Talk:St. Patrick's Old Cathedral

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on St. Patrick's Old Cathedral. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20121009101756/http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=5376 to http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=5376
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121009101807/http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=5375 to http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=5375

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) 00:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Abortion rights protests
I recently trimmed a paragraph relating to a May 2022 abortion-rights protest at this basilica. The text before my edit read: "On May 7, 2022, following the leak of a U.S. Supreme Court draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which purported to overturn Roe v. Wade, the basilica was surrounded by left-wing and pro-abortion protesters who chanted anti-Catholic slogans and shouted expletives at parishioners and anti-abortion activists, who stood in front of the cathedral doors praying the rosary, preventing protesters from entering the basilica. The incident was one of many threats and protests against Catholic churches by left-wing groups throughout the United States in the aftermath of the leaked draft opinion." The text afterward read: "On May 7, 2022, following the leak of a U.S. Supreme Court draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (which purported to overturn Roe v. Wade), anti-Catholic and abortion-rights protesters demonstrated outside the basilica." This was reverted today by at least one IP editor who claimed that Gothamist is not a neutral source. There are a few problems with this reversion, however. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Given this basilica's long history, having a full paragraph about the protest gives undue weight to this one protest. In fact, the specific details of the protest are not really relevant as this event did not have a lasting impact on the basilica's operation.
 * It seems a bit biased to link Abortion-rights movements with the text "pro-abortion". The article Anti-abortion movements is linked, but with the more straightforward text "anti-abortion". Admittedly, pro-abortion is technically the direct opposite of anti-abortion, but the Wikipedia articles are at the titles "Anti-abortion movements" and "Abortion rights movements", not "Pro-life movements" and "Pro-abortion movements".
 * The editor(s) claim that Gothamist is "an anti Catholic blog run by hipster transplants". This does not explain the inclusion of Newsweek (which per WP:NEWSWEEK is considered a questionable source) or National Catholic Register (which is just as biased toward Catholic topics as the Gothamist is purportedly biased against Catholic topics). I've replaced the Gothamist source with a Fox News source, which should be an acceptable compromise if the Gothamist source really is the problem.


 * I support removing the paragraph entirely per WP:NOTNEWS. These protests are not notable because they fail the WP:10YEARTEST. Scorpions13256 (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)