Talk:Catholic League (U.S.)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Catholicism Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Archive
Archives
  1. July 2005-present

Contents

[edit] More ommissions

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)

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

[edit] Comments on The Passion

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)

Since the President, Mr Donohue is, to all intents and purposes, the group, it is quite reasonable to conflate the two. Jhobson1 15:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing for now....

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)AndrewKemendo

[edit] More omissions

There doesn't seem to be any mention of this group's history of involvement in banning plays and works of art it sees as anti-catholic. It must be possible to mention this in a NPV fashion as it's involvement is fact and not opinion, it is important to mention because it is part of the debate on free speech... sources:

"Sweet Lord" exhibit causes consternation of Catholic League http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6509127.stm

Comments on the C.L.'s webpage by it's president Bill Donohue “I am contacting hundreds of organizations about this assault. Our allied list contains scores of Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu organizations...The boycott is on.”. http://www.catholicleague.org/07press_releases/quarter_1/070329_naked_jesus.htm

Same exhibit pulled amidst call for boycott by Catholic League, from today's news http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6513155.stm

C.L.'s call for boycott of film "The Magdalene Sisters" in '04 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/2420305.stm

Comments on C.L.'s about us page on it's aims (granted it is one of it's many stated aims) "When Catholics are the victims of a bigoted portrayal by the media, the Catholic League issues news releases bringing the matter to the attention of the public. It may also encourage a boycott of the program’s sponsors." http://www.catholicleague.org/faqs.htm noworky 11:35 UTC 01st April 2007


[edit] About blacks

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)

Which would be a perfectly true thing to say about Howard Dean, and probably belongs in an article about the association between mainstream Democrats and the Communist movement, if there is one. If there's not, no one's stopping you from creating one.

Donohue's willingness to find offense towards Catholicism at the slightest thing (a statue of Jesus made of chocolate, created by a Catholic sculptor, as a gift to the Church, is somehow offensive because of some Bible passage I must have missed about chocolate being created by the Devil) while himself constantly using terms of clear derision towards homosexuals, Jews, and Asians is a very important point, as Donohue's hypocrisy and selective outrage direclty relates to WHY the Catholic League is considered important. The purpose of the article should be directed towards answering the question of what the Catholic League means in American politics. That Donohue cares more about calling Democrats atheist anal sex fiends, so much that he would ally with open racists and actual anti-Catholics to do so, than he does about promoting what many others consider to be mainstream Catholic values is very relevant to why Donohue is important and worthy of an article here.Randy Blackamoor 03:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] POV

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)

This article still has a distinct POV problem (against the Catholic League and Donohue in particular). Criticism in particular is given undue weight. It needs some work. Mamalujo 20:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Absolutely ridiculous

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)

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)

I agree with the above editor. You are according to your talk page a homosexual who hates the Catholic League and your POV is very clear. Would you like someone doing this to the article on homosexuality? I doubt it. Where is your citation for your assertions? But since you don't mind I will make a few additions to the article.136.242.228.97 17:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

I hope editors can work together to produce a NPOV article. If POV is obvious anywhere, it is in the Catholic League, it claims to be purely opposed to anti-catholic prejudice and discrimination, but is also clearly (even from reading its own publication) part of the religious right. That said, the article should no more be a liberal diatribe than it should be a conservative whitewash: it should be based as far as possible on facts from mainstream news and academic sources and should use neutral factual language. It should not make value judgments on whether anybody's views are right or wrong, the reader can be relied on to supply these themself. I think that the changes I made moved the article away from being a hatchet job (a man who seems to work alone was called "autocratic") but that further work is needed. --Simon Speed 01:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Simon look at your own post. The Catholic League of course has a POV, but so do most other organizations. That isn't the point. The point is that it should be fairly portrayed. Even your comment about the "religious right" is POV. That has no business being in the article. There are things in the article that are not facts and are unsupported by evidence. Value judgments are not supposed to be in the article. It is supposed to be about the Catholic League period. It needs a complete rewrite by an objective person(s).70.108.62.70 03:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC) I put some helpful comments in the text of the article. I hope that shows why I am so upset. Someone needs to rewrite the whole article.70.108.62.70 03:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine, you won't listen to reason. I have taken the liberty of contacting the Catholic League. I have no doubt that wikipedia will hear from them and their attorneys. The article is quite likely actionable under libel laws.70.108.62.70 03:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

