Talk:John Joseph O'Connor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Catholicism Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] NPOV Tag/Settlement

It is my assertion that the last paragraph of this article is NPOV and gives too much weight to the controversial nature of John Cardinal O'Connor's tenure as Archbishop of New York because of what one group, gays thought about him. It should state that he was controversial in the eyes of homosexuals. The rest of the article is fine, I have no dispute with the fact that gays did not like the Cardinal's beliefs on homosexuality, which are the beliefs of the Catholic Church, and the article correctly states this. However, there is nothing else in the article that points to any controversy outside of the Cardinal's relationship with the homosexual/HIV infected community. Further, the assertion that "abortionists" found the Cardinal controversial simply because he opposed abortion in principle is a laughable assertion at best. The words "without a doubt" are also POV and cross the line between objectivity and advocacy, as well as your characterization of the Cardinal as a "demon". I think the "demon" statement should require a verifiable citation if it is to be used, and should state specifically who or what entity used this word to ridicule the late Cardinal. Zotz, I suggest we either go to mediation on this dispute, or if you refuse, I will request arbitration and let a neutral panel settle this once and for all. The dispute tag has been on this article for almost a year now, and its time to settle this for the good of Wikipedia. I await your response. (anonymous non-signer)

The solution would be to formulate a paragraph agreeable to all, rather than to insist on a paragraph agreeable to yourself only. You're really being quite ludicrous in asserting that O'Connor was controversial only to gays. A search for "controversial Cardinal O'Connor" gets 177,000 Google hits. Cardinal O'Connor himself wrote "just once, I would like to see a news story that does not refer to the 'controversial Cardinal O'Connor.'" [1]. Catholic New York's encomium to the Cardinal devotes a third of its second paragraph to his controversial nature: "He has addressed controversial issues, such as racial prejudice, abortion, homosexuality, condom distribution in public schools, the Persian Gulf War and clerical scandals. " [2]. My suggestion is that you fact the fact that he was controversial and stop trying to censor that fact. - Zotz 04:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry friend, but we have been trying to do that for a long time. Obviously you and me have strong disagreements on this issue, and we are not going to find any middle ground. Heck, we've been arguing about this for almost 6 months. That's why I suggest mediation or failing that, arbitration, which we don't have to agree upon to request. Simply addressing or speaking on controversial issues does not by itself make a person controversial. It is the actions of that person that makes them controversial, and I agree, he went out of his way to prevent gays from obtaining rights related to domestic partnership. The article states this, and I have no dispute with that. It is the last paragraph that I am contending is POV and crosses the line between objectivity and advocacy. The last paragraph states that he was " without a doubt one of the most controversial American CLERICS of the 20th century". What made him more controversial then your average American Cleric? I submit it was his opposition to the gay partnership laws. Every Catholic priest opposes abortion, homosexuality, condom distribution, etc. because the Pope orders them to. Regardless, the demon comment should have a quote. (unsigned anonymous)

I would think the first step would be to get a username if you want to carry on a conversation, and sign your statements. I'm willing to accept any citations you may find to counterbalance those I've found which clearly indicate O'Connor was in fact the center of a maelstrom of controversy. So far you have produced none to support your opinion. You are quite wrong that it was his opinions which made him controversial: it was his political actions to ensure that his opinions were enforced by law that made him so. - Zotz 05:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm no. The onus is on YOU to back up your statements with appropriate quotes in the article. Starting with the demon one.

is his middle name really Cardinal? Kingturtle 07:12 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

No, that's his title. A more modern form would have him Cardinal John J. O'Connor, but the more traditional form puts the title in the middle (John Cardinal O'Connor). -- Someone else 07:25 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Google gets more hits for

  • "Cardinal John O'Connor" (4400) than for
  • "John Cardinal O'Connor" (3750)

This seems to imply that the Wikipedia name should be the name he is most commonly known as, rather than his official title (although the latter should redirect to the former). The Anome 16:10 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I guess he has both a "real name" and an "official name". When a man is elected pope, he gets a kind of name change, as do women who become nuns, e.g., "Sister Mary Francis".

