Talk:Catholic League (U.S.)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Umm

Umm, seems like this article would have been written by the pope himself, if he could learn how to read and write. It's sad to see such Catholic propaganda slithering its way onto Wikipedia.

Umm, seems like this comment was made by an anti-Catholic bigot. Back to the ADL page for you. OY!

Catholics for a Free Choice

Anyone who happens to edit this may know about that organization as well^. Please help me with that article if you are able to. Thank you. JG of Borg 22:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added to the See also section, not sure if anything else makes sense. Benjiboi 01:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Donohue POV

I believe that it is not POV to say that the claim that the Jews killed Jesus is centuries-old Antisemitic propaganda. Jesus was _not_ killed by the Jews, he was killed by the Romans. In addition, even if he was killed by people who were Jewish, saying "the Jews" (all of them) killed Jesus would still be false. This statement becomes even more ludicrous when we take into account that Jesus was Jewish (one of his disciples even refers to him as "Rabbi"). And Jesus was even once saved by a Jew, the "good samaritan". And people do not go around saying "the Jews saved Jesus" because of the actions of this one individual. Yet this statement has been repeated for centuries in order to incite hatred against the Jews. One could say that saying that it is antisemitic propaganda is POV because some people disagree with it. You could also say that we should change the entire Holocaust article to reflect that everthing it says happened is really "claimed", because of the Holocaust deniers. Eternalbeans 13:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the because it was unsourced and unimportant to the article, as it says nothing about the organization, which is not Anti-Semitic. I'm ready to remove that whole paragraph as the link you provided is broken. Please fix that, or I'll do so.JG of Borg 17:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I checked out the link, which it appears is actually working, and didn't find a flat-out anti-Semitic comment by Donahue. Therefore I'll keep it removed, as how you had it phrased before is both blatantly POV and irrelevant. JG of Borg 17:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I checked out the link, which it appears is actually working, and didn't find a flat-out anti-Semitic comment by Donahue. Therefore I'll keep it removed, as how you had it phrased before is both blatantly POV and irrelevant. JG of Borg 17:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that having things about Donnohue's personal views in this article may mislead people as to the intents of the Catholic league. I was just adding content to already-existing things about Donnohue. I moved that section to the main William A. Donohue article and elaborated on and increased the NPOVity of my comments about his Antisemitic propaganda. Eternalbeans 19:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Why was my edit reverted? Both the lines "On October 13, 2005 Catholic League president William Donohue appeared on NBC's Today. Reacting to the priest sexual abuse scandal, he claimed that the crisis was a 'homosexual scandal, not a pedophilia scandal.' " and the external link to his comments to MSNBC belong to an article about Donohue, not the League in general. His comments were not an official statement by the League, and they may well misrepresent the positions of the League in general. This is a blatant example of adding inflammatory language to an article in a POV fashion to excite a particular, in this case negative response. There is no justification. GreetingsEarthling 18:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because you removed not only POV material but factual information as well. I then removed the POV material (the word "inflammatory" is POV, I instead quoted the remarks). I believe these remarks are relevant to the article since Donohue made them as a representative of the Catholic League. However, if you'd rather they be replaced with similar remarks from official Catholic league publications I could do that instead. -- Dragonfiend 01:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Material can, of course, be both factual and POV. However, I am open to material from offical statements or pulbications, rather than from Donahue himself. We'll need to make sure they stay in context - one thing which bothered me about the way you quoted Donahue in the edit I reverted was the way only the most shocking of his comments were cited. If a rationale or explanation for the comments is well-known, that's important to summarize also, to make sure both sides of the issues get covered. GreetingsEarthling 03:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a Non-Partisan Organization

The Catholic League rarely -- if ever -- attacks Republicans. They save all their vitriol for Democrats. Moreover, their board is jam-packed with conservative Republicans.

During his first run for Presidency, when George W. Bush spoke at Bob Jones University, I filed a complaint through their on-line service which allows Catholics to complain about acts of anti-Catholicism. I never heard back from them, and the League never spoke out on the matter until after John McCain shamed them in to doing it when he brought it to the attention of Michigan voters.

I only recall one instance when the Catholic League proactively attacked Republicans. When the GOP house leaders were considering a new chaplain, they asked some insulting questions about the Catholic candidate, a well qualified cleric. The League did come to his defense, but this has been a rare exception to their modus operandi of badgering Democrats. I would suggest that this may be because the GOP is more friendly to Roman Catholics, as the Democrats are the more "secular" party, they are closer to the feminists, atheists, radical gay groups etc. that are more likely to loathe Catholocism, I fail to see how this makes the Catholic League 'partisan'..."jme

That in itself is partisan bs. "radical gay groups", the phrase in itself exposes you for a right-wing hack. I suppose any gay person who thinks they have rights at all is a "radical". The GOP isn't friendlier towards religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.195.232 (talk • contribs)

The paragraph claiming their supposed viewpoints that are in opposition to the catholic church need citations. --J8427 01:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Needs a section on positions, and a section on criticisms

The current bland article reads like a promotional pamphlet. It conveys almost no actual information about the group. The group is defined by the stances it takes, so there needs to be a section on controversial and prominent positions it has taken on specific issues, and the article also needs a section on criticisms of the group. Just saying it parrots the Catholic Church is not informative; the article needs to discuss specific incidents. Tempshill 16:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ezola Foster's Religion

Foster's page lists her as being Catholic, but this page says she can't be in the Catholic League because she's not Catholic.

No mention of Foster is in the current article, if that should change then go for it. Benjiboi 01:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Direct" control of the church

The term "direct" control implies that the Catholic Church has some other kind of control over the Catholic League, yet the article provides no citation or justification for any such indirect control. Indeed, the League's website flaunts its independence from the Church (from [1], emphasis added):

We don’t receive a dime from the Church. Nor should we: we are a lay organization. Sure, we have many clergy who are members and all are welcome to join – but our financial base comes from individuals, not the Church.

Why is this so important? Because as a lay Catholic organization we don’t have to worry about violating church and state lines. Besides, we shouldn’t ask the clergy to do our job; when the Church is attacked, so are its members, and that means you. That is why we must provide a response.

Unless there is evidence is that some kind of indirect control exists, I feel the term "direct" should be deleted. -- Cat Whisperer 10:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Utter nonsense showing exactly what is wrong with Wikipedia

This article reads like a press release, and uncritically accepts the claim that the CL is a "civil rights" organization whose primary purpose is fighting "bigotry", when in fact they attack anyone who criticizes any aspect of Catholicism no matter how politely or correctly, they actively proselytize for Catholicism as the one true religion, and their leader William Donohue, who is for all practical purposes their only member, has made numerous anti-Jewish statements. It is also a lie to say that the CL is a lay organization not controlled by the Church, when in fact their office is located within the Archdiocese of New York's headquarters and they work closely with the Archbishop to coordinate media strategies.

