Talk:Richard Williamson (bishop)

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. 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)

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

Some in the media are indicating his excommunication might be lifted and this is causing controversy or interest.[1][2][3][4]--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

Or somebody here is-a, and has "vile" views. Personal attack is the stuff for message boards I would think, or blogs. And one can get their 'ya-ya's out there. I think there's a tendency in this article to quote out of context, to quote almost enough, but not sufficient to understand his specific views and objections. My opinion is that I don't understand his opinions on 9/11. But then maybe it's not clear precisely what his specific opinion is. And I think that's the case for the 'holocaust denial', as well, since he's even quoted there as admitting at least 300K Jews systematically murdered by a planned Nazi program. If his complaint is with the general figure of 6 million, surely that's also been disputed by many keeping holocaust sites, and not just so-called 'deniers' opposed to such sites. But his opinion is that he says his opinion is that of others. If they change their opinion, he changes his. That's what he said in the very same televised interview. More to the point, he wonders how they evacuated the gas from the 'shower'/gas chambers. It's a simple question. There's probably a simple answer. And nobody perhaps has bothered to suggest it to him. But that's speculation. Even a trace amount of cyanide gas can be injurious, much more even fatal. The gas would have had to be collected, perhaps in another chamber, and not allowed to leak out the doors. But surely there's a simple and obvious answer. I would suspect it's nothing more than that the real chambers were airtight and the prisoners handling the dead simply wore gas masks. But I'm guessing. It sounds reasonable, though. Perhaps confusing matters is a recreation of the chambers at Auschwitz which perhaps are not entirely historical and which perhaps are not airtight - not having visited Auschwitz and whatever building reproductions are now there, I wouldn't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.158.6 (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly - the "vile bigot" comment was aimed at Richard Williamson (I made it). If anyone else shares his opinions, then they are also vile bigots, but they're not under discussion here.

Secondly - repeatedly attempting to whittle away at the numbers murdered is an absolutely classic Holocaust denier tactic. The evidence that millions upon millions of Jews were murdered by the Nazis (and that they employed gas chambers) is incontrovertible, to claim otherwise is an outright lie. I suggest you read the following: Aushwitz, Treblinka, Belzec & Sobibor for starters.

Thirdly - Holocaust denial is not the limit of his antisemitism, nor is it his only disgusting view.

Finally - the reason this article paints a none-too-flattering portrait of this man, isn't because of some POV pushing conspiracy, it's because he's an unpleasant person. I repeat my suggestion that people find someone less odious to defend.

86.31.48.120 (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2009 (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) How does he differ, except in his paranoia , from Anglicans who derive their orders from the Old Catholics and regard General Councils as liable to error?Particularis (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. [5] 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)

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)

Williamson's comments

The other three SSPX bishops may be notable, basically, for only one event; Williamson is notable far less for that event than for what he has said and what he continues to say. My revision removed all comments, editorial or by others: it has nothing in the line either of "Williamson is generally regarded as ..." or "Some commentators say ..." It only gives Williamson's own words (I have cut down even on those), with verifiable sources. I don't see on what objective grounds Paul Soms can justify deleting the section thus. Do others think his action justified? I leave it to their judgement. Lima (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, William's entry is because he, as the article lead says, is a bishop of the Society of St. Pius X. He was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church because of his unauthorized consecration by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre .... His entry is not because of what he has (or has not) said. You cannot use "Williamson's own words" given in interviews unless they have been published by a secondary source. Neither can the article be based primarily on self-published source (more than half the references were using Williamson's letters) or if the material contentious. This is wikipedia policy. PaulSoms (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I would think that all three sources I indicated in the introduction to the section on Williamson's comments are secondary in relation to Williamson, not self-published. Is the Canadian SSPX site published by Williamson? Is the print version by True Restoration Press published by Williamson? Even the Eleison Comments earlier than February last were posted by someone called Stephen Heiner. In addition, is the Paris Rivarol published by Williamson? Is The Times of London published by Williamson? Was the voice recording of his September 2007 speech in London published by himself?

Even if it were self-published, [WP:BLP]] says: "Self-published material may be used in BLPs only if written by the subject himself." The article is about Williamson, so material written by Williamson and published by Williamson may in principle be used. There is no contention about what he said: everybody agrees that he said it. (What WP:BLP would not allow would be e.g. someone's claim to have done heroic deeds that others say he never did.) Nobody, except perhaps Williamson himself, would consider the extracts in question to be self-serving. I don't think you can say it involves claims about third parties (e.g. Benedict XVI) in the sense meant by WP:BLP. What Williamson says about events certainly are related to the subject. There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it. And I don't think you can say that the article as a whole is based primarily on what he has written and said: his comments are a highly interesting part of the article, which would be incomplete without them, but, in respect of the person, they are a secondary topic.

In short, even if the material in question were self-published, it could be used. But in fact it is not self-published and so not subject to any restrictions concerning self-published material that might be claimed to exist. Lima (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

He's more known for being a whackjob with fringe views. His views stay in the article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. His views and ideas are a major part of his reputation and should therefore stay in the article. They're notable, verifiable and true, hardly trivial. I wonder though, would his extensive collection of Precious Moments porcelain figurines, well known to former seminarians, merit mention in the article? InfernoXV (talk) 08:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't know how encyclopedic that would be, but if it's documented beyond what one saw while traipsing through the man's home, then go for it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 12:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is irrelevant (and unlikely) that Bishop Williamson personally clicks the submit button to add an entry to his blog or update an SSPX districts website; this does however indicate that it is not self published. If the SSPX Canada is a secondary source it is hardly independent of the subject – particularly given the close relationship between the two districts when Williamson was there [] – at best it is a questionable secondary source? Just because a Mr. Heiner ran his blog does not mean this is not self published either. If you insist it does then Mr. Heiner is not viable as a secondary source. True Restoration Press is an irrelevance since it was never cited in the article; but even this is questionable given it’s links to Williamson and STAS. And the website TrueRestorationPress.com is registered to a one Mr. Stephen Heiner!

Rivarol and The Times do appear to be reliable secondary sources. The recording certainly isn’t. If it’s a genuine recording then it’s primary source. If it’s secondary then is Crusaderforsweden really a reliable third-party sources (How do I know it’s not Rory_Bremner?). Again, the AngelQueen interview cannot be used since it is a primary source. I never wrote that a self-published source could not be used only that the article should not be based primarily on them – and the views section certainly is. It is not about whether or not something is disputed, or what you or I think, or to a degree truth and falsehood, it's is about what is citable and verifiable as a reliable source in relation to Williamsons notability.

You’re wrong. It is not about being “related to the subject” but being related to notability. Williamson is not notable for his views To quote policy: “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable” and “editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability”

If you can show that Williamson views are notable by quoting significant coverage in reliable secondary sources they can go in the article. PaulSoms (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Notable? Isn't the very fact that they are published in collected form by the Canadian SSPX and Stephen Heimer's True Restoration Press enough to show that they are notable? Not to speak of the many mentions of his statements on other printed and electronic media. If that isn't notability, what is? Lima (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No otherwise why not quote his other letters or from his other books? PaulSoms (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No reason whatever why you should not quote from his other letters and his books anything you find that is of interest. Go ahead and do it. Lima (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

So a quote from al of them right? As I said provide the "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" demonstrating that they are worthy of notice and they can go in. PaulSoms (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Just go ahead and do it. Lima (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Why was the lengthy material on the subject's opinions restored?[6] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the material again. Per comments and here on the WP:BLPN noticeboard do not replace this material without finding secondary sources for it. This kind of quote farm is prohibited by BLP policy. See "Using the subject as a self-published source" [7] This opinion section overwhelms the article, and involves claims about third parties and about events not directly related to the subject.--Slp1 (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are some resources that could reasonable be used to cite this article; [8][9][10][11][12][13][14] and there are many more.--Slp1 (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised! I thought it better to avoid these statements by others about Williamson, which I thought harsh, and to use instead only his own words, which could be given in their full context. But if that is what you think is right, later today or, more likely, tomorrow, I will put together an alternative section on Williamson's view, based solely on Slp1-approved sources. Lima (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please keep it compact. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links! I'm going to work up on this over the weekend, along with the Herald article and a few books.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt User:Slp1 read all the links and these should only be seen as "possible" sources until it can be verifiied that they adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. For example, The Herald article cannot be used as the article makes clear it is a result of an interview with Williamson (a primary source). This Interview must have appeared in a reliable secondary source to be included. PaulSoms (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the Herald article. Williamson is not just known for being an excommunicated schismatic. He's notable for his outlandish statements. Maybe to his minions it's not a big deal, but it's notable to the rest of the world.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 12:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why? Please point me to what you conceive to be a Wikipedia rule that says a report on the Herald's report would be more authoritative than the report itself. You seem to have a different idea about views proposed directly or attributed to others by the editor-in-chief of the Herald in his blog. What's the difference between the two cases? Lima (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The requirement for 3rd-party sources is about notability, not reliability. For example, we might have an article on a football player who's solely notable for his athletic career. We're not going to use his blog as the only source for a 1,000 words about his views on various political and social issues. On the other hand, if those views are noted in reliable sources then it'd be appropriate for the bio to mention them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree with Will Beback that the personal blog of someone as notable as Bishop Williamson may indeed be used directly (not just as quoted in a "reliable source"), I have not contravened Slp1's instructions in writing (much more quickly than I though possible, thanks to the links he provided) two subsections on Williamson's views. I trust Will Beback finds them compact enough. Mike Searson may like to build on them. There is material in the Herald article for adding views on other matters, such as women and even the Sound of Music. Also on Williamson's view on the United States, beginning with: In Being Right: Conservative Catholics in America edited by Mary Jo Weaver and R. Scott Appleby (Indiana University Press 1991 ISBN 0-25320999-4) William D. Dinges quotes Williamson as saying that the American republic was built on "Freemasonic principles profoundly harmful to religion". But I myself am content with just two topics. Would PaulSoms please note that, in spite of his objections to quoting Williamson as interviewed by the Catholic Herald, I have quoted him from that interview (my only quotation from the interview) in defence of himself, and I don't think this should be excluded.

And, another thing, though PaulSom apparently would permit it, I chose not to quote from the article (not the interview) Dr Shimon Samuels's description of Williamson as "the Borat of the schismatic Catholic far-Right" and "a clown, but a dangerous clown". Lima (talk) 10:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You have been busy, so well done! Unfortunately, I still do not believe the sections produced thus far conform to WP's core policies. Remember that this article needs to have WP:NPOV and avoidoriginal research and synthesis, which is a danger with using quotes from the subject. The policy of biographies of living people contains some useful information that should help you. I am in agreement with Will Beback that the section needs to be short and compact. I also disagree with the extent which his quotes are being used still, even if they are sourced from reliable sources. We should use summary style with only the occasional use of a quote. My suggestion would be one subheading entitled "Views", and then short 1-2 sentence summaries about each topic. For example, something like "Williamson has endorsed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, denied the Holocaust and preaches about a Jewish plot for world domination. Williamson himself denies that he is anti-semitic.", with as many citations as possible for each phrase. Also remember that for balance you need to include other, notable, non-controversial views too, not just the ones that make your blood boil.

