Talk:Richard Williamson (bishop)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Template not working

I have revised the template referred to under "Consecration and excommunication", but it is the unrevised form that shows in this article. What have I left undone or done wrongly? Defteri (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the template isn't functioning, I have inserted the contents directly into the article. Defteri (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Floriano Abrahamowicz

There is also the case of an Italian cleric with a Jewish-sounding name that has made similar comments in the wake of the controversy, this should maybe be examined. [1] ADM (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid this is not relevant to Williamson's article. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You will find him mentioned in note 83 of the article. Lima (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC) and you will find even more about him in note 73 of this version of the article Lima (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

ok. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Timeline issue

Under the Holocaust controversy section, the article indicates that Foxman knew about the Pope's impending decree "before [it] was made public?" And his written opposition was sent just the "day before?" How would Foxman have known about the decree ahead of time; was some information released, or was it just coincidence?

On January 23, the day before the decree was made public, Abraham Foxman, president of the Anti-Defamation League, wrote to Cardinal Walter Kasper in order to express his opposition to any eventual ecclesial re-integration of Bishop Williamson.[21]

Likewise, Swedish Television aired the interview on Jan 21, three days before the Jan 21 decree was made public. The interview was over two months old at the time, so their decision to air must have been based on its then-current relevance. Was this coincidence, or was there some information given that would indicate his un-excommunication? -Stevertigo 18:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Some Italian newspapers gave the news already on 21 January, and there were probably leaks even earlier, though only in "perhaps" form (while the wording of the decree was being decided, and the Pope could still have decided not to publish any decree) and so the news remained unpublished, but may nonetheless have circulated. By 21 January the Italian newspapers knew it was a done thing. But I think it most likely that the Swedish Television scheduled their broadcast for 21 January without knowing about the coincidence, having edited it to fit the format of the show and having given advance publicity. If the report on the Remnant newspaper is correct, the Press secretary of the Catholic Diocese of Stockholm made a statement about the planned show before it was broadcast. Lima (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The decree will have been communicated to Bishop Fellay on 21 January. Foxman's letter was written later and could not stop it. The decree was sent to nunciatures on 23 January (the date of Foxman's letter) for distribution under embargo until noon (Rome time) on 24 January. Did Foxman write his letter having already seen the text of the decree, which he shouldn't have known about officially until next day? Lima (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There are many ways Foxman could have known about the decree, if not about the precise text. However, Lima, if the decree was handed to Fellay on the 21st, the Pope was not able to undo it. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Lima (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo, I agree, the way the article is written leaves the reader wondering whether it was pure coincidence that interview was broadcast on the same day the Prefect issued his decree (21 Jan 2009). If indeed it was pure coincidence, the article should explicitly say so, to alleviate the reader's suspicion. If not, the article should provide further explanation. 199.46.245.232 (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Either way we must have a source for any further statements. But I guess the default reading would be that it was coincidence, except for the conspiracy minded. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Irving

A few days ago, a sentence was added regarding David Irving's pointing out that RW had been his guest at a party. It was improperly referenced to merely a photo but as the fact is undoubtedly true I improved the reference to DI's home page (though the content under that URL seems unstable). However, I have doubts about the notability of this announcement in the course of the controversy - evidenced by the way that sentence is unconnected to the rest of the article.

What do others think? Str1977 ^(talk) 11:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. A possible solution would be to move the DI note to views, right after Zundel is mentioned. However, this would not solve the problem of the unstable content - the URL already no longer contains the information. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If nobody replies, I will remove it as non-notable in a few days. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no strong views on whether this item is worthy of inclusion in the article, but I have anyway properly sourced it so that its inclusion can be sensibly discussed on its merits without sourcing issues. Regarding its inclusion, I probably wouldn't remove it; it is more than a coincidence that these two men seem to have sought each other out. Cheers, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it is all about the notablity, not the reference, as we do not really need a clickable link as a reference (as useful as it may be). But thanks for providing one anyway. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Article structure

W's Holocaust denial IMHO quite clearly belong to "Views", not to "Life". I moved it there (again! after a revert without rationale). The old order of stuff was rather illogical, you even had to say "see below" in "Holocaus denial controvery".

