|
'''Chai Soua Vang''' (王才, born [[September 24]], [[1968]]) is a hunter who shot several [[hunting|deer hunters]] in northern [[Wisconsin]] on [[November 21]], [[2004]]. According to court proceedings to date, Vang has acknowledged shooting the hunters, which included women, but has challenged the chain of events that caused a dispute over a deer stand to become violent and how it escalated into multiple deaths. Eventually, six of the hunters died and two were left wounded. Vang, now a [[naturalization|naturalized]] [[United States|U.S.]] citizen, is a [[Hmong]] immigrant from [[Laos]] who lived in [[Saint Paul, Minnesota]] at the time of the shootings. He is currently being held at [[Sawyer County, Wisconsin|Sawyer County]] [[Jail]].
<div class="toccolours" style="width:95%; margin-left:2.5%;"><span style="text-align:center; font-size:1.4em; display:block;">[[Image:Info-pictogram.png]] '''Convention'''</span>Make sure to '''sign your comments''' by pressing the second-to-last button above the edit box, or by typing out ~<nowiki>~</nowiki>~~ at the end of your comment.<br />''See: [[Wikipedia:Introduction|Welcome to Wikipedia]], [[Wikipedia:FAQ|FAQ]], [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette|Wikiquette]], [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|Be nice]], and [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|Talk page guidelines]].''</div>
==Background==
''Due to the rapid and verbiose nature of this debate, comments are quickly archived by chronology: [[Talk:Traditionalist Catholic/Archives/2003-Sept2005|2003 to September 2005]], [[Talk:Traditionalist Catholic/Archives/Oct2005|October 2005]].''
Vang is the father of six children, a family [[shaman]] [http://www.thepowerhour.com/news/hmong_hunter.htm], and a hunting enthusiast. Chai Vang and his brothers came to the [[United States]] from [[Laos]] in [[1980]] and settled in [[California]]. Chai Vang lived in [[Sacramento, California|Sacramento]] and eventually enlisted with the California National Guard.
__TOC__
Around the year [[2000]], Vang moved to [[Minneapolis, Minnesota]]. A few years later, he and his family moved a few miles to the neighboring city of St. Paul. Both the Minneapolis and St. Paul [[police]] departments answered several calls about domestic violence at the Vang residences during this time.
==Unprotection==
Due to the controversial nature of this article, please do not make any significant changes without first obtaining consensus. // [[User:Pathoschild|Pathoschild]] 02:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
On the weekend of the murders, Vang went out deer hunting with two friends and their two sons in northwest [[Wisconsin]], a region where deer hunting is particularly popular, east of [[Birchwood, Wisconsin]] and around the town of [[Meteor, Wisconsin|Meteor]] (the town has a large area with a low population, and would be considered a [[township]] in other U.S. states). In this region, there is a mix of public and private land. It is believed that Vang and his friends began their day on public land, but he later went onto a private 400 [[acre]] (1.6 km²) tract of land. Residents and local hunters (almost exclusively white) are known to frequently accuse the Hmong of trespassing onto private land and hunting and fishing more than is allowed.
On Sunday, [[November 21]], a hunting party of about 15 people were in a [[cabin]] on this private land. One person, Terry Willers, left the cabin and saw Vang sitting in a deer stand. He used a handheld [[radio]] to ask the people still in the cabin whether or not anyone should be in the stand. Upon receiving a response in the negative on that question, he began to approach Vang and called to him to leave the private land. After asking directions, Vang proceeded to walk away towards a trail through a forested area of the property. He was confronted at that point by five of the hunters from the cabin who had heard Terry Willers radio message. The events after the confrontation are under dispute. [What is fairly certain is that as he was walking away, Vang turned and began shooting. - What does this mean?]