Should we try to come up with a naming convention? --Uncle Ed 16:14 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

We have one, Ed.

Cardinal John O'Connor is a colloquial version but it is technically correct. Using it would be fine except that it only applies to cardinals in the 1970s on. It was decided when discussed on the naming conventions page:

  1. that leaving out 'cardinal' would cause problems because many historic ones, had different personal names and cardinal names and 99% of people would not know the original personal name. In addition, with some of the earliest cardinals even their personal name is a mystery. For that reason using their title was thought generally to be necessary to avoid confusion, just as it is thought important to include papal names, patriarchs names. royal names. Where we know a full name, it is used as above. Where we only know Cardinal X' we can still use that while searching for the long forgotten first nam.
  2. The modern version above would be unworkable for cardinals before 1965 and would involve renaming hundreds of cardinals to versions of their name that they were never known by. As {name} Cardinal {surnam} is still the correct form according to the RC Church, it was decided to stict to the traditional format. The details of how to use clerical names is in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). FearÉIREANN 16:17 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

BTW whoever tried renaming this page made a muck of it. Apart from breaking the agreed conventions, they created two duplicate articles. I have had to delete the duplicated version. FearÉIREANN 16:17 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Maybe I should rename the Sun Myung Moon article to True Father, since that's Rev. Moon's official "clerical name" ^_^ --Uncle Ed 16:27 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't know the situation in the Unification Church but if you have any suggestions, please do put them on the [[Wikipedia Talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) page. Because of all the problems thrown up by different variants of clerical names, people have been slowly working through problems as they arise. Popes and cardinals have been solved. Someone raised the issue of patriarch's names and I think there was general agreement. The problem with that in most religions, the higher one goes, the greater the likelihood that they may change their name or not use their first name, producing name recognition problems. As a priest, for example you would be known as Father Ed Poor or Rev. Ed Poor, so there is no problem there. But as a cardinal or patriarch, you might only be generally known as Cardinal Poor or Patriarch Ed. It is the same problem as arises with peerages and courtesy titles, or royal and princely nomenclatures. So simply the name alone would not make you recognisable. Using [[Ed Cardinal Poor]] for example would be recognisable to people who didn't know your first name but recognised the title "Cardinal Poor.

The Rev. Moon situation is not comparable. No-one outside the UC would know True Father and might take a POV meaning to its use. But as he is clearly recognised as Rev. Sun Myung Moon his name is straight forward enough. Recently I was writing about Archbishop Fisher of Canterbury. I had always heard him called that. I couldn't remember his first name and using [[Geoffrey Fisher]] would mean nothing in terms of recognition. So we now face the problem of how to refer to clerics like the Archbishop of Canterbury who were generally unknown until they got the post and then were more widely known by title + first name than by first name surname. Titles, whether clerical, royal or peer, are very complicated. The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) has finally worked out effective usable solutions in cases of higher titles. The next task is to deal with middle ranking titles, where some may know first name + surname, others only title + surname. FearÉIREANN 16:51 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)~


The following information, well documented in the New York press, has been suppressed: John Cardinal O'Connor opposed every gay-related bill considered on the city and state level during the 16 years of his tenure. He condemned proposed legislation backed by Catholic Mayor Rudolph Giuliani that would grant homosexuals, lesbians, and unmarried couples the same legal rights as married couples. He opposed Mayor Ed Koch's executive order requiring all social service agencies, including those run by the Church, to provide equal services to homosexuals. The cardinal refused on the grounds that it would make the Church appear to be sanctioning homosexual practices and lifestyle. He also prohibited a pro-homosexual group from meeting in New York parishes, while at the same time celebrating Mass with Father John Harvey's Courage, a ministry to homosexual men and women who seek to live by the Church's teachings on human sexuality. He supported and defended efforts of the Ancient Order of Hibernians to prevent groups representing gay Irish people from marching in New York's St. Patrick's Day parade.

