User talk:WikiWriterCCC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Please study Wikipedia policies before deleting "referenced text", as in Eugenia Elisabetta Ravasio. Wikipedia always presents multiple viewpoints else teh article will be subject to WP:NPOV problems. Hence, if no specific group viewpoint is emphasized, all is fine. So if all are a little unhappy, all is fine in WIkipedia! History2007 (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome. The referenced page, on Eugenia Elisabetta Ravasiohad degenerated into an off-topic discussion of whether her writings were heresy. This is best addressed under the topic: heresy. It can be very controversial what criteria is used to determine heresy and who has the authority to do so. If we could resolve this under Mother Eugenia's topic, it would not only be a miracle, but also unite the thousands of Christian denominations around the world. However, the Roman Catholic Church, which is the context of this biography, did not declare Mother Eugenia's writings heresy, so this is not a controversy in the Church. Those who maintain that it is are simply wrong. On the contrary, the writings were twice considered, by two bishops, of no danger to faith and morals, which is the meaning of the Imprimatur. Continuing to cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church out of context to prove that these writings are heresy is misleading and is an attempt to confuse those who do not know the full teachings. One has to quickly ask, by what authority does a Wiki editor declare anyone's writings "heresy" or declare there is controversy within the Church? And that brings us back to the heresy topic in general. WikiWriterCCC (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I responded on the article talk page. History2007 (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit wars[edit]

Please see WP:Edit War. The text you added has NO source, and is hence unverified. Please refrain from an edit war, or your access may be blocked. History2007 (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean No source? I am new to this and could probably use some help understanding your concerns. If I reference terms that are already in Wiki in response to those who do not use or understand the terms correctly, I consider that adequate. It doesn't make sense to repeat all of the sources already listed in the definitions of those Wiki terms. In this particular case, we have people who responded to an assertion that there is an Imprimatur (already defined in Wiki), (to which I have now added citations that were not previously posted) with the assertion that there is a controversy in the Church, citing as sources url pages that are not official Church pages. If there is an Imprimatur, there is no heresy or controversy, by definition. This is not a fact that requires a source, it is simply the proper understanding of the Imprimatur within the Church. The Canon Laws already cited under the definition of Imprimatur in Wikipedia are clear on who has the authority to declare any writing to be heresy within the Roman Catholic Church. If the "fact" alleging the controversy would have proven there was a legitimate challenge to the validity of the Imprimatur claim, with citations, then they would have provided a proper source for proving that there is a controversy within the Catholic Church.

I think the statements of fact claiming heresy and that there is a controversy within the Church should be deleted as No source, since any old web page is not an official statement of the RC Church and does not constitute a controversy within the Church, at least within those who adhere to the Canon Laws of the Church. This is especially non-factual and not sourced on writings that have received two Imprimaturs with a more than 50 year time span between them. Only the Bishops have the authority to identify heresy within the Church, and then only with respect to the writings of those under their local care.

In response to your undo of my attempt to delete these non-factual and unverified statements, I have now posted the Canon Law 831 citation that applies to those who would create controversy where there is none, and do it in a public forum. I consider this way off-track for this biography. Once again, this all belongs under a discussion of "Imprimatur" for those within the Church and under "heresy" for those who do not subscribe to Canon Law or the RC Church.

Respectfully submitted with the interest of truth in mind. Please pardon and bear with my ignorance on "form" and protocol within Wikipedia for submitting such corrections. Perhaps you can educate me. WikiWriterCCC (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


{{help me}}

I need help enforcing a clear policy issue with another editor who keeps quoting policy to justify the use of unreliable sources and unreliable information. WikiWriterCCC (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, from what I've seen by reading the talk page of the article, there's not much enforcing that can be done beyond simply getting more advice. However, if you feel that it is reliable vs. unreliable sources issue, then you could try getting a third opinion and other steps in the dispute resolution process. If you think this is more of a behavioral issue, then you can take it to WP:ANI, but just as a warning, I don't think that would get anything resolved in this situation. I can also try to get someone to give the third opinion, if that is what you choose to do, so just let me know by replying here; I'll watch the page. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 23:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I am at least the second person to make this edit and receive an undo. I tried sending a "talk page" request for help to another editor who tried earlier to delete the same text for the same reasons and was "undone". The editor's address is an IP address only and this person may not respond. I think the 3O is a good idea, just to get an opinion on whether the "controversy among Catholic writers" allegations that reference self-published web pages without names are reliable sources to prove there is a controversy at all, regardless of the alleged subjects of the controversy. Could you get someone to weigh in on this? I would really appreciate it. WikiWriterCCC (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

This sounds like just a bit of misunderstanding.
All facts need to be verifiable through a reliable source - that is, something with a 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy'.
Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. It might seem duplication to you, but still, it is absolutely necessary to provide appropriate reliable sources when adding information.
In addition, if you have problems adding something, do not try to repeatedly add it; instead, discuss it on the talk page of the article. See WP:DISCUSS, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDITWAR.
Thanks,  Chzz  ►  23:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Yes, I learned that I can do better with the talk page, at least it avoids the revert wars, but I haven't made any progress on getting consensus with this editor. The dilemma is not really about a "fact", it is about the definition of the term "Imprimatur". Some of those who are editing this page do not understand the meaning of the term, including History2007. Consequently, there are some nonsensical statements that mix the concepts of Imprimatur, belief, divine inspiration, authorship, heresy, etc. I linked to the discussion of Imprimatur within Wikipedia to simply encourage readers to get the definition of the term, which is not the same as citing it as proof of a statement of fact. It is clarification of what is meant by the sentence that states that an Imprimatur was granted. It basicly means there is no heresy in the writings but you don't have to believe them to be true. To follow this statement of fact, which is cited, with a statement that there IS heresy in the writings, citing unreliable self-published sources is non-sensical and not verified. It is also disparaging and negative to the reputation of the person, though in this case, she is dead, it is still offensive and unfounded. I think I am going to try a 3O as suggested by Ks0stm above. Thanks for your thoughts. I am very new to this, as you can tell, so I can use any advice persons like yourself can offer. Thanks for taking the time. WikiWriterCCC (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)