Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Dominick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Its sad that we need an Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Dominick/Archive for an RFC talk page (archived) 18:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Calling for a BOYCOTT of Wikipedia

Attention all true Trad Catholics, I'm starting a boycott of Wiki, I will not be linking to them, reading another article linked from Google, and certainly not donating to them. When a company permits one person, Dominick, who is hellbent on a mission to change the meaning of Traditional Catholicism by his incessant removal of links to a Traditional site, it's time we avoid that company and any company that supports them. Not to mention Dominick's tampering with the original Traditional Catholic page at Wiki that has made it unrecognizable as Traditional Catholicism. He wouldn't know what it means to be Trad if it walked up and smacked him.

67.68.235.40Nobody's sock puppet

Ok. You do that. Dominick (TALK) 12:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
If you'd like to extend that to a boycott of Wikipedia editing by all anonymous / unregistered users, I'm sure we could find you some kind of award :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Mister, you're not helping much. Malachias111 16:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New discussion

Discussion based on Just ziz Guy's "Update", all moved here from the main page. Comments merged in appropriate order and duplication removed.--Srleffler 21:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Update

As per Wikipedia:Help desk#"linkspam" request for clarification of policy, Malachias seems to be trying to find someone else to agree with re-insertion of significant numbers of links, since the answer in this discussion does not appear to be to his/her satisfaction. I consider that very rude indeed.

  • This: [1] shows 140 links to fisheaters from Wikipedia
  • This [2]) shows just over 400 offsite links to that site in total, so
  • Wikipedia accounts for over one third of external links to fisheaters.com
  • This [3] shows U2BA switching the links over from the old domain
  • This [4] shows the falloff of traffic to the old domain as those changes were made
  • This [5] shows the traffic ramping up to the new domain, and incidentally indicates it is much flatter since the linkspamming was reverted.
  • Alexa reports show Wikipedia as the major site linking in to the old domain, the new one has too low a ranking for the report to be there yet I think.
  • It is reported that the forum attached to this site has 6 moderators and 3000 members; this does not address the concern that the site itself appears to be a monograph. There is no evidence of the site being run by an organisation (or even a person) independently recognised as an authority on catholicism in general (per the breadth of linking) or even on traditional catholicism (re the proposed restricted linking).

Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Note: It's 300 members. JG of Borg 17:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Noone is talking about adding 140 links; we are talking about a handful, all relevant. It seems that there is an inordinate amount of worrying about who links to what and where websites get their traffic from. The issue should be INFORMATION. This is an encyclopedia, not a link farm and not a "let's ensure people don't drive webmasters' traffic up" patrol. For God's sake, get real. Malachias111 17:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Then let's talk about it and figure out the best few ones to put up. Otherwise everyone will just assume they are spam, which would be correct if a whole bunch just pop up. So, let's talk about it! What, say 5, relevant links would be the best and most useful ones to put up? JG of Borg 18:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I did offer some suggestions. Lets take Barbra Streisand, her webdomain is linked to her page, but not as a Pov fork on the Gulf war. Her page is indicative of her opinion, but we can't add. I suggested traditional Catholic where it is now, and Catholicism, but not as a PoV fork on basic Catholic topics. The Rosary article is an example, nothing else in the fisheaters site is informative except for as a PoV fork. Dominick (TALK) 18:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for wanting to talk this out instead of bashing! OK, these pages link to Fish eaters and are already up and agreed upon by editors:

  • Catholicism
  • Traditional Catholicism
  • Dispensationalism

I would also like to see links at these entries:

  • The liturgical year
  • Advent
  • Lent
  • Epiphany
  • Easter
  • Christmas
  • Sacraments
  • Sacramentals
  • Tridentine Mass

