Talk:Anti-Catholicism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

I have archived the previous version of this talk page as it had gotten too large and was mostly out of date, any outstanding issues have been moved over. Gavin Scott 19:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Feminist opposition

Resolved

The disputed portion on feminist opposition doesn't cite facts nor mention how they oppose the Catholic Church. This section will need to be fleshed out if it's to remain. Can someone cite specific actions or statements by feminists which are anti-Catholic? (I don't think there's a shortage of examples). Thanks, Majoreditor 03:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Richard. Majoreditor 18:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome but that was just a down payment on the house, so to speak. I didn't have a lot of time this morning and I don't have a lot of time now but I think the point you make is "on the money" and it needs even more fleshing out. I hope to get back to this in the next few days with more concrete examples and citations. --Richard 21:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism characterized as associated with left-wing of the political spectrum

Resolved

User:Dems110 deleted the following text twice "It has tended to be associated with the Left-wing of the political spectrum, and with middle and working class intellectuals."

Dems110's second deletion was accompanied by the edit summary "prejudice is not on any side of the political spectrum".

This is true as a general truism but it ignores the history of anti-clericalism in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Now anti-clericalism and anti-Catholicism are not exactly the same thing but much anti-Catholicism has its roots in anti-clericalism so we should at least consider the possibility that the deleted text has some validity in some countries in certain eras.

The truth is that Catholicism has often sided with secular power in the past, often throwing its spiritual authority and secular influence on the side of monarchy, nobility and aristocracy. For these reasons, the Catholic church has often been seen as being on the side of reactionary oppressors of the masses (this rhetoric was espoused by socialists and Communists;I am not necessarily agreeing with it;I'm just describing it).

In many Catholic countries of Europe, the Pope was a supporter of (or contender with) the ruling classes. The bishops were bourgeois along the same lines as minor nobility and mid-level bureaucrats and the local clergy were often petit bourgeois.

It is for this reason that Marx argued that "religion is the opiate of the masses". He argued that religion, specifically Christianity, simply palliated the suffering of the masses so that they could continue being oppressed by the aristocrats and capitalists.

This was also true in colonial empires such as the Spanish colonies in Latin America and, I believe, the colonial empires in Africa and Southeast Asia. Even in 20th century Latin America, the Catholic church was seen as being part of the oligarchic power structure. It is against this perception (and reality) that liberation theology was born.

Now, I concede that this section is poorly written and the sentence in question is certainly no exception. However, to delete it dismissively with the suggestion that it is unsourced and POV risks glossing over an important facet of modern-day anti-Catholicism.

--Richard 08:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, it was unsourced. But I agree with what I think you are getting at—a much better solution would have been to source it. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism and anti-clericalism

I think this whole section needs to be reviewed and reworked. The points that I made in the section above should be worked into the text but we need to keep in mind that there is an article on anti-clericalism and so we have to decide how much to say here and how much should be left for discussion in that article.

I am leaving on vacation in a few hours and won't be back until Monday but I will read any responses then and get to work on this section if no one else has taken it up in the meantime. Have a good weekend, all!

--Richard 16:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Scotland and Anti-Catholicism

Resolved

The article portrays Scotland as being an anti-catholic country, this just isn't the case! I'm a Roman Catholic and I've lived here all my life, I've had the choice of going to Catholic Schools but didn't and have never been subject to anti-catholic abuse! Why? Because in this country it doesn't exist!

Some people will argue about the chants of Rangers Fans at football games or the occasional fight in Glasgow, but this is between people who think Catholics worship the Virgin Mary and not Jesus and that Protestants don't believe in God. Im going to edit it according too the truth! Gavin Scott 19:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence

Resolved

Different people will react differently to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. One item that's hard to deny, however, is that they are mocking the Catholic Church.

Webster's New World Dictionary defines mock as "ridicule" or "to mimic, as in fun". I suggest that's exactly what they do -- like them or hate them. Majoreditor 20:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That's reasonable, but does it need to be sourced? The original edit described them as 'nuns'.--Shtove 23:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Sisters are nuns but that's a whole argument being meted out on the nun article discussion.

Sorry, nuns are female. Check the literature -- the vast majority of legimate experts are clear on the matter.

That said -- I'm surpirsed that Shtove didn't raise the the key issue: whether the "Sisters" of Perpetual Indulgence are anti-Catholic. Clearly, they may be mocking (ie, mimicking) the Catholic Church, promoting safe sex and having lots of fun. Does this qualify as anti-Catholicism as defined in the article? Honestly, I'm not sure. Unlike ACT-UP, they're not destroying the Host or disrupting services. Majoreditor 20:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

What's the question here? That they are mocking the Church? Yes, they are. That the mocking is anti-Catholic? I say it is. As I understand it, this is not good-natured ribbing but mocking with polemical intent that directly targets the doctrines of the Church. If I have misunderstood it, then correct me but I see this as anti-Catholic.

--Richard 21:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

They seem more inclined to party and parade rather than delivering polemics. I haven't done much research on the matter, but a first blush they don't seem interested in attacking Catholicism. While they take issue with certain Church doctrines, such as sexual matters, so do many other organizations which don't merit mention in this article. I'm more inclined to discount them and focus on violence, persecution, bigotry and hatred directed at Catholicism. would you classify them as a hate group or bigots? I'd need more proof before crossing that bridge. Majoreditor 02:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Simonxag, that's a great photo of the Sisters. I suggest that the Sisters (and their photos) are a better off moved into the article on anti-Catholic humor and satire. As I mentioned, I don't believe they qualify as a hate group, they aren't violent, and their mocking of Catholicism seems to be more in a humorous vein. Any thoughts? Majoreditor 02:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The Sisters are hardly a hate group and, in fact, they formed and exist, in part, to combat anti-gay hate and guilt notably from the Catholic church and other religious folk. They are nuns and has been discussed on the nun page nuns are of all genders, as are the Sisters themselves. I do however know that they are continually paraded as the poster-children of anti-Catholicism by extremists so should be referenced here regardless. To me it would seem that any discussion of the Sisters needs to be balanced with a historical perspective of humor meant to reform. Also the references to them being called Nazi-like should be balanced with how insulted Jewish folks were at that comment and the street "party" should be updated to reflect that it was their 20th Anniversary and they had always held it on Easter Sunday yet this was the first time the Catholic Archdiocese said anything about it. The incident was sparked when a dormant Catholic newspaper was looking for a big lead to restart the publication and then Archbishop William Levada seized the opportunity with what some saw as Papal positioning.Benjiboi 16:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's one way to write it but I'm not interested in being bold here and touch the article to set off a new round of edit wars.

