Talk:David Trosch

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 05:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Multiflagged

Fair enough, that's quite a lot of warning labels added. Alas, AFAIK, they are due. Though short as the present article is, it is a clutter of unverified claims concerning a living person.

Take e.g.:

• Father David C. Trosch is still a Catholic priest as listed in the recently (Nov. 2008) published The Official Catholic Directory Anno Domini 2008, p. 2036. (ISBN 978-0-87217-754-3).
• Is he "famous for publicly advocating the murder of abortion providers" -- or anyone else -- "in the name of Catholicism" -- or for any other reason? This is highly unplausible -- at least.

Fair enough, his drawing subtitled "Justifiable Homicide versus Legalized Homicide" may be rather confronting, even shocking indeed. Then again, as it turns out, Father Trosch has got high esteem of God’s Commandment. And murder -- whatever murder -- is against God's Commandment. Do the math.

As far as I understand, the most shocking part of the question is dealing with the Legalized Homicide. The -- legalised -- killing of zillions of innocent children in the womb, that is. We do not want to know this, do we? We are shocked. And prefer and shoot the messenger -- the latter being Father Trosch. Slander him!

• "He currently vehemently opposes the film Juno (film) and believes it ought to be banned." Does he? No suitable citation is provided. Worse yet. Checking all of Father Trosch's website www.trosch.org for the text string "juno" by Google Search delivers but one single hit:

Género de Humanum en la Francmasonería - Encíclica por Papa Leo ...

containing the phrase:

"La constitución Misericors Dei Filius (el 23 de juno de 1883) expresa recordó que el descuido en el que las virtudes cristianas se tienen es la causa ..."

That's not the "Juno" we were looking for, is it?

• "Trosch is a sedevacantist" No, he isn't. quite to the contrary, as he clearly states and explains.

Even though there may be most serious problems in re the pope morally being ordained -- and AFAIU, as per Fr. Trosch there are -- nevertheless, Fr. Trosch expresses no daubt -- quite to the contrary -- about the Pope legally occupying the Chair of Peter, hence the Chair of Peter not being vacant at all.

Cf. Respect is due the office of pope, but not always due the person filling the office.

Concluding

The lot of the allegations about Fr. Trosch turn out to be unverified and gratuituous, worse yet: can be proven false (and verified as such).
That's why I added a whole bunch of flags. I think they are due.

Future editors might benefit from and make reference to (i.a.):

• About Father Trosch, a Roman Catholic priest
• LEU Statement

Alas, as it turns out that Fr. Trosch himself (user:Father35) has tried and explain his opinion twice in the article, and both times the explanation was wiped, "'cause of its bias". Maybe, there was some bias indeed. Nevertheless, user:Father35 pointed at and explained plain fact, too. Did anybody try and use that (most useful) information? It turns out not. Resulting in the present article, consisting of a bunch of imagery, while not dealing with facts at all (unless they turn out to be wrong).

Remember: all articles must be neutral, verifiable, encyclopedic, and free of original research.

Please, try and stick with checkable fact.

-- Bartvs (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

99.231.250.154 (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Father Trosch, please don't merely create a new account with different login information to defend yourself further in this forum. The citations used in this talk page, as well as both the defensive tone and generally similar style of writing employed by both "Bartvs" and Trosch are self-serving and provide no rational basis to help this article improve. The discussion forum at catholic.org [forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=68023] show cause that Trosch has posed as a third party in the past in order to defend himself from criticism.

Please refrain from merely gain-saying the article's contentions: "The lot of the allegations about Fr. Trosch turn out to be unverified and gratuituous, worse yet: can be proven false (and verified as such)." Such an unsubstantiated claim is ironically what the claim is trying to fight against. The talk page has too many such instances for this to be a serious attempt at rewriting, and achieves further muddying of the issue through generalization, lack of sourcing, research, and general misuse of common words and grammar.

Further, simply basing the contention that the article is inaccurate on its dissimilarity and rejection of the views expressed at [1] is in itself a bias and any article which claims a singular source, the source being, itself, "original research", is unworthy of scholarly or, indeed, any intellectual thought whatsoever.

I request that you open a message board on your website so people can have a forum to debate with you, and not drag your fight into the public realm of wikipedia.

Luke Balzan

99.231.250.154 (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

i have chosen to remove the request to pray for david as i believe that the public at large will find it insulting that they should pray for the health of a man that actively advocates the murder of respected members of the public. Aswell as being offensive to a large majority of people it is unnecessary in an objective article that is supposed to be describing the man not supporting him