Terry Willers radioed the cabin and said that they had been shot. The others came out to provide assistance, some riding on [[all-terrain vehicle]]s. Vang proceeded to shoot more of the hunters. Within a short period, five of the hunters were dead and three more were wounded. Vang then disappeared into the woods. It is believed that he fired about 20 rounds from an [[SKS]] rifle chambered in [[7.62 x 39 mm M43|7.62x39]]. The rifle is fairly inexpensive, ordinarily sold with a 10 round fixed magazine. However, there are kits to retrofit the SKS to take either a larger fixed magazine or detachable box magazines as used on the AK47. 7.62x39 is roughly equivalent in power to the 30-30 Winchester round commonly used for deer hunting.
== Section-by-section editing ==
<h3 style="border-bottom:1px dashed #000;">Overview</h3>
The current article is highly controversial amongst the editors, which has led to an effective impasse of discussions and the indefinite protection of the page. This set of discussions is an attempt to form a cohesive, highly organised consensus on the article on a section-by-section basis. '''Do not''' discuss any matter that does not pertain to the section you are posting in. All discussion of the method of section-by-section editing should be placed under the header "Discussion of section-by-section editing". [[User:Pathoschild|Pathoschild]] will rigidly control the formatting and organisation of comments placed in this section.
Vang was apprehended about five hours after the shootings and was placed in custody of the Sawyer County Jail on [[November 24]], [[2004]]. His bail is set for $2.5 million.
The article as it has been agreed to so far is located at [[Talk:Traditionalist Catholic/Consensus]].
One of the wounded hunters died the next day, bringing the toll to six dead and two wounded.
<h3 style="border-bottom:1px dashed #000;">Overall structure</h3>
''This question, which involved the titles and levels of the headers under which the information will be organised, has reached consensus. This discussion is '''closed''' unless a majority of members with at least one month of Wikipedian membership and 100+ edits wish it to be re-examined. The structure agreed upon is as such:''
<div style="font-size: 0.7em;">
:::*''Summary''
:::*Traditionalist beliefs
:::*Places of worship
:::*Relations with other Catholic groups
:::*See also
:::*External links
:::**References
:::**Opinions
:::***Pro-traditionalist
:::***Anti-traditionalist
</div>
== Victims==
<h3 style="border-bottom:1px dashed #000;">Summary</h3>
The victims were part of a group about 15 people who made their annual opening-weekend trip to the 400 acre (1.6 km²) property co-owned by Robert Crotteau and Terry Willers. Among the victims were a father and son, Robert and Joey Crotteau. A memorial website for the victims was created [http://www.rice-lake-hunters-memorial.com Memorial Page]
The summary is a short text, preferably one paragraph and no more than three paragraphs, which either summarises the article or introduces the subject. There are currently two conflicting proposals being debated, named after the users who originally proposed them. // [[User:Pathoschild|Pathoschild]] 20:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Those who were killed:
<!--
# Robert Crotteau, 42, owned concrete business in Rice Lake. Married with 3 children. Shot once in the back.
# Joey Crotteau, 20, Robert's son and partner. Shot 4 times in the back.
# Allan Laski, 43, manager of a Rice Lake area lumber yard. Married with 3 children. Shot in the back 3 times.
# Mark Roidt, 28, a friend of the Drew family. Shot once in the head.
# Jessica Willers, 27, a nurse from Rice Lake who had moved to Green Bay. She was engaged. Shot in the back twice.
# Denny Drew, 55, a car salesman in Rice Lake. Shot once through the stomach and died in the hospital.
Those who were wounded:
NOTE: Please do not edit the two summaries below without consensus. If possible, this should be done by a neutral third party to avoid conflict.
# Lauren Hesebeck, 48, a manager at car dealership in Rice Lake. Drew was his brother-in-law. Shot once through the shoulder, exiting the back.
