Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:56, 27 April 2010

Religion: Interfaith C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Christianity: Catholicism C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Mid-importance).

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

I have archived the previous version of this talk page as it had gotten too large and was mostly out of date, any outstanding issues have been moved over to the talk archive.--Mifter (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

General POV issues remain

I am concerned about the general tone of the article. It seems geared toward arguing for any idea which if not endorsed by Catholics is inherently anti-Catholic, something which seems ludicrous to say the least.

Social change in the United States for instance, has continually revolved around a liberal-progressive sort of ideology, in which it is believed that science and individual freedom can produce a better society. One of the results of this general trend over much of the 20th century has been to produce ideas and ideals which society believes are healthier and will lead to greater happiness than those founded on a strict Catholic ideology.

It seems as though Catholics who feel (rightly so) that they are slowly losing ground in American politics may subsequently be led to believe that they are being persecuted by the rest of society. This is no doubt due to the erroneous, unspoken presentiment that Catholics are the original Christians, they were saved by Jesus and must spread his message and their practices to the whole world; those who resist are unholy; they are anti-Catholic.

This sort of perspective is pervasive of the entire article. The genuine anti-Catholicism of the early centuries A.D. seems to have been mutated by Catholics into this sort of contemporary complex of continual persecution, consisting of arguments which attempt to portray the Catholic as trapped, repressed, and under-represented, an attempt at composing a Christian version of continuing antisemitism. On the contrary, Catholics now enjoy a fundamental protection from discrimination that they never had in the past.

So to put it bluntly, this article, which should be mainly on the genuine imprisonment, torture, and execution of martyrs and whatnot, and real modern examples, has instead been morphed into this sort of giant complaint about "no one does listens to us when we dictace morality, wahhh." Parts of the article seem to focus on contemporary issues which while said to be anti-Catholic, simply represent a difference in ideology, a lapse of warranted distinction which I feel, based on 7 years of attending Catholic school, is very characteristic of the Christian mindset in general.

However accurate one may believe my viewpoint to be, the page overall is not NPOV. I wish I could address each section in detail, but I am prevented by strict time constraints.

Kst447 (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to have raised any real POV issue; your post does not address a single specific instance of POV. The article in no way asserts that anyone who is "arguing for any idea which if not endorsed by Catholics is inherently anti-Catholic". Lots of people disagree with Catholic teachings, Buddhists, Mormons, Jews, all varieties of Protestants, but the article does not say that they are anti-Catholic merely because they disagree. The killing of Catholic faithful and the virtual elimination of priests and churches in many Mexican states in the early 20th Century is plainly anti-Catholic, as was the Maria Monk matter and Jack Chick, today. I think it is plainly wrong that only imprisonment, martrydom and the like are sufficient to constitute anti-Catholicism, and reliable sources back this point up. I'm going to remove the tag. If you can come up with concrete instances of what you feel is POV, feel free to repost it. Otherwise how are editors to address your vague claims of POV and make the entries neutral if in fact they are valid. There doesn't seem to be a legitimate, or at least clearly stated, POV issue here.Mamalujo (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe, firstly, the tag read "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."

Anti-Catholic Satire and Humour:

The Catholic church has been a target for satire and humour, from the time of the Reformation to the present day.

I haven't bothered to copy the rest of this section as it is uncited anyway. Since when does humor equate to anti-Catholicism? I think simply put, this only serves to demonstrate that Catholics take themselves too seriously. A joke is just what it is called--it is based on reality and is intended to provoke laughter without real-life action, am I wrong? I think the only people who are really provoked to say or do anything after they hear an "anti-Catholic joke" are Catholics themselves. No blood was ever pumped into my viewpoint with a joke, rather, from real-life observations, inconveniences, perceived injustices etc. But I never laughed at something and then went picketing. Jokes, I believe, supplement a pre-existing worldview; a joke is a joke, violating the Catholic dogma to create one is not anti anything except anti-boring. A joke does not fall under the definitions of "discrimination, hostility or prejudice" directed at Roman Catholics unless blatantly untactful. These jokes exist, but are not representative as a rule.

Sexuality:

Lately sexual abuse by representatives of the Catholic church has been highlighted in such films as The Magdalene Sisters (2002). However the veracity of the bestselling Kathy's Story by Kathy O'Beirne which details physical and sexual abuse suffered in a Magdalene laundry in Ireland has been questioned in a new book entitled Kathy's Real Story by Hermann Kelly. In this book it is alleged that false allegations against the priesthood are being fueled by a government compensation scheme for victims.

I'm not sure how a single book, the contents of which are not even discussed, disproves widespread sexual abuse which occurred and was repeatedly turned a blind eye to, and in fact was facilitated by the administrative forces in the church. Am I just imagining that these things happened? This "book" is given undue weight, and as is noted, there are multiple films on this issue. Where is the discreditation of the rest of these films, and what of the books on the topic, and news reports? "Alleged" motivations for litigation have no place in an encyclopedia; they are not NPOV. Where is the investigative consensus on these things?

Sexuality, contraception and abortion:

How is protesting outside of a mass about Catholic ideals an example of anti-Catholicism? Clearly, the issue here is the projection of religious ideology into public policy. I think that falls under the heading of separation of church and state.

Then, it reads "desecrated the Eucharist during Mass." Whether or not the Eucharist is viewed to have been "desecrated" is completely irrelevant, and only serves to exacerbate the subjective sense of the reader that Catholics who knew of or were present at the event may have felt offended. The mere sense of being offended doesn't indicate an anti-anything in any situation, it can indicate over-sensitivity. In any case, a single instance of protesting and condom-throwing doesn't serve to demonstrate very much anyway, except that ideology is continuing to penetrate the public sphere in an increasingly secular world which is growing increasingly tired of it.

No one cares what Catholics believe, no one is going around to churches and saying "father, society has made of a list of things it doesn't think you should be allowed to profess at mass anymore"; they care when matters of faith overwhelm the influence of scientifically-based health issues and intrude on the genuine well-being of a people. This section attempts to insinuate differently, and is otherwise uncomprehensive.

Anti-Catholicism in the entertainment industry:

This section is mostly the opinion of a single opinionated author, and so can not possibly be considered NPOV to say the least. At most, a couple sentences and a citation may be in order, otherwise this person is given undue weight.

Overall, based on these examples at least, the only people who seem to be claiming anti-Catholicism are Catholics. What is Amnesty International saying on the issue, for instance? Shouldn't standards of human rights enter purposefully into the construction of this topic?

Furthermore, upon looking up the definition of "anti", which indeed is defined simply as "against or opposed to", leads me to believe there exists a conflict of interest in regard to what is discussed on this page. The article encompasses both "opposed to" and "taking action in direct opposition of" which I believe are distinct, and while the Merriam-Webster dictionary refers to the former, the definition of "anti-Catholicism" on the top of the page encompasses the latter.

So for instance, does making a pedophile-priest joke qualify as persecution because psychological pain may be felt due to the resurfacing sense that one's religious institution isn't perfect in its integrity? Does it damage the sense of self of the person to the point where not only do they lose a connection to their faith, but the integrity of their organization suffers as well? And as the church knowingly covered up such scandals in the past, is this really an illegitimate form of passive criticism, this distressing remark of satire? Or does it echo the genuine, legitimate concerns of a society which holds concerns on a dominating social institution based on the nearly-universal western morality about children and sexual abuse?