The NPOV and anti-libel policy on Wikipedia has become an "accept anything everyone says without blinking an eye and don't criticize anyone on relevant grounds" policy because none of the editors here actually know anything about the subjects of the articles. If someone who was not a fifteen-year-old anime-watching idiot could actually become an administrator around here, maybe we could see an article on the Catholic League actually discuss what the Catholic League is known for in American politics. Instead, we get nonsense criticism sections telling us things like what PETA thinks of Beyonce Knowles, while anything of actual relevance to the world today is declawed for fear of "offending" people who don't like the truth or for being sued for libel due to a poor understanding of the law. Randy Blackamoor 06:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a lovely bit of a rant but doesn't seem to actually make constructive criticisms as much as simply criticizing the entire project. If you have specific issues speak to those directly on whichever articles specifically. Be bold and edit rather than complain that's how articles generally are improved although complaining certainly might work. Benjiboi 08:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I completely rewrote the article, meticulously sourcing every statement, and focusing on the question of what the Catholic League is known for in American politics rather than on a disorganized collection of trvia. I hope that was bold enough for you. We'll see how long this version of the article lasts before someone decides that it can't be allowed to stand because it disagrees with his preconceived notions of the world.Randy Blackamoor 21:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think you'll find that numerous editors will come along and tweak a bunch of small fixes and then someone else, like yourself, will be disgruntled about something, and re-do some organizing or add some other section. It can be a painful process. Benjiboi 00:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've started to weed through the additions, if I don't get to it please consider refocusing the section titles down so they are a bit more concise. Benjiboi 13:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

More ommissions

I find it disturbing that this page omits any mentions of the threats of violence this organziation has used to achieve its goals. In particualr, Terrence McNally's play Corpus Christi was cancelled by the Manhattan Theatre Club after Donohue made veiled threats that the place would be burned down. (we can not be held accountable for the acts of outraged Catholics or some such rot.) Pstemari 17:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If there's a valid cite, it should be included. If not, not. DavidOaks (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments on The Passion

I'm removing the comments on the Passion quotes, as they are by the President on one specific issue and, alone, do not represent the organization fairly. This article suffers from a little liberal Catholic bias, which I'll try to rectify. JG of Borg 05:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Since the President, Mr Donohue is, to all intents and purposes, the group, it is quite reasonable to conflate the two. Jhobson1 15:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing for now....

However, the League breaks away from the Church on many other issues, such as the Iraq War, capital punishment, evolution and welfare, taking politically conservative positions that are fundamentally at odds with the Vatican, leading many to criticize the League as being pro-Republican and politically biased and not representative of true Catholic positions.

I have cut this out for POV reasons and no citation, the Catholic League's website does not take a position on these issues that I can find, also I am not sure the Roman-Catholic church has any absolute positions on welfare for instance. The League has recently gone after conservative talkshow host Michael Savage for his attacks on a liberal bishop btw...if someone can find an authoritative citation feel free to put this quip back... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.215.225 (talk • contribs)

"The fact that William A. Donohue can remain president of the Catholic League despite his many years of cocksucing is an inspiration to America." is neither cited nor an appropriate comment. As such, I am deleting it.Andrew 22:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)AndrewKemendo

POV

I've just made some edits to take out some of the heavy POV here. Words like "autocratic" and "bigoted" had better be justified by references where neutral observers use them in context & even then I'd be careful. I'm not a lawyer, but some of the descriptions of Donohue (a living person in a very litigious country) looked libelous to me. (And I'm someone who has little sympathy with his views!) --Simon Speed 15:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This article still has a distinct POV problem (against the Catholic League and Donohue in particular). Criticism in particular is given undue weight. It needs some work. Mamalujo 20:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with most edits and deletion of controversies however Donohue and the League are widely seen as one and the same, at least until he is no longer there. I suggest something to note there are controvesies and link to main at Donohue article. Benjiboi 23:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous

This has to be one of the "worst" articles I have ever seen on wikipedia and I have seen many. The POV is so thick you can cut it with a knife. This is a hatchet job. No context, blatant inaccuracies, and a lack of objective references. The whole thing needs to be rewritten. And no I am not a member of the Catholic League.70.108.62.70 02:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to edit but know that others are as well. I've re-added the reference content you deleted - you're welcome to balance with information that you think more correctly covers the subject. We need to be accurate so presenting multiple opinions is fine. Benjiboi 11:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above editor. You are according to your talk page a homosexual who hates the Catholic League and your POV is very clear. Would you like someone doing this to the article on homosexuality? I doubt it. Where is your citation for your assertions? But since you don't mind I will make a few additions to the article.136.242.228.97 17:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. Also keep comments on content not editors. I hardly hate this or any other group and defend all editor's rights to edit articles regardless of perceived sexuality or religious preference. My history on this article has been to add content and address POV concerns and references although I'm hardly an expert. My hope is that anyone reading this article will get an accurate and encyclopedic understanding of the subject. Anyone willing to help toward that effort is certainly welcome to contribute. Benjiboi 23:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope editors can work together to produce a NPOV article. If POV is obvious anywhere, it is in the Catholic League, it claims to be purely opposed to anti-catholic prejudice and discrimination, but is also clearly (even from reading its own publication) part of the religious right. That said, the article should no more be a liberal diatribe than it should be a conservative whitewash: it should be based as far as possible on facts from mainstream news and academic sources and should use neutral factual language. It should not make value judgments on whether anybody's views are right or wrong, the reader can be relied on to supply these themself. I think that the changes I made moved the article away from being a hatchet job (a man who seems to work alone was called "autocratic") but that further work is needed. --Simon Speed 01:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Simon look at your own post. The Catholic League of course has a POV, but so do most other organizations. That isn't the point. The point is that it should be fairly portrayed. Even your comment about the "religious right" is POV. That has no business being in the article. There are things in the article that are not facts and are unsupported by evidence. Value judgments are not supposed to be in the article. It is supposed to be about the Catholic League period. It needs a complete rewrite by an objective person(s).70.108.62.70 03:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC) I put some helpful comments in the text of the article. I hope that shows why I am so upset. Someone needs to rewrite the whole article.70.108.62.70 03:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine, you won't listen to reason. I have taken the liberty of contacting the Catholic League. I have no doubt that wikipedia will hear from them and their attorneys. The article is quite likely actionable under libel laws.70.108.62.70 03:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No one has shown anything but a willingness to collaborate and address concerns however wikipedia does have rules and codes of conduct which you are violating although perhaps not intentionally. Please start a new section header (use Add section link on the upper left-hand side) and start with whatever section you want to address and we can easily work through them. You can also certainly edit the article yourself but adding All of these are noted as people and venues that engage in anti-Catholicism. is actually libelous (as well as untrue by reliable sources). Radical homosexual activists who hate the Catholic Church have protested against the Catholic League's defense of Catholicism. This was seen recently in the protest against the blatant anti-Catholic bigotry of a street fair in San Francisco seems blatantly POV so a reliable source should be cited and the text re-written neutrally. Just as you perceive the article to have POV issues so might others with your edits. It benefits everyone to have the article be accurate and dispassionately neutral and your help toward that end is appreciated. The League and Donohue are, for better or worse, part of the American culture wars so we should expect to have points of contention and rely on reliable sources to help write the article as well as the reader to answer for themselves what is true or not when we present multiple veiwpoints. Benjiboi 09:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

OK - 70.108.62.70 has crossed a couple of lines here. They've made legal threats and they've started vandalising the page. We need to stop assuming good faith, stop pointless debates with this person and just start reverting the edits. We also need to make sure that any negative material about living people or existing organisations is fully sourced and in context (that's Wikipedia policy for all pages). --Simon Speed 21:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've crossed the line! Every edit that I have made has been reverted, no matter what the edit was. I don't assume good faith on those who vandalized the article to begin with. It is POV. That is not my fault. It makes claims that are not verified according to any standard. There is no context and the sources are POV. As for legal threats, I have informed the Catholic League. They and their attorneys will be the ones making threats. I am willing to bet that wikipedia won't find this article legally defensible. One thing the Catholic League is good at is going after issues like this. I suggest you fix the article quickly before the hammer falls.70.108.62.70 22:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

With their threats to send thugs and legally suppress anyone who says anything bad about Catholics, it's a GIANT MYSTERY why anti-Catholicism exists! Why in the world would anyone have a negative viewpoint about such a fine and upstanding group of militantly anti-intellectual, quasi-fascist child molestors who spend all their time asking the courts to censor their opponents? I CAN'T FIGURE IT OUT. DarthSquidward 00:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Making generalized and disparaging remarks is completely inappropriate and is damaging to the process of building good articles. Benjiboi 01:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Legal Threats

Please be aware of the Wikipedia policy on threatening legal action, to wit:

Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia.

