Talk:Frank Pavone

message: Since there was nothing saying only administrators should rate articles, I went ahead and gave this article a rating for Project Catholicism. If this was out of place for me, please fix it.  Also, if people want to discuss the rating, please feel free.
JelloSheriffBob 04:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rating

message: I'm adding a rewrite tag. The article needs basic cleanup for grammar, references, etc. and reorganization into sections. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite tag 

message: Not sure who put in the sensationalist language about Fr. Pavone's suspension with the "See WHISPERS IN THE LOGGIA for more details" and exclamation points, but I removed it and replaced with more appropriate language and references concerning the restrictions placed on Fr. Pavone by the Bishop of Amarillo so it will read more like an encyclopedia entry and less like a propaganda tool.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven Buehler (talk • contribs) 18:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are spot on about the propaganda. Thats what this article and mariacahi case is ! so called "pro-life" propaganda.Time to change that. 65.35.249.125 (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

text: you did the opposite..... 172.101.197.5 (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

text: "Father Frank Pavone was suspended from ministry outside his diocese by his bishop, who cited some concerns about how Pavone has handled the pro-life group's finances. "
and here is a link : http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/2011/09/daily-links-tuesday-sept-13-married-priests-divorce-and-charges-against-pope
65.35.249.125 (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Blogs don't count as wp:realiable sources. DVdm (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

text: fortunately  there are mostly just blogs.. Here is a link to the letter from rev Zurek. I am sure it does not get more reliable than letter from person who suspended him for "concerns about stewardship of finances"
http://www.catholicnews.com/images/letter.jpg
time to add this information to this and priest for life article
sauce number 2 : " Frank Pavone, the leader of Priests for Life, has been suspended from engaging in active ministry outside the Diocese of Amarillo, Texas, as a result of concerns about financial improprieties."
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/news/pr/2011/FrankPavoneSuspended.asp
50.9.109.170 (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure whether the letter itself is allowable on Wikipedia, even if it is published. The asp-source looks solid and acceptable. Of course there is also wp:RECENT (aka we are not a newspaper), although this particular news fact could be sufficiently notable in the context of this article. By the way, anon 50.9, calling other contributors "darling" is definitely not a good idea here. You might consider striking that. DVdm (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

text: he did not have a problem with that. its your problem if you don't have any sense of humor.go patronize someone else. Both LINKS are VERY solid. Time to move on. 50.9.109.170 (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

text: A suspension from extra-diocesan activity is not a full-blown suspension as the header implies. See Suspension#Roman Catholic canon law. Also, Fr. Pavone says he is not suspended. We need to be mindful of WP:BLP. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

text: who cares? he was suspended (as a form of punishment) and thats what it is. no need for peacock words
50.9.109.170 (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

text: That's fair. Don't know why I didn't think of that, thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the keyword is distance... - DVdm (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fr. Pavone's suspension 

message: The article said "He is a priest of the diocese of Amarillo", and I have changed "is" to "then became".  Further up on the talk page you are reading is a reference to him being a priest of archdiocese of New York.  I don't know when the change took place.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  wasn't always a priest of Amarillo diocese 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Frank Pavone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090711140543/http://www.priestsforlife.org/blog/?p=73 to http://www.priestsforlife.org/blog/?p=73
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Regarding the latest news about Father Pavone, until it has been reported in a reliable secondary source, it is not suitable for inclusion here. Please remember that all unsourced or poorly-sourced contentious assertions about living people must be removed immediately from articles, per WP:BLP. Elizium23 (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, soon after I wrote this, the news hit CNA with a full article and roundup of reactions. I have added it to the article. Elizium23 (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest news 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Frank Pavone. 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/20141104094645/http://articles.philly.com/2013-08-26/news/41446191_1_groups-kermit-gosnell-abortion-politics to http://articles.philly.com/2013-08-26/news/41446191_1_groups-kermit-gosnell-abortion-politics
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've been researching this and found some information suitable for inclusion, although it's not recent news.  There are two sources that are not as strong as they should be, I'm digging deeper to replace them with stronger sources, but I feel the facts are important enough to include. Star7924 (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Added some additional facts plus citations 

message: It seemed to me that using simple language as used by an actual Church lawyer might be the most accurate and helpful way to describe Pavone's status.  Could anyone please explain why such language is confusing to them? Silly-boy-four (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest joining the discussion above. "Dismissal" is the most accurate term (it's used in a few sources on Pavone and in the canon law) but most people don't know the term. If you want to use "dismissed", I think it's a term better used in the body, as we can more easily use sourcing to explain what that means. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, dismissal is used in the current wording, and I agree it is more accurate. The theological term "laicized," while also accurate, is unfortunately not in the vocabulary of most folks, and thus the canon lawyer uses the word dismissed, which is also accurate, but also more easily understood by more folks, no? Silly-boy-four (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We can ignore 's comments; they were blocked for really quite blatant sockpuppeting; perhaps with the intent of targeting another editor in this discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps quoting a canon lawyer of the Church is the most accurate 

message: Referring to Pavone as BOTH an anti-abortion activist and a pro-life activist is appropriate for this article.  The man is both, and they are different in this case.  Anti abortion is being against aborting living fetuses, unborn humans.  Being pro-life in some cases refers to the same thing, but in this case, refers to Pavone's pro-life activities that have nothing to do with abortion as his support for the person or their family was in the case of terminally ill adults or children who've already been born.  The cases are cited fully within the article.  Jumping on the political bandwagon to try to ignore this is a biased position.  My edits were revered by User:Pbritti claiming "POV issues" which is false.  The issue appears to be that someone dared to insert a truthful and well-cited piece of information that apparently upset the liberal POV.  That's now how Wikipedia works.  Pavone is pro-life as demonstrated by sitting bedside and advocating for life of terminally ill patients. Abortion and the unborn had nothing to do with those cases. Editors disallowing this title are really not acting in good faith IMO. The only reason the article doesn't use the term pro-life, is because biased editors keep deleting it. Several of the article's points discuss quite literally his pro life activity.   Anxiously awaiting the explanation on the POV issue.  As well, other facts, well documented and fully cited were removed.   GoWithChrist (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral POV on titles/common name 

message: The page says:
Two sources are given. Both sources go back to Pavone himself who removed the information from the priests for life website, so the sources are meaningless. Furthermore, the information was seemingly false. The Congregation for the Clergy who worked with his bishop in Amarillo are the ones who laicized him in 2022. That is very odd if they cleared him of wrongdoing in 2019 and allowed him to transfer to another diocese. Furthermore, he claimed in 2016 to be working to get a transfer to Colorado Springs. That means the transfer should have been years in the making and easy to complete. But, the bishop of Colorado Springs said he knew nothing of the transfer.
Now I am not suggesting that we add all this to the wikipedia entry. I am suggesting that there is enough evidence here to suspect the page is incorrect and that we remove the quoted sentence until we can get a valid source.
Dshinton (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect information in the section "Diocese of Amarillo" 

message: article full of inaccuracies and bias, the missing term "prolife" being replaced with "anti abortion" is proof of authors bias, despite it being the movements self described position and name for decades. 2601:14B:4082:2100:F191:4272:DF00:32E6 (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro Life