I think the scope of this page needs to be narrowed down to things that actually affect the practice of the Catholic faith by Catholics as opposed to trends or opinions which simply oppose Catholic intrusion into the secular sphere.

In other words, things will need to be written in the context of a more secular post-enlightenment world in which the nature of things is such that ideology is often questioned or plain just not taken seriously, actions which should not be equated to an attack or hostility.

Am I just ridiculous altogether?

Kst447 (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that IMHO the topic of anti-Catholicism here should be descriptive rather than moralistic. I.e. we should describe instances where the Catholic church or individuals belonging to it are attacked in words or actions or laws or books or films but not feel obliged to give our own personal judgements as to whether such instances of anti-Catholicism are 'justified' or 'unjustified'. Some of the allegations against the Catholic church are so patently absurd and self-contradictory that they virtually refute themselves whilst others might pass as 'fair comment' according to the reader of the wikipedia's own frame of reference. Let the reader decide what is 'justified'. Colin4C (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes.

Kst447 (talk) 03:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with what Kst447 had to say, however I can't help but feel much of it was anti-catholic. Gavin Scott (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Kst447, as a non-Christian, I do not think that many of your points have a lot of merit. "Torture and imprisonment" should not be the only things classified as Anti-Catholicism. And throwing condoms during Mass and desecrating the Eucharist is most CERTAINLY anti-Catholic, its certainly not PRO-Catholic. How can you say even for a second that it isn't? I am most curious as to how you would even define the concept of "Anti". The dictionary defines it as "opposed to, against", yet this doesn't seem to be enough for you for you to consider something that is opposed to or against Catholic belief and practice to be "anti-Catholic". And as a gay man, I view most gay jokes as homophobic and antigay, so of course there are jokes about Catholics that are Anti-Catholic, if the motive is to make FUN of Catholics or Catholicism. I have seen a few satires about Catholicism, and we are NOT talking light hearted, good natured humor at all, we are talking genuine ridicule and propoganda. This should indeed be addressed in an article about Anti-Catholicsm. I also did not interpret what the article had to say as declaring that anyone who disagrees with Catholicism is Anti-Catholic. You seem to be exhibiting your own lack of neutrality here, as a lot of what you were saying seemed to be justification FOR Anti-Catholicism. DarkWillUser (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you read the article it is evident that 'anti-Catholicism' has got legs. I.e. it comprises an inter-linked series of notions to do with authority, conspiracy and sexuality which have been continually dragged out the closet since the Reformation. E.g. clerical sexual abuse allegations have been grist to the mill of anti-Catholic polemicists since the 16th century and were a mainstay of 19th century pornography and 20th century nunsploitation films etc. Whether these allegations are true and whether they are not does not seem to matter beside their evidential propaganda benifits for whatever body is making them, whether Protestants or secularists or who-ever. I am not a Catholic by the way but rather a student of 18th-19th century Gothic novels in which an ingrained English anti-Catholic prejudice is displayed in various burlesque scenes involving perverted monks and nuns and priests etc. IMHO this anti-Catholic cultural baggage, of which this is just one example, makes people willing to believe almost anything bad they hear about the Catholic church in the media, whether it is true or not, foaming at the mouth in a Pavlovian conditioned response. Hopefully wikipedia articles like this one will set people straight on these matters...Colin4C (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Kathy's Real Story by Hermann Kelly is a really interesting case-study of a modern day 'Maria Monk' type mendacious anti-Catholic pervert-priest type story. A well as analysing and deconstructing this story Kelly considers other similar examples from history where anti-Catholic hysteria has been stoked up by fiction, myths and lies. Colin4C (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is most assuredly not neutral. For starters, the article treats Protestant Anti-Catholicism as irrational discrimination, without even touching on the causes of Protestant Anti-Catholicism; Discrimination against Catholics in Protestant nations (Britain, America etc.) is treated simply as irrational hatred, with no mention of the origins of or reason for the positions held. EDIT Correction, there is a page on anti-Protestantism, but it is not linked to on this page. 74.166.39.15 (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

serious problems

I deleted some text that was not factually based and not referenced and not generally true. "was whipped into a frenzy of anti-Catholicism that led to mob violence, the burning of Catholic property, and the killing of Catholics." Is vastly exaggerated. "whipped into frenzy" refers to what episode--one convent or what and when? Which mobs? when? how many Catholics were killed? Source? "Irish Catholic immigrants were blamed for raising the taxes of the country" is an odd complaint not mentioned in the usual sources. Source? "A similar sentiment was also expressed by the Ku Klux Klan." "similar to what???, which KKK, when? (the KKK of the 1920s was probably meant; it is out of place here in antebellum era. Rjensen (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Latest edits

Just to say that the description of the activities of the Shankill Butchers as 'horrible' is found in all references to them I have found. But feel free to add any referenced material which describes Catholics being slowly tortured to death in a more positive light and not as horrible at all...I guess there must be a lot of such references, so I only need two or three here: Colin4C (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, that's not how wikipedia works. We present a neutral stance, even if the sources are biased. They were horrible. References would say that. But this is an encyclopedia that tries to pride itself on neutrality, hence we cannot say "neutral". Look at the Hitler article for a great example. Pretty much every source you could find on him says he's a sociopath, mass murderer, possessed, etc, etc, etc. Yet the article remains neutral. It'd be one thing if the line was a direct quote from the source, but it's not. Request an Rfc if you want, but they're not going to agree with you, so stop vandalizing (yes, vandalizing) the page. Farsight001 (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Stating that torturing people to death is not horrible is original research. We are not interested in your personal opinions on the subject. Please list below all sources where the sanguinary activities of the Shankill Butchers are described in a more positive light, as not horrible at all. I have supplied a ref, you have just indulged in original research and personal abuse. Please do not indulge in personal abuse as that is against wikipedia guidelines. If you want a dictionary definition of the word 'horror' I will be glad to supply one. It is a perfectly easy word to understand and is allowed to be used on the wikipedia. Neutrality means a balance between conflicting valuations from the references it does not involve off the cuff original research claims of a wikipedia editor to great wisdom in deciding what is right and wrong, what is horrible and what is not horrible and on which words we are allowed to use on the wikipedia. Also 'Neutrality' does not mean employing euphemisms to conceal atrocities, like using the words 'special treatment' when you mean 'torture' or 'relocation to the East' when you mean 'genocide'. As you say, the wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a propaganda department for a government or a political organisation. Unlike politicians our duty is to the reveal the truth not conceal it by using mealy-mouthed circumlocutions. By the way have you read anything at all on the subject? If not I recommend the The Shankill Butchers (1999) by Martin Dillon. Please respect the sources and do not intrude your own opinions, except on the Talk page. 18:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Colin4C (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh...I didn't state that it wasn't horrible. I simply left that part out. We can use an opinionated source, but we cannot apply their opinions to the article - positive or negative. No exceptions. Nothing you say is going to change wiki policy on this. You, however, are inserting POV by calling it horrible, even if that's what the source says. I am not involved in original research. The sources do say that he "spearheaded" it and that they were "some of the largest", though not in those words. But at least those words are neutral. Our job, as in the Hitler article that I suggested you take a look at, is to present the facts and let the reader decide whether it was horrible or not. Now stop POV pushing and stop vandalizing the article. Farsight001 (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a violation of wiki policy to call good faith edits 'vandalism'. Please stop this immediately or I shall report you to the admins. This is your final warning. Please read the wikipedia vandalism policy Misplaced Pages:Vandalism:

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism—it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful attention may need to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism."

