Talk:Most Holy Family Monastery

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re: Deletion[edit]

While the article has some style problems, I know people who are influenced by the positions of the MHF and their thinking. I vote don't delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.227.99 (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove the delete tag. Ourshelp (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You admit that there are people who are influenced by the positions of the MHF and their thinking which would include their own hatred of the Jews; however, you vote not to have this article deleted. Does Wikipedia support antisemitism? 50.32.152.81 (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Hit Piece?[edit]

This article reads like a hit piece. Notably, the Criticism section reads like a gossip page. Two guys nobody has ever heard of level some unstated criticism on some website somewhere. Seriously? Does this really count as noteworthy? Generally, the article takes a decidedly negative tone from the beginning. Unless nobody is willing to do a POV review, I second the motion to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotep2Step (talk • contribs) 05:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about "hit piece", but it does come off as very biased. The language used in the Criticisms page is not neutral. The tone is moralizing, as if to suggest that one religion rejecting the Catholic Pope or Catholic Council is intrinsically or universally reprehensible. It doesn't seem that the source (SPLC) even takes that stance, so it's something inserted by the editor...
It's not the appropriate. 108.20.34.46 (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust denial[edit]

The apostate monastery's website has a page with text that looks like Holocaust denial. If it's not overtly hostile to Jewry, its language (such as "Jewish domination and evil Jewish enterprises") will offend Jews and others. It links approvingly to Bishop Williamson's infamous interview on Swedish television.

AndersW (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust Exposure[edit]

The website page is informative and not offensive. AndersW Entry on Holocaust Denial is obviously subjective opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmwjmj (talk • contribs) 17:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust Denial is obviously subjective opinion? I think that the survivors of Nazi rule would beg to differ on that. I vote to remove the entire article. 50.32.152.81 (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a cleanup[edit]

This article severely needs cleaning up, if not writing from scratch. Most of the paragraphs are bullet pointed, and the majority of the article is just a list of conspiracy theories, some of which don't even have sources. This is an encyclopedia, encyclopedias need reputable sources. –  TigerTails  talk  23:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshima Conspiracy Theory[edit]

I have removed the section about Hiroshima per WP:Fringe. The video is not a verifiable source either. Davidpdx (talk) 12:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:Fringe does it go against, exactly? The video is a verifiable source in so far as it is the most reliable and available record of Michael Dimond's statement of opinion. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First things first: Michael Dimond's opinions about things that are not related to the MHFM do not belong in this article. This is not the article about Michael Dimond's fringe beliefs, it is about MHFM. Such information should be saved for the Michael Dimond page, once somebody chooses to build it up from its current redirect. Second, the fringe belief about Truman trying to kill Catholic Japanese people is utterly ridiculous—Truman was not involved in the selection of atomic bomb targets, and Kokura was the main target for the second bomb, not Nagasaki. That poorly sorted fringe theory does not belong at the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki page, or anywhere else except the Michael Dimond page, as an illustration of the intellectual limitations of the man. Binksternet (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
M. Dimond's views are very relevant to MHFM, seeing as he has been the owner of MHFM for a long time. M. Dimond and MHFM is synonymous. Ourshelp (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Binksternet for your comment. Just for future reference here you can find a list of reilable sources WP:RS. Video rants are not considered a reliable source. Davidpdx (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Conspiracy theory section[edit]

I took out the entire conspiracy theory section, for reasons of WP:SYNTH. There was no reliable outside source saying that the MHFM was into conspiracy theory, even though they clearly are from their page Watch Our Videos. My problem with that page is that they are not actually MHFM videos, they are instead videos from other sources reposted by MHFM, mostly without editorial comment by MHFM illustrating how the sect views any one particular conspiracy theory. Using the reposted videos in this way was synthesizing a position by MHFM—one which was not overtly stated by the Dimonds or observed by outsiders.

I replaced the Conspiracy theory section with one about which the MHFM has written at length: Holocaust denial. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They actually do have comments right below the videos that shows that they concord with the videos. I was working on compiling giving the source with their comments on my page but you deleted it. Ourshelp (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MHFM commenting on someone else's video is hardly notable. Binksternet (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On his website he does not put his theories in a list, it's scattered here and there. So compiling his views makes it a lot easier for people to know at a glace what his views are. Ourshelp (talk) 05:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cats[edit]

Who the hell cares that they keep two cats? Quit putting that back in. Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is unusual that a community claiming to be monastic engages in such mundane activity as keeping cats in a building that's supposedly monastic. Ourshelp (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. My opinion is that cats are normal at monasteries. Any mention of cats in this article will have to be accompanied by a reliable source commenting on it. Binksternet (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Ourshelp[edit]

Stop edit warring on this article. You appear to wish that the article be used as your own personal soapbox to tell the world your opinion about MHFM. Some of what you have listed about MHFM is just collating their own webpage materials so that the reader can see their opinions at a glance. However, their thoughts on any matter are not notable until a reliable source comments on what they believe. The simple fact that they say they believe something does not make it notable.

