Talk:Deal W. Hudson

Notability
This is a politically motivated post and so it has been removed as it violates the guidlines set out by this non-profit organization. This is not a place for such derogatory, one night in a man's life, biography. And I believe this person is just trying to drive readers to his website, another forbidden use of this website! For these 2 reasons this has been removed! IsleofPatmos (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The notability tag you took down relates to whether this article should be in Wikipedia. It is not a commentary on Hudson. It is a maintenance tag and unless reliable sources are cited to back up claims of Hudson's influence and importance, the tags should stay there. Wikipedia should not be a forum either to promote or bash Deal Hudson. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Article on Deal Hudson
This article is libelous and should be unacceptable to posting on Wikipedia. The editor has created this defamatory piece on Deal Hudson for political purposes only; he is using gross exaggeration of the facts pertaining to a situation that occurred 14 years ago. It is plainly libelous; the language the author uses has NEVER been used elsewhere in any reliable news publication. This is his own construct, designed to destroy the personal and political credibility of someone who has publicly and privately paid the price for his one night of poor judgment. The author has, quite frankly, been "stalking" Deal Hudson on Deal's blog. He has had to be blocked for his use of grossly inappropriate language, personal attacks, and incivility to other bloggers. Please don't let your site be a place where someone whose sole motive in writing an article is the total destruction of another human being.Leviathan58 (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I already discussed this on your user page, but here it is again. The article in its original form was an attack page. The editor who restored it has been warned. However, a balanced article about Hudson shouldn't be a whitewash. Hudson a prominent brass-knuckle political operative. What he did is relevant. Again, the article will be rewritten from a neutral point of view . • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Catholic League: Assault on Deal Hudson
Catholic League: Assault on Deal Hudson 7/18/2008 Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights (www.catholicleague.org/)

"Catholics put a premium on forgiveness and reconciliation—they do not conduct vindictive campaigns of personal destruction under the guise of promoting the Catholic cause."

Advertisement NEW YORK, NY (Catholic League) - Catholic League president Bill Donohue responded today to a story last night by CNN’s Anderson Cooper on attempts by some Catholics to get the McCain campaign to oust Catholic author and activist Deal Hudson from the Catholics for McCain National Steering Committee:

“Anderson Cooper said last night that those opposed to Hudson were citing two reasons why he should be dumped from the McCain campaign as an advisor: Hudson ‘harassed an 18-year-old female college student 10 years earlier,’ and his ‘brokering a deal between a meeting of conservative Catholics and San Antonio mega-preacher John Hagee.’

“There is nothing Catholic about these charges. Catholics put a premium on forgiveness and reconciliation—they do not conduct vindictive campaigns of personal destruction under the guise of promoting the Catholic cause.

"Hudson has made several public statements of apology regarding his improper sexual encounter with a coed in 1994. What are we to do as Catholics—say it isn’t enough?

"Ted Kennedy belongs to Barack Obama’s Catholic National Advisory Council. Should he be criticized? Certainly: I did just that when I cited his 100 percent NARAL record. What I didn’t do was cite his past sexual indiscretions, one of which left a young woman dead.

“Everyone knows that I was the first to criticize Pastor John Hagee for his offensive past comments about the Catholic Church. When Hudson sought to open Hagee’s eyes about some misconceptions he had about the Catholic Church’s historical role in dealing with Jews, it helped to change the Texas minister.

"Indeed, Hagee issued a public apology. Hagee and I then met, courtesy of Hudson, and have since reconciled. Is that not the Catholic thing to do? If not, then is the Vatican not acting in a Catholic way?

"I received a letter from a prominent Vatican Cardinal thanking me for reconciling with Hagee. I also received the plaudits of many in the Jewish community for doing so.

“Hudson and Hagee have paid their dues. It’s time everyone—especially Catholics—acknowledged it. Kudos to the McCain campaign for seeing through this phony effort and standing by Hudson.” IsleofPatmos (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that National Catholic Reporter as a source is not respected by Catholics
Please note below that the source for the first External link contribution to Deal Hudson biography is from a source that appears on a list of Websites to be avoided by Catholics. Why? Because the publishers of that periodical have a reputation for distorting the Truth. The fact that the anonoymous contributor of this article relentlessly insists on its presence on Wikipedia lets you know their motives are not about presenting a balanced Biography but rather to destroy the credibility of a person who is his adversary during a heated political election time! The fact that the Wikipedia police/editors can't see through this is quite shocking! Instead of offering that material and that anonymous contributor protection, I believe that piece should be removed from this site considering its source. It can be easily retrieved like a Tabloid piece from any web browser.... another reason it doesn't belong here! IsleofPatmos (talk) 03:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sunday, November 5, 2006

Bad Websites: Catholics should avoid these I have been meaning to create this post for quite some time. I wanted to put together a list of websites that claim to be "Catholic" but should never be supported by Catholics. I am using Catholic Culture's website reviews for some of the information. Please realize that these websites are generally opposed to the truth of the Faith. If you have a link to one of these websites on your blog/website, I strongly ask you to remove it in an effort for us all to promote the complete truth not a "watering down" of the Catholic Faith.