Do you agree with that or not? Is it right for an editor to violate this policy whenever he feels like it? Colin4C (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Page protected due to edit warring

I would advise User:Colin4C and User:Farsight001 to review WP:3RR, WP:1RR and WP:BRD.

In this dispute, I tend to side with Farsight001 but that is not why I protected his version. It is an admin's job to protect the wrong version and that's what I did.

Please attempt to resolve this dispute by discussion or other dispute resolution mechanisms. The protection ends in 48 hours but resumption of edit warring may lead to imposition of blocks without further warning.

--Richard (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Are saying that it is wrong to use the word 'horrors' in the wikipedia? Is there a ban on using that word? Why do you feel the need to sanitise reality like government departments who use euphemisms to conceal human rights violations? An encyclopedia should reflect reality as presented by the sources not inject our own original research valuations as to what one wikipedia editor in their non-infinite wisdom believes is neutral. Neutrality means presenting a balanced viewpoint between opposing valuations in the sources. Please provide the sources which characterise the activities of the Shankill Butchers torturing people to death in a more positive light and as 'not horrid', then we can arrive at a neutral viewpoint between the opposing valuations in the references. Colin4C (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Also do you think that calling good faith edits 'vandalism' is in accordence with wiki policy? Do you support Farsight in that as well? Is this bit from the wikipedia official policy page page on vandalism wrong?:

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism—it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful attention may need to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism."

Colin4C (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edits were not vandalism, and Farsight001 should not have described them as such. However, words like and "horrors," "vicious," and "psychopath" are entirely inappropriate for a neutrally-written encyclopedia article, so Faright is correct on that point. We can describe the events in a neutral manner, regardless of the bias of the sources. If we were giving a direct quote that describes the attacks as "horrors" or Murphy a "psychopath," that would be one thing, but it is flatly inappropriate to use such terms without attribution.--Cúchullain /c 18:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

So, in the whole of human history, as recorded by the wikipedia, there is not one single instance of human behaviour that it is appropriate to call 'horrid', a 'horror' or 'horrible', even if there is unanimity of references on the point? There is an absolute wikipedia ban on using that word in any circumstance whatsoever as connected with human behaviour? And if a person is described as psychopath then it is forbidden to mention it? Or paranoid or schizophrenic? Is there an absolute ban on the use of those words in the wikipedia? We have to alter reality to fit the wikipedia? As for 'vicious', it means a propensity to use extreme violence. Do you dispute that torturing someone to death is using extreme violence? There are gradations of violence from slapping someone's face to torturing then to death. Is is forbidden to indicate the relative severity of such violence on the wikipedia or should they all be classed as the same?

Here is what it says about neutrality in the wikipedia. I have italicised the points which you fail to understand:

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. Debates within topics are clearly described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from asserting which is better."

As per the wikipedia rules please provide the "conflicting perspective" on the Shankill Butchers "as evidenced by reliable sources." Note also that "The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". I.e. we are not to eliminate opposing points of view to put forward our own original research formulation.

Colin4C (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You continue to misunderstand the issue here, and are missing several points of the NPOV policy. Notably: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." We can in fact use inflammatory language such as you would like - but it has to be in a direct quote attributed to who said it. We can't just use biased language as if its fact, it is our job to use neutral language and present the topic in a fair, descriptive way. And from under "bias": "All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate..." Neutral wording is a must here, regardless of whether the sources were particularly neutral or not.--Cúchullain /c 21:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't explained where in the wikipedia there is a statement which says that normal English words such as 'horror', 'vicious' and 'psychopath' are not ever to be used. If they were used inappropriately or as a form of personal abuse as I could understand you, but in this particular instance they are appropriate to the subject. The sources I have read say that the atrocities of the Shankill Butchers were one of the worst horrors of the sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland. If you dispute that statement please give other instances which support the inference that they were the normal sort of horrors associated with the conflict or less horrific than normal. The word 'vicious' is also an ordinary English word. Do you think that describing a "vicious attack by a dog" is derogatory to dog rights or just an observation on certain aspects of a particular dog's behaviour? As for 'psychopath', there are many sources which describe Murphy in such terms, not as a term of abuse but as describing his state of mind. I.e. he wasn't completely sane. Just because a word is sometimes used as a term of abuse in certain circumstances that does not mean that it is forbidden to use it in other circumstances. E.g. just because I might be tempted to call my bank manager a 'Fascist', as a term of abuse, this does not mean that it cannot correctly be used to describe Mussolini, who self-described himself as a Fascist. Colin4C (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The Shankill Butchers

I append here some info on the Shankill Butchers to counter the latest inaccurate edits which presume that they were a military organisation making 'large attacks', which were exactly the same as the 'attacks' made by the other side. In an neutral wikipedia friendly world there would of course be a Catholic gang who tortured an equal number of Protestents in exactly the same way. Unfortunately the historical records do not support the real actual existence of such a gang. Sometimes reality lets us down like that...Anyway, here's the info:

"The Shankill Butchers were a Belfast UVF gang so called because they tortured and killed some of their victims with weapons such as knives, cleavers and axes.

They were led by Lenny Murphy who was described as a psychopath and a sadist.

His gang was involved in up to 30 killings but earned greatest notoriety for murders of seven Catholics who were abducted at random, mainly in north Belfast, before being subjected to savage and prolonged attacks.

In one killing an attempt was made to decapitate a man while in another the victim had almost all his teeth ripped out with pliers.

Several members of the gang were jailed in 1979 after one of their victims survived and identified them to the police.

Murphy was murdered by the IRA in 1982."

Note the horrible bias of the author who has the audacity to call the selfless humanitarian Lenny Murphy a 'psychopath' and 'sadist'. As we know torturing people to death is an activity which must never be portrayed in an unfavourable light. Even if all the reports are unanimous they must be severely censored and we are obliged to make an original research judgement in the interests of political propaganda. Colin4C (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As soon as you become interested in reasoned discussion and belay the openly mocking tone, I'll be happy to join in. Until then, I'll just request that you stop grossly misrepresenting my position in this. Until then you're going to be arguing with no one over an article that you can't edit. Farsight001 (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the sarcasm and personal comments will not help your cause, Colin.--Cúchullain /c 21:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

But personal and abuse and calling me a vandal is perfectly okay? Refusing point blank to discuss the substantial factual issues about the Shankill Butchers is okay? Even though I have been praised for articles I have written on the wikipedia it is okay to bully me and falsely represent the wikipedia rules on what vandalism is? As has been mentioned by another editor: above "Your edits were not vandalism, and Farsight001 should not have described them as such". You do not understand the wikipedia policy on vandalism but think you can get your way through threats and bullying. Is this the official wikipedia policy or not?:

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism—it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful attention may need to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism."

