Talk:Francis Schuckardt/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Independent bishop infobox

Opinions on the addition of the "independent bishop" infobox to this article? Gimmetrow 12:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I like it. How about adding "His episcopal orders derive from Bishop Daniel Q Brown of the [Old Catholic Church]" or "His episcopal orders are in the line of Bishop [Arnold Harris Matthew] via Bishop Daniel Q. Brown of the [Old Catholic Church]". I have seen similar text used in these infoboxes for other independent bishops and I think it is helpful. [...] Bernie Radecki 19:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am giving this box a trial run here, another version at [various pages]. I've had related discussions on other pages, and it seems that "without papal mandate" is considered the non-POV term. I originally had a link to episcopi vagantes but that article needs work. Valid but illicit and confirmation of bishops also had issues. [...] Gimmetrow 19:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you have already given this a lot of thought. Why does it start with "This is an independent Roman Catholic bishop..." I would think that the terms "independent bishop" (one who does not accept the authority of Rome/the Pope for all intents and purposes) and "Roman Catholic bishop" (the bishops in union with Rome) are contradictory. If Rome does not accept the "independent bishop", then it appears POV to describe (especially so prominently) the individual as a "Roman Catholic Bishop". Bernie Radecki 21:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You have a point, but what would you suggest? I'm quite open to working on the text. The articles I have in mind for this infobox are (mostly) sedevacantist bishops who consider themselves RC. [...] I see someone has created a variation for bishops derived from Old Catholic lines. Gimmetrow 22:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps just drop the adjective "Roman" and leave it as just "Catholic" or use "[Traditionalist Catholic]" as there is a Wikipedia article under that title that explains in some detail the beliefs of many different organizations that are opposed to the changes in the Roman Catholic Church that Vatican Council II inititated. A third choice would be to call them a bishop of whatever organization they are affiliated with, ie. for Schuckardt he would be a Catholic bishop of the TLRCC or Pivarunas would be a Catholic bishop of the CMRI. Bernie Radecki 00:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This template stands out more like a "warning sign" which seems to raise a POV issue. It seems to me to be detrimental to Wikipedi at large to start posting warning signs that deal with content and not editorial concerns. I think it should go. Unsigned comment by 216.231.60.169 (talk · contribs)

OK, I can appreciate that. I'll leave the infobox here on the talk page to entertain discussion to see if it is useful. Templates are commonly used to provide consistent links - I started this as a template saying "See also episcopi vagantes" and the idea grew from there. Gimmetrow 18:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I like your latest version of the infobox especially the link to [Traditionalist Catholic]. Maybe by having that link, every bishop that claims to be Catholic but does not agree with the changes of the Roman Catholic Church after Vatican Council II will not need to individually elucidate in the article on themselves why they are separated from the Roman Catholic Church. Is it possible to incorporate this infobox into the "Episcopal Linkage" infobox that appears at the bottom of the articles of many of the separated bishops? Currently, that infobox does not state the name of the bishop's church which I would think is a key piece of information on an individual and is worthy of an infobox as is the 'Episcopal Line'. This type of information might help orient a reader who is less familiar with the details. Bernie Radecki 00:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is the "Lineage" infobox at the bottom of many articles. It could be incorporated, but could just as well be kept separate. The lineage boxes give immediate connections, but I suspect the "overall line" is also useful. Could easily add "location" to this box. Gimmetrow 00:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I wrote poorly. By 'the name of the bishop's church' I did not mean the location of the person's church, but rather the line you have listed as "Bishop of". That is what I think is very important and should be in an infobox. I was thinking either the 'Bishop of' line should be incorporated into the existing "Episcopal Linkage" infobox or your box as it nows appears should go back into the article. Bernie Radecki 02:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the infobox generally acceptable now? Gimmetrow 00:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The text

(Template removed from talk page Gimmetrow 15:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC))

I'm looking for a short phrase which accurately describes the situation, but nothing has seemed ideal.

• "independent Catholic bishop" - sounds like Independent Catholic Churches
• "episcopus vagans" - technically correct but not explanatory
• "wandering bishop" - informal, not clear, used commonly with Old Catholics
• "rogue bishop" - negative connotations
• "unattached bishop" - not a common phrase Gimmetrow 02:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

None of the above phrases can accurately describe Bishop Schuckardt's position. The backbone of his public teaching centers on an absolute adherence to the "true" Roman Pontiffs, who are considered infallible by "pre-Vatican Council II" Catholics. Since the article sufficiently details the difference between pre-Vatican II ("true popes") and post-Vatican II Roman Pontiffs ("false popes"), perhaps the term "traditional Roman Catholic", or "pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic" would suffice. But it certainly is misleading to identify Bishop Schuckardt with the various groups considered schismatic by Roman Catholics, especially since he refused Holy Orders from Bishop Brown until the matter of his Old Roman Catholic connection was resolved. "Tridentine Latin Rite Catholic Bishop" (identifying with the 'Queen of Councils' - Trent, & Pope St. Pius V), would be more accurate than an identifier considered to be schismatic by Bishop Schuckardt's own congregation, and this would perhaps make the distinction between post-Vatican II "Roman Catholics", and the Roman Catholic Tridentine norms which were overthrown at Vatican Council II.

The other suggestions, as Gimmetrow states, are less than ideal. There are indeed rogue, wandering, and unattached "bishops". But these terms suggest a very negative connotation for a man who--far from being a "rogue"--places enormous emphasis upon obedience to the consistent teachings of the Roman Pontiffs through the centuries. "Wandering" or "unattached" would also seem to be inappropriate, since Bishop Schuckardt's theological representations are consistently rooted in his interpretation of the doctrinal statements of the Roman Pontiffs and the Universal Church Councils. It seems only fair to characterize him in a manner which reflects the discipline to which he has bound himself: to "traditional Roman Catholicism", or "Tridentine Latin Rite Catholicism", as set forth by the Roman Pontiffs." Unsigned comment by 67.139.117.84 (talk · contribs)

I want a phrase which identifies to a casual reader that contemporary Rome does not recognize him. Casual readers would not undertand "pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic" as a special codeword - they would probably assume he was made a bishop before 1960. Do you have another suggestion? How about "This bishop is not officially recognized by Rome." I had thought of that before - my concern was that a casual reader might get the impression Rome doubts he is a bishop, but with "this bishop" and "episcopal orders" is it a problem? (Questions of validity are too much for a little infobox.) Better? Gimmetrow 05:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[...] There is no debate that Schuckardt is a recognized bishop of the Tridentine Latin Rite Catholic Church. This seems to be more factual and therefore more NPOV than any other term. Bernie Radecki 17:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is simple. Schuckardt broke from the church assuming responsibility for his actions. The church labels those people as schismatic. He is not under the umbrella of Rome therefore he can't use the term Catholic because it will mislead people. He has no authority in the church whatsoever. So I feel that he should be referred to as a "break away or schismatic". George Wagner 14 Jun 06

The problem with that, George, is that it is a definite POV. It assumes that the "Vatican II Church" is indeed the "true" church, and that those who disagree with the Vatican II church are "break-away" or "schismatic" (which, strictly speaking, means to be separated from lawful authority). An objective article should not espouse the position that the "Vatican II church" is the only "lawful authority" by using the term "schismatic" or "break away". The members of Bishop Schuckardt's congregregation certainly do not see it that way, nor do the followers of the other "traditionalist" ('break-away') bishops see it that way. In this article it can be stated that the "Vatican II church" considers Bishop Schuckardt to be schismatic, but to make an unqualified encyclopedic statement that he IS schismatic would seem to be definitely POV. Is the church "under the umbrella of Rome" the ONLY Catholic Church? To state that IS very misleading... and POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel Joseph (talk • contribs)

That is a good point. The Catholic Church based in Rome under the Pope is by definition the Roman Catholic Church. No editor can contest that since it is a fact. The term "Catholic" is vague as there are numerous churches with that adjective such as the Old Catholic Church, the Polish National Catholic Church, the Independent Catholic, the Ancient Catholic and Liberal Catholic Churches or in Schuckardt's case, the Tridentine Latin Rite Catholic Church. The Old Catholic Church is the Old Catholic Church because that is how they and others identify the name of their church. The debate about a "true" church or "lawful authority" is irrelevant to a neutral editor. There is no church with the title "Post-Vatican II Church" or "Pre-Vatican II Church" since there is no church in the phonebook under that title. It is for this reason that I suggested to Gimmetrow to just state that the man or woman is the bishop of whatever the name of the church they belong to is. Bernie Radecki 04:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Length of article

The article is about 75K. It could do with a reduccion in size to fit the alloted 50K per article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 13:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As a neutral party, and one that has no previous knowledge of this person, I warn you that the article itself is too long, hard to read and tedious to follow. Many assumtpions are made that readers will understand the disputes. Many of these are so subtle that these are lost to all but to insiders. A good copyedit job is needed to make this article worth reading. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 13:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is difficult to read and follow. Some pruning should be straightforward. Gimmetrow 14:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The arbitrators are starting to enter text on the workshop page. I am sure their decisions will be able to guide very significant changes that will shurely shorten and improve the article. No one go away! The help of more seasoned, less involved editors is always appreciated. Bernie Radecki 18:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I do think the article is too long and detailed, containing both more laudatory and highly critical information than appropriate, but neither I nor the other arbitrators will be addressing most specific content issues. I do think positions pro and con are more extensively quoted than appropriate. I am working at /Proposed decision now and will consider matters chiefly in the light of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Fred Bauder 20:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope the arbitration addresses the issue of No Original Research too. If the unpublished theory of Francis Schuckardt regarding the state of the Catholic Church falls under that heading, then a lot of text would be excised. I reckon the material under the Accusations section that is not substantiated by third party sources will also be excised. The removal of the corresponding section under Answers to Accusations would be shortened too. This is all fascinating. Bernie Radecki 04:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article covers subjects in a way similar to a credible newspaper article - it reports the objective facts and does not make judgement calls. While "advocacy journalism" and a persuasive style of writing (either way) are inappropriate, background information is still appropriate. His theory on the state of the RCC is published - on a website - and it seems directly relevant to some of his actions. A summary form would be important here. I think most of the sections (except the early history ones) could easily be a lot shorter. Gimmetrow 17:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Do Encyclopedias rely completely on a primary, self poublished source for their information on such a controversial topic? I am surprised to find myself in the minority on this. Anyone could crank up a website and use it to glorify themselves in a Wikipedia article. I've been wrong before, but this sure seems problematic. Bernie Radecki 18:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Less is more, in these cases, Bernie. Think of the reader... As a reader, I need in the lead to the article to be quickly informed on who is this person and why he is notable. Then, in the article itself, a summary of his life's history, significant events in his life, his life work, etc. There is no need to expand on each one of this person's views and POVs, unless these are described in reputable sources. A short summary of this person's views can be added, based on primary sources, if there is no tertiary sources available. As long as this article is as long as it is (pun intended) we will face difficult and contentious edits. I would suggest considering an article as short as 20% of its current size. Contemplating such reduction in size will sharpen editor's focus on the most significant aspects of this man's life. The solution to your question may be in that... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it can be problematic, that's why there are restrictions on how a personal site can be used in WP. Even if XYZ view is controversial, it's probably not controversial that "he holds XYZ" - and his personal site seems to me an adequate source for his personal views. I think what you are seeing is that the section goes beyond just saying "he holds XYZ" to make arguments for XYZ. Sometimes it even does so as the encyclopedia speaking and making a judgement - that seems inappropriate. Gimmetrow 19:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Gimmetrow. The distinction between describing a POV and advocating for a POV is crucial. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. It just makes me nervous when the reason given by Athanasius303 that Schuckardt's views on the Roman Cathoilc have never been published is "Bishop Schuckardt charges that many in the modern post-Vatican II Catholic Church did not appreciate being exposed for introducing and adhering to non-Catholic doctrines and so used their considerable influence and power to silence him." For me, this display of a conspiracy frame of mind puts up flags related to credibility. There may be another reason he has never been published: no one takes him serious. Perhaps the topic he has views on is taken serious, but no one takes this particular man serious. Anyway, I do see Gimmetrow's point on the "he hold XYZ" and I thank you both for adding to my perspective. I will come along for the ride. Bernie Radecki 21:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you heard of escalation? It may apply here. The "anti" faction adds critical material, that is quickly followed by rebuttals by the "pro" faction, followed by more crtitical material, and so on and so forth ad nauseum. That is why, my suggestion of "less is more". Keep it short, keep it simple, and we shall be fine. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

So the current article has some general biographical info first, then the general thesis on Schuckardt's view on the current state of the Catholic Church, and then how other sources view Schuckardt, and then accusations from former members of his church, and then rebuttal of accusations.