All links below are to the Catholic Culture review of the website; you may have to register (I believe it's free) to see the review by Catholic Culture. I do not want to post an actual link to the website since that is to be avoided.

8th Day Center For Justice - promotes liberation theology Apologetic Catholic Page - a website that shows the "difference between Catholicism and Biblical teaching" Association for the Rights of Catholics In the Church - errors include saying that promoting women's ordination is not heresy Catholic Women's Ordination - promotes women's ordination Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC) - promotes contraception and abortion Daily Catholic - apparently sedevacantist run, great disrespect for Pope Benedict XVI in some cases Dignity USA - undermines Catholic Church's teachings on homosexuality Future Church - promotes women's ordination Georgetown Center for Liturgy - disobedient with the Vatican on the Liturgy Jubilee 2000 Our Lady of the Roses - promotes a condemned apparition Help for Catholics - tries to lead Catholics away from the Church by using poor interpretation of Scripture Just for Catholics - created by Joe Mizzi, a fallen away Catholic and former seminarian, to lead Catholics away from the Church Leadership Conference of Women Religious - As Catholic Culture states: "The site is filled with antagonism toward the hierarchy and Church teachings, the emphasis on political activism in a secular humanist context, and feminist rhetoric." Mother Mary's Garden - has nothing to do with the Mother of God or real prayer. It is an occult site. National Catholic Reporter - better named the National Catholic Distorter. North American Forum on the Catechumenate - Founded by Rev. James Dunning, a dissenter who does not believe the Eucharist is Jesus. The prayer book has dissenting resources. Online Confession - claims to be able to give the Sacrament of penance over the Internet. This is not allowed at all by the Church! Such confessions are not truly sacraments meaning sins are not forgiven if a person "confesses" online. Pax Christi USA - Catholic Culture states: "They seem to care more about finding common ground with abortionists and the gay rights lobby than about working for true peace." Priests for Equality - promotes changing the Scriptures as well as women's ordination Roses from Heaven - promotes condemned Bayside New York "apparitions" The Aquinas Catholic Site - Sedevacantistism 101 These Last Days Ministries - promotes condemned Bayside New York "apparitions" True Catholic - the website of a schismatic, sedevacantist group who believes the current pope is a man elected in Montana named Pius XIII We are Church - a dissenting group following the "spirit of Vatican II" These are some of the many websites that I believe all faithful Catholics should avoid. If you would like to let me know about any others, please comment below in the comment box. http://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2006/11/bad-websites-catholics-should-avoid.html IsleofPatmos (talk) 03:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Revert of copyvio
I reverted 2 edits as a copyright violation from Deal Hudson's blog. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Second revert of copyvio
I reverted 3 more edits as copyvio from The New York Times and InsideCatholic.com. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits about Hudson's Scandal
Another editor is routinely inserting and re-inserting language with a distinctly partisan POV. I have reverterd a couple of times, noting the POV, but I've been re-reverted twice with no conversation here. I'm going to delete one last time, with a plea for disciussion here in my edit summary and on the other editor's talk page to discuss things here before editing the page again. David in DC (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I will not allow you to continue to use WIKI as a vehicle for your negative smear of Deal W. Hudson. If I wanted my bias, I would erase all of the sources as they were completely politially motivated. I did not erase your slant on things; I merely added the missing dimension, also included in your citations that you are unwilling to allow. What is your motivation?

