Talk:Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good

Rv

@TXMpwn1836: in order to add this content, you'd need both a reliable source and a meaningful way of stating the information. Even if you had a reliable source, what information is meant to be conveyed by "implicated on allegations"? Someone said it in one of the emails? People say many things in email that have no reliable basis. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Revealed political affiliation and agenda

Relevant sources mention Catholics United in connection with political agenda and strategy : (Clinton campaign chief helped start Catholic organisations to create ‘revolution’ in the Church, http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/10/12/clinton-campaign-chief-helped-start-catholic-organisations-to-create-revolution-in-the-church/, Hillary Clinton Campaign Pushes Back on ‘Anti-Catholic’ Charge http://time.com/4528532/hillary-clinton-campaign-pushes-back-on-anti-catholic-charge/, After 'Catholic Spring' email leak, US bishops warn American ideals at risk http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/after-catholic-spring-email-leak-us-bishops-warn-american-ideals-at-risk-45679/, Clinton campaign under fire for critical emails on Catholic Church https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2016/10/12/clinton-campaign-fire-critical-emails-catholic-church/, After 'Catholic Spring' email leak, US bishops warn American ideals at risk http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/after-catholic-spring-email-leak-us-bishops-warn-american-ideals-at-risk-45679/, John Podesta said: 'We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good' to help change the Church http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/10/12/clinton-campaign-chief-helped-start-catholic-organisations-to-create-revolution-in-the-church/ Mauri Kunnas (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The Need for Neutrality, Comprehensiveness and No Censorship!

Be informed that the policies WP:PROMOTION i.e. advocacy of any sort must be avoided and neutral point of view WP:NPOV must be upheld. It is especially important when current affairs and politics are discussed that on should be careful of WP:NOTCENSORED and have a more WP:COMPREHENSIVE view. Wikipedia is not a Democracy WP:NOT#DEM, so no misuse of the WP:CONSENSUS by hitting with the "Consensus Shtick". Wikipedia is not political war zone, it is inclusive. IBestEditor (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:PROMOTION , WP:CHERRYPICKING, WP:NOTCENSORED. No relevant and good sources should be selectively cherry picked away and language altered so fit a certain viewpoint or agenda. Crux is edited by by the well respected veteran journalist John L. Allen and should not be removed, or any other valid source! Mauri Kunnas (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing is being done to maintain a biased point of view. Rather, we need to use reliable sources with a reputation for accuracy and write in a neutral and encyclopedic tone. Elders of Zion-esque scaremongering about how (((George Soros))) is funding the downfall of Christian values has no place here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Roscelese please respect sourced content and keep your accusations to yourself. Your partisan politics and activism is not in keeping with the premises of Wikipedia. –Wp:battleground, -Wikipedia:NOTADVOCATE NB. (https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/about/programs/us-programs/grantees/catholics-alliance-common-good) IBestEditor (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground and well-sourced content must be respected. According to the Open Society Foundations own webpages Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good has recieved substantial monetary support, (https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/about/programs/us-programs/grantees/catholics-alliance-common-good). Thus there is no proof and no reason to suppress information due to unsubstantiated claims about "conspiracy theories". IBestEditor (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, you need to adhere to our reliable sourcing policy. If you're a new user unfamiliar with how editing the site works, can I recommend finding an adopter or checking out the Teahouse? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I know reliable sourcing policy. My first question to you: Please explain in your own gentle words why for example the Open Society Foundations own webpages documenting it's donation to Catholics in Alliance is not a reliable source? IBestEditor (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:SECONDARY –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Definitely WP:PRIMARY - original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved - IBestEditor (talk) 07:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Per the linked guideline, that is not the kind of source that we should be using. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I commented earlier in my segment "Revealed political affiliation and agenda" mentioning relevant sources, and I see that the case touching a bit on the same issue. There is no conspiracy there is only political activism, in this case by one big donor. Not conspiracy theory just facts. Trying to target someone as a just "a conspiracy theorist" could be construed as character assassination. I will put back the sources. Mauri Kunnas (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. 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/20090813160229/http://www.catholicsinalliance.org/about-us to http://www.catholicsinalliance.org/about-us

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) 08:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia & this article, should not be censored

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable or politically correct to all readers, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. Some people and organizations' rules or traditions call for secrecy or cherry picking with regard to certain information about them. Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia. Observe: WP:CENSOR and also Free speech WP:FREE on Wikipedia. Civility and good faith means that no personal attacks WP:PERSONAL should occur on Wikipedia. So, we all should refrain from insinuating poor thinking, conspiracy theory or threatening, as in my case, from being blocked from editing Wikipedia. etc [User:Mauri Kunnas|Mauri Kunnas]] (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

"Some people's traditions"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Mauri Kunnas, do you have a constructive suggestion for how to improve this particular article, because I only see vague and general off-topic complaints above unrelated to this topic. Such commentary doesn't belong on this talk page. You could try the Tea house or the Village Pump, although it's hard to advise you, because it isn't clear to me what you are talking about. Mathglot (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted the removal of "Roman Catholic" because it was vandalism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)