Jump to content

Talk:Fabian Bruskewitz

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

Untitled

[edit]

"His diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska is one that is held up as a model for all dioceses who are seeking vocations; this is strongly attributed to his fidelity to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff." This line was removed because it has no attribution or source. Who is holding him up? "strongly attributed" again is passive. Sounds like opinion. -- Ericstoltz 18:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This article is incredibly biased. Bruskewitz is an incredibly controversial figure, yet this bio only praises his actions. 147.134.58.166 17:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to address the neutrality issue by embedding references to the sources of the praise in the article, and converting passive to active voice. DavidOaks (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be safe to remove the disputed neutrality notice now, correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.108.251 (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe so, and I have deleted it. However, the article really does not convey what a controversial figure he is. DavidOaks (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies

[edit]

I'd like to avoid edit-warring, but I just don't think it's appropriate to list Planned Parenthood and Compassion and Choices as "family planning" and "patients' rights" advocates here, specifically in the context of why FB objects to them -- he's not against family planning or patients' rights, but against the rights to abortion and euthanasia/assisted suicide, which these organizations quite unapologetically and publically support, positions for which explicit and reliable sources are given. One can call those terms either euphemisms or accurate descriptions of their broader purposes, and that's fine, but it's not what he finds opposed to Catholic doctrine. DavidOaks (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have undone, without prejudice, an edit which I believe was a WP:GF attempt to clarify the reasons for the excommunication, but the claims were not made in the source. The note needs to be specifically relevant. Is there a source that includes FB's own wording for his reasons? That would be the most authoritative. DavidOaks (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section Title

[edit]

There is no wikipolicy against a section on controversies, and it's certainly appropriate where the subject is controversial and a controversialist -- that's very much part of his professional identity. The policy for WP:BLP asks editors to avoid large blocks of negatives, and there's nothing of the kind here. DavidOaks (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can he be described as a most conservative bishop in a context where the quotes ascribed to him on homosexual acts are simply quotes from the official cathechism of the Catholic church? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.172.92 (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with the IP that there are plenty of better reasons to consider Bishop Bruskewitz one of the most "conservative" of Catholic bishops, at least in the United States. PsychoInfiltrator (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fabian Bruskewitz. 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) 06:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Fabian Bruskewitz. 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) 05:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT issues

[edit]

Contaldo80 recently edited a section of this article. An IP editor reverted this edit. Contaldo de-reverted; I've just re-reverted. Per Contaldo's request, I'm bringing the subject to the talk page.

Contaldo's edit changed a section title from "LGBT issues" to "Opposition to LGBT Rights". I think there can be no question that the original title satisfied NPOV. Contaldo's version, unfortunately, does not. I am fairly confident that people who believe as Bruskewitz does would reject the phrasing, just as supporters of gun-control laws would deny that they're opposed to "Second Amendment rights" or "gun rights", and just as people who support anti-discrimination laws of the kind that gave rise to the same-sex-wedding-cake cases would deny that they oppose "religious rights".

So with Contaldo's insertion of "equal" to form the phrase "to secure other equal rights for LGBT people". Presumably, these "other rights" include definition of LGBT people as a protected class under anti-discrimination laws. An opponent of such measures would reject the phrasing, arguing that, rather than conferring equal rights, such laws would be giving them a special set of rights not available to other groups of people.

To a Bruskewitz quote condemning the practice of homosexual acts in rather, um, forthright terms, Contaldo added two more such quotes. These don't tell us anything more about Bruskewitz's views, and one can't help wondering whether there's a certain amount of WP:OR: by assembling several quotes in which Bruskewitz expresses himself on the subject in what some might regard as immoderate language, are we meant to understand that that's his usual practice? If that's the point, then we need a reliable neutral source to state the fact directly, rather than combining facts from different sources to lead to the conclusion. Ammodramus (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't think this is right. And I don't think it's helpful just for you to revert. The quotes I included give a strong sense of Bruskewitz views. He chose to present the argument in these terms, not me. As for how Bruskewitz sees himself - well I'm sure he would argue he's for "traditional" sexual relationships and not against equality per se. But to a neutral third party observer this is the effect his political positions have and we should simply state them and allow readers to form their own conclusions. The section is clearly about opposition. And it is about civil and legal rights. It is not "issues" in a vague generic form. I can't bear such euphemisms. He is not mainstream in his views - he is outspoken, and we need to have a duty of care to reflect that. And note that my user name is contaldo80. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disparaging

[edit]