Said Roman Catholic Archdiocese spokesman Maurice Healy, "While we are offended by what they do, we're simply asking 'Please don't do it on Easter Sunday, the holiest day of the Christian year.'" Instead the Archdiocese suggested the following Sunday, which was the Russian Orthodox Easter. An Archdiocese newspaper compared the Sisters' event to neo-Nazis celebrating on the Jewish holiday of Passover a comment which the Anti-Defamation League said was offensive and "...trivializes the horrific actions of hate groups."Benjiboi 02:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Category Anti-Catholicism deletion

Resolved

Category:Anti-Catholicism just got deleted? That really doesn't make any sense. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There are valid arguments for either keeping or deleting the category. I was surprised at the decision to delete since there was clearly no consensus. The voting split roughly straight down the middle. The admin. admits that he made the call not based more on arguments and his interpretation of policies. Majoreditor 01:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but a whole raft of anti- different religion categories were put up in a job lot for deletion without considering their individual merits, which strikes me as a very strange procedure. Is it now an offence against wikipidia to categorise, say, Bismarck's Kulturkamf as an example 'anti-Catholicism'? What else was it? Freudian rage maybe? I'm reminded of Queen Victoria's radical and decisive opinion on the category of lesbians: i.e. that they didn't exist.... Bizarre.... Colin4C 09:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As a theological POV there's nothing wrong with being anti-Catholic; so why WP:BLP was even taken into consideration makes no sense. The fact that there was no mention of the CfD at this page is absurd. I don't think T. Anthony's solution of filling up this page's "see also" list is a good solution. Pat Buchanan might be anti-Catholic, but his relation to anti-Catholicism is tagental at best. -- Kendrick7^talk 13:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree it wasn't a solution. As the category survived, I hope you striked the list. Also you might be right that BLP does not necessarily matter. There are several ministers and theologians who state that they are anti-Catholicism.--T. Anthony 04:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Pat Buchanan is a conservative catholic.--Shtove 18:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just had another look at the debate here. - I don't think its over yet. I also see that one of the editors here has totally misrepresented my postion in the debate and accused me of 'hyperbole'. Thanks a bunch! Colin4C 17:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Anti-Catholic Category Vote

Resolved

If you want to contribute to it go: here. Colin4C 17:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: the vote is balanced on a knife-head at the moment - 13 for keeping and 12 for deleting. The deletionists seem to have rushed in first, but as news of the debate has got out there are more coming in to save the CATEGORY. Colin4C 08:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The voting has now ended and this was the verdict:

The result of the debate was no consensus. Experience suggests that a continuing failure to resolve BLP/NPOV/V issues is likely to result in eventual deletion. Cleanup is suggested. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatever that means...Colin4C 10:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it means "Stop using the category to tag people as anti-Catholic and stop using it to label things as anti-Catholic in a POV-pushing way or this category will get deleted sooner rather than later". --Richard 05:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My latest information from the rulers and shakers of wikipedia is that they are reconsidering their over-hasty deletion of the anti-Moslem and anti-Mormon categories. I think they hoped to steamroller everybody into line and get rid of all the anti-religion categories on a wave of anti-Islamic hysteria. As I have pointed out elsewhere in the wikipedia Dante's consigning of Mohammed to Hell and the persecutions of the Moslems by Ferninand and Isabella in Spain were not examples of 'unconscious hostility' towards Moslems, or some sort of jeu-d'esprit but were seriously and explicitly meant to be anti-Moslem. Colin4C 13:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that were there a Category:Rainbows and puppies CfD would be 100% behind it; the crew over there seems to have confused WP:NPOV with something thumper's mother taught him: if you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all. Odd that Category:anti-Gnosticism hasn't come up yet. Why they hating on Gnostics? -- Kendrick7^talk 16:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I too am amazed that an obvious POV magnet like the anti-Gnosticism category hasn't been targeted by the wikipedia thought police. In my experience POV pushers have no compunction about branding someone an anti-Gnostic due to some unguarded remark they might make about the divine hypostasis, or the pseudo-Areopagite whilst drunk in the pub. Colin4C 17:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, these were the categories which were deleted: Category:Anti-Islam sentiment and Category:Anti-Mormonism. If you now want to relate Dante's opinion of Mohammed to the persecutions of the Moslems by Ferdinand and Isabella to the desecration of Moslem holy places by the Crusaders etc etc and want to use the wikipedia as a research tool you are out of luck. As for that controversy in the US Senate about the Mormons and polygamy: just forget it, not worth knowing about...Colin4C 17:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, and the WP:USEFUL argument which shouldn't ever apply to WP:Afd should apply ten times over to WP:CfD. If categories weren't useful in the manner you describe there would be no need to have them at all. I started ranting on the CfD talk page. I think if enough people continue posting their complaints there some policy change might come about. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've continued my rant here but that's still probably the wrong place. But I'm just going to keep complaining in various spots until someone notices. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

My ranting continues at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#CfD_systemic_bias. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've written Wikipedia:Categories are different from articles, inspired largely by your point about WP:BLP being applies to a category discussion. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Bias Bias everywhere

Resolved

Look at the sections on England, Ireland and the US. The present the picture that living in these countries and being Catholic is a recipie for doom! Its all complete rubbish! England isnt anti-catholic, the orange lodge doesnt oppress anyone- its smaller than the Church anyway and the Anglican Communion is on very positive terms with the Catholic Church in England anyway...compelte fabrication! Gavin Scott 17:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... I think you have a valid point but you have gotten carried away with hyperbole. It's not all rubish and it's not complete fabrication. I think what you're really trying to say is that this article does not present a balanced picture because it focuses on the topic rather than "the big picture". I agree with you that Catholicism is well accepted and tolerated in the countries that you name. Nonetheless, anti-Catholicism does also exist in those countries. It's very real although the reaction to it by the Catholic church and by lay Catholics may be overdone. The challenge is how to provide more balance based on verifiable and reliable sources. --Richard 18:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to say again that this article is not about 'unconsious hostility' to Catholics and spinning on a politically correct philosophical needle. For instance there used to be an inscription on the Monument in the City of London EXPLICITLY [but falsely] blaming the Catholics for the Great Fire of London. This inscription was only removed in the 19th century and can now be seen in the Museum of London. This inscription is a FACT. NPOV doesn't come into it. Colin4C 09:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I also notice that the NPOV tags have been added to the HISTORICAL sections of this article - so I fail to see how they 'present the picture that living in these countries and being Catholic is a recipie (sic) for doom' as Gavin asserts. And if we are talking about the past the profession of Catholicism was very often a recipe for 'doom', if by that you mean being hanged at Tyburn. Also the section on England does give a balanced view of the matter and states the English government's position on the question: viz that they hung Catholics as traitors rather than heretics. That was their story anyway...(IMHO the Caesaropapism of the English monarchs was a bit of an affront to anybodies religious conscience) Colin4C 09:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt make clear that this is the past, it reads as if Catholics are still treated as second class citezens today- with references to the Orange Lodge in each paragraph. This is complete tripe, the orange lodge is more unpopular than the Catholic Chruch. In Scotland anyway. Gavin Scott 12:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Rangers and Celtics?

Resolved

I will now profess my extreme ignorance... who are the "Rangers and Celtics"? I assume they are football teams? If so, we should say so and provide links to the Wikipedia articles on those teams. --Richard 16:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Rangers and Celtic are two football teams, both from Glasgow. Traditionally one has recruited from and had supporters from the Catholic community and the other likewise from the Protestant community. Colin4C 18:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean?

