Talk:John O'Connor (cardinal)

message: I'm pretty "pro human rights" and "pro gay rights" (voted for a pro gay marriage candidate in the last federal election) but I've got to say that after reading this article it comes across that all he spent his entire episcopate doing was thwarting gay pride parades and civil rights legislation.  (Yeah I know that's an oversimplification.)  Surely there's a way of including his documented opposition to the normalization of homosexuality and opposition to equal-rights legislation yet framing this in the context of his other activities.  I admit I don't know a whole lot about him, but I have trouble believing that even John Paul II would appoint an archbishop, let alone a cardinal without him having some other redeeming qualities other than arch-conservatism.  Maybe there's an interesting story in how he rose to the rank of Rear-Admiral?  I see 5 short paragraphs on his life, followed by a long diatribe on his conservatism itemizing in depth his evils.  Why no equal follow up on this interesting sentence: "He opposed the death penalty, and abhorred war."?
At the risk of defending an alleged confidant of Ronald Reagan (aaaaaaggh!) I feel compelled to point out that what is being cited as his failings and even evils are in fact the actions of a senior authority in an organization which has opposed the legitimization of abortion and homosexuality for centuries, if not millenia.  He's not really that controvertial other than the fact that he was the Archbishop of New York and thus in the media spotlight.  I'd like to see somebody dig up a significant number of archbishops anywhere in the Catholic Church who would, at the time, have expressed a different point of view.  Witness the situation in the Anglican Communion right now where the Canadian and American Provinces of the Church are being essentially asked to repent on pain of excommunication (of course the Anglican Communion in a typically British manner are being somwhat more circumspect about it than the more bombastic Cardinal O'Connor).
At any rate I feel dirty after writing that defence of a position I don't support, please forgive me!  My point is that there needs to be some sort of balance here so that this article is a useful reference for somebody who wants to know what he is about.  I've taken a stab at breaking the article up so that it reads less as a diatribe and more like a biography.  I was suprised once I started reading it as an editor how much good information was there that just doesn't read well becasue of the formatting and a couple of very agressive sentences that set the tone for the rest of the article.  In no way do I want to whitewash O'Connor, but I would like to maintain an academic style if possible.  If we can do it for much more controversial figures surely we can do it for him.
I've broken it out into sub-sections in an attempt to make it easier for future editors to elaborate on the various parts of his legacy which as I read it is quite mixed.  I've also made a couple of minor readability changes and expanded on a couple of "idea-stubs" based on a bit of quick Google research.  Please edit me since I readily admit Cardinal O'Connor is hardly my area of expertise!
Gabe 06:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not my job to judge your motives, and I haven't. And it's not the article's job to judge (or condemn, or apologize) for O'Connor's motives, and it shouldn't. It should simply state what he's done and said, not what we think his motivations might have been. They are unknowable. Let his actions speak for themselves. - Zotz 21:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Because the latter actually makes a factual (that is, falsifiable) statement (he opposed every bill), while the former is a vague assertion (he opposed some bills strongly). (And it had to be edited anyway for spelling). The original (and present) statement is instantly falsifiable if anyone can come up with a single piece of gay-rights legislation that O'Connor supported during those 16 years - but there is none. And unlike your modification, it doesn't suggest that O'Connor took a middle-ground approach, supporting some bills (say for equal housing) and opposing others (say for gay marriage). He just opposed them all. - Zotz 21:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: It's not a matter of balance. Though you may see AIDS as a gay disease, and O'Connor may have, it's not, and suggesting it is is not quite appropriate. The characterization of AIDS as a gay disease has become the tool of bigots and Wikipedia doesn't need to adopt it. The relationship between AIDS and the gay community of New York was temporal and accidental. The act of charity being conciously evoked by O'Connor was to "tend the sick" not to "tend the gay".  - Zotz 21:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't really care where O'Connor's viewpoints came from, and I don't see good motivation as ameliorative of bad actions. I don't see O'Connor as consciously aware of his hatred for gays; indeed, he said he believed his actions were from love. It made no difference to those from whom he kept the protections of equal rights under law, and it made no difference to those who may have heeded his extremely bad advice to avoid condom use and wound up with AIDS. - Zotz 21:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  John "Anti-Everything" O'Connor 