"Bruskewitz has... referred disparagingly to gays and lesbians as people who put their organs into the wrong orifice" Factually the last part is a disparaging statement. We don't need a long history of people's personal opinions etc ("Anyone who believes that homosexual behavior is wrong does believe that gay people put their "organs into the wrong office."" [sic]) I. A person can quite happily support or agree with the statement made by Bruskewitz, but it is nevertheless still disparaging. It's not a statement that's ever intended to be complementary - that's the point. If other editors think that there is a valid argument to make that the statement can indeed be viewed as a positive one and thus non-disparaging then I'm happy to hear the arguments and reconsider. But repeated reversion without discussion and an agreed way forward is surely disruptive.Contaldo80 (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to dictionary.com, to disparage is "to belittle a particular ethnic, religious, or social group. It is often paired with the label Offensive, which describes a term that gives offense." It has a clearly negative connotation. Wikipedia should take no position on whether the content is good or bad. Complementary is a word that can be used in a good or bad way; disparaging is a word only used by someone to criticize the words or actions of another. Display name 99 (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not heard of dictionary.com - I'd rather we go with the Oxford English Dictionary which is the recognised standard, "Regard or represent as being of little worth." The article does not give a view as to whether the statement is deserved or not (that's a different issue) - nevertheless it is intended as a disparaging statement. The word "wrong" in relation to orifice reveals that; and a wider look at Bruskewitz's comments and actions suggests that he is dismissive of homosexuality and homosexual activity as a whole. What is to be gained by insisting that the comment is not intended as disparaging? This seems to be to be truly perverse! Contaldo80 (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the legal definition of disparagement is "the publication of false and injurious statements that are derogatory of another's property, business, or product — called also business disparagement, commercial disparagement, disparagement of property, slander of goods, trade libel." This provides even more evidence that including this word in the article does cause the article to take a view of his comment. I'd settle for something like "unfavorably" or "negatively." Unlike the current wording, these words do not imply agreement or disagreement with the comments. Display name 99 (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're just being silly really - this isn't a legal issue and so a legal definition isn't appropriate here. The remarks are disparaging - and clearly intended to be. But we don't have to have "disparaging" if you have an issue with it - I can accept "insultingly". Bruskwetiz like many other homophobes thinks that same sex relationships are simply about anal sex - and nothing else (even bearing in mind that heterosexual couples often engage in anal sex!) The use of "wrong orifice" is so childish that it does discredit to a man of his office. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stop trying to insert your personal views into this article. That's a very revealing comment. Clearly you don't understand how NPOV works if you think Wikipedia has to cater to your personal views about homosexuality. Your belief that the statement is insulting or that it discredits his office is not something that we should endorse here. Not everyone agrees with you and we should let people figure it our for themselves. I'm tired of people knowing the rules but simply not following them because they think pushing their agenda is more important. One more revert and I'm taking this to the edit-warring noticeboard to get another opinion. Display name 99 (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Church condemns anal sex when practiced by anyone, including heterosexual couples. Those who practice it, whether with a person of the same or different sex, do according to the Church put their organs into the "wrong orifice." You also say that this sounds childish even though I don't think most children would know what the word orifice means. Display name 99 (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If Bruskewitz were grown up he would say that the Church can only support sexual relations between adults that lead (potentially) to procreation. Procreation involves the penis and the vagina (of course not exclusively as I'm mindful of artificial insemination). And thus homosexual relations fail that test. What Bruskewitz did - in fact - was to imply that gay men love a bit of anal sex (and presumably only anal sex - homosexual relationships are nothing beyond anal sex in terms of his thinking). The use of "wrong orifice" encouraged listeners to conjure up an image of the anus, with the implication that this part of the anatomy is "correctly" used for defecation. The bishop's intervention was sadly intended to be insulting and demeaning. That said I'm not convinced the use of "insulting" in the text does violate neutrality - and I'm going to take my chances and revert again and encourage to seek a third party opinion through the edit-warring noticeboard. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic ad hominem commentary
I would encourage user 32.218.32.56 to set out their arguments on the talk page in a mature way - particularly to address concerns that they are not acting as someone else's sock-puppet. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would encourage Contaldo80 to abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV. 32.218.32.56 (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing someone of being a sock puppet without evidence is considered a personal attack. Someone did it to me once and got blocked for it. Display name 99 (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I can't seem to find the piece of guidance that you refer to above (linking valid concerns about sock puppetry to being a personal attack) - but I don't doubt your veracity. Perhaps if you can flag the wording in the guidance then I can take note and ensure I don't break the rules. But that said I am not aware of yet accusing any editor directly of being a sock puppet without evidence; rather I have concerns based on exhibited behaviours (which I will of course progress more formally if additional substantive evidence develops). It is nevertheless important that editors act in good faith (even if they are new) and intervene positively in ongoing (and contentious) discussions using the talk page in a constructive and positive many. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any specific guideline equating it as such. But in the previous case the admin clearly thought that it was a violation. That editor repeated the allegation more than once, and was warned for it, and you haven't gone quite that far yet. You've stated concerns that the IP user is a sockpuppet. It's clear what you meant. I also see that you went to the IP talk page and asked him to defend against the allegation. It's not his job to prove a negative; it's your job to get enough evidence and then take it to an SPI. Otherwise, you have to forget about it. Basically, to avoid any issue, you need to either start an SPI or drop the sockpuppet issue. Those are your two choices. Like I said, right now I don't think anything you've done is block worthy. But it's best not to accuse or infer that one editor is a sock of another outside the appropriate forum. Display name 99 (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think I've done anything block-worthy either. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I've stated my reasons clearly for not wanting the content included. Another editor agrees with me, so it's 2-1 against having the word in. I've stated my reasons clearly and so have you. I suppose you could take this to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Third Opinion (even though we already have three opinions), but if you decide not to I think it's best to just leave this. Display name 99 (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the other user that counts towards the 2:1? Unless you mean 32.218.32.56 who mysteriously appeared on 3 May, reverted the inclusion of the word with no argument and justification, and then disappeared again (never to be seen or heard from). Is that the other editor that agrees with you? I still don't believe you've stated your reasons clearly why the word "disparaging" shouldn't be used. I agreed dispute resolution is sensible but I think the onus is on you to challenge a term that is perfectly well understood and pretty appropriate in the context that we have. Unless you think it violates particular guidance - and I don't see how it does.Contaldo80 (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"with no argument and justification" -- Did you miss: "it doesn't matter what adjective you put there - all of them are someone's interpretation of the statement, hence not NPOV" ?? 32.218.38.77 (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question that the term was used in a disparaging manner. But, the question is should the word be used? I’’d suggest that Bruskewtiz’s original wording be used as a quote. O3000 (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean as a block quote? I don't see any particular need to quote a larger portion of his statement, although I wouldn't be opposed to it. But that's not really the problem. The question is, as you stated, whether the word "disparaging" should be used. Do you have any opinion on this? Display name 99 (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean a brief attributed, in-line quote instead of the current end of that sentence. Only a few more words. Clearly it was disparaging. I'm not convinced the word is needed as I thought it was obvious. Only, apparently it isn't to all. O3000 (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I checked the sources, and here is what I found in citation 15:

