Jump to content

Talk:Catholic League (U.S.)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

The vs. Despite this claim

An anonymous user keeps trying to change the words "The" to "Despite this claim". The problem with this wording is that it is violating policies related to SYN. It is trying to take individual facts and combine them together to draw a parallel. It is one thing to say Donahue is a member of the Heritage Foundation. It is another to challenge the fact the league says it is "neither left nor right, liberal or conservative, revolutionary or reactionary." by the fact that Donahue is a member of the Heritage Foundation. It is actually a question as to whether it should be there at all since the statement really should be in Donahue's own article, not a article on the league. Marauder40 (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

True story. - Schrandit (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
It's a little more complicated than that, but I agree with the result. The full text of being argued about is
The Catholic League claims political neutrality which is mostly required of non-profits. The website states, "The league wishes to be neither left nor right, liberal or conservative, revolutionary or reactionary."[9] The League's website mentions Donahue's "latest book, Secular Sabotage: How Liberals are Destroying Religion and Culture in America" and also mentions that "Bill is also an adjunct scholar at The Heritage Foundation"
...with the change being made after footnote 9. I don't think it's particularly a stretch to say "liberals are destroying religion and culture in America" as a basically non-liberal (e.g., conservative) statement. But the inclusion of the second half of the sentence, and the fat that we're not talking about a policy statement of the CL but (says this sentence) a book mentioned once on the website, makes this synthethic, OR, and a reach. (And I am a crazy-ass liberal myself, for the record. *grin*) --Joe Decker (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC) (fix format --Joe Decker (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC))
I'll go farther, I think that second sentence, while accurate, is pretty arbitrary. "The web site links this book" is not, by itself helpful. Surely if there are allegations that the CL is conservative-biased one can source those allegations more clearly. Half tempted to suggest removing it altogether. --Joe Decker (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm another crazy-ass liberal, and I agree that there is an element of editorial decision inolved in mentioning the book, coming close to the line of WP:SYN; not entirely convinced it crosses the line, but if that's consensus, so be it. But I remain concerned about including their obviously disngenuous statement without any qualification. What about adding "However, Media Matters for America identifies the group as conservative[1]"? Or some such. DavidOaks (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ditto the New York Times (quoted without objection by the Catholic League itself)[2]; U.S. News & World Report columnist Dan Gilgoff[3];ABC News[4]...DavidOaks (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Although I defended this sentence earlier, it sounds like we have consensus for removing the disputed sentence. I'll wait for people to weigh in before adding the refs given above. DavidOaks (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with what you have written. The sentence as the anonymous IP user keeps trying to add is SYN, especially with the "Despite this" addition. Quotes calling the League conservative or calling Donahue conservative in his role as League president could be used if written properly and sourced well but not by drawing parallels. Marauder40 (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's my two cents on those references, I'd love to hear what other folks think. The NYT line looks great as a reference, I think of the NYT as a RS and their characterization of the CL as conservative seems direct and on-point. The USNews link is good enough but slighly less direct (it's kinda describing the leader of the CL, not the CL as conservative, although one would expect that'd be the same, I don't think that's overly SYN) I'm not sure about the ABC link, I think you copied the USNews URL there instead of the one I expect you included to include. Sorry it took me a bit to get back to this discussion. Have a great weekend, everyone! --Joe Decker (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I've added some sources to source the claim already existing in the article that the CL is often described as "conservative", it appears that the weight of usage in reliable verifiable sources is far more likely to describe the CL as conservative than liberal. This to me raises two issues. 1. If there are no WP:RS (and I'm open to seeing RS) that claim that the CL isn't considered conservative in the main, then it seems to me that from a strictly "reliable, verifiable" point of view we're doing it wrong, skip the weasel-wordy "often described as". Google News Archives puts the evidence at 206-to-zero. 2. If we include a description of them as conservative or often called conservative, I do agree that the article is right to provide examples of that, as the article does. However, WP:UNDUE needs to be honored, too, and I'm not entirely sure it is. (Dangit, I forgot to sign this! Sorry!) --Joe Decker (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Harry Knox

Re: the phrase "a gay human-rights activist" -

I have 2 issues with this. The first of these is that it's ambiguous: is he an activist for the human rights of gays, or is he a human rights activist who is gay?