# Terry Willers, 47, father of Jessica Willers. Worked in Crotteaus' concrete business. Shot once in the neck.
==Reaction and controversy==
The shooting incident attracted nationwide attention and sparked much controversy. Because of Vang's background as a [[Hmong]] immigrant from [[Laos]], many Hmongs have felt that they have been greatly discriminated against because of the incident. Many white upper-Midwest residents say the focus of news reports was on the potential discrimination against Hmong instead of on the actual suffering of the victims of the shootings. This included a brief circulation of bumper stickers entitled "Save a Deer, Shoot a Mung" akin to the controversial 1989 campaign of "Save a Walleye. Spear a Indian" at Rice Lake. [[Racism]] also became a major disputed issue, as many claim that either Vang or the white shooting victims was the target of [[hate crime]].
== Investigation ==
-->
There have been conflicting reports about what may have led to the shootings. According to oral statements by Vang, one of the local hunters, Terry Willers, took the first shot at him from about 100 feet (30 m) away, and therefore the shootings were in self-defense. No shell casing was never recover from Willer's gun even though during the trial Hesebeck admitted to a single shot. Additional no forensic analysis of Willer's gun was ever perform by the local law enforcement. [[Race]] may have also been a factor, according to Vang, who alleges that during the verbal dispute, some of the local hunters yelled out racial slurs at him such as "[[chink]]" and "[[gook]]".
::<small>'''Draft Summary Lima #3 (DSL3)''': ''supported by [[User:Lima|Lima]] and [[User:Dominick|Dominick]] (last updated 20:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)).''</small>
<blockquote style="padding:0.5em; border:1px dashed #2f6fab; color:black; background-color:#f9f9f9; margin-top:0; font-size:0.8em;">"'''Traditionalist Catholic'''" and "'''traditional Catholic'''" are terms that some use to refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the [[Roman Catholic Church]] return to those before the reforms of the 1960s. Others understand by them only those Roman Catholics who insist on the preservation of the [[Mass (liturgy)|Mass]] liturgy]] and of all the other [[sacrament]]al rites in use before the [[Second Vatican Council]], along with all the doctrine, and who see it as their duty to resist the changes, in their view a veritable revolution, that have occurred in the human element of the Roman Catholic Church since that Council.<br /><br />Unless explicitly stated, this article will use the terms in the latter sense, which is the more common meaning attached to them in debates about the people concerned.</blockquote>
On the other hand, Vang has a history of family violence. In addition, the criminal complaint states Vang shot four of the victims in the back and Vang himself admits he shot one victim in the back, which does not help the case for self defense. In addition, many of the victims were shot multiple times.
== Trial ==
::<small>'''Draft Summary Used2BAnonymous #5 (DSU5)''': ''supported by [[User:Used2BAnonymous|Used2BAnonymous]] and [[User:Malachias111|Malachias111]] (last updated 20:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)).''</small>
The trial of Chai Soua Vang began Saturday, [[September 10]], [[2005]] in Sawyer County Courthouse. 14 jurors (10 women and four men) were selected from [[Dane County, Wisconsin]], and bussed about 280 miles northwest to Sawyer County, where they were sequestered.
<blockquote style="padding:0.5em; border:1px dashed #2f6fab; color:black; background-color:#f9f9f9; margin-top:0; font-size:0.8em;">"'''Traditional Catholic'''" is a term used by some to refer to those Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the [[Roman Catholic Church]] return to those before the reforms of the 1960s.<br /><br />The terms "'''Traditional Catholic'''" and "'''Traditionalist Catholic'''" are more commonly used -- and are used in this entry -- to refer to Catholics who insist not only on the preservation of the [[Mass (liturgy)|Mass]] [[liturgy]] but who want to preserve all the other [[sacrament]]al rites in use before the [[Second Vatican Council]], along with all Catholic doctrine as understood in the following section.</blockquote>
He says he shot two of the victims in the back because they were "disrespectful". It was interesting that he was able to tell everybody how he killed these victims clearly during the trial. When asked to comment, Chai Vang said, "They are deserved to die."
