Talk:Aloisius Joseph Muench

POV Check

I am requesting that the neutrality of this article be checked by an expert on the subject. Almost the entire article is taken from a single source and written by a single editor. We need to know whether the source was fair and unbiased and whether the WP editor's selections from that source fairly represent the material or are slanted. One example that may reflect an editorial slant is changing the headers from the titles of the positions held by Muench to labels of hot-button issues. Another is the reporting of selected quotes from One World, without ever explaining what exactly the One World pastoral letter was. It seems like the editor wants more to create an impression than to inform the reader. In addition, the examples selected from Brown-Fleming's book seem to be designed to make a point, and as they were added one after another, seem to be a case of piling on. Taken out of context, the one from a secretary to Father Franz Lovenstein in the "Clemency for war crimes" section, for example, is almost meaningless, except that it creates a distinct impression. The uncritical representation of Brown-Fleming's book in the "Brown-Fleming's monograph" section also needs to be looked at. Is it necessary for this article? Are the book jacket blurbs contained in that section objective? They usually aren't, and these do seem cherry-picked. Grand Valley State University and Stonehill College are hardly centers of academic prowess. I'd appreciate any objective look at the article by someone in the know. Thanks. --Sift&Winnow 14:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd welcome any sourced additions to this article. Absent the omission of a major source with important published facts, though, the use of a single source (which this article technically does not constitute, others have been consulted where available) is not automatically a violation of Wikipedia's policy. If you take a look at the {{One source}} (which you have previously added to this article, and now allude to) it clearly states "make a good faith attempt to find additional citations before adding this template". Also, those aren't book jacket blurbs, I have read those reviews myself and quoted the authors main conclusion. I am glad to provide any of the book reviews to you electronically if you use the "email this user" feature to contact me. When we are talking about a book published by a university press in conjunction with the USHMM, there is a presumption of reliability until proven otherwise. Other than your own opinion, which is clear from your comments, I have not seen a single published source that disagrees substantively with any of the facts sourced to the Brown-Fleming book. Savidan 14:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You misread or misunderstand my concerns. I have no opinion; I'm not disagreeing with anyone. I just want to make sure the article is objective. Oftentimes it isn't whether something is factual; it's how the facts are presented that matters. Let's leave the matter up to someone who doesn't have a vested interest in the article. --Sift&Winnow 15:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I am happy for others to weigh in on the article. However, if you insist on littering this article with templates, I would ask you to perform some minimal due diligence and suggest some other sources that could be used. Absent that, if you allege that I have made use of Brown-Fleming's work incorrectly (but do not allege that I have omitted a major source), I implore you to be more specific and actionable in your comments so that we can get somewhere here. Savidan 15:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You're to be commended for spending the time in adding the material on Muench to WP. The issue is not so much with the facts, as with the way they are selected and presented. Have selections from Brown-Fleming been made to present a particular point of view? Have they been presented in a way that is objective? Without reading the book myself, I have no way of knowing that. That's why I asked for a someone who is familiar with the topic (and that means more than just having read Brown-Fleming) to take a look at the article.

The concerns I have derive from the way the article is written: in a not very straightforward, insinuating way. Examples are presented in each section, without getting directly to the point of what the section is about. I can’t go through every paragraph, but the section on One World is an example of what I mean. Nowhere is there an explanation of what One World was. In an encyclopedia, one might expect to see "One World was a ..." or "In 1946, Muench published a pastoral letter dealing with..." Instead, what we have are examples of damning phrases lifted from a document whose content, context, and significance are never directly explained. There should also be some explanation of in what role Muench published the letter - as the Bishop of Fargo, not as the pope's representative. A pastoral letter from a bishop isn't an encyclical, but you'd never know that from reading the One World section.

Except for his early life and episcopate, the entire article reads like that - a mass of examples and quotes taken out of context.

You seem really driven to add details daily, presumably as you read the book. (Looks like you're up to about p. 107). Perhaps you should put the book down for a week and then come back to the article and see if you think it presents an objective view of the heart of Brown-Fleming's findings, or if it's more a collection of unconnected details selected by you. --Sift&Winnow 19:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

For your information, I have finished the book but plan on reading through it again. You say that examples are taken "out of context" without having the source material in front of you and without any particular knowledge of the topic--a bold claim. I honestly wonder what basis you have for saying that. So far you have said very little about the article of substance except that you do not like it.