To answer Paul, yes, the article from the Catholic Herald can be used, just as any newspaper/magazine can be used as a source for an interview with the subject. The only thing is that the Catholic Herald is unlikely to be a totally neutral source for this subject, so to avoid problems it would be important to source information in the article from multiple sources, which won't be difficult if you follow my advice of avoiding quotes and using summary style.Slp1 (talk) 13:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia, as I understand it, does not demand that any individual editor do a perfect job. It is enough to make a contribution that others can improve, correct, and add to. I do not pretend to do more than that. Nothing that Williamson said has ever made my blood boil, but many things he said make me smile. (A little boiling did come at Samuels's description of Williamson, and that is why I did not include it.) I put in what I thought was interesting. I have no intention of putting in what I would see as boring. So I leave it to others to add anything they find interesting. Perhaps I can now or very soon take the article off my watchlist. I added it only a few days ago on discovering that it was being robbed of its most interesting part. The previous length of that part was excessive and therefore somewhat boring. When I restored the section, I made it shorter than before, and would have made it shorter still but for expecting something like the reaction that actually did occur when someone reverted to an earlier longer version. But it is I who am now longwinded and boring. Enough said. Lima (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that WP doesn't expect any individual editors to do a perfect job. Yes other editors can and should improve the edits of others. But all edits do need to comply with WP's core policies, and since Williamson is a living person, the need (and indeed requirement) to follow these are particularly important. Some of W's views appear to be notable in that they have been reported by other secondary sources, which is actually the deciding factor for inclusion, rather than the interesting/boring dichotomy Lima used. As a result, the inclusion of his notable views will be important in this article. But this needs to be done in strict adherence to BLP and other policies, including NPOV. I very much appreciate that Lima's gone to a lot of trouble to write new sections based on the secondary sources found. As stated above, I do not believe that the current views sections are of NPOV or BLP compliant as they are too long and include too many leading quotes. Yes, somebody else can come and clean it up so that it complies better with policies and guidelines (or they may just delete it again for BLP reasons) but the adding editor knows the material better and can probably do a faster and a better job.Slp1 (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell me why the Herald article is not a primary source since it was the Herald that conducted the interview with Williamson? Surely that cannot be one step removed from the event or have I missed something? PaulSoms (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

A transcript of the interview would be a primary source. A report in a newspaper including excerpts from the interview is a secondary source, in that it has chosen which quotes are notable/relevant etc, interprets, synthesizes them etc. "Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims" from WP:PSTS.--Slp1 (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Williamson’s is primarily notable for one event: his excommunication by John-Paul II. It could be argued that he has used his “episcopal powers” to ordain priests of the Society of Saint Josaphat and consecrate bishop Licínio Rangel which may be notable events – but that’s it.

One BLP policy applicable here is: People who are relatively unknown. “Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth.”

While not policy, a good essay and test is given here Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm. The “inclusion test” discusses whether information about the underage drinking by the daughter of president Bush should be included in her article. I leave you all to read the rest. The essay suggests criteria for the inclusion of information. If we apply this criteria to Williamson views I would suggest that most fail on at least two points (1 & 3). The only plausible views I can see that could possibly be included are those in relation to Rome. PaulSoms (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted back to a previous version as per Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:BLP: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.". It is not for me to make it BLP compliant the onus is on those who added the material. PaulSoms (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think that the policy on people who are relatively unknown or one event applies here. Williamson is a public figure who has made certain life choices that ensure he is a public figure and that his actions and opinions are regularly reported. He has given interviews, participated in well-reported events etc. There are lots of references to him and his activities in many different newspapers, books etc over a long time period. Yes, WP:BLP applies here, but I disagree with your analysis that only his views about Rome can be included. The avoiding harm essay refers to public and non-public information. Williamson has expressed his views very publicly in a variety of ways including interviews, website etc. We are not dealing with private information here. Brief, well sourced descriptions of his views appears appropriate. What is in the article at present does not fit the bill, however, to my mind.--Slp1 (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

With several people now involved, including at least one who has the powers of an administrator, I am surprised that PaulSoms's latest revert of six or seven hours ago is being allowed to stand, making it appear that Williamson never said anything whatever worth including in the article. I don't feel like undoing his revert at the cost perhaps of giving the impression of being the only editor who thinks what he did is wrong. (I admit I did think for a moment of restoring what he removed and adding something on Williamson's 9/11 views, for which there is material even without directly quoting - something that to my mind is not illegitimate - his own writing.) Lima (talk) 04:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Lima. In Paul's defense, that material needed better sourcing. I am going to take my time and properly research all the sources, footnotes, etc; after all, I do not want to slander the man.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As I have said several times, I am certainly in favour of a short section summarizing Williamson's views about a variety of subjects. They have been widely reported, though usually rather briefly, but are notable. It would be great if editors could produce such a section, and since last night I did a search of newspaper archives not available online, I can send the quite informative results of my researches to anybody who sends me an email, since they can also be used as sources. But whatever goes in needs to be short so that it does not overwhelm the article, and not just a litany of quotes (though it is very tempting I agree given what he says!) Taking your time, and even proposing a text here on the talkpage sounds like a good idea to me. --Slp1 (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The following paragraph is meant as a contribution, not for inserting just as it is. I put it together on coming back and seeing Mike Searson's comment about not wanting to slander Williamson. I could not help thinking that, in comparison with quoting Williamson's own words and leaving interpretation to the reader, the short form recommended by Slp1, no matter how carefully phrased, would show up more, not less, strongly ideas such as denial of the Holocaust, which Slp1 suggested be stated baldly, doubtless momentarily forgetting that for this, as far as I know, we only have someone else's assertion, not Williamson's own words, which I continue to think are by far the best source to use.

Williamson has resisted moves aimed at reconciling the Society with Rome, calling Rome neo-modernist and duplicitous He has criticized the theology of Pope John Paul II and of Pope Benedict XVI While denying that he is antisemitic, he has endorsed The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, declaring it authentic, has denied the Holocaust, and has said that the Jews aim at world dominion, and that they worship a god who is "an absolute devil". Williamson has claimed that the Twin Towers were certainly brought down not by aeroplanes but by professionally placed demolition charges. He has opposed the wearing of trousers or shorts by women, and said that attendance at university by girls was against their nature.