BTW, "Holocaus denial controversy" isn't a brilliant chapter title. Which controversy? There is neither a controvrersy whether W has denied the Holocaust nor is there a controversy whether the Holocaust really happened (crackpots and disturbed old man not having weight in historical question). --Pjacobi (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the word "controversy" is unnecessary and can be dropped.   Will Beback  talk  22:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the controversy clearly belongs to his life. The current controversy is a major event in his life, don't you think? It is based on his views (who are amply explained in the views section) but it is an event of his life. And this is also why we cannot drop the word "controversy". Holocaust denial in itself does not deserve a separate section (and in this case, all the information we have would be Undue Weight and recentism) or subsection of views. And it is a controversy because his views are controversial. "Scandal" would also do IMHO but I guess some people would cry "POV!" then.

The article attempte to separate RWs life from his views, noting briefly every item including his views about Jews and his Holocaust denial.

PS. "Don't revert without going to talk." - Pj, in substance your edit was a revert to as we had a similar version before. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Having read Will Beback, I already changed the structure: separate "someone's" view over him into separate section. I suggest: Further restructuring welcome, and Details per section later-DePiep (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

But that was wrong. Any "view" is "as reported by somebody else", as per WP:V and WP:OR. There is no way we should separate these. And I think this would also raise POV issues. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

RE Str1977 (earlier remark, edit-conflict): 'Controversy' is hardly an encyclopedial word. Should be avoided and Templated like, say, "Trivia". Or see WP:WEASEL. Let's improve. -DePiep (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

RE on rv by Str1977: big question mark here: why not separate his views from other persons views? (or criticism etc). Request & suggest re-rv.

"Trivia" is utterly out of the place here. Controversy is a perfectly neutral and encyclopedic word.

We have no criticism section because thus far the article is not big enough for it. And we do not report "other persons' views", we report his views sourced to reliable sources. His placement within the framework of traditionalism is not "other's views" but his stance referenced. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

RE, adding to earlier post by (now out of sync by edit-conflict) (Str1977: (A) rv because of your invoking WP:V here is not to the point: I just separatd their views. Did not add or change. Even if 'everything is a view', (a) it can be organised and (b) it can be presented encyclopedically. (B) On your invoking WP:OR: by separating and resectioning texts I do not introduce original research. I just read the text, and clearly notice & explain that they are from different persons. Person Williamson and persons 'someone else'. An OR here. (C) But that was wrong., as you wrote, is to be discussed here and not judged by you, don't you think? (A,B,C) rv then? -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

RE adding (d): Str1977: on Controversy: Controversy is a perfectly neutral and encyclopedic word, you write. Could you please clarify that? To me it is a journalistic word first: arousing and news-suggesting, but not encyclopidical. Suggest rv because of (a,b,c,d) -DePiep (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, splitting up between "his views" and "others on him" hurts NPOV and NOR - not when you simply reorganise but when new material is added (and a structure must always be open to that) - your "his views" section would became a OR section. And no, they are not from RW or from somebody else. All these are RW as reported by somebody else.

"But that was wrong" - I am free to speak my mind. I will certainly not restore changes I think to be wrong.

As you have brought forth no argument why "controversy" is a vioaltion of WP policy or wrong, I don't think I need to clarify. I don't see anything wrong with it. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

RE adding (d): Str1977: on Controversy: Controversy is a perfectly neutral and encyclopedic word, you write. Could you please clarify that? To me it is a journalistic word first: arousing and news-suggesting, but not encyclopidical. Suggest rv because of (a,b,c,d) -DePiep (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

@Str1977: You say: "No, the controversy clearly belongs to his life". Only in so far, as everything in a biography belongs to life of the article subject. Also his views belong to his life. Do you want to put them as a subchapter too? In the narrower sense of the word, in our biographies the "Life" chapter has demographics, youth, education and sometimes career included (the latter even is often separate). I just don't get it, why you wnat it your way, but it's essentially not important enough for me to make it prolonged struggle. Think about it yourself and you'll see it or not --Pjacobi (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but views is not something that happens to you. It is a collection of views held. Hence, I have put them in a separate section as opposed to life. If one wants to know about what RW thinks, one goes there - if one wants to know what he did and what happend to him, one goes to "life".