You are also re-introducing spelling, grammar, and manual of style problems when you revert my edits. You are putting grocer's apostrophes back into "1970's", for instance, when the correct spelling is "1970s". You are using hyphens and dashes in a manner that violates WP:DASH. You are putting a wikilink into a section heading—not good. Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually corrected the apostrophe before you mass-edited the article. What hyphens or dashes are you talking about? I did not insert my opinions anywhere; I reported what they believe. It seems you want to find some pretext to have the Hiroshima theory deleted. Ourshelp (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to see their beliefs about Hiroshima brought into the article, as long as you can find some reliable source outside of MHFM commenting on it. It's not about me, it's about reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Positions on various issues[edit]

I just deleted the entire section called "Positions on various issues". The problem with this section is that the positions are not commented upon by outside observers, and so are not notable. Only when reliable sources comment on the beliefs do the beliefs become notable. Binksternet (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The beliefs are not be notable per se, but it certainly is pertaining to MHFM. Ourshelp (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be a personal opinion. I see none of these beliefs cited by reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Include MHFM positions on various issues?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consensus is that each position must be verifiable, external to MHFM sources, or it is not appropriate to the article. Binksternet (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article include a section detailing the monastery's position on various issues as found online at the following Most Holy Family Monastery web pages?

The question is being raised because the source of the information is self-reported by MHFM, but the assorted beliefs have not been commented upon by outside observers, bringing notability into question. Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be more accurate, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Most_Holy_Family_Monastery&action=historysubmit&diff=345015020&oldid=344970212 Ourshelp (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts on this are that most of these links and topics can be dealt with by looking at WP:Fringe and Verifiability. Sources MUST be verifiable. Most of these fall under the category of self-published sources, which are much more scrutinized then other sources. I would specifically point to this [Published Sources (Online and Paper)]:

Self-published sources (online and paper)

Policy shortcuts: WP:SELFPUBLISH WP:SPS WP:TWITTER WP:V#SELF

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable.[4]

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

Either the person putting these things in the article needs to show an acceptable source, or leave them out. I've dealt with cases like this before and I firmly believe if an editor continues to Edit War, it need to be reported as such. This will result in a ban. If it continues we take it to the next step after that. It really is as simple as that. Davidpdx (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Self published sources can be used to state the position of the author. For example I could quote Richard Dawkin's books as sources on his own beliefs see WP:SELFPUB. But what relevance would it have to the article? I think it would fail notability in this case. Unless we have third party sources telling us that those views are somehow noticeable or important then they don't do anything to improve the article. Another example the is very close is Westboro Baptist Church. They have made notable, verifiable, claims that can be, have primary and tertiary source. I hope this helps the dispute.Adam in MO Talk 01:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lawsuit[edit]

Shouldn't the readership be made aware of this lawsuit? http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/holyfam.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.8.197.219 (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 3 August 2012[edit]

I think this link is good to add to external links:

190.110.87.34 (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit partisan and sectarian. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that this work I read was very interesting and thorough in examining the beliefs of MHFM. Is not criticism allowed on Wikipedia? I thought so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.110.87.34 (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It's not a question of criticism per se; there are other factors in play, including the need for external links to be "neutral and accurate", with content that is verifiable. Please read the guideline on external links. The proposed link appears not to meet the guideline. Rivertorch (talk) 06:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(rant moved from AfD)[edit]

To Ravenswing: Regarding your statement that Richard Ibranyi should be removed from the page on Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM), there was no reason for you to delete the references to Richard Ibranyi from the Most Holy Family Monastery Wikipedia page. Why did you single him out? Do you personally know the people the article was written about? Do you personally know the history of Most Holy Family Monastery and the involvement of Richard Ibranyi with that group? They themselves provide a lot of his "notability," but are also among the group that refer to him as R.I. So, Ravenswing, I will grant you this: if you are not religiously discriminating against Richard Ibranyi, you will be willing, when provided with live links and sources, to re-edit the Most Holy Family Monastery page and rightfully re-add the references to Richard Ibranyi that you deleted. By the way, I thought Wikipedia was known as the "Free Encyclopedia." I personally know that from time to time Wikipedia begs viewers to participate in governmental surveys to keep it open for "free speech." Are you going to violate that "free speech" in the case of Richard Ibranyi?
Here are the live links and correct references for your corrections to the Most Holy Family Monastery Wikipedia page.

  • Reply: I removed Ibranyi from this article because he is a non-notable figure -- as has been explained in the related AfD -- whose connection with this monastery seems to have been ephemeral, and to mention him would be a WP:UNDUE violation. That his name is mentioned in lawsuits or might have appeared on related publications is irrelevant; I'm my own church's administrator, and my name is on every pamphlet and publication we put out, but that doesn't mean I get to have my own Wikipedia article.

    As far as "free speech" goes, in point of fact, Wikipedia is a private website, and is under no legal onus to accord unlimited speech to all comers. Inclusion in Wikipedia requires meeting Wikipedia's standards for notability and verifiability, and we are not required to give a person an article just because his fans desperately want him to have one. Ravenswing 00:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ibranyi was on this page for a very long time and no administrator ever had a problem with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlaviusConstantinus (talk • contribs) 01:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • That does not, of course, matter a single bit; however long Ibranyi was listed on this page seemed to have solely happened because no one bothered to investigate whether any reliable sources stated that he was genuinely noteworthy. Whether he was any more so than any other of the self-proclaimed, self-promoting "monks" of this outfit would have to hinge on any reliable sources concerning Ibranyi ... if any existed. Ravenswing 05:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a difference in saying a person does not have enough notability to merit there own wiki article and saying that their criticism is invalid because they are not notable enough. All that has been presented in the AFD is that he did not have enough notability to merit his own individual page, it is an overreach to say therefore any mention of his work must be purged from wikipedia.Wowaconia (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The BLP standard was also invoked, as this is an organization rather than a living person it is hard to understand how that standard can be invoked.--Wowaconia (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • BLP hasn't been mentioned at all, so I'm unsure from where you're getting that. As far as mention of his work goes, if that can be (a) proven to have a material impact on this subject, and (b) you have reliable, independent, published sources saying so, sure, go for it. Forum posts, self-published fringe websites and blogs don't cut it. WP:V counts just the same in a BLP or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Ravenswing 17:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Articles/doc_106_decision_and_order_6_22_12.pdf#page=10
  2. ^ http://www.johnthebaptist.us/jbw_english/documents/books/rjmi/br2_on_rjmi.pdf#page=6
  3. ^ http://www.johnthebaptist.us/jbw_english/documents/refutations/rjmi/rr22_dimonds_deny_eens.pdf
  4. ^ http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Our_Challenge_to_debate_RI.php