If five were the limit, then I'd pick the ones in bold, but I think they all should be included. The reasons why are because the mainstream Catholic way of doing things and the traditional Catholic way of doing things are different, though they overlap and though mainstream Catholics would get a lot out of good information out of all of the liturgical year and sacramental type pages. As I just got done writing to JustZisGuy, the traditionalist movement isn't negligible, and aside from that, all of the above information is of historical interest in the least. They show how Catholics did things for almost 2000 years, it's all the stuff that shaped western civilization. I think it's worthy for that alone, aside from my personal desire to see traditional Catholicism spread. Malachias111 21:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem which remains unaddressed is: why fisheaters? What authority does that site have? What are the organisations for traditionalist Catholics, where are their websites? In other words: how do we know if the fisheaters links are representative even of a majority of the minority? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Because Fish Eaters is pan-traditionalist and covers trads who attend indult Masses, SSPX Masses, sede Masses, etc., and doesn't take a side among them. There are no "official, authoritative organizations for traditionalist Catholics" any more than there are "official, authoritative organizations for liberal Catholics." There may be liberal Catholics who form organizations. There may be organizations, formed by liberal Catholics, that have a limited focus or goal (ordination of women, for ex.). There could be pan-progressive sites that cover all liberal movements. There could be Father Candy Pants who has a "liberal Catholic" website. But there is no "This is the official authority for liberal Catholics; imprimatur forthcoming" website. Same with traditionalists. The closest thing would be traditionalist priestly fraternities, but not one of them speaks for all trads, they have their own entries, there are some trad priests who don't belong to any priestly fraternity, and the majority of traditionalists are not priests but lay Catholics.

Traditionalists differ from liberals in that there are a theology, core beliefs, and very specific goals that all of them have in common in spite of differences of opinion on other matters. Those core beliefs are covered at Fish Eaters and encyclicals and constitutions and the like are provided to back them up. So also are their common practices covered in detail you will find nowhere else on the internet. Differences on those "other matters" are hashed out at the forum, not at the website itself, which avoids "politics." Malachias111 17:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More discussion moved off of RFC page

I don't like spam, and most of this looks like it. I could see a link on the "Traditional Catholics" article(s), but all of that isn't necessary. Dominick looks OK to me. KHM03 19:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you look at each link or at least a representative handful and describe what is wrong with them? There is no official policy as to how many is "too many," and since that it is the case, it is unfair for the site to be labeled "linkspam" and to be deleted on sight. Those links are to specific pages at that site, not to any old page or the index page. They were added by people, not a machine. Nothing is sold at the site. What is the problem?

There had been an agreement that there would be links at the entries for Traditionalist Catholic, Catholicism, and Dispensationalism, with other links being added on a case-by-base basis. The last two links were taken down. Why? Malachias111 22:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

For the reasons stated on the Talk pages of those articles. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tripe from Talk:Traditionalist Catholic