Structure is always difficult when article are so small. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Though I proposed removing the word "controversy" last week, this week it has indeed become a controversy. I think the word is now appropriate and correctly characterizes the matter.   Will Beback  talk  17:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(Opinion)

I'd point out that it's an obvious fallacy, speaking of any religion, that one is bound to a city and not to the belief or to the faith. There historically were times where the real Pope, as opposed to a phony Pope, was not in Rome, but in Avignon. And the SSPX and similar once said, or at least their founder Lefebvre said, that they were true to the faith, but Rome no longer was. So they couldn't ally with Rome and still be Catholic. The current SSPX seem to believe the opposite, and would seem to have repudiated the opinions of their founder. But if there's a religion tied to a particular city, at least it would seem the exception rather than the rule. And for the head, the church leader, the same would seem to hold. If they thought he had gone so far as to himself repudiate the faith, in some way, then similarly they couldn't ally themselves and still believe themselves to be faithful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.158.6 (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(Comment)

You'd have to say that with the latest machinations of Fellay, which has produced a widespread call for a split in the SSPX under Williamson's leadership or that of others if not him, that all who do actually remain loyal to Fellay in the organization ARE considered to be capable of being ordered about by the Pope, at this point. Whatever 'wall' is gone. That would suggest membership, and particularly since the 'excommunications' were formally lifted. I don't think it would be misleading to say that the SSPX have always sworn a loyalty to the current Pope, in fact. So if the article reads, member "of the Catholic Church" as a way of saying the Pope considers them to now be under his direct command and authority, I can't see how that would be deceptive or wrong. I think the article ought to state that, since it is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.157.244 (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I omitted the sentence - "And Williamson may remain loyal to Fellay, after all." Rather than 'lead the resistance'. And if so . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.157.244 (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Bishop? (old)

Is he indeed a bishop? Or was the consecration completely null and void as far as the wider Church is concerned? --Golbez (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The Holy See always refers to him as a bishop, including in the statement issued today. But he is not accepted as a bishop functioning within the Catholic Church. Lima (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

For that matter, is he accepted as a Catholic clergyman by the Vatican? One would think so, but there is a short Jan 29 2009 interview (see http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/rosner/entry/david_jaeger_on_the_recent ) with a prominent priest and professor of canon law David Jaeger (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hebrew_Catholics#David-Maria_Jaeger ) which says in part :

It must be borne in mind that Mr. Williamson was not - and is not - a candidate for any office or preferment in the Church, indeed that he has not by any means been recognised as a Catholic clergyman, and has not even been brought back into the Church at all, but that only one of several legal disabilities under which he found himself accoding Church law has been lifted, with the others still very much in place.

Can anyone clear that up? Gentlemath (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Williamson, and his colleagues (Fellay, et. al.) are, and have been, in fact recognized as real ("valid") bishops by the Vatican, somewhat analogous to the recognition accorded to clergy of Eastern Orthodox Churches. However, in the case of the SSPX bishops, they are, and have been, according to Roman Catholic canon law, suspended from performing any acts relevant to their status as bishops, such as celebrating Mass or ordaining priests or other bishops. The lifting of the excommunications changes none of this, and, as far as I know, these bishops and the other clergy with them still continue to function as they have all along. The removal of the excommunications is seen as a first step toward reconciling the SSPX with Rome, bringing the former into full communion with -and under the complete jurisdiction of - the latter. --Midnite Critic (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The quote above by David Jaeger (a professor of canon law in Rome) does not seem to support this. As I read it, it says that Williamson is not a Catholic priest. I believe that he was ordained (both as a priest and as a bishop) within the SSPX. So IF the SSPX is and has been suspended from ordaining priests and bishops THEN R.W. is neither a Catholic priest nor a Catholic bishop. Here is an article quoting the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, to the effect that

The status of the society's priests remains unsettled. While their ordinations are valid, the Church considers them "illicit" because they were ordained by someone who didn't have the authority.