Re-add references to Richard Ibranyi[edit]

The main issue at hand regarding Richard Ibranyi's being mentioned in the Most Holy Family Monastery article is whether or not he was a member of the Monastery and whether or not the circumstances regarding his association with the Monastery are true. Hence it is a matter of truth versus lies. If he was a member, then your removing this fact from the article is a lie. If it is true that Richard Ibranyi was ousted from the Monastery because he held the sedevacantist position, then your removing this fact from the article is a lie. If his denouncing the Dimonds as heretics for denying the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is true, then your removing this fact from the article is a lie. If the owner of Wikipedia allows such lies, then Wikipedia is just one more lying encyclopedia that not only willfully distorts or omits facts but also lies about certain persons who disagree with the owner's religious or ideological beliefs.

Now for the facts, the statements about Richard Ibranyi that were originally posted in the "Most Holy Family Monastery" article are true. They are as follows:

Richard Ibranyi was a member of Most Holy Family Monastery

It is an indisputable fact that Richard Ibranyi was a member of Most Holy Family Monastery. If this fact cannot be proved, then no fact can be proved about anything. There is visual and written evidence that testifies to these facts.

  • Richard Ibranyi's Second Coming of Jesus Christ videos that are posted on YouTube and Vimeo were recorded at Most Holy Family Monastery. In the videos Richard is wearing the religious garb of the Monastery and talks about Michael Dimond as his superior. Here is one of the videos. Here is a transcript from his video.
  • Richard Ibranyi's book "Outside the Church There Is No Salvation," published by TAN Books in 1997, was written at Most Holy Family Monastery and financed and copyrighted by Most Holy Family Monastery, 4425 Schneider Road, Fillmore, NY 14735. Here are images of the relevant pages in his book:
  • Richard Ibranyi is listed as a former member of Most Holy Family Monastery on page 10 in a court document titled "United States District Court Western District of New York, Eric E. Hoyle (Plaintiff) -vs- Fredrick Dimond, Robert Dimond, and Most Holy Family Monastery (Defendants)." Here is the quote from page 10: "Plaintiff testified that on December 30, 2007, he read an article on mass attendance by a former member of MHFM, Richard Ibranyi, and decided that defendants' position on this issue was wrong (Hoyle Dep., pp. 50, 60)." During the trial, the Dimonds never disputed this statement.
  • There are hundreds of witnesses that Richard Ibranyi was a former member of Most Holy Family Monastery.
  • Even the Dimonds' website mentions Richard as being a member of Most Holy Family Monastery but only refers to him as RI. They are afraid to use his full name because people will then learn the other side of the story and see that the Dimonds lied about Ibranyi, lied about other things, and contradict themselves and the Catholic faith.
  • If you simply call the Dimonds and ask them if Richard Ibranyi was a former member, I believe they will either admit this or refuse to answer the question.

Therefore your removing Richard Ibranyi as a former member and thus implying he was not a former member is a bold-faced black lie which makes Richard look like a liar instead of you. Hence, if he had the time, money, and desire, he could take you to court for libeling his name and reputation. This is not a small issue to Richard because people are spreading lies that he was either never a member of the Monastery or that he was not ousted because of the sedevacantist position or that the Dimonds do not deny the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

Richard Ibranyi was kicked out of the Monastery because he held the sedevacantist position

Another fact mentioned in the article is that Richard was ousted from the Monastery by Michael Dimond because Ibranyi held the sedevacantist position, which at that time Michael Dimond did not hold. Ibranyi speaks of this truth in his written, video, and audio works. Now the Dimonds may contest this, but you should at least give both sides of the argument. See Richard Ibranyi's book On RJMI: Why I Left Most Holy Family Monastery. See Richard Ibranyi's audio lecture RJMI at Most Holy Family Monastery (Alr27).

Richard Ibranyi did denounce the Dimonds for denying Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

Another fact mentioned in the article is that Richard Ibranyi denounced the Dimonds as heretics for denying the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, also known as the Salvation Dogma or "Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation." Ibranyi has ample proof of this in his written and audio works. Now the Dimonds will say they do not deny this dogma, but you should at least present both sides if you care about the truth. And unless you are deeply concerned about Catholic dogmas, you are not competent to judge regarding the matter as to who is right or wrong. From your perspective, you can know there is a dispute. Thus to be fair you must mention both sides of the dispute. There is hardly any Catholic or so-called Catholic that does not know there are many disputes over this dogma. See Richard Ibranyi's refutation: Dimonds Deny the Salvation Dogma. See Richard Ibranyi's audio sermon: "Twenty-Third Sunday after Pentecost" (Asr150).

