Has anyone else noticed that every article on Wikipedia regarding VCII, Post-Conciliar Popes, New Mass, ABL, SSPX, Tradition is full of slanted biased phrases and comments in support of the Neo-Cath version of all these topics?

Their tactics are often very subtle. For instance, someone had posted a statement from Michael Davies relating a docuмented fact about the case of ABL. Some Neo-Cath adds "a defender of ABL" right after "Michael Davies" to then color everything that follows in bias. Obviously a "defender of ABL" must be a shill for the Society and can't be trusted at all.   :rolleyes:

I'm not too familiar with how the wikipedia editing process works, but the need to get a Trad army of editors on there is dire. Or else build our own "Trad-ipedia". (Matthew, there's an idea for you.)

Consider this statement with absolutely no footnote or authority which interprets the section of Sancrosanctum Concilium on Latin in the liturgy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_of_Paul_VI#Vernacular_language

While this text would seem to suggest only limited use of the vernacular language, its reference to "particular law" (as opposed to universal law) and to "the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority" (the episcopal conference) entrusted to the latter the judgment on the actual extent of its use.

No. This is, in effect, what happened afterwards as the Vatican kowtowed to the bishops and what the revolutionary periti had planned. But that is in no way what the docuмent stated as to Latin and is in no way what the majority of Council Fathers intended.

It stated first and foremost "the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites."

Later it states, "Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them."

and "In accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office."

The docuмent was signed by a majority of pre-VCII bishops with the understanding that Latin would be retained with small allowances for the vernacular here and there. It did not give carte blanche authority to any "episcopal conference" to decide to make the entire Mass vernacular. In fact, episcopal conferences have zero authority to do anything. Individual bishops are free to ignore episcopal conferences all together.

Anyway, these are just two examples. Their article on the Mass of Paul VI is atrocious.

Any interest in a movement to correct these fools?

Are there any moderators there? Not that that would help. I don't think the task would be too daunting if we just focused on articles regarding VCII and the NOM. The articles are not really liberal, but Neo-Cath in nature. If we target only the Neo-Cath bias, I think we can succeed.

I just made some much needed edits to the Mass of Paul VI.

I just made some much needed edits to the Mass of Paul VI.

Are those edits still intact?

The problem with communion under both kinds is that the article completely ignores the context under which the Church forbade the practice. I put in a line about this, but it was deleted. I didn't have time to quote a source so that's probably why. The context is very important and hinted at at Trent.

The Protestant heretics of the time used communion under both kinds as one of their rallying cries, along with their numerous heresies. They, of course, denied transubstantiation and were just as Hell bent as the older heretics in denying that Christ was truly present blood, body, soul, and divinity in the Host alone. Plus they wanted to emphasize the Eucharist as a meal. And at a meal you have food and drink.

Fast forward to today. Not only do the Prots still believe this heresy, so do most NO Catholics!! Therefore, if the reasons for the prohibition were valid then, they are even MORE valid now.

Instead the wiki-nerds completely disregard this context and treat it as a purely theological matter. They even go so far as to say one gets more grace receiving under both kinds and that theologians support this view. This is ridiculous as one is receiving Our Lord just as much under one kind as both.