Probably this is better addressed someplace like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remission_of_the_Ec%C3%B4ne_Excommunications

--Gentlemath (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The question is: "Is Williamson a bishop?" He is. That is all that the article says, even in the title. In the eyes of the Catholic Church he is a bishop as much as any Eastern Orthodox bishop is. The article does not call him a Catholic bishop. So this is not the place to discuss that question. Lima (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a question. People might be curious to know what does it mean that they call him a bishop, what is his exact current and potential future standing in the eyes of the CC. Inded this might not be the place. It is not exactly like an Eastern Orthodox bishop in that they are (in the eyes of the CC) licit and he is illicit (those are precise technical terms although I don't know what they mean). I think that your run of the mill Episcopal Bishop is licit (or maybe illicit, but at any rate still a bishop) in the eyes of the CC because there is a chain of ordinations tracing back to Catholic bishops. Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori is the presiding Episcopal bishop in the US but, not being male, is not a bishop in the eyes of the CC. They still might refer to her as bishop as a matter of politeness, or maybe not. --Gentlemath (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The full text of the question asked was: "Is he indeed a bishop? Or was the consecration completely null and void as far as the wider Church is concerned?" The full answer to this question is: To the first part ("Is he a bishop?"), Affirmative. To the second part ("Was the consecration completely null and void as far as the wider Church is concerned?"), Negative. The question was about validity, not licitness. Lima (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Disambig page

See Bishop Williamson (disambiguation). Tim Vickers (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk page duplication

This talk page is attached to both the Richard Williamson (bishop) article and the Richard Wiliamson (disambiguation) page. Someone who knows how, please correct this situation, so that this TP is only attached to the bishop page, and that a disambig TP is attached to the disambig page. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Lima (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Expulsion from Argentina

I've conflated 2 quotes from the minister of the Interior re expulsion. I'm trying to make the legalistic point that the formal reason for his expulsion was that he had given false information when entering the country, but that the minister's statement made clear that his presence was unacceptable ("the irregular presence in the country..."); rather like jailing multiple murderer Al Capone for tax evasion as there was no evidence to try him otherwise. The story and quotes from La Nación are much more detailed than the Herald Tribune. There's more in La Prensa[2]. Pol098 (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to load the article with too much detail, but the references clearly state that the reason for the official resolution was that he "falsified in 2003 his declaration on entering the country, declaring that he was to be an administrative employee of the Asociación Civil La Tradición, when really he was a priest and the director of the lefebvrista seminary which the Fraternidad San Pío X has in the locality of Moreno". This is a government making a formal statement based on official papers, and Williamson has not contested it; it is wrong to call it an "allegation".Pol098 (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Readability

The holocaust denial section under a Level 3 headline goes on for too long. The amount of text as such is not a problem (I have even discovered more notable news, see below) but there are too many paragraphs of body type after that Level 3 heading. This creates an imbalance with the article's other sub-sections and impedes readability. Any ideas of how to reorganize for better reading flow would be welcome.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Williamson and David Irving photographed together in 2008

On February 24, 2009, Ruth Gledhill published two photographs of Bishop Richard Williamson appearing at a private party hosted by holocaust denier David Irving in October 2008. In one of the two pictures both men appear clearly in the same frame. Given that Irving is known to be very litigious and the photographs are still up on the Times Onlne website as of today, we can safely assume that the photographs are authentic. At first glance the story would not qualify for inclusion as a Reliable Source because it is in a blog. However, the Articles of Faith blog is a fixture on the Times website. Since Gledhill is on staff as the Times' Religion Correspondent and the Times of London, the UK's most respected newspaper, stands behind Gledhill with its reputation, we can use this blog in this particular instance as a Reliable Source under Wikipedia rules. The URL is here. Gledhill also quotes from a lengthy letter that Irving wrote to Williamson after the scandal broke in which Irving provides detailed advice to Bishop Williamson on how to frame his revisionism to the public and which of the generally accepted facts about the Holocaust he should contest --Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that blogs published by mainstream newpapers are considered reliable sources because they are not viewed as being self-published.   Will Beback  talk  06:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Splitting