Instead of suppressing unattractive information, a more forthright Wikipedia procedure, where facts are accurate but the general picture is unbalanced by their inclusion, is to add more material to keep the whole entry in balance: widowsand orphans, babies kissed, inspiring sermons, etc.

Message to the anon editing from the 65.176.*.*/65.178.*.* range - if you have a disagreement with the content of the article, you come here and discuss it. Simply deleting swathes of text is just going to get your edits reverted, and deleting stuff from this Talk page is just flat-out vandalism. Stop it. —Stormie 05:05, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Information deleted was highly prejudicial, as if being "anti-homosexual" was all that His Eminence was about. It is enough to say that he opposed the homosexual agenda, and leave it at that, if one is going to have a NPOV. The militancy of homosexualism will not leave a distinguished churchman, upholding the doctrine of his church, alone, even in death. Perhaps if information showing that His Eminence moved or covered up homosexual priests (such as what happened in Boston with Mr. Shanley), then the line on Cardinal O'Connor would change.

It's hardly prejudicial to note that the gay community hated O'Connor, with cause. That hatred certainly did not stop with his death. Why would it? Your snide insinuation that the gay community wants catholic priests to molest children is absurd, and your attempts to link that community with Father Shanley's abusive behavior is despicable and revealing. - Zotz 04:43, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It wasn't merely child molestation. It was homosexual molestation: men with teenage boys past the age of puberty. (Most were 15-17 years of age). Be that as it may, the hatred of a man upholding the ancient and accepted doctrine of his church is in itself revealing of an agenda. If he was wrong, let it go. If he was right, then the homosexual community has a lot more to worry about than a bishop's obituary.

The evil that men do lives after them. The good: interred with the bones. Such is the common fate of Shanley and O'Connor. That O'Connor, even dead, serves as a role model for anti-gay bigotry justifying itself on the basis of religious "principles" is but one of those evils. - Zotz 05:16, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That religious "principle" isn't somthing that O'Connor just made up as an excuse to bash gays. That principle is what Christians believe is mandated by GOD himself. The common misconception is that Christianity is "intolerant" of homosexuality. The truth is simple: homosexuality is a sin; yes, Christianity is VERY intolerant of sin. Just as people are "born gay" people are born sinners. It is a choice to recant sinful ways (this includes gays). O'Connor was clearly not trying to oppress gays, but help them to change their ways. - Anonymous

Opposition to a bill guaranteeing civil rights to gays is oppression. It's not spiritual counseling! O'Connor didn't simply offer advice: he marshalled his considerable political power against anti-discrimination laws. It's dishonest to pretend that he treated gays simply as "sinners like everyone else". It's dishonest to claim that campaigning against someone's civil rights is not oppressive. - Zotz 16:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Treating homosexual activity as a "civil right" is something that many people (including any sincere adherent of O'Connor's religion) find offensive,and demanding that those on one side of the argument be treated as correct is against what Wikipedia is about.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 18:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You seem to have misunderstood several things at once. The bills opposed by O'Connor did not treat homosexual "activity" as a civil right: they sought to assure freedom from discrimination in housing and other public accomodations. They had nothing to do with homosexual acts, and everything to do with human rights. You also seem to have misidentified the "side" of the argument that is acting against Wikipedian principles...specifically the principle of NPOV. What is happening on this article is that O'Connor's supporters are demanding that O'Connor's opponents be silenced. Systematically eliminating a valid, attributed, point of view is not appropriate here. O'Connor's critics are not demanding to be treated as correct, they are--appropriately--demanding that their point of view not be censored. - Zotz 18:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused, is the article NPOV because some see it as too anti-gay, or too anti-Catholic? Opusaug 05:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the article is NPOV because it serves to cheapen the immense amount of good that the Cardinal performed, and serves to discriminate against him simply because he was a Catholic Cardinal. The only group that has said anything bad about him are homosexuals. Yeah, he didn't support gay marriage/anal sex/condoms, etc., but WHAT PRIEST/CARDINAL/BISHOP WOULD? he had no choice under Pope John Paul II. I think we need to take into account that high ranking officials of the Catholic Church don't have a choice except to espouse such views, unless the Pope tells them otherwise. You have to realize that every official in the Catholic church is going to have those views, simply because of the fact that that is the current teaching of the church.

