Talk:Anthony Fisher

Edit request from, 25 November 2011
Please add the following text to the entry for Bishop Anthony Fisher, at the end of the 'Religious life, priesthood and academic life' section, or under a new heading such as 'Criticism'. The reason for adding is that the information is relevant to Bishop Fisher's life and career and to public perceptions of him. The relevant events made news internationally. Here is the text that should be added:

In 2008 Bishop Fisher was organiser of Catholic World Youth Day, held in Sydney that year. During the festivities he was strongly criticised for his comments about sexual abuse victims, following a plea by the Foster family of Melbourne for attention to their case. The Fosters’ two daughters had allegedly been repeatedly raped during childhood by a Catholic priest, Kevin O’Donnell, who had subsequently been convicted of multiple child sex crimes. One daughter had then suffered anorexia, drug abuse, and eventually committed suicide; the other had sought solace in alcohol until a car accident rendered her incapable of self-care. The church had apologised to the family and offered compensation.

Bishop Fisher’s response to the Foster parents’ attempt to raise the suffering of their children was to say that they were ‘dwelling crankily … on old wounds’. Mr Foster said the comments were ‘astounding’ and advocates for abuse victims were ‘appalled’.

There are two references: 'Catholic Bishop's 'old wounds' comments slammed', ABC News, July 17, 2008. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-07-16/catholic-bishops-old-wounds-comments-slammed/441564) and 'A spectacular show', BBC News, 20 July 2008. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/nickbryant/2008/07/how_was_it_for_you.html)

Michael Jameson (talk) 13:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As this request involves somewhat controversial information about a living person, it has been posted on BLPN. 08:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have inserted material into the article, but it is a modified/condensed version of the request.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Slight spelling issue
The sentence "Fisher remains Professor of Bioethics and Moral Theology in the iInstitute.[2] " Should be "Fisher remains Professor of Bioethics and Moral Theology in the Institute.[2]" Note the double iI before institute. Smediamullett (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Got it, thank you for noticing. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2014
Please change Anthony Fisher OP is the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney to Bishop of Parramatta.

Bishop Anthony Fisher OP is the Bishop of Parramatta not the Archbishop of Sydney. http://www.parra.catholic.org.au/bishop-of-parramatta/most-rev-anthony-fisher-op/the-bishop-of-parramatta.aspx

This is suspected vandalism as the position of Archbishop of Sydney position is currently vacant. http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dsydn.html is the definitive source for appointments. http://www.sydneycatholic.org/people/ no mention of Bishop Anthony Fisher.

Smediamullett (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

✅ thanks for providing clear links to support your request. - Arjayay (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2014
Please change | see = Sydney to see = Parramatta because he is the Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Parramatta, not Archdiocese of Sydney. It would link to this hyperlink: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Parramatta This website says he is the Bishop of Parramatta http://www.parra.catholic.org.au/bishop-of-parramatta/most-rev-anthony-fisher-op/the-bishop-of-parramatta.aspx Thank yu.

Godstrumpet (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

❌ as Roman Catholic Diocese of Parramatta states:- "The Roman Catholic Diocese of Parramatta is a suffragan Latin Rite diocese of the Archdiocese of Sydney" - Arjayay (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, User:Arjayay, the Episcopal See is the seat of the Bishop's cathedra, which was Parramatta. As he is now the Archbishop of Sydney, his See is in the Cathedral there.  James ( T •  C ) • 6:42 PM • 08:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Monsignor?
I have removed references to Abp Fisher as being styled "Monsignor" as I am not convinced about the claim that all bishops in every country are styled this way by the Holy See. The Monsignor article does not seem to support this claim. But if there is any verifiable evidence to support that this was true in Fisher's case then I believed it is required. Otherwise it is not appropriate to include it. When there is doubt then we need to include only what we know is true and not what might be true. Anglicanus (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Anthony Fisher. 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141031093530/http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=1&subclassID=2&articleID=13804&subclass=CW%20National to http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=1&subclassID=2&articleID=13804&subclass=CW%20National

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Family and Anthony Fisher's relationship in the LGBT
Anthony Fisher has very strong views against the LGBT community and most recently urging Australian's to vote NO to Marriage equality in Australia. In is interesting to note that he has a lesbian sister and gay brother. It is also widely accepted amongst those that know him well, that he has a live in male partner of over 20 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonysmith123456 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All sounds interesting. Can we get any sensible sources though? Then some of this could go in. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Open Media
Is there a conflict of interest here? And are we not going into too much detail on something which lacks significance. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello User:Contaldo80 and thanks for the enquiry. My potential COI is covered on my Talk page (incidentally I have been editing for some ten years, which doesn't of course guarantee I won't make misjudgements at times).


 * You recently removed an encyclopaedic addition I made to the page with the comment "No source". The question of tv shows and sources has been, as you probably know, debated a lot over the years: some hold that a tv programme (which has been "published") is the source, others hold a different view. In any case I quickly added a third party reference - but you have now come here to raise different issues. Might I explain?