Mike Searson will doubtless produce something far better. In particular, he must hedge the denial of the Holocaust and the statement that the Jews worship a god who is a devil! Lima (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, Lima. I think you've done a good job of summarizing and making it nice and short! A few comments though. I think we should aim to have at least two unimpeachably reliable secondary sources for each sentence or part sentence. By this I mean mainstream newspapers, books, with the required editorial oversight. I don't think either Aletheia or Angelqueen would count as this, for example. I also strongly suggest that the primary sources such as sspx and youtube be avoided as much as possible and in any case only used when as a third ref to support to two other secondary sources. I have sent Mike a bunch of relevant articles, so this won't be as difficult as it seems, though it does mean that we will have to accept that some of his views are not notable, because they have not been reported widely enough in reliable secondary sources. And I should have said when I posted the proposed sentence above that I'm not suggesting by any means that this exact terminology be used. We would need some very solid secondary sources for the holocaust denial claim, for example.

I like the way you included some short quotes in the footnotes and even in the text. I am not against more short quotes of this sort. I will try and explain more clearly why it is best to avoid extensive quotes from the subject and why "someone else's assertion" is actually preferred here. Using primary material, such as Williamson's speeches/sermons and website posts puts us WPians in the position of deciding which of the many sentences he uttered/wrote are notable and interesting, and which of his views are important. This is a kind of original research, and of course is also fraught the danger that WPians will pick quotes to promote a particular POV and that undue weight will be given to what are basically non-notable aspects of a topic. WP prefers that journalists, scholars, authors etc, do this kind of selection, interpretation and analysis, and that we WPians then summarize their findings. Professional writers etc are considered better than WPians in deciding what is important and what isn't, and determining what someone meant when they said something. Hope that helps.Slp1 (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't help thinking that Slp1 lets the search for perfection get in the way of a good article. I don't think blogs should be quoted as sources of statements, but they are abundant proof that certain of Williamson's statements are indeed notable. Grounds, I think, for writing about these statements in Wikipedia and quoting what he actually says. It was because in another article a certain editor presented as fact what a writer and newspaper editor-in-chief only reported in his blog as a rumour that I looked again at this article and saw what was happening to it. (Rather than fight about citability of the blog, I just added an opposing view to that other article and pointed out that the writer had only spoken of a rumour.) But now that more competent people are involved in this article, I can quite well leave it in their care. Lima (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it's not a question of a search for perfection. It's a question about following WP's very strict policies about BLP articles for legal and ethical reasons, and the difference between the sorts of blogs involved. "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). Self-published blogs in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." (from WP:BLP We can't and don't use unreliable websites/blogs as the source of anything, not even notability when deciding whether to include articles in WP. See WP:N Slp1 (talk) 12:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Am I wrong in thinking that it must be three weeks since an editor undertood the task of providing a revision of the subsection on Williamson's comments? The subsection is still missing, but the warning at the top of the article about the contents of the subsection (the other subsections seem not to be controversial) remains. Is it possible that that editor also wants nothing short of perfection?  :) Lima (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Lima, I refer you to user:Slp1 comments of 12:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC) above about "WP's very strict policies about BLP articles for legal and ethical reasons". In addition you are using the primary sources used in the Herald article as reliable references; they are not. Neither is the Herald article on it’s own as user:Slp1 wrote, it is “unlikely to be a totally neutral source for this subject”. The two The Chief Rabbi, the Pope, and the Holocaust reference are in effect the same – one is a gloss on an apparent, undated, recoding and the context of p.202 is that of Lefebvre’s spokesman etc. You need multiple reliable sources as mentioned above.

Consequently, I have reverted back to a previous version as per Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:BLP: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable - should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.". It is not for me to make it BLP compliant the onus is on those who added the material. PaulSoms (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There are multiple problems here, and both Paul and Lima have something to learn.

• First, as you guys know, reverting is not the solution to these problems. Your text is still problematic, Lima, and yet Paul, just deleting all of it repeatedly, and not just the parts you think are problematic is not right either. Edit it and make it better instead. Delete the parts you think are not appropriate and bring them here for discussion.
• There are lots of very well sourced statements in the article. As has been explained before, using the quotes from the Catholic Herald, and the The Chief Rabbi, the Pope, and the Holocaust is fine.
• The current paragraph is clearly not the "Views of Bishop Williamson". It is a listing of his controversial statements, with more cherry picking of quotes, and without a neutral point of view. Where are all the uncontroversial views that he must hold? Having said that, there are lots and lots of very reliable sources from over a very long period noting the controversial things he does say. He is and has been notable for these views, as the newspaper articles that I downloaded and the references in the article make abundantly clear. As a result, this article needs to include some discussion of them, in a balanced, neutral way, of course.

I believe that the current version is sufficiently problematic that I am going to remove it from the article. It needs work here before it gets included again. If I have time, I will try to help. But all of you need to contribute to figuring out the wording. Paul, can you produce a paragraph that would satisfy you? Lima, can you try to rewrite your paragraph so that it completely neutral, and that noone could guess what your opinion of his views are? Mike, could you read those articles I sent you and add both positive and negative information from them, and where appropriate adding extra citations to the statements being added to above. You all might benefit from reading an essay about writing to write in a NPOV This is something to strive for, and a great skill to learn.--Slp1 (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Maybe put all of that in a sandbox linked from here? Keep it out of the main article and let the editing, etc go on in the sandbox? Just a thought.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Good plan. Perhaps you can set it up and link to it from here? --Slp1 (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Here you go:Richard_Williamson/sandbox. Might want to archive part of the talk page too, it's getting long.

Well, some admin deleted it. This is such bullshit. I'm washing my hands of this thing, next thing you know I'll have his brainwashed minions showing up at my house trying to put pants on my dog. Good luck.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well then, where do we go from here? Slp1 says "reverting is not the solution to these problems". Yet reverting = deleting is the only solution used by PaulSoms, "some admin" and, indeed, Slp1 also. I would have thought that corrections/improvements could be made - should be made - without wholesale deleting. As for the comments being hand-picked, I seem to remember Slp1 saying that we should leave it to journalists to do the picking of what they considered noteworthy: isn't that what, in the main, has been done?