He wasn't hated by gay men and women because he didn't endorse gay marriage: he was hated by gay men and women because he very effectively and systematically opposed, and politically mobilized against, city legislation that would have prevented discrimination against gay men and women. Legislation that would have ended the ability of landlords to throw people out of rent-controlled apartments when a lover died. Legislation that would have ended the ability of a landlord to refuse to rent to gays. Legislation that would have prevented employment discrimination. O'Connor did not espouse such views because he was told to: these were his sincere beliefs. If you feel his "good" is underrepresented, by all means find an example and add it, but the simple fact is that O'Connor's actions, not his beliefs, made him an object of hatred and derision in the gay community, and the article is correct in reporting it so. - Zotz 03:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree it should be reported. Half of the article should not be devoted to gays however. His dealings with homosexuals were a small part of his life. Further, this page is not the place for you to pontificate on a gay rights agenda. You are using this page as a soapbox, which violates Wikipedia's NPOV rules.
Nonsense. I'm using this page to respond to you. Once again: if you feel the article doesn't adequately cover aspects of O'Connor's tenure on this Earth, you should add them rather than complain that they are missing. You are the one who knows what you're thinking of; we can't guess. - Zotz 21:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
On every other article on prominent Catholic leaders, a few sentences are devoted to the opposition of the Catholic Church to homosexuality. That is their position, and it should be reported objectively in a few sentences. The only people who viewed the Cardinal as controversial were gays. That should be noted as well. Devoting half of the article to the Cardinal's dealings with homosexuals is where you cross the line between objectivity and advocacy. The annual St. Patrick's Day Parade and that rent bill were minor news stories, nowhere close to the impact of say, the priest molestation scandals, affected only one demographic group in the city, and deserve a brief mention in passing. Nobody expects any Catholic Cardinal or Bishop to espouse any views other than what the Pope allows. There is nothing particularly newsworthy or groundbreaking about a Catholic Cardinal not supporting gay rights issues. Certainly if he actively encouraged violence or hatred against gays it would be a bigger story, but that was never the case. He merely objected to them getting extra privileges because they were gay. Every Catholic leader would have done the same thing. Further, unless anyone has other evidence that people other than gays thought the Cardinal was specifically controversial, the article should note specifically that "homosexuals believed him to be one of the most controversial religious leaders of the 20th century", and not make it sound like he had enemies outside of one specific demographic. (not signed)
Well, you seem to find the opinions of gays unimportant, but Wikipedia does not. Your remedy to what you perceive as an imbalanced article is to add the praise that you say the cardinal garnered, not to censor out the criticism. O'Connor was certainly at the forefront of the church's mobilization against gays: he wasn't one of the church's footsoldiers, he was a general. His fanatic devotion to assuring that gay rights legislation not be adopted was not what "every Catholic leader would have done. His political power in New York State alone made him not like every other leader. - Zotz 23:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


The use of the word "demon" uncited is definitely POV. To deny that is ridiculous. As for the name, I think it's more formal to use John Cardinal O'Connor and is therefore more appropriate for an encyclopedia. The reason that format is used is because it used to follow the format of noble titles. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeNM (talk • contribs) 19:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John "Anti-Everything" O'Connor