Resolved

More abject ignorance on the part of this U.S. editor (me):

In the section on Scotland, there is this sentence...

However, as time has gone on Scotland has become much more open to other religions and Catholics have seen the formation of separate schools which still receive council funding.

Probably this should be two sentences. In any event, it is unclear to me what the second clause means.

Catholics have seen the formation of separate schools which still receive council funding.

Why is the "formation of separate schools" worth noting? Was it forbidden at one time? Saying "have seen the formation of..." suggests that this is a recent development. How recent is "recent"? 100 years? 50 years? 20 years?

Why is it remarkable that these separate schools receive council funding? Is there a principle that "separate schools" (presumably parochial schools) should not receive council funding? "still receive council funding" suggests that these schools have been funded for some time. How long have they been funded? Since the formation of the separate schools?

There's too much assumption that the reader understands the background and context of these issues.

--Richard 16:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very bad syntax. I guess that in the past Catholic schools, if not actively proscribed, used to subsist by private rather than local gov funding. In Ireland the Maynooth academy for Catholic priests started getting a gov grant from the 19th century onwards. Though this sounds like a strange thing for the Anglican establishment to do, I guess the gov thought it better that the money came from them rather than from some enemy Catholic power. Colin4C 19:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Bilge and tripe

Resolved

Could editors here try to construct coherent intellectual arguments rather than bandying about such terms as 'bilge' and 'tripe'. Would that be too much to ask? Colin4C 19:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You ask too much of us. Gavin Scott 11:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

More Scots Mist

Resolved

I would dispute this statement in the article:

'Since the time of the English Reformation, Scotland has been considered to be the Catholic heartland of the United Kingdom'

Ireland, which used to be part of the United Kingdom, had a far greater percentage of Catholics and was the traditional hang-out for foreign Catholic adventurers (see Battle of the Boyne). Some of the more sparsely populated and traditional Gaelic areas of Scotland, such as the Highlands, were 'Catholic' after their own fashion as were the borderers, though I don't think they had a regular ministering priesthood. Scotland was and is though mostly renowned for Calvinistic Nonconformist presbytarianism of various competing sects. A major influx of Irish Catholics, into, especially Glasgow, happened a long time after the Reformation. Colin4C 11:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Also the Church of England retained and revived much more of the ancient Catholic ritual than the Scots Protestants who indulged on a horrendous spree of smash-and-grab iconiclasm which far outdid anything achieved in that line by English Reformers. Colin4C 11:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the point which the newspaper was making was that on mainland UK- England Wales and England- Scotland is the most Catholic, in terms of population and history. However, I dont know the reasoning of it, but the sentence can be edited if needed to something like. Some consider Scotland the Catholic Heartland of Great Britain. Then the ref. Gavin Scott 11:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Colin4C 11:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think its important to enforce the idea that while Scotland has gone through great religious purges it has retained some strong Catholic bonds- limiting how anti-catholic scotland can be considered. Gavin Scott 13:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Catholic response to I Timothy 4:1-5

Resolved

I am not trying to be mean spirited in any way, and think that many Catholics are good Christians, but I would like to know how Catholics respond to I Timothy 4:1-5

"Now the Spirit says expressly that in latter times some will depart from the faith....forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving...."

Angry Aspie 01:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There has been no command, rather, a recommendation, if you would please note the difference. And entrance into the priesthood is purely voluntary and their state of celibacy is very well known, up to being an integral part of priesthood such that it is voluntary celibacy. But let us not continue a debate here. This is discussion of the article, not its content. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 16:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

laity?

Resolved

what's that? is it much like laicity? Paris By Night 21:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The laity denotes those who are not clergymen (or clergywomen). See also: laymen. Colin4C 11:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Association of criticism of Catholic policy with anti-Catholicism.

Criticism of Catholic policy is anti-Catholicism in the same way that criticism of American policy is anti-Americanism--that is to say, it's not. I've tried to even out the "Human sexuality, contraception and abortion" section, but I'd appreciate input on the matter. The people making these claims seem to think that (for instance) pro-choice activists who protest against the pro-life movement become bigoted anti-Catholics when the pro-lifers are Catholic. grendel|khan 22:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. There is an article Criticism of the Catholic Church. This article should be for content that is more similar to anti-Semitism. One problem, though, is that some Catholics label positions and actions that are critical of the Catholic Church as "anti-Catholic". So, do we then count those positions and actions as anti-Catholic or not?

--Richard 09:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

We can certainly explain the difference between what Catholics (and we should be scrupulous about separating the official actions of the Church from the actions of its fan club--I'm thinking of Bill Donohue here, but I'm sure it's not just him) allege and what's accepted by the community at large. Perhaps an explanation that criticism of the Catholic church is often cited as anti-Catholicism, with some text over at 'Criticism of the Catholic Church' citing these criticisms and noting that they've been labeled as anti-Catholic by so-and-so. grendel|khan 13:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony Blair

Interesting speculation in the British press recently that Blair would have converted to Catholicism during his time of office but was deterred by his constitutional position within the Anglican establishment of the UK. If I can find a ref I might add this to the article. As far as I'm aware there has never been a Catholic Prime Minister of England and the royals have been disbarred from espousing Catholicism since 1688 (when the Catholic King James II did a runner - dressed as a woman). Colin4C 19:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

New photos

One of the new photos is wrong: this is the original one [1]

We should remove the photo inquestion if it has been doctored.

Majoreditor 21:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Spiegel online did an article on the Sun's coverage of B16's election. Their article has an image of the Sun's cover here. The image that appear in the Anti-Catholicism article appears to be accurate and undoctored. Unless there's some objection, I think the image should be returned to the article. Mamalujo 23:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The image from The Sun is still in the article. The image I removed was from the Manifesto. Majoreditor 02:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. This is the original cover of "Il Manifesto". The translation of "Il pastore tedesco" is "German Shepherd Dog". I have also found this anti-catholic picture. --StabileEn 14:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have upload the correct image. --StabileEn 14:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that these images are anti-Catholic. Are they not rather examples of the tabloids being anti-German as usual? Colin4C 19:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the Il Manifesto article, it appears a little more ambiguous - one interpretation could be innocuous, i.e. by calling him a German Shepard dog, like the Vatican's Rottweiler, could mean that he is tough on maintaining orthodoxy, or it could be a slur. The Sun cover is unquestionably anti-Catholic. The headline "From Hitler Youth...to Papa Ratzi" intentionally misleads and places the Pope in a false light. Ratzinger was enrolled in the Hitler Youth because membership was legally required after December 1939, but was opposed to them and refused to attend meetings. His father was a bitter enemy of Nazism, believing it conflicted with the Catholic faith. So the cover is a fraudulent smear. Mamalujo 21:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is the fact that the Pope is German and enrolled in the Hitler Youth which has aroused (unjustified) tabloid fury rather than his Catholicism. The previous Polish incumbent had no such trouble, therefore it is not anti-Catholicism as such which is the issue IMHO but the long-standing anti-German attitude of (particularly) the British tabloid press. The Polish Pope John-Paul II was treated with (somewhat bizarre) adulation in the UK, at some points rivalling Princess Diana in popularity. What fuels contemporary anti-Catholicism in the UK is much rather the supposed 'pedophile priests' issue rather than the Papacy. Interestingly Adolf Hitler also used the undying 'pedophile priests' issue (also used in a similar context by King Henry VIII) to browbeat the German Catholics into neutrality on political issues. Colin4C 09:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Il Manifesto's photos can have 2 different meaning. One is "German Shepard dog" (that in italian is quite offensive), but the other is "the german pastor" (priest) that is only a definition. Il Manifesto use to do these kind of titles, just to attract attention.