OK - 70.108.62.70 has crossed a couple of lines here. They've made legal threats and they've started vandalising the page. We need to stop assuming good faith, stop pointless debates with this person and just start reverting the edits. We also need to make sure that any negative material about living people or existing organisations is fully sourced and in context (that's Wikipedia policy for all pages). --Simon Speed 21:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've crossed the line! Every edit that I have made has been reverted, no matter what the edit was. I don't assume good faith on those who vandalized the article to begin with. It is POV. That is not my fault. It makes claims that are not verified according to any standard. There is no context and the sources are POV. As for legal threats, I have informed the Catholic League. They and their attorneys will be the ones making threats. I am willing to bet that wikipedia won't find this article legally defensible. One thing the Catholic League is good at is going after issues like this. I suggest you fix the article quickly before the hammer falls.70.108.62.70 22:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

With their threats to send thugs and legally suppress anyone who says anything bad about Catholics, it's a GIANT MYSTERY why anti-Catholicism exists! Why in the world would anyone have a negative viewpoint about such a fine and upstanding group of militantly anti-intellectual, quasi-fascist child molestors who spend all their time asking the courts to censor their opponents? I CAN'T FIGURE IT OUT. DarthSquidward 00:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Deleted statement

It is widely believed that the ideological and logistical operation of the League is completely controlled by Donohue.

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)

[edit] Legal Threats

Please be aware of the Wikipedia policy on threatening legal action, to wit:

Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia.

-- Cat Whisperer 03:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not the one with legal standing, that would be the Catholic League. If people are willing to be reasonable and remove some of the blatant POV then that will be fine. You can even insert a controversy section. The part about Pius XII needs to go, it is not only POV but is historically inaccurate.70.108.62.70 03:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not who has legal standing. The issue is that you are making legal threats, and you need to stop making such threats if you wish to continue editing here at Wikipedia. You have made it perfectly clear that you are unhappy with the current state of the article. You can address your concerns by contributing sourced content that presents an alternate viewpoint, or by challenging unsourced content that is present in the article. However, if you continue to address your concerns by making legal threats (regardless of who has legal standing), you will be blocked from Wikipedia under the WP:LEGAL policy. -- Cat Whisperer 03:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to be completely clear, there is absolutely no problem with your contacting the Catholic League with whatever you care to contact them about. However, what is a problem, and what will not be tolerated here, is your bringing up your contact with the Catholic League in a blatant attempt to coerce other Wikipedia editors to yield to your demands by force. -- Cat Whisperer 04:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that you don't mind. Yet oddly why does no one mind the fact that this article is completely infected with POV? I gave specific examples. They aren't hard to find. All attempts on my part to edit were reverted. I suspect if I change a comma it would be reverted. The individual doing it is quite unfriendly to the Catholic League and the Catholic Church. It shows. So if I can't edit it then who can?70.108.62.70 04:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As to who can edit here, the answer is anyone who understands and follows Wikipedia policy. Whether you fit into this group is up to you. Your latest edit was very good, at least the sourced material. However, your personal zinger ("These facts call into question Cornwell's view and his objectivity.") really doesn't belong here. -- Cat Whisperer 22:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to remove it if the following was also removed: "Pope Pius XII facilitated the dictator's rise and, ultimately the Holocaust." Since Hitler rose to power in 1933 and Pius XII was not pope until 1939 this claim is simply impossible. In fact the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge by Pius XI was an anti-nazi papal document. Also it says that he went through "Jesuit" libraries. This hearkens back to early conspiracy theories about Jesuits. They would not have had information or documents unavailable to the Vatican. This is what I mean about POV. It takes a single source that is not widely accepted by historians and launches into hyperbole.70.108.62.70 23:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