Notability, ranting, and curious insistence to promote Ibranyi are not the issue

Ravenswing, notability is not the issue regarding Richard Ibranyi's being mentioned in the "Most Holy Family Monastery" article because Wikipedia has already judged that the article is notable enough to post. And it has been posted for several years. Hence, the issue is whether or not your presentation of the relevant facts and disputes regarding the Monastery and its superiors, members, and former members are true or false—and in this case not just false but also lies because you were presented with the facts about Richard Ibranyi and chose to reject and omit them.

Please, enough of your rant about rants! If you want to call a person's zealous concern about the truth "ranting," then you are free to do so. But you will only look foolish in the eyes of good-willed men. If you do not like the way Richard Ibranyi presents the truth, then that is your problem. Truth is truth whether it is said nicely or harshly. Since when do credible encyclopedias exclude from their contents persons who rant or at least are perceived to rant! That would exclude all persons who are convicted about their religious or ideological beliefs, all of whom are perceived to rant in the eyes of those who vehemently disagree with them. So your perception that Richard rants is not a credible issue, but rather the real issue should be whether or not his so-called rants are backed up by factual sources. And they are!

Your opposition to Flavius Constantinus' "curious insistence to promote Ibranyi" implies that no one can promote Ibranyi. Or if anyone does, he is not credible. You said, "WP:UNDUE still applies despite this editor's [Flavius Constantinus'] curious insistence to promote Ibranyi." Yet it is your "curious" insistence to un-promote and even attack Ibranyi that stands out the most. It was you who started the attack. It was you who removed any mention of Ibranyi from the article which was undisputed until you curiously came around and opposed any mention of Ibranyi. And it is the same you who is also attacking the newly deleted "Richard Ibranyi" article on Wikipedia, which happens to be 100% truth about the history and positions that Ibranyi holds, at least it was as of this date June 18, 2013. Now that sounds like you have a curious vendetta against Richard Ibranyi!

If the references to Richard Ibranyi are not put back in the "Most Holy Family Monastery" article, I will try to contact the owner of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, and have you removed as an administrator because you will then be a twice-convicted liar and thus a very un-credible person to decide who or what can be allowed in an encyclopedia. If the owner does not correct it, then he will stand accused of the same. Lastly, I know that everything in this article about Richard Ibranyi is true because I am Richard Ibranyi. You can contact me through the information given at my website.

Sincerely,

Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi RJMI (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC) — RJMI (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia is not concerned with hosting every single fact in the world. The importance of your role in MHFM as it appears in this article must reflect how much published sources mention your role. Can you point to a WP:Secondary source which talks about your role? Not court papers, and not your own videos or writings. Binksternet (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what Binksternet said. Presuming you are indeed Ibranyi -- something about which, you must concede, there is no proof -- there are a couple Wikipedia policies and guidelines concerning what is, and is not, an acceptable source. Something you publish yourself is almost never acceptable as a source, except as evidence of things you have said for the record ... and since this article is not about you, that's irrelevant. Books you have authored are not acceptable. Your website is not acceptable. Books you have edited are not acceptable. Articles you have written are not acceptable. So-called "reliable sources" must be published -- therefore, the testimony of your friends is not acceptable. What is acceptable are mainstream media sources with a proven reputation for fact checking, or books published by reputable, mainstream publishers. That this might set a high bar for inclusion is exactly the idea.

Secondly, that your name was in this article for some time without being removed means only that no one noticed or questioned it before now. This has now been done. If you were familiar with Wikipedia policies, you would know that being included once is no guarantee that you will be perpetually included.

Thirdly, no one is disputing whether you have or have not been a member of this monastery. What we dispute is whether you were a significant enough member to warrant inclusion in this article. No proof -- in the form of reliable, independent, published, mainstream sources -- to support that you were has been forthcoming. So far, you and your clique have been far more focused on claiming that such sources exist than in actually producing them, something that should be simple.

Finally, this is all rather moot, because there is an ironclad Wikipedia policy that your reply violated: WP:NLT. Ravenswing 01:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Proofs of Richard Ibranyi's Formerly Close Involvement with MHFM

Here are NFC image links to the dust jackets from VHS videos released from MHFM when Richard was an "O.S.B. Brother" at their Monastery:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Communist_Infiltration_Dust_Jacket.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Death_and_Journey_Into_Hell_Dust_Jacket.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Biblical_End_Times_dust_jacket_MHFM.png

