SEARCH...:


recently watched....:
  • Talk:Father Damien [en]
  • Kopšē [bat-smg]
  • .bo [nah]
  • 1963年 [ja]
  • .bb [nah]
  • Abruozdielis:Telšių kunigų seminarijos propedeutinis kursas Žemaičių Kalvarijoje.JPG [bat-smg]
  • Image:LinkFA-star.png [pam]
  • Lanteuil [ceb]
  • Image:Ph locator northern samar catarman.png [pam]
  • ミスター味っ子 [ja]
  • Limans [ceb]

    • jetzt mitverdienen


    Der freche Erotikshop!
    02 Logo 120x60

    Party Explosion - Click here!
    Final Fantasy III DS game

    Miller Brothers, Click here!
    www.easycar.com
    Estate
    Win a Supercar of your dreams........make Summer special this year

    00003 ORION - Logo
    Fancy a hot adventure? More fun for HIM and HER – Shopping at PABO.com!

    		LANGUAGE: ar | id | bg | ca | ceb | cs | da | de | et | en / / | es | eo | fr | gr | he | hr it | ko | lt | hu | nl | ja | no | pl | pt | ru | ro | sk | sl | sr | fi | sv | te | tr | uk | zh

    Talk:Father Damien

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Jump to: navigation, search
    Former featured article Father Damien is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
    Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 4, 2004.
    Version 0.5 (Rated B-Class)
    Peer review This Philrelig article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
    		This is not a forum for general discussion of Father Damien.
    Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article.

    Contents

    [edit] older entries

    • Please do not convert ss.cc. (uncapitalized) to SS.CC. (capitalized) as the lowercase is the proper form of identification for this particular religious order
    • I've done some cleaning- mostly removing attributions for uncontroversial points, and grammar fixes. Markalexander100 03:01, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I've added a treatment of the famous criticism of Father Damien by Rev. Hyde as someone requested. --Gerald Farinas 17:49, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Good work, thanks! Markalexander100 01:20, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • A featured article. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:57, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

    [edit] Request for references

    Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. Further reading is not the same thing as proper references. Further reading could list works about the topic that were not ever consulted by the page authors. If some of the works listed in the further reading section were used to add or check material in the article, please list them in a references section instead. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 18:45, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] {{disputed}} One of the references has come under scrutiny for accuracy and "Artistic License"

    According to this Maui News article, the book “The Colony: The Harrowing True Story of the Exiles of Molokai" has come under fire for taking artistic liberties and improper useage of references, plus accusations that some folks at Kalaupapa never wanted to be mentioned in the book. Seeing that this book has been cited in the references section, I now question if some information from this book has somehow been intergrated into the article itself and has "poisoned" the article as such.--293.xx.xxx.xx 08:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

    The issue has been written about in this Honolulu Advertiser story, which found the allegations of "artistic license" to be without merit. Though Father Damien occupies only a limited spot in "The Colony," the notes and bibliography sections of the book provide a valuable resource for researchers interested in the priest's life.

    See below. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Source Book possibly not Factually Accurate, Removed from Sources

    The Book The Colony: The Harrowing True Story of The Exiles of Molokai, by John Tayman, has come under scrutiny that the author has taken artistic license to various parts of his book and misappropiated references. Due to this, coupled with anger by surviving residents of Kalaupapa, the book will be removed from the list of sources untill further proof can be made that the book is factually accurate and all disputes have been resolved. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Sunlight at San Francisco

    I doubt that this is of any importance being that this is an article about Blessed Damien, but there was a story from March 1937 in the Hearst San Francisco Examiner about how when Damien's coffin was brought to the docks for transport back to Belgium--he had been exhumed from Hawaii--a ray of sunlight allegedly broke through the sky and landed on the coffin! Quite a story, though perhaps not cogent to the article. Great nonetheless. Another, which is related to the process of his canonization is entitled "Church examines Damien's miracles", from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin dated March 29, 2003. It relates to a "Mrs.K" who was allegedly healed of a form of lung cancer after visiting the former grave of Blessed Damien in Hawaii. Interesting article for those of us Catholics who struggle with belief! Great wikipage so far, though. Does service to a great man of God.

