Talk:Richard Williamson (bishop)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Templated text

I disagree with the reversion to a templated version of the text. The other version, is personalized and better sourced, using independent sources. The reasoning given in the edit summary, that the text is used on parallel pages does not seem to be an adequate reason for using it here. What is the advantage of templated text is any case? I am an experienced editor and even finding the text caused great difficulty, and makes/made improving the article very difficult if not impossible for the uninitiated. I'd like to hear some very good reasons for why this is necessary or desirable.--Slp1 (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There are apparently three comparable articles, and the events in this section are the same for all of them. Any sources that should be added to one should be added to all - which templated text handles in one edit. You claim to have "personalized" the text, but it's not evident how, so templated text seems quite adequate. The template was here until you removed it from this article only, leaving it in the other three articles. Gimmetrow 18:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This was the article I wanted to work on, and so this the one I sourced and referenced. My choice. It may be to you that the templated version is quite adequate but you haven't addressed the points that the reversion deletes improved sourcing and reinstates impediments to future edits in the article. What is the advantage of this template rather than having the text directly in the article? It is clever, but what is the point? --Slp1 (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is that it keeps this part of the content of the articles in sync. Again, if you think something was an improvement - do it in the common text for all the articles. Gimmetrow 19:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is it important to keep the content of the articles in sync? Why is this an advantage? There might easily be material that should be usefully related to one article and not another, such as the individual's reaction to the excommunication. Why prevent this from happening by insisting that all the articles be the same for this section? And once again, WP is supposed to be the encyclopedia anybody can edit, not just those who can figure out how to find texts that are there but not there. --Slp1 (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If you prefer that sections covering identical material be treated in different and even contradictory ways, I think we'll have to disagree. However, there is nothing that prevents individual material from being added to the article while maintaining synchronized presentation of identical material. Gimmetrow 04:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'd prefer if you didn't put words in my mouth, words I did not say or imply. Instead perhaps you explain more clearly why it is desirable or necessary that the articles about different people be identical and synchronized in this way, and why it is preferable to make it difficult for people to edit and add new material? Is it is possible to interleave information specifically about Williamson within the text of the template? If not, the template really cramps the editing possibilities, doesn't it? There are many events that are repeated in slightly different versions in different articles. Why is this undesirable? Can you point to any other article about living people where this method is working well? --Slp1 (talk) 05:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible to interleave information specifically about one variant. Perhaps you could explain more clearly why it is desireable or necessary to that sections which summarize the same event, containing no personal information, should be treated substantially differently? (Note also that {{Sync}} is a cleanup template associated with WP:Summary style.) Gimmetrow 05:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

Clarification re this oft repeated edit [1]. The problems with this are related to unverifiability.

• The Windsor Star article cited does not contain the material claimed.
• The blog cited [2] is not a reliable source, most particularly for a BLP article. --Slp1 (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Latest controversial remarks: "the killing of Jesus was truly 'deicide' " and " "only the Jews (leaders and people) were the prime agents of the deicide..."

I suspect that this will need consideration for inclusion in the article: [3].

Yes, it seems to have gotten a lot of attention.[4] From what I can tell, Williamson's website does not have an online public archive. A copy of the original essay is here,[5] but I'm not sure if it's an authorized copy.   Will Beback  talk  03:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent Dates

"[Williamson] was received into the Catholic Church in 1971" but "became a member of...a traditionalist Catholic faction...in 1970". How does that work? --MosheA (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The SSPX was founded in 1970, which is what the text says. If you want to clarify it by rearranging some words I'm sure that would be fine. Elizium23 (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Six million Jews

The whole point of Holocaust deniers is to state that six million Jews were not killed by the Nazis. It is ambiguous however, to leave that out of the statement. Furthermore, as I've been reminded dozens of times, Wiki is not necessarily about truth, but about the source, and the article that is quoted states that Williamson denies that six million Jews were killed, but rather 200,000 to 300,000. Therefore, to leave that out, would be a misleading rephrasing of the sourced article.Sposer (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the best way to deal with this is to directly quote his exact words in a blockquote, then there can be no, ok there may be less, argument. – ukexpat (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think quoting his exact words are a reasonable solution, if others agree, suggest someone makes the edit. In the meantime, I have removed part of the sentences that follows it as an obvious case of synthesis, putting two sources together to make a separate point. Just one of the multiple other problems that have crept into this article.--Slp1 (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It's the source

