Talk:Abomination

Why is an archaic definition, ending with blatant anti-Catholic bigotry, in the Wikipedia?

Do you refer to this sentence? "Some Protestant groups apply the word to the ceremonies of the Roman Catholic Church."

This is a clear fact. You can't disagree with a fact unless you prove it is wrong. If you disagree with said Protestant groups, find them and convince them they are wrong ;-) Until then the fact remains true and objective, so it deserves to be in the Wikipedia.

Fafner 17:25, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is a perjorative, incindiary opinion which, yes, some people or groups have espoused. But it's still POV. The fact that someone has said it does NOT warrent its inclusion in the Wikipedia. Or are we going to include statements by every hate group on every topic based on the "facts" that someone said or wrote them?

We come at a difficult point about censorship. Should we censor an idea because it is based on hate or not? difficult... I would advise you to read the NPOV article, in particular the part at the beginning on "the original formulation on NPOV", as it deals with the issue you are pointing.

Clearly that fact is true. Should we ignore it an never mention it? In my opinion it would be blindness. If you fear it is formulated in such a way that it might spread the hate message, then feel free to write another formulation ;-)

Fafner 08:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure this article tells me anything at all. I was expecting Abomination is a... Secretlondon 05:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should Abomination be better placed the Wiktionary? These definitions do not seem Wikipedia material. --OGoncho 7 July 2005 21:31 (UTC)