Talk:Richard Williamson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
Contents |
[edit] Excommunication
I modifed the line about Williamson's not being excommunicated. While I am not 100% sure of that, it may be the case that he was indeed excommunicated. I seem to remember reading in the declaration made by Cardinal Gantin that the four were excommunicated for allowing themselves to be ordained bishops - which Rome considered a schismatic act. JesseG 02:36, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
So much for a "non-biased" article. Shame.
[edit] Categories
Today an anonymous user (206.180.135.205) added the category "Catholics not in communion with Rome". I question the appropriateness of this category.
On the one hand Williamson himself claims to be in communion with Rome. On the other hand Rome (and anyone in communion with her) believes that it's not possible to be Catholic unless one is in communion with Rome.
So who is it that thinks Williamson fits into this category? Noel S McFerran 04:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tidbits
Today Nickd-c added that Williamson "is an 'Old Friend' of Dr Ralph Townsend". Townsend is not particularly notable. Wikipedia articles don't need to include every tiny bit of information about a person (people they know, favourite colour, etc.) I have accordingly deleted this passage. Noel S McFerran 13:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I was missinformed by Dr Ralph Townsend himself, they are no longer friends (for understandable reasons). I appologise for any inconvience caused :-) Nickd-c 21:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Quotations
There's a long tradition in this article of providing brief quotations from the speeches and writings of Williamson as a means of providing evidence of his views. However, it seems to me that the article is starting to be largely little more than a collection of (what most people would think of as) the most outrageous things said/written by Williamson. This isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I think that some of the examples could be removed. There are links to Williamson's letters for anyone who wants to make a thorough analysis of his thought. Noel S McFerran 02:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- After reading this article, I wold have to say that it is not as balanced as it could be. For example, if the section on "Jews and Judaism" were truly balanced, why not mention Williamson's decision to quote a Jewish author in his Sep. 1, 1991 letter:
- In a valuable book, "The Flight from Woman", a cultivated Jewish psychiatrist, Karl Stern, tells how he could discern in countless ills of the big city patients coming through his Toronto practice after World War II a pattern of womanlessness with which he was familiar from the works of famous modern writers such as Goethe, Descartes, Tolstoy, Ibsen -- not a lack of women, but a lack of truly womanly women, because modern men and women alike are trampling upon the womanly qualities and virtues.
- I don't know what Williamson meant by "cultivated", but would you not expect a true anti-semite to avoid referencing any Jewish work? --Cali Love 06:49 April 13, 2006
-
- It is the responsibility of an encyclopedia (i.e. of Wikipedia) to gather and summarize what has already been written on a particular topic. It's not appropriate for an encyclopedia to engage in original research (e.g. original attacks upon or defences of a particular subject). In this case (i.e. Bishop Williamson and his views on Jews and Judaism), there is already a body of literature which criticizes his views based on various quotations from his own writings. I am not aware of a significant body of literature which defends those views. Only if such work has already been produced is it appropriate for an encyclopedia article to discuss it. Noel S McFerran 10:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Latest edits
I've expanded the quotes of Williamson to more accurately reflect his views. They are all from the original sources already listed. --Gerard 18:59, 21 May 2006
I edited the summary of the controversy about consecration, mainly to include a link to longer coverage. Also added the actual text from Cardinal Hoyos to preempt biased summaries. Text in this section is now identical in the articles for all 4 bishops. Gimmetrow 15:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have created a template for the section common to 4 articles. However, Cite.php is not yet compatible with references in templates - it numbers them at the end, and doesn't include them in the references list (see here for an example what happens if refs are in a template). One possibility is to use simply external links in that section, but that would make it different than the rest of the page. Ideas? Gimmetrow 22:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 10279/2006
On June 10, 2006, the following text was added by User:Lima: --- However, Williamson is still a member of the Roman Catholic Church, since, as reiterated by Cardinal Julián Herranz, President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, in circular letter 10279/2006 of 13 March 2006, "heresy (whether formal or material, schism and apostasy do not of themselves constitute a formal act of defection." --- I have removed the sentence. Cardinal Herranz's letter does not mention Williamson by name. It is not appropriate in an encyclopedia for Wiki-editors to make suppositions or conclusions about this matter. Noel S McFerran 14:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- An anon had entered the phrase "is a member of the RCC", which is misleading and POV-pushing on its own. I think Lima added the Herranz quote to make it less misleading. [1] Perhaps the intro text could be made uniform with the entries for Bernard Fellay, etc? Gimmetrow 20:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed Lima 11:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