A slightly different twist on Anti-Catholicism

Some might be interested in an section in Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami#Accusations against the Archdiocese proven false somewhat different than usual. People "more Catholic than the pope" have been attacking the archdiocese using the web and pov Wikipedia. I think it has been resolved. It brings to mind witticisms about "never mind our enemies, beware of our 'friends'." Easy to laugh at a Chick. Harder here. Student7 14:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is very bizarre. As far as I'm aware the whole notion of a homosexual identity only came about in the late 19th century. In the olden days it was what you did (i.e. sodomy) which caused offence not some supposed psychological identity. Also sodomy was accounted equally bad whether with woman or man, almost as bad as 'onanism', indeed...But maybe psychology is the new religion now rather than anything Jesus said or did...Colin4C 15:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

United states section

Large portions of this seem to be copied verbatim from the "historical roots" section of this article: http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=606 (registration required). The offending portions probably needs to be rewritten, or turned into one large quotation, I think. Novium 16:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is difficult to detect what is the offending portion without registering with the above site. Colin4C 16:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Since registration is free, i didn't think it'd be a problem. Bugmenot and all that. Anyway... 18:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC) "Historical Roots. It is, of course, impossible to summarize 400 years of history in a few paragraphs. But even a brief overview serves to expose the thread of anti-Catholic bias that runs through American history and to explain why the eminent historian Arthur Schlesinger Sr. called anti-Catholicism "the deepest-held bias in the history of the American people."

To understand the roots of American anti-Catholicism one needs to go back to the Reformation, whose ideas about Rome and the papacy traveled to the New World with the earliest settlers. These settlers were, of course, predominantly Protestant. For better or worse, a large part of American culture is a legacy of Great Britain, and an enormous part of its religious culture a legacy of the English Reformation. Monsignor John Tracy Ellis, in his landmark book American Catholicism, first published in 1956, wrote bluntly that a "universal anti-Catholic bias was brought to Jamestown in 1607 and vigorously cultivated in all the thirteen colonies from Massachusetts to Georgia." Proscriptions against Catholics were included in colonial charters and laws, and, as Monsignor Ellis noted wryly, nothing could bring together warring Anglican ministers and Puritan divines faster than their common hatred of the church of Rome. Such antipathy continued throughout the 18th century. Indeed, the virtual penal status of the Catholics in the colonies made even the appointment of bishops unthinkable in the early years of the Republic.

In 1834, lurid tales of sexual slavery and infanticide in convents prompted the burning of an Ursuline convent in Charlestown, Mass., setting off nearly two decades of violence against Catholics. The resulting anti-Catholic riots (which included the burning of churches), were largely centered in the major urban centers of the country and led to the creation of the nativist Know-Nothing Party in 1854, whose platform included a straightforward condemnation of the Catholic Church.

By 1850 Catholics had become the country’s largest single religious denomination. And between 1860 and 1890 the population of Catholics in the United States tripled through immigration; by the end of the decade it would reach seven million. This influx, largely Irish, which would eventually bring increased political power for the Catholic Church and a greater cultural presence, led at the same time to a growing fear of the Catholic "menace." The American Protective Association, for example, formed in Iowa in 1887, sponsored popular countrywide tours of supposed ex-priests and "escaped" nuns, who concocted horrific tales of mistreatment and abuse.

By the beginning of the 20th century fully one-sixth of the population of the United States was Catholic. Nevertheless, the powerful influence of groups like the Ku Klux Klan and other nativist organizations were typical of still-potent anti-Catholic sentiments. In 1928 the presidential candidacy of Al Smith was greeted with a fresh wave of anti-Catholic hysteria that contributed to his defeat. (It was widely rumored at the time that with the election of Mr. Smith the pope would take up residence in the White House and Protestants would find themselves stripped of their citizenship.)

As Charles R. Morris noted in his recent book American Catholic, the real mainstreaming of the church did not occur until the 1950’s and 1960’s, when educated Catholics—sons and daughters of immigrants—were finally assimilated into the larger culture. Still, John F. Kennedy, in his 1960 presidential run, was confronted with old anti-Catholic biases, and was eventually compelled to address explicitly concerns of his supposed "allegiance" to the pope. (Many Protestant leaders, such as Norman Vincent Peale, publicly opposed the candidacy because of Kennedy’s religion.) And after the election, survey research by political scientists found that Kennedy had indeed lost votes because of his religion. The old prejudices had lessened but not disappeared."

Anyway, seems like a clear case of copyvio to me.

How do you vandalize an article about Anti-Catholicism?

In other articles, editors normally want vandals to "go away." I'm not so sure that this is true with this article. I am referring to the (now reverted) contribution made by 24.35.64.138 on 13 August 2007 at 05:50. Before these, uh, editors are given the bums rush, I think we should talk to them. They may have valuable information. "Sir, before you run off, what is your favorite website?" "Is your favorite color orange?" "Without using four letter words, what is your opinion of the pope." "Oh, I didn't know it would restrict you that much. Go ahead and use four letter words, just throw in a few nouns and verbs so we can see where you are going with this." "Just speak into the microphone (do you mind if we videotape?)" We are really missing good information, I suspect. (Watch the next editor explain to me why this would not be a good idea!  :) Student7 10:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Methinks you are being ironic sir...Colin4C 20:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

yeah..u alittle messed up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uglyducklings (talk • contribs) 05:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sectarianism by Proxy

Been reading up on the Northern Ireland situation. Seems that the British secret service was complicit in the actions of some of the Protestant sectarian killers of Catholics. I think the idea was that the Protestant paramilitaries should target Catholic paramilitaries - but a lot didn't bother and would kill the first Catholic they came across. When this was reported back to the British secret service the latter hushed it up. Colin4C 20:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If you get a chance have a read of The Committee by Sean McPhilemy. Details the links between the establishment and Loyalist terrorists. Can't get it in the UK currently as it's banned...GiollaUidir 11:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't banned, its just not published because it contains so many allegations it would be liable. Gavin Scott (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit by Anamanam

The edit by Anamanam [2] is unsourced and is POV-pushing. I'd suggest that this material be re-phrased and incorporate in-line references. Majoreditor 13:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