    [edit] Venerated by

    I left the reference to Father Damien being venerated by Anglican Churches as there as several shrines in the Anglican/Episcopal world dedicated to this incredible man, whos history of ministry is to this day a great comfort. For one example view [1] the "Damien Chapel" in this church in Hollywood, USA.

    [edit] Leprosy contraction and death

    Damien's own contraction of leprosy, and his subsequent death from it, is highly pertinent and shows the lengths to which he was willing to go in his service. Why is this not mentioned in the article? Softlavender 22:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Image

    Wikipedia has gone to great lengths to find good pictures for articles about evil dictators like Idi Amin and Pol Pot. Why does this article use such an uncomplementary picture of Father Damien? --Folklorum (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

    Are you implying that Wikipedians are biased against Fr. Damien and that they support Idi Amin? Furthermore, I doubt he'd care. Gavin Scott (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    The picture is, obviously, from late in his life and demonstrates the facial disfigurement that resulted from his contraction of Hansen's. It is likely that it - or one very akin to it - was the model from which the statues of him in HI and DC were fashioned. The idea that a complimentary photo would be more evocative of his 'saintliness' - which I sense is the underlying thought - ignores the fact that the man is honored for what he did, one effect of which was to become afflicted by a disease that was notable for casting its victims in a less than photogenic appearance. Sainthood ain't necessarily pretty. Irish Melkite (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Medical Journal

    The Hawaii Medical Journal, 2000 Oct contains the article used as evidence during the Father Damien inquiry. The title of the article is "Complete spontaneous regression of cancer: four case reports, review of literature, and discussion of possible mechanisms involved" by W Y Chang. Here is a citation:

    Spontaneous regression or remission (SR) of cancers has been defined as the disappearance of the malignancies without any treatment or with obviously inadequate treatment. Four case reports are presented. These include a case of pleomorphic liposarcoma with bilateral lung metastases, a case of recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus following esophagectomy a year earlier, a case of a squamous cell carcinoma of the scalp, and a case of a ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma with an emergency right hepatic lobectomy but with some gross cancer remaining in the left hepatic lobe. The literature of SR of cancers was reviewed and various mechanisms possibly involved in the disappearance of the cancers were discussed. Although immune modulation has been stated to be the most likely process causing SR, other mechanisms, such as genetic therapy, withdrawal of carcinogens, infection, fever and vaccine roles, apoptosis, antibody, antiangiogenesis and maturation mechanisms, withdrawal of therapy, natural killer activity, endocrine, hormonal, and pregnancy factors, and prayers or psychoneuro-religious participation were also mentioned. Induction and inhibition of malignant protein expression and repair of gene damage may prove to be the more important processes in cancer regression. It was also pointed out that the pulmonary metastases of the liposarcoma and the recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus may be the very first cases of their kind to be described and that it is rare indeed to find 4 cases of SR's in a solo practice. Finally, it is likely that SR is rarer than previously believed and that the incidence may be one in every 140,000 cases of cancer rather the one per 60,000 to 100,000 cancer cases as earlier thought.

    There can be no doubt now. Journal Reader (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

    The phrase "also mentioned" does not help. Also the statistic about the rate of spontaneous remissions is not profound enough to warrant inclusion. Monticello Fellow (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Error in Reference

    The current reference 8 in the article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=563316&in_page_id=1811 contains an error. It states that the healed woman in Hawaii "prayed for healing at his graveside in Molokai, Hawaii" but as we know, Father Damien's body was moved to Belgium in the 1930s. We can't control what they print, but perhaps we should not use that reference any longer. Repentance 23:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

    His hand was returned to Hawaii; and his original grave is still there, even if his remains are mostly not. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Father Damien Miracles

    The article states "In April 2008 the Vatican ruled that Father Damien was indeed responsible for several miracles attributed to him." Is there any documenation for the existence of "several" miracles? I have only seen two mentioned in other sources. One is associated with the Hawaii Medical Journal case, documented above (which now has some concerns associated with it). The other one I am aware of is Sister Simplicia Hue of France in 1895 recovering from intestinal illness. Are there really more cases, amounting to "several"? Queasy Rider (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    changed "several" to "two" miracles in the article. Monticello Fellow (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    Then we should describe the evidence for the two miracles in the article. Bebopadopoulos (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Father Damien's Faults