message: I want to step back for a second.  Zotz, I think you and I are on the same page.  I'm not some raving conservative religious wacko out to defend O'Connor come hell or high water.  I merely stumbled across this article and found it hard to read and, while factually fairly accurate, not particularly condusive to drawing one's own conclusions on the matter.  (And I'm a guy who, though he doesn't have any particular expertise on the matter, thinks pretty dimly of O'Connor and his point of view.)
I agree that his actions should speak for themselves, but I would like to see it worded in a more neutral manner.  I took a crack at it and apparently failed.  That's fine, I'm not committed to my copy, but I would like to see something that is a little less... I don't know... I hate to use the word, but perhaps militant is what I'm looking for.  To go back to the question of whether or not he opposed gay legislation... there's two sides to that.  You take issue with my (admittedly) mealy-mouthed phrasing of his opposition, well I take issue with your assertion that your wording is falsifiable.  What is "gay related legislation"?  
:That would be the legislation that makes it less likely for gays to be discriminated against. As in rental housing, hiring, etc. - Zotz 00:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There was little if any federal or international legislation of that nature at that time, so necessarily he couldn't say much about legislation that hadn't even been proposed. Most of his (and his archdiocese's) political activity was centered in New York State and New York City - the state of grace of any New York politician (in the eyes of the archdiocese) can be determined by looking at where the archdiocese seats him at the annual Alfred E. Smith political dinner. (Or in the case of John Kerry, refuses to invite him...) - Zotz 00:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: As a member of the aforementioned "people who live in the 19th century", I appreciate how you're trying to work this out, Gabe.  Opusaug 21:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: uncomfortable to have the facts stated so starkly? ...if rephrasing this in some more mealy-mouth fashion...  With this, I personally think you make the case quite well that, yes, it's NPOV.  I don't mind the facts, I mind them being phrased in a way to cudgel, rather than to inform.  I'm sure Cardinal O'Connor didn't notch his belt sixteen times in glee, once for each time he wickedly thwarted the legitimate aspirations of the oppressed.  He was trying to uphold the principles of his faith, that told him it was wrong not to discourage what that faith views as immoral behavior.  Yet the former seems to be what you're trying to project.  Opusaug 05:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Stark = honest. What in the article (not the talk page) do you find to be an unattributed, disputed opinion? For that is what determines whether an article is NPOV, not whether it makes you comfortable. Yes, O'Connor didn't have that many notches on his belt, or that much slack in it, either; nor will you find anything in the article that implies that he rubbed his hands together gleefully, a la Simon Legree, each time someone died of AIDS in his hospitals (or each time he was reimbursed from Medicaid for the care rendered during that person's final illness). - Zotz 08:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cooldown 

message: I couldn't find anything specifically addressing this issue in the talk page.  I have looked at various Wiki pages on the Dalai Lama, Pope Benedict XVI, Justus Sandra Day O'Connor, etc., and none of these pages use honorific styles.  I was surprised to find "His eminence" used in this case.  I don't necessarily object, I just think that there should be uniformity, and wonder if using this style might violate NPOV.  The only reason I was checking was because I found the honorific "Rinpoche" (precious teacher) used on some pages for Tibetan Buddhist teachers (which again, I don't oppose, but think uniformity should prevail, plus, the honorific "His Holiness" was removed from Dalai Lama page). I started doing a search to see how honorifics were used in Wiki (I'm new).  I found that they really seem to be missing. In light of this, shouldn't "His eminence" be removed?  --Dorje Shedrub 23:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Honorifics are supposed to be moved into a "sytles box".  Apparently, Cardinal O'Connor was missed.  I'll go make the changes now. Gentgeen 11:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that!  Can you point me to a Wiki policy/guide that discusses this?  I have not been able to find anything.  I know of some Buddhist pages that could use a style box.  Thanks! --Dorje Shedrub 14:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "His Eminence" 