The other is that while I know it's in quotes because it's the phrase used in the NYT article, it gives the appearance of scare quotes. I think it would be preferable to paraphrase it (e.g., "Harry Knox, who has campaigned for the human rights of gays and lesbians" -- or if it's intended to have the second possible meaning, "Harry Knox, a human rights campaigner who is gay") so the quotes can be removed. 174.111.242.35 (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the ambiguity there that you do. Do gays have different human rights than the rest of us? No. If he were not gay, he would have been described as either a human-rights activist or as a gay-rights activist, I think. Anyway, I removed the quote marks and cited it to the NYT article. --Kenatipo speak! 16:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm kind of surprised that this Harry Knox doesn't have his own article. --Kenatipo speak! 16:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I find the new phrasing, "gay activist," to be more ambiguous, if anything, although removing the quotes was a good idea. "Activist Harry Knox, who is gay..." or "gay-rights activist" would be clearer, for example.
Maybe I'm being obtuse, but I had trouble figuring out why Mr. Donohue was *pleased* by President Obama's appointment of a gay man who has been critical of the Pope (for which he gets Mr. Donohue's trademark smear, "anti-Catholic bigot"). The only thing I could think of is that Mr. Donohue is rejoicing because he believes Mr. Knox's appointment can be used to smear the President. Is this how you understand it, or am I missing something? 174.111.242.35 (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Intro comes across as uncritically accepting of CL's claims

The introduction to this article seems to have a very different tone than much of the rest of it. My sense is that it is simply repeating the Catholic League's claims about their purpose. While the rest of the article provides a more balanced view, I know that I sometimes only skim the beginning of an article just to get a general idea about the subject. I think it would be better to be explicit about this being their self-description rather than stating these things as though they were a matter of fact. If someone can come up with a way to do it while preserving NPOV, it would be even better to provide a description that doesn't portray the group as something it isn't. (The Categories list at the bottom also tends to mislead, in a similar manner.)

My impression of the Catholic League (based on this article), at least since Mr. Donohue has been in charge, is that their actions contradict their claims as to their purpose. They seem to spend most of their energy smearing and harassing people who openly criticise the Catholic Church, its clergy, its activities, and its positions on various issues, in an apparent effort to bully them into recanting. (Their MO may include death threats, considering that this has happened to several people after they were branded "anti-Catholic bigots" by Mr. Donohue.) Their focus, as chronicled in the article, seldom if ever seems to be on genuine anti-Catholic bigotry, but rather, legitimate criticism and satire that is unequivocally protected speech under US law. 174.111.242.35 (talk) 05:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead sections generally use the organization's description of itself unless substantial third party commentary exists. If you can find a way to change it while preserving NPOV and using reliable sources, please do. Just don't flood it with your own opinions, as you did in your second paragraph above. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, lead sections follow the guideline at WP:LEAD, meaning lead sections summarize the article's body text. There is no special sanction allowing only the self-definitions of an organization in the lead while relegating reliable third party definitions to the article body. Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Redirect

Page view statistics for all the articles on the disambiguation page show that this article gets significantly and consistently more hits than the others. What do folks thing of making "Catholic League" direct here, with a link for other uses at the top? NYyankees51 (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the Catholic League (French) is far too historically important to make this the primary topic. (Part of Wikipedia's systemic bias problem is recentism - more American Wikipedians might have heard of or might be interested in the U.S. Catholic League, but has it actually ever done anything historically significant? No. Whereas the French Catholic League was a major player in French politics, having a role in laws, assassinations, wars, and dynastic changes.) Better to keep it a dab page. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree that if this gets a significantly higher proportion of the hits it should get the page. Does anyone know if there is precedent with regard to this? - Haymaker (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Corvette is one, not very similar. The 1953-present Chevy Corvette falls behind the many centuries of the ship corvette. I don't see this U.S. Catholic League being big enough to take down the more important historical French Catholic League. Binksternet (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with keeping the status quo since I'm not familiar what the procedure is for these things. For the record, does it generally go by page hits or significance? NYyankees51 (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
From WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:

A topic is primary for an ambiguous term if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box

– Lionel (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
That's not the case here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Re: historical significance: I don't know if the rule is formally expressed anywhere, but to go with Bink's example, Chevrolet Corvette has nearly twice as many hits as Corvette. Additionally (more cars), Dodge Durango gets nearly twice as many hits as Durango, and Toyota Corolla gets over four times as many hits as all the other Corolla articles (it's a dab page) combined. Current practice seems to be that demonstrated significance > pageviews. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
That's right, pageviews do not trump editor decisions about what is important. Binksternet (talk) 04:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Editors cannot supercede guidelines and anyway cars are OTHERSTUFF.– Lionel (talk) 05:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. The guideline you quoted doesn't apply here because the Catholic League (U.S.) doesn't get more pageviews than anything else (do the math), so I guess we're done. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Self-published sources, poor sources