The Irish Times writes, "... in which he denied that six million Jews had died in Nazi concentration camps. According to Bishop Williamson, the true figure was 200-300,000 Jews." However, that is not a verbatim quote. From this article we do not really know his exact words. Did he mean to say that six million Jews did not perish in the Holocaust? If yes, how did he say it – in those words or inexactly, using "concentration camps" when he meant "Holocaust"? Was he making a technical point about the distinction between "concentration camps" and "extermination camps" (I would consider that unlikely but not out of the question)? We may not turn the passage from the Irish Times into a direct quote. Need to go to the Swedish TV interview and find a verbatim transcript. Do we even need the Irish Times article at all? --Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the exact quote from the LA Times [6] and The Guardian [7]. Personally, I think it is highly likely that he mispoke; I agree with the IP that the current version is misleading: it is not clear that it is Williamson's error regarding concentration camps that we are quoting. Either the reference to the camps should be removed or the full quote cited to one of the two papers above . --Slp1 (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is another quote from him. Also the exact quote referred to above was apparently in response to the question of whether six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust (but I do not have a transcript):"I believe there were no gas chambers. I believe that the historical evidence is hugely against six million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler." Any attempt to leave open that he misspoke is an attempt to whitewash what he stands for. To date, he has not recanted anything. Sposer (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I just took a quick gander at the actual interview. First he gives the statement I quoted in detail above, that six million did not die via deliberate policy. Then he states there were no gas chambers. Then he states that the evidence says 200-300K died in concentration camps, but there were no gas chambers. Pretty straight forward. All in a row from the same interview on Swedish TV. Therefore, nothing is taken out of context by what is there now.Sposer (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are misunderstanding me. I was responding to Goodmorningworld's suggestion that he may have said concentration camps when he meant Holocaust. I don't think anybody claims that 6 million were gassed in concentration camps; that's usually the total given for all jewish deaths. Our own article says about 3.8 million died in the camps. Either he mispoke camps for Holocaust, or he was setting up a straw man, or he is ignorant. Whichever, quoting him directly is not whitewashing anything, it is being precise and avoiding confusing.--Slp1 (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually think we're on the same page here, or very nearly so.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Slp1, I think we are on the same page. However, Williamson denies that six million died due to Hitler's policies, regardless and he says that maybe 200K-300K died in concentration camps. He says six million, in another quote (don't know from where) is, "lies, lies, lies". Jews (and others) were shot, worked to death, and starved, due to the Nazi policies, and he is denying the number in general. He is a classic Holocaust denier and attempts to use double talk when called on it.Sposer (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that he is not a Holocaust denier. In fact, if you check the archives, you will find that prior to this most recent episode which has made finding reliable sources about his denial etc very easy to find, I went to a considerable amount of research from non-web archives to find reliable, quality sources that showed that he was. I can't help thinking that if only the Pope or one of his minions had checked the WP article before removing the excommunication a lot of grief would have been avoided! But the sentence as currently written is confusing and misleading. We can be clear about his holocaust denial without the need for this.--Slp1 (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you simply cut the 200 000 to 300 000 sentence from the article ? There is an obvious problem with that quote: It is almost right that 200 000 jews died in concentration camps. Williamson denies gas chambers and by doing this denies that 2,7 m jews died in extermination camps. Focus should be put on this rather on numbers. The "200,000 to 300,000 quote is ambiguous, the gas chamber denial is not. 88.166.140.196 (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