Also, Mike Searson is not living up to his motto Μολὼν λαβέ if he chooses to act like Pilate instead of Leonidas! :-) Lima (talk) 09:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the sandbox, which was deleted as the "some admin" thought it was a testpage, not for any BLP reasons. Where we go from here? Exactly what you said, by making "corrections/improvements" so that we create a text of neutral point of view, which can then be put back into the article. You could even decide to do this in stages as you get consensus for bits of the section. If you guys work at this together you will be able to figure it out, and I will help out, as my very limited time allows.--Slp1 (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• The sandbox was in the wrong place. I moved it to Talk:Richard Williamson/sandbox. User:Lima had already posted a comment to a page with that title, which I moved to Talk:Richard Williamson/sandbox2. Since talk pages can't have talk pages, it'd be better to discuss the draft here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought

Perhaps this excommunicated bishop's quotes should be placed in Wikiquote?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of sandbox text

Since Will says this is the place to discuss the sandbox text, I have copied here my query:

What need is there to attempt to present the whole of Williamson's views on all matters ("Views of Bishop Williamson")? What is wrong with having a section dedicated specifically to views seen as controversial? Is it POV to say that Williamson has expressed views seen as controversial to the extent that they have attracted the notice of journalists (who tend to prefer such subjects to write about)? Is it POV to indicate some of Williamson's views that journalists have in fact judged to be noteworthy? Lima (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to express Williamson's views on all matters. There is a need to explore all his notable views per NPOV, and to avoid a criticism/controversy section per [15] and this [16]. No, it is not POV to include his controversial remarks, but these must be expressed neutrally, without the appearance of taking sides, and this is not the case now. The title is the least of the problems here, and just changing it is not going to make the rest of the text acceptable. BTW, thanks, Will Beback for the page moves etc. I learnt something new today!! --Slp1 (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Then we must remedy non-neutral expressions of controversial remarks. Slp1 suggested doing it in stages. So, to start, is the first sentence, "Williamson has resisted the Holy See's proposals for a reconciliation of the Society with Rome, warning against what he called Vatican duplicity", non-neutrally expressed? Lima (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this, Lima and for asking. I think there is some work to be done on NPOV in the vocabulary: "resisted" implies that he is wrong to do so (opposed instead?); "Holy See" might be better replaced by "the Catholic Church".Slp1 (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

How about: "Williamson has opposed the Vatican's (or the Pope's) proposals for a reconcilliation of the Society with Rome, warning against what he refers to as 'Vatican Duplicity'"? --PilateMike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. I have changed "resisted" to "opposed", and "what he calls" to "what he refers to". I have left "Holy See" rather than "the Pope" (W has also opposed Cardinal Castrillón's efforts, in particular last month), and "the Vatican" and "Rome" are already used in the same sentence.

Any observations by others on that first sentence? Do we need to correct or improve the second sentence, "He said that Pope John Paul II had a 'weak grasp of Catholicism'"? (I have shortened this sentence, since, if "resisted" is found tendentious, I think "criticized" might be interpreted similarly. Personally, I think that the previous text, with "criticized", was justified and was better writing style. But "he said" surely cannot be accused of implying anything beyond what he actually said.) Lima (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I would still suggest removing "Holy See". Williamson would clearly say it isn't a "Holy See" and using it in this context would be POV. We can worry about repetition later. I think using "criticized" would be fine. This sentence by sentence approach is fine as a start, but I would also suggest working more by theme and sub-theme. One theme is the Catholic Church, one appears to be conservative social values, and one is belief that are commonly regarded as conspiracy theories. But what are the motivations underlying these? For example, to take the first theme, why did he leave the Catholic Church, why does he oppose reconciliation and critique the Popes, etc? Nowhere in the article is this explained, though I believe it has to do with opposition to Vatican II changes. I believe some neutral (sourced) sentences are needed to explain where he is coming from, and this can then be followed some of the sentences you have been working on.Slp1 (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind, also. Williamson and his minions don't feel as if they have left the church. They believe the rest of the Church is no longer Catholic and for want of a better term, has left them. Even his critics within the SSPX who agree that he may be in the early stages of dementia or he may be an antisemite, or even disagree with his conspiracy theories and "Sound of Music/women not allowed to wear pants" nonsense will rabidly defend him on this point, so tread with caution.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It is precisely because of the need to tread with caution (and the sensitiveness of other editors to any treatment whatever of the matter) that I do not dare to present more than one sentence at a time. In fact I revived the question of W's comments only after six weeks of waiting in vain for the promised move convinced me I had to give some kind of push myself. If someone else wants to divide the text into themes and sub-themes and present them for discussion, that is fine with me. But I think discussion should, for now, be limited to themes and sub-themes of what the media are most interested in. I am sure Spl1 didn't mean to speak simplistically of "why did he leave the Catholic Church". W would certainly deny that he left it. The SSPX as a whole would agree. If I may put it, somewhat exaggeratedly, this way, they are the Catholic Church, the Pope and nearly everybody else in Rome are instead the "Post-Conciliar Church", or rather, in W's view, the "Modernist or Neo-Modernist Church". I suppose what Spl1 intended was that we should give an account of what the media say of W's criticisms of the Popes and the Holy See in general. That, I think, is what we are working on, even by the sentence-by-sentence approach. Lima (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly why you have to be careful. I'll give you an example. A priest I used to listen to and admire came under fire for claiming things that were not true. He said he was a Green Beret who served in Vietnam, black belt in karate and as a teenager could bench press over 400 pounds. It was the last claim that set off my BS meter. Turns out he was a clerk in the army and went to West Germany, not Vietnam. Because another source did not publish "X lied about his service.", it could not be placed in the wiki article, posting his claims and the actual record are "Original research" until a credible publisher publishes it. So be extremely careful with this one, I had a few of the other person's minions threatan to sue me for basically reporting what a reasonable person would believe is true.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have zero knowledge of this subject so, yes, I am quite happy to be corrected on the specifics of the leaving/not leaving the church thing. The point I was trying to make is that this comments need to be placed in the context of the beliefs/views that you describe above. What is the context of thinking the Pope has a weak grasp of Catholicism? Probably what you describe above, I would guess. Find something that says so, and let's add that. Then the quote about JP makes sense. BTW, if you are continuing your sentence by sentence approach, then my view is that the next few sentences contain too many quotations. Think about what the point is he is trying to get across. Summarize the sources about this rather than all these quotes. Slp1 (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not like the idea of searching out motives for W's statements. Yes, I suppose we could find statements by others ascribing to him incipient dementia, pig-headed pride ... And I suppose we could get views from defenders saying he is only doing his clear-headed duty in conscience to defend the truth against falsehood, deceit and heresy. But do we really want to get into that? I certainly don't. I don't think it is our job to "make sense" of his statements by trying to figure out why he said what he said. Nor do I think we should give opinions about him. I think we should just stick to facts: the facts of what statements of his have stirred up the media to write and speak about them. No more than that.