Bishop Bruskewitz called it “preposterous” that folks are buying the argument that the relationship of two men or two women who put organs into the wrong orifice should be made into a matter of “human rights or racial justice” and be equated with a sexual relationship between a man and woman that produces children.

It therefore looks as though Bruskewitz never actually uttered that part of the quote at all, and that this is simply content written by the writer of the article. In that case, the entire section dealing with the "wrong orifice" comment should be removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking that out. I would agree that based on the source, the section is a cherry-picked case of POV. I'd also add that the source, lifesitenews, has been reviewed at WP:RSN and found to be a questionable and biased source. (See 1, for example.) 32.218.40.235 (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the source is more than iffy and the statement questionable. Both removed. O3000 (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having watched the video in full (distasteful though it was) he doesn't seem to have said the words "wrong orifice". Looks like the traditionalist Catholic "news" site - LifeSite - is unreliable and uses deliberately prejudiced language. But this doesn't settle the issue of "disparaging" - Bruskewitz's wider set of comments are disparaging. And the argument has not been compellingly made as to why the word should not be included in the article. And rather than editors trying to silence me by hoping I would be blocked for edit warring (despite the 3RR not being broken at any stage) I would rather they refer this issue to dispute resolution. That is the most sensible thing to do. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The quotations are what they are, I'm not sure what purpose there is in characterizing them in a given manner. Readers are more than capable of drawing their own judgements. Gabrielthursday (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is that the use of "disparaging" is not warranted. If in disagreement with the consensus, Contaldo80 should be the one to refer this to dispute resolution. 32.218.152.244 (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you unregistered IP editor for your comments - incidentally at what stage have you indicated any opinion on the matter above? I'm also not sure that it does follow that I am the one to have to refer this to dispute resolution. No-one has yet indicated that it is incorrect or a violation of guidelines to use the word "disparaging". Under WP:BOLD I think it's completely within my rights to add the word. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Objective3000, Contaldo80, after disappearing for over a week, has returned to the article and continued to edit war in violation of talk page consensus. I believe a block is warranted. Display name 99 (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you not so quickly call for blocks. I reverted despite the fact that the edits reflect “truth” because I cannot find reliable sources. Also, I’m not certain how the edits help the reader. His comments are obviously disparaging. O3000 (talk) 12:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks (talk) - yes, I'm getting somewhat fed up with the constant threat of blocks. By my count I have been told at least 4 times by an editor that I risked being blocked for supposed disruptive actions. This is not a discussion being conducted in the spirit of good faith. It is not that controversial to suggest that Bruskewitz's words are disparaging, and it is true to say they are disparaging. And I've heard no arguments to contrary. That said I'm prepared in the spirit of compromise to drop this point (and because it's getting tiring). But I advise other editors to drop the hostilities, as I won't be intimidated. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what there is to intimidate you about now that the point has been dropped. But I'll happily move on. Display name 99 (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paedophilia

[edit]

I feel Bruskewitz fir make a deliberate link between homosexuality and paedophilia. I think the suggested wording that I reverted were WEASEL. "I think statistically it could be shown that the majority of the homosexual pedophile crimes committed by some priests in the United States, date in large measure from the dissent to Humanae Vitae and from the echo of that dissent." Contaldo80 (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fabian_Bruskewitz&oldid=1257321451"