 * One of Fisher's British tv appearances has been listed on the page for some years with no issue. Reviewing the page recently I realised that it would be possible to add to the picture with a second and different programme, and it is this addition which (apologies if I have misunderstood) you are now questioning. My reason for listing more than one tv appearance is that some researchers have shown themselves grateful for as complete information as possible. Giving the "publisher" (in whatever form is appropriate and perhaps you have an alternative suggestion) enables them to pursue their interest further. Does this help at all? AnOpenMedium (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

And isn’t the proper way to handle an unsourced (and thoroughly uncontroversial) statement to add a simple “citation needed” tag? Why the rush to delete? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Because I think this kind of detail on a trivial event is undeserved. Seems designed to suggest Fisher is some sort of media celebrity. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So your objections were first no source, and then possible conflict of interest and too detailed.
 * I think a simple statement that in certain years he appeared on British tv discussion shows would suffice. But the citations would need improving. We don’t need to name others who appeared. Nor does Open Media merit mention. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Absence of neutrality in the LGBT section
I will be taking this article to the BLP noticeboard as it seems clear that the section on Fisher's attitudes to LGBT issues is not written in a neutral manner. On the contrary it seems to be clearly and deliberately written in a non-neutral manner. Neutral editing is a requirement in all articles, but especially so in BLP articles. Anglicanus (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. There's the "raised fears" for a start. You don't have to take it to a board, though - you can just fix it. StAnselm (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Neutralised section. StAnselm (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I've just seen the article history - this was a very poor edit. Frankly, someone with your experience should know better. StAnselm (talk) 03:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It is acceptably neutral now and does not require further action being taken as long as there isn't any edit-warring or further non-neutral editing. Anglicanus (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I missed responding to this somehow. I absolutely reject StAnselm's argument that the idea I made was "very poor". And I dislike the patronizing tone that "I should know better". If there were concerns about neutrality they should have been expressed properly on the talk page and not just alluded to in a general manner. In terms of the heading is someone arguing that Fisher is not opposed to LGBT rights or to out it another way "Fisher supports LGBT rights"? Contaldo80 (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * All editors have a responsibility to phrase things in a neutral manner regardless of their personal ideological bias. This includes headings. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you aren't prepared to phrase things in a neutral manner. Concerns were addressed and attended to. You had your opportunity to argue your case otherwise but you didn't. Now you think you can bully other editors into accepting your preferred version through edit-warring. And opposition to same-sex marriage is not identical to a blanket "opposition to LGBT rights". That is simply ridiculous. Anglicanus (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "You have repeatedly demonstrated that you aren't prepared to phrase things in a neutral manner". You've then alluded to my "personal ideological bias". What bias is that Anglicanus? Do say? If you have a specific complaint then please refer it to the relevant administrator board. If you don't then I would ask you to retract that statement. You have just accused me of violating NPOV on a regular basis. I'd also ask you to extend your argument further. If, as you claim, Fisher is not generally opposed to LGBT rights (of which gay marriage is a fundamental part) then you will be able to point to specific examples where Fisher has openly supported and promoted LGBT rights (eg anti-discrimination provisions, civil unions etc). I look forward to your listing them. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No - the section is not talking about LGBT rights. It doesn't matter if he has expressed support for them or not - if it's not in the section then it should not be in the heading. StAnselm (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The section deals with gay marriage as well as companies with policies to address discrimination: "In March 2017, Fisher stated that businesses such as Qantas and Telstra should not sponsor Pride events aimed at supporting LGBT staff or encouraging non-discrimination, nor lobby in favour of the legalisation of same-sex marriage". You are starting to edit war - can I advise you to stop.Contaldo80 (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But opposing specific non-discrimination policies does not mean being in favour of discrimination. StAnselm (talk) 04:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actively opposing non-discrimination efforts should not be seen as supporting discrimination? This is seriously the argument you are making? Let's be frank about this, Catholicism discriminates against homosexuality - the teachings of the church are actively opposed to the application of civil rights to this group of people. Committed Catholics such as Fisher may argue that this is legitimate and is a result of gay people simply not being heterosexual (with the latter set of relationships the only acceptable path for sexual expression), rather than anything personal. But lets call a spade a spade and stop this opaqueness. If Fisher general held the broad line of going along with Catholic teaching on homosexuality then I'd let it pass but he has been politically visible by calling on Australian businesses to drop their support for gay rights initiatives - this goes well beyond his day job in the pulpit. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sponsoring a Pride event goes further than non-discrimination; opposing it is not necessarily opposing gay rights. StAnselm (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "In March 2017, Fisher stated that businesses such as Qantas and Telstra should not sponsor Pride events aimed at supporting LGBT staff or encouraging non-discrimination". Are you going to persist with this tendentious editing? Contaldo80 (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a loaded question if there ever was one. It's unquestionably concerned with LGBT issues, and the current heading is precise and neutral. Fisher's statement does not necessarily oppose LGBT rights, and so your proposed heading is completely inappropriate for a BLP. StAnselm (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The current heading is not precise and I don't see why a title that refers to opposition is less neutral. It is a fact. It has been demonstrated that Fisher does oppose and discourage policies aimed at protecting LGBT employees from discrimination. If you want to pursue this POV approach then perhaps you should ask for a third opinion. But at the minimum it is pretty clear he actively opposes gay marriage and surely no-one can make the argument that this is not supported by the material.Contaldo80 (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * He does oppose gay marriage - that should be added to the article. StAnselm (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And thus amend the title. I mean what is an "LGBT issue" exactly? It strikes me as an extremely patronizing term. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

If you want to challenge The Independent for not being a verifiable source then do. Otherwise there is not reason to remove this sourced statement. To do otherwise is pushing a particular POV and will be seen as edit-warring. Please remember to be balanced when editing towards religious and non-religious perspectives. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not say it was not verifiable (whatever that means) but that it was not neutral (on this issue). The Independent article clearly indicates that it is (a) liberal (in the UK sense) and (b) leaning towards editorializing. Perhaps the claim could be included with attribution. StAnselm (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read Neutrality of sources where it states "A frequent example that arises in this type of discussion is The New York Times, which is the leading newspaper of record in the United States yet which is sometimes said to reflect a left-wing point of view. If that presents a problem within article space, the problem is not reliability. The appropriate Wikipedian solution is to include The New York Times and also to add other reliable sources that represent a different point of view.' If you remove the disputed material again then I will refer the matter to WP:ANI. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In this case, the simplest way is to attribute the opinion. StAnselm (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)