Or we could quote W's own words, and let readers draw their own conclusions from this fuller information. But I accept (without necessarily agreeing with) Slp1's view that such quotations should not be given.

Accepting Slp1's suggestion, I have also combined into one the statements about the Roman Curia, making them a separate sentence and omitting the quotations. W's judgement on Benedict XVI I have attached to the sentence on John Paul II. All that follows I have made into a separate paragraph. I am thus proposing for consideration at this moment the whole of the first paragraph (four lines). The first sentence of the second paragraph, which also concerns the Roman Curia, must later be joined (perhaps modified) to the first paragraph. But that must wait until people have had time to correct/improve the first paragraph. Lima (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately you have misunderstood my request for information about his motivations etc. I have made some extensive edits to the sandbox, which will hopefully make things clearer than any further attempts at explanation.Slp1 (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That is helpful, although it seems to present only commonplace views of the SSPX as a whole, which I thought would be taken for granted in this article. We would need links to the articles you cited, not just indications of the date on which you accessed those links. For instance, Googling brought up nothing for "New Traditionalist Bishop Says Fight Just Beginning", which you were able to access today. We would need those links in any case, but especially to see whether those articles indicate any views of Williamson that are peculiar to him. Lima (talk) 08:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There are no online links to the articles: they are only available using a newspaper archive such as Proquest, Factiva etc, or by trotting down to your local library. Materials do not need to be online to be considered WP:RS reliable sources, and paper copies of books and newspaper are fine. Look at my June 25th post for further details. My offer to send you copies of these articles still stands if you would like them.

All the views I included in my edits last night were specifically attributed to W by the articles in question. However, I think the opening two references to SSPX you added are helpful, as they are generally supported by the newspaper articles. However, do you have a reference for "Williamson's views are distinguished from those of the general body of the SSPX by being expressed in more extreme terms."? And I find other aspects of the two next paragraphs problematic in tone etc. You will notice that I included nothing that did not have more than one reference of the point, and that I have avoided Catholic sources, though I believe these are acceptable as supporting refs. I suggest we only include notable views that have been published by at least two sources, including at least one mainstream source. Too many of the current sentences are supported only by one reference, and often a Catholic source, which is likely to be critique as non- independent in this case.Slp1 (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Of course, I was not questioning the reliability of the sources. I was only wondering if they contained statements more individual than those quoted, which could have been made by any out of thousands of traditionalist Catholics, even outside the SSPX ranks. But I personally think we have enough of them already.

I thought it was obvious that W's views are seen as extreme: why else is he classified as a hardliner, a maverick, etc.? I think that the article must not hide that that is how he is seen. If W said only what everyone else says, he would not be an object of much media interest. The text does no more than report what the media say, so what can be done about the tone? Surely we don't need to doubt what The Times, Der Spiegel etc. say, to the extent of having to back them up every time with another source saying exactly the same thing. In what other Wikipedia article or section of an article must all statements be supported by two sources? The whole SSPX question is of very limited interest to the general media, outside of Catholic (mainstream and traditionalist) circles, but am I mistaken in thinking that in the two (now three) paragraphs in question only one source, the Catholic News Agency, can be called Catholic? Do we have to consider unreliable this source's two quotations of actual words by Williamson, just because it is Catholic? Lima (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, none of the 3 cited sources in this sentence(Williamson opposes all compromise with the Vatican,[10][11] accusing it of spinning, spider-like, a web of deceit.[12] ) support the "Spiderweb of deceit" quote. It sounds like something he would say, but this is the kind of thing we have to be mindful of. Is it in one of the other sources, perhaps?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Something like it is in this Times article [17], which was the one I originally cited. Not sure why Lima changed it. The current wording is point of view, and I frankly prefer my version.[18] Slp1 (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this. I must correct the reference, since it was straight out of a source that was quoted in the sandbox. When I have traced it, I'll be back. (This has been delayed by an edit conflict.) Lima (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am relieved to see that the error was not mine, but of someone who turned the reference into a "ref name" and time-of-accession link, but gave the wrong Times article. Lima (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but actually it was you who changed the reference to the wrong article here [19] Ref names cites are how one call deal with multiple references to the same source.--Slp1 (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. (I won't check. I just looked at the link you gave below.) Lima (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is obvious that his V's are extreme, but however obvious it is, my opinions and yours are irrelevant for WP purposes. In a BLP article especially, a statement like his needs a clear source making that point, otherwise it cannot be included. WP cannot advocate a position. No, we don't need to have several sources for every statement, but on a controversial BLP, my suggestions (about at least two references, one mainstream) will make a text much easier to defend against those who don't want these aspects to be included. This approach has worked well on other disputed BLP articles that I have worked on, such as Nick Baker. In this case it ensures that the views we include are notable, ie reported by more than one source, and also indicates that the view is interesting to a wider world than just the Catholic one. It also means that we have to summarize his views for multiple sources. Williamson's quotes are tempting, but I still think the section will be on shaky POV grounds if they are used too much, especially from the CNA which, it could be argued, is unlikely to select quotes that make the guy look wonderful. Slp1 (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we at least use The Times (more than one article from it)? I still don't see why we should not use the Williamson quotations in CWN: they are his words. But I am only one voice. Lima (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstand you, but the Times is a great source. Certainly we can use articles from them: definitely mainstream etc. We can use the CNA quotes, but if we would like to shore up the article against complaints, then we will avoid them wherever possible. There's plenty of other material to work with.--Slp1 (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you outlawed the traditionalist pro-SSPX site http://www.angelqueen.org/ I don't remember why. An interview granted by W to this is what is quoted (correctly) by CWN, less exactly by the Catholic Herald (another Catholic source, but apparently approved by you) and by many blogs etc. Is it outlawed even in these circumstances? Lima (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the site,itself, is not approved. It's definitely more of a "Pro-williamson" site. I think if you were linking to posts on the Forum or Blog it would be problematic, though.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think what I should have said is that someone objected to quoting interviews given by W, perhaps on the ground that they are primary sources. But if they can be cited at least to support a quotation from them in a secondary source, then Slp1 has his second citation. Lima (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "I think you outlawed the traditionalist pro-SSPX site, I don't remember why?". Might it not be worth taking the time to check this page yourself before posting this? I didn't "outlaw" it: I said it is a primary source, and as such had to be used with caution, and avoided as much as possible. What do you want to use it for?Slp1 (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