    Robert Louis Stevenson's defense of Father Damien is appropriately included in this article, but Stevenson also included a graphic list of Damien's faults. Some of Stevenson's surprising descriptions of Father Damien (gained from his questioning of Kalaupapa residents over several days) were that Damien was "shrewd, ignorant and bigoted", "grumbling", "essentially indiscreet and officious", "domineering in all his ways", "incurably unpopular with the Kanakas (Hawaiians)", "destitute of real authority", and wrote of Damien's "lack of control" and of his "slovenly ways and false ideas of hygiene". Stevenson also wrote that "his boys laughed at him", "he must carry out his wishes by the means of bribes". An amazing contrast from the same author. Full text at http://www.fullbooks.com/Father-Damien.html Journal Reader (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

    Good find. The article needed some balance. Sister7 (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    Oy, Stevenson actually replied to the charges Hyde had made that Damien was "shrewd, ignorant and bigoted". And when the other above criticisms are read in context (the way Stevenson wrote them in), they don't come across as negative as Journal Reader puts it. So, to remedy that, I chose to quote him more fully. Uthanc (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

    Your edit introduces problems of its own. You deliberately left out the statement from Stevenson that he gained his information about Damien by questioning Kalaupapa residents over eight days and seven nights. You deliberately stated that Protestants were the ones critical of Damien, and left out Stevenson's statement "I was besides a little suspicious of Catholic testimony". Of course, we have not yet gotten into the documented statements that Damien died from pneumonia (for which he refused treatment), rather than from leprosy (only 5 years after contracting it). The article reads like a fairy tale now. Why not just tell the truth? Journal Reader (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

    You deliberately left out the statement from Stevenson that he gained his information about Damien by questioning Kalaupapa residents over eight days and seven nights. - This is in: "Prior to writing his treatise, Stevenson stayed in Molokai for eight days and seven nights, during which he kept a diary."
    I cut "I was besides a little suspicious of Catholic testimony; in no ill sense, but merely because Damien's admirers and disciples were the least likely to be critical. I know you will be more suspicious still; and the facts set down above were one and all collected from the lips of Protestants who had opposed the father in his life." for reasons of brevity. Shall put it.
    Not concerned with the manner of death. I don't see how that's relevant to this particular issue of representing Stevenson accurately.
    "Reads like a fairy tale?" "Tell the truth instead?" I'm only letting Stevenson speak for himself. Uthanc (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    Documented Damien's imprisonment of a patient, his exaggerated claims of his own strength and importance, and Catholic mythmaking for recruiting and raising money. Journal Reader (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Seeking Source info for Sister Simplicia Hue, France, 1895 Miracle

    I have been unable to find detailed source info for the Sister Simplicia Hue, France, 1895 miracle. A google search shows only two Honolulu newspaper stories that mention it very briefly:

    "The Catholic Church's process of making a saint has evolved through the centuries from a time when legendary heroes and martyrs were accepted without much verification. On June 13, 1992, Pope John Paul II approved an 1895 cure as a miracle as required for Damien's beatification, the step before canonization. In that case, a French nun, Sister Simplicia Hue, 37, was dying of a long intestinal illness. After she began a novena to Father Damien, symptoms of the illness disappeared overnight on Sept. 11, 1895. She lived for 32 more years. Her story, and the cause for Damien's sainthood, languished without attention for decades, in part because of politics in the Sacred Hearts religious order, which wanted its founder to be named a saint first."

    "Another event associated with Father Damien had already been accepted by the Vatican as a miracle. In 1895, a nun in France named Simplicia Hue was cured of a debilitating intestinal disease after praying for Damien's intercession."

    and the Hawaii Catholic Herald story which contains only:

    "On June 13, 1992, Pope John Paul II approved the 1895 cure of a Sacred Hearts Sister in France as the miracle needed for Father Damien’s beatification. In that case, Sister Simplicia Hue of France began a novena to Father Damien as she lay dying at age 37 of a lingering intestinal illness. The pain and symptoms of the illness disappeared overnight on Sept. 11, 1895, and Sister Simplicia lived for another 32 years."

