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

message: 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)
replies: text: I've added to the See also section, not sure if anything else makes sense. Benjiboi 01:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Catholics for a Free Choice]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Donohue POV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Not a Non-Partisan Organization 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Needs a section on positions, and a section on criticisms 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Ezola Foster]]'s Religion 

message: 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 , 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)
thread_title:  "Direct" control of the church 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Utter nonsense showing exactly what is wrong with Wikipedia

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comments on The Passion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removing for now.... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  POV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Absolutely ridiculous 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  O'Donnell 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tags added, work needed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  RJ Eskow quote 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Justice Sunday 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: '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)
thread_title: Official Status/Affiliation with the Church

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  About blacks 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deleted statement 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Incredibly misleading section on Asians 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Right-wing? or ? in the Catholic spectrum 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  1973-1993 

message: 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)
replies: text: OK, sounds reasonable. So be bold, and make the changes you think need making. DavidOaks (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Catholic League U.S. - inappropriate content throughout  

message: 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)
thread_title: User:Mamalujo and [[Catholic League (U.S.)#Activities]]

message: 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."U.S. Catholic Bishops - Office of Communications )". 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)
thread_title:  Kissling 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV again