Talk:Richard Williamson (bishop)/Archive 1

Excommunication

I modifed the line about Williamson's not being excommunicated. While I am not 100% sure of that, it may be the case that he was indeed excommunicated. I seem to remember reading in the declaration made by Cardinal Gantin that the four were excommunicated for allowing themselves to be ordained bishops - which Rome considered a schismatic act. JesseG 02:36, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Categories

Today an anonymous user (206.180.135.205) added the category "Catholics not in communion with Rome". I question the appropriateness of this category.

On the one hand Williamson himself claims to be in communion with Rome. On the other hand Rome (and anyone in communion with her) believes that it's not possible to be Catholic unless one is in communion with Rome.

So who is it that thinks Williamson fits into this category? Noel S McFerran 04:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Tidbits

Today Nickd-c added that Williamson "is an 'Old Friend' of Dr Ralph Townsend". Townsend is not particularly notable. Wikipedia articles don't need to include every tiny bit of information about a person (people they know, favourite colour, etc.) I have accordingly deleted this passage. Noel S McFerran 13:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I was missinformed by Dr Ralph Townsend himself, they are no longer friends (for understandable reasons). I appologise for any inconvience caused :-) Nickd-c 21:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Quotations

There's a long tradition in this article of providing brief quotations from the speeches and writings of Williamson as a means of providing evidence of his views. However, it seems to me that the article is starting to be largely little more than a collection of (what most people would think of as) the most outrageous things said/written by Williamson. This isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I think that some of the examples could be removed. There are links to Williamson's letters for anyone who wants to make a thorough analysis of his thought. Noel S McFerran 02:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

After reading this article, I wold have to say that it is not as balanced as it could be. For example, if the section on "Jews and Judaism" were truly balanced, why not mention Williamson's decision to quote a Jewish author in his Sep. 1, 1991 letter:

In a valuable book, "The Flight from Woman", a cultivated Jewish psychiatrist, Karl Stern, tells how he could discern in countless ills of the big city patients coming through his Toronto practice after World War II a pattern of womanlessness with which he was familiar from the works of famous modern writers such as Goethe, Descartes, Tolstoy, Ibsen -- not a lack of women, but a lack of truly womanly women, because modern men and women alike are trampling upon the womanly qualities and virtues.

I don't know what Williamson meant by "cultivated", but would you not expect a true anti-semite to avoid referencing any Jewish work? --Cali Love 06:49 April 13, 2006

It is the responsibility of an encyclopedia (i.e. of Wikipedia) to gather and summarize what has already been written on a particular topic. It's not appropriate for an encyclopedia to engage in original research (e.g. original attacks upon or defences of a particular subject). In this case (i.e. Bishop Williamson and his views on Jews and Judaism), there is already a body of literature which criticizes his views based on various quotations from his own writings. I am not aware of a significant body of literature which defends those views. Only if such work has already been produced is it appropriate for an encyclopedia article to discuss it. Noel S McFerran 10:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Latest edits

I've expanded the quotes of Williamson to more accurately reflect his views. They are all from the original sources already listed. --Gerard 18:59, 21 May 2006

I edited the summary of the controversy about consecration, mainly to include a link to longer coverage. Also added the actual text from Cardinal Hoyos to preempt biased summaries. Text in this section is now identical in the articles for all 4 bishops. Gimmetrow 15:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I have created a template for the section common to 4 articles. However, Cite.php is not yet compatible with references in templates - it numbers them at the end, and doesn't include them in the references list (see here for an example what happens if refs are in a template). One possibility is to use simply external links in that section, but that would make it different than the rest of the page. Ideas? Gimmetrow 22:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

10279/2006

On June 10, 2006, the following text was added by User:Lima: --- However, Williamson is still a member of the Roman Catholic Church, since, as reiterated by Cardinal Julián Herranz, President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, in circular letter 10279/2006 of 13 March 2006, "heresy (whether formal or material, schism and apostasy do not of themselves constitute a formal act of defection." --- I have removed the sentence. Cardinal Herranz's letter does not mention Williamson by name. It is not appropriate in an encyclopedia for Wiki-editors to make suppositions or conclusions about this matter. Noel S McFerran 14:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

An anon had entered the phrase "is a member of the RCC", which is misleading and POV-pushing on its own. I think Lima added the Herranz quote to make it less misleading. [1] Perhaps the intro text could be made uniform with the entries for Bernard Fellay, etc? Gimmetrow 20:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Lima 11:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sound of Music?

Do we really need a section on Williamson's opinions on the Sound of Music. To me it seems less about showing his views and more about dismissing him as a ranting raving lunatic. --75.3.73.19 01:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that section does look odd, doesn't it. As a former seminarian of his, I do remember his ranting about SOM and sentimentalism, but its not necessary to have a section about it. Perhaps a footnote somewhere?--Gazzster 03:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Sound of Music" comment

