Talk:Joseph W. Tobin

Re: Episcopal career

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

@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

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

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)

Removal of content on McCarrick

PluniaZ, please justify your removal of content here and here. The Catholic Herald is a factually reliable news source, and every piece of information here is taken directly from it. The article says that the facts "mostly" support Vigano's allegations, that Vigano's claim that McCarrick was made an important advisor are "broadly" supported, and the statements from Palmo "corroborated the idea of kingmaker." So how is it wrong to say something in Wikipedia voice if a reliable source says the same thing? The article does not endorse the claims made by Hitchens or Palmo. It simply states that they were made. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC) I notice that an editor attempted to start a discussion for a third opinion on this talk page back almost a month ago. I'm sorry I did not see it as I did not receive a ping. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Display name 99, I am done talking to you. You engage in personal attacks and tendentious editing when things don't go your way. WP:BLP says the burden is on you if you want to add disputed material. Take it to the community in whatever way you see fit. --PluniaZ (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I've made a second request to WP: Third opinion. You can engage there as much or as little as you like. I understand that an editor already ruled in your favor above. However, as I was unable to state my reasoning, I don't think that the decision is fully valid. We'll see what happens. Display name 99 (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree with User:PluniaZ and User:Bovlb for reasons given. In addition, given that Vigano's statement was specifically disputed by Bishop McElroy, and Cardinals Cupich, Tobin, and Ouellet, former prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, who can all speak from the facts rather than second hand interpretations, it would seem that if it is appropriate to include the latter, it is necessary to include the former, which would appear to be giving undue weight to a bitter screed of a disappointed careerist. (Please note Tobin was Superior General of the Redemptorists, who are very active in Argentina, as well as other places in South America. As a bishop, the Spanish-speaking Tobin sat next to Cardinal Bergoglio at the 2005 synod in Rome. Francis would have known Tobin long before he ever heard of McCarrick; and he hardly needed any input from McCarrick, whether or not McCarrick claimed otherwise.) Manannan67 (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

You've named a number of people who have disputed Vigano. I can name quite a few mwho have supported aspects of his story. Even Oullet, while severely chastising Vigano and claiming that there were no formal sanctions, acknowledged that there were some sort of restrictions in place and that, as Vigano said, he told him about them verbally. He tried to go as much against Vigano rhetorically but the essence of his statements partially corroborated what Vigano alleged. The rest of the people you named weren't eyewitnesses to anything. All they've done is criticize his tone and say that they don't find his allegations believable, but they have no first-hand knowledge of the facts concerning the allegations. But the question is not whether Vigano is credible (especially on matters that have nothing to do with Tobin, as it seems you might be getting into) but whether we should include the fact that a journalist wrote at the time of Tobin's appointment that it had been made on McCarrick's recommendation. The journalist is fairly well known and his statement is included in a reliable source, so I don't see why it shouldn't be. Display name 99 (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

As I indicated, if you would like to add it, I will add the half dozen that rebut him; however, the article isn't about Vigano nor his credibility, it's about Tobin, whom Bergoglio already knew quite well, which fact you seem pleased to ignore. Manannan67 (talk) 07:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Manannan67, you've captured the point exactly. This article is not about Vigano or his credibility. If you want to add people who rebut the claims made by Vigano with respect to Tobin as well as those made by Palmo in return for me re-adding the material that PluniaZ removed, I'm fine with that. But what I don't want you to do is add statements from people who do nothing more than attack Vigano's overall credibility, because that is not what this article is about. Display name 99 (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

There's altogether too much focus on Vigano in an article that isn't about him; at this point he's a non-issue. Manannan67 (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

As I indicated, if you would like to add it, I will add the half dozen that rebut him So can I add it back in or no? Display name 99 (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

No. I count three editors who think not. And I don't see anything that mitigates the several objections PluniaZ raised. Manannan67 (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Manannan67, in that case, you should not have said something which made it seem like I could as long as you'd be allowed to add in some of your own material. You seem to be doing a little bit of flip-flopping. The claim was made by a journalist of some repute and was repeated in a reliable source. That is why it belongs in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Apparently in your college career you have yet to come across the term "Arguendo ad absurdum". Manannan67 (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

You being sarcastic was not clear to me from your response. I am, however, notoriously bad at detecting sarcasm. That's common for people like me who have Asperger's syndrome or who exhibit similar traits. Anyhow, as I am outnumbered 3 to 1, I will drop the issue. Display name 99 (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

that was not sarcasm. The actual term is "arguendo ad absurdum". In this instance the point is that it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to suggest to post something that will be overwhelmingly contradicted. At the least, it is Undue, and borders on turning an article about Tobin into one too much about Vigano: -what he said, and how others responded, Manannan67 (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)