Talk:David Bawden/Archive 1

Wow.
This guy sounds like a fucking kook. Hard-core. Holy shit. Kook.

from VfD:

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP

If notable, this is definitely worth including; but it does not appear to be even remotely notable? &mdash; Bill 21:43, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable.  Known kook, worth perhaps a mention in an article about kooks, but not in a serious context. --Neschek 21:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Neutral Keep :). You don't get to be pope just because 6 people (including your mother and father) vote for you. 214 google hits for "Pope Michael I", so not notable. Thue | talk 21:49, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC). On second though, though there are not many google hits, they are somewhat relevant. Thue | talk 21:59, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC). After some consideration I think we should keep him. He is a bit obscure, but a google search gives some news articles talking bout him, so he is somewhat known. It is somewhat interesting to read. Thue | talk 20:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Abstain I am strongly for elimination of useless articles about esoteric topics, but I must confess I knew this guy's website and has already spent some time a few months ago having a laugh there. So he is perhaps not as totally unknown as one could think... Or it is a funny coincidence (this is only the second day I visit this Votes for deletion page !). --French Tourist 22:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I realize it's a marginal topic, but I think there is some limited basis for notability here, if only because it is a point of interest to those who like to note the various religious leaders in the world who have splintered off from mainstream Catholicism and call themselves popes. Everyking 22:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Antipope or Sedevacantism, probably the former. Information already exists.  The individual is not notable unlike the other antipopes, and there is really no need for an article on him.  -Vina 23:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect, or just redirect, to Sedevacantism. This is very much of a splinter group.  While it would be POV for us to call him an anti-pope, it would be POV of us to not call him one.  Having him listed where he belongs, with his group, is the most logical thing.  Having him at Pope Michael is right out, because that calls him pope. Geogre 01:26, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. A naïve little domestic Pope, but amusing in his presumption.  Does anybody know where I can get a whole bunch of yard signs printed?  (It might be helpful to move the page to his birth name and make this redirect there.  Smerdis of Tlön 04:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) 
 * I'm pretty sure this one has been listed on VfD once before. I'll look into it when I have more time. No vote yet. Fire Star 04:12, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Here we go - Votes for deletion/Antipope Michael. It isn't exactly the same article, but is the same subject. Still no vote from me as yet. Fire Star 04:27, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I believe the main reason we voted to delete then was because it was a duplicate of this article. Everyking 11:43, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Needs more notability to be listed here. 6 people?! --Improv 04:19, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, probably notable enough for Wikipedia. &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  04:57, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Die, vanity, die. Ambi 08:19, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: We have a pretty good article on a similar religious figure, Lucian Pulvermacher (or Pius XIII). It seems to me that either someone should list that one too, or we should keep both of them, because I can discern no real difference in significance. Everyking 19:41, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Doesn't look like vanity to me.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 23:28, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * unambiguous keep. This guy may be nuttier than a fruit cake but he is part of a phenomenon in post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism of self-proclaimed anti-Vatican II antipopes. We have two major articles on two figures, both of whom deserve to be here. As part of this phenomenon, this guy (and other self-proclaimed popes) also deserve a place because they are part of a current cultural phenomenon. However they are different sometimes in emphasis so can't be always put together in one article. A category now exists to pull together the three on here and the others when they are added, and tie them in to articles on the topic of sedevacantism. This article is simply a stub that needs broadening. This guy isn't a major player but as a wider cultural phenomenon his place here can be justified a lot more easily than, say, articles on individual high schools that have no importance beyond the school or town. FearÉIREANN 19:59, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

end moved discussion


 * Keep, he's a nut, but by documenting them in a NPOV manner, wikipedia can show their nuttiness to the world Mbisanz 05:35, August 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Everyking,

I do not understand why you keep removing matter that proves the validity of Pope Michael's claim, and compromising the text to make him look like a kook.

I would like to restore the text as it was; I would also like to add the quote from Fr. William Jurgens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr._William_Jurgens

-Lucio Mas


 * I don't want Michael to look like a kook, I just want the article to be neutral. You can't just have it say that all that Michael and his supporters claim about the mainstream Church is true. You have to phrase it in such a way as not to promote either point of view. Everyking 20:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Move
This page has been moved to the subject's birth name, since he is not generally accepted as a Pope of the Catholic Church and should not be listed by a "Papal" name since the other 20th century antipopes are not (e.g. "Lucian Pulvermacher" instead of "Pope Pius XIII"). -- Iceberg3k 19:46, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Sentence
"but none others than those who did finally participate responded" - is it just me or this sentence doesn't make any sense? It sounds like "I wanted to eat a bag of chips but finally I only ate the chips I wanted"...


 * problem addressed.


 * Is "doubtless be inaccurate" NPOV? I don't have a proposal, but it should be changed. Septentrionalis 18:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup & NPOV dispute tags
I've rewritten the article, including removal of some dubious language (including that mentioned directly above). As few people seem to be disputing the article for a long time, I have removed the NPOV tag. It looks like it was left over from when there was a VfD debate quite a while ago. Fear ÉIREANN 23:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Restoring tag, since your reason is mistaken: whatever went before, this NPoV tag was less than 4 days old when you removed it. Let's get a second opinion before next removal.  Especially since the judgement of notability may be highly PoV. --Jerzy (t) 00:16, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)


 * Reverted. One person's assertion of POV is not justification for a tag. If a number of people believed there was justification then there would be justifiable reason for it. But wikipedia does not have a habit of accepting one person because they are unhappy with an article, proclaiming it POV to everyone who reads it. If it did, then 90% of articles would have the tags. This is a community, Jerzy, not just you. Where is the queue of people agreeing with you? Until there is a clear consensus that there is a POV problem, leave the tag off. Single people going around placing tags without a widespread view that there is a problem is seen as vandalism. Fear ÉIREANN  00:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Modernism

 * The claim that Pius XII's successors are modernists as conceived by Pope Pius X is dismissed as factually inaccurate by the vast majority of Catholics, who point out that to date every Ecumenical Council has seen some controversy, especially councils which perform major revision and reform work such as the Council of Trent which codified the Tridentine Mass and numerous other reforms in response to the Protestant Reformation.