I just deleted 13k worth of text and sources which had major sourcing problems. The text was either a) not cited, b) cited to something published by the Catholic League or generated by Donohue, or c) very poor, not reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted sections:

  • Bill Maher: cited only to catholicleague.org.
  • Jessica Delfino: cited only to catholicleague.org and Delfino's blog.
  • Senator Charles Schumer: no cites. Fact tagged for four years.
  • Opie and Anthony: no cites. Fact tagged for four years.
  • Ash Wednesday employment discrimination: cited only to catholicleague.org.
  • Lucky Louie: poor youtube cite.
  • CSI: cited only to catholicleague.org.
  • Mike Huckabee: cited to Donohue's appearance on Fox and Friends
  • War On Christmas: cited to missing article
  • Supreme Court: cited to missing article
  • Goya's Ghosts: cited only to catholicleague.org.
  • Irish Child Abuse Commission: cited only to catholicleague.org and Donohue on youtube.
Yeah, it's not appropriate to use this article as a coatrack for Donohue's opinions about living people. I think there are some that could probably be properly cited (ie. secondary sources for notability) and restored, though. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
What is Wikipedia policy on primary sources? Since this is the Catholic League article, couldn't we use some text from Catholic League even without secondary sources? That seems to be the logic Roscelese used in Catholics for Choice, where text from CFC is used in certain places without secondary sources (for example, there are quotations from the seechange.org website). What is the policy? Can we use primary sources published by org X in the article for organization X or not? -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
According to WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." So, "Our Mission is to blah blah blah" is an acceptable use of a primary source. "We think that Xxx Yyyy is the devil incarnate" can only be used to support that such-and-such has stated that they believe that Xxx, etc.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The sourcing issue here isn't that the Catholic League press releases aren't good sources for the Catholic League's positions - quite the opposite, they're the ideal sources. But we're not aiming to duplicate the CL's website by writing about every issue they send out a press release on - the purpose of finding secondary sources here is to determine which of CL's many issues belong in its encyclopedia article, rather than choosing arbitrarily from primary-source material. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have tagged that section as being of unclear importance. Do we really need to report how the organization is portrayed in a puerile cartoon? This kind of content is, IMHO, what gives Wikipedia the nickname "Jimbo's big bag of trivia". -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, since South Park has a history of aiming at the biggest targets, it's almost flattering that SP thought the League was worth making fun of. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The notability of the Catholic League is already established by the fact that it has 233,333 paid members. But anyway, let me just see what other editors think. If no one else comments, then I could simply remove the tag. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Sarek's right, but it's not notable. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlike most "in pop culture" sections, though, this is mentioned in reliable news sources. (Not supporting or opposing inclusion, just pointing out.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"criticism ghettoes"

Roscelese, why do you want to avoid "criticism ghettoes"? I think they are convenient. They make it easier for us to see if there is an appropriate ammmount of criticism in the article. For example, if the "criticism ghetto" is as big as the rest of the article, and this is not proportional to the amount of criticism in the secondary sources, we immediately see that we need to cut down on criticism. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:STRUCTURE says, "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear 'true' and 'undisputed', whereas other, segregated material is deemed 'controversial', and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." Some of the criticism doesn't have a clear place in the main article, like the James Martin quote or the Justice Sunday thing. But other things, like the Swomley quote (and the Colm O'Gorman thing, which is currently in the criticism section) are directly related to stuff in the article. The other thing with the paragraph Kenatipo moved was that, with the exception of the Swomley quote, it wasn't necessarily criticism ("negative" is not necessarily "criticism"). I think it's underestimating our editing powers to say that we can't figure out how much criticism is DUE without having it in its own section. Let's consider how we could integrate the rest of the section into the article - the O'Gorman thing could be under "Church child sex abuse issue," for one. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
(Another way of avoiding a criticism ghetto is making the section "reception" rather than "criticism," and including positive reception as well.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I think criticism works best when it is worked into the article at each relevant point. For instance, if there was any criticism of early CL under Blum it would be mentioned in the chronology before we say that Donohue became leader. Or if there is criticism about a specific Donohue statement, that criticism follows the statement. I think criticism is best when stirred into the article, to make an integral whole. Binksternet (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Youtube used as lousy source in Catholic_League_(U.S.)#Church_child_sex_abuse_issue

The last paragraph of that section is sourced to a youtube video of some Irish radio program. We need better sources than that. What's more, the youtube video is titled "Bill Donohue defends child abuse", which is highly non-neutral, unencyclopedic and in fact false. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, if we can't find a source we'll have to remove it. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
But isn't the source being cited the radio program itself? The recording might be hosted by a non-neutral party, but if the program itself is reliable and if there's no reason to believe it was somehow edited, it would seem to be an admissible source. (In the same way, the most easily accessible version of a news article might be hosted on a partisan website, but the newspaper itself is still reliable.) We could make this more clear by using an appropriate citation template for the radio show. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know the radio program, why I am supposed to believe a sound recording of it in youtube is genuine? This would be a genuine concern even if the video title was neutral. But given that it is biased, it's even more likely that the author would want to edit it. We are talking about an unknown individual who posted a video on youtube; why are we supposed to trust him/her? -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
In my experience, YouTube is generally not an RS, I guess because most videos can't be verified, transcribing can be off, and they can be left up to interpretation. I could be wrong, but I've always seen YouTube getting removed as a reference. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
YouTube itself isn't reliable. We might be able to verify some details about the show from other sources, though. (I remember working on another article a while back where we had a clip from a news program hosted by a partisan org on YouTube - we were able to verify from newspaper reports that the program had actually aired, was legit, contained the content, etc.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The radio program and the still pic are copyrighted. I see no evidence that youtube legally licensed these 2 items. We cannot use sources which have potentially violated copyright law, of which youtube is well known. Removing per COPYVIO. – Lionel (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I think I've fixed it now. I cited the CL press release which used the term "hysteria," so we're no longer relying on a potentially questionable source to say that that's what Donohue said. I used a citation template for the episode of the radio show, rather than linking to the copyvio video on Youtube. And I removed "in a debate with Bill Donohue" - Colm O'Gorman links to the Youtube video on his blog, so we know he endorses it (ie. BLP is satisfied for him, while nothing about Donohue is now cited to that source). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
This fails WP:V because you have never examined a true copy of the radio program. We cannot assume that an anonymous user at Youtube uploaded a complete and true version of the program. To the contrary Youtube is known for hosting edited material. Additionally you cannot ethically comply should someone tag the content {{request quotation}}. – Lionel (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The only statement cited to the program is "O'Gorman said X," and O'Gorman endorses the video on his blog. He's been a guest on the show numerous times, the other voice is Matt Cooper's - there's nothing particularly questionable here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Your citing the radio program is a violation of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. The issue with edited content on Yahoo is well known and because of this Youtube is unreliable. Whether O'Gorman links to it or not has no bearing on the integrity of the upload. I have serious ethical concerns about this, and frankly Ros I'm surprised we're even having this conversation. Are you willing to stake your reputation on this? – Lionel (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm willing to stake my reputation on the statement "Z links to audio of himself saying something; thus we can reasonably assume it is really him; thus the source is reliable for the statement 'Z said that thing'." RSN/BLPN? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
What I do now I do for the encyclopedia. I take no personal pleasure in this. Really. No one editor is more important than the project. No 2 editors are more important than the project. No 3 editors, well, you get the picture. We can't let our personal feelings for other editors (and I do have 1, no 2, personal feelings) cloud our judgment. If we do not do what we need to do, when we need to do the thing that must be done, it will be the undoing of us all. (And you can quote me on that.) – Lionel (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Did you mean to post this here? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the conversation or the topic. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Definitely meant to post here. And yoooouuuuuu knooowwwwww what it means.– Lionel (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
No, I don't, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stick to discussing the topic instead of making weird personal innuendos. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism in the Introduction

