Talk:Fabian Bruskewitz

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Controversies 

message: 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)
thread_title: Section Title

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060618000643/http://sfbayc.org/magazine/html/sfbay__today_show_interview_-_.htm to http://sfbayc.org/magazine/html/sfbay__today_show_interview_-_.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0606995.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060618000249/http://sfbayc.org/magazine/html/sfbay__call_to_action_press_re.htm to http://sfbayc.org/magazine/html/sfbay__call_to_action_press_re.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206043947/http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1993/sep1993p4_808.html to http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1993/sep1993p4_808.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060316031617/http://www.ignatius.com/ViewProduct.aspx?SID=1&Product_ID=41&SKU=BFB-P& to http://www.ignatius.com/ViewProduct.aspx?SID=1&Product_ID=41&SKU=BFB-P&
*Replaced archive link https://www.webcitation.org/6iswF6DaW?url=http://web.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0606995.htm with https://www.webcitation.org/6iswF6DaW?url=http://catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0606995.htm on http://web.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0606995.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101224000110/http://sspx.org/diocesan_dialogues/Lincoln_diocese1.pdf to http://www.sspx.org/diocesan_dialogues/Lincoln_diocese1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101224000914/http://sspx.org/diocesan_dialogues/Lincoln_diocese2.pdf to http://www.sspx.org/diocesan_dialogues/Lincoln_diocese2.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101224000543/http://sspx.org/diocesan_dialogues/Lincoln_diocese3.pdf to http://www.sspx.org/diocesan_dialogues/Lincoln_diocese3.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121230193020/http://www.dioceseoflincoln.org/Archives/about_coat-of-arms.aspx to http://www.dioceseoflincoln.org/Archives/about_coat-of-arms.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  LGBT issues 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Paedophilia