The biographical stuff is definitely required. Schuckardt's personal views on the state of the Catholic Church are acceptable material. Relevant published views on Schuckardt are acceptable ie. What representatives of the Catholic Church have said about him and former members of his church. Keep is short and condensed. OK. Maybe don't quote people but have references at the end if readers want more info. Who determines if the rebuttle to views on Schuckardt and his church are acceptable? Bernie Radecki 00:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I read through that section. Almost every sentence starts "Francis Schuckardt argued..." but it doesn't have the style of a report. I'm probably missing some important nuance, but it seems to me this section could be reduced to a couple paragraphs easily. Gimmetrow 19:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Biographies of Living Persons

Athanasius303 and Jossi have pointed out that the guidelines for Biography of Living Persons underwent a change in the late April timeframe such that negative, unsourced material dealing with the subject of the article can be removed from both the article and the article's talk page without any discussion in order to protect the subject of the article from being slandered. As the point is made, I am removing the template from the Talk page. Bernie Radecki 05:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless Bishop Schuckardt has died I think editors need to keep the guidelines in mind. Having the template here helps do that. Fred Bauder 13:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

We all do need to look at recent edits of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and consider them. Fred Bauder 13:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I did the thing wrong again. Sorry. Bernie Radecki 18:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate all those who have contributed documented statements and evidence to this article. I know everyone has there own personal life and obligations ... I do have several questions especially about Biographies of Living Persons: How do we know Francis Schuckardt is still alive? There is an article in a Seattle paper on Nov. 29th 2005 "Urquhart said investigators have found no sign of Schuckardt in more than two years. Most likely, he said, Schuckardt is dead, although his church insists he is alive." I think we need some legitimate proof from John Francis that Schuckardt is still alive; otherwise, I think we should be able to deal with this article as if Schuckardt is dead. Another question I have is in the main article. There is a statement saying that Schuckardt dropped out of the seminary in the first year because of ill-health. How do we know this? Is there any documentation of ill health being the cause of his leaving the seminary? I heard a whole different story that is why I am questioning this statement. Also I have a problem with the statement about Fr. Burton Fraser. Where is the documentation for this claim? Unless there is a published letter between Schuckardt and Fr. Fraser, this is mere speculation.. My last concern is about the counterclaim section; it is way too long and cumbersome. Did Schuckardt actually make all these claims? If so, where is the published source. Think that is all for tonight. Sincerely, Rosemarie

If I understand correctly, the Biographies of Living Person guidelines allows the subject's website to serve as supporting evidence in Wikipedia for information directly related to the subject of the article. Thus, if it is stated in the subject's website that he left the seminary for medical reasons, then that serves as verification. If it says he is alive, then he is alive. To contradict a statement made on the personal website requires a published reference from a reliable, third party source. I am sure the goal is to prevent unfounded negative criticism to be published against the subject. Jossi is very knowledgable on this topic and I am sure will be of great assistance with this article after arbitration concludes. I do know the personal website cannot serve as a source for a negative criticism of others, so the accusation that Fr. Chicoine was motivated by "greed and a lust for power" will be removed.

I don't know if the website can be used as a sole reference supporting what a third party like Fr. Fraser thought or did. Maybe Jossi can answer that. If Schuckardt's personal website state "Fr. Fraser believed Bishop Schuckardt to be the only Bishop in the world." could that be put into the article with no other verifying reference? Bernie Radecki 04:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I would really like verifiable sources for such a statement, which essentially says this third party supported him in a rather controversial action. Gimmetrow 17:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have another concern about the statement made in the counterclaims on the main page about sexual impropriety. It is only an assumption and a very poor one at that. On the contrary, Marilyn Van Deuber writes extensively about sexual impropriety in her book Miss America by Day on page 461, "Most children don't tell. Most adults don't tell. It's usually because of overwhelming shame. It is not until mid-life that most people disclose. Many survivors carry their secrets for decades......It is also excruciatingly difficult for men to disclose because too often boys abused by men are afraid they will be called gay or questioned as to why they weren't able to defend themselves.... on pg 464: Knowing how difficult it is for adult men to disclose, one can only imagine how difficult it is for adolescents.. Research showed that, of those studied, 'None of the abused adolescent boys had ever told their primary care providers and only 15% had ever told anyone.' (Holmes and Slap, Journal of the AMerican Medical Association, p 1839) Most other studies report similarly low rates of disclosure. Rosemarie

This article is currently under arbitration and it seems to me that all editors should sit it out for the time being and let the process take place. Once arbitration is completed, I think everyone will have a much better grasp as to what should or should not be done regarding this article - especially in regards to downsizing; something in my opinion which is badly needed.

Also, what Rosemarie appears to be advocating above is a call to judgment based upon her reading of a book. It fails to address Bishop Schuckardt personally, but rather speaks only in generalities. There has to be a factual connection here, not just someone’s presumption that there is a factual link between a book and a specific person and his/her specific actions. From an interested observer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.46.170 (talk • contribs)

To Unsigned: Very well said...Gabriel Joseph 04:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

To Rosemarie: The Wikipedia guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons are adamant that negative material on the subject of the article must be sourced. This prevents libelous text from appearing in Wikipedia articles and talk pages. Since truth is often elusive, Wikipedia does the next best thing and requires verifiable references from reliable sources for negative material. Bernie Radecki 00:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Since this is a biography of a living person, any statement regarding Francis Schuckardt that is considered negative needs to be referenced. On the other hand, I do not think Bishop Schuckardt's personal website can be used to disparge others without a supporting independent source. For instance this is in the article "Bishop Schuckardt charges that many in the modern post-Vatican II Catholic Church did not appreciate being exposed for introducing and adhering to non-Catholic doctrines and so used their considerable influence and power to silence him." You that understand the policies far better than I, please inform me if I am getting this balancing act correct at long last. Bernie Radecki 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Terminology: Catholic Church and post-vatican II Catholic Church

The changing of the wording from “modern Catholic Church” and “post-Vatican II Catholic Church” to simply “Catholic Church” seems to me to be a change for the worse. The change took a factually accurate and undisputed issue (that Bishop Schuckardt separated himself the from modern Catholic Church after the implementation of the changes of Vatican Council II in the late 1960’s) and substituted instead a factually questionable and disputed issue (that Bishop Schuckardt separated himself from the Catholic Church); something which Bishop Schuckardt and other traditionalists adamantly deny. In other words, it changed a neutral, undisputed issue and replaced it with a non-neutral, disputed one. This is POV peddling and seems to be detrimental to Wikipedia’s NPOV policy. From an interested observer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.46.170 (talk • contribs) (Moved here by Bernie Radecki 00:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

Unsigned: Also very well said...Gabriel Joseph 04:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The terms "modern Catholic Church" and "post-Vatican II Catholic Church" are used by people who subscribe to a [Traditional Catholic] view. Take a look at the article[Catholic Church] to see a reflection of the common view. I don't think editors should allow their bias into the article. So if the article is discussing Schuckardt's personal view on the topic, then the terminology that Schuckardt uses for the institution of the Catholic Church is appropriate. (I still don't like seeing the neologism used in headings of sections, but I am in no position to contest it if others think it proper.) However, in all other places, I think editors are obligated to go by common usage so as not to confuse others or demean the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, it is appropriate to have in the article: "Francis Schuckardt held that the teachings of Vatican Council II were opposed to the teachings of previous councils to the point that it represented a new church. He described that new church as the post-Vatican Council II Church." On the other hand, this statement is also appropriate: "Bishop Schuckardt is not a bishop of the Catholic Church". This topic was discussed at length during mediation. Bernie Radecki 22:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

To the unsigned party: What does the church teach in regards to schism? I will answer the question very simply. You break away from the established structure, you are in schism. And, it doesn't matter how much you believe that you are right. There are rules and they must be followed. This goes for ALL groups out there. So, to label them as Catholic is misleading. George Wagner 19 JUN 06

George: Which legitimate "church" teaching on schism are you referring to? Which authentic "established structure" do you mean? Your answers to these questions depend upon your (subjective) viewpoint, and the same can be said of the other partisans, each of whom believe they "are right". Your debate is precisely that: which of your denominations is truly Catholic? It is entirely inappropriate for a truly objective article to espouse any partisan (or wholly arbitrary) view of who is Catholic and who is schismatic. The most it can do is set forth their respective views.

The logic you have suggested would make it appropriate to state unequivocally (in a hypothetical Wikipedia article on Vatican Council II) that all of the bishops at the Council were unquestionably schismatic and heretical for having broken away from the established doctrinal structure of the previous 1962 years. Not that I disagree with that proposition, but don't you think it is a little POV in an article such as this? Respectfully, --Gabriel Joseph 04:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There is plenty of third party material available that details representatives of the Catholic Church's view on the bishop of the TLRCC. However, remember Wikipedia's rules on Biographies of Living Person allows the subject of the article and his close associates to relate the viewpoint of the bishop of the TLRCC based on the bishop's personal webstie. The article already contains the view of members of the TLRCC regarding their leader: "Schuckardt denies that ever declared himself to be the pope. Some of his followers, however, believe him to be so based upon their belief that he is the "last true Catholic bishop". Wikipedia's policy allows both the view of the TLRCC and the Catholic Church to be stated. I was so hung up on "majority view" and "minority view" that I missed this important point. Jossi and Athanasiu303 have straightened me out and now I see the wisdom in allowing the subject of the article to state his or her case as long as other, published view are represented in the article. I look forward to how these 2 views get balanced. Bernie Radecki 04:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Gabriel, if you read the 60 some odd pages you wil find the argument about the section on "traditional Catholic teaching on excommunication." It just adds too much uneccessary wording to the article. It is mentioned that Schuckardt never revoked 'his' excommunication so that should suffice. I removed the statement on thos grounds. This article is currently being reviewed and we should just leave it alone. George Wagner 29 Jun 06

Sounds fair enough to me. I realized that very point after I reverted your deletion. Thank you, Gabriel Joseph 01:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the article

Now that the arbitrators have voted, perhaps it would be appropriate to begin discussion on editing the article. Personally, I think the first paragraph and the Early Life and Blue Army sections are ok. Any suggestions on how to proceed with incorporating the rules the arbitrators developed and moving forward? Start at the beginning of the article and go section by section or ? Bernie Radecki 18:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that the ArbCom case is not yet closed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to editors

One of the obstacles encountered with this article has been the lack of editors who do not have a bias due to their own experiences with the subject of the article. Here is a website http://www.theroguebishop.com/forums/ that contains copies of third party sources (newspaper articles, newsletters, news reports, trial information, etc.) that pertain to the activities of Francis K. Schuckardt covering the last 35 years. If an unbiased editor would like to peruse these articles, it may be very helpful for the effort to improve this article in Wikipedia. Bernie Radecki 21:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Editors Beware

Negative, Bernie. I have attempted to post pertinent published articles on the website you reference, only to have them removed by the administrator, presumably you or George. "Roguebishop" appears to be operated by those who "have a bias due to their own experiences with the subject of the article".