-- Cat Whisperer 03:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not the one with legal standing, that would be the Catholic League. If people are willing to be reasonable and remove some of the blatant POV then that will be fine. You can even insert a controversy section. The part about Pius XII needs to go, it is not only POV but is historically inaccurate.70.108.62.70 03:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not who has legal standing. The issue is that you are making legal threats, and you need to stop making such threats if you wish to continue editing here at Wikipedia. You have made it perfectly clear that you are unhappy with the current state of the article. You can address your concerns by contributing sourced content that presents an alternate viewpoint, or by challenging unsourced content that is present in the article. However, if you continue to address your concerns by making legal threats (regardless of who has legal standing), you will be blocked from Wikipedia under the WP:LEGAL policy. -- Cat Whisperer 03:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to be completely clear, there is absolutely no problem with your contacting the Catholic League with whatever you care to contact them about. However, what is a problem, and what will not be tolerated here, is your bringing up your contact with the Catholic League in a blatant attempt to coerce other Wikipedia editors to yield to your demands by force. -- Cat Whisperer 04:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that you don't mind. Yet oddly why does no one mind the fact that this article is completely infected with POV? I gave specific examples. They aren't hard to find. All attempts on my part to edit were reverted. I suspect if I change a comma it would be reverted. The individual doing it is quite unfriendly to the Catholic League and the Catholic Church. It shows. So if I can't edit it then who can?70.108.62.70 04:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As to who can edit here, the answer is anyone who understands and follows Wikipedia policy. Whether you fit into this group is up to you. Your latest edit was very good, at least the sourced material. However, your personal zinger ("These facts call into question Cornwell's view and his objectivity.") really doesn't belong here. -- Cat Whisperer 22:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to remove it if the following was also removed: "Pope Pius XII facilitated the dictator's rise and, ultimately the Holocaust." Since Hitler rose to power in 1933 and Pius XII was not pope until 1939 this claim is simply impossible. In fact the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge by Pius XI was an anti-nazi papal document. Also it says that he went through "Jesuit" libraries. This hearkens back to early conspiracy theories about Jesuits. They would not have had information or documents unavailable to the Vatican. This is what I mean about POV. It takes a single source that is not widely accepted by historians and launches into hyperbole.70.108.62.70 23:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

How about a less adversarial means to accomplish your end? Instead of adding unreasonable content yourself so that you can trade to remove other unreasonable content, why not just explain why the other content is unreasonable? Resorting to a "tit-for-tat" approach just makes it unpleasant to interact with you on this project. (Wikipedia policy on this: WP:AGF.) -- Cat Whisperer 01:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Now, the first step in challenging article content that you wish to remove is to explain why, in terms of Wikipedia policy, that content is bad. The full sentence you are complaining about is: "Cornwell's original research was to demonstrate Pope Pius XII's defense from claims that he could have done more to prevent or mitigate the Holocaust but researching through Vatican and Jesuit archives found that Pope Pius XII facilitated the dictator's rise and, ultimately the Holocaust."

If the sentence takes makes it sound like Cornwell's conclusions are generally accepted by historians, while they really are not, then the solution is to reword the sentence so that it is clear that his conclusions are his alone.

If the sentence doesn't correctly summarize Cornwells's original research goals and the research that he actually did (e.g., he didn't research Jesuit sources, or that Jesuit sources weren't particular relevant to his research), then the solution is to change the sentence so that it accurately reflects what Cornwell did.

Regarding the timing issue of Pius XII's papacy, I am going to reword the sentence to clarify that matter. -- Cat Whisperer 01:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

O'Donnell

The statement that the League opposes "...highly visible LGBT people like Rosies O'Donnell", is patently false. The link is to a Catholic League press release criticizing Ms. O'Donnell's comments about Catholocism. One could as easily write "The Catholic League criticizes highly visible heterosexuals like Barbara Walters"; they believe she is offensive to Catholics, here lesbianism is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.215.225 (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree that the statement is false however your assertion that it isn't referenced in the press release is correct and I've removed the link. Benjiboi 04:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Tags added, work needed

As has been mentioned by others on this talk page, this article is one of the worst I've seen in regards to POV/balance. I've made some effort to improve it by deleting some of the most egregious material. The fact of the matter is that this article had become and largely remains a hatchet job. Much of the matter I deleted was factually erroneous, unsourced and potentially if not actually defamatory. It still gives criticism (often really nothing more than attacks) of the Catholic League and Donohue undue weight. It needs some more legitimate contributions and trimming of POV material.Mamalujo (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've re-added some of the sourced content you deleted, others, of course, may also chose to do so. I also suggest that one tag would be sufficient as they seem to be redundant. Benjiboi 02:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

RJ Eskow quote

I don't know who Eskow is, but his statement that the League has never criticized Republicans for speaking at Bob Jones is incorrect. The archives on the linked website easily refute this, they criticized both GW Bush and Pat Buchanan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.215.225 (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Justice Sunday

I have attempted to correct this section a couple times, but it keeps being reverted. The article states that the "Justice Sunday" event was "promoted" and in another portion "advertised", "as a rally to portray Democrats as being against people of faith". One could argue that this was the organizer's alterior motive, however they certainly did not publicly proclaim this through any "promotion" or "advertisement". I believe "opponents labled" or "was criticized as" would be reasonably accurate. The way it is presently written makes no sense.66.72.215.225 (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

POV

Have we got past the POV problems? Can the tags be removed? DavidOaks (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Official Status/Affiliation with the Church

In response to "(Undid revision 226512580 by DavidOaks (talk) cite tags should be replaced with ... cites)" -- I'm inclined to revert the reversion, but wish to do things the right way. The claim has been changed from "they have no affiliation" (needs citation) to "their website claims no affiliation" -- seems to me that's absolutely verifiable. Why would that need a citation? What sort of citation would that require? DavidOaks (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. A clear statement of the fact that the organization has no status within the Church was easily found in the same NYT article that was used to claim, rather misleadingly, that it is "located in the headquarters of the Archdiocese of New York" (it rents offices in the same building). DavidOaks (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Something else. I first deleted the claim that the League works closely with the Archdiocese, when all that it had in its support was the fact that it supplied photos to the vocations website. That's hardly evidence of a close collaboration and official sponsorship (which was, I think the end of the enthymeme). But then when I go to the ref URL, I find no such attribution anyhow -- it's certainly not on the page to which the link leads, and I didn't find it elsewhere (not saying it doesn't exist, definitely saying it's not prominent). There's not much effort of official support; if that's the case that's being made, I think it's OR, which is fine for an op-ed or a blog, not an encyclopedia. No doubt whatsoever the League enjoys the support of Catholic conservatives, and the contempt of liberal Catholics, with the mainstream/middle of varying views on various of its activities and pronouncements. The article should and does (currently) reflect that. DavidOaks (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with adding the NYT ref, that item has been fact tagged for a while so I'm glad you got a source on it. That they have offices next to and the Archdiocese gave up space for expansion of CL's work should certainly be mentioned. I would put it as - "although the CL and Archdiocese rent office space on the same floor ...". I think any reasonable person would infer than just maybe that's more than just coincidence. However we have a source so let's be upfront with our readers and let them decide. If someone finds a more current or better source that states otherwise the two can be compared and reworked at that point. Banjeboi 21:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite authoritative stuff now mounted. I'll get it out of the lead and into the paragraph where it belongs. DavidOaks (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! I did a formatting fix but it looks much better now. By the way Wikipedia:Citation templates might be of future use. Banjeboi 02:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

'Fraid my wikiskills are on the primitive side. This is one of the more complex POV situations I've encountered. Here's how it looks to me, and I hope I won't offend: there are two sorts of people who would tend to see CL as having at least semi-official status. First, there's Bill D & Co., who really do think of themselves as champions of orthodoxy (I don't think they'd object to the characterization) and they would enjoy the enhanced prestige and authority. Then there are those who are of an entirely different ideological stripe, who are not especially well-disposed towards the Church, don't think highly of CL, and would be happy to see the one polluted by association with the other. Now, while I believe objectivity and NPOV is a noble goal, I do not think it's perfectly attainable, so I'll tip my own hand: I am well-disposed towards the Catholic Church, believe people like Bill D. are really pretty far from the core of the her teaching, and am impatient with attempts to hijack the Church's authority. So I have my own POV issues; being aware of them is halfway to containing them. DavidOaks (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. No problems, you seem to be well-intended towards improving the article and introducing sourcing is a great way to show that although you may have a POV, your intent is to improve an article. By the way expanding the early history is quite helpful if you have the time and interest. Banjeboi 11:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Section Titles