[edit] fisheaters

User:Malachias111 seems intent on re-inserting a link to serial linkspammers fisheaters; as far as I can tell this site falls well below the level of authority of the other two sites currently linked, but a second opinon would be valued. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The entry is called TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS, not "Traditional Catholic Priestly Societies." That site is the most prominent and informative traditional Catholic site out there. If there is something one needs to know about traditional Catholicism, it is either at that site or on its way. For God's sake, what makes Wikipedia so "authoritative" and "official" when any yokel can add anything at any time (unless he's a traditional Catholic, that is)? Get real here. That site is a source of most of the information in this entry, and everything said is backed up by encyclicals and documents that can be found AT that site. Universities link to it, parishes link to it (at least they did at the old domain) -- what the hell? Does everything have to come rubber-stamped with the papal seal? It doesn't when it comes to Anglican stuff or Lutheran stuff or Scientology links. You can link to the private, layman-run "Catholic Answers" and that's fine -- but you can't link to a private,layman-run trad site. You can even link to commercial sites like St. Anthony's Press since they're "official" somehow, but this site, for some reason, is off-limits? This is getting sickening. Malachias111 18:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually both Catholic Answers and St. Anthony Press are official. It requires the approval of the local bishop to use Catholic in the name of your organization and St. Anthony Press is run by the Franciscans. But that's besides the point. Part of the problem is that Fisheaters is a polemical site, it looks unbalanced to have that site there. Plus we don't want pages and pages of links, una voce, which links to the FSSP and everyone else and the SSPX, which represents the largest group of irregular traditionalists are a good set of objective links. Perhaps you could get the SSPX to link to you? --Samuel J. Howard 00:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The SSPX in Britain did link to the site at the old domain. And what do you mean "unbalanced"? It's a pan-trad site on an entry called TRADITIONALIST CATHOLICS. Were you expecting some balanced Hindu links there? 64.12.116.202 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This would be unbelievably humorous if it wasn't so pitiful. Beam me up Scotty. The entire Fisheaters site is about one thing and one thing only - Traditional Catholicism. Someone do me a favor and explain to us apparent morons why a traditional Catholic site is unsuitable for a reference in a traditional Catholic article. Oh I know!! Let's include a much more relevant link! How about a link to those paragons of Catholicism, the Moonies? Even someone as obtuse as myself can't miss the relevancy. Would that work for y'all? Maybe I should invite acquaintances of all different religions to come here with links pertinent to their beliefs and we can all have an editing party! Nothing says "keeping it relevant" like an ecumenical editing soirée! JLeigh

Well that seems to suggest that you really don't understand the idea here. An ecumenical editing party would be great! That way we'd be sure that the page was written in a way that explained traditional catholicsm to all comers. --Samuel J. Howard 00:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem is this: well over a hundred links to the fisheaters site were added, mainly, we are told, by the site's operator. Many of these links were on articles that had no other catholic site at all, even where there was a relevant article in the Catholic Encyclopaedia. Sometimes there were two or more links per article. Many of the articles had only the most tenuous relationship to "traditionalist catholicism".
It also transpires that Wikipedia was the principal source linking into fisheaters according to Alexa (on both its old and its new domains), and the site owner and a series of anonymous IPs engaged in a brief but violent edit war when the links were removed. This prolific linkspamming has led to the site being viewed with considerable scepticism by a number of people, including me.
So now I find myself wondering, what authority does this site have, with its Alexa ranking of around 300,000, and with a third of the inbound links at 30 Dec being from Wikipedia, and only 300 people on its forum? I note that they have been successful in increasing the number of inbound links, in blogs and add-it-yourself sites among others, but there are still fewer than a quarter of the number of links I get to my own vanity site, which I do not go out of my way to promote, don't claim as an authority on anything other than what I think about anything, don't pretend to be anything other than a monograph, and can't recall adding to any Wikipedia articles. So, the question is precisely as stated: what is their authority? What other groups exist which may have better authority? Having seen fisheaters linked when very obviously better authorities exist, I now want to know how much effort has gone into showing that the link in any article is appropriate, and what weight should be assigned to it.
As far as I can tell these articles are monographs by one person at one extreme of a continuum of belief. And holding, it must be said, some extremely strong opinions. Beware of the tigers. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Really. Then maybe you can read this page [6] and this page [7] and let us know what those "extremely strong opinions" are and what editorial slant in the traditionalist Catholic world that the person who runs the site takes. Is she a sedevacantist? An "indulter"? An SSPXer? What sort of "authority" or level of "officialness" should a site about a lay Catholic movement have? You have said you don't know anything about the traditional Catholic movement, so how can you possibly judge what is "official" or "authoritative" or true or false? And how high should Alexa rank a site that has only been in a domain for about 4 or 5 weeks? And wasn't the site ranked by them at 400,000 something after the domain change -- and is now at 290,000 AFTER the purge? Obviously people are going to that site from someplace other than Wikipedia (and how come other sites that have Wikipedia as a second or third referrer according to Alexa get to stay? What kind of bullshit is that?)

