Talk:CatholicVote.org

Redefine the family
The reality is that same sex marriages are illegal in the vast majority of states. "Redefinition" is not unreasonable. Lionel (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The reality is that the law is not a dictionary, and that the legal definition of marriage is not even the limit of what constitutes "family" (as witness Webster's New World Law Dictionary, or this law dictionary, ). To claim that legalizing something is "redefining" is POV. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Both talk about marriages, which in 45(?) states is exclusively between one man and one woman. The second says "husband, wife, and children". As Lionelt said, redefine is not inaccurate. BS24 (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I support BS24 restoring the content in question. Lionel (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Both definitions already cover same-sex households. Can you show even a single case where even the legal definition of "family" - not "marriage", but "family" - is being changed? This is simply an attempt to cast a specific goal - preventing same-sex marriage legalization - in fuzzy, false, spin-oriented terms. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How about "...urging Catholics to use their vote to protect life, strengthen the family, and not redefine marriage to include same-sex couples." BS24 (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The ad specifically says it's talking about family, not just marriage, which is why I suggested "and strengthen the family and not consider same-sex couples to be families." It would be fine to say that it's about redefining family so long as we are quoting the ad text and putting it in quotes, to make it clear that we're citing their POV about what's involved. (And I should adjust a statement I made above that the only goal was preventing gay marriage; the exclusion of same-sex couples from "family" also extends to non-marriage unions such as "civil unions" and "domestic partnership", as well as gay adoption. But it's all about the same-sex situations.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Launch date and youtube
I've removed a tagged sentence that purports to indicate the launch date of CatholicVote, but it is only cited to a Youtube video (posted by an unconfirmed source) that makes no mention of a date. Would it be possible to get a reliable source for this information? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Another problem is that there is no confirmation of how many views the video received early in its launch. The only number available on youtube is the current views, which I saw to be 2.8 million when I looked just now. What is needed is a secondary source commenting on the video, on how important it was to the launching of the organization, and on how popular the video was at the time, how crucial it was to the formation. By itself, youtube is a primary source unsuitable for self-reference. Binksternet (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Conservative-leaning?
The reason given for removing the label "conservative" in the lead was that "source explicitly says 'non-partisan'." But that doesn't follow. Non-partisan means not affiliated with a political party but it certainly doesn't mean a given organization doesn't lean liberal or conservative or whatever. But I didn't revert the edit replacing "conservative" with "non-partisan" but rather proposed new wording incorporating both modifiers.

Now, is CatholicVote.org conservative-leaning? The fact that they don't explicitly self-describe that way certainly doesn't settle the question. In a preliminary review of third-party sources, I've found that a Santorum press release includes the president, Brian Burch, in a list of "conservative leaders." A progressive faith organization counts them as among conservative Catholics. Material on their own website also winks at the reality that they lean conservative (e.g. ). -Hugetim (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To paint an entire org with any label such as this we need reliable sources. Press releases are self published and not reliable, Faith looks self pub, nor are the CV forums RS.– Lionel (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The organization is socially conservative but not economically so, just like the Catholic Church itself. While it's nominally non-partisan, in practice it leans towards the Republican party due to its social conservatism. The primary issue that the site is concerned about is abortion, in which it takes the socially conservative stance. It does the same with regard to feminism. So, to be quite frank, I don't think there's anything more to discuss here. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Still, I see no evidence that the organization bases its economic views on Catholic teaching at all. The sources I list use the term "conservative" without qualifying it. How about "Republican-leaning" instead of "socially conservative"? Lionelt, the CV items I linked to are not forums but blog posts by apparently paid staff bloggers, just like the Faith in Public Life link. -Hugetim (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with going along with what our sources say. Unfortunately, Lionelt isn't. He just censored the whole Republican/Democrat thing by pretending it's original research to count up candidates by their clearly labeled party affiliations. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be a source, and Lionel is right - you people need something in-hand before you can hang a label on like that. Keep in mind, WP:TRUTH.  Belchfire (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The source is http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00411181&cycle=2010, or it was until you erased it and then pretended there's no source. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, you have 24 hours to explain why WP:CALC is the "wrong policy", before I throw away all of your changes. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That source doesn't say anything about liberal or conservative "leanings". If WP:CALC was the wrong policy today, it will still be the wrong policy tomorrow.  It's up to you to actually read the policy and grok why it's there.  Belchfire (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No, we're talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CatholicVote.org&diff=504075796&oldid=504074928. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

catholicvote.org has been fawning over the Ryan nomination for a few days now. With multiple articles in favor of the candidate. They have "enthusiastically" endorsed the GOP ticket. This goes against the national Catholic Conference of Bishops who have called the Ryan budget "immoral". The site is more devoted to espousing a political agenda than it is about Catholicism. 24.106.8.146 (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Paul
 * That fits in with being conservative first, Catholic second. Catholicism is, unlike Ryan, not at all indifferent to the suffering of the poor. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Organization Description.
The statement in the largest font placed prominently at the top of the organizations "About Us" page describes catholicvote.org with the following: "CatholicVote.org is a community of patriotic Americans who believe our nation’s founding principles are good and true, and worth fighting for." I'd appreciate it if Binksternet would discuss why he feels that the groups most visible statement summarizing who they are is "too much emphasis on self-published text" prior to again undoing my edit. 71.31.222.145 (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Paul


 * Because it is public relations fluff. Because we rely more on sources independent from the subject. Because we already quote the "About Us" page. Binksternet (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You've removed the groups foremost statement about themselves, one which imparts a different meaning than the lesser generic description located further down the page and in smaller font that you have chosen as representative. You are rearranging the prominence of the groups own statements about themselves, to suit your personal opinion of how the group needs to be presented. Let them speak for themselves. 24.106.8.146 (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Paul
 * I'm reverting your undo again. Your "PR Fluff" reason holds little credence for removing the organizations main mission statement. The one lesser statement you insist upon allowing has no contextual similarity to the content you are removing. Your edit damages the value of the article. 24.106.8.146 (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Paul
 * Mission statements make for poor encyclopediac content, per WP:MISSION. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Especially when the statements are so general as to encompass a great many other groups, even opposition groups who hold ideologically incompatible views. The mission statement that the group "is a community of patriotic Americans who believe our nation’s founding principles are good and true, and worth fighting for", is applicable to a wide range of groups in the USA, like the NAACP, the League of Women Voters, the KKK, the Marines, etc. It does not set the group apart. Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I see, and the mission statement you wish to leave in place, once stripped of it's colorful prose, boils down to what? "Catholics for Christ"? I consider that a rather general statement, that fails to establish notability, and does nothing to portray the organization as unique. 24.106.8.146 (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Paul
 * Telling the reader that the group is made up of Catholics who would like to live in the modern world while keeping the faith of Christ and the Church is a good thing. It says that the Catholic members are not stuck in the past; it says they are not rebellious against church doctrine. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's certainly do our best to portray the group as "good". You've just modified my opinion of your NPOV.24.106.8.146 (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Paul
 * I would argue that, regarding WP:MISSION, the organization's primary statement does "describe the organization". It also goes farther to both establish the notability of the organization and "help readers understand how this organization is unique" than does the included secondary statement of catholicvote.org. If the consensus is to remove the group's initial statement, then what justification is there for retaining the statement you intend to leave intact?  Either, they both should be included, or, remove them both and let a third-party describe the group. 24.106.8.146 (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Paul
 * There is nothing that a group's mission statement offers in the way of establishing notability, unless that mission statement has somehow been featured in the news or similar. The justification for the statement, "committed Catholics who are passionate about living out the truths proclaimed by Christ and His Church in the modern world", is that it gives more meat to chew on. The statement you want to include gives nothing. It bases itself on "founding principles" but fails to say what those are, or which ones.
 * I am for keeping the "committed Catholics" bit. The "patriotic Americans" stuff is fluff. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It fails the sniff test. Lots of people reject "committed Catholic" as a description but how many reject "patriotic American"? Right, nobody. So it means nothing. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, lots of people reject "patriotic American" as a description - the Chinese, for example. But yes, within the context of American organization, any descriptor which could be used by CatholicVote, the ACLU, and the Miami Heat with equal aplomb is probably not worth including. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And within the context of American Catholic organizations which would reject being called "committed Catholics"? A Catholic organization of proclaimed committed Catholics is meat to chew on? Which Catholics do not live in the modern world? It is obvious to you that any American is patriotic, therefore not notable, but you find it IS notable that a Catholic is committed to Catholicism? I am a Catholic-schooled, Confirmed, life-long, practicing Catholic and have perused many Catholic websites. I frequent a couple of them. What is notable, and unique, about catholicvote.org IS the content of their main "who we are" statement, and the content that it lacks. 24.106.8.146 (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Paul
 * Well, since you asked, yes. It's obvious from studies about American Catholics with regard to premarital sex, extramarital sex, contraceptives and abortion that these people do not substantially differ from the rest of the population. Presumably, "committed" Catholics would. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can cite the content which it lacks. We're much better off relying on third-party descriptions, rather than contrasting it to what we think it should say. (If they asserted themselves as Catholics against Christ, now that would be notable... but that would also likely be discussed in third-party sources.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we have any good 3rd-party sources? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would think an objective solution might be to truncate the sentence in question, beginning at "that describes itself as..." through the end of the sentence, removing both the unusual statement I inserted where they give the impression they are Catholics wrapped in a "Don't tred on me" flag, as well as the statement that says nothing, other than they are Catholic. In rebuttal to the assumption the organization is "not rebellious against church doctrine": They do not espouse, in some important areas, a typical Catholic viewpoint. They have long been at odds with, and are frequent critics of, the highest official Catholic authority in the US, the Catholic Conference of Bishops, in regard to social issues. 71.31.222.145 (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Paul

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CatholicVote.org. 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 http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20060609154352/http://fidelis.org/ to http://www.fidelis.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

'Geofencing' captures cellphone data of Mass-goers
There is recent controversy about CatholicVote and their collection of cellphone data of those at mass. I think it should be mentioned in this article. Thanks.

Here are two links from 2020. https://www.ncronline.org/news/parish/pro-trump-group-targets-catholic-voters-using-cell-phone-technology

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/ ahead-of-election-political-advocacy-group-says-it-aims-to-encourage-catholic-turnout-53570

The catholicnewsagency article says: "Some aspects of the group’s efforts, like mobile targeting initiatives that allowed CatholicVote to target ads to mobile users who had attended a church in the months prior, have been criticized in Catholic circles. Mobile targeting technology has become commonplace in modern political advocacy, but some Catholics characterized it as invasive." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.21.248 (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)