The above "exhibits" and these provide sufficient proof for anyone of good will. You can listen to Richard's words when giving his speech in their auditorium, he is referring to Brother Michael and himself as doing projects together. You could have simply looked that the advertisement page he provided from his book. But now I am even providing these secondary sources. Everything links together. If you do not accept this, then it is proof that you are straining out gnats and swallowing camels. BTW, why is no one so incredibly concerned about proving that the other listed former member was really a member? I am not doubting it...why would someone claim that they were former members if it was easily disproved? But for the sake of argument, you have again been provided with ample proof. CatholicCrusade2013 16:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a walled garden to me, with you writing about MHFM and MHFM writing about you. We need to see whether the outside world has observed this issue. Have there been any Catholic (or other) publications that have connected you with MHFM in a significant manner? Binksternet (talk) 02:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of this discussion seems to have gotten a little heated, but I think the main goal remains the same of having a good encylopedia and having good articles within it. The subjects involved, both MHFM and the others mentioned - may seem obscure to the general reader but are figures of note within the theological/philsophical schools of which they represent. The sedevacantist position is of serious interest to those studying the ramifications of Vatican II on the largest single religious denomination on the planet, and stands as a serious challenge to those who accept Vatican II and those who refuse and resist it (such as the Society of Saint Pius X) but still hold that Francis is a legitimate Pope (despite his endorsement of Vatican II). Due to the sedevacantist rejection of contempory Vatican authority it makes sense that there are competing schools within this segment of post Vatican II Catholicism, and in a culture obsessed with concerns such as "What will Amanda Bynes tweet next?" it stands to reason that they aren't paying much attention to debates over things like the rubrics of the tridentine rite. But it would be a disserve to the goal of the encyclopedia to ignore these intellectual schools of thought. Surely if wikipedia can have an article on every piece of music made by Paris Hilton, we can find a way to capture the interactions and debates between schools of thought that will continue for generations to come.
      • It is Wikipedia practice to use a person's published thoughts as a legitimate source that can be cited as a quotation about that person's opinion...i.e. a person's tweets can be quoted in that person's wikiarticle (citing the twitter page's url) even though they are were not printed in full by a media organization. It would seem that such an approach could be used here citing Ibranyi by quoting his online or other work as an indication of his own thought, as long as an encylopedic manner was maintained.--Wowaconia (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mm, except that isn't the issue at hand, and never was. My position doesn't hinge on whether or not Ibranyi was a member of this monastery; I've never so much as inferred he wasn't. It is that no reliable sources have yet been produced demonstrating he was a noteworthy member. It is not whether we can rely on his own website as an accurate gauge of his opinion; it is that there's no reason to consider his critiques any more valid than Mrs. Grundy's, next door, who's peeved at the chanting when she's trying to sleep. Flavius and the string of probable sockpuppets has been throwing up a small blizzard of chaff, but it's curiously devoid of reliable sources. That legal document cited states nothing more than that Ibranyi's described as a former member ... but only as a passing mention, with no indication of his significance one way or another.

    Given how many people have sought to explain, the lack of understanding by Flavius et al about Wikipedia's requirements for sourcing and verification is passing from only-to-be-expected to willfully deliberate. Ravenswing 06:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


It seems that it has been demonstrated that he was notable enough to be included on media produced by them. It appears thats you are arguing that a previous declaration of notability by a group is not verification that the group holds them as notable; but who is a better expert on who they deem as notable than themselves? It would seem that you are aruging that if I asked you if your mother was notable in your life and you provided me with your own works to indicate that she was, that this would be inadmissible to wikipedia as a verification that you held her as notable. An odd position. In this article one could make clear the chronology and extent of his work with the group before one quoted him on his critique of the group.--Wowaconia (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, what you're doing is inferring that Ibranyi having been a part of media produced by the monastery means that he must have been a significant member, and to go on to say that as such he ought to be mentioned in the article. You've been on Wikipedia quite long enough to know that we do not and cannot draw inferences about notability, especially from self-published sources; reliable sources must say so. Your analogy is deeply flawed, in this light: whether I believed my mother was a notable influence on my own life would, in reference to my own Wikipedia article, not be terribly relevant: it is whether reliable sources other than me said so. Ravenswing 20:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

++The difficulty around this is that we can be aware of the situation at all due to the new media of the Internet, and questions such as when does online activity represent notability. So questions such as does a post on Ibranyi by the President of Catholic Answers count towards notability (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=116922) or not. Or a condemnation of him by a Papal claimant at (http://www.romancatholicism.net/epistle20120115.htm)? What of a mention in the Roman Theological Forum by Brian Harrison (theologian) (http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt103.html)?

This is compounded by the fact that the controversy that MHFM and the others are involved in is over questions of details around centuries old dogma (not a sexy topic for the commercial media). Further Ibranyi's position is a minority one within a larger school of thought (sedevacantism). This entire school of thought is treated with dismissive scorn by its opponents (those who hold Vatican II was a legitimate council) if they deem to admit that it is even a possibility that someone could entertain such thoughts. But the opponents avoid addressing the sedevacantist position directly - so it remains largely esoteric to the general population.

This does not mean that such positions are unworthy of note in an Encyclopedia - just because a groups works are dismissed and suppressed by its larger opponents does not mean they fail to be notable - for example the U.S. abolitionist in the age of Lincoln started as a mere handful of people with their own self-published newspapers, they were derided and dismissed by both the slave holding south and the racist north, but as they continued they gathered force - today they are cited as a key reason for the triggering of the civil war and the abolishment of slavery in the U.S.

If one was making an Encyclopedia at the time of Lincoln it would have been a disservice to its readers to claim that the abolitionists were not worthy of mention because they aren't mentioned in the press as much as the latest innovation in frock coats. Likewise I would argue that it is of encyclopedic value to track and inform readers of this ongoing theological/philosophical controversy to inform those interested and maintain a neutral standing in the ongoing controversy.

Yes one can find vastly more reliable sources about different fads in hairstyles and accompanying wiki-articles about them but I would argue that such fluff is far less encyclopedic than decades of theological/philosophical debate, which in its essence are positions about the nature of humanity and reality. Laying out these controversy with neutrality and as much thoroughness as possible is the best way to inform readers which is the entire purpose of Wikipedia.