This is very vague. It should say something like: "Pius X defined among others A, B and C be "Modernist", Bawden claims the popes are A and B. The mainstream Catholics deny that the popes are A and B because blah blah.". Now it's so vague as to be almost meaningless. Taw 01:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Followers of Vatican II agree to religious freedom which is condemned by the syllabus. It's irrelevant that many people deny modernism or that councils are surrounded by controversy. Majority-opinion does not determine truth.
 * I agree, I also found that sentence a little blurry...--Againme (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sedevacantism
I don't think that David Bawden should be referred to as a "sedevacantist" because the term is used to describe those who believe that the See of St. Peter is currently vacant. Obviously Bawden doesn't believe this, as he thinks he is the occupant of the See of St. Peter. - Adam

You have a point. Unfortunately, the problem is with the term sedevacantist and sedevacantism. They are recently invented words (1970's) with various connotations and denotations that are not exactly agreed upon. It is true that primarily, and literally, it refers to people who believe CURRENTLY that the see of Rome is canonically vacant. When you say someone is "a sedevacantist" it immediately brings to mind that the person "doesn't recognize the papal claimants in the Vatican since Vatican II". This seems to be a necessary connotation of the word. So, when some such followers of David Bawden begins to recognize his own pope outside of Rome and says, "I am no longer a sedevacantist", it immediately brings to a person's mind that they gave up that former belief and now believe the Vatican II claimants might have be legitimate in their time. It is a failure of language and terminology. Things would be better understood if people simply avoided those invented words. People should, instead of saying, "I am a sedevacantist" or "I am into sedevacantism", say, "I am a Catholic and do not reconize the notorious papal claimants at the Vatican since Vatican II". When people invent all sorts of labels they do so in order (they think) to make things convenient, but in the long wrong it causes more confusion. Convenience (laziness) in language takes away precision and causes problems. - Diligens 11:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"Pretender" as NPoV
_ _ An editor substituted "claimant" for "pretender" (in one of several occurrences), believing that this would help avoid PoV. There is no bright line dividing all pretenders from all other claimants, but there is a highly visible gap between Bawden and all non-pretender claimants, and avoiding the word "pretender" in these circumstances amounts to endorsement of his PoV that he matters, except to a small group who are widely seen as nutballs and to a few journalists looking for man-bites-dog stories. _ _ The yawning gulf in question is that popes command the respect of hundreds of millions, and some attention of a billionish mob, while Bawden (irrespective of the merits (or lack thereof) of his claim) shows no sign of the respect of more than dozens, and the attention of mostly some harmless drudges like myself. And the only people who expect that to change also believe he has the full attention of universe's only surviving deity, and that she likes to go around doing miracles. If they are right (or more likely, if the universe exhibits, as it constantly does, its disregard for common sense (let alone justice)), we may see that yawning gulf start to close, and we can reconsider whether a reasonable person can take his claim seriously. _ _ But until such events occur, he remains objectively a pretender. PoV questions about him concern things like whether he's pathetic (yes IMO) and whether his claim to be a chief bridge-builder between humans and a monotheos is comparable to that of the occupant of the Vatican (yes IMO). But calling him a pretender is not only consistent with, but required by NPoV. --Jerzy•t 17:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

One note
"Epikeia" does not translate as equity (aequitas).


 * So to what does it translate? Carl.bunderson 06:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

(Greek: epieikes, reasonable)New Catholic Dictionary

An indulgent and benign interpretation of law, which regards a law as not applying in a particular case because of circumstances unforeseen by the lawmaker. The lawmaker cannot foresee all possible cases that may come under the law, and it is therefore reasonably presumed that were the present circumstances known to the legislator he would permit the act, e.g., a mother presumes that she may miss Mass on Sunday when there is no one present to care for her baby. Epikeia is not permitted, however, no matter how grave the inconvenience, if violation of the law would render an act null and void, e.g., to presume that marriage may be contracted because of grave inconvenience in spite of an existing diriment impediment.Cestusdei 03:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does. Aequitas is the literal, equity is the concept as it has been formed throughout the ages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.234.189 (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Mrs Benns
Mr Bawden has excommunicated her. http://www.tbenns.vaticaninexile.com/May82007.html

Current status of article
I think it might hold up in another AfD even today, because there seems to be one or two reliable sources. DGG 20:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

American Dream
You can become anything in US, even a pope in your basement and get wikipedia article! Farmanesh (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the David Bawden article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Dgf32 (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Some editors may want to read this
WP:Not--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional sources needed per WP:FRINGE
The idea that Mr. Bawden is Pope is definitely a Fringe Theory (he has only about 100 followers) ... as such it falls under the notability requirements expressed in WP:FRINGE, which states: So far, this article does not meet this basic requirement. Please establish Mr. Bawden's notability by providing some sources. Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.