Author Topic: Wikipedia makes me sick! (Read 4599 times)

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** August 21, 2006, 11:42:09 PM »

What makes me angry is when the laity -- often in their teens or 20's -- presume to reject the advice/wisdom/teaching of a learned priest or bishop.

That whole, liberal "I have a right to my opinion, you have a right to yours." and the corollary, "My opinion is every bit as valuable as yours."

And people who are infected with such liberalism will dismiss something, even if it's true, on a whim. Almost as an assertion of their independence. I must say, that Americans are pretty bad in this regard. Our society is very liberal and prizes independence over just about every virtue.

I'm sure most of you would be angry if a non-Catholic came up during Mass and punched your priest in the face. Well, I'm the same way, only with other forms of disrespect as well.

(I'd call it a pet peeve, but pet peeves are usually about something petty.)

Let's say I get angriest about when people reject the truth and/or assert their own puny, uninformed opinion in place of a respectable well-educated and trained priest.

If Bishop Williamson says something, it should not be lightly dismissed! He has spent the last 30+ years of his life as a priest -- teaching, studying, meditating, and praying -- plus he has the Actual Graces of state that came with his consecration as Bishop.

What in the WORLD is someone going to counter that with?

"Uh...I went to public school.. I've read a few books... I'm 26... I have a college degree?"

In Christ,

Matthew

Matthew · « **Reply #2 on:** August 21, 2006, 11:49:55 PM »

Someone might ask, "Did he actually write those words given in Wikipedia?"

The answer would be yes, he is indeed against the Sound of Music.

I must confess I was a bit surprised when I first heard that myself. But he made his case, and as I continued learning about the modern world, history, the Faith, etc. I saw that he was right.

The flaws in The Sound of Music are very deep -- not as obvious as say, the flaws in The Crying Game or Brokeback Mountain. But they are there, and are more dangerous because of how subtle they are.

Anyhow, I would say that any 3-paragraph summary (especially with commentary by Wikipedia, a known anti-Catholic organization) will be unfaithful to the original. The explanation needs to be longer than that, or everyone will just laugh, scorn him, etc.

Like if someone asked you, "Why are you a Traditional Catholic? Why don't you go to your local parish?" but only allowed you 1 sentence for a response. You'd naturally like to explain a bit about the fact there is a crisis in the church, how we have a right as Catholics to the true Mass and sacraments, etc.
Any 1-sentence answer wouldn't be very convincing.

In Christ,

Matthew

Matthew · « **Reply #3 on:** August 22, 2006, 01:05:16 PM »

Here is an example of something bad in The Sound of Music:

As Maria leaves the convent, she is singing and dancing around:

"To be out in the world, to be free... My heart should be wildly rejoicing...Oh, what's the matter with me?"

What's the matter with you, indeed! A religious vocation is the noblest calling there is, and life in a religious house is NOT like being in prison! That's a very worldly view of the religious life.

Think about the nature of spontaneity, which is a trait that Maria exhibits immensely. If you think about it, it's ridiculous. What's the opposite of spontaneity? Thinking, being rational, planning things out. Why prize "not thinking and planning"? Spontaneity is a fault -- it means you're unpredictable, and don't live by principles (and/or never think).

Matthew

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #4 on:** August 22, 2006, 02:09:16 PM »

I would wish that instead of the Sound of Music a true life of Maria von Trapp would have been filmed. From what I've heard, she was a very devout Catholic, unlike the 60's portrayal of Catholicism in the SoM movie.

Matthew · « **Reply #5 on:** August 22, 2006, 02:43:14 PM »

Among the flaws of the movie Sound of Music, she is portrayed as cute, sassy -- and thin.

The real Maria Von Trapp was more...matronly (full-figured).

Matthew

holysoulsacademy · « **Reply #6 on:** December 08, 2013, 03:54:11 PM »

I always had very mixed feelings about this movie, especially as I have learned more and loved more my Catholic faith.
I would get so much flack from most Americans whenever I said anything wrong about the SoM, you would think I was blaspheming!

Aside from the points mentioned by Bishop Williamson, my biggest contention was with the song "How do you solve a problem like Maria", especially since I had read a book all about the Holy Name of Mary. This book spoke at great lengths about the veneration of the name of Our Lady, along with the the all the meritorious benefits of invoking her name, how demons would kneel at the mention of her name and how most of society would value naming their children after her.

And when you listen to the lyrics of that song, it's as if it were mocking Catholics and Our Lady, one section in particular - "How do you find a word that means Maria? A flibsrtijjet, a will of a wisp, a clown!" Meanwhile historically the name of Our Lady is held in the highest of esteems. And if you read the rest of the lyrics it is simply appalling!

I also felt very uncomfortable in the glorification of JA's disregard for rightful authority (the father of the children), a lot of "ends justify the means" attitude, and constantly upholding (emphasizing the importance of) the children's feelings over their duties as good Catholic children.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #7 on:** December 09, 2013, 01:15:23 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Here is an example of something bad in The Sound of Music:

As Maria leaves the convent, she is singing and dancing around:

"To be out in the world, to be free... My heart should be wildly rejoicing...Oh, what's the matter with me?"

What's the matter with you, indeed! A religious vocation is the noblest calling there is, and life in a religious house is NOT like being in prison! That's a very worldly view of the religious life.