I read a whole book on the Shankill Butchers so I could utilise the info here. Is that the act of a vandal? A vandal is someone who deletes a page or adds rude words or gibberish to an article, not one who has an interest in the subject and who has written on it in journals. I have been published by the OUP and CUP in hard copy encyclopedias. Are those the acts of a mindless vandal? Please tell me. By the way have you read Martin Dillon's book on the subject? Do you know anything at all about it? Please discuss the substantial factual issues about the Shankill Butchers, not falsely represent wikipedia policy. Colin4C (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, Farsight should not have called your edits vandalism, as they were clearly not vandalism. However, that doesn't free you to make negative personal comments, and like I said, sarcasm and belligerent words will not help you get your way.--Cúchullain /c 21:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I am in a Catch 22 situation. If I ignore personal abuse, the abuser is encouraged to repeat it as often as possible, leading other editors to think "it must be true, he doesn't deny it" and to join in the abuse themselves (such is human nature, see the effect of Murphy's brutality on the other gang members, they were encouraged to join in because he led the way, laughing at the screams of the abused victims). If I do deny it I'm accused of being belligerent. Even if I use humour to lighten the aura of negativity caused by personal attacks and bullying I'm accused of "sarcasm". Basically I can't win. Anyway, enough about me and the Misplaced Pages Butchers (HUMOUR ALERT: IRONY): anybody here want to discuss the substantive issues of the anti-Catholicism of the Shankill Butchers??? Do people think I've exaggerated their brutality? Please state the facts as supported by references. Colin4C (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I called you a vandal because I always thought being informed of policy multiple times and ignoring it to continue pov pushing IS vandalism. Now even the nice admin told you that we take the facts in a bias source and present them in a neutral way. Which is exactly what I did - using the source that was already there. Were it a direct quote, I would change nothing, but its not. I think the admin also told you to leave the article alone until discussion was complete, which you ignored, so I reverted. Again - check the hitler article. Many sources used call him a psychopath, a mass murderer, etc - but the article doesn't unless making explicit that its someone's opinion. It may sound stupid or twisted, but we have to represent the facts in a way so as to avoid offending even a neo-nazi. Your assessment of the butchers is spot on to me, but to someone who might be a fan, it is highly offensive. I don't know how to explain it more clearly. If there's going to be any progress here, I think we need a RfC, which I'm going to try and figure out how to do.Farsight001 (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As has been pointed by me and another editor here if you did know wikipedia policy you would know this:

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism—it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful attention may need to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism."

As you appear not to know it your professions to know what wikipedia policy is are false. Asserting that something is the case does not prove it to be the case. I have repeatedly asked you to discuss the substantial facts about the case but you have refused. Colin4C (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC - how to present facts about Shankill Butchers

In case you're wondering why I tagged a history RfC to an article about Catholicism, it's because the section in question is in regards to history. If that was a booboo, please inform.

Farsight001's case - other editor wants the article to say that the butchers were "vicious", led by a "psychopath, and perpetrated "worst horrors". This seemed extremely pov to me, so I made it more neutral. Other editor says that the pov must stay because thats what the sources say, and making it neutral would be OR. I do not believe it is OR, but even if it were, POV is still not allowed and we'd need a whole new neutral source.Farsight001 (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Colin4C's case -

Farsight has substantially changed the meaning of part of this article whilst retaining the same references. This constitutes original research which is not allowed on the wikipedia.

This is the original:

Some of the worst horrors were perpetrated by a vicious Protestant gang dubbed the Shankill Butchers, led by a psychopath named Lenny Murphy

This is Farsight's somewhat meaningless original research, not supported by the references:

Some of the largest attacks were spearheaded by a Protestant gang dubbed the Shankill Butchers, led by a man named Lenny Murphy,

Farsight seems to think that 'worst horrors' - denoting a high degree of violence - equals 'large attacks'. It does not, therefore his modification represents original research and/or muddled thinking. 'Vicious' is also an ordinary English adjective denoting that the Shankill Butcher's had a propensity for violence as demonstrated by their torturing people to death. All the sources state that they were vicious, none state that they kindly. It is a violation of common sense to state that a gang who tortures people is not vicious, as is stated by all the sources. 'Vicious' is just an adjective denoting a quality like, say, 'bald', or 'hairy' or whatever. We are here to tell the truth as represented in the sources using ordinary English language, not to obfuscate or censor. 'Psychopath' is also a descriptive word used by the sources to describe Murphy's state of mind and peculiar personality. He was not your ordinary sort of person, not your ordinary sort of terrorist and not your ordinary sort of murderer. 'Psychopath' is used by the sources as a descriptive term, not a form of meaningless abuse.

• I am new to this page but it seems to me that in the light of the reference and other verifiable information the changing of the wording by Farsight001 is wrong. It is not OR just plain wrong and should simply be reverted. 'Vicious' is clearly justified by the verifiable facts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Farsight has also repeatedly attacked me personally, calling me a vandal. Rather than argue about the issues he has just asserted that he knows what wikipedia policy is, even though his total ignorance of this part of wikipedia policy demonstrates that he doesn't:

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism—it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful attention may need to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism."

If Farsight knew what wikipedia policy then he would know that it is wrong to repeatedly call a good faith editor a vandal. Therefore his assertions that he knows what wikipedia policy are, are just bluff. Colin4C (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

or I know wiki policy and don't think you're a good faith editor.Farsight001 (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have edited to use as much as possible the same wording as the source, which should hopefully be uncontroversial. "Horrors" does not appear in the BBC source given, so I have removed it. "Psychopath" does, though as an attributed description rather than a clinical fact, so I have given it as such. The attacks are described neither as "the worst" nor as "the largest", but as "savage", so I have described them as such. TSP (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm happy with that. Colin4C (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? edits to the section in question are supposed to be suspended while an RfC is going on. I'm reverting because of this. You both need to check up on what an RfC is for. NO EDITS while the RfC is in play. It was an improvement, but still blatantly pov. Farsight001 (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits. Please stop trolling. I have looked at your edit history...you may fool some idiots with your bluffing but not me I'm afraid. Colin4C (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not me you have to worry about, or did you miss the part where admins warned you against this behavior already? I'll just say goodbye now. Enjoy your vacation from wikipedia. I'll leave you pov-pushing in the article for now and just fix it later. Farsight001 (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anywhere where it states that editing should be suspended while the RFC goes on - could you point me to the policy in question? I wasn't actually aware of the RFC until after I'd edited - this page has been on my watchlist for ages, I noted an alteration between two versions, each with issues, and edited to conform to the cited source as well as possible. Perhaps you could identify your problems with the version I proposed? TSP (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that it is common sense to suspend editing during an Rfc because it denotes a dispute, and when there is a dispute between two versions, people should not be editing before discussion is complete and a solution reached. If you truly did not know about the rfc, then I apologize for being short with you. Your edit was fine in places. For example "who was described as a psychopath and a sadist" expresses it as an opinion of the source and not a fact, thus is fine. I might stick it in quotes though. The other additions are also better, but I still feel as though they carry a negative connotation. We present the sources, but in a neutral way. Let the facts tell readers that these people were sick and twisted, and don't make that conclusion for them, you know? Farsight001 (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Responses to RFc

This article seems mainly to be about reactions to Catholic doctrine. The separation between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland arose out of a doctrinal position that is outlined earlier in the article. The partition of Ireland resulted in a Unionist majority in Northern Ireland, and to discrimination against Catholics. The troubles began as a reaction to this discrimination, and were exacerbated by the IRA restarting an armed struggle after a period of peace. The troubles arose out of the oppression of Catholics, and this generated a reaction by the so-called loyalists. Nevertheless, I do not think that many of the particpants were practising Catholics or practising Protestants. Rather, these were labels used by two tribes, each seeking to dominate the otehr by force. While the protestant para-militaries were against Catholics, and thus anti-catholic, they were expressing a theological position (which is what this article should be about), but participating in a tribal war. This war (like many civil wars) involved atrocities by both sides.

