User talk:Patapsco913/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Proposed deletion of Douglas W. Shorenstein

The article Douglas W. Shorenstein has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Robert J. Ivanhoe for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert J. Ivanhoe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert J. Ivanhoe until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Ways to improve Miguel de Poblete Casasola

Hi, I'm AirCombat. Patapsco913, thanks for creating Miguel de Poblete Casasola!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Hi there! I wanted to thank you for starting a new article -- it looks good! However, it's best not to rely on a single source. Once you've added more than one source, feel free to remove the tag I added. Thanks!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Air ♠ Combat What'sup, dog? 00:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Felix Siauw

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Felix Siauw requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 05:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Felix Siauw

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Felix Siauw, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a foreign language article that was copied and pasted from another Wikimedia project, or was transwikied out to another project. Please see Wikipedia:Translation to learn about requests for, and coordination of, translations from foreign-language Wikipedias into English.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 05:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Patapsco913. You have new messages at CatcherStorm's talk page.
Message added 05:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 05:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Pedro Luis Manso Zuñiga) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Pedro Luis Manso Zuñiga, Patapsco913!

Wikipedia editor MB298 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good article. MB298 (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on MB298's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.


Unreliable sources added

Hello. I noticed you have added some reference links to gcatholic.org and catholic-hierarchy.org. These are not acceptable sources under Wikipedia policy. They are WP:USERG and WP:SPS and therefore cannot be considered reliable for use as a reference. They may possibly be acceptable only as "external links" in that section of an article. Please do not re-add them to any article as I remove them from the ones you have already created. JoeHebda (talk · contribs) might want to comment further on this issue. Elizium23 (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering where it was determined that these sources are unreliable. Sandro Magister lists it as a recommended website (http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/chiesa_web?refresh_ce Diocesi e vescovi. Il chi è della gerarchia cattolica nel mondo. A cura di David M. Cheney, in inglese) I look on the the wikipages for other languages and both Catholic Hierarchy and GCatholic are being used everywhere. Anyhow, I can understand the self-published designation and I notice that JoeHebda did not remove the references to Catholic Hierarchy but just designated them as self-published (and he did not add such designation to GCatholic).Patapsco913 (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
For starters, catholic-hierarchy.org lists the date of appointment as when a bishop took possession of a see, and that's a clear violation of Canon Law; bishops take possession when they are installed, not appointed. So we have a clear example of systemic error. catholic-hierarchy is a website run by one guy, Dcheney (talk · contribs) (David Cheney), and there is no "editorial oversight or reputation for fact-checking" which is required by WP:RS policy. Essentially, GCatholic just parrots whatever is found on catholic-hierarchy, so it's even worse. You can go to WP:RSN if you wish to debate the issue, I'd be happy to have a decision made once and for all so that we can get rid of these bad sources. Elizium23 (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
It sounds like your mind is already made up. Anyhow, I am not sure what you mean. I look at the website and its states different dates for when they were appointed, installed, and ordained. Many academic books use catholic.hierarchy.org as a reference for Church statistics, many churches and even some dioceses list it as a recommended website, and church commentators such as John L. Allen, Jr., Rocco Palmo, and Sandro Magister also name it.Patapsco913 (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


Use correct apostophe

In Juan d'Espinar, you use the incorrect apostrophe. This is the 2nd article in a week. Per MOS:PUNCT, one should you straight or typewriter apostrophes. I've already moved and corrected the article. Bgwhite (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musalyar

Please report IP 117.219.129.30 for vandalizing the above page. --Prof TPMS (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


Have you considered WP:Autopatrolled?

Information icon I notice that you create a large number of new articles. Have you considered requesting the autopatrolled userright? This permission would cause all your new articles to be automatically be marked as "patrolled" on the new pages feed, saving new page patrollers considerable work. If you are interested, you can request the userright at WP:RFP/A. Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Patapsco913, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Swarm ♠ 22:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