At the present time the article views anti-catholicism from only one perspective. It is appropriate to describe anti-catholicism from a cause and effect perspective taking into consideration actions and reactions rather than simply providing condemnations of reactions with bare reference to actions. Note that no one is arguing here for exonerating those who attacked individual or property. The interest is to provide for more depth of context. In addition in terms of British history several key events are missing. I will eventually get the sources included however, statements inserted are more interpretative of facts already in the article rather than additional facts. Anamanam 17:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Widespread un do undone because of lack of talk here. You have to do more than undo. Explain point by point edits. If there is a problem with balance then make your case against it. Anti catholicism can only be discussed as a point counter point action reaction sequence of events. You must describe how catholics acted and how others reacted- not just a one way process. It is a dynamic interaction. Not to justify personal attacks or persecution but to ask for explanations rather than insist that there was not input into the process by catholics themselves.Anamanam 02:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edit isn't supported by citations. Some of the material isn't germane and is editorializing. And what's with lowercase "catholic" and uppercase "Democracies"? Please, research the subject and support your edits with in-line references. Majoreditor 03:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The ideas you put forward in your contributions are significant and appear very opinionated, so you need to cite reliable academic sources for your theories. Original research is not allowed. Also, you do not go ahead and freely judge what you suppose is the most significant reasons without any supported evidence. Furthermore, that section of the article requires objectivity and as neutral point a view as is possible - not that you do not give differing points of view, but they must be looked at from a bird's-eye perspective. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 11:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we get away from judgements on whether anti-Catholicism is 'justified' or 'unjustified'? Wikipedia editors are not judges in some high court of political correctness but are rather reporting on phenomena which do exist or have existed in the past. To be 'anti' something simply means that you are against it. No need to moralise over whether being 'anti' is justified or unjustified. The reader can make up his own mind about that...Colin4C 19:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Muslim anti-Catholicism

There is a long history of anti-Catholicism in Islam and among Muslims. This continues today and there is active persecution of the Church in Muslim nations. This should be addressed in the article. The Church is far better off in Israel then Saudi Arabia.136.242.228.160 19:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Catholics are killed less in Isreal, but the church is for saving souls (to a small extent.) The word "Catholic" defines as "universal" User:Uglyducklings 9:38, Feb 2008

Catholic League (U.S.)

Would editors please keep an eye on the above related article for NPOV. I've had to tone down some hyperbole that may have been libelous. --Simon Speed 02:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Dispute?

Note: This discussion copied here from my Talk Page

Why are you calling vandalism a dispute? Calling 'Ireland': 'Northern Ireland' is just stupid: like calling 'the USA': 'Minnesota'. It's just dumb - not a 'dispute'. Colin4C 17:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I would disagree with your analogy to USA/Minnesota. It would be more like discussing discrimination in the U.S. vs. Puerto Rico or the U.S. vs. Hawaii. Northern Ireland is not part of the Republic of Ireland (yet) and is substantially different from the Republic of Ireland in ways that deserve to be discussed.

That said, trying to title the entire section "Northern Ireland" is anachronistic and just wrong.

However, being wrong is not the same as being a vandal. A vandal is out to deface Wikipedia. Engaging them in discussion is not likely to change their behavior.

The editor in question seems to honestly think that the section in question should be restricted to Northern Ireland. While he's probably wrong overall, he does seem to have a valid point. Catholics in Ireland were oppressed by the English until the beginning of the 20th century at which point the Republic of Ireland was created and the Catholics became the majority. Over the last 90 years or so, anti-Catholicism in the Republic of Ireland has been a very different phenomenon from anti-Catholicism in Northern Ireland. That is, one would expect that there was very little anti-Catholicism in the Republic of Ireland while it was a major feature of the socio-economic landscape in Northern Ireland.

In summary, it might be useful to have the article distinguish between pre-1922 Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. And also between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. The problem here is that, although the anon editor is making his point in a misguided way, there is an underlying issue that we should address.

--Richard 17:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Using "Ireland" is prob the most accurate (and shortest!) was of naming this section without having to break it down into a good few sub-sections. It describes anti-Catholicism across the whole island of Ireland both pre and post-partition. The only real alternative title would be "Anti-Catholicism in Ireland (Reformation-1922) and Northern Ireland (1922-Present)" which doesn't exactly roll off my tongue anyway...GiollaUidir 19:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: calling 'Ireland', 'Northern Ireland' is dumb. Northern Ireland is a part of Ireland - (the northern part). Confusing the part with the whole is an elementary species of stupidity. Maybe you think 'The South' is synonymous with the 'USA'? Doh! I live in Southern England and never confuse it with England as a whole. Elementary logic for four year olds. Colin4C 11:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please observe WP:CIVIL. I agree that it's wrong on its face but if you look deeper there are issues worth considering and addressing. --Richard 17:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) I think we all agree, keep it as Ireland then. GiollaUidir 11:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think we can close this discussion just yet. Here's a comment left by User:Irishman2007 on my Talk Page...

I am the person who has been changing Ireland to Northern as you see my point is that Northern Ireland and the Republic are two very different states (one obviously a Republic and one belongs to UK. It seems to points out that Ireland (and by referring to Ireland you are referring to the Republic of Ireland) is a Protestant country when it actually isn't, I would prefer that it should be changed to Northern Ireland to avoid confusion and annoyance from fellow Irishmen like myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishman2007 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

So why in that case do you call yourself an 'Irishman' rather than a 'Northern Irishman' or a 'Southern Irishman??? You are not making sense. See the wikipedia article: Ireland which proves that the island of Ireland is a place called 'Ireland'. Colin4C 10:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Colin4C, I think you're missing the point. There is the island called Ireland and then there is the country called the "Republic of Ireland". Forgive me for being pedantic but you're going off on a unhelpful line of argument and I'd like to derail it before it gets out of hand.

I think Irishman2007 is objecting to the idea of there being anti-Catholicism in the Republic of Ireland. (I'm sure some exists but it isn't the thrust of our text in this article.) Using the heading "Ireland" to refer to the island when all other headings refer to a country creates this problem.

Please take a minute to reflect on this issue. There really is a problem here although Irishman2007's renaming of the section to "Northern Ireland" doesn't solve the problem; it just creates a different one.

Let's all think about how to resolve this problem even if it means creating one or more new articles with only a summary provided here.

--Richard 15:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

'Northern Ireland' as a political entity was an artificial creation of 1922. Before that the whole place was called 'Ireland'. Geographically the whole place is still called 'Ireland' and the inhabitants, north and south are called Irish. And politically, geographically and logically it is incorrect to call 'Ireland', 'Northern Ireland'. Isn't that obvious? If people are unsure of the geography of the place I urge them to buy a map. For instance it may amaze editors here that the historic capital of Ireland (Dublin) is not in Northern Ireland. We learnt all this in primary school. And if we want to divide Ireland up into bits - in historical circumstances the division between the eastern pale of English settlement and the Celtic west was every bit as important as any supposed north-south distinction. Colin4C 16:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(Deindenting) Colin, being an American, I defer to your knowledge of Irish history. However, what I'm asking you to do is to see past the specific mistake that Irishman2007 started with and consider whether anti-Catholicism has changed in Ireland over the centuries. Specifically, have there been any changes sufficient to separate the section into pre-1922 and post-1922 as it currently is?