I'm pretty "pro human rights" and "pro gay rights" (voted for a pro gay marriage candidate in the last federal election) but I've got to say that after reading this article it comes across that all he spent his entire episcopate doing was thwarting gay pride parades and civil rights legislation. (Yeah I know that's an oversimplification.) Surely there's a way of including his documented opposition to the normalization of homosexuality and opposition to equal-rights legislation yet framing this in the context of his other activities. I admit I don't know a whole lot about him, but I have trouble believing that even John Paul II would appoint an archbishop, let alone a cardinal without him having some other redeeming qualities other than arch-conservatism. Maybe there's an interesting story in how he rose to the rank of Rear-Admiral? I see 5 short paragraphs on his life, followed by a long diatribe on his conservatism itemizing in depth his evils. Why no equal follow up on this interesting sentence: "He opposed the death penalty, and abhorred war."?

At the risk of defending an alleged confidant of Ronald Reagan (aaaaaaggh!) I feel compelled to point out that what is being cited as his failings and even evils are in fact the actions of a senior authority in an organization which has opposed the legitimization of abortion and homosexuality for centuries, if not millenia. He's not really that controvertial other than the fact that he was the Archbishop of New York and thus in the media spotlight. I'd like to see somebody dig up a significant number of archbishops anywhere in the Catholic Church who would, at the time, have expressed a different point of view. Witness the situation in the Anglican Communion right now where the Canadian and American Provinces of the Church are being essentially asked to repent on pain of excommunication (of course the Anglican Communion in a typically British manner are being somwhat more circumspect about it than the more bombastic Cardinal O'Connor).

At any rate I feel dirty after writing that defence of a position I don't support, please forgive me! My point is that there needs to be some sort of balance here so that this article is a useful reference for somebody who wants to know what he is about. I've taken a stab at breaking the article up so that it reads less as a diatribe and more like a biography. I was suprised once I started reading it as an editor how much good information was there that just doesn't read well becasue of the formatting and a couple of very agressive sentences that set the tone for the rest of the article. In no way do I want to whitewash O'Connor, but I would like to maintain an academic style if possible. If we can do it for much more controversial figures surely we can do it for him.

I've broken it out into sub-sections in an attempt to make it easier for future editors to elaborate on the various parts of his legacy which as I read it is quite mixed. I've also made a couple of minor readability changes and expanded on a couple of "idea-stubs" based on a bit of quick Google research. Please edit me since I readily admit Cardinal O'Connor is hardly my area of expertise!

Gabe 06:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, you've recited the glories of O'Connor providing adequate medical care to AIDS patients twice, once in the section on relations with the gay community, where it doesn't belong. I'm not sure that the fact that he preferred his gays dying of AIDS really rehabilitates him, but I'll fix the duplication. I have no problem with you heaping praise on him for the good things he's done: my objection is to those who seek to make him seem better by minimizing the evil that he's done. I don't think you've done too much of that. - Zotz 07:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I really hope you don't think I was "heaping praise" on him. I don't really think too highly of him and his ilk, but I am willing to give the misguided who act out of genuine "faith" the benefit of the doubt and try to see it from their point of view. As far as the question of how he treated AIDS patients, the way I see it there's two sides of the story, they both need to be presented. In my view his opposition to civil rights legislation places his "humanitariansim" in context and I thought it was a good contrast to place these two things together so that the reader could draw their own conclusions. I really don't know what to make of these anachronisms... how do you write in an unbiased manner about people who live in the 19th century but are otherwise decent folks? For some reason he's unpopular, yet if you go over to the John Paul II article you see a completely different style of writing and approach when in truth I don't think Karol Wojtyla would have behaved a whole lot differently -- maybe he would have had a bit more flair, I don't know...

I don't want to get drawn into defending or attacking the man, but I would like to try to ensure that the bio is as accurate as possible and doesn't present a slanted view simply because of the way the information is presented rather than the information itself. *sigh* I don't even know why I try sometimes... (For the record, I'm not a catholic or even a christian just in case you think I have an axe to grind. I probably do, but it's more to do with people who take extreme positions without trying to walk a mile in other people's shoes first. This goes for both "sides".)