It would be disingenuous to provide this site as an impartial source.

As I recall earlier, one of you made the statement that you were going to "start your own website" so that your own views would be unrestricted by the Wikipedia philosophy of concensus.

While the website may indeed contain legitimate third party material, it has been my experience that you are filtering out additional third party material that conflicts with your point of view. Please correct me if I am wrong. Have you deleted pertinent third party material from your website? Gabriel Joseph

You are absolutely right that your post was deleted from the website. It was deleted by me. Where you are mistaken is that it was deleted on purpose and that it was deleted because of its content. I thank you for the oportunity to explain. I am a new administrator at the rougebishop website and I attempted to move the excellent article you posted from the forum you had placed it in into a new forum dealing specifically with the theological position of Francis K. Schuckardt. During the process of moving the article, I didn't unclick a box so it left the article not only in the new position but also in the old position. So when I deleted it from the old position, it also unfortunately got deleted from the new position. I could find no way to undelete it. I immediately emailed to you a message detailing what happened and apologizing for my mistake. I also encouraged you to post the article again. I do not know why you did not receive the email. It is always a bit tricky to observe an action of another and then divine the individual's motive. I myself am not good at it and have found that it is a very difficult to guess correctly. I think there are many excellent editors involved with Wikipedia. If one of them is willing to get involved with improving this article, I don't think it is in anyone's best interest to discourage them. Bernie Radecki 18:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply and explanation. It should be observed that the deleted article is a defense of the validity and lawfulness of Bishop Schuckardt's ordination and consecration, published by Mt. St. Michael after the clerical insurgency (ca. 1985). Besides this article (which I will repost), there are additional published sources that would shed light on this subject. The next one that could/should be tracked down is the lengthy "Memorandum of Decision on the Recovery of Church Property" written by Plumas Superior Court Judge Roger Settlemire. On the whole, it is a legal indictment (so to speak) of Rev. Chicoine's underhanded methods in procuring church property. Gabriel Joseph

Ground rules

The following ground rules were passed by the Arbitration Committee in the recently concluded arbitration case concerning this article and its editors.

In consideration of the fact that the principal editors are new to Wikipedia and inexperienced in editing according to our policies no penalties will be assessed for the numerous violations of Wikipedia policies that have occurred.

However continued participation in the editing of the article will depend on following some basic ground rules. The premier rules to be observed are Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks: you are counseled to be courteous to one another. This is a policy which extends beyond formal politeness.

• Please do not address one another with insulting bantering language.
• Please do not answer one offense with another.
• Please do not remove each other's comments from the talk pages.

The second rule to be observed is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: this policy contemplates fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject. Applied to this article it means fairly representing Bishop Schuckardt's life and doctrinal positions (without a lot of wikilawyering about where and whether they are published outside of his personal website) and the criticisms that have been made of him and his church, including a summary and links to published newspaper reports.

The third rule is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: a conservative approach which avoids defamation is counseled. Any negative information must have a credible source. Non-controversial material (such as statements of his doctrines) may be obtained from his website. (His doctrines may be controversial but what they are is not).

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 09:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Many Thanks to the Arbitration Committe for their contribution to this article. Gabriel Joseph

Proposed Edits

Did he die on 5 November or 11 November as some have said?

Also, what does "K - 12th grade boys" mean in the para stating the number of priests etc? Isn't this a typo?

Paragraph 1:

"Schuckhardt was an early proponent of Sedevacantism, a theory which holds that, as a result of their alleged personal heresy, Pope Paul VI and his successors are not valid popes and therefore the Holy See is vacant."

There is a distinction here in what sedevantists believe. While the statement "as a result of their personal heresy" is accepted by many (perhaps most) sedevantists, I think is in inaccurate in describing Bishop Schuckardt's postion. I believe his position is this: "The heretical public teaching of the alleged Vatican II popes amply demonstrates that they were not true popes to begin with, because a true pope is protected from publicly teaching error by the charism of the Holy Ghost. The dogma of Papal Infallibility would be meaningless it were possible for a true pope to lead the faithful into error."

This theological distinction is important because, as the paragraph is now written, it appears that Bishop Schuckardt believes that a pope can in fact go into heresy and, resultingly, lose his authority. I have always understood his position to be this: A man claiming to be pope while teaching public heresy could never have been a true pope, because his selection/election was invalid or he was ineligible (e.g., he was a Modernist, not a Catholic).

I am reluctant to make this change without an indication from Frater John Francis that this is indeed consonant with TLRCC teaching. --Gabriel Joseph 18:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Gabriel Joseph - You assessment is correct and I believe the Bishop's website supports that position. There has been a propensity on the part of some to simply try to fit the Bishop’s positions into predefined slots; this type of editing does a disservice to all and I am glad that you are making the effort to be more factually correct. Athanasius303 17:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Look at his website. You have knowledge of his theological position, so that coupled with the website may well provide the proper phrasing. Or just let Fra. John do it. Jossi has stated that the article is too technical or some such term. I think he said it needs to be made more readable and less in depth. I wonder who the editors should consider as to the target audience for the article - the average reader or someone with a lot of background in Roman Catholic teaching and practice. Bernie Radecki 23:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Asking for input from experienced editors

The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has expended a lot of energy on providing ground rules for this article. I would like to ask if any of you editors with expertise with Wikipedia beyond this one little article have any input on a proper way to proceed? I know the consensus is that it is too long and too technical. I have some ideas, but I'd love to have a less biased individual direct the actual article changes. Bernie Radecki 23:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am interested, but I don't know if Athanasius would consider me less biased. Gimmetrow 01:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You are an improvement from me as the Arbitration Committee did correctly identify me as having a negative bias. Your lack of any personal association with the bishop of the TLRCC gives you a much better starting point than I have. The way I see it, there is information at http://www.bishopschuckardt.com to show one side of the story. At http://www.theroguebishop.com there is third party published material from the 1970s to the present that. If an open minded person were to peruse these two sources of information and also had some knowledge of the basis of the theological issues, they would have all they need to proceed. Bernie Radecki 13:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been keeping a low profile recently because I wanted to wait for the Arbitration Committee to complete their work (I want to thank the Committee for their work - it was much needed and is much appreciated). They did, however, seem to leave all of us a lot of wiggle room and I hope that does not simply bring us back to square zero.

Gimmitrow – you have done very little to identify yourself and it appears to me that you may have a prejudicial position in all of this, a concern I have previously stated. Having said that, however, your prejudice (real or perceived) is probably not as strong as that of most of the previous editors who very clearly have strong feelings about this article (I include myself in this). If no one else steps forward, perhaps having you take a stab at it might make for the best starting point. Athanasius303 18:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The section 'Reaction of Post-Vatican II Church'

I personally feel this section vilolates wikipedia standards. I realize that it uses bishop schuckardt's website as the basis for this statement, but it is my understanding that the website is only to be used to verify his teachings. I do not believe it is acceptable for it to be used to make derogatory, unsubstantiated statements about individuals unless those allegationscan be independently documented for validity. The section states that the Catholic Church "used their considerable influence and power to silence him. He claims that their inability to successfully challenge him in the arena of Catholic doctrine without running the risk of exposing themselves for abandoning the true teachings of the Catholic Church, made them opt for another tried and true method of dealing with one's adversary - attack the messenger in an attempt to bury his message. This organization of over 1 billion people worldwide, he alleges, has used its considerable resources to that end for nearly 40 years, sadly with great success". Some experienced editor please help me to know if these are unsubstantiated allegations and as such they are subject for immediate removal according to policy as there are libelious (OK, I can't spell so good.) Bernie Radecki 02:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we have all had ample time to cool off and regroup. Now, keeping in mind with what the committee has suggested, we should put our differences aside and edit the article according to the rules. We should ALL keep in mind that the individual in question has the right to a good name and if there are any accusations (I have a few) they should be recourced, tastefull in print and limited in scope. As Bernie mentioned we are all involved to some degree and with the help of more professional writers, we should be able to get this done professionally. Any objections?

George Wagner 25 JUL 06

Rick Ross

I deleted a small paragraph with negative information on a man named Rick Ross. Rick Ross is not cited as a source anywhere in the article so to attack him personally is unfair. Additionally, the source given (Religious Freedom Watch) is a website that appears to be of questionable value. I know the article needs a major overhaul and I wish someone else would engage themself in it who has no personal bias. In the mean time, I might nibble away a little on obvious things, but my intent it to do very little in hopes of a white knight. I reckon soon I'll dlete the paragraph I mentioned above that also crosses the line as an unsubstantiated attack on a third party. Bernie Radecki 01:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Lust for Power

I deleted a small paragraph that has long been tagged with "citation needed" that made unsubstantiate allegations against individuals. If an experienced editor such as Jossi stumbles upon this site, I'd love input from a seasoned, unbiased editor on the appropriateness of these minor deletions. With proper guidance, maybe I can do some good while I pray for a white knight.

Hey, white knight, over here

The white knight wouldn't have to actually kill the dragon, but just give some guidance in how to go about killing a dragon. For instance, right now the article has positive inout about the subjuect and then negative material and then a positive rebuttal. Any input on if this is a good way to do it? Or would it be better to merge this "three section" format so that all points are given as the topic is raised? Personally I think that makes it easier to read. For instance in the counter claims section, there is a sentance that starts "The Schuckardt faction criticizes those who attack the principle of obedience to legitimate Church authority..." Well, the crux of the issue is that few accept Schuckardt as representing the legitimate authoriy of the Roman Catholic Church so I think these types of statements only confuse a reader, although this topic is key and should be addressed in the article. Bernie Radecki 01:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Patience is a Virtue

Somehow in attempting to reinsert the info on Ross I somehow did more than just that. Sorry. But if what I did was to revert to where we were at the conclusion of Arbitration, perhaps it is just as well anyways, because I can probably take issue with most, if not all the edits you made.

Bernie - I foresee another edit war looming as you start to unilaterally make edits. I am fearful that your impatience to edit this article is going to bring about a response in kind from the other side and then we are back in the trenches. Why can’t everyone sit back and see if some editor of true neutrality is willing to come onboard and help out here. If no one come forward in a couple of weeks, than I would suggest lying down some basic – mutually agreed to guidelines from which to proceed. For instance – let’s reduce the size of the article as has been recommended by several arbitrators; let’s agreed to a basic format of article content that represents all sides fairly and according to Wiki policy, … Let's reach a reasonable conclusion regarding the Chicoine's faction and their involvement with the Ayrian Nations ...

The “rogue” bishop website does not qualify for inclusion according to Wiki policy; besides which, as it’s name portraits, it is clearly not impartial.Athanasius303 17:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

To Whomever (if Anyone) Neutral Party Willing to Help Out - I would ask that some of the unilateral extractions that were never agreed to prior to arbritation (Aryan Nations for example) to be addressed still. Athanasius303 17:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Athanasius303 I will agree with you in regards to mutually reaching conclusions in editing. However I will disagree about the AN, I thought that was resolved. No one has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt or according to wikipedia protocol that Rev. Chicoine and followers were involved with the AN. It should be left out and it is of no use to Schuckardt.