About catholic-hierarchy.org

Sorry,that I missed your post about the site.What did actually happen after the discussion? Is it reliable or not? These people are crazy. The Catholic church itself does not maintain any source about the matter of the hierarchy, so there are not many choices as sources about the past events. We can use this site or GigaCatholic only. For the present events we can cite the daily bulletin of the Holly See, but for the past.... Sorry if my message is off-topic. Drjmarkov (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Drjmarkov. The vast majority deemed the site to be as reliable as the original sources that it uses; although if there are biographical articles that are specific to the subject, we should emphasize those. The biggest concern was that they are self-published; but given their high levels of accuracy (which was the consensus of the posters) and use by many outside entities (including many Catholic entities), they fall under the expert content exception. Generally, I use both of them to start the wiki article and then the idea is that we can later flesh it out with additional information if available.Patapsco913 (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


Links

Hi, I just wanted to explain why I deleted those links: Do you think that it is good to put direct links to ISIS propaganda in encyclopedic articles? Regards, 18:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Wikipedia reports the facts. If ISIS is stating an opinion that is relevant to the article, then we need to include it in the article with the citation. The readers can read the source and decide for themselves. The last thing Wikipedia needs to do is to start to censor sources.Patapsco913 (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@Patapsco913: No, I didn't say that WP shouldn't report the facts, or that we should censor them (in this case, the facts are that ISIS considers X to be an apostate), rather I said that we shouldn't give a link to the Dabiq magazine since 1) it isn't necessary, 2) that would help propagate ISIS propaganda and WP isn't a propaganda website 3) here the quote is already sufficient for the reader "to decide for himself". 18:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
We have the link so we should use it. That is the only way that people can verify the exact assertion made. The detailed quotes I previously added provided their reasoning but you removed them. Wikipedia is not in the business of picking and choosing what is propaganda. We are not using Dabiq to support facts but solely to represent their opinion and that is why it is necessary.Patapsco913 (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@Patapsco913: "That is the only way that people can verify the exact assertion made" [emphasis added], this is unquestionably erroneous, people can search for themselves the relevant issue of the Dabiq mag if they really wanted to verify that, providing the Dabiq link is in itself redundant, just as one does not ought to provide a link to a PDF of any peer-reviewed paper that was cited in a given article.
19:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
I am not sure what you are saying. If we have the link, we should provide it; that is Wikipedia policy. Facts that are added need to be verified and providing the link easily allows one to do so. Why else would Wikipedia have links in their citations?Patapsco913 (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@Patapsco913: Could you provide a link to a page where the WP policy that says "links should be included as much as possible and in all circumstances" is mentioned therein?
20:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
Could you provide a link to a page where the WP policy states that even if we have an online link, that we should not provide it? It goes to verifiability. ISIS made an assertion; I included the assertion with a quote explaining their rationale. You removed the quote and removed the wikilink. Without the link, you make it harder for viewers to verify. Verification is the key to what makes Wikipedia work. Patapsco913 (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Patapsco913: I didn't remove the quote, I only shortened it. The quote in itself is enough for verification purposes, one may do more search to find the PDF version of that magazine, but including it directly is what is objectionable, recall my 3 points above. 20:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

You should probably start up a discussion on the talk page for say Hamza Yusuf and see what others have to say. Just because we do not like the content in Dabiq magazine does not mean that we should exclude it especially as it refers to its opinion. I would argue that the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide all viewpoints, even those we disagree with; which requires that they be verifiable.Patapsco913 (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@Patapsco913: As I said times and times again, my point was not to censor information, or to not include all relevant viewpoints, rather I was arguing that a link to the Dabiq magazine shouldn't be added there. Okay, I'll post it in the talk to see what others have to say. Thanks for your patience. 20:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Kyle Bass

Greetings- I am reaching out based on your recent edits to hedge fund and hedge fund-related pages. I have a few suggested edits to help improve the content of Kyle Bass BLP page and wanted to see if you would be able to assist.

My name is Steele and I work at Hayman Capital Management, L.P., which was founded by J. Kyle Bass in 2005. My goal is to serve as a resource in support of Wikipedia’s three core content policies. I will not be making edits, but rather participating in the community discussions. SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Frederick P. Rose into Daniel Rose (real estate developer). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Will do. cheersPatapsco913 (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment/editing: Bruce Heyman

Hey there Patapsco913 - I recently posted some cited information about U.S. Ambassador to Canada Bruce Heyman on his article's talk page, with the hope that an editor might want to look it over/incorporate some it into the article. I do work for the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa, which is why I do not wish to simply add the info to the article myself (we do want to honor Wikipedia's guidelines about conflict of interest/bias). Having noticed that you've edited his page in the past, I'm wondering if you'd be willing pop over there and give it a look? Even just a comment or some recommendations on how to proceed would be very helpful, as I am new to Wikipedia and know that there are sensitivities around credible editing. Thanks! ThorneEA613 (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

3RR on Islamic Online University

It looks you're close to hitting WP:3RR on Islamic Online University. You're in a content dispute, work it out on the talk page. shoy (reactions) 19:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I stopped at 2 edits but he went on to do 4; and does not really want to talk on the talk page.Patapsco913 (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


O.A.R.

A couple of observations on O.A.R. - first, there is already a disambiguation page at OAR. Second, please see WP:FIXDABLINKS. Third, it looks likely to me that the band is the primary topic for the form of the abbreviation with periods. I don't see any evidence that this is a common form of referring to the religious order at all. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I was reverting the disambiguation links for O.A.R.; I though that is what I was supposed to do.Patapsco913 (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry about the dablinks (I fixed most of them). But O.A.R. with the periods (postnominals) is the formal means of referring to the religious order which has been around since the 1500s. If you look at Order of Preachers, Order of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mercy...etc or at List of Catholic religious institutes you'll see they use the periods. There are numerous wikipages using O.A.R. in the religious order sense which you can see if you extend the search term to 500 count and search for the word bishop (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&profile=default&search=O.A.R.&searchToken=dhbb54zpdbh759fs5vkg1vse7) There is also a wiki template

Vatican:

GCatholic

Catholic Hierarchy

US Conference of Catholic Bishops

Catholic New York:

Catholic Net

http://blog.cancaonova.com/padrejoaozinho/2010/12/09/conheca-as-siglas-das-congregacoes-religiosas/

www.provinciasannicolas.org/docs/9874.pdf

I can get more support if needed.Patapsco913 (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


Linda Greenhouse

Sorry, I still think it's not good enough. (She was quoted about a Jewish school organisation in what is basically a primary source. The context and content of the quote suggest that she is Jewish, but I think making that link ourselves amounts to synthesis.) I did a bit of Googling the first time you added the claim, and couldn't find any major source saying she is Jewish. Given the above and the fact that whether she is Jewish has basically no bearing on the work she is known for, can we just leave it out? Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 06:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


Categorising categories

Hello. You're obviously working hard on the bishops. Can I just ask you to do one thing - make sure that when you create a category, you make sure to apply categories to it in turn. A category can only be found by other people if it is slotted into the hierarchy of other categories, here's an example. Cheers. Le Deluge (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

PS I've just come across Category:Oratorian bishops. The article at Oratorian is a disambiguation page to several different kinds, which suggests the category should be renamed (via a Speedy rename) to something more specific. Le Deluge (talk) 08:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


Please stop

Please stop adding Catholic-Hierarchy.org and GCatholic as "sources". They are self-published without editorial oversight or a reputation for fact-checking, and as such, are not usable as reliable secondary sources. Elizium23 (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

why did you not make your case when catholic hierarchy was being discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard. The consensus was that it was reliable as evidenced by its use by countless Catholic organizations as such even the Vatican. You never followed up with specific examples of why it was unreliable. The reason I brought up the discussion was because of your concerns and you gave up talking when the consensus went against you.Patapsco913 (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion was as follows.

catholic-hierarchy.org

Hi, I added some information to a website and provided a source to www.catholic-hierarchy.org. I was told do not re-add the references since it was unreliable and if I disagree to make my case here. all the entries were either biographies of long deceased Roman Catholic bishops or listings of bishops on the diocese/archdiocese wikipage. This website has been used for years on English Wikipedia and has not been questioned by its contributors; and there are literally 1000s of Wikipedia articles using the reference. It is also heavily used by Wikipedia in other languages.

The reason for the removal is non-reliable source which I disagree with as there is ample support on the internet that it is reliable. It is also self-published but as I read it " Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." So I went out to get a variety of sources that cite the website which I would include sufficient third party publications. Thanks for your consideration.

catholic-hierarchy.org is recommended by several archdioceses and archdioceses and referenced by Vatican Radio

Several prominent Catholic church watchers and journalists have used catholic-hierarchy.org as a reference including:

Various libraries and similar organizations list catholic-hierarchy.org as a reference

Mainstream newspapers cite catholic-hierarchy.org as a resource

Catholic newspapers list catholic-hierarchy.org as a reference

Numerous books cite catholic-hierarchy.org in their bibliography

  • [5] The Next Pope By Anura Guruge
  • [6] The Virgin Mary and Catholic Identities in Chinese History By Jeremy Clarke
  • [7] Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices : Six Volumes by J. Gordon Melton and Martin Baumann
  • [8] Two Texts By Edward Everett Hale by Edward Everett Hale, Hsuan L. Hsu, Susan Kalter
  • [9] Uncertain Honor: Modern Motherhood in an African Crisis By Jennifer Johnson-Hanks
  • [10] Religion and Post-Conflict Statebuilding: Roman Catholic and Sunni Islamic Perspectives (Palgrave Studies in Compromise) Mar 4, 2015 by Denis Dragovi
  • [11] Imagining the Creole City : The Rise of Literary Culture in Nineteenth-Century New Orleans by Rien Fertel
  • [12] Church Confronts Modernity: Catholicism since 1950 in the United States, Ireland, and Quebec / Edition 1 - by Leslie Woodcock Tentler
  • [13] The Encyclopedia of Caribbean Religions: Volume 1: A-L; Volume 2: M-Z by Patrick Taylor
  • [14] Charity and the Great Hunger in Ireland: The Kindness of Strangers by Christine Kinealy
  • [15] Democracy, Culture, Catholicism: Voices from Four Continents edited by Michael Schuck, John Crowley-Buck
  • [16] Mission, Communion and Relationship: A Roman Catholic Response to the Crisis of Male Youths in Africa Mission, Communion and Relationship: A Roman Catholic Response to the Crisis of Male Youths in Africa by Peter Addai-Mensah
  • PLOS
  • [17] Diplomatic Missions of the Holy See in Hungary and East-Central Europe after theSecond World War by Margit BALOGH
  • [18] University of Southern California: "WHY IS THE NUMBER OF CATHOLIC PRIESTS DIMINISHING IN PORTUGAL? ANALYSIS OF THE PERIOD 1960-2002 MOURAO, Paulo R.
  • [19] Light a Candle. Encounters and Friendship with China. Festschrift in Honour of Angelo S. Lazzarotto P.I.M.E. Edited by Roman MALEK and Gianni CRIVELLER. (Collectanea Serica). Sankt Augustin, Institut Monumenta Serica; Nettetal, Steyler Verlag, 2010. viii+564 pp.
  • [20] To Whom Does Christianity Belong?: Critical Issues in World Christianity By Dyron B. Daughrity
  • [21] The Changing World Religion Map: Sacred Places, Identities, Practices and Politics Feb 3, 2015 by Stanley D. Brunn
  • [22] Eine Marienerscheinung in Zeiten der Diktatur: der Konflikt um Peñablanca By Oliver Grasmück

Numerous Catholic churches and schools cite catholic-hierarchy.org as a resource

  • [23] Archdiocese of Washington uses it as a resource for student assignments
  • [24] Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Westminister: "Obtaining Proof of Membership of the Catholic Church – Guidance for Schools"
  • [25] RC Church of Christ the King recommended websites
  • [26] Catholic Family News: "Dangerous Synod Proposal: New Language” for Natural Law" by John Vennari
  • [27] St Brendan the Navigator Parish recommended websites
  • [28] St Mary of the Desert Catholic Church recommended websites
  • Catholic Parish of St Gregory the Great recommended websites
  • [29] St Paul the Apostle Catholic Church recommended websites
  • [30] Our Lady of Mercy Church recommended websites
  • [31] St Pascal Church recommended websites
  • [32] St Paul Catholic Church recommended websites
  • [33] St Thomas Benedictine Abbey Kappadu recommended websites
  • [34] Sacred hearts of Jesus and Mary recommended websites
  • [35] Carmelites of Mary Immaculate recommended websites
  • [36] Holy Family Parish in Poland Ohio recommended websites
  • [37] St Mary of the Immaculate Conception Greenville recommended websites
  • [38] Blessed Sacrament Church of Buffalo recommended websites
  • [39] St Alphonsa Catholic Church recommended websites
  • [40] St Charles Borromeo Parish and School recommended websites
  • [41] Good Shepherd Parish recommended websites
  • [42] Claretian Missionaires Sri Lanka recommended websites
  • [43] Catholic Parish of Ivanhoe recommended websites
  • [44] The Catholic Community of Our Lady of Fatima recommended websites
  • [45] RC Church of Christ the King
  • [46] St Pius Parish bulletin
  • [47] St Francis Cathedral bulletin
  • [48] St Christopher Church recommended websites
  • [49] St Mary's Parish - Navan Ireland recommended websites
  • [50] Saint John Neuman Sunbury recommended websites
  • [51] Diocese of Plymouth: "Churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Plymouth An Architectural and Historical Review"
  • [52] St Joseph de Clairval Abbey in Flavigny Links
  • [53] St Hugh of Lincoln references it in a biography
  • [54] St William Catholic Church spiritual links
The website is actually named catholic-hierarchy.org. I have changed the topic thread to match. The reasons it is not acceptable on Wikipedia, as I have told Patapsco913, are manifold: (1) it is WP:USERG user-generated content. (2) it is a WP:SPS run by one guy, Dcheney (talk · contribs), with no "editorial oversight or reputation for fact-checking." (3) it has been proven inaccurate on many occasions, as it puts bishops in their sees after appointment rather than upon installation, in violation of Canon Law procedure. Elizium23 (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Technically, Elizium, that is not a violation of canon law. Instead, it is a difference between appointment and possession, which is rightly illustrated on the website. The Holy See website (http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino.html) announces the appointment of the new bishop, and the diocese announces the date of the ceremonies of canonical possession and installation. This is true from the smallest diocese to the Diocese of Rome.Vlaams243 (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I cannot believe that all these Catholic churches and dioceses would use a webpage that is so horribly unreliable. The Archdiocese of Chicago lists it as one of four references on the page above. If it is seen as a good reference by the Catholic Church about the Catholic Church then we should use it on Wikipedia. It by and large only lists the names and terms of long-deceased bishops, the time line of various dioceses, and Catholic populations in those dioceses. John L. Allen, Jr. and Sandro Magister are top journalists regarding the Catholic church. I would think that they would investigate it before using it as a reference. The rule says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." There seem to be enough reliable third party publications. Anyhow, where has it been proven false in a reliable third party source?Patapsco913 (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter, it fails the RS tests. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Catholic-Hierarchy.org is reliable and has a reputation for fact-checking based on the opinion of 1) the Catholic Church (as evidenced by all Archdiocese, Dioceses, and parishes that recommend it as a reliable source - and Vatican Radio even uses it); 2) the academic community (as evidenced by the numerous books and publications that use it as a reference); 3) the mainstream news community (Washington Post, Boston Globe) who use it as a reference; 4) prominent Catholic commentators (John L. Allen, Jr., Sandro Magister, Rocco Palmo) and canon lawyer (Edward N. Peters) who use it as a reference; and 5) Catholic institutions (Society of St Pius the X), university libraries (Stanford), and Catholic newspapers (The Tablet, National Catholic Reporter) who use it as a reference. So how does it fail?Patapsco913 (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

A source might be incredibly factually accurate, but that doesn't necessarily make it a reliable source for wikipedia. For instance, the WP articles about high-concept physics subjects tend to be extremely accurate and very detailed, but we can't use them as a source for other pages, because it's user generated content. It's a matter of verifiability, not truth. If that website provides its sources, however, you can probably use those. Don't just copy their citations though, check them out and verify them , first. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Patapsco913 (talk · contribs) has been busy making mass-postings to user talk pages to garner discussion on this thread. Patapsco, please limit your postings. Also, the text you have been using is not entirely neutral in tone. Elizium23 (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
There are somewhere between 3,500 and 4,000 wikipages that will be affected by this change - many that have been around for a long time - so I think it prudent that we should have as wide a discussion as possible. It should not be decided by five or six people.Patapsco913 (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not believe it is accurate to describe catholic-hierarchy.org as unreliable or user-generated content. It is the reporting of facts from other sources, organized in a convenient and hyperlinked manner. Furthermore, if you were to look at the Sources/Bibliography section of the website ([55]), you would notice sources such as the Annuario Pontificio Collection from 1914, 1921, 1924, 1927-1928, 1931, 1933, 1937-1938, 1941, 1949, 1950-1953, and 1955-2015. The Annuario Pontificio is the ultimate source for pages such as this, and cannot be considered unreliable. Vlaams243 (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

So I can start a blogspot site and use the New York Times and Washington Post as sources, that doesn't make my blog a reliable source by Wikipedia's definition. I think that's important to note here that we're not talking about YOUR definition of "reliable" but WIKIPEDIA's definition. Elizium23 (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Catholic-Hierarchy would fit Wikipedia's definition based on Wikipedia's Scholarship, Self-published sources, and Usage by other sources policies. Vlaams243 (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the reliability of the site, since it's just a bunch of lists anyway. It is simple and convenient, as Vlaams says. The same is true for GigaCatholic, which is often used as a source here (and which I actually find more useful than Catholic-Hierarchy). Is it literally unreliable? Are there mistakes in it? If it's accurately reporting the information from its own sources, what does it matter? We could use those sources instead, I suppose, but why? What is a reliable source in this case? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it makes chronic mistakes, as I explained above. It can't be trusted for the time a bishop takes possession of a diocese. Elizium23 (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Right, but is that a mistake introduced by Catholic-Hierarchy, or is the same information in its sources (whatever they may be?) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Even though this discussion is whether or not Catholic Hierarchy is reliable, I would like to report my activites for WikiProject Catholicism articles. Since I joined Wikipedia in April 2014, I have completed assessments on thousands of WikiProject Catholicism articles. Here's what I have been doing:

  • If Catholic Hierarchy is in the References section, I add the Self-published source template.
  • If the CH entry is in the External links section, the article is a Stub, I add the Self-published source template, hoping this may help another editor to find reliable sources elsewhere.
  • If the CH entry is in the External links section, the article is not a Stub, I delete the CH External link line.

* Opinion: From the perspective of a Wikipedia reader, it's my opinion that leaving this Self-published source template in place serves as a cautionary alert that the reference is not held to the same higher standard of a Reliable source. What would be helpful is a BOT that tags articles for every CH Reference with the Self-published source template. Regards,  JoeHebda (talk)  02:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thought - I have read, studied and used the Catholic hierarchy website for many years, and I have no doubt it is a reliable source. In fact, I know the information it contains is reliable because it all comes from the Catholic Statistical yearbook Annuario Pontificio published by the Roman Catholic Church itself. I own several copies of this yearbook for various years, and the data is accurate. The trouble comes from the fact that the Vatican sells the yearbook and as far as I know there is no open source for this data, or even an online, easily accessible version of it for data crunching or easy access. Thus a vacuum is formed and people use this website instead of the yearbook itself, which cost 60$ and is printed in Italian paperback only. I am too close to this to render a definitive opinion about the website, but for this to be a Reliable Source for Wikipedia, we must at the least have strict assurances that all the facts and data are straight from the yearbook the church itself publishes. Otherwise, we must rely on those who have copies of the yearbook for reliable sourcing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to acknowledge that I am the author/owner/whatever of the website in question and I would be happy to answer any questions in that regard. I have no opinion whether or not it should be cited in Wikipedia - that is for others to decide.--Dcheney (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I take the Catholic Hierarchy site to be a "reliable source" under our normal usage of that term. The description of its publishing process doesn't make me shift that opinion. It has been pointed out that it provides reference material, rather than "original research", and from an authoritative source. If, in effect, it is an online version of a print publication that we would accept, this discussion seems overblown. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  • This is a reliable source. It has a reputation for accuracy and attention to detail. Some people seek to apply the term too narrowly. We need to use it broadly so that Wikipedia can reflect the understandings of a large swath of the population not just those of jet set yuppies living in lofts in NYC and avoiding flyover country and distaining the political goals of people in Uganda and Nigeria.

I can make some general observations about Catholic Hierarchy, as well as GCatholic. They both are reliable as long as they are based on reliable sources. Not all their sources are reliable. They are certainly very useful and highly reliable with regard to the recent appointments (I mean recent two centuries or so). They clearly base their data on official sources such as Annuario Pontificio. But deeper in the past, the things go worse. Miranda's website is a source for many data about cardinals in Catholic Hierarchy and GCatholic. Miranda's website, for 20th and 21 century is based mainly on the official reports of the Holy See, the best possible sources. For the centuries 13th to 19th it is based mainly on the nine volumes of Hierarchia Catholica by Eubel, Ritzler and Gauchat, which is generally a good source, but its earliest volumes (13th to 16th century) contain many errors. And for the period before 13th century, Miranda's website is completely unreliable (basing on outdated sources and contradicting modern prosopographies of the cardinals). Since Miranda is a source also for Catholic Hierarchy and GCatholic, the same can be told about them. In conclusion, all three websites are reliable for the most recent centuries, but with every earlier century, they became less and less reliable. CarlosPn (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to agree with this - Giga Catholic seems to be better for older stuff, earlier than (say) the 17th century, but only as good as its sources, like Eubel, which is itself only as good as its sources (Gams, Lequien, whoever else). The Vatican doesn't actually keep lists of bishops of all its dioceses, so they don't really know anything more than we do, using the same sources. There are often academic works which will have more up-to-date lists for medieval bishops, and I suppose the same is true for other eras. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • This seems a far, far more reliable source on most of the articles that it references than anything else we have and discussions over the publishing process are interesting but beside the point. SPS is a sound guideline, but it shouldn't be dogma. I'd prefer that we'd refer to the sources underneath the site, but until then the site should be sufficient. JASpencer (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • One other note of clarification, although the Annuario Pontificio (AP) is a good resource, the lag in its publication means that it is not a good source for recent changes. For example, changes that occurred in 2015 will be included in AP 2016 - which will be published in the next month or two. Other official sources such as Acta Apostolicae Sedis can have an even longer lag time. --Dcheney (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I've used it for years and found it more accurate than many other blue-chip sources. JoeHebda makes a good observation; it's reliable but it may be worthwhile to note that it's a self-published source. Majoreditor (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Reliable Source does not mean 100%, 100% of the time; it means well-researched and non-self-referential source. All sources for most bishops before 1300 are pretty uncertain; every modern iteration has to pick one. If he picked 2nd best, argue he isn't reliable for bishops before 1300 or something like that. For 1600 on, all he's done is collect various divergent sources such as the Annuario Pontificio into an accessible format. I'm not a good enough Church history expert to know sourcing for ancient bishops so I leave this aside. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

There are several things to consider here. 1st, the number of references to it by experts of various types in the field seem to overcome the issue of WP:SPS. For a large part it isn't WP:SPS in the sense of WP:NOR as he is more of an editor/compiler of existing content than an originator. Tons of web content relies on a single editor and making all single-editor content fall under WP:SPS seems extreme. 2nd, it is, for most of it's content, a more accessible version of the source, the Annuario Pontificio which is a costly offline source. Even though, WP:SOURCEACCESS & WP:OFFLINE says offline sources are acceptable, I think the policy of WP:VERIFY would prefer an online version or reference were the content the same (for example, give me a link to a magazine article, not just the page number). Thus, I would argue to include at least the relatively modern content as reliable. I add 2 caveats: 1. someone mentioned issues with pre-1300 content here and I didn't study up on that enough. 2. If an error is found, I suggest posting on the talk page of that article to indicate that it is not reliable FOR THAT ARTICLE, and User_talk:Dcheney since he's indicated he's the editor and willing to fix issues. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 15:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I added a discussion on the WP:VERIFY talk page in relation to this. I suggest a variation to the expert exemption for WP:SPS so it includes pages extensively used as references by 3rd parties as I think the 1st post in this change demonstrates. Link: Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#.22Self-published.22_when_online_compilation_of_offline_sources. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 15:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

"A source might be incredibly factually accurate, but that doesn't necessarily make it a reliable source for Wikipedia". In this case, it's easy enough to establish verifiability. Does the content on the wiki match that in the Annuario Pontificado? Yes? Then it is up to Elizum to demonstrate instances in which the currently posted content is at variance. I've not seen any citations by Elizum where there is a discreprency, and I encourage him to take the time to do his homework. Benkenobi18 (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I forgot about how that discussion went. I thought we had decided the opposite. Sorry. Elizium23 (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

David Brooks

Your recent addition to the David Brooks article strikes me as repetitive. The article states only a few sentences later that his family is Jewish. Would you mind re-reading the first few lines of the article and considering reverting your changes? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Catholic Hierarchy

You recently posted a message on my Talk Page:

Notability of bishops and the use of Catholic-hierarchy.org

Thanks for your addition of useful sources. As far as the notability of bishops, the guidelines state that nearly all Catholic bishops are notable. Please refer to the notability guidelines WP:CCWMOS on WikiProject Catholicism. I brought up Catholic-hierarchy.org to the reliable sources noticeboard. (see [Reliable Sources Noticeboard: catholic-hierarchy.org] My argument was that even though it is self-published WP:SPS, the fact that it is used as a resource by numerous dioceses, news organizations, as a reference in academic works, and Vatican watchers, allows it to be used as "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." It is widely used on Wikipedia in other languages. The consensus was that it is a reliable source. Its author, User:Dcheney, is available for any questions you might have. Note also that Catholic-hierarchy shows the actual source at the very bottom of each bishop's page (not on the diocese page). WikiProject Catholicism has even developed a template Catholic-hierarchy.org. Anyhow, my approach has been to get the bishop's pages developed (there are several other people working on earlier bishops) and then develop a more detailed history later; that is why I list each entry as a stub.Patapsco913 (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I have read the material you cited, and I have read your Talk page. It seems that I am not the only person who has problems with your mass creation of pages of doubtful notability. Nor am I the only person who has problems with your exclusive use of Catholic-Hierarchy and G-Catholic to document your efforts. I note that on the WikipediaProject Biography page, the advice on Catholic bishops, which you seem to have had a hand in formulating, is only Advice, not Policy.

My tagging of your pages is based partly on the likelihood that none of these articles you create is going to be developed because there is no information from which to develop it (I have been tagging pages that have not been touched in six months). Let me make an analogy. There are many Branch Managers of the Wells Fargo bank chain (or if you prefer, Barclays Bank, or Deutsche Bank); these managers have all done the junior management training courses, and they go to all the regional management meetings. That does not, however, make them notable. My local branch manager is not notable, even if he is found in a list of Branch Managers, even if the list gives the dates of his service and his promotions. If he becomes a vice-president or a member of the Board of Directors, he may end up being mentioned in a history of the Company, and that becomes a different matter. But his training courses and regional meetings are still not notable.

Your article pages mostly give only the steps in a prelate's career, and little or no biographical matter, though you claim the protection of the WikipediaProject Biography. If I were to want to pursue the material in the article, I can't do it from your external links, because they cite no sources. Catholic-Hierarchy and G-Catholic not infrequently contradict one another, and I have myself found numbers of errors in both, of every date, not just "before the 13th century". I discover these errors by reading books, often in Latin, French and Italian. This is necessary because the subject of an article is French or Italian, or lived at a time when Latin was the lingua franca, or because Latin was the standard choice for conveying information (as for example in Ughelli or Eubel, or Cappelletti). I also find additional information, which I am happy to post on a Wikipedia article, with appropriate references to books and articles.

Your statement that the author of Catholic-Hierarchy, David M. Cheney, is available for questions is quite irrelevant. What if I put up an an article and put up a reference that said "If you have any questions, just e-mail me"? That would not be acceptable on Wikipedia, and it does not give authority to an externally linked web page. You consider David M. Cheney an "established expert". Why?

I should say, by the way, that I do not object to the inclusion of the two web sites under discussion when they are accompanied by genuine verifiable sources which validate and/or add to their content (the better source criterion).

All that said, I still want to thank you for your work. I have deleted nothing, nor have I asked for a notability review for any of the pages you have created. Nor will I. But I will still tag articles that need development, and will not exclude those which rely exclusively on G-Catholic and Catholic-Hierarchy. -- Vicedomino (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Begging the point

Those of you who are arguing for the reliability of C-H and GC because you have found it generally reliable, are asking Wikipedia readers to trust the information because you vouch for it, generally speaking. That is not an argument for citation reliability; it is a subjective criterion that is unverifiable. Also, 'generally reliable' begs the question; there must be some material which is unreliable (and many, including myself, are prepared to testify personally, though anecdotally that this is true). But without references, how can the reader of C-H and GC know or check? No, IMHO, these two on-line sources are not valid references.

The appeal to a cumulation of instances in which others use C-H and GC is an 'appeal to authority'. Who knows why individuals choose to cite these two web pages?? And the fact that they do cite them, does not lend them validity or authority. It merely testifies to usage. --Vicedomino (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Robert McClenon. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Giovanni Tommaso Perrone, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Walter J. Haas listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Walter J. Haas. Since you had some involvement with the Walter J. Haas redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. אבגמד (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Patapsco913/Archive_2&oldid=1210785638"