How about a less adversarial means to accomplish your end? Instead of adding unreasonable content yourself so that you can trade to remove other unreasonable content, why not just explain why the other content is unreasonable? Resorting to a "tit-for-tat" approach just makes it unpleasant to interact with you on this project. (Wikipedia policy on this: WP:AGF.) -- Cat Whisperer 01:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Now, the first step in challenging article content that you wish to remove is to explain why, in terms of Wikipedia policy, that content is bad. The full sentence you are complaining about is: "Cornwell's original research was to demonstrate Pope Pius XII's defense from claims that he could have done more to prevent or mitigate the Holocaust but researching through Vatican and Jesuit archives found that Pope Pius XII facilitated the dictator's rise and, ultimately the Holocaust."
If the sentence takes makes it sound like Cornwell's conclusions are generally accepted by historians, while they really are not, then the solution is to reword the sentence so that it is clear that his conclusions are his alone.
If the sentence doesn't correctly summarize Cornwells's original research goals and the research that he actually did (e.g., he didn't research Jesuit sources, or that Jesuit sources weren't particular relevant to his research), then the solution is to change the sentence so that it accurately reflects what Cornwell did.
Regarding the timing issue of Pius XII's papacy, I am going to reword the sentence to clarify that matter. -- Cat Whisperer 01:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] O'Donnell

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)

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)

[edit] Incredibly misleading section on Asians

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)

If you want context, you should note that he came up with this bizarre, relevant-to-nothing "Columbia University ping pong team made of Asians" scenario that prompted him to say "gook" over and over again while "debating" with an Asian student from Columbia. The joke was the cover for the racist epithet, not the other way around. Donohue and the League have a history of using childish taunts and gloating over irrelevant issues towards their opponents--e.g., ever since they decided Britney Spears was anti-Catholic, they keep issuing press releases about her record sales falling as if that God's judgment vindicating the League's position or something. Donohue deciding that the Asian student was anti-Catholic and then finding the most ridiculous excuse to yell the word "gook" at him repeatedly is perfectly in character for his modus operandi. Randy Blackamoor 02:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That's your POV Randy, but the original poster gave the actual context. The MO is to show that what is unacceptable to the politically correct is suddenly fine when it is an anti-catholic statement. The article should reflect the context of the statement. If you dispute the accuracy of the context then present your evidence.70.108.62.70 01:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

The transcript makes the point that Donohue was making an analogy between pc discrimination and anti-Catholicism. The article should reflect that truth rather then give the false impression that Donohue was making racist comments.70.108.62.70 22:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yelling "gook" over and over again at an Asian person when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand is a racist comment by any sane definition of "racist comments." You are doing exactly the same thing Donohue does by obstinately ignoring the obvious, as well as by confirming every stereotype of right-wing Catholics as bigoted, loud, anti-intellectual bullies. Randy Blackamoor 06:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Right-wing? or ? in the Catholic spectrum

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)

The article addresses this. Several Jesuits and independent Catholic writers dislike the Catholic League, while it also seems to be supported by official organs of the Church (e.g., in its many connections to the Archdiocese of New York). You're not going to get a single official answer; even if the Pope issued some sort of definitive statement on the role of the Catholic League, you would certainly just get a long debate over whether the Pope speaks for the Church from people who don't like the implications of such a statement. This is how religious discussion works. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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

The use of a term like "right wing extremist" is troubling. The article remains full of POV and needs further revision by non-biased people.70.108.115.9 (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 1973-1993

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)

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)

[edit] Tags added, work needed

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)

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)

[edit] RJ Eskow quote

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)

[edit] Justice Sunday

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)

[edit] POV

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