Talk:Interdict

I have removed the line "An interdict against a country would often cause the citizens of that country to demand the government fix whatever caused the interdiction, or in some cases to rebel and overthrow the government," as there are no examples listed in the page. If there are any known examples, I would of course encourage the replacement of the relevant text, but as it is, I don't think the unsupported statement should be included in the article.

Last rights

I recall reading somewhere that anointing of the sick, at least in the form of last rites, was the only sacrament allowed under an interdict. Can anyone confirm if this is true? If so, the article should make mention of this. -R. fiend 17:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Anthropologist views

The anthropologist's view does not belong on this page, but on Maltese history. It will be moved to Malta's talk page, where an editor there can incorporrate it into that article. JBogdan 21:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference prejudical to NPOV

A contributor insists on referring to the interdiction in the 1960s of voters of the Malta Labour Party going as far as to create a section called "Twentieth century examples". This prejudices the article's NPOV through giving this episode undue wieght.

First, why 20th century examples? If we're seeking to be up-to-date why not quote cased from the 21st century where there are instances of the Church using interdiction to influence voting? If any century would do why not the 18th, or the 15th, or the 12th?

The interdiction of Malta Labour Party voters is insignificant in a general article on interdiction. As has been stated on undue weight "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."

The case is already mentioned in the entry on the Malta Labour Party and Michael Gonzi. No further reference is warranted. Not to mention the fact that there are a number of significant factual inaccuracies (e.g. interdiction was not lifted in 1969 but in 1964).

Demdem (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If you think it gives undue weight, then find other examples for balance. I have found two more - all cited. But instead your aim seems to be to remove information - your latest POV censorship [1]. Since your main interest is Malta, it looks as if you are trying to hide something. Twice interdicting half a country for several years for political reasons is an important example of how this power is used. --08:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)