''This discussion has been partially archived to [[Talk:Traditionalist_Catholic/Archives/Oct2005#Summary|#Summary]] in the [[Talk:Traditionalist_Catholic/Archives/Oct2005|October 2005 archives]]. // [[User:Pathoschild|Pathoschild]] 20:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)''
----
----
=== Conviction ===
On [[September 16]], [[2005]] Chai Soua Vang was found guilty of all six charges of first degree murder and two charges of attempted murder by an all white jury of eight women and four men. (Two alternates did not participate in the decision.) It should be noted that this jury pool did include other people of minority descent but was eliminated due to conflicting issues. On [[November 8th]], [[2005]], he was sentenced to six consecutive life terms plus seventy years (40 for two counts of attempted murder plus five additional years for each count of murder in the first degree).
==Military experience==
Used2BAnonymous’s proposed description of his "traditionalist Catholics" either ignores the point of view of others (positing only his opinion about who "uphold the faith as held for two millennia"), or else it fails to distinguish his "traditionalist Catholics" from other people.
* Six years in the California National Guard, [[1989]]–[[1995]]
* Sharpshooter qualification badge (mid-level, above "marksman," but below "expert")
* Good Conduct medal, among others
==References==
The summary (not the article as a whole) ''is'' about distinguishing Used2BAnonymous's "traditionalist Catholics" from other people. Dominick's "traditionalist Catholics" are described in words that are of a neutral point of view. Used2BAnonymous's should also be described in words that are of a neutral point of view.
*Ashley H. Grant ([[November 24]], [[2004]]). [http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/politics/10258341.htm Shooting suspect had Army sharpshooting badge.] ''Duluth News Tribune''/Associated Press. Accessed November 27, 2004.
*Duluth News Tribune/Associated Press. Posted on Sep. 04,2005. "Victims in the Shootings That Killed Six Deer Hunters".
Instead of answering this objection to his proposal, Used2BAnonymous only plants red herrings, talking about other as yet undecided sections of the article or pretending that the statement that, while the general public instead overwhelmingly uses "Traditionalist Catholics" rather than "Traditional Catholics", Traditionalist Catholics in the narrow sense make up the immense majority of those who use "Traditional Catholics" somehow means that the article should deal only with exclusive-sense traditionalists. This is not the place to discuss such matters.
[[User:Lima|Lima]] 08:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
[[Category:1968 births|Vang, Chai]]
:Pretty much sums it up, Lima. I sometimes despair and get sick of words being put in my mouth, and I respond and knock us off track. There is room for all traditionalists, and I still find it curious how the sede groups are included that profess no attachemnt to the Holy See or Catholicism while U2BA proclaims that some groups are not "traditionalist enough". [[User:Dominick|Dominick]] [[User_talk:dominick|<sup>(ŤαĿĶ)</sup>]] 12:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
[[Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States|Vang, Chai]]
[[Category:Hmong Americans|Vang, Chai]]
[[Category:American murderers|Vang, Chai]]
[[zh:王才]]
::No red herrings. What I said was that the definition should refer to "the section below." The items in "the section below" are very clear and NPOV. [[User:Used2BAnonymous|Used2BAnonymous]] 17:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
:::This is another red herring. What we are discussing is the opening summary, and more particularly Used2BAnonymous's draft for the that summary, which even he seems unable to defend. If he does not even attempt to defend it, may we take this as an implicit withdrawal of the draft? [[User:Lima|Lima]] 17:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
::::You might want to put the bottle down if you're seeing so many non-existent red herrings. I am talking about the summary. I say that the second definition -- i.e., the definition of "traditional Catholics" in the exclusive sense -- should refer to "the section below." [[User:Used2BAnonymous|Used2BAnonymous]] 18:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::Please avoid implicit, borderline, or subtle personal attacks. The latest proposed versions are, unless I'm mistaken, DSL3 and DSU4, respectively blockquoted below. If at all possible, please relate the discussion more closely to the summary itself. [<small>''The blockquotes have been removed because updated proposals are blockquoted almost directly below. // [[User:Pathoschild|Pathoschild]] 19:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)''</small>] //[[User:Pathoschild|Pathoschild]] 18:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