As to the so-called "linkspam," the editor quite obviously did not know she was breaking any rules or else there would have been no RfC against Dominick. NONE of the links that I saw were only "tenuously" related to traditional Catholicism except for the disambiguation page which she said was an error. A link to the traditional Catholic customs of St. John's Day on a page about St. John isn't "tenuous," especially when other denominations get to have thier links in place. A page on Christmas can have links to really cool light displays, but no links to a section of a site with readings from Dom Gueranger and the customs of Christmas as celebrated in the West for 2000 years. It's stupid.

It is also not true that a third of the links to that site came from Wikipedia and U2BA said she would give a trustworthy administrator the passwords to the statistics to prove where the visitors came from. But apparently people around here don't want to LISTEN to anything or anyone. They just want to jump on this site and remove all references because it got the "linkspam" label. You guys have gone so far as to strip out links that were worked out in a DEAL (from the "Catholic" and "Dispensationalism" pages and now THIS one -- of all pages!).

A quote from that contact page: "Though traditional Catholicism is less a "movement" than a "staying where you are," I strive to make this site what "The Revealer," a publication of the New York University Department of Journalism and New York University's Center for Religion and Media, says it is: "an excellent introduction to the 'traditionalist' Catholic movement."

I guess what's good enough for New York University isn't good enough for Wikipedia.

And here's a priest calling the pages on Twelfthnight and Epiphany "great, all-inclusive" "[8]. Or maybe some priests are more "authoritative" and "official" than others.

The site JUST MOVED and you won't learn a thing about it from Alexa. The girl didn't know she was "linkspamming." The site is THE single best resource on traditional Catholicism on the net. I think it's time for people to BACK OFF from beating this site up all the time. Malachias111 01:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"I guess what's good enough for New York University isn't good enough for Wikipedia." Correct. This isn't NYUWiki I've been looking at the pages on fisheaters and while there's a lot of good stuff there're also a lot of errors.--Samuel J. Howard 02:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Says you. And any Catholic going to a Protestant side would find a lot of "errors," and any Protestant going to a Muslim site would find a lot of "errors." That site is a pan-traditionalist site that presents the traditionalist view. Malachias111 03:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I'm a traditional Catholic. The errors are things like saying that the Cardinal Deacon's are not Cardinals, that a last-name is not a baptizmal name, etc.--Samuel J. Howard 05:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and so's Dominick a "traditional Catholic." But anyway, be specific in your complaints. What are you talking about? What's your evidence? And if there were a mistake at that site, why not write to the editor and correct it rather than sit in the corner like a rat and snipe? Do all sites have to be absolutely perfect and never err in order to be referenced here at the Wonderful World of Wiki? (I bet there'd be no bawling and nit-nit-nit-picking if Catholic Exchange were linked to even though they mangle the Catholic theology of the atonement). Didn't Nature just do a study to compare all the errors found in Wiki as compared to the Encyclopedia Britannica? Yeah, "A total of 42 usable reviews were returned out of 50 sent out, and were then examined by Nature's news team. Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopaedia. But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively." Better never let anyone see you linking to the Encyclopedia Britannica for any reason if your standard is perfection (and if it is, why are you wasting your time here?). Looks like Fish Eaters has them both beat if the alleged "Cardinal Deacons aren't part of the college of Cardinals" and "last names aren't Christian names" (about which you're wrong) is your evidence of "a lot of errors."

