Talk:John J. Myers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

The following entry was removed from article section Controversies as it is neither an accusation (as claimed) nor do the sources - one actually an editorial blog, the other a traditionalist online-journal - even claim that Myers knew of Templetons „lifestyle“ when he gave him the title Monsignor.

-- In the Newark Archdiocese, Father Robert E. Templeton, Executive Director of the Archdiocesan Office of Clergy Personnel, announced in May 1995 that he was leaving priestly ministry because he was pursuing a homosexual lifestyle. His departure came one month after after he was made a Monsignor.<ref>Catholic World News: [http://www.cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm?task=singledisplay&recnum=2786 Quis custodiet...], ''Off the record'', June 13, 2005</ref><ref>Thomas A. Droleskey: [http://www.christorchaos.com/LeadingtheLittleOnesAstray.htm Leading the Little Ones Astray], ''Christ Or Chaos.com'', June 20, 2005</ref>

--Túrelio 16:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 07:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed content[edit]

While this is clearly sensitive, if it can be strongly sourced, this information might be something we want to keep. I stress strongly sourced - please do not re-add this information until it is solid! – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worse yet, I have severe concerns that this information, even with one source that may not pass WP:RS scrutiny, was removed by a user with a name suspiciously similar to that of the Director of Communications of the Archdiocese. Should be restored for WP:COI issues. Jim Miller (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I (and others) have re-removed this section. The quality of the sourcing is almost irrelevant - the principle concerns surround neutral point of view and smearing by association. CIreland (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the deletion last week, and I should not have. I only did it because there was no discussion or comment left that justified the removal, plus the WP:COI issues I noted above (which is still a problem). While the Dallas Morning News is a legitimate source, the other source used just does not pass WP:RS. Jim Miller (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected the page for a while. Given the opinions here and at WP:BLPN it was fairly obvious that the material could not remain in the existing form. If someone figures out how to redo at least the DMN sourced stuff, and do it in an NPOV way, then great. But as I said at BLPN, I wish anyone attempting that luck, as they will need it. It will not be an easy thing to do, if it's even possible. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting that you remove the semi-protected status from John J. Myers page so the content can be reinserted. The person removing the content is JGoodness. If you go to his profile he clearly identifies himself as the Director of Communications for the Archdiocese of Newark. He states his "sole reason" for maintaining a Wikipedia ID is to "ensure that innaccurate information and vandalism does not occur to wikipedia listings of Archdiocesan institutions or personnel". In other words he is a censor. The deleted paragraph contains strong, legitimate sources. This is not vandalism. Archbishop Myers is a public figure and one who has been involved in great controversy on a national scale (i.e. when he said politicians who support abortion should be denied communsion). Although Mr. Goodness would have us believe otherwise, there have been negative aspects to Archbishop Myers tenure in the public light. It should be the duty of all Wikipedians to encourage the free flow of information and discourage censorship. If there is any act of vandalism here it is in Mr. Goodness' continued deletions of cited and corroborated material. Again, I would ask the restriction be removed from the page and I would also ask what the process is to officially request Mr. Goodness be banned as a chronic vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpfsr (talk • contribs) 21:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As others have said, this has been discussed at WP:COIN and WP:BLPN, and the consensus is that removal of the material by JGoodness was justified. Firstly, editors with a personal connection are allowed within conflict of interest guidelines to remove unsupported defamatory material. Secondly, the section in question was clear WP:SYNTH - original synthesis - of sources selected to advance a hostile position. Remember Wikipedia is not a soapbox and that No personal attacks is a policy here (see [1]) Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be kind enough to supply the links to those discussion because I have looked and cannot find them. None of what you are saying makes sense. How could there be a greater conflict of interest than that of Mr. Goodness? His JOB is to make the Archdiocese look good. I don't see how you argue original sythesis when all that was cited was from reliable sources such as the Dallas Morning News and the Peoria Press. I should think the editors of those newspapers would disagree with your assesment that they are not legitimate, citeable sources. Finally, the only person being given a soapbox here is Mr. Goodness by way of ommission of facts. Public figures do occasionally do things other people may not agree with, and it is the right of others to know about it. Archbishop Myers was involved in the sex scandal and did transfer pedophile priests. That is not only fact, it is verifiable fact. No judgement was passed on those reports, they were merely reported here. If your reasoning were to be taken literally should I not go right from here to Bill Clinton's page and remove all reference to Monica Lewinski, or to Vito Fosella's page to remove all reference to his getting arrested for DUI? Mr. Goodness is determined to delete any reference - especially factual references - to the controversial parts of Archbishop Myers' public career, while leaving in place only the nice rosy things. That is censorship and until you can explain the difference between reporting on the Archbishop and reporting on any other public figure I have to believe you are supporting that censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.80.184 (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the links:
Now read and digest WP:SYNTH - that is, Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. This explains how Wikipedia's No original research policy also forbids spinning a story by collecting evidence to push a particular viewpoint, even if each individual piece is verifiable - and that was what the removed section did. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would hardly call those discussions as one has two posts and the other four, including one from Mr. Goodness. That being said, can somebody direct me to the guidelines for posting this material? My opinion is that Mr. Goodness is engaged in vandalous activity and will delete any unfavorable references to the Archbishop no matter how factual they are. His profile here basically confirms that. His is classic WP:COI . Archbishop Myers is a public figure and as such the public deserves to know about actions he engaged in, even if Mr. Goodness feels we are not entitled to that information. The Catholic Church Sex Scandal was an international story and Archbishop Myers was involved. He did transfer at least two priests accused of sexual crimes as reported in the Dallas Morning News and Peoria Press. Archbishop Myers denies wrongdoing but that does not give Mr. Goodness the right to delete the references. Further Mr. Goodness provided false information in his BLPN post. He states "The writers who placed these items in here are, indeed, involved in legal action against the Archdiocese". I challenge Mr. Goodness to provide the names of those "writers" and list the docket numbers here. He cannot because I am the writer and I have no pending action against the Archdiocese or anybody connected to it. I repeat my contention, Mr. Goodness is a professional censor who is employed by the Archdiocese of Newark. He should be strictly prohibited from censoring information concerning the Archdiocese. And I, or anybody else, should be allowed to post unfavorable information about Archbishop Myers provided it is factual and verifiable, which indeed the information I posted was. To that end I have a question; if I posted the information about Archbishop Myers' involvement in the sex scandal in a more neutral way would Mr. Goodness still be permitted to delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpfsr (talk • contribs) 03:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latest edits: Star-Ledger quote[edit]

I have repeatedly warned this editor about how his contributions should be originally written or significantly modified paraphrases of source material, and that the material added to the subsection on the financial scandal needs to pass the test of WP:DUE coverage. He has ignored my warnings and has now commenced edit-warring to keep it in. I suspect that an agenda is being followed here, and since this is a biography of a living person we need to scrupulously avoid advancing agendas using this article as a WP:COATRACK for grievances. Elizium23 (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another edit in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Please -stop- and -discuss- rather than continuing to edit. Elizium23 (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessary to use a pull quote from every article, but I don't see anything wrong with mentioning the juxtaposition reliable sources have made of Pope Francis's spartan standards and the living conditions of some bishops. It's not only been covered in his diocese and the immediate area, either; he's brought up as an example in multiple stories from outside the area, generally those covering Tebartz-van Elst (and Gregory). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree. But making the same point in three paragraphs is infinging on WP:UNDUE. Elizium23 (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on John J. Myers. 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:

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) 01:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John J. Myers. 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:

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) 09:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_J._Myers&oldid=1208374997"