Look at other articles on other bishops. Terence Fulham comes to mind. Look at how it is written and use those guidelines. It should be simple. In regards to the accusations, they should be contained in one paragraph and the answers should be in another. Simple...

George Wagner 27JUL06

Athanasius303 - I have reverted back to my latest changes. Perhaps I should have left more days between changes for you to peruse them one at a time as I had done work over several days. One part was to remove an unsubstantiated charge against the Catholic Church and against Denis Chicoine. Another was to remove charge against Rick Ross that is from a source of questionable integrity and also Rick Ross has no significant role in this. Schuckardt's website can be used to explain his theological position, but it can't be used to make unsupported attacks on third parties (Right Arb Comm?). I edited this page in defense of those changes. Several days after that, I did make several other changes that do have sources. The website www.theroguebishop.com is the website at which some of these sources are viewable. As they are newspaper articles and newsletters from the 70s and 80s, there is no other source for these materials. I am pretty sure that these independent, third party sources are allowable under the arbitration decision(Right Arb Comm?). I agree whole heartedly that an independent editor would be optimal. However, I did request input when I made each of my changes. If I have done something wrong, allow one of them to point that out to me. In the absence of a knight (previous term not meant to sound racist by the way and I apologize if I inadvertently offended any reader), the biased editors with personal knowledge of Schuckardt are going to have to learn by chastisement from the Arb Comm member overlooking probation when we make well-meaning changes. I fear Schuckardt is so little known that the article may not attract and independent editor. Bernie Radecki 00:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, this person is quite a bit more notable than Terence Fulham, not only because of the newpaper stuff but because Schuckardt has been active for a long time. This will naturally lead to a longer article. At this point the article is too long for most editors to read and sort through unless they are really interested. I can copy edit a stub or a couple pages easily; this is a much longer project. I'll try to get a paper copy and read it over the weekend to see what can be cut. Assuming it is OK to reference ideas that are explained in detail elsewhere, this ought to be cut to a couple pages of essential history. I basically imagine the article approximately as:

• Early life/Blue Army (2-3 paragraphs)
• Late 60s/70s
  • Theology/separation (2 paragraphs)
  • CMRI (2 paragraphs)
  • Consecration (2 paragraphs)
• Split and cult accusations (2-5 paragraphs)

This would reduce each long section to about a paragraph. As an outsider, much of this detail seems irrelevant or available elsewhere. Once it is cut down to a manageable size, the wording can be improved and copy edited, and possibly other editors will be more inclined to look at it. Does this sound reasonable? Gimmetrow 01:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic Bernie Radecki 03:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Gimmetrow: I think what you proposed above is an excellent starting point. Please have at it. Thanks. Athanasius303 18:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

My point on Terence Fulham was that it is easy to read. He is not a noteable figure. I think your suggestion above is very reasonable. George Wagner 28JUL06

I just reverted to my changes. I corresponded with mboverboard and he didn't realize that the cited forum was a repository for the newspaper articles that are not available online. Although my reversion is unnecessary, I just wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page as far as the correctness of citing the published accounts. Additionally, I utilized actual links to the source documents instead of to footnotes. I like that more than adding footnotes since I think it is more user friendly and also it provides the reader with the in depth information to read if they like. This keeps the actual article shorter and still provides more info for the really interested reader. My intent is to give Gimmetrow free reign and to stifle my biased self, but this style point is just a suggestion. Bernie Radecki 16:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Bernie, I reverted your last (biased) deletion on this basis: The paragraph is an accurate depiction of how Bishop Schuckardt described the reaction of the Vatican II church, based on any number of his sermons or writings. There is nothing in the verbage attributed to Vatican II officials. At the most, perhaps, you may want to retitle the paragraph, but it remains a critical dynamic in this article. Gabriel Joseph

I do agree that the section entitled 'Reaction of Post-Vatican II Church' does reflect the opinion of Francis Schuckardt. He claims "the modern post-Vatican II Catholic Church did not appreciate being exposed for introducing and adhering to non-Catholic doctrines and so used their considerable influence and power to silence him". and the church does "attack the messenger in an attempt to bury his message". In the Proposed Decisions of the arb com, it reads "Any negative information must have a credible source. Non-controversial material (such as statements of his doctrines) may be obtained from his website. (His doctrines may be controversial but what they are is not)." So Schuckardt's own website can be used as a source to clear up controversies relating to his personal theological belief on; but as I understand it, it does not allow totally unsubstantiated charges against the Catholic Church. It is for this reason that I removed that section.

As I have been declared biased and I don't want to be accused of lawyering, I would ask for input from others on this. I am still hoping Gimmetrow breaks out the knife and has at the article. If nothing happens in a few days and you, Gabriel Joseph or others fail to persuade me that the section entitled 'Reaction of Post-Vatican II Church' should remain, I will delete it again.

I added in the website for www.theroguebishop.com as it is in keeping with the Arbcom's Proposed Ground rule: "including a summary and links to published newspaper reports". Bernie Radecki 20:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Radecki: I ask that you review the criteria for acceptable website links. The site you added fails to meet the necessary criteria and your previous arguments for its inclusion seems to me to be a back-door attempt to get around the basic problems barring its inclusion. Athanasius303 17:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Pruning and references

I cut a fair amount of stuff that seemed of marginal notability. Text went from over 70k down to about 38k. I think the legal cases and some of the history of the split could be reduced further but I ran out of energy. As a result of some text rearranging, the footnotes are probably not correct anymore. This is one of the problems with the ref/note template style; it's broken whenever text is moved around. These could be fixed, or perhaps a different system would be better. I tend to favor footnote <ref> style, but Harvard style is fine. In articles with mostly web sources, "inline" links work too. In those styles, the citation is part of the text, and gets moved whenever the text is moved.

The use of a certain site containing newspaper scans has been brought up a few times. Personally, I don't think it would be appropriate to have links to that site inline in the text. This rather rules out "inline" citations. Nevertheless, the site is the repositor of source material, so there has to be a way to find it. Considering that a bibliography of sorts exists already, it seems to me OK to leave the source links in the biblio, and use footnotes or Harvard style in the text to refer to the newspaper reference rather than the site.

Some of the content is still not very directly related to Schuckardt. This is a biography, not an apologia or a contra. Lengthy theological arguments are not only hard to follow, but mostly irrelevant. For example, what the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia relates about the Old Catholic Church may be interesting, but it is of marginal relevance to a person born in 1937 who apparently never professed to be part of the Old Catholic Church. Likewise for parts of the "counterclaims" section. This is not the place for an exposition of his theology which can be referenced to an external site.

Now that the text is shorter (excluding footnotes, my hard copy version went from 11 pages to 5), please read the whole thing and let me know where we are. (I think parts could still be cut, further reducing the text.) Then perhaps someone can work on getting the footnotes back into some order. Gimmetrow 18:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks very good. Thank you for expending what I am sure was a considerable effort to improve the article. Below I have made a few notes.

Under "Fatima Crusaders and CMRI", I do not know if he really formed the TLRCC in 1967. I think perhaps that legal title may have occurred later. Maybe others can verify this small point. I think it is more correct to use the term "Fatima Crusade" for his organization at that time. It may be a little strong to say he formed his own church in 1967. He definitely spoke out against the changes and aligned himself with several priests as he went on lecture tours. I think his consecration in 1971 marks his official break from the Roman Catholic Church and could be said to mark the founding of his church - although even then the term TLRCC may not be technically correct although if it makes the article easier to follow, (I think it does) it may well justify the slight timeline discrepency.

I got to go. I'll have to continue latter. I think I'll make an appeal to the ArbCom to clear up the link to therougebishop.com. I'll get back to reviewing what looks like excellent work in the near future. Bernie Radecki 00:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yo ArbCom folks

Athanasius303 and myself have a disagreement on the ground rules that resulted from the arbcom case. I would like to add the URL www.TheRougeBishop to the references at the end of the article. I believe that this was spelled out specifically in the ground rules as being permissible. Athanasius303 reads the ground rules differently and states that the inclusion of the link to the site is against Wikipedia policy. Can someone clear up the gropund rules for us. Bernie Radecki 00:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP doesn't seem to directly address links, but this seems like dangerous grounds. Is it absolutely necessary to have this link now? Looking around at similar articles, the "critical" links are usually fairly notable; eg the Westboro Baptist Church links the Patriot Guard Riders. Some other articles link to the corresponding Rick Ross page, which seems to be a more established (if controversial) site to link for criticism. That brought up a query: how many newspaper sources are at the site that are not available through Rick Ross? Gimmetrow 01:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the ground rules listed by the arbcom folks is "Applied to this article it means fairly representing Bishop Schuckardt's life and doctrinal positions (without a lot of wikilawyering about where and whether they are published outside of his personal website) and the criticisms that have been made of him and his church, including a summary and links to published newspaper reports." They wrote the latter half in bold. I figured they wanted it to be evident that this was an important point - they wanted it clear that Schuckardt could use his website to support his personal views and that a website containing the third party articles and the criticism could also be linked. The Rick Ross site does not have half the articles that www.TheRogueBishop.com has and it has none of the other material.

I really didn't think this would be an issue since the ArbCom decision appears clear to me. I understand why Athanasius303 objects to it just as he objected to the Rick Ross site. I am hoping some ArbCom person could weigh in during this probationary period. It seems to me in light of how minor a figure Francis Schuckardt is that it is fortunate that there is such a developed site in which to read more about him if the reader so desires. I am sure not many will ever read the article and very few will ever follow the link, but I do think it should be there as a resource - although it definitely is not absolutely critical. Bernie Radecki 22:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable criticisms are discussed in the text, and links to the newspaper articles should be given in the bibliography. That's not exactly the same as a general link to a forum site. If Ath303 objects to a general link to that site, fighting over it at this point just derails progress on the article. Gimmetrow 15:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me start by thanking Gimmtrow for his editing. I, of course, am not completely happy with it, but I think he did a good job in reducing the size of the article and trying to bring balance and fairness to it. Your efforts are much appreciated here, thank you!

I would hope that the other editors share some basic views with me as how to proceed from this point forward. As one committee member correctly noted, the more one side adds, the more the other side counters with and so it grows and grows … The shorter and more generic the article is, the less controversy it is going to stir up. Let’s not add; if anything, let’s continue to trim.

Now let’s take a look at the rogue bishop site objectively. It was started by the anti-Schuckardt faction to give them unfettered reign from “interference” from me. They have so stated in these talk pages. It is by no means an impartial site (even the name is prejudicial) and the inclusion of some Wiki appropriate material in it does not allow it overcome that basic obstacle. In short, it does not meet the standard set forth by Wikipedia policy for inclusion and therefore does not belong here. It’s that simple. I have no problem with referencing the newspaper articles where appropriate; I do however have a big problem using this just recently created anti-Schuckardt site to accomplish this end. The biography policies allow the removal of such material and that is what I have done. If Radecki or someone wants to reference the publishing source directly, again, I have not problem with that.

I also intend to remove that part of the sentence in paragraph one which states “functions alone without any association with other Traditionalists.” It’s not sourced and it’s not factually correct. Any objections?