+++Lastly perhaps the deletion of Ibranyi was rushed as he is mentioned in the book - The Catholic Church: What Everyone Needs to Know By John L. Allen published by Oxford University Press, here is the link on Google Books: (http://books.google.com/books?id=6i-VaE8aD6MC&pg=PA176&lpg=PA176&dq=Richard+Ibranyi&source=bl&ots=fmaFlHrvbt&sig=YffMJrd3Q8o5pHJVCn-zD9HCSuI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VfbBUaPxNqjXyAHrr4CQDg&ved=0CFoQ6AEwCTgo#v=onepage&q=Richard%20Ibranyi&f=false)

--Wowaconia (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was poised to praise the Oxford book you found, but its mention of Ibranyi, quoting him on family planning, does not include anything about Most Holy Family. The book is of no use to this article. Binksternet (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two answers: first off, as again you should know, the guidelines on notability explicitly debar a quote from a subject as supporting the subject's notability: the source must discuss the subject himself in "significant detail."

Moving right along, your analogy about abolitionists is, once again, deeply flawed; their names have obviously come down to us in many a reliable source, and as such appear on Wikipedia. By contrast, those who haven't, aren't. It is not that Richard Ibranyi hasn't been covered as heavily in reliable sources as the Justin Biebers of the world. His AfD closed as a Delete because he hasn't been covered in any reliable sources at all.

More importantly, your arguments on what should or should not be considered a reliable source, and what Wikipedia should or should not hold to be important, are all very well and good, but not relevant to this discussion. If you seek to change consensus on the provisions of WP:V, WP:GNG and WP:IRS, that's best done on their respective talk pages. If you're unhappy that the world seems more interested in pop culture fads than in theological and philosophical debate, that's an issue beyond Wikipedia's scope. Ravenswing 20:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be shifting your criteria; you held that Ibranyi was not to be quoted in this article as he was not notable. When I point out that he is deemed notable by scholars (who produced the book I linked) now you claim he must be notable for critiquing MHFM before he can be quoted critiquing them. This would be like saying one cannot quote a Pope from one of his encyclicals (which are all self-published) critiquing Martin Luther because his notability does not arise from any association with Lutheranism. This is not the wiki-standard.--Wowaconia (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Ibranyi was notable by Wikipedia standards, then he would be discussed in significant detail in at least two widely published works. See Wikipedia:Notability (people). A lower standard of notability applies to Ibranyi's role at MHFM. This lower standard allows us to mention people who are significant to the topic at hand, but not really famous enough to merit a Wikipedia biography of their own. If the book published by Oxford showed us that Ibranyi was signficant to MFHM then it would be a good basis for his inclusion. However, the book does not get us to that point. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you consider Hutton Gibson (father of Mel Gibson) to be a good source for notability for Ibranyi? He devoted several pages to addressing his differences with Richard Ibranyi in his book: "The Enemy is Still Here." http://www.huttongibson.com/PDFs/EnemyIsStillHere.pdf CatholicCrusade2013 23:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatholicCrusade2013 (talk • contribs)
How about Brian Harrison (theologian), an emeritus professor of theology at the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico and editor and writer for the "Living Tradition" article. He devoted "Article 103" to addressing his differences with Richard Ibranyi regarding Natural Family Planning. http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt103.html
Brian Harrison also wrote in the "This Rock" magazine, now known as the "Catholic Answers Magazine," an article devoted to addressing his differences with Richard Ibranyi regarding the Salvation Dogma: http://archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0301fea4.asp and Richard Ibranyi has written a 74-page refutation containing his correspondences with Brian Harrison: http://www.johnthebaptist.us/jbw_english/documents/refutations/rjmi/rr19_ag_fr_harrison.pdf So we have John L. Allen, Hutton Gibson, and Brian Harrison (theologian) all addressing Ibranyi (not to mention many others, including MHFM if you consider them notable). If Ibranyi has merited attention from these "notable beings," then Ibranyi has sufficient notability to merit his own Wikipedia article. CatholicCrusade2013 04:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't work that way; not only is notability is not inherited, but we've told you, repeatedly, that blog posts and self-published sources are not reliable sources. Period. Show us Ibranyi being discussed in detail in a major newspaper or in a book published by a major publishing company. That's the level of publicity the rules require. Ravenswing 16:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is MHFM discussed in detail in a major newspaper or in a book published by a major publishing company? I don't see any Oxford books in the sources for their page. (BTW, their books are self-published by MHFM.) Also, regarding your misinterpretation of Wikipedia standard...the three sources I listed for you above are not self-published by the subject. Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject..." Richard Ibranyi is NOT John L. Allen, Hutton Gibson, or Brian Harrison (theologian). So these are not self-published works by the subject. These three persons would then qualify according to the Wikipedia standard. Also it says Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source: "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: ...books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, mainstream newspapers." So according to the rules, for one to be notable, they do not have to be discussed ONLY in "a major newspaper or in a book published by a major publishing company." CatholicCrusade2013 20:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatholicCrusade2013 (talk • contribs)
Not, of course, that you've provided multiple sources on Ibranyi in minor newspapers or obscure books, either, so I'm a bit amused about your vehemence. You're willing to filibuster to death, and in fact do pretty much anything to get your way, except for the one thing that would work: provide reliable sources.

