Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-28 Purgatory
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Jonathan Tweet in topic Further revisions
Further revisions
edit- Reverts and substantial changes, including removal of material, should be fully explained on the article talk page.
- Editors should avoid multiple reverts. A revert is restoring an article, in whole or part, to a previous version.
- Propose any major changes on the article talk page. If consensus cannot be reached, assistance in forming a compromise and outside opinions should be solicited.
- What is held to be an official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church should be limited to the Catechism, or other official documents of the Church. In the case of historical teachings, the beliefs should be attributed to a time period and supported by multiple reliable secondary sources.
- What is held to be a defacto teaching of the Roman Catholic Church should be supported by non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources. A claimed teaching of the Church that is not supported by the official teaching of the Church should be treated as an exceptional claim requiring exceptional sources. Widespread beliefs among Catholics do not necessarily indicate a teaching of the Church. Great care must be taken to only state what reliable sources report about such beliefs.
- Modern writers and theologians should be used when addressing the beliefs of the historical church and its relevance to the modern church, in order to avoid original research. The topic is sufficiently covered that reliance on primary sources is unnecessary.
- Due to the sheer volume of writings available on the Roman Catholic Church and general Christian history, claims should be verifiable in multiple secondary sources.
- Due to the availability of sources, references should be requested for all unsourced claims that are likely to be challenged. The unsourced information should be removed after a reasonable period of several days is given for editors to locate references. References should be requested rather that deleting content, except in exceptional cases (such as a violation of WP:BLP).
- All relevant policies and guidelines should be followed. The style considerations in WP:NPOV, WP:MOS and WP:LEDE should be given a high priority.
Further comments? Vassyana 18:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. Lima 19:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- What are we agreeing to? These are fine suggestions, but I don't see them changing the situation enough that the page can get fixed. Are we agreeing to try these until they either work or don't work? Are we agreeing to these suggestions as the basis for the mediation, on top of which more will soon follow? Jonathan Tweet 21:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- I am trying to establish "ground rules" that both of you are willing to agree upon. I would initially suggest trying the agreed set of suggestions. I may interject with an opinion or suggestion for the article, but will generally stay uninvolved, unless you and Lima believe it necessary. There is a broad range of topics at hand in this, and I feel that finding solid ground rules will at the least narrow the range of the dispute. If the agreed upon ground rules are insufficient, even if partially effective is reducing the number of issue in dispute, I will likely propose compromises and work further with the both of you to reach a consensus between you. My sincere apologies for my lack of clarity. Cheers! Vassyana 08:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I agree with the understanding that they're a start rather than a conclusion. Jonathan Tweet 13:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- I am trying to establish "ground rules" that both of you are willing to agree upon. I would initially suggest trying the agreed set of suggestions. I may interject with an opinion or suggestion for the article, but will generally stay uninvolved, unless you and Lima believe it necessary. There is a broad range of topics at hand in this, and I feel that finding solid ground rules will at the least narrow the range of the dispute. If the agreed upon ground rules are insufficient, even if partially effective is reducing the number of issue in dispute, I will likely propose compromises and work further with the both of you to reach a consensus between you. My sincere apologies for my lack of clarity. Cheers! Vassyana 08:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- What are we agreeing to? These are fine suggestions, but I don't see them changing the situation enough that the page can get fixed. Are we agreeing to try these until they either work or don't work? Are we agreeing to these suggestions as the basis for the mediation, on top of which more will soon follow? Jonathan Tweet 21:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)