There is more, but this is a start. Thanks. Athanasius303 18:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

OK OK OK OK OK. Remove the link to therougebishop.com, but you can't remove the in article links to the newspaper accounts that support the text in the article! That part is crystal clear from the ArbCom desicion, isn't it? I've reverted back so that the third party articles are referenced. To remove these references is way out of line in my opinion. There is no other site that has these articles posted. SOME ARBCOM FOLK, I GOT THIS RIGHT DON'T I? Bernie Radecki 02:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Example

Here is a way to handle the problem. You have notes in the text referring to text print, and have a bibliography with links where the text or scans happen to be available. This way the links to your site are not directly in the text.

Notes

Bibliography

• Newspaper, Article title, J. Author, January 1, 1980. Scans (jpg).
• Newspaper, Other article, Q. Author, January 1, 1990. Scans (jpg), Text.

Discussion

The references above, of course, don't make sense. Would something like this work? (If you were ambitious and the reference was to one specific page, you might have the link in the shortnote as one note shows.) Gimmetrow 13:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me try to make my objection referencing the anti-Schuckardt website more clear.

We need to look at the whole situation in context. Firstly, the policies regarding biographies of living persons “must adhere strictly to Wikipedia’s content policy.” The Arbitration Committee never declared otherwise (nor could they), they clarified some issues, for which I believe everyone is grateful, but they did not change policy rules by which all editors must abide.

Several applicable policies state: “Information available solely on partisan websites… if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in … websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject.” (biography of living persons – reliable sources). “In borderlines cases, the rule should be ‘do no harm.’ Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid.” (non-public figures).

Now let’s look at Radecki’s track record. This is NOT a personal attack; this is simply calling attention to what is recorded in the history of his edits on this article. In this context, I don’t believe it is an overstatement to say that Radecki has not added a single sentence that was not directly or indirectly negative about the Bishop. I think the record clearly indicates that his objective here is to “do harm.” Pure and simple. I don’t think we should loose sight of that, because it is the backdrop in all of his arguments.

Now let’s look at the roguebishop.com site. Apart from some negative newspapers articles (it is noteworthy that this same newspaper which quotes negative things about his little church, i.e., Chicoine is the guru of a cult, Chicoine and the Mt. St. Michael priests are accused of breaking the seal of the confessional, heads are still shaved and Chicoine is the main barber,…. are absent) this site is essentially a partisan tabloid. Citing a newspaper article by referencing this site is simply an underhanded means of skirting around the tabloid issue and provides the anti-Schuckardt crowd a back door around Wiki policy. This clearly is not intended by Wikipedia and needless to say, should not be allowed.

Again, I have no problem with citing newspaper articles. But it is clearly a breach of policy to introduce a derogatory/partisan website into the article under the subterfuge of providing easy access to a cited article. Athanasius303 17:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right that we don't want to lead readers to an unreliable site under the pretence of it having some good information. (Seems like I was just arguing this in another context.) But having a link in the bibliography does not introduce the site into the text. For instance, Ross is not a reliable source, but the newspapers available at Ross' site are often linked in other articles. This makes them easy to verify. It seems preferable to having references to 25-year old inaccessible newspapers, the text of which would be inherently difficult to verify without the scans. Gimmetrow 18:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Any of your techniques are OK with me Gimmetrow. I reverted the article back to remove the 'citation needed' clauses. It doesn't make sense to remove the references to the actual articles and then state that citations are needed.

The references “were not to the actual article,” the references were to a blatantly partisan website which contained the article. That is the crux of the problem. How would the anti-Schuckardt crowd feel if I take Bishop’s Schuckardt website and loaded it with 98% material that was anti-Chicoine, Mt. St. Micheals, Pivarusas, Puskorious… all under the guise of linking to an approved website? If the extremist anti-Schuckardt website contained simply the articles referenced without any partisan baggage, we would not been having this discussion. Gimmtrow’s analogy about the Ross site if fully applicable because the Ross site does not have as it’s sole purpose is not an anti-Bishop Schuckardt material, it is much broader than that.

Why can’t something like Wikisource be made to work to avoid this contentious issue? Athanasius303 17:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that would be better than having them under Bernie's photobucket account. While I'm thinking of it, would it be possible for you to have the webmaster of Schuckardt's site fix the links in the table of contents there? (The anchor links themselves appear to work, which makes it easy to link to appropriate sections here.) Gimmetrow 17:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can figure out how to store the documents somewhere else, that is fine with me. I am not following Athanasius303 on what he is doing by deleting the references which are quoted from in the article. Which he did in several places. There are other links that he removed that I agree support a claim but the exact quote is not given. A supporting quote could be given, but that would increase the article size. For me, the bottom line is that information from third party sources is totally acceptable. I have provided the actual articles. If you read the articles and something in there says someting favorable about Schuckardt, use it to balance the article. You can see that I am not buying into any theory that the Catholic Church has been using its considerable influence to attack the bishop by promoting a smear campaign through the local and national press. I can appreciate is this is your schema, then the third party sources are going to be objectionable for you. Maybe I am missing something here. How about going through one objectionable citation at a time and we can come to an understanding of what precisely the issue is with a concrete example. PS: It appears we are all editing concurrently. Bernie Radecki 18:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Athanasius303: I take offense when you call my site a "partisan tabloid." It is a web site for those who were abused and affected negatively. (Read Chris Barnes' statement.) If youi will do the research, you will notice that people have differences with Rev. Chicoine and others as well. Bernie has posted authentic letters and documents that provide the reader with the actual account of what happened.

I feel the document addressed to Schuckardt in 1993 should find it's wa into the article. The reason beig is that it is a turning point in the whoe saga. MSM had the victims ready to testify and the case came to a screetching halt. Very, Very interesting!

George Wagner 14 AUG 06

Wrongful Attribution

The items I just removed from the article address the alleged conduct of certain members of the CMRI. Wiki policy states: “Criticism … should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association.” (Bio – living persons). If the material removed has any place at all, it belongs in the CMRI article here in Wikipedia, not in the biography of Bishop Schuckardt. Athanasius303 17:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

When reverting what I consider to be vandalism (the removal of the citations to third party material: Just because Athanasius303 doesn't like what is written by the Spokesman Review doesn't mean it is not reliable. His refusal to allow citations from third party references is the whole reason I asked for arbitration on this article. Let us not go back to square one after all the work the ArbCom did.) some other changes of Athanasius also got reverted. I think the area that he had deleted was detailing problems in the school of Schuckardt after Schuckardt left Spokane. I think the reason that is in the article is to clarify that the abuses reported in Schuckardt's schools in Spokane pre-1984 have followed him whereas abuses ceased in the schools in Spokane once Schuckardt fled. Bernie Radecki 01:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I am deeply concerned and perplexed why the link to the Rogue Bishop was deleted while the external link to Schuckardt's "official website" was left. When I went to this Schuckardt official website my concern grew. The site is not a completely accurate factual account of this man's life. It has many statements that are only hearsay and have no legitimate support, such as this statement - "Rev. Chicoine died on August 10, 1995. He reportedly had a change of heart on his deathbed and lamented rebelling against Bishop Schuckardt. " There is no support to this statement whatsoever. And those endnotes listed on the website, I tried clicking on them to find the supporting document and nothing happened. This website is relatively new and the reader has no idea who is responsible for posting it. Another concern is the link to a blogspot posted on Schuckardt's official website - this blog is controlled so only those who write "flowery" praises of Schuckardt are allowed. At least, the Rogue Bishop site has verifable documents, letters written to Schuckardt, letters written about Schuckardt from those who personally knew him, there are names that can be verified as legitimate. Isn't this what a biography is a book or an article written on the life of a person? A good biographer just doesn't pick and choose what he likes and doesn't like. I hope the arbitration committee will look into this - RO

This article needs to link to the verifiable documents on that forum site. My understanding is that the WP:BLP policy about "information solely available on partisan websites" refers to attack-essays and such, not scans of actual sources acquired from a public library. Gimmetrow 03:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Arbitration Committee was very clear that Schuckardt's own website can be used to verify the position of Francis Schuckardt's beliefs as he is the subject of the article. I thought the other site could be referenced too, but as long as the references to the third party information remain (which I am positive is specified by the ArbCom) I am content - especially as this is Gimmetrow's recommendation and I believe he should have carte blanche on the article. Bernie Radecki 17:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's possible your forum site should be in the external links too, but it's just not worth arguing over right now. Compare the external links section of the article on another controversial religious figure: Fred Phelps. (That's also a featured article, meaning it's considered among the best work on WP, although it does have some problems and its featured status is currently under review.) Gimmetrow 17:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding attribution once again: Wiki policy states: “Criticism … should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association.” (Bio – living persons). The material I removed and that you reverted were "not about the subject of the article specifically" and is in clear violation of policy here. Athanasius303 17:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Furthermore, no one has provided a source for "functions alone" statement and reverting this was wrong. Athanasius303 17:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Arbitration Committee was very clear that Schuckardt's own website can be used to verify the position of Francis Schuckardt's beliefs as he is the subject of the article. I thought the other site could be referenced too, but as long as the references to the third party information remain (which I am positive is specified by the ArbCom) I am content - especially as this is Gimmetrow's recommendation and I believe he should have carte blanche on the article. Bernie Radecki 17:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I am grateful to Gimmetrow for all of his help, but I do not believe he should be given a blank check. While this last week or two I think he has shown some real balance, some of his early additions seemed partisan to me; that coupled with the fact that he will not identify who he is but continues only to be identified by his pen name does not alleviate my concern of ingrained partisanship on his part. But again, Gimmetrow, I am grateful to you for recent contributions. Athanasius303 17:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"Blank check" was Bernie's term. I'm mostly interested in facilitating you two working this out. I'm Ukrainian Catholic; I knew next to nothing about this person before reading this page. I cut out the parts I found repetitive and uninteresting, beyond that I doubt I have much to edit. Gimmetrow 20:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for making that known. Athanasius303 17:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Other possible changes

I am thinking the following paragraph could be shortened. Listing all the organizations and such seems to detailed. Maybe just describe the grounds and mention it had missions in the various places and the net value. Maybe take a guess at the number of members. As it is, I don't think the long list of names means anything to readers. "Between 1974 and 1979 Schuckardt ordained Denis Chicoine and a few others to the priesthood who in turn helped him build the Tridentine Latin Rite Catholic Church, primarily through the continued lecture circuit. By 1977 the group had grown so large that they were able to purchase a former Jesuit seminary, Mount Saint Michael, just north of Spokane, Washington. The 735 acre facility with over 200 rooms, complete with a gymnasium and swimming pool, was used as a church, seminary, boys school, retreat center, print shop, and bookstore, as well as the international headquarters for the movement. The movement continued to grow, eventually sending priests to various parts of the world including Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, and the Holy Land. By 1984 the group numbered about 120 Sisters, 6 active priests, 61 Clerics and Brothers, K - 12th grade boys and girls school, the Knights of the Eucharist, the Knights of the Altar, the Knights of St. Karl the Great, the Altar & Rosary Society, Cana Cell for couples interested in courtship and marriage, the Holy Name Ushers, several Third Orders, numerous Fatima Cells, St. Anne's Home for the elderly and infirm, the Little Daughters of the Immaculate Conception Convent for the mentally impaired, the Singing Nuns, the Kevelaer School for the neurologically impaired, the St. Joseph's Workers Guild, the Mater Dolorosa Guild to aid the terminally ill, etc.[11] In addition to Mount Saint Michael, they also owned over 18 other properties, collectively worth millions of dollars.[12]"