::::::''Bumped due to edit conflict with comment below. // [[User:Pathoschild|Pathoschild]] 18:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)''
Do you withdraw your draft? It is a simple question. [[User:Dominick|Dominick]] [[User_talk:dominick|<sup>(ŤαĿĶ)</sup>]] 18:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
:I think accusing me of throwing out "red herrings" and of being "obstructionist" with every post I make is a personal attack. As to the summary, ''once again'', I propose that the second definition refer to "the section below" or "the following section" or what not, such as the summary used in the present article does. What is the problem with this? It is a simple question. [[User:Used2BAnonymous|Used2BAnonymous]] 19:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
::Ok we have two editors accepting the Lima version and one insisting, for some unknown reason, that his own is better. Now what. 19:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
:::The updated proposals, DSL3 and DSU5, are respectively blockquoted below for comparison. [<small>The blockquotes have been moved out of the discussion.</small>] // [[User:Pathoschild|Pathoschild]] 19:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
::::It's TWO for Used2BeAnonymous's version. [[User:Malachias111|Malachias111]] 20:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
::::: Pathoschild, you wrote that Lima and Dominick propose and agree to:
::::::''"Traditionalist Catholic" and "traditional Catholic" are terms that some use to refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the Roman Catholic Church return to those before the reforms of the 1960s. Others understand by them only those Roman Catholics who insist on the preservation of the Mass liturgy]] and of all the other sacramental rites in use before the Second Vatican Council, along with all the doctrine, and who see it as their duty to resist the changes, in their view a veritable revolution, that have occurred in the human element of the Roman Catholic Church since that Council.''
::::: -- but they object to this because they say that "traditionalist Catholics" of the first definition also want to preserve "all doctrine." The doctrine involved is understood differently by these two groups, which is why I propose referring to "the following section" to clarify the beliefs of the second group -- the group most often referred to when the phrase "traditionalist Catholic" is used. [[User:Used2BAnonymous|Used2BAnonymous]] 04:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
::::::I merely quote from the archives. See my own comment posted 13:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC) and their subsequent responses; Lima's comment posted 14:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC); and Lima's comment posted 15:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC). Both Dominick and Lima express their support for those revisions. Any comment about the proposal itself should be directed at Dominick and Lima. // [[User:Pathoschild|Pathoschild]] 05:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I see that, yesterday evening, Pathoschild, on behalf of Used2BAnonymous, replaced DSU4, which Used2BAnonymous was no longer defending, with DSU5, corresponding to what Used2BAnonymous seems to have really been talking about, though he had not formally made the change. I think Pathoschild's move was wise, and I hope that Used2BAnonymous accepts DSU5 as the concrete topic to which we should keep (if not discussing DSL3), or else that he immediately formulates DSU6.
The problem with DSU5 is its reference to "the following section". The article should begin by letting readers know who or what it is about. Instead of that, DSU5 says: "Read the following section first, if you want to know who or what the article is about."
DSU5 is in fact a proposal that we suspend discussion of the summary and move instead to discussing the next section.
To Dominick I regret I must say that it is not numbers that count, but truth and logic.
To Used2BAnonymous I say that for me it was, and still is, the word "resist" that serves to distinguish traditionalist Catholics in the Used2BAnonymous sense from other Catholics. That may not have been Dominick's reason; but he is as much entitled to change his mind as Used2BAnonymous, who now, it seems, has changed his mind about his previous acceptance of a summary without "the following section".