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would appreciate it if people would stop changing my section titles. The fact is that the Catholic League attempted to have a film, The Golden Compass, pulled from theaters. I therefore think that the title, "Attempt to Boycott The Golden Compass", is perfectly accurate and descriptive and I see no reason for replacing it with the generic title, "The Golden Compass". Frellthat (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC) I agree, so I changed the titles back. TruthIIPower (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC) "Stop changing MY section titles"? Please have a look at WP:Ownership. The reason for the GENERIC titles is that we have long ago created a GENRE, or category, of "activities" for this organization, the subcategories of which should be grammatically parallel for good encyclopedic form and logical structure. Now, there's a second reason as well, and this has to do with the meaning of the words. There was no attempt to boycott; there was a boycott. Whether the boycott had the intended effect (to get the film pulled from theaters or at least cut into its revenue) is another matter. We could have section titles like "Attempt to get The Golden Compass pulled from theaters or at least cut into its revenue," and that would certainly be accurate, but also unwieldy and difficult to get into parallel form. DavidOaks (talk) I have once again reverted the title of "Attempt to Expel Webster cook", after DavidOaks changed the title to "Webster Cook Controversy. This is a heading under the "Activities" section, and should therefore describe an activity of the Catholic League. "Webster Cook Controversy" is not an activity. "Attempt to Expel Webster Cook" is. The title describes the activity of the Catholic League in attempting to have Webster Cook expelled from his university. If you are going to change it again, please provide a justification.Frellthat (talk) 03 35, 23 April 2009 (UTC) I explained this before (please see edit summaries), but I'm willing to do so again. CL is not a university. They have no authority to expel enyone. They are not a branch of government at any level, and have no authority to censor. They can launch a campaign to have someone expelled by the competent authorities, or to have something censored -- though protesting a piece of artwork and seeking to have the private owners remove it from display is not censorship, but simply a form of economic pressure. In fact, when the private owners remove something from public display, even in response to pressure, that's still not censorship even on their part, because it's voluntary. Cesnorship and expulsion are official, quasi-judicial actions. That is, the section titles you're insisting on are simply inaccurate. That's bad, especially in an article that already has some tendency to the inflammatory. Second issue -- I do in fact think "controversy" belongs perfectly well under "activities" -- it's a noun phrase. Would "running" or "badminton" belong under a list of actvities that a school might sponsor? Let's not edit-war, but give others a chance to weigh in. DavidOaks (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry, but you're just playing with semantics. Censorship does not require a government: look it up. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring. Likewise, there's no point arguing that the CL didn't try to expel Cook but only tried to get him expelled. These subtle and arbitrary distinctions serve only to obfuscate the simple, incontrovertible facts here. TruthIIPower (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Censorship implies authority held over the figure/venue, the CL has neither. If this was censorship that so was every other boycott in American history. - Schrandit (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry, but is that your entire argument? I was hoping you might offer something that hasn't already been refuted: the definition of censorship does not specify any such thing. If you have no argument, just say so and we can politely move on. Of course, you'd have to stop edit-warring, too. Is that likely? TruthIIPower (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Please mind your wikimanners, TruthIIPower. An act of opposition to a communication by someone who has no power to enforce it is not censorship. It is protest. You can see that there is a useful distinction, right? Otherwise, what you and I and all other parties engaged in this discussion, or any other, are engaged in is censorship. You're working with a very crude idea of what dictionaries are for. Look up the word "censor," and you will see that it's a functionary with certain authority. I suppose we could concede that CL has "censorious attitudes towards art." That would be accurate, but klunky. What you're proposing is inaccurate and also POV. DavidOaks (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Is this your own original research or is there something more substantial behind your suggestion that it's not censorship? TruthIIPower (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Let me help out with some unoriginal research. According to a site called "Wikipedia", "Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor." TruthIIPower (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Also according to Wikipedia a Boycott is "a form of consumer activism involving the act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with someone or some other organization as an expression of protest, usually of political reasons." Boycott fits better. No one went to the artist and said "you cant say that", they went to the hotel and said "if you put that up we won't do business with you". I really don't think there is any room to say this is an act of censorship, rather than a boycott. - Schrandit (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Boycotting is the means by which the work of art was censored. The end result -- censorship -- is more important than the method used -- boycotting. TruthIIPower (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC) What I'm sensing is that it's somehow important to use the words "censor" or "censorship" in connection with the CL. They are certainly censorious. But in order to exercise censorship, you must be a censor. A school-board censors when it withdraws controversial books, though the people agitating for the withdrawal of the books have not censored -- they have certainly called for censorship (also a usage that would be accurate, if klunky, in this article). What CL did can be called censorship only in a loose and conversational sense; a freshman comp teacher would bring out the red pen (says somebody who has spent seventeen years teaching frosh comp, but I'm not invoking authority). DavidOaks (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC) It's somehow important not to censor the plain and simple fact that the CL censors. I understand that, to some people, censorship is associated with things like governments, but if you take a peek at censorship, you'll find many examples where other entities, including religions, exert censorship. It would not be neutral to sugar coat the reality here. TruthIIPower (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Tell me, was this censorship? - Schrandit (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

• Comment. I've cleaned this section up removing POV language and and undue (and unneeded) quote. I've also added more appropriate wikilinks and clarified the events. No section should have controversy in it's title, I've changed it to "Eucharist prank" which seems to sum up what this was. A dumb prank - we likely should source his stated motivation(s) - involving the Eucharist which in Donohue's mindset is further proof of anti-Catholicism from anyone who doesn't agree with him on how serious the matter is. As the student was in college the need to name them is borderline but may need to be removed as he should not be permanently shamed for ... one event, per policy. If this is among many religious or authority-figure focussed pranks that may be helpful to our readers' understanding of these issues. In short, let's be accurate and not give undue weight to either side. -- Banjeboi 02:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I like your edits to the Section but I feel it would be more appropriate to put the two instances of the word "Prank" in quotations. Thoughts?

These are reasonable changes. I'm going to put back "censorship" and consider the article in decent shape for now. TruthIIPower (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree with the last point -- it's inaccurate and POV. Censorship requires the office of censor, according to common understanding and the Webster's collegiate sv 3. For the example cited, religions can censor when they act as quasi-official entitites, or upon their own subordinates. Otherwise every act of protest or disagreement must be classed as censorship (think through examples; I certainly won't do anything WP:Point, but let your imagination run wild. Won't rv quite yet, as I wish to avoid edit-waring, but I think we need more people to weigh in. DavidOaks (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If you take a look at censorship, it should become clear that this is not the case. Censorship need not be direct: you can force those who have the ability to silence the act of free speech to do so. For example, if I'm not the school librarian, I can't directly censor books I dislike by pulling them off the shelves myself, but I don't need to. All I have to do is march up to the principal's office with a bunch of "concerned parents" and bully them into forcing the librarian to perform the censorship for us. I'm still a censor, even though I never touched a book, just as much as I'm still a murderer if I give the orders but don't pull the trigger. My actions were not merely a protest, but intentional censorship.