88.166.140.196,One cannot take these things out of context. Williamson is setting up a straw man. Nobody says that six million Jews were killed in the gas chambers. He is saying that "only" 200,000-300,000 Jews died in the concentration camps, and that there were no gas chambers. He says six million Jews did not die period. He said in 1989 that it is "Lies, lies, lies" and that the six million number was made up so Jews could have Israel. To try and defend or suggest that he was not saying that the total limit of the deaths was 200-300K is exactly the kind of straw man that Holocaust denier use to get out of trouble with the law. Sorry, but removing any part of the quote effectively is defending Williamson.Sposer (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I presume you mean it is nearly correct that 200-300 thousand died in camps from causes other than the gas chamber? I have some sympathy for what you say, but the quote has been repeated multiple times, and so seems significant enough for inclusion. I am going to try something to resolve this. See what you think in a minute.--Slp1 (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, the site is just following the actual interview, which you can see in a myriad of places on the web. However, your edits are fine. Sposer (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that site is not a [WP:RS|reliable source]] as far as I can see. Who transcribed the interview? Who checked and verified it? We just don't know. This is a WP:BLP and we must use only the most reliable sources available. "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person" [8]--Slp1 (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Forgot about the BLP guidelines. Not trying to argue with you anyway. Sposer (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the recent edits by Slp1 have improved the article. About this: "During an interview broadcast on Swedish television in January 2009, Williamson denied that the existence of gas chambers or that millions of Jews were murdered by the Nazis:" Where has he been quoted saying the latter part? In the video of the Swedish TV interview on Youtube, I do not hear him make that denial, he only insinuates it without actually saying it. But as a denier in the mold of a David Irving, he must have said that someplace. They all do, eventually. However, until we have an unimpeachable quote we probably can't yet write the part I put in italics.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The exact quote, which I saw on the youtube interview is:I believe that the historical evidence, the historical evidence is strongly against, is, is, hugely against, six million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler." So he creates a strawman argument to make it harder to nail him (i.e., that he only said gas chambers). However, in the past, according to web searches, he said: "There was not one Jew killed in the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies. The Jews created the Holocaust so we would prostrate ourselves on our knees before them and approve of their new State of Israel ... Jews made up the Holocaust, Protestants get their orders from the devil, and the Vatican has sold its soul to liberalism." I don't think there's a need for this additional stuff in the article. Nobody in their right mind denies that he is a Holocaust denier.Sposer (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you can see above (Talk:Richard Williamson (bishop)#Williamson and David Irving photographed together in 2008) I found some damning material that I haven't even tried to work into the Holocaust denial section, since I think it is already too long. Believe we should not aim to cram each and every sourced fact into an article. Williamson's character would be no less clear if the section were cut by a third or even one half.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

To answer GMW; it's in this citation [9]. This is a perfect example of why it is always best to use secondary sources such as books and newspaper articles and not primary sources such as the interview itself (or the transcription). We let others do the analysing and synthesizing and quote them. It is not appropriate for us to discuss or try to determine what he does or does not mean, and to try to prove a point by picking out quotations that we think are important.We are simply summarizing what others say about him. --Slp1 (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"To try and defend or suggest that he was not saying that the total limit of the deaths was 200-300K is exactly the kind of straw man that Holocaust denier use to get out of trouble with the law. Sorry, but removing any part of the quote effectively is defending Williamson."

This reasoning is dubious, childish, and grotesque. To say that millons of jews died in concentration camps is wrong and these kinds of inaccuracies are exactly what h-deniers are looking for and love to call exaggerations or lies; and they would be right to do it in this case. If he negates gas chambers, he negates extermination camps, that's what should be written in this article and is not because some people want this page to be their private playground despite their lack of knowledge.

An unquestionnable fact is that "200 to 300 thousands jews died in concentration camps" can be defended but "there were no gas chambers" can never be. The distortion of historical facts to make a point about something is holocaust deniers methodology. You shouldn't use it to charge Williamson, whatever he has said. You may quote him, but you cannot pretend that millions of jews died in concentration camps or add the misleading "only" before that quote. 88.166.140.196 (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Help me out, please: Slp1 cites the Guardian in which appeared this paragraph:

In an interview with Swedish television last month, Williamson rejected the notion that millions of Jews were killed by the Nazis, or that any died in gas chambers. "I think that 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, but none of them in gas chambers," he said.

Okay. But, if you listen to the interview… (see above). The Guardian interpreted what he said (according to what W. wants people to think) but he did not say those words. So are we going to compound the Guardian's sloppiness by repeating it? As I understand it, while the Guardian is acceptable as a source for articles, it surely cannot be considered the equal of scholarly publications. Note that the interviewer did nail down Williamson on the point of the gas chambers, forcing him to declare himself and go on record as a liar ("no gas chambers"). Perhaps the interviewer should have done likewise for the death toll and so on and so forth, but that would have turned the interview into a tedious interrogation. Is it "original research" not to repeat what a source based on an assumption instead of a fact? I don't think so but I am open to persuasion.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's only sloppy reporting if you can find another equally reliable source saying something different. The Guardian is a very mainstream UK national newspaper and is a highly reliable source for our purposes. The main idea is also repeated by the Jerusalem Post,the CBC and no doubt in other places. If you have scholarly or other reliable sources that contradict that the idea that he has denied that millions were killed do produce them. As WP editors, we generally don't go investigating to find out if reliable sources got it "wrong". That's what reporters and scholars and editorial oversight is for. They gave an analysis and evaluation of what he said, and we can report it. See WP:PSTS for more info.--Slp1 (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. Good luck on finding "scholarly sources", most real scholars don't write about these sorts of issues. Although, Patrick Madrid's book: More Catholic than the Pope might have something worthwhile.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Bishop's vexing beliefs have deep roots Three seminarians in 1980s describe 'offensive' remarks By Michael Paulson

Boston Globe / February 20, 2009

"I have a sizable nose, and he would say to me, 'Rizzo, are you baptized, or are you a Jew?' " John Rizzo, who is now based in New Zealand, said in a phone interview from Australia. "There was another seminarian named Oppenheimer, and he would say: 'Oppenheimer, I don't like your name. If you keep it up, there's a gas chamber waiting for you at the boathouse.' "

"He called the Holocaust the biggest theatrics known to mankind - I remember sitting in a conference one time when he said those words, and I couldn't believe it - he looked around the room and saw the jaws dropping," said Joseph Rizzo. "I walked around the lake with him, and I said, 'Why would you say that?' and he said, 'There's no documentation.' He said it was all staged, and when I asked why, he said because the Jews own the country, they own the banks, and he felt it was some kind of effort to generate some sympathy toward them."

"In 1989, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police investigated the bishop, but did not press charges, after he told an audience in Quebec: "There was not one Jew killed in the gas chamber. It was all lies, lies, lies." He has also questioned whether terrorists were behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacksand has suggested that women should not wear pants."

So apparently when he's taunting people with possible Jewish features or Jewish last names, he believes in gas chambers.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Swedish television interview is a primary source

But that doesn't mean we cannot touch it directly. Thanks to Spl1, who pointed me to this paragraph in WP:PSTS:

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.

We must not interpret what we find in the primary source – but we can give a verbatim quote if not a matter-of-fact description, and I dare say better than the Guardian did. Am I right about this? (Mike, I don't mean to ignore the other sources you introduced just now, I guess I am a bit hung-up over the question of the inaccurate (fact, not interpretation) Guardian article.) --Goodmorningworld (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we can use primary sources. But only with great care, especially as this is a BLP. Secondary sources are always preferred. One of the problems with giving the verbatim quotes you describe, is that editors end up doing original research. Editors cherry pick quotes to make their point for them, points that noone else has thought significant enough to mention in any reliable source. Quote mining can be a serious problem in articles.

But I really am not clear what the basis of your objection is. Why do you think it is inaccurate. It is clear that if he says that only 200-300k Jews died then he is clearly denying the view that millions died as has been generally accepted by scholars. It seems fairly obvious to me, from a logical point of view. While my view is irrelevant, multiple other sources seem to have come to the same conclusion. Perhaps I have misunderstood your point.--Slp1 (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I must have expressed myself badly, sorry. What I meant is, what you think you heard is what Williamson wanted you to hear and moreover, it worked on the Guardian writer as well. Only, when you examine his actual words you realize that he maintained "plausible deniability" because that is not what he in fact said in the TV interview. He said that only 200 to 300,000 Jews died in concentration camps. "Concentration camps", not "extermination camps" and not "the Holocaust". I am 99% sure that this was a deliberate and sneaky maneuver on W's part. But I don't have proof. And if I want to write that he denied the generally accepted by historians figure of roughly six million figure, then I must find a source. The Swedish TV interview (primary source) does not qualify for this and neither do the published secondary sources about the interview IF they misquote him. We do not second guess the interpretations of secondary sources but we have an obligation not to pass on obvious errors of fact in such sources.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree. Editors don't get to decide on what is an error in reliable sources, no matter how certain you personally are that it is one; and this is not an obvious error in any case. Perhaps you are way smarter than the reporters and able to perceive his manoeuvrings much better than they are, but our policy is still verifiability not truth . In any case, there are lots of other sources, not only those related to the interview, that show him as a holocaust denier.--Slp1 (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been an instructive discussion. I will now bow out as I do not believe that I have anything further to contribute.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll give my $0.02...the interview with the Swedish TV was a much toned down version of what he has been saying the past 20 years in sermons, speeches, his own blog, etc. Perhaps he realizes his words are catching up with him and now has a very real fear of a German prison. He tries to downplay one of his most imflammatory speeches toward the beginning, a speech when listened to from beginning to end shows this man for what he is.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I've thought some more about this. What I am about to say is heavily ironical because the subject – Williamson – is one of the least agreeable people about whom articles appear in WP and I truly do not wish to defend him. Nonetheless, we are bound by WP:BLP rules. The interview with Swedish TV was widely reported in the media. Just because one or two media misreported what he said – for example, the Guardian wrongly claiming In an interview with Swedish television last month, Williamson rejected the notion that millions of Jews were killed by the Nazis, or that any died in gas chambers. – does not give us license to republish wrong information. So I am excising the incorrect claim. Do not revert me. If you insist that the wrong information belongs, start an RfC and advertise it widely so that the community at large can weigh in.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I am going to ask that you revert yourself. People like Williamson always try to leave themselves outs, by playing word games. The articles themselves are synthesizing his comments to correctly interpret his lie that not six million Jews died, but rather 200K-300K (not withstanding the other Holocaust deniers here who seem to think that only 200K-300K Jews died/were killed by the Nazis). Ultimately, if you do not revert back, I will have to, because that is what the source says, and it, along with multiple other news sources, correctly interpret Williamson's true belief. Remember the other quote I posted from the 1980s, which says: "There was not one Jew killed in the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies. The Jews created the Holocaust so we would prostrate ourselves on our knees before them and approve of their new State of Israel ... Jews made up the Holocaust, Protestants get their orders from the devil, and the Vatican has sold its soul to liberalism." Although he again uses the gas chamber B.S., he is also saying there is no such thing as the Holocaust, i.e., six million Jews did not die. The reporters were completely and correctly interpreting Williamson's lies.Sposer (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

One or two sources misreported? Really? There's Radio Netherlands,the BBC , The Jerusalem Post, The Sydney Morning HeraldThe Daily Telegraph, Time Magazine, the Ottawa Citizen, the Telegraph again, Associated Press,The Christian Science Monitor and I could go on and on. It seems utterly clear that multiple sources have interpretedhis speech as holocaust denial, including the denial that millions were killed. From what I can see above, it seems that GMW does not have consensus for this edit. I will be tweaking it in a way that I will hope satisfy GMW's scruples. If you still disagree, perhaps you can make the request for comment. --Slp1 (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I can live with it now. What this "discussion" has taught me is that it does not pay on WP to be agreeable, that some editors consistently twist and misrepresent what I say, and that Sposer and Slp1 are going on my personal blacklist. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody misrepresented what you said, GMW. Your edits misrepresent the journalists doing their job, and rather putting words into their mouths, which they clearly did not mean. Our job on Wiki is not to interpret what the journalists said. By changing the quotes, you are providing OR. The journalists (100% correctly) concluded that Williamson denies that millions of Jews died during the Holocaust, given his history of saying exactly that. Even if those exact quotes leave Williamson a weasel out. If following proper Wiki policy, and providing an unbiased article on the subject puts me on your blacklist, then I suggest you create your own research, that you've been posting here, and hope that the Wiki community determines that your research is RS and quotes your article to say that Williamson does not deny that millions of Jews were killed by the Nazis.Sposer (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

WHAT ABOUT YOUTUBE???---It's loaded with clips <removed per WP:BLP> and should be listed under the external heading. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Richard+Williamson&oq=Richard+Williamson&gs_l=youtube.12...1511.8594.0.11228.18.14.0.4.4.0.350.1355.0j3j1j2.6.0...0.0...1ac.1._2rw_kOGXng johncheverly 20:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)johncheverly

References

Please reconcile -- ordination as priest

There is text which says "in 1976 he was ordained a priest by Lefebvre".