Finally, what do you think a "baptismal name" is? Or if that's too old for you, try here. Or maybe this glorious page here, a part of the ultimate reference that never, ever errs. Or at least not for long, because Dominick is always out there somewhere, ready to remove anything from anyone who doesn't literally worship the Pope, and to eliminate "linkspam" on sight! Malachias111 08:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, there is an example of the biggest problem of all with Fisheaters. They have a narrow selfserving definition of Catholicism, and of traditionalist. If you are not banging a gong everytime a Bishop falters with sufficient glee and schadenfruende, if you dislike sedavancantist adventures, and will not attend a SSPX chapel then you are not welcome on thier forum, and you shall find the site problematic. No person there is an authority, and for Wikipedia, we need verifiable sources. Traditionalists like me ar even stripped of the name. Note that Malchias claims YOU are at fault, and are a rat, just like I "hate" all traditionalists, a fink, and am a traitor to their little cause. They can't make a case without sniping and taking anonymous pot shots. Malahias at least logs in. In my opinion they are the ones who are putting their Catholic faith in jeapordy, in flirting with non-Catholic groups, despising Epicopal authority and defying the authority of the Holy see. Resistance is not what Christ told us to do, "Resist those in authority over you" is not Christ speaking. Dominick (TALK) 13:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Dominick, you're lying again. The forum has PROTESTANTS and even ATHEISTS along with people who are not comfortable going to SSPX chapels. You are not a traditionalist and it has nothing to do with whether you go to an SSPX chapel or not; it has to do with the fact that you do not hold the same Faith that was acceped as "Catholicism" before Vatican II. You are a neo-con who likes the traditional Mass. 64.12.116.202 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

We must be careful not to beg the question when it comes to authority. For example, all the people agreeing with St. Athanasius no longer recognized the authority of the Arian bishops due to the fact that they fell into heresy. Who, then, would argue that the followers of St. Athanasius were resisting authority over them? Those who may have argued that line would be falling into the logical fallacy of "begging the question". Speaking of recognizable authority, I can quote to you from three imprimatured sources prior to Vatican II that say that you cannot consider someone schismatic for questioning the legitimacy of a Roman Pontiff. You can say they are mistaken and proceed to show how, but you cannot say they are resisting authority without begging the question. Nor can you say they are non-Catholics. The sedevacantists, by the way, are consistent in belief and action, while they believe there is no authority due to heresy, they act upon it. The SSPX, on the other hand, profess to recognize authority WITH the heresy, and inconsistently resist what would be legitimate and non-sinful commands. For instance, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Catholic Encyclopedia, say that even when excommunications are believed to be unjust by the person getting excommunicated, one has an obligation to comply with the excommunication if the authority of the excommunicator is recognized. The SSPX is severely messed up in their thinking, but I can still consider them Traditionalist Catholics because I think they are being mislead into serious error from the very top.

