Talk:Winnipeg Statement

Papal "satisfaction"

In this article, http://www.peace.mb.ca/07.Mission_of_HS/xneil07.htm, the author states that:

A month later, Pope Paul privately told his Secretary of State that he had taken cognisance of the Winnipeg Statement "with satisfaction".

...a statement which seems very relevant to this article! However, the author does not cite a source. If anyone can provide a verifiable source for this papal comment, we should add this information to the article. -- Mecandes 21:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

We can say that this has been asserted by a liberal Catholic author. However I don't know how noteworthy that will be, as I haven't come across this author before. JASpencer 22:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've added this as "alleged by supporters" -- I didn't want to presume to add the label "liberal" though, plus I have seen it said that others imply the Pope supported the Winnipeg Statement. Again, would love to get a verifiable source (but, alas, folks weren't putting their writings on the Internet in the late 60s.) I am surprised, though that there never seemed to be any officially published response or condemnation coming from the Holy See about the Winnipeg Statement... you'd think they'd feel compelled to say something about it...? -- Mecandes 22:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, but under Paul VI you'd have expected to see a lot of things said about what was going on in the English speaking Church. JASpencer 22:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Link to the full statement text

Unfortunately, the best link I could find to the full text of the Winnipeg Statement, http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/winnipeg.html, is not NPOV. Can anyone update the link to the text of the statement to a copy which is not marked up? (Unforunately, the archives on the CCCB web site don't go back this far.) -- Mecandes 20:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody know whether the text currently linked to (at therosarium) is accurate? Other than the editorializing, have there been any changes to the text (deletions, "corrections", etc...)? -- Njesson 12:10, 23 April 2008 (CST)

External Links

As all the external links apart from Humanae Vitae are mentioned in in-line references, and Humanae Vitae is mentioned in the See Also section. Shouldn't we simply get rid of them to stop cluttering up the article. JASpencer 20:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Due to the level of controversy surrounding the 1968 Winnipeg Statement, and the fact that a search of the Internet reveals that almost all current discussion of it is among very vocal opponents, I worry that this article may suffer from Neutral point of view problems. I commend the early editors for working hard to present both sides of the debate and referencing them, but the introduction of POV may have been innevitable, since they seem to be working primarily from current Internet sources on a debate that pre-dates the Internet. It seems clear that the meaning of the statement is hotly disputed even among Catholic bishops and scholars, so I think we lowly Wikipedians need to take extra care. 216.209.114.132 14:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article as it is developing so far seems to be too reliant on the writings of Msgr. Vincent Foy -- writings which contain many unreferenced statements which don't seem to be easily verifiable. He is a passionate opponent, makes broad use of weasel words, and clearly expresses a biased POV. (Many may agree with his POV, but it's not desirable for an unbiased encyclopedia article). I think his writing is great for the Opposition section, but less useful for other sections. Surely there must be other sources of information on this topic (which are not based on Msgr. Foy's writing)...? -- Mecandes 03:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that the supporters seem to be silencing themselves and the opponents are the only ones with referencable sources, it may be the best that can be done to eliminate bias. Despite the remaining bias, majority and significant minority viewpoints seem expressed as well as possible given the circumstances. It's not like we're having any revert wars where one side tries to silence the other. The article on Superman is "biased" towards the point of view that he can fly (even though some comics have him only able to leap great distances). We don't judge the superman article as POV because insufficient attention is given to the "non-flying" superman. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.53.160.251 (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Categories

I did a significant prune on the categories for this article - "Natural family planning" is getting deleted, and the others were very closely connected in the category trees. Lyrl ^Talk _C 23:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Winnipeg Statement. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081121125757/http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/fiftyreasons.html to http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/fiftyreasons.html

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} 05:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Opposition section and POV/Weasel wording issue

The section on Opposition starts with problematic statement: "The statement was met with immediate and vocal opposition, which found root especially among conservative practicing Catholic pro-life activists.". This is highly weasel wording. It does not specify just who expressed immediate and vocal opposition but implies it was a large majority of Catholics, including many moderate and liberal Catholics, with Conservative Catholics being the most outraged. But no reliable sources back up that implication. It also fails to address whether the vocal opposition was completely or mostly Canadian Catholics or did it include American Catholics opponents too? If there was (or is) indeed a significant number of moderate & liberal Catholics that opposed the statement then cited that or reword to be more clear. It seems to me that the continued opposition to the statement largely if not completely comes comes from conservative Pro-Life Catholics only and that Moderate and Liberal Catholics are either choosing to remain silent on the issue, supportive of the statement, or simply do not know about the Winnipeg Statement and thus are unable to have an opinion on it at this time. Let's try and be more clear who the opponents are (nationality, political stance, etc.) as best we can and avoid wording that could give the false implications the majority of Catholics opposed the Winnipeg Statement, which would make no sense given the high number of Catholics in North America using artificial birth control methods, both in 1968 and today. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)