Not a good idea to use censorship (which needs work on exactly this point). You are aware that Wikipedia itself is not WP:RS? I gave you a standard dictionary that gives positive evidence that the office of censor is requisite to the act of censorship; you simply offered absence of specification (though I continue to hold that this is an attitude twoards dictionary-use that modern lexicographers would reject). It is absolutely true that the word is used imprecisely. In this case, the casual usage is excusing POV. You've lost this case on facts and also on policy. The usage is simply too far from neutral. I do not like or support CL, but I am trying to look at the headings as a person who is neutal or well-disposed might. They would not affirm the contested usage. By your standards, all disagreement is censorship. DavidOaks (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the specific category for what the CL does, take a look at religious censorship. TruthIIPower (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It is inaccurate to categorize the CLs actions as censorship. I'm trying not to be a jerk about this but we have done this dance long enough. Don't edit against consensus/neutrality unless you have a reason. - Schrandit (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Try harder. Start by not edit-warring. The consensus is up in the air, so any edit claiming to be based on it is, in a word, disingenuous. I edited on the simple basis of neutrality; it is not neutral to hide the existence of censorship by using a euphemism. TruthIIPower (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is decidedly not up in the air. You proposed a change to the article and it has found no support. - Schrandit (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

One more reminder about manners. I think your claim that your usage is neutral is disingenuous. The other versions are obviously less inflammatory, as well as more accurate.DavidOaks (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality means not taking sides. It doesn't mean taking sides to suppress the facts. If the truth is "inflamatory", then hiding the truth is not neutral at all, much less accurate. TruthIIPower (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

More; here[2] is an anthology of fairly authoritative definitions. The overwhelming majority specify the official character of the activity. A few do not lay down the requirement, but it seems implcit. Only one specifically includes entities without the power to enforce their decisions ("pressure groups") and even that definition notes that theswe people would be included in "censsorship" "in the broadest sense." Game over. DavidOaks (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If "game over" means you're planning to stop playing games, then I'm in full support. Otherwise, you're being rather uncivil by claiming victory when there is nothing here but disagreement. This is not a game, and moreover, you are not the game master. I reject your claim to victory. TruthIIPower (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thoughts on the word "Prank" in quotations? - Schrandit (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Not in favor. Either we use an accurate term or not, but we can't have it both ways, calling it a prank and disaffirming the characterization at the same time. "Controversy" is sensible -- that was the activity the CL engaged in. DavidOaks (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. I feel that the previous title took on a slightly too pro-Webster Cook and figured that putting prank in quotations would serve to denote that opinion. I'm open to other suggestions. - Schrandit (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are some sources, perhaps a concensus among them as well as statement about motivations can be found. -- Banjeboi 21:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Cook's motivations may very well have been clear (I don't actually know what he says they were) but that does not necissarily translate to an accurate description of what happened. Incidentaly, the first 5 results from that google news search yielded the words "altercation", "theft", "desecration", "holding [the Eucharist] hostage" and the 5th was about what happened afterward and fail to use any word to describe what happened. - Schrandit (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What do a couple of the most reliable sources state? -- Banjeboi 22:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

From that search -

1. CBS: "after allegations he was involved in an altercation at a Catholic Mass on campus."

2. Fox News: "Cook returned the wafer one week after the theft"

3. The Atlantic: "Printing a cartoon for legitimate purposes is a different thing than deliberately backing the physical desecration of sacred objects."

I didn't see any other name brands in that search, the rest of the results seemed to have been local media outlets. - Schrandit (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. OK, with my detective hat on found this:

I happen to agree with the side of Cook that there is something a little bit wrong about the student government of a public institution funding money for religious groups to hold their worship meetings inside the Student Union.

What I don't agree with, though, is trying to prove a point by pulling a crazy publicity stunt like holding the Eucharist "hostage."

If you are an elected member of SGA, use that power as an outlet for calm, collected and intelligent political change.

On the flip side of this story, I don't understand the mindset of people who would get so upset over someone stealing a cracker that they would send threats of physical violence.

There is easily another few stories in there but this seems the crux of it. This also helps explain it all a bit more why he did it. As a Senator on the student council he felt emboldened to do a publicity stunt to make a point that he objected to public education funds supporting organized religious worship. Based on this we need to expand the details to reflect this nature, I think call it altercation until a better word is agreed upon. And dig through sources to see if Cook makes public statements that are appropriate. In short we didn't have all the facts but we're getting a more complete picture now. -- Banjeboi 23:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"Altercation" seems fair to me. If there are no objections I'll insert that. - Schrandit (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There are objections. TruthIIPower (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright then. Benjiboi and myself favor the temporary use of the word "altercation" to describe the event as it was used by the media and seems to be relatively neutral. If other parties has proposals now would be the time to bring them forward. - Schrandit (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A single person agreeing with you does not make a consensus. That's why this will be reverted soon enough. TruthIIPower (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There only seem to be 3 people in this discussion. Attempts have been made to work a compromise, they don't see to have gone too far. In such an atmosphere the majority would constitute the consensus. - Schrandit (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I've made some addition edits based on that we are missing segments of the story. I think the CL only got involved after other media outlets did but that may or may not need to be clarified. I did separate the two as it's apparent there were some key events that were skipped over. As long as we avoid misrepresenting anyone here we should be fine and if it bears out Cook did this as a publicity stunt we should say so explicitly. -- Banjeboi 09:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I take no issue with your changes, although I'm wondering if there's more we should say. From this article, it's not clear that worshippers attempted to forcibly detain Cook and steal the little plastic bag that he popped the wafer into. We might also want to clarify that a week passed before he gave up and returned the magic bread. I'm curious as to whether the bread was still supposed to be Jesus after that time, but I haven't found any reliable sources on the matter, or on the matter of what a priest is supposed to do with a returned wafer. TruthIIPower (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I just have one comment on this issue. Currently you have the same topic in both "Eucharist Incident" and in the Criticism section. One of the two needs either removed or the two sections need to be combined. Also the statement "with Donohue describing his confiscation of the wafer as a hate crime" is incorrect and POV because Donohue wouldn't refer to the Eucharist as a wafer. Other people may have but not Donohue.Marauder40 (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That's an easy one, everything in the criticism section should be merged into the main text appropriately. -- Banjeboi 02:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

More omissions

There doesn't seem to be any mention of this group's history of involvement in banning plays and works of art it sees as anti-catholic. It must be possible to mention this in a NPV fashion as it's involvement is fact and not opinion, it is important to mention because it is part of the debate on free speech... sources:

"Sweet Lord" exhibit causes consternation of Catholic League http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6509127.stm

Comments on the C.L.'s webpage by it's president Bill Donohue “I am contacting hundreds of organizations about this assault. Our allied list contains scores of Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu organizations...The boycott is on.”. http://www.catholicleague.org/07press_releases/quarter_1/070329_naked_jesus.htm

Same exhibit pulled amidst call for boycott by Catholic League, from today's news http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6513155.stm

C.L.'s call for boycott of film "The Magdalene Sisters" in '04 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/2420305.stm

Comments on C.L.'s about us page on it's aims (granted it is one of it's many stated aims) "When Catholics are the victims of a bigoted portrayal by the media, the Catholic League issues news releases bringing the matter to the attention of the public. It may also encourage a boycott of the program’s sponsors." http://www.catholicleague.org/faqs.htm noworky 11:35 UTC 01st April 2007

About blacks

This section should be changed, or removed in my opinion:

Against blacks

Donohue has allied himself with individuals accused of racism. At a 2005 event entitled Justice Sunday, advertised as “a rally to portray Democrats as being against people of faith,'” Donohue shared the stage with the prominent Louisiana Republican Tony Perkins.[42] Perkins gave a 2001 speech to the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens and once paid $82,500 to former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke for a mailing list.[43]

Number one, he never made a comment, so its out of place; number two, it is total guilt by association, if not double guilt by association. It would be like saying "And Howard Dean has allied himself with people who like communists. He once shared a stage with Tom Hayden, who made comments supporting the Vietcong"--Dudeman5685 02:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Which would be a perfectly true thing to say about Howard Dean, and probably belongs in an article about the association between mainstream Democrats and the Communist movement, if there is one. If there's not, no one's stopping you from creating one.