re above, I'm still not sure why you want to use all these quotes all the time--Slp1 (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I have offended you. I apologize for my clumsiness. I regret also giving the impression that I wanted "to use all these quotes all the time". I was thinking only of one: you wrote "another citation needed" with regard to the statement that W judged Vatican and SSPX to be two distinct religions, and I thought this one citation might be helpful. Now I will withdraw for some <strikeout>hours</strikeout> days. Lima (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You haven't offended me at all. I confess to some frustration, particularly about not checking this page to find out what had been said about angelqueen yourself. But I see that you did in fact do this, after posting. Thanks for looking for two sources for these things, but since CWS quotes angelqueen specifically they aren't really independent sources from each other. I am also not sure that we need that level of detail in the section: perhaps the problem is focussing too much on the specific words and not thinking about the meaning behind them (ie reconciliation ain't never gonna happen), which is easy to source from multiple sources. --Slp1 (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Lots of people both inside and outside SSPX think reconciliation ain't never gonna happen, but extremely few say so in statements that are both authoritative and picturesque enough to be picked up by the media. If W's exact and undisputed words are not given, we would not indicate truly what is published about him by (sufficiently) responsible media. Instead, we would only give a dull account of the ideas of much of the SSPX rank and file that would fit better in the SSPX article than in the article on Williamson, whose fame comes largely from what he says and how he says it. Which of the other SSPX bishops, with the possible exception of the superior general, the head of SSPX, is as well-known as he? And why is that?

(Nobody has made observations on your latest changes, and for that reason I hesitate to do so now, for fear of being seen as someone interested only in pushing my own ideas. But I must say at least that I think W would rightly dispute the statement that he sees the SSPX as the true church. I am certain he does not. If nobody agrees with me, by all means go ahead. Though false, it will make the section more interesting!) Lima (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have done a major rewrite of the rest of the section, and look forward to comments. I think the section is plenty picturesque enough, and make clear why he is as well-known as he is. I am happy to be corrected about the "true church" thing, because certainly the ins and outs of this are beyond me. But many statements in the articles cited give me the impression that this is the view: Williamson "Rome can talk itself blue in the face but will never convince true Catholics that Lefebvre has committed a crime or sown confusion and discord in the church"; "The only true faith is Catholicism and the only true Catholics left are Lefebvre and his followers, he said". "But separated by a mere half-mile are two very different Catholic congregations. Each believes it represents the "true" Catholic church." Maybe there is some subtlety here that I don't understand. Feel free to correct it if so.Slp1 (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and congratulations.

To explain what I said, "Seeing the SSPX as the true church" suggests that in W's mind the SSPX is the Catholic Church, which would reduce the Church to the size of a not very large sect. Better, I think, to say something like "Seeing the SSPX as representing the true Catholic Church". "(Seeing) Rome as the 'the religion of man'" would, I think, be improved by putting "Rome" in inverted commas: W means the present leadership of the Catholic Church, not Rome as he thinks the leadership has been in the past and will be again. There are doubtless other ways of getting this distinction across. "He judges reconciliation between the church and the Society as impossible" should, I think, have "church" changed to "church leadership" or the like, so as to become "he judges reconciliation between the Society and the present leadership of the Church to be impossible". I myself would also strengthen "noting that some SSPX members might refuse to follow the Society even if an agreement was reached" into "saying that some SSPX members would refuse to follow the Society if it did accept an agreement".

In the paragraph before this, there is no problem with "Williamson upholds the SSPX view that they are not schismatic, but keep the 'complete faith'"; but do the four cited sources (to which I do not have access) really say that the SSPX members claim that they "are" the genuine Catholic Church?

Another thing, is "traditional" a good word to use of what might better be called the "generally accepted" interpretation of the still recent Twin Towers event, and of the John F. Kennedy assassination? It is difficult to find a good replacement for "non-traditional"; the best I can think of is "unusual".

A by-the-way remark: I don't think SSPX members would write "church" (meaning the Catholic Church) with a small c. The text elevates "the Society" by contrasting it with "the church". Lima (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Here are few replies...

• I see the point of your comment re the true church etc. I have removed one phrase altogether, added current Vatican leadership instead of the church, and changed church to Catholics.
• re: might/would refuse to follow. Williamson uses the word "might" when he says ""some of us might have difficulty following", and I think we need to stick very closely to what he says.
• conspiracy theories: changed non-traditional to alternative Slp1 (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if my suggestions for stylistic changes are rejected, I think the text is acceptable. Do we put it in the article? Lima (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Great changes, I think. I suggest we get a bit more of a consensus before inserting it. Let's wait 24 hours for people to make comments/suggestions and object if they wish, and then insert it. Slp1 (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Since there have been no further comments despite requests, I will now move the section into mainspace.Slp1 (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Slp1, thank you for your effort, much appreciated. Some general observations. More than a third of the references are within a ten month period of his consecration as a bishop and are now 20 years old. Most of the newspaper refs are North American – not that’s necessarily wrong – some of them are hardly big time broadsheets.