I just assumed these organizations were locally notable in some way, but if they are not (and Ath303 agrees) then reduce this part. Gimmetrow 17:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is something we all agree on. But having said that, I think the general idea should remain, just in a reduced form. Athanasius303 17:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I agree with Athanasius303's deletion (which got unfortunately undone in my revert) of the part about the 2 males in Seattle charged with rape. That does seem to be blaming Schuckardt and there is no documentation of that. The Kathleen Raliegh bit is either important enough that more should be added or not important enough and should be removed. The murder of the 2 nuns likewise shouldn't be part of the article proper in my opinion unless there is documentation that the murders were somehow Schuckardt's fault. Regarding the rape charges, there is some documentation that the sherif thought the church was hiding the boys. The article "The Sect Behind the Shroud" does state that the TLRCC has 100 followers and one priest. Now that could be put in the article to give readers an idea of the size of those who believe in Schuckardt's message. This same article notes that the church has changed its name numerous times and things like that. It mentions Shuckardt is elusive and ill. Another articles states "...Francis Konrad Shuckardt, a charismatic leader who considers himself to be the true pope, according to members of the group." These types of things, along with things that Athanasius303 would like to balnce the article, should be added to give more information on what Schuckardt and his group ar doing now. I guess what I am writing is that the article could use a paragraph or two dealing with Schuckardt's activities in the last decade or so. TheRogueBishop lists 6 third party articles from 5 different sources that could be used to produce verifiable material. To me, this is a lot more relevent than listing the Holy Name Ushers ... from pre-1984. Just my suggestions. As an aside, one of the accusations of Chicoine was that Schuckardt claimed to be the pope. The articles from 2002 - 2005 have information on this topic. To me, this corroborating evidence (I am a poor speller) is significant to the article. Bernie Radecki 17:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me try this once again. The “Rogue” website is Wikipedia contraband. The newspaper articles are not. But piggybacking the newspaper articles to the website does not change the overall makeup of the website, it is still contraband. If piggybacking non-contraband material to contraband material made the whole non-contraband, then there would be nothing that you couldn’t get into Wikipedia. Anarchy would reign. Envision someone trying to get through customs on the southern border with contraband under the guise that some of it is not contraband and thererfore the whole should be permitted to come through. It does fly elsewhere and it shouldn’t fly here. You need to find a “legal” method to linking to the newspaper article you wish to reference.

I’m removing the links once again and remind you that the burden is on you to provide approved links. Please do that and then let us move on to other concerns. Thanks. Athanasius303 17:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

For the third time I have removed the section of Mckinney … I don’t understand why this keeps reappearing. It is clearly not about the Bishop “specifically.” Again, the burden is on you and to my mind, you have not made your case. Athanasius303 17:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The links to the articles that are quoted from must remain. I am open to their being cited from some other source in an effort to get past Athanasius303's objection to TheRogueBishop website. My main interest is allowing the interested reader to have access to the published, third party information written about Schuckardt. I am not real internet savvy. If someone wants to inform me of ways to put this material somehwere else from which it can be cited, I would entertain that step. Just go to my talk page instead of writing it here. At the same time, I am still disagree about your assessment of the situation. It seems like wiki-lawyering to me - as evidenced by your usage of the term 'legal' and the creation of some new rules. Still, I will agree you are being most civil and it is my effort to mirror that civility that I offer to post the material at a neutral internet location. In the mean time, don't go deleting the current references and then putting 'citation needed'. Fair enough?

What new rules are you referring too? I’m giving policy because it’s there for a purpose – it is meant to be followed, and in this case “strictly” followed, otherwise anarchy will reign and we will get absolutely nowhere. I don’t believe either one of us wants that. If everyone adheres to the rules, guidelines, and civility, I see no reason why we can’t get this article finished. If any of us strays from these basic points, we will never come to finality.

I appreciate the fact that you are going find a neutral format to post the newspaper articles used as references. But again, I am going to cite policy, which states that “poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and talk pages…” In a compromise that I am not required to make, I will continue to leave the material these references cite, but I will continue to remove the wrongfully posted website. Athanasius303 18:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The material is not poorly sourced. It is directly sourced to a published third party newspaper. The references are to the articles themselves and not the site. When clicked on, only the articles appear and not the site. The new rule that I accused you of making was that other material on TheRogueBishop is contraband so citations to the articles is contraband. Sounds like splitting hairs to me. I agreed not to post the site at the bottom. I'll get another site up for the rest if I have too to post only the documents so they can be cited independent of the site, but I don't agree this is necessary. I'D LIKE ONE OF THE ARBITRATORS TO WEIGH IN ON THE NECESSITY OF THIS. What do you think Gimmetrow? Bernie Radecki 19:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

When I click on the link to the referenced newspaper articles, the first thing to come up on my screen is the “Rogue Bishop” website; it is only after scrolling down that I come to the actual article. Perhaps your computer is behaving differently.

I don’t believe I was making up new rules. What I was attempting to do was to apply existing policy to our particular case. I know you think that I wiki-lawyer too much, but the reason I continue to cite policy is because I am convinced that without some common restraint over all editors, the revert battle will never end. If we can all agree to edit according to policy or other agreed terms, then we will all be working from the same page and hopefully having a meeting of minds (not as to actual content) as to what is or is not permissible. I don’t know how else to do this. Athanasius303 17:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You can do the links this way. Gimmetrow 17:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Your link this way is exactly what I think is needed. The support article standing alone. If this can be done to all the rest, we can move on to other issues. Thanks for this contribution. Athanasius303 17:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

When I clicked on the links, I went straight to the article and not to the site. I figured that is how it worked for everyone. I am surprised to hear that it is not. The only problemn with citing the photobucket site is that some articles have multiple pages. I think I'll contact a member of the ArbCom and run this past them. Bernie Radecki 22:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, I remember that. I think Ath303 is objecting to the big banner on the page. Can you set up your site so that the documents are in an area which 1) doesn't have the banner, 2) has no commentary on the pages, and 3) has the threads "locked" so no commentary appears. If Bernie can do that, would that be satisfactory, Ath303? (Really, this fuss over where the documents are hosted is a minor detail.) Gimmetrow 23:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I can lock the threads. I can remove any commentary (I think there is only a little on just a few of the articles that scanned a little blurry.) Removing the banner I am not sure of. Two out of three might satisfy Athanasius303. The only problem with referencing the photbucket site is that some of the articles are multiple scans so there would need to be multiple links - not good. Bernie Radecki 23:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I can get rid of the picture but I might be able to eliminate some of the words like "cult" and The Rogue Bishop". Is this what you don't like Athanasius303? For the rest of us, I think when we click on the links, It displays the article with the banner, not the directory. Maybe you just need to change your browser settings. I could see where this could lead to some confusion on your part if you are going to the directory instead of to the actual articles. Bernie Radecki 23:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the section about Schuckardt's group in 1986. My thought is that it substantiates that the issues that afflicted Schuckardt's group in Spokane followed Schuckardt when he fled. Further, it continues to detail Schuckardt's life after the climax in 1984. The article is heavy on pre-1984 and weak on post-1984 (not because of lack of published information as I mentioned previously.). If other editors agree that there are too many sentences devoted to the time in Greenville, I will go along with that. I see that I did not provide the link to the actual article so I will correct that oversite. With the link in place, the article could just summarize the content instead of having the actual qoutes if that makes a more readable, shorter piece. I consider these links to be very helpful to the reader since they allow the interested party to read further while allowing the actual article space to be kept short which I reckon appeals to the common reader. I just discovered that in several places the links to the cited articles did not exist so I corrected those oversites also. My apologies for not doing it earlier. IF ANY ARBCOM REPRESENTATIVE WANTS TO COMMENT ON THE CYCLE OF REVERTING GOING ON OVER THE CITATIONS TO PUBLISHED, THIRD PARTY SOURCES, I AM ALL EARS. (Highlighted just to make it stand out as I ramble when I type. No offense intended.) Bernie Radecki 18:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Another thought just occured to me. Would Athanasius303 allow the text to remain if I just wrote in the article like "IN the Spokesman Review article of August 10, 1983..." instead of having any link to the actual article? Would that get us past the TheRogueBishop discussion? I don't really like the idea as I wrote above, but I'd be reluctantly willing to do that if others think it is a good idea. I really don't think it is a good idea at all since links is what makes Wikipedia coolest, but I am thinking up possible compromises to move things along. Bernie Radecki 19:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrongful attribution: For the fourth time, it is clearly not “about the subject of the article specifically” and therefore clearly in violation of policy. What some Church members allegedly did in Greenville is not “specifically” about the Bishop, it is about some members in Greenville. It does not belong here. Again, the CMRI site on Wikipedia is perhaps the proper format for the inclusion of this material. Athanasius303 18:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. Bernie Radecki 19:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Athanasius303 17:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Other editing concerns

I appreciate you trying to align the footnotes, but I thought it would be simpler to conclude the article first and they do the footnotes - but if you want at it, be my guest.

Many of the accusations you added were not sourced. If you can properly source them as stated in the article, I would not object to their inclusion. It seems to me that you are projecting beyond what the cited sources say, which is tantamount to not being sourced at all.

Thank you for shorting the paragraph on the Bishop's accomplishments, but what you did is not quite what I had in mind. I will re-edit that later and let you see if you have any objections to my version. Athanasius303 18:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I recently have obtained the booklet published in 1980 by Bob Cubbage that is entitled "Tridentine Latin Rite Church" and is available, or was, through the Inland Register diocesan paper. It is listed at Amazon but not available. Do you have this booklet Athanasius303? I am just trying to understand your statement that I am projecting beyond what the sources say. I don't want to mislead readers, but at the same time I don't want to quote sentances verbatim. For instance, I added the words "Freemasonry" and "Zionism" to the sentance about Shuckardt's beliefs regarding the changes of Vatican Council II. These beliefs of his are stated in the booklet but I don't want to put the complete quote in. I know Schuckardt does not believe the changes were due to the Church fathers making an honest mistake, but rather that they were the result of a long range plan. I did not think that you would object to this.

I realize I changed too much at once. So I will now ask first, do second. So get back to me on adding in the explanation of who is responsible for the changes of the Council. You can wordsmith it if you prefer. On page 10 is the sentance "Schuckardt has acknowledged these conspirators muredered Pope Piux XII in order to seize final control of the Church. The TLRC leader claims the conspirators are elite members of the international society of Freemasonry. The Freemasons are now in complete control of the worlkdwide Catholic Church. he said." In another spot: "The upper echelons of the international society of Freemasonry are definitely involved in the Freemasonic conspiracy" to corrupt and control the church, Bishop Schuckardt said in an interview." There is more, but I don't want to belabour the point. I don't want to clutter up the article with the direct quotes and I wouldn't thionk you would want that quote about the Freemasons murdering Pope Pius XII in there anyway. There is material on Zionism too. They quote a taped lecture that Schuckardt gave in 1974. There are qoutes from members too. I don't want to bloat the article after Gimmetrow has deftly shrunk it, but this information is pertinent to Schuckardt's beliefs. Bernie Radecki 19:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I don’t have immediate access to this work, although I am familiar with Cubbage. Cubbage is a vociferous critic of Bishop Schuckardt and does not fairly analyze or report either about the Bishop or the TLRCC.

As I read what you quote above, I am left scratching my head. Bishop Schuckardt has mentioned to me that there is a theory about PP XII being murdered, but he never told me that he accepted that theory. In fact, that theory states that PP XII was poisoned. It is my understanding that a poisoned body turns dark, yet there is PP XII laid out in state without any darkness of the skin noticeable. What you quote above is all hearsay, filtered through this anti-Schuckardt extremist, which I would challenge as a credible source. Please let's not get into adding more negative material, which will result in my adding more answers and perhaps getting into negatives about his critics (Spokane Review articles not on your webpage, Tracy Vedder reports, ...) Do we really want to go down this road again?