    Are there any better references than these? Rocky Roady (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

    I have looked for something substantiative to support this also, and there does not appear to be anything. Just brief newspaper articles and dramatic pronouncements in the catholic newsletters, but no evidence. Did Sister Simplicia Hue keep a diary? What medical documentation was generated at the time? Is the problem that we don't have enough faith? Journal Reader (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Another Disturbing Miracle Contradiction

    http://starbulletin.com/2008/07/04/news/story... "She underwent surgery a year later. A tumor the size of a fist was removed from the side of her left thigh and buttock."

    http://starbulletin.com/2003/03/29/news/story... "She had absolutely no treatment, not even a diet."

    Bebopadopoulos (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Father Damien Miracles While Alive?

    Were there any miracles performed by Father Damien while he was alive? Were any lepers cured? Monticello Fellow (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

    I thought about that too, a believers should ask himself this question, a man who devoted his life to leprosy, and contracted it himself, I'd think that if there was an afterlife with the possibility of affecting earthly life then this man would want to do more than curing a tummy ache and cancer, it's not as if leprosy does not exist anymore! Perhaps there's a learning curve and cancer is easier than leprosy :) Belgianatheist (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    Apparently, Father Damien can only cure Catholic women, who do not have leprosy, who pray to him, and only after he has died. Medieval Superstitions (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Medieval Superstitions (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    For any organization other than the Vatican, the evidence for even one miracle by Father Damien, living or dead, is completely inadequate. In the case of the French nun, there is nothing at all. In the case of the Hawaiian woman, the evidence is circumstantial at best, but is full of deliberately misleading statements, exaggerations, and omissions. Modern mythology at its worst. Born Again Skeptic (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
    If the Muslims made claims of miracle cures after praying to a dead Imam, we would look at them as fools. If the Mormons made claims of miracle cures after praying to dead Elders, we would laugh at them. If fundamental Christians made claims of miracle cures after praying to a dead minister, we would think they are being childish. Here we have a Wikipedia article that perpetuates the Catholic claims of miracle cures after praying to a dead Priest. It has the same validity and reproducibility as the Groundhog Day myth. Freedom from Foolishness (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
    But don't other religionists already think Catholic veneration of saints is foolish, laughable, childish, not to say diabolical? Uthanc (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    GroundHog Day has been the subject to more rigorous analysis than the Father Damien Miracle claims.

    Groundhog Day proponents state that the rodents' forecasts are accurate 75% to 90%. A Canadian study for 13 cities in the past 30 to 40 years puts success rate level at 37%.[6] Also, the National Climatic Data Center reportedly has stated that the overall predictions accuracy rate is around 39%.

    Care to speculate on the success rate of praying to Father Damien? Theodore Jupiter (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Don't Fight It

    My advice is to let it go. Some hyperbole is inevitable in these cases. The high standards make some of this necessary. Friend of the Process (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

    I understand your point about the bar being set too high. But that does not justify making up miracles where none exist. The world has changed. It is much easier now to verify the truth. Artificial Color (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

    It seems to me that Wikipedia's purpose is to document facts: fact-the Catholic Church believes in miracles; fact-the Catholic Church requires that two miracles be attributed to a candidate for sainthood before he/she is beatified; fact-the Catholic Church has deemed two reported instances in which prayers were directed to Damien to have resulted in miracles; fact-the Catholic Church has determined, in accord with its own standards, that Damien therefore satisfies the requirements for beatification; fact-the Catholic Church has beatified Damien.

    Wherefore, it gets documented. A debate as to whether miracles are miraculous has no particular place here, except insofar as some verifiable source raises questions vis-a-vis the miracles attributed to Damien.Irish Melkite (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

    It is beneficial, for a growing segment of educated readers, to document these claims and conclusions by the church, and the shocking lack of standards and evidence. The church "requires" two miracles for sainthood, which forces them to recognize their star performers by creating or endorsing myths like these miracle cures after the saint has died, rather than by an "Outstanding Achievement Award", "Person of the Year", "Legion of Merit", etc. which are accepted methods of recognizing the legitimate deeds of a person while he or she was alive. We will probably have editors like the one above for several more years, who can't allow themselves to see the manipulation and deception. At the very least, it is important to document here that most people no longer believe such fanciful mythology, and have the ability to recognize manufactured evidence. Artificial Color (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    The article should be about the life of Father Damien, not about the Catholic church. Savanna Montana (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