I do not think this article is the right place to set out in detail the events of the troubles. I am sure that there will be article elsewhere dealing with them. It should be sufficient to describe the events in general terms, dealing with both sides did, with a "main" template linking to a more detailed article elsewhere. The Shankill Butchers may be the most notorious protestant gang, but the actions of neither side throw much credit on the participants. I do not think it would be appropriate to describe the Catholics as persecuted by the Protestants for their faith in the 1970s and 1980s, any more than vice versa. Note: my POV is that of an English Protestant. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead paragraph of the article states that "Anti-Catholicism is a generic term for discrimination, hostility or prejudice directed at the Roman Catholic Church or its followers. The term also applies to the religious persecution of Catholics." Whether or not those who persecute or display hostility towards Catholics are church going Protestants is not the main issue. I highlighted the Shankill Butchers as an illustration of the more extreme type of sectarian violence directed at the Catholics and as peculiar example of the pathology of anti-Catholicism. The exploits of Murphy and co. were also notable in that they were the subject of a fictionalised feature film entitled 'Resurrection Man'. Representations of anti-Catholicism in such popular culture are my main interest in the subject, vide my contribution to the Gothic fiction article. What amazes me is that the same fictions about the Catholics have been continually recycled for the past 500 years: e.g. perverted priests, world conspiracies, millenarian fantasies derived from the Book of Revelations, and still as ardently believed in the mainstream as ever they were. I.e. Anti-Catholicism is not just a disparate catalogue of unrelated occurences but is historically, thematically and ideologically unified and has got legs. What is most disturbing of all is that some people (like Murphy) are prompted to kill in response to the progaganda. Colin4C (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Multiple admins even have told you that your pov inserting is improper. You do not get to own articles buddy. If the admins tell you you're wrong and you ignore it, you've got a problem. Farsight001 (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Er....:

• 1 As a matter of fact 'multiple admins' have not told me that "pov inserting is improper" - whatever that is meant to mean. I do, however, agree with the wikipedia policy on neutrality. If something is POV it should be changed to NPOV. 'NPOV' does not, however mean censorship or euphemisms or creating an alternative language to English in which certain common English words are not allowed to be used or creating an alternative pretend reality in which certain terrible things or terrible attitudes are not allowed to be mentioned.
• 2 I abide by the concensus, and am willing to accept compromise formulations, as in this case.
• 3 If the admins tell me I'm wrong I do not ignore them. The only prob I have with admins is when they refuse to state in unambiguous terms what exactly wikipedia policy is in particular cases or when they are selective or inconsistent about whom they warn for breaking wikipedia rules. I.e. If edit warring editors A and B both break the wikipedia rules three times each, they should both be warned, not just the one or the other. The wikipedia rules should be applied impartially and consistently IMHO. A non-admin editor's claims to know what wikipedia policy is, I take more sceptically. I.e. I do not accept their claim to know it as sufficient proof. Logically, claiming that something is true is not the same as proving it so. However if a concensus or majority of editors support a particular formulation I will accept it, even if I personally disagree with it.
• 4 I support the wikipedia project against all its detractors. The wikipedia project is the best thing which has happened since Jane Fonda took her clothes off in 'Barbarella' IMHO. Showing his age: Colin4C (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the RfC still open? If not, you should put that it is closed and the outcome. Nickers (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"standard Protestant polemics"

What constitutes a "standard Protestant polemic"? Who determines what is part of the standard? To me, this is a POV term that suggests that there are common Protestant anti-Catholic polemics and ones that are less common. Is this original research or is it established somewhere what the meaning of this phrase is?

Protestantism is so fractured that it is difficult to believe that there is such a thing as "standard anti-Catholic Protestant polemics".

--Richard (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Please use common sense. Colin4C (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes? How would you care to apply common sense to this situation? Does "standard Protestant polemic" mean to imply that there is a standard, common polemic used by all Protestants? Cite your source for this assertion please. --Richard (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

My quibble is entirely around the term "standard". I challenge you to provide a reliable source (i.e. not a Catholic polemicist) who defines what "standard Protestant anti-Catholic polemics" are. Even the Catholic Church is not monolithics. The Protestant denominations are even less so. Yes, there are a number of Protestant denominations who identify the Catholic Church with the Anti-Christ and the Whore of Babylon but these charges are by no means universal to all Protestant denominations.

--Richard (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest "popular" to be used in the place of standard? It seems more neutral, but good luck convincing Colin of that. He seems to think he owns the article.Farsight001 (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Richard owns the article but instead of improving it with positive content, like me, confines his attention to meaningless quibbles about semantics. Colin4C (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Kennedy's Inclusion in this article

I've had another editor revert my citation needed tag after the statement that Kennedy was the only Catholic ever elected to office in the section titled "Acts of U.S. Presidents against Anti-Catholicism". I definitely think that a statement like that needs a citation. On a related note, what difference does the election of a Catholic to the office of President of the United States have to do with Anti-catholicism in the States? Does his religious affilitaion count as an act of a president? Did he convert while in office? Because he was Catholic, did he enact legislation to protect Catholics in the United States? I vote for the deletion of this sentence as it adds nothing to the article that I can see, and I would honestly appreciate any conflicting point of view that can explain it to me. Thanks a bunch Nickers (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason other people keep reverting your citation is that because it is one of those common knowledge facts. But just to please you I added one of hundreds of available references to this fact. As to whether the statement belongs in an article on Anti-Catholicism, that is a different matter. Some believe that the fact that in a nation with so many Catholics that he is the one and only Catholic president that is anti-Catholicism. Marauder40 (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh lord, the "Acts of U.S. Presidents against Anti-Catholicism" section is really not very appropriate. It's just three facts are unrelated except for being "Acts of U.S. Presidents". It's hard to see what point is being made by this collection of trivia. I would support deleting this section entirely.

As for the discussion of John F. Kennedy's presidential campaign, this truly deserves a fuller discussion because his campaign brought into sharp focus the latent anti-Catholicism (or at least paranoia about Catholics in public office) in the U.S. His election to the Presidency showed that it was possible for the American people to put its faith and trust in a Catholic despite significant doubts about his fealty to the Roman Catholic Church. John Kerry's candidacy is important because few people raised the question of his Catholicism disqualifying him from the office of President of the United States. (In fact, it was his stand on abortion which caused the some Catholic bishops to raise the question of whether he should receive communion.) John Kennedy's candidacy could be compared to that of Mitt Romney in 2008. In 2008, there were questions raised about whether Romney's affiliation with the Mormon church would affect his policymaking as President of the United States.

--Richard (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Shankill Butchers

Is there any need to call them anything? They are, after all, the Shankill Butchers, a name which is synonymous with psychopathy and evil. 86.42.71.111 (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

This edit in 2007 introduced substantial text pasted from this March 2000 article. I am in the process of determining where this material may yet remain. Barring verification of permission, this material will need to be removed or revised in accordance with Misplaced Pages's copyright policy. --Moonriddengirl 16:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems that most of the rest of the text had been neutralized within the article, although I attributed one remaining sentence copied verbatim. I do believe the quotes from Martin exceed the allowance of WP:NFC and should be reformulated in accordance with the prohibition there against extensive quotes from copyrighted text. Additional review comparing the article against the identified source would probably be appropriate and appreciated. --Moonriddengirl 17:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The Peace Walls

An editor has removed this section from the article claiming that he walked through Belfast and didn't see any:

"Some forty "Peace walls" built to inhibit sectarian violence, still remain, dividing Protestant and Catholic areas in Belfast and elsewhere in the Province. Despite the achievements of the Northern Ireland peace process and the cessation of paramilitary violence there is no sign that these will be knocked down in the immediate future."