The selective quoting on the Sound of Music actually takes the comments out of context, and 'originally' describes the articles in error, therefore. It is inevitable when you selectively quote, and then further attempt to characterize the material. You are introducing new information, editorial information necessarily. Original research. It's one of the host of contradictions one finds in wiki and in the attempted spin-off, citizendium; which I've mentioned there as well, and received shrillness. Furthermore, if the effort is to include all criticism and defense, then one cannot determine eligibility for inclusion based on bulk, particularly if the source is the web. If one single article provides a reasonable defense or criticism, the author of the encyclopedia article on that subject ought to reference it. Or failure to discover bulk may otherwise have been a simple fault of the search engines, or use of same, again, not that such should determine eligibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.158.103 (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You say "Original research. It's one of the host of contradictions one finds in wiki and in the attempted spin-off, citizendium; which I've mentioned there as well, and received shrillness". I suspect the shrillness is because it's not original research, and the inclusion of a link to the entire letter moots your vague assertion of "editorial original pseudo-research". The reason no one's listening is because we see why you're wrong, and it's so obvious that I doubt anyone would want dialogue with a person who can't see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.161.177.38 (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Instead of the sort of 'outrage journalism' that you propose, instead of opinionated editorial in the article itself, isn't wikipedia better served by taking Williamson's own words, and in proper context, and presenting those instead of using some sort of self-righteously angry paraphrase? Use his words, not yours. The article should be about the facts, about what he has said, and how he has meant it. If there's any outrage, let it come from a reading of the article, based on his opinion, and not someone's mistaken 'sense' of his opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.158.54 (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this article manipulated by the "objective" journalist-propagandists of The Catholic Herald

Who support the gay marriage agenda, oppose the Church's teaching on morality, reject the Church's rejection of same-sex marriage and homosexual priests (among the most common abusers of adolescent boys)?

Why is this article being manipulated by The Catholic Herald propagandists like Thompson, paid by a person called by Lord Gilmour a "fanatical Zionist" in 2001 in The Independent. Source

Are these people trying to pose as conservative-leaning Roman Catholics while in fact only infiltrating in order to manipulate opinion? Paid by persons actively opposed to the Christian message and imprisoned for financial fraud?

I do not think demonization pieces like those of The Catholic Herald deserve to be mentioned in an allegedly professional encyclopedic article.Smith2006 (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not NPOV

So we have huge pictures of the Unabomber, the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, a picture of firefighters on 9/11, and Julie Andrews (!) throughout this article. Gosh, is it possible that this page could have a little bit of a problem maintaining NPOV?

The views section, rather than addressing Williamson's religious and philosophical perspective, is instead devoted to listing off his most extreme statements. A little perspective is needed. Algabal (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Whomever is using the blogs and forums as source material needs to remove them and/or format the sources that are there properly...a url with a ref tag will not cut it. that goes for his minions and his detractors.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the extensive quotes from the subject. The article is very long and most of it is devoted to describing his theories. I'm going to format the quotations. I suggest that we summarize them. Wikiquote can hold the originals, if anyone wants to move them over. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick review of sources makes it appear that the subject is chiefly notable for being a schismatic bishop. He is not known, in detail, for his views. This article should not be a mirror of his blog. His views that haven't attracted attention in reliable sources shouldn't be given attention here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Compare the length of this article to that of Williamson's immediate colleagues: Bishops Antonio de Castro Meyer, Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, and Alfonso de Galarreta. All of them were elevated at the same time, yet this article is 12 times longer than any of theirs. It's even 50% longer than that of Marcel Lefebvre, who is more notable than Williams. The problem is the "Views" section which ought to be shortened or even just deleted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed breaches of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons and Wikipedia:Coatrack from the views section. There were numerous uncited claims (e.g. "Williamson is generally regarded as the most openly critical of the Vatican"), unreliable sources (e.g. a youtube clip!) and sources that cannot be used (e.g. The Catholic Herald "interview", to quote Wikipedia policy "Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source"). Can I request everyone read the two links provided. PaulSoms (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for a NPOV tag. If something cannot be backed up by citing a reliable source it should be removed immediately. In addition there should be a "Presumption in favor of privacy" as per Wikipedia policy. Again this is all detailed in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons.

It is questionable as to whether this article should exist at all. "Articles about people notable only for one event" is worth reading. And Bishop Williamson is only notable for one event, as the policy says: "Cover the event, not the person". PaulSoms (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been through and made a first cut, it probably needs another pair of eyes and to cross reference with Wikipedia policies. One statement removed read: "Some commentators ...". Really. Here's what Jimbo says "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons". PaulSoms (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed rest of views section. Having viewed the articles on the other three bisops, the views section is a complete nonsense.

Bp Fellay: Early life and ministry, Consecration and excommunication, Superior General Bp Tissier de Mallerais: Early life and ministry, Consecration and excommunication, Life after 1988 Bp Alfonso de Galarreta: Early life and ministry, Consecration and excommunication, Life after 1988

And comments like "Williamson is generally regarded as the most openly critical of the Vatican" without any citation are a clear breach of policy. All the bishops are notable for one event: their apparent schismatic consecration and not because of their views. Consequently the views section has no right to appear in any of the articles. PaulSoms (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note wikipedia policy for Biographies_of_living_persons: "Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source.". An interview with the subject is seen as a primary source an therfore cannot be used - until published by a reliable secondary source. PaulSoms (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Various Comments

So much for a "non-biased" article. Shame.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.242.114 (talk • contribs) 17 February 2006

---

Yes, one would be tempted to describe this article as an assassination of character.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.149.134 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 12 July 2007

---

Early Life. Since he pontificates much on subjects outside English Literature, in which he has qualifications up to the level of a first degree, it would be interesting to know what Tripos subjects he studied at Cambridge and what class of degree he got. From the published material in his name one would conclude that he is certainly not a historian , an economist, or indeed a theologian. Particularis (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

References

Please keep this section at the bottom.