|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
"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)
This article is incredibly biased. Bruskewitz is an incredibly controversial figure, yet this bio only praises his actions. 22.214.171.124 17:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
How can he be described as a most conservative bishop in a context where the quotes ascribed to him on homosexual acts are simply quotes from the official cathechism of the Catholic church? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I must agree with the IP that there are plenty of better reasons to consider Bishop Bruskewitz one of the most "conservative" of Catholic bishops, at least in the United States. PsychoInfiltrator (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
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.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- 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.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.