The facts are stated, by my edition, to give a balanced perspective of the TRUTH of this person's life. Why are you so determined to only portray your clear bias for the slanted destructive and politically motivated media sources cited here. It is not Fordham that is truly controversial about Deal Hudson, it is his sharp journalistic sword that cuts through the BS of Washington DC that causes people to seek to silence him every Election season. He is a target because he stands in a position of influence over the Catholic Vote; he knows that he is a sinner, a grave one at that, but his understanding of his keen call to serve anyway as there is not another one who stands ready to defend at the level he can, the right to Life of the Unborn. I could not find an article that captures this work...... I, as a Wiki editor, have a right to capture the articles in my own words; that is what I have done. My changes incorporate the facts from the others sources already posted here. I don't know who you are but I think that at this time a more complete biography is not possible; only the politically motivated articles are available. I am not saying that the Fordham incident is minor, I am just saying that it happened 10 years before, now 14 years ago; Deal was and is not the Candidate; and it was surfaced to strip the opposing party from a formidably talented and influential asset! The same group attempted to do it again this campaign and was unsuccessful. These facts were in the articles posted and you keep removing them. I will not stand for it. iop (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I regret your discomfort. I believe your edits are not in compliance with wikipedia's policy about neutral point of view but would really welcome other editors' opinions on this talk page before any more editing on this topic is done.  In the meantime, please assume good faith.  Thanks.  Best, David in DC (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As you must know since you claim DC in your name I have reason to question your insistence on removing anything that balances this biography. Your perception of a neutral point of view is a perpetuation of the political smear campaign on Deal Hudson. I simply included information from the references cited that you keep wanting to remove; it is your version of neutral that gives me cause to question your motive and causes me to use my brain to doubt the existence of good faith. I will be right when after the election on Tuesday you lose interest in this biography.iop (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not a very civil response. And it assumes things you cannot possibly know.  I assure you, I will not lose interest in this article after the election.  The Assumption of Good Faith is a key principle here.  It's like the presumption of innocence in our legal system.  It doesn't mean you have to really assume I'm acting in good faith (although that helps).  It DOES mean you have to act as if you assume my good faith, and try to reach consensus civilly.  I really think a third opinion will help us here.  Please try to ratchet down the vitriol.  Thanks. David in DC (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
The dispute appears to revolve around two sentences:
 * "...resigned from the campaign and from Crisis after politically motivated media surfaced accusations of misconduct during his tenure...";
 * "...and was unsuccessfully silenced by a concerted political smear effort made by those with opposing views."

The first sentence is followed by two references. The first quotes the subject who "portrayed himself as a target of politically motivated personal attacks"; no other source is quoted as believing that the accusations were politically motivated. Of note is that the subject does acknowledge past mistakes. The second reference makes no reference to political motivation.

The second sentence is also followed by two references. the first makes no reference to any form of silencing, nor does it mention a concerted political smear effort made by those with opposing views. The second reference also makes no reference to any form of silencing, nor does it mention a concerted political smear effort made by those with opposing views.

Conclusion
With regard to the first sentence I believe it would be valid to note that the subject portrays himself "as a target of politically motivated personal attacks", per the cited reference. However, to suggest that this is definitely the case, when it is in fact nothing more that the subject's belief, is quite clearly not compatible with NPOV. The first sentence is unsupported by the cited references, but could be modified as noted to be acceptable.

With regard to the second sentence I believe it is entirely unsupported by the cited references.

Cheers, This flag once was red   08:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * if you would be so kind as to read the last article referenced you will read about 3 "religioius groups" sought to have him removed from campaign, those are political adversaries.... inside the Church.... Their request was dismissed  straight up by McCain. (True Catholics forgive as modeled by Jesus Himself, you know The One they supposedly follow.... otherwise St.Peter, who personally denied Jesus Christ 3 times would not have been judged suitable to be chosen as a moral authority.... how ridiculously thin the veneer of their political motivations!) Are you about mere words here or TRUTH? I thought that Wiki Biographies enjoy higher validity when they are able to flush out The Words and their deeper meaning and context if known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IsleofPatmos (talk • contribs) 10:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I read all four references and saw - and continue to see - no reference to political adversaries, only religious groups. As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia is based on verifiability and not the inferences we may draw from reading between the lines.
 * Cheers, This flag once was red   10:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * ====Conclusion====

This Biography, which from its original posting, has been political...... just read history. If it was not such a contentious Election Year, there would be no Deal W. Hudson Biography here; therefore according to Wiki rules, it should be completely removed.iop (talk) 10:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC) I say if you are going to remove my changes than remove the Biography as it will then only speak of one day in the life of a person that has been controversial; it will no longer be anything but a politically motivated instrument of smear. Leave it until next Wednesday, after election; I believe the motivation will dissapate at least until another Election cycle when Conservative Voters, Catholic Conservative Voters are required to win.iop (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion
This Biography, which from its original posting, has been political...... just read all of the notes. If it was not such a contentious Election Year, there would be no Deal W. Hudson Biography here; therefore according to Wiki rules, it should be completely removed.iop (talk) 10:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In referring to Wikipedia Rules, are you saying Deal W. Hudson is a non-notable subject, or someone only notable for a single event? This would be grounds for deletion, which you can propose at Articles for deletion. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that a reference that was previously omited has been re-inserted, thus supporting my second statement that seems to be causing continuous discussion. I will expect that my changes be honored or propose that the Biography be deleted.iop (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That is your option. However, I suspect the AFD outcome would be to keep, probably per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The Attack page policy forbids "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage or threaten their subject"; however, this article seems to be more than just that. Biographies of living persons ("Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly", among other points) might also be of interest. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

In re the TRUTH: please read the essay at WP:TRUTH. It's a humorous essay, written to make a point. The point it makes bears quite exactly on your reference to the TRUTH (in all caps, no less). A more thorough reading of WP:NPOV and WP:AGF might also be in order. Finally, saying the article should be deleted on its Talk page does little to advance that goal. If one thinks an article does not belong on the wiki, one files an AfD, as noted above. There's even a handy-dandy link above to show one how to file such an AfDDavid in DC (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the reference you've added makes no reference to "unsuccessfully silenced by a concerted political smear effort made by those with opposing views." Please understand that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not what you or I may believe to be the "truth".  We can quote articles, but we can't interpret them.  If newspaper "A" says "the sky is red" then we can say "newspaper A says the sky is red"; we can't second guess what they may have meant but didn't in fact say.
 * Cheers, This flag once was red   11:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My last change does express the content as reported in the catholic league reference. I am sure that you will find a problem with this as well.  Be sure you note that the statement is not just one person's opinion.  Thank you. It has been fun sparring and learning how in the he** you WIKI dudes and dudettes communicate with these tools :) iop (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I just fixed your change so that the Bill Donohue and the Catholic League's opinions are clearly attributed as such. Please note Wikipedia's neutral point of view and verifiability policies about partisan sources. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Bonus linkage
In a brief search for notability this subject and Crisis magazine, I found the following links. I'm not sure any meet the WP:EL standards, but perhaps these may be helpful in developing this article. These links by themselves may not prove it, but between this and his book published by Simon & Schuster, I suspect Hudson is notable. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * quotes Hudson on 2008 election.
 * quotes Hudson on 2008 election.
 * quotes Hudson on 2008 election.

Vindictive campaigns of personal destruction
In these changes, the term "Vindictive campaigns of personal destruction under the guise of promoting the Catholic cause" seems unsupported by any of the four given sources: My question: does vindictive campaigns... refer to the Anderson Cooper show? If so, this could be worded more clearly. If there's more to this, it needs to be sourced, and worded in with a more neutral point of view, per Wikipedia policy. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The first citation given for this assertion (Slater/Dallas Morning News 31 March 2008) does not support this either way.
 * The Arizona Republic link credits "[a]t least three religious groups", Catholic talk radio, and Catholics, but no claim of misrepresentation or vendatta is made.
 * The Catholic League link says "[Catholics] do not conduct vindictive campaigns of personal destruction under the guise of promoting the Catholic cause", but that article seems to refers entirely to CNN’s Anderson Cooper. And in context this quote may simply be a rhetorical flourish describing how forgiving Catholics are in sexual abuse cases.
 * The second Slater/Dallas Morning News link (October 10, 2007) makes no reference to this whatsoever, and pre-dates the 2008 incident.
 * I've removed citations not relevant to the current version. My question still applies to the current version. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

David, you clearly have some kind of personal thing going here so I have removed the Biography and will pursue the proper channels. As I said, once this Election is over, I am certain your interest in continuing to find a way to keep this negative Biography going will subside. Unless of course McCain wins!!! Who knows then. I would like to know your complete name so that I could set out to write your Biography which you will not be able to be changed by you on Wiki.iop (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC) You guys' neutral is negative....... you are only using negative citations so therefore you are not creating a neutral Biography. Therefore, for a number of reasons you all need to move on to legitimate WIKI work and leave this Biography off....iop (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You've really got me wrong. Grafs 1-4 are entirely positive.  They need better sourcing, but they're nothing you could find objectionable. The remainder of the article tells notable facts about this notable person in a measured way, including his own words and Bill Donahue's defense.  It's just not an attack article, or anything close to it. It's well-sourced, notable, verifiable, and does not give undue weight to the incident and its aftermath.  I understand the importance of wikipedia's special rules for Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP, and this article, in my judgment complies with those rules. David in DC (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Print, TV and radio appearances paragraph
This is the only unsourced material left. It's not derogatory, so the WP:BLP imperitive is less pressing. Nonetheless, it needs to be sourced and trimmed. I'd welcome assistance. David in DC (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have time today but I will be adding a New Yorker Magazine Article written last month that essentially captures Hudson's story up to the minute. iop (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. Here's what I've done. I've looked fairly hard and cannot source most of the outlets Deal's press bio credits to him. I've taken all of them out except one I could source. I've added Slate, which wasn't there, but which can be sourced.

Here's the old language: Hudson has written for the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, Los Angeles Times, Dallas Morning News, National Review, Village Voice, Roll Call, National Journal, and Economist. He has also appeared on television shows such as NBC Nightly News, The O'Reilly Factor, The Beltway Boys, C-Span's Washington Journal, and Hannity and Colmes, and on radio programs such as "All Things Considered" on National Public Radio.

Please re-add any outlets that can be sourced. David in DC (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)