As far as the notability of MHFM goes? Glad you asked: I consider it very shaky at best, and even in the fringe world of sedevacantism, it seems like a fringe player. Frankly, if it wasn't for the Southern Poverty Law Center cite, I'd be perfectly happy to send this article to AfD as well. Ravenswing 05:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

++Ibranyi is notable in the sedevacantist world (not notable enough to merit his own wiki-article perhaps) but notable enough to be mentioned in a scholarly work about sedevacantism. How when his sedevactism is notable enough to be mentioned by scholars is his sedevactism not at the level to critique other sedevactists? Again no one has addressed how this claim that he can not be cited here is different than claiming Papal encyclicals (which are selfpublished) can not be quoted in an article about Martin Luther.--Wowaconia (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Simple: because there are no reliable sources doing so. Should Ibranyi write an article in the mainstream media criticizing the subject, that would be perfectly worth citing. As long as he chooses to do so from the safe haven of his own website or on this blog or that, well, it isn't. Ravenswing 05:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the Hutton Gibson book: it was self-published, so that hurts its use as a reliable source, but does not completely erase it. Regarding the Harrison article, the Living Tradition Forum is fairly obscure, but it appears to have a scholarly audience. Regarding Catholic Answers, I have seen polarized opinions about their reliability, so I don't know. The thing that is needed is a discussion of Ibranyi's life, including where he was born, what is his schooling, etc. You know, a biographical bit published somewhere. Binksternet (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the previous mention of Ibranyi in the article was not up to enclopedic standard because it was a summary rather than a quotation, it appears that you are saying that a direct quoatation from a noted sedevactist invoking his sedevactism to critique another sedevactist group would not be acceptable because it would be a statement of his opinion in his own words from something he produced himself. If that is your position than how is that different than directly quoting a papal encylical (which is self published) from a pope critiquing Martin Luther? Please actually address the example of a Papal encylical directly.--Wowaconia (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Honestly, I have no idea why some of these concepts are so difficult to grasp. A papal encyclical is notable because it's an official release from the head of a sovereign nation, published as an official communication by the Holy See Press Office, and disseminated to the billion-plus Catholics in the world. I rather expect consensus would consider these reliable sources, which would pass every conceivable notability test. A lone wolf sounding off on his personal website, not so much. What makes his published opinion any more valid than, say, mine? Because you claim he's a prominent sedevacantist? Splendid. Then cite the reliable sources discussing him in detail as proof that he is. Ravenswing 06:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on the self-published encyclicals appears again to dodge the problems on self-publication - first you hold that the Vatican escapes the questions over self-publication by being a nation-state, but this has not always been the case: with the formation of the nation of Italy the Papal states were stripped of any sovereignty. Are you suggesting that any self-published encyclicals from that period until the treaty with the fascists can not be directly quoted in Wikipedia?

You cite the fact that many people are interested in reading the encyclicals, are you therefor maintaining that a self-published document ceases to be a self-published document if enough people look at it?

I put forward hat a Pope's correspondence criticizing Martin Luther are worthy of inclusion because any pope has a claim of being notable on the question of Christianity. Likewise Ibranyi is notable enough to be cited as an example of sedevactantism by scholars and opponents, and therefor his opinion on other sedevactantists is notable as it is a question of specialized knowledge and not on media and paparazzi coverage. Therefore I put forwardt that directly quoting an expert's own opinion on the area he is a notable expert on from his own work is encyclopedic.--Wowaconia (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Starting to look a lot like a filibuster on your part. First off, the Vatican publishing things is not "self-publication" -- the Holy See is a de jure sovereign nation and has been a de jure sovereign nation for about as long as the concept of sovereign nations has existed. Secondly, do I maintain that a self-published document ceases to be one if enough people look at it? No. But it certainly becomes notable if enough people look at it -- reflected in citation by reliable sources -- and notability is governed by the GNG. Thousands upon thousands of reliable sources discuss papal encyclicals. You can't find so much as one thin reliable source discussing Ibranyi's statements in any detail, and you know it ... if you could have proven him notable, you would have long since, and thus put this discussion to a close. Ravenswing 21:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came to this page yesterday from a recent related AFD and spent some time cleaning up some of the reference, without realising that the section in question was the subject of this thread here. I did remove a couple of lines that were based on "references" that were actually just threads on public internet forums. I'm not disputing the information, per se, but using those links as references is obviously not going to work as they are nowhere near being reliable sources. I also cleaned up some other refs that were just bare links. Anyway, apologies if I stepped on any toes during my clean up - I've watchlisted the page and am happy to discuss in more detail if required. Cheers, Stalwart111 02:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that I am making a filibuster borders on accusing me of bad faith - if my arguments are weak they should be easy to address directly. I see that you hold my example fails by your claim that the Vatican was a "de jure" state after its sovereignty was stripped at the formation of Italy - but you aren't citing anyone but your own opinion. Further you do not address whether an article can cite the work of an expert in the expert's own field from their own work, or if we must hope that a large media source cares about the topic before it becomes encyclopedic.--Wowaconia (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good article for external links section[edit]

Here is a very informative and extensively sourced article about Most Holy Family Monastery to add to the external links section. This section is quite empty now I should say, and this is a good addition. The article is full of quotes from and about the monastery. Here is the link.