Did something change in 1922 when the Republic of Ireland was formed? Is the current nplit based on pre-1922 and post-1922 the best way to subdivide the discussion of anti-Catholicism in Ireland? If not, what is better? The east-west distinction?

--Richard 17:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Before 1922 the whole of Ireland was ruled by a British Viceroy situated in a palace in Phoenix Park, Dublin. The British state maintained a Protestent Ascendency over the whole of Ireland, not just bits of it. Furthermore, this Protestent ascendency was of the Anglican persuasion. The non-conformist protestents of the north were also discriminated against, though not to the same extent as the Catholics. The southern Irish state created in 1922 established Catholicism as the state religion there, so anti-Catholicism was less of an issue there after that time, though recent secularisation has brought about some questioning of the role of the preisthood, with allegations of deviant sexuality etc. In the north by contrast the protestant ascendency continued, though this time it was the non-conformists versus the Catholics. The former Anglican establishment of Ireland was reduced to total impotence, both north and south. Colin4C 10:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, I sort of knew that except I didn't realize that the Northern Ireland Protestants weren't Anglican.

I'm confused by your answer, though. Your answer suggests that the North/South pre-1922/post-1922 split is the best way to divide the section. I don't get the point regarding the east/west split that you mentioned earlier. Seems less relevant based on your latest answer.

--Richard 19:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Lenny Murphy

Lenny Murphy WAS a psychopath. He not just killed Catholics but tortured them to death in particularly revolting ways. Do you want the details? Colin4C 10:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you're correct that he was a psychopath. An in-line citation would be greatly appreciated so that others won't challenge the characterization. Thanks. Majoreditor 13:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I also don't doubt that he was a psychopath but chances are the term was used in a casual and informal way rather than a professional one. If the sentence had read "Murphy was considered a psychopath by many because...", I would have had less objection to it.

More importantly, it's highly OR to handpick two examples of anti-Catholic violence and use them to illustrate "anti-Catholicism in post-1922 Northern Ireland" unless these are widely recognized as eptomizing the entire period. As I mentioned in my edit summary for my most recent edit to that section, we would do better to stay away from describing specific incidents and people. Let's focus on broad brushstroke descriptions of the 85 year period from 1922-2007. Any discussion of specific incidents should be left for an article more focused on this specific topic.

--Richard 14:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure that much coverage of post-1922 Ireland will be appropriate for this article. I can't really see a meaningful assessment of the Troubles being obtained from a point of view of 'anti-Catholicism' (presumably entirely omitting the actions of the IRA and similar groups); it would be like considering the Napoleonic Wars under the heading of 'Francophobia' or 'Anglophobia'. Anti-Catholicism that proceeded from the Troubles might be a valid inclusion (for example if Catholics were discriminated against in employment in Northern Ireland during that period), but I'm not sure that including the Troubles themselves is going to give us anything helpful. TSP 15:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

For the most part, I agree with TSP's perspective and only wish that this had occurred to me as well. If there is any discussion of "anti-Catholicism in post-1922 Northern Ireland", it should be about the underlying grievances of discrimination against Catholics in Northern Ireland that were alleged by the PIRA. (NB: An NPOV stance requires that we say "alleged") I think it behooves us to mention the Troubles briefly as they are clearly an outgrowth of perceived injustice and discrimination against Catholics in Northern Ireland. However, any detailed discussion of violent incidents against Catholics should probably be left to the article on the Troubles or its subsidiary articles.

What I really want to avoid is having this section become a battleground of people trying to insert what they perceive to be the most horrific incidents during the 85 year history of the Troubles. That would become an endless edit war with little prospect of valuable contribution to this article.

--Richard 19:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Murphy may mean little or nothing to Americans but a film was made about him here in the UK. He is up there in the same league as the famous American serial killers. Also I have supplied a reference to Dillon's book on the killings so I don't know why you have put a 'citation required' note on it. Is politically correct hangwringing about percieved anti-Catholic shows on American TV (nine paragraphs in the article) more important for this article than REAL sectarian violence in Ireland (three paragraphs - before it was cut down by Richard to two)? Anti-Catholicism does have REAL manifestations in the REAL world, its not just some airy-fairy matter of politically incorrect attitudes in America.Colin4C 19:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The citation required was asking for a specific quotation characterizing Murphy as a psychopath. I haven't looked at the Google results so I can't opine as to whether it is reasonable to say "a psychopath named Lenny Murphy" or "Lenny Murphy whom many media commentators characterized as a psychopath". There is a difference. If he was alive, WP:BLP would be relevant. BLP isn't relevant because he's dead but the same principle applies relative to NPOV. At what point can Wikipedia comfortably assert that Murphy was a psychopath as opposed to being "considered a psychopath"?

It's kind of like calling George W. Bush a liar. Is he a liar or is it just that some people think he is one? What should Wikipedia say about Bush being a liar?

--Richard 20:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I googled "Lenny Murphy psychopath" and got lots of hits. I've added in an in-line citation from BBC.com, which qualifies as a reliable source. Hopefully this resolves the matter. Majoreditor 19:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No, thanks for trying to help but sorry it doesn't resolve the issue.

There is an article about Lenny Murphy and another one about his gang, the Shankill Butchers and another one about the Troubles. All of those are potential candidate locations to discuss the details of Lenny Murphy and his gang. I'm not arguing about the notability or encyclopedicity of Lenny Murphy. I'm arguing about whether or not we need to discuss the details of his psychopathic killings or even mention him at all here in this particular article. Why him? Why is he notable among all the other killers of Catholics during the Troubles? Was he the only psychopath? Does he hold the record for the most Catholics killed? Is the film about the killings the only film about Catholics killed during the Troubles? You get my point. How is Lenny Murphy symbolic of killers of Catholics during the Troubles. If anything, his being a psychopath suggests that he is unrepresentative rather than representative of killers of Catholics.

Same question applies to the St. Matthew's Church attack. Is this somehow notable among all the attacks on churches during the Troubles? Why mention this one and not any others?

The point is that mentioning Lenny Murphy and the St. Matthew's Church attack in a three or four paragraph discussion of anti-Catholicism in post-1922 Ireland is like trying to describe the Napoleonic Wars by describing two battles. Pick any two battles and you will fail to describe the Napoleonic Wars by describing those two battles. Even if you describe all the major battles, you will miss the point of the Napoleonic Wars which has to do with the struggle for power in early-19th century Europe not about battles per se.

This article is too long and has little coherence in its narrative. It needs to be trimmed down. Not just in this section. Across the board. Dropping Lenny Murphy and the St. Matthew's Church attack is just the first step. In making those two deletions, I scanned the whole article to look for other candidates. All I came up with for "low hanging fruit" was Scotland and Ireland but looking over the article again, what I see is mess.

We need to step back and see the forest instead of describing the trees.

--Richard 20:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. Our friend Lenny isn't even mentioned in the article on The Troubles. There isn't even an article on the film "Resurrection Man". Doesn't it make sense that details should be covered in the most specific articles first and only mentioned in higher level summaries IF they are notable to warrant mention at the higher level? I ask again... what's so special about Lenny Murphy? Why mention him here is he doesn't warrant mention in the Troubles? --Richard 02:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Who owns this article?