But we also have a box which has his ordination as a priest and his consecration as a bishop, and it has 29 June 1984 for the former.

So please reconcile this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Done, in line with cited sources. Esoglou (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Please reconcile

the article refers to the german case being dismissed in 2012; but also says in the introductory paragraph that he was retried and convicted in 2013. these are inconsistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.38.177 (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Done (updated). Esoglou (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

infobox

This article needs an infobox. I could have sworn that there was one at one time.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The term "quashed" sounds very editorial. The article states several times he was "expelled", which seems a better counterpart to "installed" ("removed" would also work), but I can't figure out how to modify it, other than to move the date down to "term_end", which the template renders as "term ended", not quite the same thing. "Quashed" (which is related to "squashed") usually refers to rebellions or legal decisions rather than individuals. I'm not sure why it would be a part of the template. Regardless, it doesn't seem quite the right word here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EoinRiedy (talk • contribs) 03:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You are right. The template does not need a "quashed" line. Williamson's term as "Bishop of the Society of St. Pius X" ended on that date. Esoglou (talk) 07:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Bishop?

Why does the article refer to Williamson as a "bishop", linking to the article on bishops in the Roman Catholic church. Williamson is not a bishop in the Catholic, nor has he ever been. He is currently not even a member of the Catholic church. Portraying him as a Catholic bishop, traditionalist or not, is not only WP:POV, it's outright false.Jeppiz (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It says that he is a "self-styled" bishop in the first sentence. Much as it might make the Bishop of Rome happy to have the word struck, out of neutrality we cannot use his church as the authority on who is an is not legitimately identified as a bishop. Mangoe (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If he's not a bishop as recognised by the church hierarchy, then he's very much a self-styled bishop. Either that or I'm a bishop too. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Nomoskedasticity and disagree most strongly with Mangoe. Of course the church in which a person claiming to be bishop is the authority on who is a bishop or not. Like Williamson, I'm not a member of the Catholic church. If I started claiming to be a Catholic bishop, nobody would take it seriously. Williamson does not even belong to a church, and no church has recognised his claim to be a bishop.Jeppiz (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

No, not "either that". Who laid hands on you and consecrated you, Nomoskedasticity? Look, I would question his authority too, and I'm not even Catholic. But it's not true that he just up and named himself bishop. Lefevre did.

Perhaps the better solution is try to construct a sentence that avoids the "is an X bishop" phraseology. I'm not happy with the "traditionalist Catholic" label either but thus far I haven't come up with an obvious replacement. Mangoe (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, he's not a member of the Catholic church, which is why we cannot say that he's a Catholic bishop, either directly or indirectly. And being called "bishop" without belonging to any church, or being recognized as bishop by any church, is a bit of a stretch, it seems.Jeppiz (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually he is a Catholic bishop, in the sense that he was ordained a bishop validly, though illegitimately. The Catholic Church makes a distinction between having the powers of Holy Orders and having the authority to exercise them. Williamsom obviously doesn't have the authority to exercise his orders. Gazzster (talk) 06:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Second excommunication?

I realise that this excommunication issue is a sore point for many interested in the issue, but really there is no doubt about the matter. In the first instance (1988) the Vatican declared that he was excommunicated by virtue of canon law, having allowed himself to be consecrated a bishop without a mandate. Regardless of how this act might be interpreted as being in good faith or not, Wikipedia needs to report that he was excommunicated. The Vatican declared him so. We report that, and leave alone any theological interpretation. Again, when Williamson consecrates without a mandate, after his excommunication was lifted, he is excommunicated again by that same law. We can infer nothing from the silence of the Vatican. However other sources affirm the fact, including The Catholic Herald , The Catholic News Agency and The National Catholic Register .Gazzster (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to add your sources. I've rolled back the latest edit as it was poorly sourced (unofficial SSPX blog). Elizium23 (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Richard Williamson (bishop). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000226.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090207073647/http://abcnews.go.com:80/International/wireStory?id=6761484 to http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=6761484

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)