    We have an obligation to not just repeat unverified claims pertaining to life or death issues in Wikipedia articles. There are still people who believe these things literally. Two recent cases of dead children after the parents prayed for cures rather than seeking medical attention: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341869,00.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343148,00.html Some sort of disclaimer or alternate view would be a good idea, rather than just allowing these unprovable claims to be repeated here. The Biggest Lie Ever Told (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

    Perhaps this disclaimer:

    WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE MEDICAL ADVICE Wikipedia contains articles on many medical topics; however, no warranty whatsoever is made that any of the articles are accurate. There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained or cited in an article touching on medical matters is true, correct, precise, or up-to-date. The overwhelming majority of such articles are written, in part or in whole, by nonprofessionals. Even if a statement made about medicine is accurate, it may not apply to you or your symptoms.

    The medical information provided on Wikipedia is, at best, of a general nature and cannot substitute for the advice of a medical professional (for instance, a qualified doctor/physician, nurse, pharmacist/chemist, and so on). Wikipedia is not a doctor.

    None of the individual contributors, system operators, developers, sponsors of Wikipedia nor anyone else connected to Wikipedia can take any responsibility for the results or consequences of any attempt to use or adopt any of the information presented on this web site.

    Nothing on Wikipedia.org or included as part of any project of Wikimedia Foundation Inc., should be construed as an attempt to offer or render a medical opinion or otherwise engage in the practice of medicine.

    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Medical_disclaimer"

    How is that? SoundsRight (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

    This one is better http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Risk_disclaimer USE WIKIPEDIA AT YOUR OWN RISK PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY INFORMATION YOU MAY FIND IN WIKIPEDIA MAY BE INACCURATE, MISLEADING, DANGEROUS OR ILLEGAL. Rocky Roady (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Tombstone Differences

    In the two photos of Father Damien's tombstone (1889 and recently) in the article, it looks like they have different words on them. What was the original inscription? Knurled Knob (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Cancer Survival Rate in Hawaii

    "People with cancer in Hawaii are more likely to survive the disease than people who live in other states and even some countries, according to an international study." http://starbulletin.com/2008/07/20/news/story03.html This does not follow the line of thinking which predominates the Father Damien article on miracle cures. In addition to the fact that the statistical rate of spontaneous regression or remission is measurable, that the woman in question "underwent surgery a year later. A tumor the size of a fist was removed from the side of her left thigh and buttock" and did not as original stated have "absolutely no treatment, not even a diet", we now learn that the survival rate of cancer patients in Hawaii is higher than in other states and some countries. Yet some people still believe that health, weather, financial problems, etc. are solved by praying to dead priests. Most have been repeatedly told this kind of superstition all their lives. That is unfortunate but understandable. What is not understandable is how some of the media and encyclopedias still perpetuate unfounded myths without looking at the actual evidence. Seriously, in the year 2008, what percent of the population actually believe that cancer can be cured by praying to Father Damien? What is that belief based on? Is there room in this article for the statistical information cited above? Trying Again (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

    Yes there is. Done. Lanai Primate (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    That is the work of the devil. Creating doubt in people's minds. Faithful Believer (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

    I understand you disappointment, but you should not demonize me for reporting the facts. Trying Again (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Umm could someone help...

    I have read through the article, I would say its neutrality is fine- it doesn't claim miracles are real (it makes it pretty clear that its the Catholic Church's claim that Damien has carried them out) There are one or two bits I would change mind you but, overall its a good article!

    Then I ready the talk-page...all this stuff about whether or not the miracles are real or not- that is not for Wikipedia to decide and is certainly not even relevant to this article!