- Gabe 05:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not my job to judge your motives, and I haven't. And it's not the article's job to judge (or condemn, or apologize) for O'Connor's motives, and it shouldn't. It should simply state what he's done and said, not what we think his motivations might have been. They are unknowable. Let his actions speak for themselves. - Zotz 21:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiosity why did you change this wording: "Cardinal O'Connor strongly opposed gay related legislation throughout the duration of his tenure as Archbisop of New York." to "Cardinal O'Connor opposed every gay-related bill considered on the city and state level during the 16 years of his tenure as Archbishop of New York."

Because the latter actually makes a factual (that is, falsifiable) statement (he opposed every bill), while the former is a vague assertion (he opposed some bills strongly). (And it had to be edited anyway for spelling). The original (and present) statement is instantly falsifiable if anyone can come up with a single piece of gay-rights legislation that O'Connor supported during those 16 years - but there is none. And unlike your modification, it doesn't suggest that O'Connor took a middle-ground approach, supporting some bills (say for equal housing) and opposing others (say for gay marriage). He just opposed them all. - Zotz 21:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is kind of what I was talking about when I said in my first post on Talk that I thought the lead in to the discussion of the issue really made it hard to read. By using your wording I find the article starts to read as a bit of a diatribe, this is just a style thing for me, but I find that your wording adds little or nothing of a factual nature but certainly sets a tone. I wasn't trying to soften it to excuse his "sins" I was softening it to make it easier to read. In fact it was this stuff that made me come immediately to the talk page to see what was going on. I'm not suggesting for a moment that we shouldn't make it clear that his relationship with the gay community was very rocky at best, I just don't see any need to hit the reader over the head with it. Also, if we're going to say that he "...opposed every gay-related bill on a city and state level during the 16 year of his tenure..." we might want to have a citation to back that up. I thought my wording allowed for a broader interpretation of his record. How do we define "gay-related bills" what about gay related legislation on a national level? Did that get a pass?

I accept the criticism that I shouldn't have moved the medical care stuff to that part of the article without balancing to better, if at all.

It's not a matter of balance. Though you may see AIDS as a gay disease, and O'Connor may have, it's not, and suggesting it is is not quite appropriate. The characterization of AIDS as a gay disease has become the tool of bigots and Wikipedia doesn't need to adopt it. The relationship between AIDS and the gay community of New York was temporal and accidental. The act of charity being conciously evoked by O'Connor was to "tend the sick" not to "tend the gay". - Zotz 21:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was late. But I think our competing points of view on John O'Connor boil down to our preconceptions, both of which are probably wrong. I see him as a throwback to a dead age, an old man who just didn't get it. A guy who tried to do what he thought was right without understanding the human toll of his actions. Not somebody motivated out of hate. I think this was what motivated me to move that part up (and I forgot to remove it from the part of the article on AIDS) was that I was trying to paint him as a throwback and a priest rather than a reactionary and a hatemonger. After all they seem to have the strange ability to condem an action and without a blink or a bit of internal dissonance sacrifice themselves for those they just condemed. I thought it was important to point out that he wasn't afraid of the people who's ire he had raised and that in his mind he was helping them. The paternalism of the Catholic clergy when it comes to human rights and liberalism is probably a major part of the problem.

Anyway...

- Gabe 05:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't really care where O'Connor's viewpoints came from, and I don't see good motivation as ameliorative of bad actions. I don't see O'Connor as consciously aware of his hatred for gays; indeed, he said he believed his actions were from love. It made no difference to those from whom he kept the protections of equal rights under law, and it made no difference to those who may have heeded his extremely bad advice to avoid condom use and wound up with AIDS. - Zotz 21:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Cooldown

I want to step back for a second. Zotz, I think you and I are on the same page. I'm not some raving conservative religious wacko out to defend O'Connor come hell or high water. I merely stumbled across this article and found it hard to read and, while factually fairly accurate, not particularly condusive to drawing one's own conclusions on the matter. (And I'm a guy who, though he doesn't have any particular expertise on the matter, thinks pretty dimly of O'Connor and his point of view.)

I agree that his actions should speak for themselves, but I would like to see it worded in a more neutral manner. I took a crack at it and apparently failed. That's fine, I'm not committed to my copy, but I would like to see something that is a little less... I don't know... I hate to use the word, but perhaps militant is what I'm looking for. To go back to the question of whether or not he opposed gay legislation... there's two sides to that. You take issue with my (admittedly) mealy-mouthed phrasing of his opposition, well I take issue with your assertion that your wording is falsifiable. What is "gay related legislation"?

That would be the legislation that makes it less likely for gays to be discriminated against. As in rental housing, hiring, etc. - Zotz 00:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I looked it up in a dictionary, couldn't find it. Looked it up in Wikipedia, couldn't find it. I don't really know how to define it. Not that I doubt the substance of what you're trying to get at, I'm sure he did oppose any action that was intended to normalize the rights of homosexuals, etc. but if you word it the way that you did, then all somebody has to do is come up with something they assert is gay related that he didn't oppose (perhaps he didn't know about it) and we have a problem. Additionally your wording is interesting in its exclusion of federal and international legislation, etc. surely he was just as rabid in opposing federal legislation was he not?

There was little if any federal or international legislation of that nature at that time, so necessarily he couldn't say much about legislation that hadn't even been proposed. Most of his (and his archdiocese's) political activity was centered in New York State and New York City - the state of grace of any New York politician (in the eyes of the archdiocese) can be determined by looking at where the archdiocese seats him at the annual Alfred E. Smith political dinner. (Or in the case of John Kerry, refuses to invite him...) - Zotz 00:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't want you to think of me as some sort of reactionary here to rehabilitate O'Connor, I'm simply trying to get every Wikipedia article I see to read like an encyclopedia article, not only in content but also in tone. I'm not trying to push a point of view, I'm trying to get something that doesn't make the reader immediately jump to the Talk page to try to figure out where the slant in the article came from. (The whole reason I'm here.)

Let me know how you'd like to proceed. I'm willing to work with you to get something that is factually accurate and formal balanced in its wording.

Gabe 00:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As a member of the aforementioned "people who live in the 19th century", I appreciate how you're trying to work this out, Gabe. Opusaug 21:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I gather, though it hasn't been explicitly stated, that the "slant" consists entirely of the sentence "Cardinal O'Connor opposed every gay-related bill considered on the city and state level during the 16 years of his tenure as Archbishop of New York. ", and that though everyone concedes this is true, it makes some people uncomfortable to have the facts stated so starkly? If that is the case, and if rephrasing this in some more mealy-mouth fashion would result in the removal of the "NPOV" sticker, I suppose the way to procede is to find an acceptable rephrasing. But if that is not the case, we probably shouldn't bother. - Zotz 00:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

uncomfortable to have the facts stated so starkly? ...if rephrasing this in some more mealy-mouth fashion... With this, I personally think you make the case quite well that, yes, it's NPOV. I don't mind the facts, I mind them being phrased in a way to cudgel, rather than to inform. I'm sure Cardinal O'Connor didn't notch his belt sixteen times in glee, once for each time he wickedly thwarted the legitimate aspirations of the oppressed. He was trying to uphold the principles of his faith, that told him it was wrong not to discourage what that faith views as immoral behavior. Yet the former seems to be what you're trying to project. Opusaug 05:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Stark = honest. What in the article (not the talk page) do you find to be an unattributed, disputed opinion? For that is what determines whether an article is NPOV, not whether it makes you comfortable. Yes, O'Connor didn't have that many notches on his belt, or that much slack in it, either; nor will you find anything in the article that implies that he rubbed his hands together gleefully, a la Simon Legree, each time someone died of AIDS in his hospitals (or each time he was reimbursed from Medicaid for the care rendered during that person's final illness). - Zotz 08:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Use of "His Eminence"

