Talk:Mario Conti

August 2006

"to speak out against institutionalised anti-Catholic bigotry"

This isn't NPOV, perhaps "alleged" in front of it might make it a little more encyclopaedic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benson85 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I don't believe there is institutionalised bigotry against Catholics.

Similarly, it is fatuous to talk about "equal rights for homosexuals". All people are equal in front of UK law, there are no pieces of legislation that discriminate either against people who have SSA or who perform homosexual acts. WP can't be allowed to be hijacked like this. Ros Power 15:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ros Power would appear to have a POV perspective on the content in this article that relates to the Archbishops views on LGBT equality and how this contrasts with his views on anti-catholic discrimination. This contrast has been commented on in the Scottish press and thus fits within an article on the Archbishop. If anyone wishes to debate the nature of LGBT equality in Scotland then this is not the place to do it.--Sjharte 15:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ros Power's POV perspective does seem to be clouding her edits. That Mario Conti has protested, as is his right, against the LGBT legislation is a matter of public record and it is plain daft to edit the article to say otherwise. SameDifference 16:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Equal rights

Yes, my edit history, of course, shows my attempts to correct similar distortions. Similarly, your contributions reflect your agendas.

Irrelevant. You cannot use the term "equal rights" so flagrantly. Homosexuals have every right, the same rights under law as every last person in the UK. None are denied to them. They can marry, drive cars, vote, stand for parliament. This is an encylopaedia. The ball is in YOUR court. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ros_Power (talk • contribs)

While Ros Power is certainly entitled to hold such views, WP is not the forum to disseminate them. As s/he does not appear open to calm debate, might I suggest that those of us interested in maintaining this article simply pop by now and then to keep it running smoothly? SameDifference 08:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Your ad hominems are telling. Until you explain what rights homosexuals don't have I'm going to keep reverting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ros_Power (talk • contribs)

Please sign your messages. I have asked for unbiased, third party advice. In the meantime, as yours is the minority view amongst the current editors of this article, please show goodwill by not altering the original content of the article. SameDifference 18:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What's majority view got to do with anything? What matters is accuracy. Homosexuals, like everybody else in the UK, are equal in the eyes of the law. You can't just go around saying that a country deprives people of equal rights. That's slander. Ros Power 09:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ros Power: While I do not tar Conti with the same brush, your non-sequitur argument is the same as saying 'black people have full equal rights therefore White Power organisations do not oppose such rights". Gay people do have equal rights *now* (note emphasis!) That Conti has opposed (and continues to do so) the introduction of the rights is demonstrably true. To repeat: he has opposed the introduciton of such rights, there is evidence to show so (indeed it is linked to within the article) and repeatedly editing the article to imply otherwise is in accurate, time-wasting and gives the (I assume false) impression that you have an axe to grind. Please, as friendly advice, do stop, otherwise I can see trouble ahead. :-( Chris Lost Garden 12:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

They always had equal rights Chris, now they have special rights. I'll rephrase. What rights have ever been deprived homosexuals in the UK?Ros Power

Ros: I know a straw man when I see one! I also recognise ultra-conservative rhetoric when I see it. I refer you back to the clear point I made before and I repeat my request that you stop wasting the time of other editors with repeated rvs. Please also remember to sign in and provide reasons in the Edit Summary when making edits. Lost Garden 15:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Words like "ultra-conservative rhetoric" are irrelevant. What is relevant are the facts. Nobody has yet been able to cite a single example of homosexuals, practising or otherwise, being deprived of equal rights in the UK, ever. Right beneath this edit box are the words "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. " Ros Power 20:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk to me Chris. Ros Power 20:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ros, we are discussing Conti's comments on such rights, not the rights themselves. I strongly urge you not to continue in this unhelpful vein. Please be aware that I have asked for your edits to be reviewed. I am puzzled by your request to 'talk'. We are already doing so in the appropriate forum. Lost Garden 20:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ros, please be aware that you are in breach of the 3RR rule. I have not reported it on this occasion, however I will be obliged to should you continue to rv. Lost Garden 20:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently she's having en eye kept on her. (Have you read her User Page? Mind-boggling!) Just give her enough rope... 83.217.190.69 09:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to homosexuality

"Opposition to homosexuality" is certainly better than what preceded it, but it still remains inaccurate. First of all, Catholic Bishops do not express a personal opinion on a matter, they simply do their job - expounding the truth about a matter arrived at after millennia of careful consideration by the largest and oldest human organisation in the world. Secondly, homosexuality is a large and complex subject, taking in, as it does at this point in time, a wide array of matters - desire (controllable or otherwise), behaviour (controllable or otherwise) and a wide set of political and ideological goals. Individuals may engage in any number of these things or none. The Church has always implored special consideration for people experiencing powerful homosexual desire, and has never "opposed" them in any way. It does, however, oppose the political aims and ambitions of the homosexualist movement and the social and political sanction of homosexual behaviour.

It is a complex matter, and it is wrong to oversimplify it into something meaningless and inaccurate. Ros Power 15:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The edit history of User:Ros Power shows a tendency to revert attempts to remove POV from her edits. This particularly clunky, even clumsy, sentence clearly does not belong in the article. It displays little, if any, NPOV and is ridiculously complicated.

This article is about Mario Joseph Conti, including reference to (and, where referenced, criticisms of) his expressed opinions. Efforts to contextualise his views as consistent with his church do not belong in this article; they belong elsewhere. Users must not revert edits because they do not match their own POV. - Stevecov 18:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steve! I see from your User Page that you are an atheist, as such you may simply misunderstand how the Catholic Church works. Perhaps this explains the current dispute! When a man is ordained into the Catholic Church, he subordinates his will to the will of the Church until such a time as he dies or leaves the church. Of course he can have an opinion on matters such as his favourite beverage or football team, but on matters such as homosexuality, profound and complex spiritual and moral matters with grave ramifications for the common good and individuals upon which the Church has a defined and explicit position, it is in fact not his will or opinion that he is expressing, he is speaking on behalf of a global organisation. So in this case context is indeed everything, and without it the article as it stands is inaccurate. I hope this clears things up. Ros Power 20:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see your talk page before making any further edits which contravene Wikipolicy on NPOV. Inserting your interpretation of organisational values (which in any case are defined by other human beings) cannot be NPOV. In this context, your previous statement alone justifies the reversion of your edit. Please consider your position carefully, as otherwise this matter will regrettably have to be referred through the dispute resolution mechanisms. - Stevecov 20:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mario Conti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tomharris.org.uk/tag/archbishop-mario-conti/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060721142311/http://www.rcag.org.uk/archbishop_intro.htm to http://www.rcag.org.uk/archbishop_intro.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)