I have explained very clearly what One World was. It was a pastoral letter, a concept that was linked. I then explain the way that it was published and distributed and the main arguments contained in the letter. The article does absolutely nothing to suggest that One World was an encyclical or written by the pope; it makes very clear that it was written by Muench himself and links to the concept of pastoral letter. Savidan 20:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, when trying to judge the quality of a book review, the affiliations of the author may not be the best way for a (professed) non-expert such as yourself. The editors the journal choose someone whose research interests overlap substantively with the work in question. The best indicator of authority for the review is the journal itself, and I made a conscious attempt to pick from the main journals of the relevant fields. Again, if you find another book review that I have omitted, please add it. Savidan 14:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Please be specific and actionable

Sift&Winnow, template:POV-check which you have inserted states on its usage guidelines "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies". I am hard pressed to find even one specific change that you have suggested for the article that I could take. Except alleging that Brown-Fleming may be a biased source (without providing any source which says this) and alleging that I may have somehow taken her out of context (without even saying where), it's very unclear to me what your concerns are. Could you please itemize them and be specific about what you would consider to be the remedy. Thank you. Savidan 22:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... I don't know how many different ways I can explain this to you, but I'll try one more time. A request for a POV check is not the same as a POV tag. It is not an accusation of bias or lack of objectivity; it is simply a request to have someone knowledgeable in the topic take a look at the article to give an opinion as to its objectivity. Lack of objectivity can come from what is said in an article; it can also come from what is not said in an article. I know what you put in the article; I’d like to know if there are important facts about Muench or aspects of his life that were left out. Lack of objectivity can also come from the phrasing and juxtaposition of details, no matter how factual they may be. Not having read the book, I can't say that you've erred in the selection or presentation of material about Muench. That's why I asked for an expert to review the article. The fact that you've added incident after incident after incident that put Muench in a bad light, and the frenzy with which you've done that; that you've taken an ownership stance toward the article, overturning almost every edit; that you've been very defensive about a simple request for a review; and that some of the material in the article conflicts with information in other WP articles have all made me wonder about the article's objectivity and ask for a review by an outsider. Every article in WP deserves to be the best it can be. Usually the way to achieve that is through either collaboration or an external review process. Others can often see things we’ve missed because we’re too close to the subject. Apparently you don't agree. You insist upon actionable accusations. You don't get it; I'm not making accusations. The purpose of the independent review by an expert is to determine if there are any actionable problems, but you won't let that take place. Why? Your staunch refusal to allow any editorial oversight only makes your edits look suspicious. After all, if there were nothing wrong with the article, you'd have nothing to fear. --Sift&Winnow 23:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand the purpose of the POV-check template (quoted in my above comment). You criticize my language of "specific" and "actionable", yet I chose those words specifically because they are used on the guidelines for the template you have chosen. What you are describing would be better served by a RfC (already filed), Wikipedia:Third opinion, or a Wikipedia:Peer review. I would also not object to {{tempIate:Expert-talk}}, as it is not as disruptive. I have yet to object to a substantive addition; I only object to the placement of such a disruptive, reader-facing template without cause. I would, in fact, welcome any and all other editors to contribute to the article if they are able. Savidan 00:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC

I have started a RfC section in the hopes that others will comment. Savidan 23:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the POV tags and the "Need Expert" Tags because there have been no legitimate concerns of specific paragraphs, phrases or points but a general stance with no real evidence or specific claim. Before one taggs up articles, perhaps it would be best to adress specific, reasonable concerns and what one would like to change. The need expert tag doesn't seem to be warranted at all.Sanitycult (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Section on Jews:

1. Wasn't opposition to interreligious dialogue normal Catholic practice in those days (before V II)?
2. "Incredibly", in the last sentence, violates NPOV.

Peter jackson (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Peter. As Brown-Fleming makes clear, there was much diversity on Catholic opinion on interfaith dialog during this period; there was no uniform stance. "Incredibly" is part of a quote. Savidan 16:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I missed that. Peter jackson (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Diocese of Fargo

Why did he not abdicate of the Diocese of Fargo when he was formally instituted as a nuncio? --77.4.122.136 (talk) 12:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aloisius Joseph Muench. 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:

• Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.in-forum.com/specials/century/jan3/images/muench.gif with https://web.archive.org/web/20070927204251/http://www.in-forum.com/specials/century/jan3/images/muench.gif on http://www.in-forum.com/specials/century/jan3/images/muench.gif

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aloisius Joseph Muench. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160201141942/http://www.fargodiocese.org/seminary to http://www.fargodiocese.org/seminary

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) 16:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aloisius Joseph Muench. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227083443/http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/publications/books/2006-01/5_questions.pdf to http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/publications/books/2006-01/5_questions.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725091635/http://libraries.cua.edu/achrcua/muench.html to http://libraries.cua.edu/achrcua/muench.html

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) 21:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)