Not me. Colin4C has said so...

Copying a message that Colin4C left on my Talk Page and then subsequently deleted...

You confess you know little about Ireland and then you delete referenced and relevent info on it! Your attitude is very Americano-centric: you have not deleted ANY of the American material despite it overwhelming the rest of the article. You do not own the article.Colin4C 19:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

My response: It's true that I know little about Ireland but I do think I know something about a well-written article and this ain't one. This entire article is a mess. I just took aim at the two particularly egregious sections (Scotland and Ireland) that were easiest to fix.

A more complete overhaul of the whole article is needed. The whole article seems to amount to a laundry list of anti-Catholic publications and actions. What is the message that the reader is to take away from reading this article?

In any piece of writing, we should seek to communicate a message in a logical and coherent way. This article is far from doing that. What is the message? I dunno. People all over the world have been anti-Catholic in many countries over many centuries. After reading the article, the reader comes away with little more useful than that.

The point behind the deletions that I made is that being referenced and relevant is a NECESSARY condition for inclusion in a Wikipedia article but not a SUFFICIENT one.

A good article must also seek balance between details and broad conceptual points. The text that I deleted had just gotten mired in details which could open the door to everybody dumping in their "favorite" anti-Catholic incident. Just because something is relevant doesn't mean we have to go into detail about it. The Troubles are clearly relevant. Picking out two incidents from an 85-year history (or 49-year history if you prefer) is just unencyclopedic. You had sources for two incidents or you personally know a lot about two incidents and so you want to insert it. That is not encyclopedic. Provide a source who says that these two incidents properly summarize the Catholic experience in Northern Ireland.

As for who owns this article. No, I don't own it. But neither does Colin4C. I prefer the WP:BRD model. Be bold in editing (that's what Colin did). Revert if you disagree (that's what I did). Then discuss the disagreement. Or you can consider my deletion to be the bold edit and Colin's restoration to be the reversion. I don't care to split hairs over that. The point is: let's discuss the issue now. I have opened the discussion with the points that I made above.

--Richard 20:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

So if we are going on a deletion binge maybe we should cut down all the twaddle you wrote on politicaly incorrect attitudes in the American Entertainment Industry (9 whole paragraphs). A small sample:

In October 2006, top Catholic leaders in the State of Minnesota took a rare step in collectively calling on University of Minnesota President Robert Bruininks to reconsider the university's plan to stage a controversial play that they viewed as anti-Catholic. "The Pope and the Witch", a satire depicting the pope as a paranoid, drug-addled idiot and the Vatican as corrupt, drew the ire this fall of a national Catholic group and some local bloggers. Archbishop Harry Flynn of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, along with bishops from Crookston to Winona, wrote to Bruininks calling the play offensive to the state's 1.6 million Catholics. They urged Bruininks to rethink the staging of the play in March 2007.

Or maybe you think that such trivia on a little known play in Minnesota is more important than scores of Catholics being murdered by a serial killer in a non-American country? Colin4C 21:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(chuckle) Much of what I added to this article was to counterbalance your insistence at the time on focusing on anti-Catholic humor which I believed belonged in another article.

I thought that the amount of text that you were dumping into the "anti-Catholic humor" section was overdominating the article and, since I couldn't get you to delete it at first, I responded by counterbalancing it with whatever I could find about anti-Catholicism. It may well be that much of the text that I added now needs to be pruned as "excessive detail". Calling it "twaddle" is a bit uncivil but I'll let that pass since you are a bit overwrought.

I'm willing to delete the text you indicated (and more!) if you will delete the Lenny Murphy and St. Matthews Church text. I would keep certainly the text about the Troubles. It's not that I think they are unimportant. Far from it! They are perhaps one of the most significant cases of anti-Catholicism in recent history. It's more that I think we should discuss the nature of the alleged discrimination against Catholics rather than focusing on a few incidents of violence.

I would much prefer that the reader understand what motivated the Troubles in the first place than come away with a very narrow understanding of these two incidents which are ultimately just skirmishes in the overall war. What is the legitimate case that Catholics in Ireland have against the Protestants?

The deranged actions of one psychopath and his mates do not amount to anti-Catholicism. It amounts to the deranged actions of a handful of anti-Catholic killers. Big deal. Lock 'em up and throw away the key. End of story. Except that it isn't. Because there's a much bigger panorama of Catholic-Protestant strife playing in the background. Stop focusing on the trees; paint the forest.

About the St. Matthews church attack... I would much prefer that we put a number on the number of churches attacked and the total number of people killed in all the attacks than focus on one particular attack on a church. It risks being anecdotal in our description rather than providing statistical evidence that this was a serious problem.

Also remember that deletion from an article doesn't mean the text isn't unencyclopedic. It might just mean that it doesn't belong in THIS particular article. I think you found that out with the Anti-Catholic humor and satire article.

--Richard 21:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that the article could use additional details on the Troubles. I'd suggest that it would be better to keep the material Colin added and expand upon it to include other episodes during the Troubles. Just a suggestion -- I don't feel strongly one way or the other. Majoreditor 21:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with this. There is already an article on the Troubles. Even that article cannot hope to catalog and describe details of every incident over decades of conflict.

We don't need more detail about more episodes during the Troubles; we need to explain what the relationship is between the Troubles and anti-Catholicism. As TSP points out, the violence against Catholics was not purely anti-Catholic but arguably a response to the actions of the PIRA. What we need to get at is... what was the root cause of the conflict? The answer has to be more deeply rooted differences between the two groups which were expressed in discrimination or perceived discrimination against the Catholics.

--Richard 21:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The root cause was five centuries of discrimination against the Catholics in Ireland, beginning with Henry VIII. As you seem to know next to nothing about Ireland and care less a parrallel which you might recognise from your own country is the treatment of the blacks in the USA by the Ku Klux Klan, though I guess in the interests of political correctness you would insist that the Ku Klux Klan and blacks both had their own rightful grievances and that any mention of hanging blacks from trees shouldn't be mentioned because no doubt the blacks hanged equal number of Ku Klux Klan members in your fantasy politically correct universe. Colin4C 11:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

(deindenting) Colin4C, you are now going beyond overwrought and going off the deep end. Stop, step away from the keyboard and take a deep breath. And, please eschew the personal attacks from hereon out. It's not that they bother me that much but it gives you an excuse to avoid rational discussion of the issues and that is counter-productive.

Also, please stop with the appeals to emotion. These just cloud the issue and don't actually help the discussion.

I may know less than you about Ireland and Northern Ireland but I do know something more than "next to nothing". I think I have a good handle on the "root cause of the conflict" between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland although reading the article on the Troubles helped to fill in gaps in my knowledge. Gaps which are not discussed at all in this article. The "Background" section of the article on the Troubles is an excellent introduction to the conflict. I started to try and summarize it for this article but I gave up because the text is too long. I will leave it for someone who is a better writer than I to take a whack at providing a good, concise summary.

