Talk:Richard Williamson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] 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)

So much for a "non-biased" article. Shame.

Yes, one would be tempted to describe this article as an assassination of character.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)