This is strange because I saw at least one of the peace walls on TV last night in a newsreport on the recent resurgence of violence in the Province. The reporter was walking by the side of it, commentating that sectarian enmity persists and that Protestants would not venture into a Catholic enclave and vice-versa. According to the wikipedia the Peace lines still exist. Can any editors here from Northern Ireland confirm the existence or non-existence of the peace walls? This article in yesterday's Daily Telegraph mentions a large concrete peace wall: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/northernireland/4974248/People-of-Northern-Ireland-in-silent-protest.html . A quote from the article says "Less than a mile across Belfast, where the Protestant and Catholic communities come together only through a gate in the concrete "Peace line" wall that divides them, both sides expressed the same sentiments. No one is ready for the wall to come down, but neither do they want to go back to the 30 years of the Troubles." This is in reference to a peace demonstration in reaction to the killings of members of the security forces, within the last week, by the Continuity IRA and the Real IRA. See also http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2008-05-03-1826820552_x.htm fr a report from last year which says that rather than the peace walls being non-existent more ones are being built. Colin4C (talk) 08:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You will still find walls with sectarian pictures on them, but they don't physically divide the communities in the sense of your edit. Yes protestant and catholic areas remain distinct and you know when you are in one or another. However its also simply not true that people will not venture into different areas. It was in the 70s and 80s but not so now, or at least its like any other large city there are areas where its not advisable to walk if you are unfamiliar. If you look at Peace lines you will see that it references the fact that the remnants of peace walls are now tourist attractions.

I also think by the way that expanding on the gory details recent films (your over night edit) was excessive. I was going to comment here rather than simply reverse however. --Snowded (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this quote from the article untrue then, which mentions a unionist and a nationalist side to the wall?:

"Walking along the unionist side of the wall, not far from the Shankill Road, Joel Coard, 51, said: "I remember it when I was a kid, it was chaos. There were shootings and bombings all the time and you couldn't go out at night.

"We can't go back to that."

Liam Savage, 18, shopping not far from the nationalist Falls Road on the other side of the wall, said: "I don't think they will let this go, they are all still active over there, but we don't want this."

In your edit summary, justufying your deletions you said that "I didn't see any walking through belfast a few weeks ago". What did you mean by that comment? Is your not seeing the peace walls proof that they don't exist or that they are not relevent? If so please provide refs. Colin4C (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Walls still exist and the communities are still separate in many areas and they haven't been pulled down. However you can walk between the areas, they are not closed at night and they are also seen as tourist attractions. A couple of weeks ago I walked from the Falls Road to a protestant area without molestation and with no physical barrier in any way preventing my progress. I saw the wall murals, I saw high walls, but nothing like the situation a decade or so ago. The edit is misleading, you might want to propose something that reflects the reality expressed by Joel Coard in your quote. Aside from that its arguable about how relevant this is to anti-catholicism per se. The words I deleted do not reflect the citations you have given

You didn't answer on the "gory detail" point by the way --Snowded (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself. In your edit summary you said "I didn't see any walking through belfast a few weeks ago". Now you are saying that you did see some. Your editorial summary was thererfore misleading. And anyhow what relevence has your walk through Belfast to deleting stuff from the article? Please note that your personal POV has no relevence here. Are you saying that the walls are not there to inhibit sectarian violence between Catholic and Protestant communities but are there for some other reason? Is the predominance of Catholic and Protestant communties on respective sides of the walls merely fortuitous? Please provide refs which refute this statement that the Catholic and Protestant communities are divided by a peace wall, from yesterday's Telegraph: "Less than a mile across Belfast, where the Protestant and Catholic communities come together only through a gate in the concrete "Peace line" wall that divides them." If they are just tourist attractions why were more being built only last year? Colin4C (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please learn to use indents properly (I have made the change for you). The edit I deleted implied there were permanent barriers between the two communities and lacked context (hence my comment when I deleted it). It did not match the material in your own citations and the edit was in consequence misleading. It may also be inappropriate to this article which is meant to be about anti-catholicism, not to record the details of a divide which is as much political as it is religious. Also you have not answered my point about "gory details". I would be grateful if you would, I can't see the case for those additions and unless one is made will revert to the earlier version. --Snowded (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If they are just tourist attractions why were more being built only last year?: Despite peace, Belfast walls are growing in size and number says this article from last year at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2008-05-03-1826820552_x.htm fr The article suggests that the walls are being built to inhibit sectarian violence not to provide more tourist attractions. Colin4C (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read your USA Today (a well know reliable source of facts on Northern Ireland) article in full and you might then see the point I am making about context. --Snowded (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If they are just tourist attractions why were more being built only last year?: Despite peace, Belfast walls are growing in size and number says this article from last year at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2008-05-03-1826820552_x.htm fr The article suggests that the walls are being built to inhibit sectarian violence not to provide more tourist attractions. What parts of this statement do you dispute?:

"Some forty "Peace walls" built to inhibit sectarian violence, still remain, dividing Protestant and Catholic areas in Belfast and elsewhere in the Province."

Do you dispute the number, the purpose, or the division of areas into Protestant and Catholic? Please give refs rather than your personal POV. I am not sure where you are coming from as to the purpose of the walls. The refs say it is to inhibit sectarian violence between Protestant and Catholic communities on either side of them. Do you think they are built for another reason? If so please provide refs. Colin4C (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC) ⬅I am getting very bored with (i) your inability to use indents properly (ii) your failure to listen to the argument that the wording does not match your citations and(iii) may be inappropriate for this article anyway. Throwing out a POV accusation is no substitute for argument and I think your two recent edits to this article both provide unnecessary material. Either way let me make my argument clear:

1. The Peace Walls do remain but they are do not prevent movement between communities, they are largely a residue (an historical artefact) of prior conflicts.
2. Communities remain divided in Belfast as they do in other major cities and there are acts of vandalism between them
3. This material is not appropriate to an article on anti-catholicism, it has nothing to do with the subject, extraneous detail

--Snowded (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If they are a residue why were more being built last year? Also, I said nothing about 'movement' but about 'sectarian conflict'. Are you denying that some of the Protestant community are anti-Catholic? The lead of this article mentions sectarian conflict, so the subject is relevent. Colin4C (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course some of the Protestant community is anti-catholic, and its already well covered. --Snowded (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You assert that "they are largely a residue (an historical artefact) of prior conflicts". If that is so, why are more being built? I have provided several refs to back up the deleted text, you have provided none to back up your assertions. Please provide refs. Also note this sentence in the intro:

To this was added the epochal crisis over its spiritual authority represented by the Protestant Reformation giving rise to sectarian conflict, as well as a new wave of anti-Catholicism.