Diligens 14:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks for thinking it through. Yes I agree the SSPX is being led into error, and your other comments sound about right. The accusation "resisting the Pope" is the words of many on those forums. How does one resist a person and at the same time recognize the ligitamacy of the Office. I this the issue of schism is not a charge I made. What I commented on is that they have a narrow view of traditionalist. By removing themselves from the Episcopacy, and automatically incurring excommunication, sedevacantist Bishops can't lead licit Priests. By leading others into error, they eventually lead themselves away from, not toward, Tradition (the Tradition all Catholics hold true) and away from the Church. Now indult Masses are the way to go, IMHO, but not if you are one of those who supportive of the "resistance" that the SSPX esposes, and you mention. Error is error if you attend a licit or illicit Mass. We are way off topic. Dominick (TALK) 16:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
In Dominick's kind of logic, a woman who moves out of her home for physical safety because her husband is beating her considers herself, by that very fact, divorced and does not consider the husband her legitimate husband. If she resists being beaten, she's automatically a wife no longer, her husband is no longer her husband, and she, by her rightful disobedience, is disobedient by nature. But the bigger point is that no matter what Dominick thinks about people "removing themselves from the (neo-con) Episcopacy," that is what some trads do. This entry is about trads, not traditional Mass-loving neo-cons. Trads are those who, among other things, hold the entire Faith, not just the parts that make Dominick happy. Malachias111 12:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately the term "resisting the Pope" begs the question. There have been over 25 antipopes in history, and those men could be resisted without denigrating the office which they claim to hold. Again, it would beg the question for you to say that sedevacantist bishops have incurred excommunication, because IF it is true that the popes are not legitimate, then they would not incurr it. And IF the popes are not legitimate, then in fact the sedevacantists are the only true traditionalists. You see? You have to be careful not to beg the question. The Indulters are certainly more consistent than the SSPX, but only in regard to obeying who they claim has authority. Nevertheless, IF the Novus Ordo Mass was truly "from the Catholic Church", it could only be good & holy (as any historical liturgy), and in that repect, many Indulters do wrong to state that the Novus Ordo is faulty or even promulgated in vain. If Paul VI & Company were true popes, then the Novus Ordo Missae would be "from" the Church of Christ, and therefore only good and holy, and to say it were defective and dangerous would be objectively blasphemous against the divine Church, again, IF it were from the Church.
To the subject, (though I have not read everything) the article should not be linking to web sites and books because once you allow that, you will eventually have a HUGE page of links to people's favorite traditional Catholics web sites and books. It is an abuse.
Diligens 17:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The conclusion is on topic. There is no "if" on Paul and other Popes being true Popes, they were elected by the conclave of Bishops. It should be a matter of preference, and that one thinks that the traditional liturgy would be preferable for the Church as a whole. Dominick (TALK) 00:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Since it is clearly a possibility in Catholicism for there to be illegitimate popes, the IF is consequently a given possibility. Elections can be invalid for canonical reasons, or for doctrinal reasons.
As to things truly coming from the Church, when comparing any two of them, one cannot say a personally less preferable one is objectively defective, harmful or useless. Preferences are personal and stem from subjective personal devotion, as when one chooses to wear a scapular rather than a miraculous medal. Diligens 02:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Dominick can't consider that possibility. And I think that might be a literal statement. He has blinders on (stapled and glued onto his eyeballs), and even considering the possibility that the acclaimed Popes aren't true Popes puts you in the "face-making, gong-banging, militant, not even 'official Catholic'" [9] box. And that's why he hates Fish Eaters: they welcome indult people, SSPX people, independents, and even those dastardly sedes -- anyone who believes all the dogmas and wants all the Sacraments restored -- and he just can't leave it alone. Malachias111 12:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I have been following this issue from afar, ever since my first post back in October got me called a meat puppet or whatever the choice wiki term is for trying to express one's opinion here. I found the (apologia, now FishEater) website without any help at all over a year ago by simply clicking on an apologetics link from another Traditional Catholic site. At this point I would like to interject that if FishEaters had not linked to wikipedia articles I would never have bothered to come to this site and boost your Alexa numbers.

I find the smugness with which Dominick villifies the FishEater site most repugnant and uncharitable. He lumps everyone together with no regard for the fact that we are individuals and come from all walks of life. For the most part, we are Catholics, but not all; Protestants and those who are searching are most welcome there, too. I find it peculiar that Dominick's obsession with denigrating the FishEater site has crossed over to include the wikipedia user Malachias111, who is not a contributor at FishEater. Apparently, just defending the FishEater website is enough to get one "Dominicked."

Personally, I think the defining issue that distinguishes a Traditional Catholic from all others is our rejection of modernism which is a defined and condemned heresy. I think that the opponents of Tradition are using wikipedia to try to hijack the truth and hide it as far from the light of day as possible- a typical modernist ploy. Just because someone attends an indult mass does not make him or her a Traditionalist. Many so-called indults are nothing of the sort; the prayers at the foot of the altar and the last gospel are noticeably missing while the homilists are still preaching modernism in their homilies. [You are so right ATC. The Latin Liturgy alone does not a traditional Catholic make! Diligens 10:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)] The catechetics at indults are woefully inadequate except in very rare cases, and many parents seek out better information on their own, as they should.