Donohue's willingness to find offense towards Catholicism at the slightest thing (a statue of Jesus made of chocolate, created by a Catholic sculptor, as a gift to the Church, is somehow offensive because of some Bible passage I must have missed about chocolate being created by the Devil) while himself constantly using terms of clear derision towards homosexuals, Jews, and Asians is a very important point, as Donohue's hypocrisy and selective outrage direclty relates to WHY the Catholic League is considered important. The purpose of the article should be directed towards answering the question of what the Catholic League means in American politics. That Donohue cares more about calling Democrats atheist anal sex fiends, so much that he would ally with open racists and actual anti-Catholics to do so, than he does about promoting what many others consider to be mainstream Catholic values is very relevant to why Donohue is important and worthy of an article here.Randy Blackamoor 03:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that the section is faulty, at least, and likely wouldn't hold up. i see it's already been removed but I did think the ref was quite telling in another area. It seemed Donohue actually did comment (FYI) but the article emphasized not so much his association with people who have racist histories as it emphasized his silence while sharing the same stage with...Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Dr. Albert Mohler. "As an evangelical, I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is a false church," Mohler remarked during a 2000 TV interview. "It teaches a false gospel. And the Pope himself holds a false and unbiblical office." Donohue, who has protested against Democrats who have made no such comments about Catholics, was silent about Mohler. In fact, the site of Justice Sunday, Highview Baptist Church, in Louisville, Kentucky, is Mohler's home church. I favor removing the against blacks section and reworking the reference in to what the article does emphasize. Benjiboi 04:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted statement

It is widely believed that the ideological and logistical operation of the League is completely controlled by Donohue.

The above statement was correctly removed as it is seen as controversial and should be sourced. If it is widely believed then finding a source should be relatively easy. Benjiboi 01:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Incredibly misleading section on Asians

Was just reading through this, and followed through on a reference that Donahue used the word "gook" eight times. Once you read the actual article from Media Matters, it's easy to see that the original section here was extremely, even deliberately, misleading. It stated that Donahue used the word "gook" eight times in reference to a hypothetical team of table tennis players from Columbia. It failed to put this into the context of Donahue proposing a sort of joke that Asians would find offensive. If someone says, "It's wrong to say 'nigger'" and then you report that that person said 'nigger' without any other context, it's POV and misleading. That's what the case was here. 71.166.78.218 02:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want context, you should note that he came up with this bizarre, relevant-to-nothing "Columbia University ping pong team made of Asians" scenario that prompted him to say "gook" over and over again while "debating" with an Asian student from Columbia. The joke was the cover for the racist epithet, not the other way around. Donohue and the League have a history of using childish taunts and gloating over irrelevant issues towards their opponents--e.g., ever since they decided Britney Spears was anti-Catholic, they keep issuing press releases about her record sales falling as if that God's judgment vindicating the League's position or something. Donohue deciding that the Asian student was anti-Catholic and then finding the most ridiculous excuse to yell the word "gook" at him repeatedly is perfectly in character for his modus operandi. Randy Blackamoor 02:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That's your POV Randy, but the original poster gave the actual context. The MO is to show that what is unacceptable to the politically correct is suddenly fine when it is an anti-catholic statement. The article should reflect the context of the statement. If you dispute the accuracy of the context then present your evidence.70.108.62.70 01:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI. Video and transcript here. Benjiboi 13:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The transcript makes the point that Donohue was making an analogy between pc discrimination and anti-Catholicism. The article should reflect that truth rather then give the false impression that Donohue was making racist comments.70.108.62.70 22:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yelling "gook" over and over again at an Asian person when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand is a racist comment by any sane definition of "racist comments." You are doing exactly the same thing Donohue does by obstinately ignoring the obvious, as well as by confirming every stereotype of right-wing Catholics as bigoted, loud, anti-intellectual bullies. Randy Blackamoor 06:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The content should be updated to reflect both viewpoints. although he stated he was illustrating hate speech (or whatever is appropriate) some media outlets and advocacy groups took exception to his continued use of an offensive term while speaking with a young Asian man. It should also reflect why they were both on the show to add context - the Asian student had made a public joke about altar boys having sex or something similar. Benjiboi 08:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Right-wing? or ? in the Catholic spectrum

I keep reading items that he is seen as right-wing or representing the right-wing of politics. Is this accurate and source-able? Also are there any mainstream Catholic publications or groups that have made critical observations on Donohue? I keep seeing more left or right extremist viewpoints when I'm hoping for something more in the middle. I guess I'm wondering what sources are available to portray mainstream Catholic's view of the League/Donohue's work. Benjiboi 01:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The article addresses this. Several Jesuits and independent Catholic writers dislike the Catholic League, while it also seems to be supported by official organs of the Church (e.g., in its many connections to the Archdiocese of New York). You're not going to get a single official answer; even if the Pope issued some sort of definitive statement on the role of the Catholic League, you would certainly just get a long debate over whether the Pope speaks for the Church from people who don't like the implications of such a statement. This is how religious discussion works. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Lol, I'll not expect a clear or simply answer but will keep looking. Benjiboi 02:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The use of a term like "right wing extremist" is troubling. The article remains full of POV and needs further revision by non-biased people.70.108.115.9 (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, is the phrase used in the article? I didn't see it nor am I suggesting its use without direct attribution here or elsewhere on wikipedia articles. Please don't accuse other editors as being bias but instead make constructive content suggestions to improve the article. Even better you could add more balanced content to address perceived bias issues yourself. Benjiboi 04:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the inclusion of People For the American Way's classification of the Catholic League as a right wing organization. This is another manifestation of the privileged status this article is giving to opinions that come from an avowedly leftist viewpoint. It is POV to include this without clarification of why it is important, so I have excised it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.155.66 (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Significance is in the fact that it's a signficant organization, and their opinion of the catholic League is a matter of public record. Their estimation is not a fact, but that they made that estimation -- it's a fact. This is not POV, it's how POV is avoided. DavidOaks (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's presented as authoritative. I see your point, but the sentence raises the question of why the PFAW's opinion is included and not some other. What I would suggest as a compromise is a qualification of the sentence, along the lines of "The liberal advocacy organization People For the American Way lists the League among Right Wing Organizations." (This language comes from the Wiki page on PFAW, so it should be uncontroversial.) I think this would clarify that the article is presenting it as one POV among a multiplicity of POV's. It also important to the reader's interpretation of the sentence that the designation of "right wing organization" comes from an avowedly liberal source. Let's keep discussing this if you disagree. I'll check tomorrow and make the change if there are no objections here. 140.247.238.106 (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That's been tried before, and was found to be loading the deck. The thing to do is find another organization which takes another view of Donahue, if balance is what's sought. DavidOaks (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

1973-1993

There is pretty much no information pre-Donohue yet it seems there should be some history from 1973-1993. Can anyone research and expand? Benjiboi 15:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this useful comment requires followup -- afraid I'm not the person to do it, but others? DavidOaks (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Catholic League U.S. - inappropriate content throughout

Resolved

 – We lean on relaible sources and present the information neutrally whatever the content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

SUBJECT: In reference on the Catholic League Topic (Catholic League (U.S.), a Roman Catholic civil rights organization in the United States)

PROBLEM: This page is way to POV by too many extremist indiviuals. This page in general detracts from Wikipedia's credibility. Too many examples to cite.

However consider #33 under "references"

33. ^ "IT'S A FRACKIN’ CRACKER!". Pharyngula (2008-07-08). Retrieved

The above site is discriminatory, bigoted and excessively coarse, unless you agree with this section of text: "Crazy Christian fanatics right here in our own country have been threatening to kill a young man over a cracker. This is insane. These people are demented fuckwits"

There is nothing "bigoted" in that comment. Expressing a negative opinion of Bill Donohue and the Catholic League is not "bigoted". Even calling them "crazy" or "demented fuckwits" is not bigoted, although it is certainly coarse. And the opinion of the article's author has no bearing on the veracity of the events being cited--specifically, Bill Donohue's description of Mr. Cook's unwillingness to consume a wafer as a "hate crime".Frellthat (talk) 22

26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not the worst example.

