mass per month in the diocese, and links to an on-line petition requesting the bishop's concession of a second. This petition has 6 names on it. It also links to a message board: this has had 8 messages posted in the current calendar year. I believe that the LMS in Middlesborough, on this evidence, can accurately be described as fringe.
This is not the case at all. Latin Masses are also said in two other churches in the north of the diocese (in Staithes & Ugthorpe) – though not arranged by the LMS A petition undertaken about 5 years ago raised over 600 signatures calling for Sunday Masses within the diocese. The current petition has raised over 200 over a period of 6-8 weeks. The online petition was not advertised by the LMS and is not indicative of support.
Clifton: The LMS Clifton site carries the following message " The Bishop has stated (in a letter to our Clifton Representative) that he has been generous in giving permissions for weekdays but he thinks that on Sundays people should attend the modern rite. " I believe that this says something significant about the bishop's thoughts about the place of the LMS in the Catholic community of his diocese.
The Bishop wrote again to the LMS rep to state that he was mistaken to interpret this statement as meaning he planned to revoke the permissions already given for Sunday Masses. Regular masses are arranged in a rota of different churches.
Arundel & Brighton: I cannot find any link to the website that R says exists: the most appropriate looking page has a redirect to a list of Masses indicating that there are, in the 2 months May-June 2006 a total of 8 LMS services in this diocese.
The website is currently down. It was up a couple of months ago.
Portsmouth: One church has a weekly service, the cathedral has one Tridentine Mass per year (my research showed no other Catholic cathedral hosting a Mass under the auspices of the LMS), two other parishes offer 3-4 Masses per year. Although a Tridentine Mass centre in Oxford is listed on this site, Oxford is not in the diocese of Portsmouth.
As for no other Catholic cathedral allowing Latin Masses under the auspices of the LMS this is completely incorrect. Masses have been held in Westminster Cathedral at least once a month (and a Latin novus ordo every weekday. Hallam and Lancaster cathedrals have also had Latin masses
Leeds 3 venues are used, none of which are churches owned by the diocese.
This leaves out a lot of information. The bishop of Leeds has requested the LMS to move their Sunday masses to the cathedral once the renovation is completed. He has also arranged for 8-12 younger priests to be trained how to say the traditional mass. Hardly the actions of one who wants the mass to be marginalised.
Hallam: Last listed Mass 25th October 2005: there were a total of 10 Masses in the 4 months leading up to that date.
Again this is incorrect. Latin masses are held every week in alternating parishes. There is an annual mass in the cathedral.
Lancaster 4 Masses per month
Plus an annual mass in the cathedral.
Hexham & Newcastle 3 Churches have a weekly LMS Mass: two others once a month.
Northampton 3 venues: 3-4 Masses per month (although the web page also lists Masses in another diocese). Evidence provided by Kevin McE posted by jbolden1517Talk 03:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Nottingham Diocese 2 Churches have weekly Sunday & Holyday masses. Permission has been given for a third.
Westminster One Church has daily traditional masses, two other have weekly masses. Confirmations are held in the traditional rite once a year at which one of the diocesan auxiliary bishops presides. A large number of masses are arranged in other churches but not to a regular timetable.
Southwark One Church has traditional masses daily; one other has weekly Sunday masses. Five parishes rotate Sunday masses. Confirmations are held in certain years at which a diocesan auxiliary bishop presides. A large number of masses are arranged in other churches but not to a regular timetable.
Birmingham Two churches have at least one mass a week A large number of masses are arranged in other churches but not to a regular timetable.
Brentwood The bishop has recently granted permission for a regular Sunday mass centre to be established.
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
I would suggest that you leave LMS links where the page is to a specifically diocesan based website. I will then not put up links to the national LMS website. I think this is a reasonable compromise and reflects your wishes (as seen by me) to have the entry specifically related only to the diocese. I resent the implication that the existence of specific links is either partisan or theologically biased. There was no text either supporting or opposing the LMS in any of the articles and the fact that the number of links is, as you say, narrow is because others haven't added any. Maybe you should add some links to organisations that you think are pertinent to the diocese?
For your information the LMS has specific websites for the following RC dioceses:
Arundel & Brighton; Portsmouth; Middlesbrough; Leeds; Hallam; Lancaster; Hexham & Newcastle; Clifton; East Anglia; Northampton
Roydosan 1045 21 April 2006
- I would still maintain that that leaves an unrepresentative set of links. The fact that a website exists does not make it justified as a link in wikipedia. If there is no criterion for selecting links then anything less than a fully comprehensive list is a statement of preference, and therefore non-NPOV. Kevin McE 19:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I utterly disagree with that. I find the idea that a small selection of links is tantamount to stating preference and therefore in breach of NPOV is absurd. A fully comprehensive set of links is probably unnecessary on the basis that it would include many organisations which are fairly inconsequential to the life of the diocese - although I would dispute the idea that a fully comprehensive list is by itself undesirable. I would also argue that a small selection of links is justified where they have a significant impact or presence in the diocese. I believe that the LMS fits into this category and that to recognise this is not to state that one is in agreement with them or their ideals - but simply to recognise their place in the life of the diocese. The LMS plays a part in the liturgical life of many dioceses and it is right that that should be recognised. Not that this should be taken as either support for or opposition to the LMS - but merely a recognition of what it does for and in the liturgy of the diocese. In my opinion what you are proposing is basically censorship of the LMS on Wikipedia, an organisation you appear to make no effort to deny your disdain for, and that your claims that the LMS is a marginal organisation amongst Catholics is not borne out by the facts. Nor is the LMS an abstract organisation to list since it only helps to provide what was the normative rite in the Catholic Church up until 1965. I stand by the compromise offer - I believe that it is a good option in that only sites which are specifically linked to the diocese are represented - rather than the non-diocesan specific national LMS website. Roydosan 0030 24 April 2006
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
First off, let me state that I am not the official mediator for the case. I am keeping an eye on it until another mediator can be located. It would appear that both contributors have a decent grasp for pastoral care within the Archdiocese, so I have no concerns in those regards. I have made some recent comments to the "disputed section" to help build consensus for the article's standing.
CQJ
17:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Possibly close to a resolution. Waiting on both disputants to comment. CQJ 02:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Case is 14 days without action. Both disputants have been asked if they have further information to add, if not, the case will be closed in the next several days. CQJ 00:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- This case is closed due to inactivity. Should further troubles arise, this page will remain on my watchlist. Thanks. Cowman109 Talk 06:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)