I do not object to the use of published, third party accounts. I do have the newspaper article that states that Tracy Vedder and Krem 2 news had to issue a public retraction of thier statements concerning Mt. St. Michaels. The quotes are from Schuckardt. The Inland Register is a diocesan newspaper. Bernie Radecki 23:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There is still a lot of unsourced negative and no-attributable material in the article that I plan on removing. I will start with one paragraph at a time in order to give you ample opportunity to respond by agreeing to the edit or by supplying the absent source. I appreciate your efforts at civility and I am trying to respond in kind. It behooves us both. Thank you. Athanasius303 17:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement that there was no mandate from Rome seems fairly notable to me, and it needs some background to be understandable to non-Catholics. The comparable statement is made in most other "traditionalist" bios, so I'm not sure what the objection is. Gimmetrow 23:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don’t have a problem with the statement regarding no mandate from Rome if that statement stood alone. But it is being used as a launch pad to accuse Bishop Schuckardt of schism and excommunication. With that accusation will follow the defense that he is not in schism or excommunicated and once again we head down the road of growing the article. If it stands alone, fine; but if it is to be used as a window for attack, then as an unsourced statement, I will seek its removal. Fair enough? Athanasius303 17:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Text like this from the Bernard Fellay article should be OK, then? "Brown did not have a pontifical mandate for this consecration (i.e. permission from the pope), normally required by Canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law." Gimmetrow 20:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don’t have a problem with it when it is put this way. I've inserted exactly as you put it. Athanasius303 17:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In context, need to make it clear it is referring to Brown's consecration of Schuckardt. Gimmetrow 03:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As the area this statement appears in is "Opposing Viewpoints" I do not see why the consequences of the act of an unauthorized consecration cannot be listed. Elsewhere it is stated that Schuckardt is considered by some to be schismatic. It is obvious teaching of Rome that Rome considers this a grave step. Schuckardt's beliefs are stated that he considers the Catholic Church a "new" chuch. It seems only appropriate that what the Catholic Church considers him to be should also be stated. It is not a personal attack on him. It is just stating the viewpoint and the text is couched in that frame. Without the consequences listed, only a part of the story is given. Most readers may be unfamiliar with the term "papal mandate", but "excommunication" and "schiusmatic" are more recognizable. I see no reason that this important aspect that represents the view of an organization serving billions of people in the world needs to be shortened to the point that it is unclear. Bernie Radecki 23:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You could try to add an explanation that violation of canon 1384 "normally" results in an automatic excommunication. (This explanation is part of the context of the phrase given above, but you'll have to work out the phrasing for this context.) Another solution is to write an article Canon 1384 and wikilink it. Gimmetrow 03:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Rome has never issued any proclamation of excommunication or schism against Bishop Schuckardt. The diocese of Spokane lacks the authority to make that official proclamation (according to Church law). Therefore there are no “consequences” to be listed. If you can produce an official declaration of schism or excommunication (not some clergyman simply spouting off) then I’ll back down. Athanasius303 17:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made some more minor changes. The Cubbage booklet does not stand up to the reliable source standard for bios of living persons.

Yes it does! It is published by the diocese of Spokane - considered a reputable organization. If I use things from it, I will state that it is published by the diocese so readers will know where it is coming from. Bernie Radecki 23:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This brings us to another issue. I don’t know how an objective person can consider the diocese of Spokane to be impartial. They definitely have a stake in all of this. They are the very church being attacked by Bishop Schuckardt! I’ve been allowing you to use them so far because I’m trying very hard to meet you half-way, but as you use them to insert what are otherwise clearly impermissible sources, I’m going to challenge it. Athanasius303 17:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Who said the diocese is impartial? The article is about Francis Schuckardt, not an autobiography simply from his point of view but a snapshot of what is said about him. Your statment is troubling - as though the only allowable input is from those who support the subject of the article. Bernie Radecki 00:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

A newspaper article reported that the bishop of Spokane said XYZ. Sourced criticism definitely has a place. Gimmetrow 03:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No argument there. But “articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.” (Wiki – verifiability). A publication put out by the diocese of Spokane is not a “newspaper” in its generally understood definition and is certainly not a “third-party,” especially when the publishing organization was called “the church of the beast” by Bishop Schuckardt (Radecki’s addition to article). This seems to me to rather fall into the category of “self-published” sources and I believe it needs to be treated as such. Athanasius303 17:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The booklet is a compendium of a series of articles that appeared in the diosecan newspaper over a number of months. I admit it is not an optimum source, but it is a third party source regardless of how Schuckardt feels about the organization. I agree it is important to note where the content is coming from so readers realize this is not an independent source. There is difficulty finding sources for facts that are now 35 years old since Schuckardt only blipped up on the radar a few times. As a compromise, I'll try not to use it unless there is some fact that is quite notable for which I can find no other source. Right now, I would say it is unlikely that I would use it as a source. Bernie Radecki 18:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

An aside: there are several publications and books about Schuckardt and his church. Is it acceptable to list them in the reference section?

I've also made some adjusts to the "accomplishments" section, because the previous edit extracted the charitable organizations Bishop Schuckardt established which were noteworthy, especially at a time with these things were not popular to do in the main. This is a constant issue with me: what I deem to be the efforts of some to bury anything good the Bishop did and focus on nothing but the negative. This is a dishonest and false presentation of the actual facts and I think there needs to be more balance in this regard. I don't know where that 5,000 member figure came from, but I was involved with the Church's mailings at the time and 1,000 is much closer to the mark than 5,000. During some of the civil court actions, a list of all Church properties was attached to a document and if my memory serves me, the monetary value was actually between 7 - 8 millions dollars worth of real estate, not 3 million. Athanasius303 17:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote earlier, feel free to take from third party material portions that support your leader. The numbers are from published sources. I can cite them too, but this seems to be getting to the point of diminishing returns. Bernie Radecki 23:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The accusation of excessive corporal punishment fails to link to “the subject of the article specifically” and was therefore removed. Again, there may be room for it on the CMRI article or the Chicoine article (there are direct quotes charging Chicoine with this). Athanasius303 17:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The charge of sexual impropriety is a very serious charge lacking any “legal evidence.” I have therefore reinserted a portion of counterclaim which addressed this issue. I presume no one would object to that. Athanasius303 18:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Balance is important, just try to be direct so the section doesn't become bloated. Are there portions now that can be removed because they refer to issues no longer contained in the stream-lines article? Bernie Radecki 03:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

What portions? Please give me an opportunity to review the article again to see if I have any other concerns that I feel need to be addressed. It seems like it might be counter productive to start editing reference sources until the completion of article itself. Are you done on your side? Athanasius303 17:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote unclearly. I just meant do you have bullet items in the counterclaims section that are no longer pertinent since there is no corresponding accusation, but it looks like they do line up so just ignore that. I might just add information to the Events after 2000 area. The article is skimpy there. Bernie Radecki 18:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your paragraph in the counterclaims area regarding the accusations of sexual impropriety: You'll need to give a source for the 1987 sherriff department investigation. Also, the smattering of news reports out of Seattle about sexual molestation at the seminarian house could be construed as showing the possibility of sexual abuse. If you took out this sentance: "Furthermore, it is accepted science that sexual predators are incurable, therefore if Bishop Schuckardt was a sexual predator, as some claim, surely over the last 21 years at least one more accusation would have surfaced, especially when considering that there have been people who left the Schuckardt faction between 1984 and 2004 who are very hostile towards him; but no new accusations have surfaced.", I'd be willing to yank out in the media references area the links to the articles that pertain to the arrests of the 3 males who confessed to the molestation of the child. You want to give your opinion on that Gimmetrow? Bernie Radecki 18:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll get the requested source. Let me think about your offer of mutual extraction before weighing in on that. If the "Inland Register" is not a factor as a source of this article, then we need not discuss it any further. If it becomes a factor, I will still raise my objections and seek its removal.

Athanasius303 19:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I've thought about your offer and I have to reject it. Neither one of us owns this article and it seems by bartering section for section that we are exercising “ownership.” It seems to me that what is proper to the article should remain, what is not proper should be removed, and that this criterion should override editorial expediency.

Tight for time right now. Let me digest the latest changes and see if they are objectionable or not. Athanasius303 17:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing concerns cont.

Again, we seem to keep going over the same issue regarding attribution. Again, statements need to be “about the subject of the article specifically,” i.e., Bishop Schuckardt. The statement “that his church considers all other churches that call themselves Catholic to be in heresy” is not about Bishop Schuckardt specifically, it is specifically about “his church.”

Many of the quotes attributed to linked sources do not state what they purport to quote. I did not remove these, out of courtesy, but I wanted to first give someone an opportunity to correct this error, if it is correctable. Bishop Brown's page 3 is also incorrect. I think a careful review of these links is in order before we can proceed any further. Athanasius303 19:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ref conversions

I started putting some of the refs/notes into the text; this will make it easy to rearrange text. Some of the notes are probably not being used now anyway. Gimmetrow 21:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The end-notes should now be unnecessary, allowing another 11-12k to be cut. Gimmetrow 22:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Much nicer this way. Bernie Radecki 22:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I had added a note about the papal mandate being required by canon 9xx under pain of excommunication. Additional text was then added by someone else about sede vacante consecrations. So, was Schuckardt unambiguously sedevacantist at this point? If so, then the precise explanatory text is to say that he believed there was no pope available to give that permission, not add more unsourced text claiming dozens of historical instances. Gimmetrow 17:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fair. The statement should not give the impression that Bishop Brown and Brother Francis deliberately ignored a valid requirement. That would be a backdoor route to saying they are excommunicated, which is POV.

Brother Francis would never have accepted consecration without a papal mandate if he were not "unambiguously sedvacantist" at this point. Both men were in perfect accord on that point, and I believe it is stated in one of Bishop Brown's letters. Gabriel Joseph

Ditto. Athanasius303 17:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As I read over this article again, it struck me once again that the section on consecration is overly long and I think, quite boring to the average reader. If others feel the same: Gimmetrow, would you mind taking a stab at it? I think you may be the best candidate for doing this in a way that would be the least objectionable to the other editors. Thanks.

Under the section “Split in the CMRI” some of the quotes in the article are not contained in the references cited. Can whoever provided these references double-check their work and see to it that the proper references are cited; if not, these quotations should be removed.

Page 1 of the article was missing. I have added in the link that contains the cited passages. Bernie Radecki 21:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I’ve added a quote from an already cited reference which further addresses the accusations of sexual impropriety. Again, this is a serious charge without any legal basis whatsoever, and I don’t believe counterclaims in this regard should be curtailed by article size considerations. People sometimes spend weeks in court proving their innocence concerning an accusation that took only seconds to make; I don’t see why a lesser standard should be employed here. Athanasius303 17:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I like that you use third party sources to cite Schuckardt's POV. What I don't care for is text like "Schuckardt's defenders point out the difficulty of proving a negative. How does one prove that an accusation is false, when by its very nature it excludes the possibility of either physical evidence or witnesses? Furthermore, it is accepted science that sexual predators are incurable, therefore if Bishop Schuckardt was a sexual predator, as some claim, surely over the last 21 years at least one more accusation would have surfaced, especially when considering that there have been people who left the Schuckardt faction between 1984 and 2004 who are very hostile towards him." This sounds like pushing a point of view without any support and it attacks the accuser's intentions without anything to substantiate the attack. Perhaps Gimmetrow felt the same way when he trimmed it down. Bernie Radecki 21:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The support for the above statement is from the Bishop's website and it is a POV, as stated, a POV from the Bishop's defenders.