    So, could someone please explain what all this discussion about whether or not the miracles actually happened or not have to do with this article? All that seems notable is the Catholic Church believed they did happen and that some people dispute it...that is the only neutral way of delivering the article...so why this long drawn out argument? Gavin Scott (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

    I agree that the neutrality is satisfactory. Updated the citation for the July 4, 2008 newspaper article. Calm down everyone. Bebopadopoulos (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
    Tagged the remaining "File Not Found" references that Gavin overlooked during his review. Gavin: please try to be more impartial (your user page shows that you are "Roman Catholic all the way") so if you are going to tag one reference that documents holes in the miracle cure claim , you should have tagged the other two that do not. Lanai Primate (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
    I'm going to ignore that accusation of my being biased in this case, if you do doubt my ability to contribute to this article in an objective sense then please feel free to leave me a comment on my talk page. Anyway, back to the article- I did not actually look through the references otherwise I would have removed the ones that led nowhere. It was actually by chance that I clicked on what was Ref 9 and found it led nowhere. I have looked over the rest of the references and found they do all indeed lead somewhere. Looking back over the article I come across the sentence "Father Damien is known for his love of and ministering to people with what was then widely known as leprosy, forced by government-sanctioned medical quarantine, living on the island of Molokai in the Kingdom of Hawaii." First off, the sentence doesn't make sense. Should it not read Father Damien is known for his love of and ministering suffers of the disease leprosy who had been placed under a medical quarantine on the island of Molokai, just off of Hawaii. Then there is the issue of "his love of" is that really necessary, is there even a ref to prove he did "love" them? In the Service at Kalaupapa section there is a quote from Bishop Maigret, do we have evidence for this quote? There is also allot of "it is stated" and "people say" but who are these people and where is it stated? There are allot of issues to be addressed here, however I do not think neutrality is one of them. Gavin Scott (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
    This is the way this appears to me. This person has hundreds of posts in mostly pro-Catholic issues on Wikipedia, and described himself as "Roman Catholic all the way". He objected to discussions of "all this stuff about whether or not the miracles are real or not". He deleted one reference which pointed out an inconvenient truth about a miracle claimed by the Catholic church. He "did not actually look through" the other references which were not critical, even though two of those "led nowhere". When this was pointed out, politely, he immediately portrayed himself as a victim. He is probably not a bad person, but likely accepts these miracle cure myths as divine truth, and wants to stop any blasphemy that they are just modern superstitions. Looks Like, and Quacks Like A Duck (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
    Please concentrate on the responses I made to the article. Gavin Scott (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
    Let it go. Assume good faith (no pun intended). Life is short. Bebopadopoulos (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    Anyway, back to the article. I like to think we have a good NPOV article infront of us however there are still several sourcing problems. As you will have all seen I have inserted the [citation needed] and {who}} warnings where appropriate. Gavin Scott (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] The use of multiple accounts

    It's become increasingly clear to me that this talk page is overrun with single-purpose accounts and sock puppets, each of which make a few edits to this talk page and related articles (most notable Prayer and Catholicism-related articles) before disappearing. Even assuming good faith, the contribution patterns of these users make it obvious that some if not all of them are being operated by a single individual.

    Although Wikipedia allows the limited use of multiple accounts, this level of activity greatly reduces the signal-to-noise ratio on this talk page and hinders normal discussion leading to productive collaboration. To this end, I (and the editors of this article) would appreciate it greatly if this kind of activity stopped.

    Just to clarify, I'm not here to punish--if the socking stops voluntarily, I have no reason to use the tools. If it doesn't, then I have no problem with employing checkusers, protection, and blocks to prevent further disruption if necessary.

    Please feel free to ask if you have any questions. --jonny-mt 08:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Father_Damien"
    Change language: All | الرربية | Bahasa Indonesia | Български | Català | Cebuano | Ħesky | Dansk | Deutsch | Eesti | English | Español | Esperanto | Français | עברית | Hrvatski | Italiano | 핶국어 | Lietuvių | Magyar | Nederlands | 旡涬語 | Norsk (bokmál) | Polski | Português | Русскиб | Română | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / Srpski | Suomi | Svenska | తెలుగు | Türkçe | УкраїнсѦка | 中文

    Autorem skryptu AdWiki v0.8 (2007) jest husky83
    Wikipedia jest zarejestrowanym znakiem towarowym Wikimedia Foundation
    Wszystkie materiały pochodzą z Wikipedii, obięte są licencją GNU Free Documentation License