Talk:Taylor Marshall

Potential Vandalism

This page is at risk of vandalism, as this edit tracking twitter account recently posted about controversial edits to it. https://twitter.com/VaticanEdits/status/1187174159320784896 I'd argue it should be locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MechaBonaldMkV (talk • contribs) 04:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Worth considering. However, thanks to the vatitroll, I was able to make a few edits that brought this page more in line with wiki standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.145.176.164 (talk) 04:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Controversy

Possible addition of "controversy" section- his criticism of St Meinrad Seminary's Gingerbread Contest made both The Kansas City Star https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/article222987975.html and Yahoo! News https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/catholic-author-draws-ire-calling-decorating-gingerbread-houses-effeminate-004542018.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

One of the pieces is from a tabloid writer and the other writes for an anti-Catholic publication, I would argue they're credible enough to warrant a controversy section yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deflepurd (talk • contribs) 15:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree but needs to balanced with sources of supporters as well. Michaelmalak (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The two sources are solid, so I say go for it. Perspectives from Marshall's supporters can be added if they're well-sourced, but they're not a prerequisite for adding relevant news content that reports on his controversial activities. natemup (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

This whole article reads like a self-written bio or a fan-written page. It should be substantially revised to read like other bios, with a controversy section. The "controversy" over gingerbread houses is minor; it is not a note-worthy controversy. Real controversies over his theology, each of which was criticized by reputable sources, include his opposition to the recent Popes and Vatican II; the radical claims of the book "Infiltration"; his accusations of heresy and apostasy against Pope Francis; his claim that unbaptized babies go to the limbo of Hell; his association with far right Catholics like Voris and Goldy (which the article currently presents as if this were a complement); his thisis that Islam is "a Heresy Stealing from Christian Ideas"; his claim that "Jews, like all human beings, can only be saved by calling on the name of Jesus," meaning that only Christians can possibly be saved; and more. PensiveHapax (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I would like to note that not "all other bios" have a controversy section. I've reworked a lot of the article to remove bias. He is a controversial figure, and I do support referencing that with sources. If nothing else, we could include the financial controversy that is referenced in one of the sources already used in the article [1]. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding: "The central claims of the book were endorsed by Archbishop Carlo Viganò." The support for that claim in the reference has Vigano saying only "you may find some indication of this process there", in the book Infiltration. That "central claims" assertion should be removed as the Archbishop does not make any such endorsement, nor does he discuss the central claims of the book in any length. Also, the "received media attention for publicizing an incident" paragraph should be removed as Marshall's involvement is not noteworthy. He was not involved in the incident and simply publicized it. And a controversy section is justified for this bio as Dr. Marshall has generated controversy of the years by his work. PensiveHapax (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Possible NPOV/BLP editing

 Administrator note It appears that there has been some non-NPOV editing that may also constitute a BLP vio. Further this is getting some attention off-wiki. I would encourage editors watching this page to be aware of this and keep an eye out for potentially disruptive editing. If this becomes an issue going forward page protection can be applied. Thanks to everyone watching and working on this page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Multiple issues tag

Please do not remove the multiple tags unless other editors (aside from the creator and the usual editors of this page) do something to remove these tags. Thanks! —Allenjambalaya (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

What parts of the article seem to be from a fan point of view? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

When I checked the references, I found the "Marriage Archives" creepy. But I stand corrected. That was the name of the post of Taylor Marshall himself in his website. I thought there's too much quoting from his own webpage but since it's about personal life, the sources justify it. Read the article twice and I found that the lead can be shortened though with mentioning his being a former chancellor. —Allenjambalaya (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Jdcompguy (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Putting back the Fan POV tag. I can understand if Taylor Marshall is doing YouTube for living (like Pewdewpie) but too much personal information is put here that's it's creepy to know them all. The doctoral thesis is even put here. Why such attention to little details? This is Wikipedia. Keep it simple and don't be a creep.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Still not sure what the justification behind this is? "Creepy"? At least to me, I don't read a fan POV with this article. The only mention of a thesis I see is that of the theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar, not Marshall. His YouTube is part of his platform, as are his podcasts and books. It's public. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see where the dissertation is mentioned. Well, I did some re-editing (accidentally removed the tag, but please put it back if you feel it is still needed). But I think that should suffice. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Wow! What a speedy response. Thanks Willthacheerleader18! But in fairness to the one who researched those details, if he's not Taylor Marshall or anyone close to him, that person sure knows how to research. Now, it's better.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 13:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Taylor Marshall

“Aus dem Englischen übersetzt-Taylor Reed Marshall ist ein amerikanischer katholischer Apologet, Schriftsteller, ehemaliger Akademiker und Produzent von Online-Inhalten, der für sein Eintreten für den traditionalistischen Katholizismus bekannt ist.”

As a native speaker of English long resident in Germany, I am familiar with the mistakes made by German translators in translating from English. I hope the following firstly amuses you and secondly leads to some corrections in the German Wikipedia. Since I well know what will happen if I write to the latter, I am writing to its parent.

1. The German word Akademiker means ‘University graduate’, not ‘tertiary teacher’ as it does in English, and it is possible to be an ehemaliger Akademiker only in the same sense as in ehemaliger Mensch ‘former human being’.

2. There is no such thing, in English or German, as ‘a traditionalistic Catholic’. Marshall, a former Anglican parson, is a convert into the sort of Catholicism that was universal when I was born, and he is known for his engagement on behalf of what is now called traditional Catholicism. It is a misuse of language to attach -istic to the adjective here; what is true is that the present pope and many of the bishops have departed, without openly saying so, from Catholicism; ‘by their fruits shall ye know them’, and the most prominent fruit (sit venia verbo) in recent times is Mr. McCarrick, the ex-cleric and disgraced Cardinal.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Allan

Self-published books

The works section was removed as all were self-published books. Self-published works are not notable enough to be cited on Wikipedia per WP:SPS & WP:RSSELF. Two sources in the text indicate that Saint Johns Press is directed by Marshall ([2] & [3]) so they are self-published. With only Infiltration left, which is already mentioned above, a section on books is unneeded. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 01:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the books list, as WP:SPS applies to citations, not lists of works. Marshall's self-published books would not be acceptable as sources, but they are being listed in a bibliography, not cited for their content. You would be correct to say that self-published books are not noteworthy enough to have their own articles, but as WP:NNC states, "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists." The attribute of notability applies to Marshall himself, not his self-published works. But because Marshall is a "notable" author, a bibliography is appropriate, as WP:LOW states: "Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists. The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles." Jdcompguy (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

But the question of a book being listed is whether that book is noteworthy. A self-published book is not noteworthy. Many people who have written books do not have a bibliography section and a bibliography section usually only includes books published by publishers of some note (notable enough for their own WP page). WP:SPS says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." The source of the book is the publisher, but the publisher is WP:SPS. There is a a large space between a book that gets its own page and one that is not worthy of being in a list like that per WP:LOW. I think Infiltration clearly fits in that space: it does not deserve a separate page from Marshall, but it could be included in a list of works with other works, but given it is the only non-self-published work and already has a paragraph of the article, there is no need to list it again. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 02:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I don't see the policy argument against listing these titles. Of course they are not suitable as sources, but there are plenty of independent sources that verify that they are published works. Thus the fact of their existence is verifiable. There may also be reliable sources as to their content and validity or naivity of argumentation. Given this is a prolific, well-known, but largely self-promoted individual, I would think that a reader would be best served by (a) presenting a list of self-published works (helping the reader understand that this is a self-publishing and sel-promoting author) and (b) ensuring that there is sufficient space given to other people's analysis of his views and works, if they can be found, and again to give context as to who his critics and supporters are.

In terms of which of the books are 'noteworthy' – how much attention they have received is probably a better indicator; for instance, reviews, evidence of sales, etc. While self-publication may undermine a book as a source, notability of a book must surely be related to the influence it has had, whether deserved or not.

If not presented as a list, perhaps a paragraph outlining the main or most successful self-published titles and their topics etc would be a reasonable way to outline his activities. At the moment, there is mention of his self-published Youtube channel and commentary, but nothing about his (self-published) books, which presumably form a lot of his activity, influence and output. --Jim Killock (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to start an edit war, but I'm going to re-add the books. It's a list of books (and a relatively short list at that), and they are noteworthy insofar as Taylor Marshall is a known author and those are his books. 73.133.224.40 (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

His Date of Birth

I can't find this anywhere. Any takers? 81.154.169.25 (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

All I could find for the date is this Facebook post of his. Veverve (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Pretty ironic considering he thinks "Jesus was born on 25th December and it matters" 81.154.168.160 (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Apparently, according to this livestream of his and his tweet, he is born on 29 March. Veverve (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Should it be added that he has expressed russophobic views

He called Russian leadership “criminal” and “cruel”. He also stated that the Russians manipulate Christianity “for power and money”.

- Dr. Taylor Marshall Podcast Episode 787 Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

What's the source you've got for that? A podcast?לילך5 (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

[[4]] It’s the podcast he runs. It’s an episode from his podcast (Taylor Marshall show). Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Episode 787

https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/21273ac7-da6b-4794-ac25-d2fc9a851f0b/episodes/4fd70e8e-de24-47f1-a4b9-bfc6cc36447f/dr-taylor-marshall-catholic-show-787-vigan%C3%B2-fatima-russia-and-ukraine-%E2%80%93-is-he-right-podcast Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Solidarityandfreedom: That's extremely bad original research and misuse of primary sources on a biography of a living person. Unless you muster a source that explicitly declares TM or his comments "russophobic", any insertion of that material into the article would be a severe violation of WP practice. Consider this a forceful no from me on this question. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, assuming Marshall didn't call himself "russophobic", it is really bad to use that.לילך5 (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

vandalism

There has been a lot of vandalism added most very awesome. I don't know if this has been a problem before but if it keeps up it might be good to lock it 96.224.194.11 (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)