I wonder if the Holocaust denial controversy section would deserve to be split into another article, it is getting very long, and is almost a story unto itself. ADM (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it will grow much more. It would seem odd, in a few years' time, when the present fuss has died down, to have a separate article on this particular view expounded by this particular man, who has put forward so many other curious ideas. Lima (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest trying to keep it within the article. It may be necessary to keep it within a reasonable length.   Will Beback  talk  06:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Keep it in. Hiving it off to somewhere else might look like an attempt to sanitise the man's reputation.--Charles (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Protection

I have protected the page in order to prevent the unseemly edit warring. The issue [3] judging by the edit summaries is that the IP states that it is inaccurate to say that 6 million jews died in concentration camps. This should be easy to source either way, so that editors can resolve this dispute by consensus here on the talkpage. I will lift the protection early if this happens. --Slp1 (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not 6 million Jews died is irrelevant to this article. The point here is that Williamson denies this number and maintains that "not a single Jew died in a gas chamber" (direct quote from the man, himself, wikiquoted in this very article and removed from here a while back by a sycophant). When he was taken to the woodshed over this he tried backpedalling by saying only 200,000 Jews died in total. His minions will continue to do damage control and tilt the article in his favor rather than own up to his actual statements because he may derail normalization of his schismatic sect with the Church.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The editor using a Paris-based IP (and who has given himself a name in his not very polite messages on the Talk pages of other editors) has changed the text to "Williamson ... has claimed that 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps". In the context, that statement is pointless: it could mean that Williamson is among those who affirm the Holocaust, rather than among those who deny it. Would that combative editor agree to the insertion of the word "only", making the text say that Williamson claimed that only 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in that way? That would be acceptable, but not the present text. Lima (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way - this is rather for Slp1 - it is extremely easy to source what was in the article before the man in Paris changed it. The article already had (and still has) a source that does state that Williamson "denied that six million Jews had died in Nazi concentration camps". According to Wikipedia rules, if this statement is defended, as it has been by several editors, someone who wants to eliminate it would need to find a source that disagrees with it, rather than arguing about what is true and what is untrue. But I trust that those who have been defending it would not object to changing, as I have proposed, to a text that says that Williamson claimed that only 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in that way. Lima (talk) 07:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This is precisely the conversation that needed to happen earlier instead of the edit warring. Protection was applied not because of the truth/untruth/verifiability/unverifiability of any statement but because of behaviour: people were reverting repeatedly without discussion. I note that neither of you were involved in more than one revert (and one not at all), and also that it is disappointing that two of the major reverters haven't commented here despite requests. Perhaps they will soon, and comment on Lima's suggestion. BTW I also note that the sourcing of this article has deteriorated again. We have blogs, unreliable websites and primary sources/quote mining being used again. I suggest a clean-up should occur. --Slp1 (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Six million is too high a figure for concentration and extermination camp murders of Jews; "millions" would be fairer. Williamson may of course be admitting to the concentration camps while denying the death camps. As well as those murdered in their own villages many thousands perished on death marches between camps, so were not actually in them. This is no excuse for removing text without polite explanation, and thereby altering the meaning of the section.--Charles (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to be polite to cut such a stupid statement from something that pretends to be an encyclopedia. If you don't know how many people died in camps then just read that thing you pretend to improve. You were told [4] to do it, and did not, why ?