I think this topic should be stripped down to useful facts and not serve as a lightening rod for those who disagree with the organization to vent their intolerance. -Steve Coulter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevaroonie (talk • contribs)

OK, sounds reasonable. So be bold, and make the changes you think need making. DavidOaks (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually that reference is citing what that website wrote. We don't just cite and source what the Catholic League states but also the viewpoint of those they comment on. If you have suggestion how it could improve please post here and we can sort out how to improve the section. -- Banjeboi 18:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I cited "It's a Frackin' Cracker" because it was the first reference that came up on Google that could serve as verification of the fact of Mr. Donohe "describing his confiscation of the wafer as a hate crime as well as a form of kidnapping." The author of the article, PZ Myers, is indeed an atheist and highly anti-religious, but that does not change the fact that Mr. Donohue described the confiscation of the water as a hate crime, as well as a form of kidnapping. If you would like to find another source to use as a citation of these events, please do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.49.150 (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That Pharyngula article was saying people calling for the death of a young man over a cracker are demented fuckwits. How is it bigotry to criticise bigotry itself? Maybe PZ Myers should have praised them, that would have kept the Catholic League and yourself happy, but it wouldn't have been the morally right thing to do. It is depraved to call for the death of anyone over a wafer. Matt7895 (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm closing this as resolved. The sourcing confirmed the content and discussing their actions in general isn't helping the article. Everyone's right. -- Banjeboi 02:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You Tube Video

Don't want to be edit warring or cross the 3rv rule, but we can really do without the term "excuse" -- it improperly implies a motive other than the stated. A little look at the history will demonstrate that I'm the last person to be accused of whitewashing Donahue's behavior. The crucial problem is contributory copyright infringement. Sorry about getting the policy title wrong; it's WP:ELNEVER and it says, among other things:

Restrictions on linking For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception:

Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Sites that match the Wikipedia-specific or multi-site spam blacklist without being whitelisted. MediaWiki's code will automatically block any edits that contain such links.

Hardball's copyrighted. This is copyvio. It's possibly illegal, certainly against wikipolicy. It's a side issue that it doesn't contribute much of relevance to the article except to show that he's got lousy manners and ugly attitudes.

DavidOaks (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've now had a chance to watch it on a computer with a working sound card. That's just a really bizarre thing to pick out of the video and highlight. It could be included under a description like "heated debate with Christipher Hitchens over Mother Teresa's crises of faith," and there could be references to his characteristic and more or less jocular pugnacity, but I still don't think it adds much to the article, and the copyright problem remains. DavidOaks (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've watched the video and corrected the article. For example, the person Donahue was bullying with the bizarre racist comments and threats of violence was an uncharacteristically sober Christopher Hitchens, who cannot be accurately described as American. The segment clip on YouTube is quite arguably fair use, but I've changed it so that we instead link to a Dawkins website that links to it, and supplemented it with an article about the incident on Radar Online, in which Hitchens is quoted.

Now that we've improved the quality, the question remains whether the material should be in this article or in Donahue's. I'm frankly unsure. On the one hand, when Donahue appears in public as a representative of the Catholic League, it seems quite reasonable for this to be included in the Catholic League article, as it says quite a bit about how this "civil rights" group operates. On the other hand, it does seem rather specific and arbitrary, given Donahue's overall track record. What do you think? Spotfixer (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Better editorial spin, and it probably belongs more on the Donahue site, but even there, the copyvio problem remains -- we've just put a layer of linkage between WP and YouTube, but it's still beyond fair use (it's virtually the whole of the interview -- and that's the legal test). This is one of the most stringent of wikipolicies. It's not like it adds anything totally essential to our understanding of CL or Donahue -- it's just gotta go. DavidOaks (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you're right; it does seem to say more about Donahue's behavior than about the CL in general. As for the indirect link, you might as well be saying that we can't mention Gore Vidal because he's two steps away from Kevin Bacon. [3] Spotfixer (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Two things. One, the comment by Donohue is incredibly racist and condescending. Jocularity is fine unless you're the subject of the joke. Imagine a white man saying to a black man "A black man listens when a white man talks." Ho ho ho. It goes to the character of the man and I think it's relevant. The first edit states he said it to shut Christopher Hitchens up. That implies knowledge of his motives. My suggestion is that his motive was to insult another race. Why else would he bring race into it?

If he just wanted to shut Hitchens up, why not say "Shut up, Hitchens?"

Two, Christopher Hitchens is most definitely an American. He has taken American citizenship. If his passport describes him as one then he can be accurately described as one.

If this comes across as pugilistic, it's not meant to. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrcomeara (talk • contribs) 23:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"Wafer"

Any reason why we should go out of our way to offend people? - Schrandit (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why a neutral and accurate term is offensive. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

By its offencive nature and derisive use by anti-Catholics the term cannot claim neutrality. - Schrandit (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that one Catholic is offended does not make the term offensive, it just makes that one Catholic over-sensitive. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a breathtakingly uninformed view. - Schrandit (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not an argument, therefore, I will restore the neutral version of the article now. I suggest that, just this once, you choose not to edit-war in order to support your pro-Catholic partisanship. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, there is no question about it being a wafer. For example, we have the following text in sacramental bread:

A host is a portion of bread used for Holy Communion in many Christian churches. In Western Christianity the host is often a thin, round unleavened wafer.

It's a wafer. Enough said, let's move on. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Rv'd. On your logic, the broadest possible category should aloways be used. The offense consisted in the sacrelige. Now please read WP:civility -- you can argue all you need to without rudeness. DavidOaks (talk)

If it were sacrilege (note the spelling, by the way), then you'd be complaining about sacramental bread calling it a wafer. But you're not, so I have no choice but to dismiss your attempt at an argument. Feel free to report me for incivility for tactfully pointing out your inconsistencies. TruthIIPower (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It describes unconsecrated bread as a wafer. - Schrandit (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It does not cease to be a wafer. Even your dogma admits this. TruthIIPower (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Read it again. It is not referred to as just a wafer from there on out. - Schrandit (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't much matter if it's referred to as both a wafer and a floor wax. It remains a wafer. You are being argumentative, rather than offering a logical argument. TruthIIPower (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

From both a theological stand point, and more importantly from a grammatical standpoint it does not and I think it is pretty clear that it does not. - Schrandit (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You have not said anything remotely convincing. TruthIIPower (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

After the bread is consecrated no one (including Wikipedia) refers to it as a wafer and that happens for a reason. Even folks that don't particularly care about the religious side can recognize the change in the status of the object. Does that make sense? - Schrandit (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

In a word, no. It's still a wafer, and people do refer to it as such. Go read Meyer's blog, for starters. TruthIIPower (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And from the same page; "The word host is derived from the Latin, hostia, which means sacrifice. The term can be used to describe the bread both before and after consecration, though it is more correct to use it after consecration - "altar bread" being preferred before consecration." And to revive the outstanding point made by User:Marauder40 "Also the statement "with Donohue describing his confiscation of the wafer as a hate crime" is incorrect and POV because Donohue wouldn't refer to the Eucharist as a wafer. Other people may have but not Donohue." - Schrandit (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The quote is "hate crime". We shouldn't change those words. The rest of the sentence is not a quote, so whether he called it a wafer, a cracker or an aardvark is of no concern to us. TruthIIPower (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I dug up the full quote here. The term he used was 'Body of Christ'.