Which brings me to the reason I asked the question about "what the root cause was". It was a rhetorical question. It's not so much that I personally needed to learn the root cause. What I meant is that the reader benefits more from a discussion of the root cause than by the description of two incidents selected from the perspective of only one side of the conflict. Doing the latter will tend to inflame opinion rather than inform it.

To suggest that I "care less" about Northern Ireland is an ad hominem attack. That I don't think your two pet examples of violence in Northern Ireland belong in this article is not an indication of ignorance or callousness on my part. I have explained quite clearly, coolly and rationally why I don't think they belong here in this particular article. Why do you not feel motivated to insert them into the article on the Troubles? If they belong here, do they not belong there even more than here? You haven't seen me go propose Lenny Murphy for AFD, have you? I don't have a problem with having these incidents documented in Wikipedia. I just don't think they are appropriate for this article any more than I think the Edwards/Marcotte incident belongs here.

It's a question of scope. Some articles are detailed articles and some articles are summary articles. Some articles are even summaries of summary articles. This is one of the latter. At the risk of repeating myself, we need to describe the forest in this article. Describing one or two trees does not help people understand what the forest looks like.

You are welcome to disagree with me on my vision for the scope of this article but that does not give you an excuse to malign my knowledge, my empathy or my perspective.

As for your comment about blacks and the Ku Klux Klan, you have either misinterpreted or deliberately distorted my argument. I admit that some of my edit summaries may have suggested your interpretation but you misunderstand me.

First, it is reasonable to explain that the Ku Klux Klan did indeed have rational motivations for forming. That doesn't excuse what they did but it is useful to understand why they did it. I won't go into the details here as it is a distraction.

Similarly, the Serbs will tell you that their opinion of Milosevic has to be understood in the context of history. They think the West ignores the history of crimes committed by the Croats and the Bosnians. Well, you don't have to agree with them but NPOV requires that you provide a balanced perspective.

This is the problem with including Lenny Murphy and the attack on St. Matthew's Church in this article. It only invites people on the other side to want to add their "counterbalancing" incidents. That can only lead to things getting out of control.

--Richard 17:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Forgive me for lapses in protocol, I'm new here. But, the two paragraphs beginning with "In 1834, lurid tales of sexual slavery" are plagiarized verbatim from the 2000 National Catholic Weekly article "The Last Acceptable Prejudice?" by James Martin, S.J. There may be other instances of plagiarism, but these two paragraphs may be compared with the original at http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=606 Which means, of course, that the National Catholic Weekly/Martin "owns" this portion of the article.

--User: Hartoo 04:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You did the right thing although you could also have deleted the copyright violating text yourself. I have removed 4 offending paragraphs. Thanks for the heads-up.

Those paragraphs had excellent content, though, and it would be good if someone would write new text to cover the same points without violating any copyright.

--Richard 07:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Two-babylons.jpg

Image:Two-babylons.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The author of the book died in 1865. The copyright is expired.Mamalujo (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

POV issue

It was brought to my attention today by a non-Wikipedian editor that a claim made in this article was patently false. I came to the article to have a look, and a second person appears to have removed it with a link to the correct source. Nonetheless, it has now been restored twice by other editors. Apart from a casual reference in an unidentified news site for which no reliable source takes responsibility (newsmax.com - seems to be simply a web news service), the edit summary of the user which added it on 29 September 2007 was simply "unfortunately it would be OR for me to conclude why teachers are ignored in favor of priests!". Other edits by the user in question making highly questionable edits to this page were reverted by other users. Creating some noise about the matter are other sources:

• 'Case Highlights Sex Abuse At Church, Beyond Priests', Bruce Lambert, New York Times, 15 May 2007, p.4: "But Charol Shakeshaft, a Hofstra University professor who in 2004 issued a report analyzing numerous studies of abuse in public schools for the federal Department of Education, said there was no data showing whether sexual abuse was more prevalent in the Catholic Church than in other areas of society. We just don't know, Professor Shakeshaft said."
• 'Senate panel backs giving sexual abuse victims chance to sue', Colleen Slevin, Associated Press, 14 February 2006: "Nussbaum cited a study by Hofstra University professor Carol Shakeshaft which estimated that 6.7 percent of public school students were subjected to physical sexual misconduct and that 9.7 percent are abused if verbal and exposure to pornography is included. Based on those figures, Nussbaum estimated that 56,000 students in Colorado are being abused, four times the number enrolled in Catholic schools. Shakeshaft's study was conducted for the U.S. Department of Education. Some educators objected to the findings because sexual misconduct included sexual abuse along with other behaviors, such as inappropriate jokes. Some educators have taken issue with the way the report combines sexual abuse with other behaviors, such as inappropriate jokes, in one broad category of sexual misconduct."
• 'Crisis in the Catholic Church', Albert J Menendex, Humanist magazine, 1 July 2002: "Professor Charol Shakeshaft of Hofstra University points out in a forthcoming book that 15 percent of U.S. school children are sexually harassed or abused at some point during their childhood and that 5 percent of teachers have been guilty of such offenses."
• The actual report, as highlighted in the URL cited by the IP's edit today, does not itself make any mention of priests or religious figures - therefore the sentence as added is fallacious anyway.

In fact the only commentator who has made the direct link in a reliable source, is L Martin Nussbaum in America magazine (194(17), 15 May 2006), which is an unapologetic defence of the Catholic Church and, in parts, a direct attack on victims - which itself is critiqued above.

My personal feeling, now that my attention has been drawn to it, is that this has no place in the article - the person studying the public schools was not studying the Catholic Church, has themselves disclaimed the link, and the only link to be drawn is by an unreliable source and by a polemic commentator. Orderinchaos 12:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done a little research on "newsmax" and found it is hardly a reliable source - apparently it is a "conservative journal" which is in the news itself as having a reputation for activism going back to the 1990s. (eg "Attack machine aims for Barack", 18 February 2008, The Australian, p.13; "Right goes for jugular of 'shady Chicago socialist'", 17 February 2008, The Sunday Times (London), p.23; "Republican right: Talkshow hosts urged to halt in-fighting over McCain's 'neoliberal' values", The Guardian, 6 February 2008, p.16. They were one of the very few media organisations in America to staunchly defend Matt Foley when he was exposed for sexual indiscretions with a congressional page. Orderinchaos 12:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Correction on Peter Viereck mentioned in article

Under the topic heading : Anti-Roman Catholicism today subheading United States first paragraph "and Yale professor Peter Viereck" The institution designation for Viereck is incorrect. He was a professor at Mount Holyoke College for over 40 years. Prior to joining the faculty at Mount Holyoke, he had a short stint at neighboring Smith College. A bio on Viereck can be located here :

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/offices/comm/news/newsfull.shtml?node=4289196&full=1

This error should be corrected. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bess2728 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Scotland (3.3)

...while Celtic's has often, but by no means exclusively, come from those of Irish and Italian extraction,

What has Celtic FC got to do with Italy? Could someone explain this sentence to me? Paddy :-) 01:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of the Italian community having any association with Celtic. I'll delete unless anyone objects (with proof) otherwise.GiollaUidir (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)