"it could mean that Williamson is among those who affirm the Holocaust, rather than among those who deny it"

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG, people that minimise holocaust are holocaust deniers. Read the first two paragraphs of THIS RELEVANT ARTICLE instead of saying stupidities. 88.166.140.196 (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I just noticed this ongoing discussion which I had not seen yet when I made my revert half an hour ago. I do not mind clarifying the language at all, in fact I am all for it, if a better version is offered. However, I believe we all agree that the way the IP editor went about it is not the right way.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Grammar

HATE to be a dick about this, but shouldn't it be "he had been excommunicated"? as opposed to "was excommunicated". Especially since they made the excommunication null and void? It does not read well in the lead as it is. I won't make a big deal out of it, but I think it comes across as shoddy prose as it stands now. If his minions keep attacking me through proxy IP's, what will they do to the rest of you.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we say Jimmy Carter was elected President of the United States in November 1976 and ceased to be President in January 1981, not that he had been elected in November 1976 and ceased to be President in January 1981. Lima (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said that Jimmy Carter was elected (formally) in January 1977. Lima (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Lima, especially since "they" did not "make the excommunication null and void" - the penalty was lifted but not because it was null and void. And since "had been" evokes that thinking it is improper to use it. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

dont know much about wikipedia but it seems these references should be of the same type

Reaction from much of the Jewish community was strongly negative, but Pope Benedict XVI, in his letter of 20 March 2009 on the matter, publicly thanked "our Jewish friends, who quickly helped to clear up the misunderstanding and to restore the atmosphere of friendship and trust". On 23 January, after the decree had come into effect but a day before it was published, Abraham Foxman, president of the Anti-Defamation League, wrote to Cardinal Walter Kasper in order to express his opposition to any eventual ecclesial re-integration of Bishop Williamson.[63] Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi commented that Williamson's views had no impact on the decision.[64] Monsignor Robert Wister, professor of church history, said that Williamson's comments might be "offensive and erroneous" but "not a heresy" and "not an excommunicable offense", calling Williamson "not a heretic, but ... a liar".[65] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.32.142 (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Pruning

Because the subject of this article was in the news a good deal earlier in the year, it is understandable that it has become rather long, unwieldy and unbalanced. It seems that things have calmed down, so I am about to undertake a significant pruning of some of the excess detail, including removal of some unreliable sources, per our BLP policies. --Slp1 (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Having spent four or more hours cleaning up the article, fixing up references etc, the whole lot has been reverted. If you have a problem with one section please discuss it here and change only that part rather than ruining hours of work to the whole article.--Slp1 (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Large revisions are always likely to generate controversy. I suggest to describe the proposed changes at the talk page, with a, possibly short, rational for each change (or group of related changes). Let's then assess, and possibly implement, the changes on a case by case basis.  Cs32en  23:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan, assuming you are talking about starting from my boldly edited version. I did a lot of work removing non-RS, correcting and finding better the references, improving the citing, removing falsely cited material etc, and there's no way it makes sense to start from the old version. There's some discussion on my talkpage about one matter. The revert seems partly a misunderstanding, since I hadn't deleted the Germany/Sweden thing, and the bit ADM noticed was missing was deleted because it was sourced to a blog.--Slp1 (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

May it's best to make those changes that are probably uncontroversial in one edit, then wait for a day whether anyone objects to them. That version would then be the starting point for discussion at the talk page.  Cs32en  00:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It's too late for that. I worked all afternoon on it, and it's done, as far as I'm concerned. I think it's all uncontroversial, since the changes have been mainly stylistic, though with some deletions of excessive detail about various tangential matters. I personally think it is in much better shape, with much better flow and sourcing. I suggest people read it and see what they think needs changing. --Slp1 (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Although I might agree with the changes that you are proposing, I'd suppose that the fact that you think they are uncontroversial does not assure that they actually are uncontroversial. And if something is controversial, then it's often best to take the existing version as the starting point for the discussion. But maybe the editor that reverted your changes does not revert again and does not engage in the discussion here - in that case we would use your version.  Cs32en  00:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I have alluded to the possibility that others might have different opinions when I said "as far as I'm concerned", no? And no, with BLP articles containing unsourced, inappropriately sourced material and original research and commentary, the answer is not to make proposals but to nuke them, as I did here. I haven't heard from ADM again, but the one thing he was concerned about was the deletion of something that was merely sourced to a blog, and had to go. I did remove some material that was sourced, however. I am happy to explain why if questions arise, and I'm sure we can come to some agreement. Sorry if I'm a bit crabby. An experienced editor, I spend the entire afternoon working on an article, and instead of any sort of a thank you, I get all this .... --Slp1 (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The diff containing all your changes is quite mixed up due to the amount of differences. So it's not that easy to assess the quality of the changes you made. I assume they are fine, but I just can't say without a summary of the changes. (Too lazy to compare the two versions manually.) Others might feel similarly. But if there's no further objection, I'm fine with it.  Cs32en  01:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Suspension