There is already a criticism section. I looked at the ADL and Southern Poverty Law Center pages as a guide and neither of them indicates any criticism in the introduction. All three are comparable organizations within their respective viewpoints. In fact the SPLC has NO criticism section at all which is odd since this group is the most controversial of the three. Additionally, the citation used in the criticism section [4] does not state what was written. Instead, it states that some liberal Catholic groups are allegedly suspicious. Even liberal Catholic ideologues are Conservative in the American political spectrum so this gives an improper perception to a uninformed reader. Citation [7] I am unable to view. It tells me that the page is unavailable, but it could be me though. I am for removing it and will do so. If someone disagrees, I suggest before reintroducing it, the criticism section be remade to include whatever you feel justified in reintroducing. I just don't think that the introduction should include it especially since most groups don't include their own criticism and more importantly an article within an encyclopedia about something takes the perspective of the organization's nominal narrative. That is why there is a criticism section, to show other viewpoints. Take Care. BinaryLust (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. – Lionel (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
You are, of course, welcome to add criticism to other articles; see WP:YESPOV (and, of course, WP:BRD.) AV3000 (talk) 10:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Of course. That wasn't my point, however. It was done to gain perspective and show my neutrality in adjusting this article. Also, the problem is one of logic and not content. Whatever arguments are being used to not include criticism, I submit, would be the same ones that I would use here. Since those articles are more involved and have higher levels of editorial-ship, it would be illogical to include it here in the general. I don't have to make a involved case. That is the power of reason. If you think about what I've said you'll see that I have a very powerful argument, overwhelming even. Thanks for the advice though! BinaryLust (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Criticism is in the lead section of this article for one reason: WP:LEAD. The guideline for lead sections tells us to summarize text that is in the article body, thus the lead section contains a brief indication that the group is subject to criticism, the details of which are in the article body. Comparing this article to others is not the way forward; rather, compare it to guidelines and see if it meets them. If some other article does not meet the guidelines then go fix it. Binksternet (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Comparing articles is very much a way forward as it gives perspective and shows that I am being unbiased. Shutting me down like that, on the contrary is not a way forward. Additionally, in my opinion, it is somewhat hypocritical of you to tell me to go fix something when you yourself after being told of the deficiencies did not go fix them. Instead, you felt compelled to override my correction. I was very open minded in my correction. Also, I stated that the citations were incorrect. Yet, you did not address them at all. Therefore, you acted both rashly and with a heavy hand. Finally, the criticism is NOT notable or significant which the links you provided state is a necessary pre-condition. I addressed those concerns in my initial post.
I will give you time to respond; however, I am going to remove them if you do not address the concerns properly. I seem to be in the right. Primarily, the criticism states OPINION (from within the subculture and not for the larger audience, also elaborated on with my initial post) which is not to be used in the introduction and the citations seem to be used improperly or non-existent. Pretty clear cut case. Although I am new to Wikipedia and may not be quick (at the moment) with the types of links you provided, I am educated and published. I know when academic or academic-ish material is being formatted improperly.
Actually, one thing I did notice just now and which perhaps should have been noticed by people overriding me is that I may have made a mistake. I think that the first sentence of the last paragraph should be removed and only that. Because I read the paragraph like a fully and properly formed paragraph I made the same mistake that a casual reader would have done which is to associate the topic of the last paragraph with the first sentence. That first sentence gives the impression that what follows is criticism. It is NOT. It just states additional, neutral facts. Additionally, it is criticizing the current president which is not appropriate in the intro paragraph of an organization. That would be like saying in a article on the United States the value/standing of the current president is significant for the description of the US as a whole. It is not. While I agree Donohue is a combative and a controversial figure, there is a place for that and it isn't in the intro.
So I reform my current position and say that only that sentence should be removed while the rest stays. I'll remove it and if you disagree please state why. Thanks. BinaryLust (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I restored your removal of a sentence criticizing Donohue. The man is seen as taking over the group, pulling it in directions it was not willing to go before he grabbed the reins. Donohue is the face of CL, and more to the point, he is the driving force behind its hard-line, impetuous, publicity-seeking actions since he became leader. You cannot criticize CL without talking about Donohue's central role. Binksternet (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Then say that. But that is not what that sentence says. How do we escalate this? You really seem bent on stopping me irrespective of points. Additionally, you are not making any true counter points to my previous points, especially the citations which is troubling. In fact, the citations don't say what you just implied. Therefore, it is opinion at best. Even if true, then still not what that sentence says. More so, again, if that is the case then it is a NEUTRAL statement of fact and not a criticism, meaning that that sentence should be reformed. I wrote lengthy responses regarding my actions and did so with an open mind. Also, I IMPROVED my position from the original one. You just seem to find whatever reason you want to prevent my improvement of the article. The proof: You didn't say that the first time around as your justification. You can't just come up with points on the spot. That shows bias. So in order to not start an edit war, we should escalate this to a neutral third party. BinaryLust (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Catholic League (U.S.). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Catholic League (U.S.). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catholic League (U.S.). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catholic_League_(U.S.)/Archive_2&oldid=1032979409"