message: This article is an absolute classic for POV-pushing. Statements are made with no sourcing. Claims are made with no backup."Facts" are stated with no evidence. It is so bad it is almost funny. And what is the source for the claim that condoms only have a 90% success rate against HIV? 
This article is so appallingly biased and shoddy it beggars belief. Either source the claims or delete them. They cannot stay in the article like this. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree more; someone has it out to paint the subject as a bigot, and sounds from above like it's been this way for a while.  I could rewrite the whole thing from scratch, but I have a life...Baccyak4H 13:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is more complicated than that. The article veers from denegration to adoration, unsourced criticism to unsourced hagiography. One minute he sounds like Adolf Hitler in black, the next Mother Teresa with a penis. It uses quotes without any sources, claims that are dubious both for and against, etc. It really is awful as an article. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 15:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the abstract of a peer-reviewed article from 1999 looking at 25 studies of HIV transmission rates and giving condom success rates at preventing HIV in heterosexuals at most likely 87%, but possibly somewhere between 60% and 96%. Gentgeen 07:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's an article  here that (and a Panorama article here) that makes clear that though the overall success rate in preventing HIV transmission is only 85% with condom use, this success rate can be much higher for individuals using condoms consistently and correctly. The failure rate in general comes from lack of consistent use, or incorrect use. Yonmei 22:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poorly written, shoddy POV article

message: I am gay and I am a lapsed Catholic. The article on Cardinal O'Connor gives too much weight to his relationship to the gay community. O'Connnor was NOT controversial among most Catholics, who agreed with his views on most social and docrinal issues. The article reflects the inability of the author to step outside his own narrow view of life i.e. the view of a gay man. (We say the same phenomenon rear its head in coverage of President Reagan's death. If you asked gay activists to describe Reagan, they would say "he was the guy who ignored AIDS." Well, that may or may not be true. But Reagan was certainly more than that.)
At the same time, it's worth noting that O'Connor was the Cardinal of New York City -- with its large, politically active gay population -- during the early 1980s when AIDS became a public health scourge. So, it is understandable that the author would address gay issues/ AIDS. However, O'Connor's views and actions are not easily categorized. He was a complex, capable leader. In time, he will be seen -- and described -- as much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.74.237.92 (talk • contribs) 09:18, October 23, 2006.
:I agree, the part about homosexuality is exagerated. It should be put into context, so that it doesn't turn into a screed or an attack article. ADM (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: :Image:John OConnor.jpg
This image was removed from the article due to uncertainty of copyright/fair use status. — Eoghanacht talk 17:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image removed 

message: In the process of "clean-up" it appears only certain uncited statements were being removed, and new unsource statements are being added. It will soon become necessary to remove uncited statements, so I would encourage those adding them to find sources so they may be retained. - Zotz (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Z, I'm not sure what you're referring to -- "soon become necessary to remove uncited statements"? Some of the unsourced statements I removed had been tagged for ~2 years w/o citation. I'm glad that you seem to have found some sources for some of them. Others were not just unsourced but plainly POV. If you've got a question about a "new" statement, please feel free to ask here or tag. Cheers.Cloonmore (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems peculiar that you're simultaneously adding information and tagging that same information with "citation needed" templates. Surely you are obtaining your information from a source? Why would you not include that source, rather than suggesting that somebody else find it and add it after the fact?  And it also seems peculiar that you would delete unsourced criticisms of O'Connor while retaining unsourced fawning over O'Connor of equal antiquity. It's one thing to use "citation" templates to improve sourcing, and another to use them to selectively delete points of view you don't like. Of course, it's possible that that was just accidental. The vast preponderance of the tags now remaining are largely vague praise; I trust you will be providing citations soon. - Zotz (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do my best. Of course, you're also welcome to provide some cites for the "largely vague praise". :)  After all, I sourced some of the "relations with gay community" section. Oh, and the addition of  tags to material I was adding was really just a short-term reminder to myself. I knew the info was factual but wasn't sure where'd I'd read it. i think I've fixed those.Cloonmore (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the problem with vague praise is it really ought to be attributed as well as sourced. So the citations are best done by those who know where they found the vague praise in the first place. But don't worry, I'll certainly continue to help you out. - Zotz (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the process of "clean-up" 

message: This is an inappropriate heading for a section that contains little about human rights. Abortion, for example, is held by some to be a right, so Wikipedia declaring that agitating to outlaw abortion is "human rights advocacy" is problematic and improper. Given that O'Connor opposed reproductive rights of women, and rights to freedom from discrimination in employment and lodging for gay men and women, another title for this section must be found. I've used "Advocacy" and "Political stances", the latter of which was changed back. Other options are solicited. - Zotz (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  On "Human Rights Advocacy" 