Think about the nature of spontaneity, which is a trait that Maria exhibits immensely. If you think about it, it's ridiculous. What's the opposite of spontaneity? Thinking, being rational, planning things out. Why prize "not thinking and planning"? Spontaneity is a fault -- it means you're unpredictable, and don't live by principles (and/or never think).

Matthew

I thought you were talking here about Pope Francis.

Wait a minute ---- this post was made in 2006!

.

McFiggly · « **Reply #8 on:** December 10, 2013, 08:47:14 AM »

Wikipedia is disgusting. What's even more disgusting is the Liberal establishment which has made Wikipedia its pet encyclopaedia, and led the public to believe that it is "unbiased".

Here's all you need to know about Wikipedia's claim to being "unbiased":

I think it's hilarious how the article on Christ is titled "Jesus". Not "Jesus Christ" as most people know Him, no, just "Jesus", as though they are going out of their way to discredit the idea that He is the Christ.

I don't endorse any particular encyclopaedia, but I find this one - Metapedia - to be a good counterbalance to Wikipedia.

PereJoseph · « **Reply #9 on:** December 10, 2013, 10:14:25 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

full-figured

:roll-laugh2: I've not heard this euphemism before.

icterus · « **Reply #10 on:** December 10, 2013, 12:17:09 PM »

...and Wikipedia is changeable.

I would suggest organizing a campaign to correct it.

McFiggly · « **Reply #11 on:** December 10, 2013, 12:57:43 PM »

Quote from: icterus

...and Wikipedia is changeable.

It isn't, it only appears to be. The truth is that Wikipedia is managed by a hierarchy of editors who earned their positions by editing article after article and demonstrating their loyalty to Wikipedia's cause (which includes subtly defaming all people and points of view that contradict them). Their favourite method of defaming somebody is to pile on all of the criticisms that have been lain against them in the article, while including a relatively short list of praise (if any at all). They damn with faint praise.

Let's try changing the article. Here's the original:

Quote from: Article: Richard Williamson, Section: Views, Subheading: Society

Williamson holds strong views regarding gender roles and dress. He opposes women wearing trousers or shorts,[39][40][41] attending college or university, or having a career,[42][43] and has urged greater "manliness" in men.[40][41]

He supports authoritarian parenting style, denouncing the film The Sound of Music as "soul-rotting slush" and saying that, by putting "friendliness and fun in the place of authority and rules, it invites disorder between parents and children."[14][44][45]

Williamson supports conspiracy theories regarding the assassination of President Kennedy, and the World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theory, denying that the latter were terrorist attacks but were instead staged by the U.S. government.[16][41][46] He has also said that the 7 July 2005 London bombings were an "inside job" and propagated rumours about the likelihood of a nuclear attack on the London Olympics in 2012.[47]

Here's my edit:

Quote

Williamson holds traditional views regarding gender roles and dress. He urges against women wearing clothes typically worn by men,[39][40][41] and laments the movement which has lead women away from their homes and children, and towards colleges, universities and full-time careers,[42][43] and has encouraged a return to a more robust masculine identity among modern men.[40][41]

He supports traditional parenting styles, and in one letter to his friends and benefactors pointed to the film The Sound of Music as an example of popular entertainment which undermines traditional family values, saying that by putting "friendliness and fun in the place of authority and rules, it invites disorder between parents and children."[14][44][45]

Williamson supports more thorough investigation into controversial events such as the assassination of President Kennedy and the September 11 attacks, highlighting how the US government had used public deception regarding tragic events to spur the American public into supporting war efforts in the past.[16][41][46] He has also expressed similar concerns regarding the 7 July 2005 London bombings and identified the London Olympics as a potential target for a terrorist attack.[47]

See how something is worded can have such a drastic influence over how it comes across? Let's see how long my edit lasts.

McFiggly · « **Reply #12 on:** December 10, 2013, 01:01:41 PM »

My edit has already been undone. That's how changeable Wikipedia is - you can change an article, but unless you have the credentials your changes will be undone within minutes. A lot of articles these days are locked by default, so unless you are an established editor you can't edit the article at all.

McFiggly · « **Reply #13 on:** December 10, 2013, 01:04:44 PM »

Here's the message I received explaining why my edit was unacceptable.

Quote from: A Wikipedia mafioso

Hello, I'm Charlesdrakew. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Richard Williamson (bishop) seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Charles (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That's how they maintain their control, by appealing to "neutrality". You can see how non-neutral their article is by referring to my edit of it and comparing it to the original. The original does not maintain neutrality in regards to Bsp. Williamson at all, it is scathing.

"Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions", :roll-laugh2:

icterus · « **Reply #14 on:** December 10, 2013, 04:55:40 PM »

McFiggly...your edit was doomed. I think there is a lack of sophistication going on here about Wikipedia.

If one is attempting to have one's edit approved on its neutrality, then

Quote

...highlighting how the US government had used public deception regarding tragic events to spur the American public into supporting war efforts in the past

...isn't going to fly.

I'm not sure why that is surprising. I'm sorry that this has increased your suspicion another notch.

What I had in mind was a sane, reasonable conversation among many people on where the entry was factually incorrect or non-neutral in tone, and a coordinated effort to correct it.