This has been a very enlightening experience for me. I had no idea how bitterly opposed some people are to Tradition while calling themselves Traditionalists. Conversely, I am completely bewildered by the fact that a relevant and across the board traditional site like FishEaters is being relegated as insignificant by wikipedia because of these pseudo-traditional Catholics who are unrelenting in their attacks. What is the point of having a Traditional Catholic section then excluding a website that covers every topic I have ever tried to find through any search engine? AdoramusTeChriste 05:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not welcome here. Nothing I made in criticism of the Fisheaters site, which is staffed by laymen, could be construed as a personal attack. The "resistance" type traditionalist have often made those charges about indult Masses, and debating this is off topic. Dominick (TALK) 11:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Answers is staffed by laymen, too. Get over your idea that trads even WANT the approval of the Mahonys of the world, will you? The article is about TRADS, as they are, not as you wish they were or about priestly societies. And as far as not making personal attacks against Fish Eaters? That's what you've been doing for the past few months! Hell, you even called it a BLOG. You lie about who is welcome at that forum, you lie about the purpose of the site, you lie whenever it suits your purposes apparently. Your nonsense about noone being welcome unless they "bang gongs" or "make faces" any time the Pope is mentioned or whatever -- what lying trash. It's libel where I come from and it's calumny anywhere. By the way, did you ever apologize to EWTN for lying about their "denying" editing that post by Father Levis? (And, for the record, the prayers at the foot of the Altar and the Last Gospel are omitted from my local indult, too.) Malachias111 12:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"Personal attacks are not welcome here." But attacks against an entire website and forum are? Your "criticisms" are over the top in inaccuracy and this specific thread is a perfect example. In your post above to Samuel, you dig right into generalizations, impugning to me as a Traditional Catholic a conclusion that you have formed with no regard for the fact that my beliefs are in no way, "a narrow selfserving definition of Catholicism," as you stated. I do not fit that description at all, neither do the other people who contribute at Fisheaters; our opinions vary widely. Furthermore, it appears that you have gained quite a reputation for yourself as one who relishes condemning Tradition in other Internet venues, such as free republic. I have recently seen your name in connection with that forum. I honestly wonder why a person who is openly antagonistic toward Tradition is given due consideration when it comes to defining it.

As for the "staffed by laymen," I'm afraid that is another case of begging the question. One of the hallmarks of the new order is lay participation. Indeed, the catechetical instruction in the U.S., RCIA, is left up to the laity in most parishes. Many of them are new converts themselves. How do I know this? Because I have been through RCIA, 20 years ago. Because I have seen it first hand since my own experience. And very importantly, because there are more than one instructors who are members on FishEaters, thus putting to rest another generalization about the individuals who contribute there. But I digress. My point is that if lay participation is acceptable in the new order, it cannot be considered unacceptable in Tradition without creating a double standard.

There is no need to debate the fact that many indult masses omit the prayers at the foot of the Altar and the Last Gospel. It is the norm in my diocese, courtesy of the local ordinary, and as such is not a true Tridentine Mass to which all faithful have the right to attend. I am aware that there are indults in other areas that are excellent, thanks be to God for the priests who celebrate them and the bishops who encourage them.

I thought I was signed in when I submitted the above post. It is mine. AdoramusTeChriste 16:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

(added) Dominick (TALK) 17:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't fair to alot of people that Dominick is shredding this topic by moving posts. Exactly how many bookmarks do I need to fully follow this issue? AdoramusTeChriste 15:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

In american english I wrote above that the discussion was moved, for the benefit of those wanting to actually work on THIS article. If you want to continue the sniping, I clearly indicated that you can go to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Dominick. The entire sad and pointless discussion is there. If you have nothing to say about THIS article, then go there. Dominick (TALK) 15:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
It was a simple question, no need to get snippy about it. Their are several problems with the article, not the least of which is outdated information, and I want to make sure that I am posting in the right place.
This particular subtopic is called "fisheaters" and my posts were relevant to it. While you might not like being called out on your inappropriate generalizations about the Traditional Catholics who are members there, this does seem to be the right place to approach the issue. AdoramusTeChriste 15:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to close

U2BA has m oved on, the prolific linkspam has been removed and there is little left to discuss. I move that this RfC is closed since the basis for it is now essentially moot. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 14:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_comment_Dominick_5f62.html"