According to the intro sectarian conflict (as per Peace Walls) is relevent to the article.Colin4C (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sectarian conflict is obviously relevant but is well covered. I am not sure a reference to the Peace Walls is appropriate however. If it needs to be there then it needs full context (when they were built, their nature and the changes. You have one sentence in a USA Today article which says that more are being built and for all I (or any other editor) to know if these are really "peace walls" in the 1970s/80s sense or just anti-vandal barriers. Aside from that I think it is completely unnecessary, possibly gratuitous to add it into an article on anti-catholicism. For now we should see what other editors think. --Snowded (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The "peace walls" in Northern Ireland are notable as they are not normal in all towns in all countries. I live in a town in the south of England with a mixed community of Protestant, Catholic etc, but there are no walls dividing members of different religions. Is it really a complete mystery to the local inhabitants of Belfast why the walls are there in or are there many different explanations for them, like in the case of Hadrian's Wall? Perhaps there are folkloric explanations as to why the walls were built, why they continue to be built and why they have not been knocked down? Colin4C (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Peace Walls cut both ways, protecting both sides from attack or unwanted incursions. If it were only one way, to keep out the (peaceloving) but offended against-Catholics, I would agree that it belongs in the article. Kind of "walling out" the Catholics. But it is hard to perceive it in one light only IMO. Student7 (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection if you remove it quickly. I think Colin hoped the watchers would have gone away waiting for a month before attempting to put the material in again. I left one sentence as a compromise, but ... --Snowded (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

So you think that anti-Catholicism and anti-Protestantism cancel each other out? A situation in which there is sectarian division between communities is exactly the same as one in which there is no sectarian division? Belfast divided by "peace walls" between communities is exactly the same as Portsmouth not divided between peace walls? Just because sectarianism cuts both ways does not mean that we should pretend that the situation does not exist or is normal or not worthy of comment. Anti-Protestantism does not cancel out anti-Catholicism, they both exist and are worthy of notice. Note this sentence on sectarianism in the intro: "To this was added the epochal crisis over its spiritual authority represented by the Protestant Reformation giving rise to sectarian conflict, as well as a new wave of anti-Catholicism." Sectarianism is relevent to this article: just because Tweedledum is "just as bad" as Tweedledee does not mean that all references to their disagreement should be censored. A hating B is not cancelled out by B hating A just as much. If somebody says "I hate the Catholics" this statement is not cancelled out by somebody next to him saying "I hate the Protestants" nor is it the same as if they were on friendly terms with each other. Sectarianism is a reality: an important reality, which is not universal, but localised and thus worthy of note where it occurs.Colin4C (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not getting the relevance of Belfast peace walls to an article on anti-Catholicism. The walls were built to offer mutual protection/assurance to communities in Belfast during the Troubles. Any relevance that anti-Catholicism has is only tangential. Mooretwin (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If the walls were perceived as anti-Catholic, one would expect the pope to say something to the English Ambassador. While the pope may pray for peace and the disappearance of the walls, he hasn't mentioned anything about English bigotry in erecting them as I recall.

It seems to me that the walls are necessary to protect neighborhoods where bunches of thugs are about to shoot or bomb each other. Not much about religion here IMO. I don't see the thugs on either side as forming the core of anybody's congregation. Student7 (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I never thought I would say this,but I agree with Mooretwin. The peace walls are nothing to do with anti-catholicism. I have no idea what Colin4C is arguing in the A hating B etc. posting. --Snowded (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me spell it out. Violence between Catholic and Protestant communities is known as sectarian conflict. Sectarian conflict, in the case of Northern Ireland, involves anti-Catholicism on the one side and anti-Protestantism on the other. One token of this sectarian division are the peace walls. Other tokens of are exclusive Protestant and Catholic schools in the Province. Anti-Catholicism is a very important factor in this situation. Also, where in the article does it say that the walls are anti-Catholic? That is an absurd twist. The walls are there because of the sectarian division: which includes anti-Catholicism as an essential component. Please read extract carefully and note that it does not make the absurd claim that the walls are anti-Catholic! : "Some forty "Peace walls" built to inhibit sectarian violence, still remain, dividing Protestant and Catholic areas in Belfast and elsewhere in the Province. Despite the achievements of the Northern Ireland peace process and the cessation of paramilitary violence there is no sign that these will be knocked down in the immediate future." The walls are there to seperate the communities not to enclose the Catholics in a ghetto!! Nobody has ever claimed this and this is NOT stated in the article. Colin4C (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism

Editors, please do not remove referenced relevent material on anti-Catholicism from article without an adequate explanation. Please note that offending your personal POV is not an adequate reason for removing referenced relevent material on anti-Catholicism.Colin4C (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"relevance" of your additions is disputed, please also note WP:AGF and realise that other editors may disagree with you --Snowded (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete relevent referenced material without discussion. Disagreeing is not enough. Please give your reasons with references. Colin4C (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The level of detail you are adding is excessive and adds nothing. It is not a question of references, its a question of relevance. You could add in a full plot description and it would be referenced. Also you are adding the material, so if the addition is disputed by another editor you should make the case here first. I suggest that you self revert. At the very least please explain here why you think the additional detail is necessary. --Snowded (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Details are what go to make truth in an encyclopedia. That is why I include them when I write articles for hard copy encyclopedias for the OUP and CUP. The wikipedia is an encyclopedia not the standard thoughtless tabloid exercise in sound bites, propaganda, censorship and wishful thinking. Please give referenced information as to the rationale of your objections. All that I have stated is true and relevent to the subject. It may be "shocking" but it is not censored, it is not a sound bite and it is not POV pushing. Burying your head in the sand, air-brushing unpleasant realities and wishing that reality was something entirely different to what it in fact is, is not good academic practice but rather the theory and practice of Stalinism. Colin4C (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You really need to get a grip on your POV accusations. You are now in clear breech of WP:AGF accusing people who disagree with you of air brushing and Stalinism. It is also not good academic practice to include unnecessary material (I have just rejected two articles for major journals on that basis alone). The issue is whether the additional material you added is appropriate or not. Its not a question of references or not. If you read the above you will see that I am not arguing that your material on the films is wrong, but that the level of detail you are going to adds nothing to the facts and borders on sensationalism.

Given that you are proposing a change (I notice you lack the common decency to reverse while a discussion is taking place) the onus is on you to make the case as to why this addition data is necessary, how does it add meaning. So please calm down, stop accusing people who have the temerity to disagree with you with crude labels and instead address the question. --Snowded (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• The book, and thus the film were denounced by the family of the writer of the Magdelene Laundry, see here . Many women have come out on television and refuted the picture the book painted, though the book and the film are still quoted by some sections of the media. This material is suspect, and should be used sparingly, if at all. PurpleA (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly the point. As my reference Kelly says the sensationalism of the film and O'Beirne's book is an exemplification of anti-Catholicism. That they are they are fictional/fraudulent/suspect is the whole point, like the Maria Monk allegations repeated at great length earlier in the article:

"Such gothic fiction may have inspired Rebecca Reed's Six Months in a Convent which describes her alleged captivity by an Ursuline order near Boston in 1832. Her claims inspired an angry mob to burn down the convent, and her narrative, released three years later as the rioters were tried, famously sold 200,000 copies in one month. Reed's book was soon followed by another bestselling fraudulent exposé, Awful Disclosures of the Hotel-Dieu Nunnery, (1836) in which Maria Monk claimed that the convent served as a harem for Catholic priests, and that any resulting children were murdered after baptism. Col. William Stone, a New York city newspaper editor, along with a team of Protestant investigators, made inquiry into the claims of Monk, inspecting the convent in the process. Col. Stone's investigation concluded there was no evidence that Maria Monk "had ever been within the walls of the cloister".