I couldn't find anything specifically addressing this issue in the talk page. I have looked at various Wiki pages on the Dalai Lama, Pope Benedict XVI, Justus Sandra Day O'Connor, etc., and none of these pages use honorific styles. I was surprised to find "His eminence" used in this case. I don't necessarily object, I just think that there should be uniformity, and wonder if using this style might violate NPOV. The only reason I was checking was because I found the honorific "Rinpoche" (precious teacher) used on some pages for Tibetan Buddhist teachers (which again, I don't oppose, but think uniformity should prevail, plus, the honorific "His Holiness" was removed from Dalai Lama page). I started doing a search to see how honorifics were used in Wiki (I'm new). I found that they really seem to be missing. In light of this, shouldn't "His eminence" be removed? --Dorje Shedrub 23:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Honorifics are supposed to be moved into a "sytles box". Apparently, Cardinal O'Connor was missed. I'll go make the changes now. Gentgeen 11:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I like that! Can you point me to a Wiki policy/guide that discusses this? I have not been able to find anything. I know of some Buddhist pages that could use a style box. Thanks! --Dorje Shedrub 14:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poorly written, shoddy POV article

This article is an absolute classic for POV-pushing. Statements are made with no sourcing. Claims are made with no backup."Facts" are stated with no evidence. It is so bad it is almost funny. And what is the source for the claim that condoms only have a 90% success rate against HIV?

This article is so appallingly biased and shoddy it beggars belief. Either source the claims or delete them. They cannot stay in the article like this. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more; someone has it out to paint the subject as a bigot, and sounds from above like it's been this way for a while. I could rewrite the whole thing from scratch, but I have a life...Baccyak4H 13:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
It is more complicated than that. The article veers from denegration to adoration, unsourced criticism to unsourced hagiography. One minute he sounds like Adolf Hitler in black, the next Mother Teresa with a penis. It uses quotes without any sources, claims that are dubious both for and against, etc. It really is awful as an article. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 15:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is the abstract of a peer-reviewed article from 1999 looking at 25 studies of HIV transmission rates and giving condom success rates at preventing HIV in heterosexuals at most likely 87%, but possibly somewhere between 60% and 96%. Gentgeen 07:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
There's an article here that (and a Panorama article here) that makes clear that though the overall success rate in preventing HIV transmission is only 85% with condom use, this success rate can be much higher for individuals using condoms consistently and correctly. The failure rate in general comes from lack of consistent use, or incorrect use. Yonmei 22:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I am gay and I am a lapsed Catholic. The article on Cardinal O'Connor gives too much weight to his relationship to the gay community. O'Connnor was NOT controversial among most Catholics, who agreed with his views on most social and docrinal issues. The article reflects the inability of the author to step outside his own narrow view of life i.e. the view of a gay man. (We say the same phenomenon rear its head in coverage of President Reagan's death. If you asked gay activists to describe Reagan, they would say "he was the guy who ignored AIDS." Well, that may or may not be true. But Reagan was certainly more than that.)

At the same time, it's worth noting that O'Connor was the Cardinal of New York City -- with its large, politically active gay population -- during the early 1980s when AIDS became a public health scourge. So, it is understandable that the author would address gay issues/ AIDS. However, O'Connor's views and actions are not easily categorized. He was a complex, capable leader. In time, he will be seen -- and described -- as much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.74.237.92 (talk • contribs) 09:18, October 23, 2006.

[edit] Image removed

Image:John OConnor.jpg

This image was removed from the article due to uncertainty of copyright/fair use status. — Eoghanacht talk 17:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)