As I understand it, an admin must add this link to the external links section, so I please ask any admin to add this link as I myself is not an admin and I cannot add it myself. Or is there some way I can add it myself? Please answer and help me admins. The links sections only has one link now, and this is a long and good article with much info. Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.220.187.231 (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page you wish to place an external link to does not appear to be from a notable person or group, so there is little difference between it and a blog an anonymous person chose to place on the internet - why does the opinion on this page matter in a bigger context, and how do we know that the person/people making the comments have any reputation for reliability in the field that they are writing about? Further a quick glance over the page shows that it is hardly neutral (for example one heading reads "The Dimonds donation hypocrisy"). Due to this lack of neutrality you would have to explain how following this link would add to the understanding of this article (you don't find links to the pages of groups opposing elected officials on the articles about such officials). The combination of the lack of neutrality and lack of notability would mean that an external link to that page from the article would not be in line with wikipedia policies and would likely be deleted if it was inserted.--Wowaconia (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. I have found that other articles have criticism as external links. Here is an example: Kent Hovind
This subject of MHFM is not the most talked about, and so, it is hard to find well made and well sourced material on this subject. There are theological arguments discussed in the article, and so, it seems better to have a thourough study that deals with many of their theological positions and statements, rather than having nothing. In this case, I would say that this site is an authority, since they have both debated and interacted with MHFM, and their article is very long and well made with quotations both from MHFM as well as others commenting on their organization. Thanks again for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.220.187.231 (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While MHFM is notable, the difficulty is finding a source that is reliable, notable, and not just someone's opinion who happens to have access to a computer with an internet connection who can write their opinions in a blog.
Wikipedia standards frown on such, see Wikipedia policy on external links, WP:ELNO:

11. Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)

It seems to me that the Wikipeida article on Kent Hovind you pointed to would work better if they split the article between the biography of the person on one page and gave his theological position its own wikipedia article, as there seems to be interests on multiple sides of that. One would not need to use so many links then as the information may, depending on if the sources are notable and reliable, be incorporated directly into the new article rather than offering such a large bank of external links. As that article is a Biography of a living person this would also help insure the page did not violate standards on such Biography articles and standards about external links on such pages WP:ELBLP.
I have not followed the links on that page to see if they are in violation of policy, but the amount of links indicates a problem in my opinion - which I belive could be resolved by splitting the article.
---Wowaconia (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unam sanctam[edit]

Unam sanctam ends with the following phrase, "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unam_sanctam Boniface (1302) This was a statement that really upset Luther, and Luther pointed this out in the Leipzig Debate with Johann Eck in 1519. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_Debate The fact is that this last part of Unam sanctam should really be highlighted in this article regarding Most Holy Family Monastery. For, in the Most Holy Family Monastery denying the legitimacy, and calling the following Popes, Anti Pope, Pope Francis, Benedict XVI, Pope John Paul II, Pope John Paul I, Paul VI, and John XXIII - http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/anti-pope-francis-vatican-ii-antipopes/ this group is disagreeing with the above phrase of Unam sanctam and becomes no different than Protestantism.Easeltine (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They address that in their materials, they hold that the Popes endorsing Vatican II are visibly doing heretical practices, such as John Paul II praying with the Dali Lama, Rabbis, Hindus, etc. at Assisi, and participating in a rite of Judaism in a synagogue. Benedict XVI praying with the Grand Mufti of the Islamic Blue Mosque with his hands in a Muslim prayer style, standing barefoot, facing Mecca all in line with Muslim doctrine.

The MHFM points to an early papal decree that says no heretic can remain a bishop and they hold that this applies to the Bishop of Rome as well, so such people claiming to be pope while being in open heresy can not actually be the pope but are heretical frauds who can not command obedience.

They hold that just as no person can claim and promote that Jesus is fine with adultery and at the same time claim to be Pope, no man can claim and promote (in accord with Vatican's II Nostra Aetate) that Islam and Catholicism worship the same god, and legitimately claim to Pope (as Islam denies the doctrine of the Trinity). --Wowaconia (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

some1 add this[edit]

http://johnthebaptist.us/jbw_english/documents/books/rjmi/br2_on_rjmi.pdf "On August 29, 1997, Michael expelled [RJMI] from the monastery."

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2015[edit]

"Beginning in late 2012, an audio recording of Peter Dimond responding to an individual struggling with sex addiction set to the image of a macaque became a fad on the site YTMND under the name "impurity" No reference for this statement. Please delete this or provide external source. 187.35.245.177 (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done and the rest of the paragraph - as it is all unsourced - Arjayay (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Most Holy Family Monastery. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 21:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Most Holy Family Monastery. 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:

  • Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/archived_radio_programs.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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 12:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section[edit]

All criticisms are cited directly to the criticism itself, not a secondary source reporting on said criticisms. Per WP:QS none of them have oversight and all have a conflict of interest. Based on what is in the criticism section, it appears the standard is to link to anyone who says anything about the article subject, which isn't much of a standard. I'm in favor of removing the criticism section unless some secondary source actually talks about them. If there is truly no disinterested criticism, then the whole article is probably not notable enough to exist in the first place. — Bility (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2022[edit]

Grammar correction:

Change "MHFM is known for their persist defense of Feeneyism"

To "MHFM is known for their persistent defense of Feeneyism" 180.150.79.82 (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for pointing that out. In that same sentence, decided to substitute its for their. AukusRuckus (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion, not intended to be, and hopefully not received as, contentious. The second line of the article appears to be saying that Michael and Peter Dimond are brothers in both the sense of being family members and living a religious life together, but the present wording is unclear as it stands. Might it be a good idea to change the first instance of 'brothers' to 'siblings' in the interests of clarity? 217.155.59.206 (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Good call. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Most_Holy_Family_Monastery&oldid=1204078719"