[[User:Lima|Lima]] 06:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Both contain the same opening. Perhaps this hybrid works:
<blockquote style="padding:0.5em; border:1px dashed #2f6fab; color:black; background-color:#f9f9f9; margin-top:0; font-size:0.8em;">"'''Traditionalist Catholic'''" and "'''traditional Catholic'''" are terms that some use to refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the [[Roman Catholic Church]] return to those before the reforms of the 1960s. <br /><br />This would refer to Catholics who pursue the preservation of the [[Mass (liturgy)|Mass]] [[liturgy]] and preserve all the other [[sacrament]]al rites used before the reforms of the 1960s. While traditionalists differ in what they consider to have changed, all agree that either the emphasis or teaching of the Church have changed to some unacceptable degree.</blockquote>
[[User:Dominick|Dominick]] [[User_talk:dominick|<sup>(ŤαĿĶ)</sup>]] 11:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Presenting only an inclusive idea of traditionalist Catholics, Dominick's proposal of 11:17 today ignores the existence of the exclusive idea that Used2BAnonymous considers to be the only true one (one he finds it difficult to define clearly). I think the summary should indicate the existence of both strongly held ideas, in terms as precise and unambiguous as possible. [[User:Lima|Lima]] 12:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I was trying to simply include both PoV in the summary, and show there is a conflict there, between inclusive and exclusive. I must beg to differ Lima. I can't ignore what isn't defined clearly. So far all I can tell is there is some vague critera for being "traditional" enough, I must have failed to make a good reference. [[User:Dominick|Dominick]] [[User_talk:dominick|<sup>(ŤαĿĶ)</sup>]] 13:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I do not see it stated in what you have written that there are some who have a more exclusive understanding of "traditionalist Catholic" and who think that not everyone included in your (inclusive) description of traditionalist Catholics is indeed a traditionalist Catholic. Yes, Used2BAnonymous has not yet come up with a clear definition acceptable to himself (although I would have thought that his words inserted in DSL3 were not only clear but exact), but perhaps in one of these days or weeks or months he will. [[User:Lima|Lima]] 15:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
OK try:
<blockquote style="padding:0.5em; border:1px dashed #2f6fab; color:black; background-color:#f9f9f9; margin-top:0; font-size:0.8em;">"'''Traditionalist Catholic'''" and "'''traditional Catholic'''" are terms that some use to refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and customs of the [[Roman Catholic Church]] return to those before the reforms of the 1960s. <br /><br />This universally refers to Catholics who pursue the preservation of the [[Mass (liturgy)|Mass]] [[liturgy]] and preserve all the other [[sacrament]]al rites used before the reforms of the 1960s. The exact definition of what constitutes a traditionalist differ among different groups of traditionalists; groups differ in what they consider to have changed, even though all agree that either the emphasis or teaching of the Church have changed to some unacceptable degree.</blockquote>
Debating the issue didn't help lets edit til we come upon an equilibrium.
[[User:Dominick|Dominick]] [[User_talk:dominick|<sup>(ŤαĿĶ)</sup>]] 17:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
What can "we" edit and how, without Used2BAnonymous? When I dial up my ISP again some time tomorrow, there may be some reaction from him to a) the formulation of DSU5; b) the drawbacks I have again mentioned in trying to include in a definition a reference to a yet undetermined "following section"; c) Dominick's proposal. [[User:Lima|Lima]] 18:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
:: What's this with the idea that I can't "define clearly" what I mean by "traditionalist Catholic"? The entire "following section" lays it out nicely. You just don't like the idea of referring to the "section below" for some reason -- it seems because you think that it means "You can't know what it means until you read the following section." But what it "says" is that there are definite beliefs involved, beliefs that are much too involved to describe in 6 words. Film at 11. It's also been said that your side doesn't want to write a "blank check" regarding the "Traditionalist Beliefs" section -- but the present list is pretty much as it has been for a couple of years or so, I believe, and can be worked through as it's gotten to. The fact remains that the second group of Catholics believe that either Vatican II itself or interpretations of its documents have ushered in a veritable revolution in the presentation of Church teaching. They know what they mean by this. Their criticisms can be found all over the Internet.
:: Again, what Dominick is trying to do is to wish away the entire second group of Catholics -- the very Catholics about whom the entry was made, and the same Catholics who refer to themselves and are, the '''immense majority of the time''', referred to as "traditionalist Catholics" --- and turn the entire page into a debate. He should write his rebuttals and put them in the "Relations with other Catholics" section instead of trying to take over the entire entry and turn it into one about a group of Catholics who rarely refer to themselves as "traditionalists" and are rarely referred to as "traditionalists."
:: And Dominick, most of the Catholics of the first definition aren't concerned about "all the other [[sacrament]]al rites"; they concern themselves with only the Mass most of the time.
:: Hmmm, maybe the summary should go like this:
::: In the loosest, less common sense of the phrase, "traditional Catholics" refer to Roman Catholics who would like to see the worship and practices of the Catholic Church return to those from before the 1960 reforms.
::: In the more restrictive and common sense of the term, and the way in which the term is used in this article, traditional Catholics (or "traditionalist Catholics") are Roman Catholics who seek to preserve (and restore, where wanting) the Mass and other Sacramental rites in use before the post-Vatican II liturgical revisions, and to preserve the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in a manner that earns them the undying hatred of mainstream Catholics.
::[[User:Used2BAnonymous|Used2BAnonymous]] 22:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I presume Used2BAnonymous is not serious in his latest proposal, which for that reason I will call not DSU6, but DSU6(?). So I will not go into details about it except to say that, apart from the point-of-view "less common" and "more common" - we can agree that ''in controversy'' the Used2BAnonymous meaning or something like is more common, but it seems that the ordinary general public normally includes in the term the so-called "indult" traditionalists (or, if you prefer the expression, the Dominick-style traditionalists)- DSU6(?) has advantages over DSU5, which, I take it, is really Used2BAnonymous's real choice at present.
DSU5 can become clear, only when it is clear what will be in "the following section". Used2BAnonymous seems at times to treat his version of it as almost untouchable. Yet only a short time ago the part of it that is an attack on the beliefs of other Catholics was, in minimally shorter form, given as a separate section headed something like "Attitude towards the Second Vatican Council". In the new agreed overall structure, that negative part belongs to "Relations with other Catholic groups", the place indicated also for treating relations (in both directions) with inclusive-sense traditionalists, as Used2BAnonymous has, now for the fifth time, told Dominick.
I mention this only in the hope that Used2B will see that including a still undecided "following section" in the summary is indeed problematic. I do not think it appropriate to discuss it in detail, as long as the topic of discussion is still the summary.
[[User:Lima|Lima]] 04:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
The more Used2BAnonymous tries to push his idea that the only traditionalist Catholics are those who fit his definition, the more ridiculous I am beginning to find his pretensions, and the more too I am beginning to think that, after all, Dominick is right in his basic idea. I have hitherto supported a viewpoint different from Dominick's, not out of conviction, but merely in the hope that it might prove acceptable to Used2BAnonymous. Used2BAnonymous is forcing me to think more deeply about what is true and right.
Used2BAnonymous wants the article to be solely about traditionalist Catholics who subscribe to a largely negative or protest-ant (not Protestant) profession of faith that pleases him. But the article is not titled "Traditional Catholic in Used2BAnonymous's sense". The title is "Traditionalist Catholic". Not even Used2BAnonymous denies that the term "traditionalist Catholic" is in fact used of people who do not fit his definition. He says it is only used in this inclusive way by Dominick, Phatmass ... (if forced, he would admit step-by-step increments to the list), but not by his exclusive-sense traditionalists. But of course: it is mere tautology to say that exclusive-sense traditionalist Catholics use the term "traditionalist Catholic" only in the exclusive sense.
I am within an ace of concluding that, if the article is to be about traditionalist Catholics, it should exclude none of them; and that, if Used2BAnonymous wants an article only about traditionalist Catholics in his sense, he should write an article with a title such as "Militant traditionalist Catholics" and transfer there his ideas. After all, Wikipedia has an article on "''Roman'' Catholic Church", precisely to provide for those who want to use the term "Catholic" in a more restricted sense than the senses that are permissible in the articles "Catholic" and "Catholicism".
