Talk:Catholic Answers

This Rock section added

Since "This Rock" redirects to this page, there should be more information on the magazine here. I've made a start by adding a new section. -- The Pachyderminator (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The Neo-Catholicism of Catholic Answers

I object to my edit being removed:

Catholic Answers runs "Catholic Answers Forum" (CAF), which the organization claims to be "the largest Catholic Community on the Web." The forum has been criticized as having "aggressive moderation" and promoting censorship even though it claims to be "open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity."

One can find a number of independent sources which will attest to the censorship that is present at CAF:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/I-got-banned-at-CA http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/03/catholic-answers-forum-truth-or.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehannette (talk • contribs) 16:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I would request that my edit be restored, as I can document my claim from multiple individuals using different sources.

Whether one likes it or not, Catholic Answers is a Neo-Catholic organization. It exhibits all of the characteristics of Neo-Catholicism, as laid out here:

The Justice of the Term 'Neo-Catholic'

and here:

George Weigel and the People who Know

Writing an entry about Catholic Answers without mentioning that they're in fact Neo-Catholic would be like writing about Planned Parenthood while failing to mention that they are, in fact, devoted to the annihilation of parenthood. Let's refuse to participate in such Orwellianism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.238.109 (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you want the good news or the bad news? OK, I'll give you the good news first. I suspect the people you're fighting with are Catholic, and we really don't want you to get blocked for edit warring. The bad news? Your sources suck. Dailycatholic.org is not WP:RS, and Remnant doesn't mention Catholic Answers. If I don't remove them, inevitably someone else will come along and delete them. So, I strongly recommend you (1) stop being disruptive and (2) get a better source. Ok? Lionel (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that the edits in the format in which the IP editor is trying to add them are POV. Saying Catholic Answer IS neo-catholic when they don't self-identify as such requires proof. If you can find the sources a section can be added talking about whether sources claim they are neo-catholic or not, but changing the statement in the lead from Catholic to neo-Catholic is inserting a POV pure and simple. Honestly I think claiming they are neo-Catholic borders on fringe. It honestly sounds like name calling by people that may not agree with Catholic Answer's POV. Marauder40 (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

One doesn't need to identify oneself as a racist in order to be a racist. He indeed might even think he's not a racist. Similarly, Catholic Answers doesn't identify itself as Neo-Catholic. And its staff doesn't think they're Neo-Catholics. But, in fact if not in name, they are. See the Wikipedia pages on Neo-Catholicism and you'll see key names associated with Catholic Answers, such as Karl Keating and Jimmy Akin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.238.109 (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

First off, nothing says that the Neo-catholicism page is correct. Also that page clearly says that they have been called that not that they are that. That entire section doesn't even have a source so it probably needs to be removed. According to the neo-catholicism page itself the term was INVENTED in 2002. This sounds a lot like WP:FRINGE to me. As I said before, if you can find a RS that says Catholic Answers is neo-catholic it is possible a section can be added saying that so and so claims they are neo-catholic. That doesn't mean you can change the term in the lead.Marauder40 (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Addition of personal blog site

The user User:Jehannette keeps trying to add a section about Catholic Answers forums to the article. The linked site appears to be the editor's personal BLOG. Please read WP:RS before trying to re-add. Most blogs tend to not be reliable sources. They usually only are reliable in stating personal beliefs of notable people or in the case of major news organizations, MAY have reliable information. You will need to provide a valid reliable source to include the information. Also note that forums aren't reliable sources either. Both this inclusion and the linked blog seem more like a personal attack based on being banned then reliable information for an encyclopedia.Marauder40 (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

My blog does not attack anyone. Have you read my article on this? Jehannette (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I can document my claims using multiple sources. Here's one:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/I-got-banned-at-CA

Here's another:

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?1821-Catholic-Answers-Censored-the-Bible-Wheel!

And, another:

http://churchmouse57.blogspot.com/2010/02/banned-from-catholic-answers-happy-to.html

The last two are completely independent of me; I only found them by a quick Google search. I can provide more links, if necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehannette (talk • contribs) 16:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

None of which are reliable sources. Two of the links placed in the article so far were related to user accounts with names remarkably similar to your own. Please read WP:RS. Also please sign all posts on the talk page. Marauder40 (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. I will try to get "The Remnant" to do an article on this. No, it is not a "personal attack" (what "person" would I be attacking?). Yes, I was banned, and yes, I wrote an article on my blog about it. But, as anyone can judge for themselves, a number of other individuals have been banned also for simply expressing their religious beliefs on the CAF forum, individuals whom I do not know at all on a personal basis.