message: Part of this article could maybe be tranfered into a separate entry entitled religion and AIDS, which would discuss the various controversies surrounding the opposition to the use of contraception and the support of chastity for people who risked being exposed to the illness, such as homosexuals in developed countries or poor people living in African countries. ADM (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that you want to use some of the material developed for this article about Cardinal O'Connor elsewhere doesn't mean it doesn't belong here. The consequences of O'Connor's actions belong in the article about him, no matter where else they are also mentioned. We don't create POV forks of material here. - Zotz (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The material that I wanted to use wasn't POV, it was in fact quite accurate. The problem is that the O'Connor page is turning into a one issue article, and while much of the problematic content may in fact belong here, much of it arguably doesn't. Other editors have pointed this out and have suggested that the article be trimmed. I was merely acting upon this previous suggestion. ADM (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it belongs here. If you feel that there are subjects that are underrepresented here, the solution is to research those subjects and add them, not to remove reliably sourced information that you don't like. - Zotz (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

text: It is claimed that the protests against O'Connor were the largest against the Catholic Church 'in history'. This needs to be updated as Pope Benedict's 2010 visit to the UK caused protests 20,000 strong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.89.18 (talk) 10:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "At the time, it was the largest demonstration against the Catholic Church in history, and remained so until Pope Benedict XVI's visit in 2010 to the United Kingdom spurred protests by approximately 20,000 people."[]: moved sentence here since neither the Times nor Post obits mention anything so supposedly notable. Manannan67 (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion and AIDS

message: Following are excerpts from the homily delivered yesterday by Cardinal Bernard Law during the funeral Mass for Cardinal John O'Connor, as recorded by The New York Times. Cardinal Law of Boston delivered homliy not Cardinal Baum
The above comment appeared above the templates. I have relocated it here, but I don't know just what this comment means, overall. It was unsigned. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Relocated comment

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: The fact that his Jewish ancestry was not known to him, means we should not categorize by it. That goes against the whole spirit of categorizing by ethnicity, not race. By definition, ethnicity is a trait that a person must know they have to possess it. You can not be part of an ethnic group that you do not know you are part of, so we should not categorize a person based on ethnic or ancestry issues that we have clear evidence they were never aware of. That goes against the whole respect for self-determination at the heart of categorizing by ethnicity. The self-determination has limits based on acceptance by others, but if people were not perceived as having a given ancestry, they should not be so categorized.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Jewish in any way 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 17 external links on John O'Connor (cardinal). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.irishcentral.com/news/New-York-Cardinal-John-OConnor-was-the-grandson-of-a-Jewish-rabbi.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007081417/http://www.cny.org/archive/cv/cv020300.htm to http://www.cny.org/archive/cv/cv020300.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009212513/http://cny.org/archive/cv/cv060399.htm to http://www.cny.org/archive/cv/cv060399.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009212513/http://cny.org/archive/cv/cv060399.htm to http://www.cny.org/archive/cv/cv060399.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009211346/http://cny.org/archive/cv/cv042999.htm to http://www.cny.org/archive/cv/cv042999.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009212513/http://cny.org/archive/cv/cv060399.htm to http://www.cny.org/archive/cv/cv060399.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007080025/http://www.cny.org/archive/cv/cv080698.htm to http://www.cny.org/archive/cv/cv080698.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720015615/http://www.jewishpublicaffairs.org/press/recent/oconner%2005-04-00.html to http://www.jewishpublicaffairs.org/press/recent/oconner%2005-04-00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711172211/http://www.hivplusmag.com/Story.asp?id=34&categoryid=1 to http://www.hivplusmag.com/Story.asp?id=34&categoryid=1
*Added  tag to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/05/08/oconnor.funeral.03/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070912041301/http://www.cny.org/archive/ft/f2051100.htm to http://www.cny.org/archive/ft/f2051100.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030721030326/http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/quindlen.htm to http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/quindlen.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040815003533/http://www.cny.org/oconnor2.htm to http://cny.org/oconnor2.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030621224808/http://www.cny.org/archive/cv/cvlist.htm to http://cny.org/archive/cv/cvlist.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727073710/http://www.mckennastewardship.org/cardinal.html to http://www.mckennastewardship.org/cardinal.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928020436/http://www.wcbs880.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=947024 to http://www.wcbs880.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=947024
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716021851/http://www.ewtn.org/Memoriam/oconnor/life/index.htm to http://www.ewtn.org/Memoriam/oconnor/life/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519232640/http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/3711 to http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/3711
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:John O'Connor which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 01:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress