Talk:Robert Barron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Style[edit]

What is the basis for the style "Very Reverend"? As far as I can see Fr Barron is neither a canon nor an honorary chaplain to his Holiness. Mark.hamid (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

According to reliable sources such as usml.edu bio and archdiocese of Milwaukee. It would seem he is entitled to this style as Rector of the seminary, to which he was appointed in 2012. Elizium23 (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
At this time after his appointment, Barron is already entitled to the style "Most Reverend", that is if BigLabs87 (talk · contribs) will stop warring to keep it out. However, Barron is not yet a bishop, and so use of the infobox is inappropriate. Elizium23 (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent NPOV language[edit]

@BrandonVogt1225: I noticed you just made a significant modification to the lede and other parts of the article, while noting in your edit summary that you were an assistant of Bishop Barron. First of all, welcome to Wikipedia. Second, there are a number of policies that Wikipedia content must abide by, including having a neutral point of view, not using original research, and not using puffery. Much of your contribution was beneficial (if additional citations are added), but much of it violated these policies. I would advise that you rework your additions so that they are not in violation of Wikipedia's policies, otherwise they will be reverted. If you have specific questions about whether something violates a Wikipedia policy, feel free to ask. Ergo Sum 20:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: Thanks! Really helpful. I definitely don't want to violate any Wikipedia rules. But when you say "much of it violated these policies," can you get more specific? I'd be happy to remove those portions or rework to meet the rules. Thanks again!
@BrandonVogt1225: What I had in mind particularly was the tone of the language added to the lede, which is replicated elsewhere. The information added is without citations, which makes it unverifiable. Wikipedia's standard of verifiability is heightened for biographies of living persons, so having inline citations to support the claims is especially important. Moreover, per WP:NPOV, the tone of some of the language may be excessively flattering, and can be rephrased in a more neutral tone. Ergo Sum 20:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ergo Sum: That makes sense. I'll review all that. Also, how can I can add an up-to-date photo? I tried to add one of the headshots from our press kit (we own the copyrights to all those photos) but it was rejected for copyright reasons? Not sure what to do. Thanks!
@BrandonVogt1225: Yes, you're right; the photo was removed for copyright reasons. Since the image(s) you're trying to upload are unfree (subject to copyright), you'll need to release the rights to them under a license of your choice (See more here) in order for them to be used across the Wikimedia projects. You can do that here (more information available here). Once you release the images under your choice of acceptable licenses, it will be able to be used by anyone, subject to the stipulations of the license, across the Wikimedia projects. Ergo Sum 20:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 26 May 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: move as primary topic (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


Robert Barron (bishop)Robert Barron – Should have leveled WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by now? While disambiguating destination article. PPEMES (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Support move. The only other Robert Barron article with daily views close to Robert Barron (bishop) is Robert V. Barron, which seems to average about half or less than half of the bishop's views. Ergo Sum 19:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Support per Ergo Sum. The Bishop's internet outreach has probably made himself the primary topic. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Support according to the pageviews, the bishop got over 88% of the pageviews in the last year. This is the primary topic.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Support per Ergo Sum. Recentism does not apply when the main opposition is a character actor known for one movie role and the other two are completely unknown, naturally bishops tend to have the long term significance. The actor will keep the V. disambig anyway, so it won't affect anything. GuzzyG (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.