What type of evidence could Wikipeida, in principle, ever accept to substantiate the claim which I am making? It seems that you are "setting the bar" to an "impossibly high" standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehannette (talk • contribs) 16:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You personal opinion and the experience of a few other people doesn't make it true. In short, you need a reliable source to include the information. It is not "impossibly high". There is a reason why a "personal" blog and forums are not allowed as reliable sources because ANYONE can state whatever they wanted. I could great a BLOG and say the sky is green, that doesn't make it true. If there was some systemic problem with their site, there would be a reliable source to say so. As such, they are a private company and can say who posts or what they allow on their forums. Marauder40 (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I made two claims with my edit. Here is the first

Catholic Answers runs "Catholic Answers Forum" (CAF), which the organization claims to be "the largest Catholic Community on the Web."

You deleted that comment. However, it can easily be verified by simply going to the CAF website:

http://forums.catholic.com

So, the first comment is unquestionably true; you or anyone else can verify it just by going out to the CAF website.

Here's the second claim:

The forum has been criticized as having "aggressive moderation" and promoting censorship even though it claims to be "open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity."

The claim "the forum has been criticized" is absolutely true. I provided multiple, independent sources of "criticism." Jehannette (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You haven't provide a single independent reliable source. Internet forums are never reliable sources, for the most part blogs aren't either. As for your first fact, you need to deal with whether the fact is notable or not. You have to establish whether the fact is notable. Catholic Answers claiming it is the "largest Catholic Community on the Web", really isn't that big of deal. Other organizations may have an issue with that claim. If someone outside of Catholic Answers, say a bishop, mainstream media or someone else talked about how important the forums are or something like that then it would be notable. Please go through the 5 pillars and all the associated links included in your welcome link. Marauder40 (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Internet forums are never reliable sources, yet the topic in question is an Internet forum called Catholic Answers Forums...so perhaps it's for the best that it gets no mention at all. In fairness, though, any assessment of what that forum is like would have to characterize it as aggressively moderated based on whatever seems most tolerable to the particular type of Catholic POV of these mods. Eastern Orthodox and mainline Protestants are allowed more freedom of speech than Evangelical or Independent Protestants, and Traditional Catholics along with atheists/non-religious are allowed the least amount of freedom to make any arguments on their own behalf. There is a pretty clear hierarchy of relative freedom of speech, the overall message that comes out of the forum is not user-generated rather it is pretty tightly controlled by the CAF mods to a far greater extent than nearly any other religious forum, with the possible exception of CARM. This happens to be true, but I will not attempt to document or substantiate because content from Internet forums is basically worthless by WP standards so there's virtually no reason to get into the particulars of what an Internet forum is like strictly on its own merits. Except in the Talk section, of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.196.165 (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Abortion Series?

Hello:

I noticed that this article has an "Abortion Series" stub. It seems the article's focus (given its title) is the organization called "Catholic Answers". Yes, the organization has strong anti-abortion views - because Catholic Answers believes that the Catholic faith demands strong anti-abortion views. But abortion is neither the sole focus nor the main focus of the organization. Rather, the organization sees itself as an education outlet for the Catholic faith, which includes the Catholic Faith's opposition to abortion, true, but is far broader than that. Unless every article about the Catholic Church in Wikipedia is intended to be tagged with the "Abortion Series" stub, it seems that the stub is unwarranted.

Now, I do understand why the article was tagged with the "Abortion Series" stub. It has to do with the Catholic Answers voting guide. But the guide talked about more than abortion - should we not tag the article, therefore, with the "Embryonic-Stem-Cell-Research Series" stub? Or the "Euthanasia Series" stub? It seems that tagging the article in its entirety with the "Abortion Series" stub commits the conceptual error of making a part bigger than the whole.

What think ye?

data (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not a "stub". It's a template that directs the reader to articles related to Catholicism and abortion. Also included in the series are several other articles about organizations, such as Knights of Columbus, that don't focus solely on abortion. But the articles about organizations that have been very active with the abortion issue are included in the template. I don't think it's inappropriate. No, every article related to Catholicism (for example, Vatican City) doesn't belong in the template. It's all a matter of degree of relationship to the issue. I think Catholic Answers has a sufficient relationship to the topic. To my knowledge there is no "Euthanasia and the Catholic Church series" or "Embryonic-Stem-Cell-Research and the Catholic Church Series". But if there are other templates involving topics in which Catholic Answers has been actively involved, it would be appropriate to add those to the article. Sundayclose (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catholic Answers. 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/20080830052259/http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/news/pr/2004/20041020irscomplaintcatholicanswers.asp to http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/news/pr/2004/20041020irscomplaintcatholicanswers.asp

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catholic Answers. 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/20080820073518/http://oce.catholic.com/ to http://oce.catholic.com/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Lighthouse Catholic Media

Why is this listed as a ”see also”? Dselljr (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)