I believe you already understand why that's not relevant. TruthIIPower (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) 3rd party view: the words "host" and/or "Eucharist" should remain, as this is the reason for the object's importance to the situation. I don't see anything wrong with adding "wafer" as a descriptor, especially as one of the sources does so, though I'm really OK with or without it. Awickert (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The source that uses that term is a blog (I'm not sure why that was included as a source to begin with). - Schrandit (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, this source isn't a blog. The blog source should be removed; I'd do it, but I'm not sure which it is. Awickert (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I may have missed it but I believe that after the point of transubstantiation the former wafer was referred to as "the Eucharist", even by Mr. Cook. - Schrandit (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh - so you can't use "wafer" or any other term as a description of its shape? Awickert (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be accurate, but less specific. Stealing a wafer doesn't bother anybody. Stealing the Eucharist does. DavidOaks (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Originally the word "wafer" appeared in two places in the section. The only place I changed was the section that said "with Donohue describing his confiscation of the wafer". Donohue hasn't ever referred to the Eucharist as a wafer. To imply otherwise is POV. Either his exact quote should be used or paraphrasing using something similar to what he would say. Not something totally different. I didn't change the other reference to wafer, although it should be changed for consistancy. As has been mentioned by others, stealing a unconsecrated wafer isn't the issue, it's the stealing of a consecrated Eucharist. Referring to the Eucharist as a wafer is inaccurate. Marauder40 (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - what I meant was including it in conjunction with host or Eucharist, as a descriptor. But I think that this has become more personal curiosity, though I'm putting it on the talk page so the response can be an FYI to later debates (which likely won't happen; I don't think anyone cares enough). Awickert (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It is technically not needed. Since this is Wiki all you need is a wikilink over Eucharist or host or something like that. A host doesn't need to be a "wafer". The fact that you normally see it that way is more for convienance then anything else. I have seen valid hosts that look more like cubes then wafers. Also long as it consists of bread made from just flour and water without yeast (in the Latin rite) it is valid for becoming the Eucharist. The key is what is important here. The important fact is that the student took what Catholics believe to be a consecrated Eucharist from church. If he just went in and took a host/wafer that hadn't been consecrated then there wouldn't have been an issue. The more accurate term for what he took would be consecrated host or Eucharist. Marauder40 (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Tom Lehrer's "Vatican Rag" keeps running through my head as I read this. ("Step into that small confessional ... There the guy who's got religion'll / Tell you if your sin's original / If it is, try playin' it safer / Drink the wine and chew the wafer / Two-four-six-eight / Time to transubstantiate! ...") Meanwhile...
Be aware that TIIP has been indef-blocked as a sock of Spotfixer, who himself is now blocked for a month. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Mamalujo and Catholic League (U.S.)#Activities

Apparently, finally, deleted from Bill Donohue's BLP was a laundry list of things Donohue objects to. User:Mamalujo has now inserted it at Catholic League (U.S.)#Activities. This user often makes valid points but does seem to be on a bit of a pro-Catholicism, pro_Donohue WP:Soapbox through thins articles history. I've tagged the section as POV as each subsection besides the first, Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust - which they deleted at the same time, seems to tell us why each of these people is wrong in some way with little to nil balancing information. For example, the Bill Maher section. Yes, Maher certainly says things that could be seen as objectionable - likely by someone with impaired sense of humor. Maher is a political comedienne and as such always says provocative things about ... everything. In this case, IMHO, a NPOV way to sort out Maher is to state the League maintains a list of those they feel agrieved by with ___, ___ and ____ topping the list for the last three years. Or similar. This otherwise degrades the article and serves as a POV wp:Coatrack soapbox, which violates POV. I am one of the main contributors on this article so would appreciate other eyes and opinions on this. -- Banjeboi 01:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

POV

This article is becoming is extremely un-neutral and anti-Donohue. It violates WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK.

• "People for the American Way lists the League among "Right Wing Organizations"" so what? Why does it matter what some randomly chosen leftist group thinks? Why is this in the lede of all places?

It is a factual statement of how the CL is viewed, and advocacy groups are not excluded under WP:RS. Similarly, it is possible to report Donahue's estimation of a given person as a factual statement about his attitude towards that person, though the accuracy of the assessment will have to be judged by a given person in the context of whether s/he regards Donhaue as the leader of some random rightiust advocacy group, right? I mean, the group is all about partisan controversy and culture wars. This is critical thinking supported by good information, and it's what the WP does. Otherwise, we are down to competition between each person's list of acceptable versus unacceptable sources. DavidOaks (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

By that logic the opinion of the Catholic League on People for the American Way should be included in the latter's article (it isn't, now). They are both advocacy groups. WP needs some standard for determining what advocacy groups are significant enough to have their opinions mentioned in other articles. --71.174.163.159 (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If you think so, by all means, WP:Be Bold -- it should not be hard to find a cite for a national right-wing advocacy group (which should be identified as such) that describes PFAW as leftist. The current language of this article gives the group's orientation in the language used and properly documented at the relevant WP article. If you'll look supra, you'll see that this conversation's been had a few times. It would seem to me derelict to fail to note that CL and DOnahue are comparatively far to the right of the sociopolitical spectrum, just as it would be disnigenuous to avoid mentioning the left-of-center position of PFAW. DavidOaks (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The point is, I don't think so. There are literally hundreds of such advocacy groups, big and small, not to mention the Astroturfing ones. Why should we pay attention to any of those that, say, don't have some minimum membership? (And not just "claimed" membership; another issue.) Is a group's simply having an article in WP enough? (BTW I'm pretty sure that the regular editors of People For would quickly revert any reference to the opinions of the Catholic League, just as they'd revert such from say, the John Birch Society.)

I think a better criterion is this: A claim by a group—any group—is nearly worthless. We judge scholarly claims by the reputation of the scholar, not by the group he or she heads or the magazine he or she edits. If you want to write that the Catholic League is ultra-rightist or even nuts, you need quotes from one or more distinguished people saying so. Otherwise you should stick with their self-description of "traditional," "conservative," or whatever. --71.174.163.159 (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not aware of any wikipolicy that privileges individuals over groups in terms of authority. Don't see how this would improve WP:RS considerations. But if you want, CL itself mentions John M. Swomley's (prof. emeritus, social ethics, St. Paul School of Theology) characterization of them as right-wing in the Jan/Feb 1998 issue of The Humanist. [http://www.catholicleague.org/research/atheism.htm0 DavidOaks (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Go to it. --71.174.163.159 (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• "In a 2007 interview, Salon Life staff writer Rebecca Traister discussed Donohue with Frances Kissling, former head of Catholics for a Free Choice, who characterized Donohue as "abusive", and stated she avoided doing media interviews with him for this reason.[12] " - why is this blatantly POV content in an article about the Catholic league? Who cares about what "Catholics for a Free Choice" has to say about Bill Donohue? Can we please stick to the subject an write about the Catholic league? Not what Frances Kissling thinks about Donohue?

Again, she's a prominent figure. Donahue claims to speak for Catholics. So does Kissling. This IS the situation in which the subject of the article exists -- division and controversy. It would be POV to make that appear to disappear.

• In an interview on "Hardball" on MSNBC, League president William A. Donohue repeatedly asserted that his race gave him precedence when talking to Christopher Hitchens, stating "an Englishman is silent while an Irishman speaks" and then threatens him with violence by suggesting that they "take it outside".[14][15] - this is a violation of WP:UNDUE, it is WP:POV and WP:OR sourced to richarddawkins.net of all places! I have never seen an article like this. Most of this is not even related to the subject at all. This article is supposed to be about the Catholic League, not an anti-Donohue soapbox. Ostap 16:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There I agree -- it's just a report of public rudeness without particular relevance to the subject, and, while it conveys something of the guy's loose-canon persona, it does nothing much to advance the reader's understanding of how he fits into the political spectrum. DavidOaks (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Oddly this relates to the section above. Much of this information does belong but should be gone over to present it NPOV. The People for the American Way seems OK but it would be better to integrate it and maybe state why they do so. -- Banjeboi 18:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Kissling

Deleted the following comment re Kissling, once the head of Catholics for a Free Choice: "(The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops states that "[CFC] is not a Catholic organization, does not speak for the Catholic Church, and in fact promotes positions contrary to the teaching of the Church as articulated by the Holy See and the NCCB." )". It's WP:COATRACK, going into detail about an organization to which the person quoted once belonged. Noted at the time of deletion, the organization is officially identified as dissident from the Church, but that's as much as belongs in this article. The rest of it would be quite at home in the article on the organization (but not in the one on Kissling). "Dissident" achieves balance; expanding it is argument. DavidOaks (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

POV again

Restored a deleted note by Catholic Democrats; had been deleted as a self-published source. On those grounds, an awful lot of things are gonna have to go. It's a national organization with perspective relevant to the topic, and not a blog (which is permissible anyhow in the case of recognized experts). DavidOaks (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)