(moved to correct place in sequence. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC))

According to this article [5] and this one [6] Bishop Williamson is not currently suspended from priestly duties. Paulbmann Feb 17, 2009

Neither is a neutral third party source.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What is your neutral third party source for his suspension? -- Paul B Mann Feb 17 2009

Archiving

This was 172,000 kb long, so I’ve archived some of the older stuff. Also, some of the comments, (and some of the sections!) were all over the place, so I’ve added a talk box to remind everyone. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Excommunication, again

(moved to correct place in sequence. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC))

Some in the media are indicating his excommunication might be lifted and this is causing controversy or interest.[7][8][9][10]--T. Anthony (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. If the excommunications are lifted, that should definitely go in the article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading the article and cross checking the references, I think this is a very fair and balanced article on someone who is clearly a vile bigoted excuse for a human being. I suggest you find someone slightly less odious to defend, like Idi Amin or Josef Mengele —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.199.77 (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

OK enough, that is almost a personal attack and completely inappropriate. Please discuss the article and let's not descend into mudslinging. – ukexpat (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, it is not inappropriate to call him what he is, and his views are well known and documented. He IS a bigot (by the definition of the word), and his views ARE vile (by any reasonable measure), and saying so is not a "personal attack" or "mudslinging", it is fact. It doesn't belong in the article, but in the discussion section, where one individual already made the asinine claim of "character assassination", his character MOST DEFINITELY DOES need discussion. 32.161.171.46 (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Blappo

You presume to call him a bigot and don't even know what his opinions happen to be, not when it comes to specifics. That's clear. And they aren't clearly presented in the article. The 'moderator' chose to censor the obvious reply to such a rant as yours, but didn't delete your rant, itself. It deserves a reply. Instead of the sort of 'outrage journalism' that you propose, 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 12.72.157.195 (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have deleted some recent comments that have nothing to do with this article. The talk page exists only to discuss improvements to the article, not to discuss the subject of the article. This is not a forum. Please confine your remarks to the topic. See WP:TPG for more information.   Will Beback  talk  21:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

According to this article [11], Archbishop Lefebvre was NOT excommunicated and consequently neither were the 4 bishops. The declaration in Eclesia Dei [12] by Pope John Paul II said the bishops "incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law". However, examination of Canon Law shows that a bishop may consecrate other bishops without the approval of Rome, under certain circumstances (i.e. those cited by Bishop Lefebvre in his consecration speech, June 1988). The Pope did not say "I excommunicate you". The excommunication was claimed to be automatic based on Canon Law, however, Canon Law does not support the Pope's claim. Paulbmann Feb 17, 2009. —Preceding undated comment was added on 19:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC).

That is not a verifiable neutral third party source, just more excuses from his minions.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be a good argument if they were giving an opinion, but they were quoting Canon Law. Can you show how their argument based on Canon Law is wrong? What most people don't seem to understand is that Canon Law is the determining factor. If Canon Law says he was excommunicated then he was, but Canon Law says the opposite. Check it out. Paulbmann Feb 17, 2009.

Then why is the Vatican lifting excommunications if they never happened? I'll trust them on matters of Canon law, not schismatics and sedes.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The Vatican is lifting the excommunications because it's too embarrassing for them to admit that the excommunications were never a reality in the first place. And if the excommunications were valid, why did they change their mind? How can excommunicants and schismatics be OK now and not in 1988? What has changed? Perhaps the growth of the SSPX and the diminishing of the modern post-Vatican II church has something to do with it. Why are Muslims and Jews saved now, but those Catholics who are practicing Catholocism as it was for 2,000 years are not saved. It truly defies logic and makes Ecumenism look like a hypocritical concept. Paulbmann Feb 17, 2009.