I have not figured out how to correctly add some references. When I go to the "References" section and try to edit, it does not give me access to individual references; perhaps a anomaly of my computer. Help anyone? Athanasius303 17:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed this paragraph:

Bishop Schuckardt’s defenders go further than this in answering this accusation: “I ask you to consider this: Does it seem plausible that since the Bishop’s house was vacant and now in the hands of the “reformers,” that perhaps it could have been…well…..”salted” shall we say? ... On the other hand, does it seem plausible that those wishing to "take over" might, just maybe have a little bit to gain by displaying such material in the former home of the one accused of all manner of evil-doing? ...especially since several pious women loyal to the Bishop who are still around as witnesses, by the way, have stated publicly that they went to the Bishop’s residence after he had left, and helped to move his belongings and CLEAN UP after he had left." Bishop Schuckardt’s blog – [1] It attacks the credability of others.

You can use Schuckardt's website to detail Schuckardt's individual beliefs but you need third party corroboration to attack others. This is hearsay and speculative stuff and I thought we were past trying to include such poorly sourced material. Bernie Radecki 23:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me double check this. I recollect reading that the subject of a living biography can use a personal blog as well as a personal website and I had this in mind that I quoted directly from the blog. If I am mistaken, then of course the quotation should not be here. Athanasius303 18:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The Ref system

I have not figured out how to correctly add some references. When I go to the "References" section and try to edit, it does not give me access to individual references; perhaps a anomaly of my computer. Help anyone?

All of the reference texts are part of the main text at the location they are cited. For instance, footnote #1 is in the blue army section. If you open that section for editing, you will find <ref>Official Manual for the Blue Army (circa 1966).</ref> at the location where the [1] appears in the article text. This connects a particular reference with a location in the text more directly than the {{ref}}/{{note}} system. The important points to know are

• notes generally start with a <ref> and end with a </ref>
  • the system allows another form, but it's not really needed in this article
• refs are automatically numbered sequentially
  • this allows text to be moved and the footnotes automatically move and are renumbered, unlike the ref/note system
• the <references/> tag creates the references section in appropriate order
• the starting ref tag should follow punctuation, and (for most editors) not have a space before it

If you want to read more, the key pages are WP:FN and m:Cite.php. Gimmetrow 04:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give a try. Athanasius303 18:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion cont.

Bernie, I too am concerned about the hearsay on Schuckardt's website. I am also concerned that this BF website was developed after the Wikipedia living biograhpy on BF was started so whoever wrote and developed it could use it as a reference. I am also deeply concerned that this "official BF website" has links to a blog that is extremely biased as it allows only BF members to post. It definitely does not support a neutral point of view required by Wikipedia's living biography. RO

The personal website can be used to show the beliefs of the subject of the article. I don't know what happens to the rules once someone goes to their maker. Bernie Radecki 02:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Athanasius 303, is it true that you and Brother Fidelis were recently consecrated bishops because BF is dying of throat cancer? If so, I would think that this kind of information with supportive references should be posted. Is BF dead? If so, then this is no longer a living biography. If not, why do rumors keep circulating that he is - it would be nice if you could give some positivie proof of BF being alive. RO

Gabriel Joseph Gorbet just posted a rather cryptic note on TheRogueBishop.com that implied, the way I read it, that Schuckardt died today. He wrote under the topic of Death/Ordinations/Consecration: "But this is a day you should all remember. If true, a page has been turned." August 27th. And the lawyer asked Jesus, "Who then, is my neighbor." Bernie Radecki 02:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Bernie, you have contradicted your earlier post, in which you stated that "rogue bishop" is a free and open forum for comment. You have deleted a number of my comments, and just today you "banned" me over the objection of the second administrator. Your reasoning? "What the heck..."

I am stunned and rendered speechless by the sheer depth and power of that logic.

Now you attribute to me a "Death/Ordinations/Consecration" thread which I had nothing to do with?

My point? An editor eager for the death of the article's subject should probably not be linking his censored website to an encyclopedia article.

And please do try to come up with an argument a little more original than "what the heck..." The time and effort others are putting in to this article calls for a modicum of respect. Gabriel Joseph

Bresthe in, Breathe out. Where do you get this "An editor eager for the death of the article's subject ..." This I can't stand. You attribute to me intentions that I do not have. This is your habit like a leopard's spots. Why you bring it up here at Wikipedia (or at least show some decorum and post it on my talk page)? Oh, and TheRogueBishop is not linked to this article. Apples and oranges. I haven't the time. Bernie Radecki 17:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In a effort to shorten the consecration section, I removed improperly sourced material posted by both sides editing this article (self-published by someone other than subject of bio). It is preliminary and may need a little adjusting. Tight for time right now. Athanasius303 18:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Shortening is good, but why are the letters improperly sourced? I don't know, I'm just assuming these are public "letters to the parish" type things. Also, I found a law review from 1986 which has a fairly extensive summary of one case. This seems to have changed law in freedom of religion cases. The summary is rather different than the (now gone) description of the O'Neil vs. Schuckardt case, and might be a useful independent source. I plan to upload this to a temporary place you all can get it, if you want. Gimmetrow 01:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The letter being referenced clearly does not qualify as an approved sourced; either in the article or as a reference. Wikipedia would be reduced to a tabloid if unverifiable "private correspondence" were allowed to be used as source material. Radecki – your tactic of adding gratuitous material to direct quotes is getting a little old and is a clear sign of either your inability to edit or your unwillingness to follow policy. Either way, it needs to come to an end; a quote by it very nature excludes editorial input or opinion, and should not be tampered with. Athanasius303 17:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You now have me curious. Bernie Radecki 03:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

{expired link deleted}. Select free download and wait a minute for the download link. Files on rapidshare are deleted if they are not downloaded for a couple weeks; this is not a permanent host. Gimmetrow 14:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping you found something on the Radecki vs Schuckardt case. My father is Joseph Radecki. He and his brother sued Schuckardt and others in Ohio court a few years prior to the Oneil case. The results were similar. They won and then the usage of Alientation of Affection was determined to open a can of worms regarding individual freedom so it was thrown out in appeals and this too set a legal precedent restricting the usage of Alientatio of Affection. I am the sone of Joseph Radecki. In an ironic twist, I married the sister of Pauline Oneil, the ex-wife of jerry Oneil. Anyways, pertinent to the Schuckardt article, do you think this legal activity brought in the states of Idaho and Ohio against Schuckardt and several others is of sufficient importance to be included in the Wikipedia article under the Criticism category? I guess the topic was trimmed out. I have the pdf of the final decision on the Oneil case of the Supreme Court of Idaho dated August of 1986 (It is also posted online [2]) and of course TheRogueBishop has the newspaper coverage given by the Spokesman Review from 1983 and 1986 to the Oneil case. Bernie Radecki 17:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the Ohio case mentioned, quoting text about "compelling state interest". Haven't seen more than a sentence or two about it in one place though. Not sure what you're thinking of for criticism. If FS is involved in a case that results in a notable change of law, then it's notable and worth mentioning that the case was significant.

Quoting primary legal documents seems difficult - the Esbeck description gave me a rather different idea of the case than the old one in this article. I would tend to trust the Esbeck one more. It contains some characterizations of the church which may be relevant, but not much on FS specifically. Which is another thought - similar subjects have an article on the person, and on the church associated with him. Would that work here? Gimmetrow 17:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Radecki: When you removed the sentence “Francis Schuckardt was the first traditionalist Catholic Bishop in the United States” as non-factual, it surprised me, because I know of no one who disputed that as a fact. Who else are you claiming challenges him for that position? Undisputed facts should not be deleted if they are germane to the bio. Athanasius303 17:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no "Traditionalist Catholic" church. As it is debatable whether he is a valid and licit Catholic Bishop, the sentence seems misleading. I would agree to him being the first bishop of the TLRCC - no one debates that, but the term "Traditionalist Catholic" is to tenuous and even of those who fall into that general category, there is no evidence that they accept Schuckardt (excepting CMRI who have supported his consecration but they have a bias and they also have since repudiated him as incompetent to hold the office. But anyhow, it just seems a stretch. If you must have it in, there is always: he consideres himself to be the first .... Bernie Radecki 05:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we may be dealing with semantics here. Firstly, I am unaware of anyone knowledgeable in Church law who debates the validity of his orders. Even your church and the Vatican II Church acknowledge as much. Some might argue that his consecration was illicit, but that is neither here nor there, because that would have no bearing on validity. So even if one were to accept the ridiculous argument that his consecration was illicit, he would nevertheless still be a “bishop” according to Church law.

The historical fact that is not being represented here is that he as the first bishop in the U.S. (in not in the world) to openly and publicly take the position that Paul VI was not a true pope and that the Vatican II church is not the Catholic Church. To use the terms “he considered” or “he claimed” is historically inaccurate because it went far beyond that. At one time, even you considered him…

The article already makes his theological position clear, and the use of the term “traditional Catholic” seems best suited and the one that most accurately represents his position. Look up “traditional Catholic” right here in Wikipedia and you will see that the term fits well. I’ll reword it a little differently, but the historical fact is an important one and proper to the article. Athanasius303 18:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Athanasisu303: Correct me if I am wrong but Consecrating a bishop w/o papal mandate is an act of schism which in effect makes you not Catholic.

George Wagner

George, I don't mean to intrude; please allow me to offer a comment. The requisite of "papal mandate" for episcopal consecration is a legislative (not doctrinal) development of an approach to the "information age" when communication was easily accomplished, and the popes could more easily "control" the selection of Bishops. In the period of its enactment it is completely accurate to charactarize episcopal consecrations without Papal Mandate as an act of schism.

But please remember the historical fact that, not so long ago, "cathedral chapters" routinely selected and consecrated their Bishops, and notified the Holy See (sometimes in Avignon or elsewhere) of their choice. Were the people of God to remain without the solace of Shepherds because communication was so poor? Certainly not. But these Shepherds of the Flock maintained a constant union (as opposed to communication) with the Successor of St. Peter.

But in the time of universal apostacy when Roman imposters are clearly opposed to 1960 years of consistent Papal doctrine, must traditional Catholics crave the "mandate" of such men? Or is it more likely that the DOCTRINE of Apostolic Authority prevails?

We could review the Papal statements and mandates of the last 2000 years, and highlight the contradiction between the Modernists imposters and true Popes.

This situation is similar to that experienced by embattled Bishops such as St. Athanasius the Great. In his time an anti-pope was seated in Rome, revered by most of the "Christian" world. Unknown to most (and slandered beyond belief), Pope SAINT Liberius reigned over the Mystical Body of Christ.

If we believe at all in Christianity, the concept of legitimate Apostolic Authority (wherever it is found), is a possibility to be considered by those who believe in Christ. Gabriel Joseph

Policy Violations

Smith - I've notice other editors seem to have the same problem with you that I am experiencing. Wikipedia is not a place for you to post your unverifiable opinions. There are policies enacted by which all editors must comply. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with these policies – you will then see why your editions are not permitted and this will preclude a lot of unnecessary disputing with other editors over things which are clear cut violations.

Failure to review review Wikipedia policy and the consequent editing in contradiction of it is indeed consisdered vandalism. I hope you will not push this and force me to report your violations. Thanks. Athanasius303 22:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)