Reed's book became a best-seller, and Monk or her handlers hoped to cash in on the evident market for anti-Catholic horror fiction by their offering. The tale of Maria Monk was, in fact, clearly modelled on the Gothic novels that were popular in the early 19th century, a literary genre that had already been used for anti-Catholic sentiments in works such as Matthew Lewis' The Monk. Monk's story explores the genre-defining elements of a young, innocent woman being trapped in a remote, old, and gloomily picturesque estate; she learns the dark secrets the place contains, and after harrowing adventures makes her escape

The whole point is that these are untrue/dubious/exaggerated anti-Catholic fantasies. They are an exemplification of anti-Catholicism not an espousal of it. E.g. reporting that "X believes that the Pope is the Anti-Christ" is not to endorse the sentiments of X but to exemplify them. Colin4C (talk) 08:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

⬅ However, despite all of that the level of detail is excessive and inappropriate. The material is referenced that is enough. Create a new article on the above (all sounds interesting) and pipelink it --Snowded (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who haven't had a chance to judge for themselves what is "excessive" and "inappropriate" here is the disputed paragraph:

"Lately sexual abuse by priests and nuns has been highlighted in such films as The Magdalene Sisters (2002). This fictional portrayal of an Irish Magdalene laundry features abusive nuns, who, inter alia, parade their charges stark naked, and a perverted and devious priest who silences one of his victims of lust by having her incarcerated in a mental asylum. Similar squalid details of sexual abuse by the religous orders are provided in the bestselling Kathy's Story (2005) by Kathy O'Beirne. However, in Kathy's Real Story (2007) by Hermann Kelly, it is claimed that this work, also, is largely fictitious. Kelly alleges that false allegations against the priesthood are being fueled by a government compensation scheme for victims and compares O'Beirne's book to that of Maria Monk in the nineteenth century."

Please note the stress that the film is fictitious and that O'Beirne's allegations are almost certainly fraudulent. To report is not to endorse. See also the comparison with the (fictious and fruadulent) disclosures of Maria Monk of the nineteenth century. That the film is way over-the-top is the point my source (Kelly) is trying to make. It is not documentary realism but a seeming fantasy populated by perverted preists, naughty nuns etc as per the standard anti-Catholic polemics of the past 5 centuries. They are thus relevent to anti-Catholicism and feed the world view of anti-Catholics, according to Kelly. Colin4C (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, will you please stop altering format of my messages on this talk page so as to obscure indent of quote. By doing this you are confusing my comments with the quote. Please do not do this again. Also your message summary "please stop edit warring and engage on the talk page" is misleading as I wrote comments on the talk page before restoring edit. Colin4C (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Colin4C (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Colin at the moment you put comments in with multiple indents and its impossible to follow the thread. If you want the quote indended as well then its easy - I've done it for you again above so you have an example. You seem to use colons in random combinations.

You also need to learn that placing a comment on the talk page is not the same thing as gaining consensus. If an edit is disputed, then you each consensus on the talk page BEFORE reverting. By failing to do that you were edit warring and were about to breech the 3rr ruling something that can earn you a ban.

Finally on your comments above, you have not addressed the question about the necessity of the level of detail you propose. I think its excessive and inappropriate. The material is referenced and liked in a short paragraph which is more than enough --Snowded (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If I make up a story that "Colin4C beats his mother for beer money" and I go on to elaborate at great lengths on this story, chances are that editors, skimming this material will remember not that I made up the story, but that "you beat your mother" which is totally fictional. In other words, elaboration of a fiction results in perpetration of the fiction. Student7 (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

So, you think that the fraudulent assertion that the Pope is the anti-Christ should be deleted it from this article, because just to mention it is to endorse it? According to your logic this section also should be deleted from the article:

"Many Protestant reformers, including Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer, John Knox, Cotton Mather, and John Wesley, identified the Roman Papacy as the Antichrist".

Your comment "please stop edit warring and engage on the talk page" is misleading because I DID engage on the talk-page. This is simple logic. If someone is walking on the pavement it is misleading to state that they were walking on the road. If you are wearing a tie, it is wrong for you to ejected from the night-club for 'not wearing a tie'. If one engages on the talk page it is misleading to assert that one is not engaging on the talk page. If words bear no relation to reality they are just meaningless. My latest edit summary says "restored referenced material on anti-Catholicism. See Talk." By this is meant that I engaged with the discussion here in Talk before I restored the referenced, relevent material on anti-Catholicism. That is what the phrase "See Talk" means. Colin4C (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't just engage on the talk page and then reinstate material when you have not gained consensus here. If you are unhappy with the position on the talk page then take it dispute resolution or request a review. Reinstatement is edit warring. --Snowded (talk) 09:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, you guys have been edit-warring over the last 10 days with Colin4C coming right up to the WP:3RR threshold on March 18 (24 hours between first and third revert). Now that was 9 days ago so I'm not going to do anything about it now except to issue this warning: WP:3RR does NOT entitle you to 3 reverts a day. Here's what the policy says:

The three-revert rule limits edit warring. It does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Disruptive editors who do not violate the rule may still receive a block for edit warring, especially if they attempt to game the system by reverting a page. Administrators take previous blocks for edit warring into account, and may block users solely for disruptive edit warring.

Don't "game the system". Consider using WP:1RR or WP:0RR instead. I prefer the WP:BRD model. If someone reverts you, take it to the Talk Page immediately instead of reverting their revert.

That said, let me weigh in on the content dispute. I think Colin4C's text is not outside the range of acceptable text but I think Snowded's version is better. The details of the film are not necessary in this article. This article is not a review of the film.

The principle I like to use goes like this:

1. Just because it's sourced doesn't mean it's relevant
2. Just because it's relevant doesn't mean it belongs in this particular spot in this particular article

The detail that Colin4C wants to insert is unnecessary. This is a problem that already exists in other parts of this article.

I would suggest that this article is not improved by being made longer with more and more descriptions of specific instances of anti-Catholicism. We need to help the reader see the forest rather than pointing out more and more individual trees.

Finally, I would suggest that we should reconsider the phrasing of the sentence "Lately sexual abuse by representatives of the Catholic church has been highlighted in such films as..." This is wording that I would expect if the films that followed were documentaries. The problem arises from the use of the word "highlighted". I don't have time right now to come up with a good alternative phrasing but I highlight this issue for us to consider. Maybe one of you can suggest something.

--Richard (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually Richard its not my wording, its the original text before Colin decided to change it. I've simply tried to get Colin to reach agreement here, rather than talk on the talk page and then revert his original material. I'm happy with the current text, open to amendments that don't sensationalise or add excessive detail. --Snowded (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, I didn't mean to imply that it was your wording. I actually had assumed it was Colin4C's. Regardless of who wrote it, my problem with the current text is that "highlighted" implies that it is appropriate to draw attention to the thing being highlighted. I am thinking that a word like "distorted" would be more appropriate. I'm looking for a word that implies that the films are drawing attention to something that does not warrant such attention. Perhaps "sensationalized" would be a good choice. --Richard (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think sensationalised would be the best choice. Distorted would be vulnerable to an accusation of POV. I've just realised you were the original editor on this one by the way! --Snowded (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please address the issues rather than misrepresenting the contributions of individual editors. Colin4C (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Out of context quote by Richard Dawkins

The "Modern anti-Catholic polemics" section quotes the The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins as saying that "horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place". This is blatantly out of context, as Dawkins states in the next sentence that "it was an off-the-cuff remark made in the heat of the moment". — Hyperdeath 12:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• C-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• C-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• C-Class Catholicism articles
• Mid-importance Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics