Talk:Joseph W. Tobin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Michigan (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Re: Episcopal career[edit]

I find "Tobin will be responsible for the Apostolic Visitation of American nuns, expected to end in late 2011". 2011 is now past, so this remark needs to be updated.

Vigano statement[edit]

@Display name 99 requested a third opinion. A prerequisite for this process is that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. There appears to be literally no talk page discussion about this issue. I suggest you start with that.

Third opinion[edit]

Bovlb (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by PluniaZ (talk · contribs)
The removed material in this diff states an opinionated conclusion in Wikipedia's voice: "X is consistent with Y." This violates WP:IMPARTIAL. Even if the phrase were rewritten to say, "Dan Hitchens, deputy editor of the Catholic Herald, believes that the evidence is consistent with Vigano's testimony", that would still violate WP:UNDUE, as Dan Hitchens is just one of thousands of opinion commentators around the world, and his opinion alone should frankly carry zero weight in a biography of a living person, where we are forbidden from even mentioning the views of small minorities - see WP:BLPBALANCE. Also, the source does not say that the evidence is consistent with Vigano's testimony. It says, "The facts are, at least, not inconsistent with Viganò’s allegation." That is nothing but weasel words from an opinion column. Finally, the underlying evidence is extremely sketchy. The linked source's evidence for the claim is a single tweet by a self-publishing blogger, who bases his claims on "2 sources w/direct knowledge." Two unnamed sources. If anything, the entire paragraph should be removed from this article. --PluniaZ (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Viewpoint by (name here)
....
Third opinion by Bovlb
Well, the "third opinion" process is supposed to mediate a content dispute between `two` editors, and I'm only hearing from one here, although the original requestor is apparently still editing. My conclusion is that I don't see anything wrong with PLuniaZ's reasoning here. Bovlb (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Removing material based on self-published source[edit]

WP:BLPSPS states the following:

"Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.[2] See § Images below for our policy on self-published images."

The claim that McCarrick recommended Tobin to be Archbishop of Newark is based solely on a tweet from blogger Rocco Palmo. Dan Hitchens is the Deputy Editor of the Catholic Herald and writes opinion columns with a bias against clergy whom he perceives to be too liberal. Hitchens relies solely on Rocco's one tweet for his claim that McCarrick recommended Tobin. This is gossip per WP:BLPGOSSIP. Per WP:BLPREMOVE:

"Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that:
1. is unsourced or poorly sourced;
2. is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see No original research);
3. relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see #Using the subject as a self-published source); or
4. relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards."

Accordingly, I am immediately removing all references to Rocco Palmo's tweet from the article. If you disagree, please state your reasons here. Note that per WP:BLPREMOVE, the three-revert rule does not apply to the removal of this material. --PluniaZ (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)