Dominick, please do not comment on this until Used2BAnonymous has first responded. Even after he does respond, please comment moderately. Perhaps quite unfairly on my part, I find your style at times too combative and impatient, and you might thus prevent me from completing what ''you'' might call my "conversion" to your point of view.
[[User:Lima|Lima]] 08:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
If Dominick accepts the following as corresponding with his idea, I will give my support to it instead of to DSL3. It can then be referred to as DSDL, or whatever Pathoschild chooses.
''"'''Traditionalist Catholic'''" and "'''traditional Catholic'''" are terms used to refer to [[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholics]] who want to see the worship and customs of the general body of Roman Catholics return to those prevailing before the reforms of the [[1960s]].''
''Many of them claim that, since then, the presentation and the understanding of the Church's teaching have changed, at least in emphasis, to an unacceptable degree; and some exclude from the meaning of the two terms those whose views on this matter are less strong.''
[[User:Lima|Lima]] 10:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
:: The reason I believe that the second definition -- the definition the article is about -- should refer to "the following section" is because I know exactly what will happen if it doesn't: Dominick will intrude in there and try to turn the article into one about Catholics of the first definition. The "rad trad integrist traditionalists" is what this article is about, and Dominick has made his hatred for such people very clear. He wants to debate throughout the entire article instead of listing his objections in the "Relations with other Catholics" section.
:: I think it is also important to refer to "the following section" because, for the second group, ''beliefs are involved''. It's not just a matter of wanting the traditional Mass and Sacraments; it's also a matter of wanting doctrine preserved in a way that Dominick and others of his type see as "Pope-bashing" and "Vatican-hating." Because beliefs are involved -- and because we can't describe such Catholics as wanting:
* to "preserve Catholic doctrine" (Dominick: "I do, too!) or
* "preserve doctrine in the same way it was understood before Vatican II" (Dominick: "Hey, that's me! Nothing's changed in how people understand Catholic doctrine! Isn't it obvious? Look around you!"), or
* "to preserve Catholic doctrine in such a way that, '''in actual fact''', is consistent with traditional Catholic teaching" (Dominick: "That's me, too! Popes have always prayed in synagogues!"), etc.
then it seems that referring to "the section below," even in parenthetically, makes it clear that a) beliefs are involved, and b) those beliefs are complicated. Besides, a listing of such beliefs per my proposal that went on about "ecclesiology, soteriology," etc., was met with something to this effect: "Used2BAnonymous CAN'T be serious."
:: In addition, the Catholics of Dominick's definition -- and who are ''not'' generallly called "traditionalist Catholics -- are NOT ignored in this article. They are listed first (you want to expand that first paragraph and say that they dont believe presentation of Catholic teaching has changed and they worship in ordinary diocesan structures at Masses offered by indult through Priestly Society X, Y, B? Fine.) They are also included in those who attend Masses offered by indult and who worship in ordinary diocesan structures. And their opinions can go in the "Relations with other Catholics" section. I have asked Dominick how he would write an article if it were only about such Catholics, and he has said nothing. I suspect that it's because there is nothing to say about them. They're just Catholics who like the traditional Mass. [[User:Used2BAnonymous|Used2BAnonymous]] 16:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Since Used2BAnonymous insists on "the following section", I will now revise the article, to see if Used2BAnonymous will still want "the following section" mentioned in the summary. [[User:Lima|Lima]] 21:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
: Obviously it would make no sense to refer to "the following section" as explaining traditionalist beliefs if you move that section down so it doesn't explain traditionalist beliefs. It would no more make sense to do that than for me to go to the section just before your section "How 'official' or 'mainstream' Catholics view the traditionalists just described" and change it to a talk about Lutherans. 22:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
So we now agree that referring in the summary to "the following section" makes no sense, unless what is to be in the following section is first decided. [[User:Lima|Lima]] 05:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
| 