The views given are only those that have caught media attention, why? The herald article is at best questionable [20]. A herald ref on it’s own is not sufficient as in the “Protocols of Zion” – it needs another. PaulSoms (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, Paul, about any of your points. Reliable sources are reliable sources whether you consider them big time broadsheets or not, and whether they are old or not. In fact, none would be considered local newspapers in Canadian terms. I don't see any retraction of Williamson's views expressed 20 years ago, in any context (reliable or unreliable). The Herald article is supported by his own statements, published on his own website within the last 8 years and never removed or modified. Overall, it is clear that this is part of a continuing pattern of holocaust denial and conspiracy theory belief that is clearly notable and very well referenced. And frankly, a blog post from an SSPX church doesn't mean much in terms of contradiction of what are well documented, verified views, from multiple reliable sources. Paul, I asked you to participate in the process above, and you never did.[21] It is become increasingly obvious from your edits [22]`that you just pop up whenever anything you consider negative is added, apparently in an attempt sanitize the biography of the man. What is your real goal here? Do you have a conflict of interest? Slp1 (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I never suggested the sources were unreliable because of their age but why such a large percentage for a small time period 20 years ago? If this is a section on all W’s views I would expect a more evenly distribution over the 20 years (or even before). You wrote “I also strongly suggest that the primary sources such as sspx and youtube be avoided as much as possible and in any case only used when as a third ref to support to two other secondary sources.” In the cases of the PoZ and “world domination” this has not been done. The reference to the blog was specific ot the Herald article as is seen by the SSPX) - false and timed to influence the recent round of talks. Again it was you who suggested to “avoided Catholic sources, though I believe these are acceptable as supporting refs”. All my edits standup to scrutiny. It was I who first removed the quote farm which violated Wiki BLP policy many times. My edits have been backed by other including yourself and the BLP noticeboard. There were reasons why I couldn’t get the time to contribute. Yes, I agree there are coi’s here - a view of the article history which show who added, maintained, and defended the BLP violations for over two years, then you may wish to direct the question to them. PaulSoms (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A large percentage over a small time period? I see evidence from reliable sources over a very long period about his views about the Holocaust and Judaism. There was the flurry of activity in 1989 when he was the subject of a police investigation for a possible hate crime in Canada, (though no charges were laid), a 1991 pastoral letter in which he claims the Jews are seeking world dominion, another letter endorsing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in 2000, further claims in 2000 that "Judeo-Masons" are at work in the Vatican, and finally in 2008 a repeat of the claim that the Protocol of Zion is authentic as well as claims that he is not anti-semitic because (in part) he once invited a rabbi to the seminary. Not all of his remarks were immediately picked up as notable by reliable sources, but they all have at one point or another.

I did indeed suggest that the more references possible from non-Catholic reliable sources would be preferable, but this is not required. However, if you like we could add Damian Thompson's Daily Telegraph article/blog for the two aspects you mention [23][]: as a journalist whose article/blog is published by a mainstream newspaper without any disclaimer, it would be considered a reliable source.[24] Since you added the blog as a link to an article yourself, I can only presume you agree.[25]

The sspx blog you mention, [26] is not a reliable or notable source, and therefore irrelevant (as well as being banal in the extreme: W says he is not anti-semitic, therefore he isn't. And anyway W's denial is so similar to the lame "I'm not racist: I have a black friend" excuse that it isn't even funny.)Slp1 (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Fidelity magazine says...

• Fidelity magazine says that Williamson was an open sedevacantist during his time in Ecône. (ref: The Society of St. Pius X Gets Sick, by Thomas W. Case, October 1992, Fidelity Magazine )

An anonymous editor has removed this repeatedly, most recently saying "For such accusations BLP requires HIGH QUALITY refs. Please read BLP policy." It's not clear to me what is wrong with Fidelity magazine. Further, the subject seems involved in topics related to sedevacantism, so the assertion doesn't appear extraordinary. Any thoughts? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You omitted the URL and the request to review the sit. If you had you would have read the site purpose "The purpose of this site is to serve as a warning to Catholics who are unfamiliar with the illicit status of the Society of St. Pius the Tenth (SSPX) and the dangers it poses to them". Apart from the biased nature, review it it the spirit of BLP the reference cannot possibly be used. Come on this amateur mag does even have some of the basics like International_Standard_Serial_Number of even decent domain name (but www.FidelityMagazine.com is available) !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.71 (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with the deletion of the material sourced to Fidelity magazine, as this is not, in my view, a reliable enough source for such a claim about a BLP. Lima's edit also introduced synthesis by comparing something that is not compared in the sources given. However, for similar reasons, I will be reverting the 217's other edits of today [27] as they are also WP:Original research, and not in keeping with WP policies. This is not a place where we can try to prove a point about Williamson by adding biblical references, or pointing to popes who have made (in 217's opinion) similar comments. If 217 wish to add this information, s/he needs to find reliable sources that make this specific point in relation to Bishop Williamson. --Slp1 (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the "purpose" described above. It'd be helpful in the future for editors to mention these things rather than have us search around. Regarding the popes and Bible refs, we're not here to prove the subject is right or wrong. We're just here to report on him. Sources that don't mention him are probably off-topic. I've removed those recent additions too, and expect that they won't be re-added. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible you added the pope material back by mistake? I had deleted them in my edit, but they seem to have reappeared in yours, Will! I agree that they should go. --Slp1 (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was an editing conflict. I've re-deleted them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. [28] 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)

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)

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)

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)

Bishop?

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)