If the SSPX is not a neutral third party, then the Vatican is not either. These are two forces are fighting against each other. You based your previous argument on a pre-supposed conclusion, without examining the facts. You assumed that the SSPX is a bunch of schismatics, because Rome said so. Why does one have to assume that one side is the know-it-all and the other side is in the wrong. That is not how one comes to the correct conclusion. Paulbmann Feb 17, 2009.

The Vatican's said that the excommunications were based on Canon Law. Why is it forbidden for a reader of this article to examine Canon Law and decide for himself? So if your boss says you are a liar and a cheat, then nobody should listen to your testimony, because we don't want to hear testimony of liars and cheats. You are guilty as charged. Paulbmann Feb 17, 2009.

• Please remember that Wikipedia is about summarizing reliable sources and not about proving things based on research and logic. It's not for us to decide how Canon Law applies to this situation. If source "A" says that he was excommunicated and source "B" says that he wasn't then we report both statements with appropriate weight to each.   Will Beback  talk  21:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• • At least 50 neutral third party sources cited in the article refer to this man as an excommunicant. One source published by the schismatic group in question states otherwise as does an article written by a society apologist. Can it get any more ridiculous? Do we need to rehash thisSociety_of_St._Pius_X#Canonical_situation_of_the_SSPX here? Does every article related to one of these excommunicants warrant such wordsmithing?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• • But you are not giving appropriate weight to each in the case of the suspension. The article says he was suspended and there is no reference source for that. Paulbmann Feb 17, 2009.
    • Should we give the same weight on the moon article to people who think the moon is made of green cheese? How about the nutters who think JFK was assassinated so he would not expose Operation Bluebook?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Here we go again. You are assuming that the SSPX is excommunicated therefore their evidence should be rejected. You count the number who oppose the SSPX as 50 against the already judged guilty party. This is a total sham of justice. And you claim that it's not Wikipedia's job to judge. Then stop judging SSPX as the guilty party, before you examine ALL the evidence, especially the most relevant evidence. The SSPX is just as capable of understanding Canon Law as the Vatican. Heck even I can understand it. It is not that difficult. The part pertaining to the excommunication is not difficult to understand. Paulbmann Feb 17, 2009.

• • • Wiki articles are not based on what you are proposing, they are based on credible sources. Now personally, I have seen all the evidence, I used to believe along the lines of what the mouthpieces of the SSPX said in regard to the excommunications; but at one time I also believed in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. If you don't like it go and write a blog and a letter to your local Bishop.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Now if we examine Canon Law and find that the SSPX interpreted it correctly, then will you say that the Vatican is incompetent or lieing about the excommunication? I don't think so, because you have already made up your mind. Then all this talk about fairness and neutral points of view is just so much nonsense. Paulbmann Feb 17, 2009.

• • • No, because that would be original research.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't say he was excommunicated. It says he was declared excommunicated. That is undeniable. As for suspension, the Holy See has said that he is not yet admitted to episcopal functions within the Church. Lima (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I see errors here on both sides. Paulbmann keeps suggesting that we interpret Canon Law, which is entirely inappropriate. Please see WP:NOR. Mike Searson is suggesting that we omit minority viewpoints. WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant viewpoints. In this matter, the SSPX has a significant viewpoint. We should report it while indicating that it is limited to SSPX.   Will Beback  talk  05:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think we should omit the minority viewpoint, just put it in perspective. I find it similar to how all criminals in prison maintain their innocence or insane people think they're sane. I think it's been stated accurately in the SSPX articles. I objected when Paul rewrote the article from that POV with no verifiable third party sources to back up his claims. And then his attempt to turn this page into a debate Forum on the hows and whys of Canon Law.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed "Williamson was excommunicated from the Catholic Church in 1988 ipso facto" to "Williamson was declared excommunicated from the Catholic Church in 1988 latae sententiae" in the introduction because that's the more correct wording to use. Alan162 (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)