" 

 :: The people Dominick is referring to as ""traditionalist Catholics"" are not, in fact traditionalist Catholics, rarely refer to themselves as such, are not referred to as such by others, and spend an inordinate amount of time screeching about people who do call themselves ""traditionalists"" and who believe the things outlined in the section ""Traditionalist beliefs.""  

 :: What would the ""Traditionalist beliefs"" section look like if Dominick got a hold of it? Something like this?: 

 ::: 1.  A new understanding of collegiality which they claim has weakened the papacy and made bishops' conferences a veritable ""second Vicar of Christ"" for the Church. They see this as contradicting, among others, Pope Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum and the documents of Vatican I.  - No, we don't. This is a lie of the Pope-haters. Real Catholics don't think this way at all! 

 ::: 2.  A ""false"" ecumenism that has as its goal a religious unity that they see as not requiring conversion to the Catholic faith. They see this as contradicting Sacred Scripture, Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos, Pope Pius XII's Humani Generis and other documents. - False again! Real Catholics don't see anything false coming from the Holy See and are in full accord with everything at all times that comes from men in mitres! Only vatican-bashers think otherwise! 

 ::  and so on? I mean, come on. Dominick can have his say in the ""Relations with other Catholics"" section. There is nothing to say about people who think like Dominick except that they love Vatican II, don't have any problems with it, and they worship at indult Masses. They are plain, ordinary, everyday conservative Catholics. This article, on the other hand, is about the people who are called ""traditionalist Catholics""  the immense majority of the time  the people you know are most often called traditionalist Catholics, which you admit to on Dominick's Talk Page where you wrote: 

 ::: ""If you examine the Google references for ""Traditional Catholics"" and ""Traditionalist Catholics"", I think it is clear that Traditionalist Catholics in the narrow sense make up the immense majority of those who use ""Traditional Catholics"" (some 54 800 times)on the Internet."" 

 :: This article is not a matter of distinguishing ""the traditionalist Catholics Used2BAnonymous wants the article to be about from many others""; it is a matter of 1) what information people are looking for when they search for the phrase ""traditionalist Catholic,"" 2) the people who are, in fact, called ""traditionalist Catholics"" and refer to themselves as such the immense majority of the time, and 3) what the article was created to be about.  

 :: You said, ""In a neutral-point-of-view article, the ""Traditionalist beliefs"" section is the place for expounding the point of view of exclusive-sense traditionalists about themselves. The ""Relations with other Catholics"" section is the place for indicating their views of other Catholics, whether those others call themselves traditionalists or not. Indeed Used2BAnonymous has three times declared as much, saying that that is the place for Dominick, an inclusive-sense traditionalist, to put his observations on exclusive-sense traditionalists."" - Well, exactly.' So what is the problem here and what am I supposed to be defending every 24 hours? We've got the thing set up; Dominick should just write his criticisms for the ""Relations with other Catholics"" section, add a few anti-trad links at the bottom, and then go back to his Ann Coulter page. It is getting extremely tedious having to repeat myself all the time about this.  

 :: As to the summary, I still maintain that the more exclusive definition should refer to ""the section below."" It's all very simple. It makes clear that certain beliefs are involved, and ""the section below"" explains what those beliefs are.  There is no other way around this since reality is considered ""POV""  i.e., people either are or are not consistent with traditional Catholic teaching, but those who are not think they are and think that anyone claiming otherwise is just offering a ""point of view"" in the same way that 2+2=4 is a ""POV."" You can tell that 2+2=5 is just another viable POV because Popes now worship in synagogues, but conservative Catholics are fine with it, all while thinking they're perfectly consistent with traditional Catholic teaching. It's as if everyone knows that the presentation of Catholic teaching has changed except conservative Catholics or something. From a few articles I read in just the past two days'': 

 :: From Zenit:  
 NEWLIN