Talk:Luis Antonio Tagle

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --Kumiko08 (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

other bisops has their pages in the encylopedia. and he is a figure in religious tv shows.

Marking this article for deletion was largely because it was not referenced and their is no indication at all of any notability. Just being a Bishop does not create notability and that fact that other Bishops have articles does not mean that all Bishops should have articles.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

He is not just a bishop. Manila is the primary Archdiocese of the Philippines, which is the largest Catholic country in Asia. This makes him one of the most important bishops in Asia. His mention as a papabile and hundreds of new articles about him all over the world adds to his notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.86.66 (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Bishop tagle.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bishop tagle.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a copy or a link to the 1999 Essay Black Week by Archbishop Tagle

Please provide this information. I would like to read it and examine its alleged progressive agenda.

Moreover, some have pointed out that this essay was not perfect, and was written before he was even a Bishop. Perhaps his views have changed and are now more in-line with Roman Catholic dogma. Anyhow, please provide if you have any. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveforMary (talk • contribs) 00:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to buy the book.

Amazon has the index which shows the portio he wrote:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1570751544/ref=sr_1_4?p=S001&keywords=History+of+Vatican+II%3A&ie=UTF8&qid=1328298905#reader_1570751544

The "Black Week" is the a title given to one week during Vatican Two where the so called "progresives" were concerned about some back-tredding on the part of the Pope. The men (Alberto Melloni, Giuseppe Alberigo)who were the primary editors and coordinators this 5 volume colection on Vatican Two (of which Tagle is one of hundreds of contributors and one of perhaps 25 on the editorial board) are known for stating that Vatican two was a "break" with the past whereas the current Pope has disagreed stating that Vatican 2 "continued" with the past (of course the LeFebrevists would agree with the break concept). It is a theological debate that is generally seen as something between Italians but some so called "conservatives" are suspicious of anyone who is associated with the school of thought in any way (as evidenced by the article by the Italian Sandro Magister).

John Allen, who is one of the primary Catholic church commentators in the USA and well-cited by all the main news channels, has indicated that Tagle's participation was not a concern and cites as evidence: 1) Tagle cites Pope Benedict in his chapter; 2) Cardinal Ouellet is comfortable with his selection (and Ouellet is very conservative and Benedict's man); and 3) other vatican officials have read the chapter and not seen anything troublesome...basically, it was what it is: a pure history of the event. I tried to point this out when I edited the entry but you deleted everything as not supported and supposedly derogatory (when clearly it was not). I guess we should never cite any articles unless we know every single source that the author uses, eh? Even if it is one of the primary religious commentators in the USA who has a stellar reputation for reliability. And then you add a line " Tagle holds conservative views in accordance to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, though certain conservative individuals who base on the 1999 essay claim otherwise" and do not provide a reference? I know this is true but not providing a reference basically makes it your point of view.Patapsco913 (talk)

File:AloisioAntonioTaglePapalBullPublication.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:AloisioAntonioTaglePapalBullPublication.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Is Tagle a conservative?

Is he a conservative? Conservative is a relative term and one that varies widely from context to context. Is he a conservative Catholic? Not if he is a member of the Bologna school. Does he hold conservative political positions? Depends how you define conservative. How can someone who focuses on the poor be conservative? Is it just because he supports the Catholic teachings on abortion and marriage, as any Catholic bishop in good standing would, even the most "progressive"? Bottom-line: the use of "conservative" is a best mis-leading and at worst deceptive, even wrong. The term "conservative" should not be used unless it is cited and put in proper context (a "conservative" in the Philippine Catholic Church, in the global Catholic Church, in Philippine politics, etc.). If it is cited -- if it is a quote from a reliable third party -- only then it is OK, in my humble opinion. --Bruce Hall (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it's a loaded term that is used alternately for praise and criticism, and never means the same thing twice. There should be a wholesale ban on describing Catholic clerics in such terms. Elizium23 (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Cardinal Tagle has been very vocal in issues regarding abortion and the RH Bill and has led the cause against in the Philippines. He is known to be very conservative Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no question is a conservative man. Very conservative in his Diocese, he even issues reprimandatory memos against those who attempt to disobey the slightest law in his Archdiocese, and manages to publicly denounce politicians who espouse liberal values. 216.115.254.34 (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

If enough reliable secondary sources use this term to describe him then it can go in the article, per Wikipedia policy. But against my personal objections for using a term appropriate for the political arena to describe religious or spiritual positions. Elizium23 (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I added back in the word conservative to describe his views. Without reference to it, the article verges on the puff piece. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The article will not stand or fall based on a single word. As I said above, it must be accompanied by reliable secondary sources which use the same word. However, you added it in without supplying any sources. Furthermore, the sources already provided for that assertion (that his views are supposedly in line with Catholic teaching) are links to three YouTube videos of his homilies, without any analysis, some of which is in Filipino or Tagalog, and there is no way to tell whether or not these views are orthodox Catholic teachings without original research. So I have removed the word you added and I have also tagged the references appropriately. In contrast, the section on the Bologna School affair mentions "conservatives" in the context of Catholic belief which is directly taken from the article cited there, and so it is an acceptable usage of the term in this article. You need to provide sources analyzing his views and beliefs and teachings, and describing them with an adjective such as "orthodox" or "conservative" or alternately, "heterodox" or "liberal" and represent these views with accurate wording in the article. Elizium23 (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Active concerns for POV tag?

Are there any remaining active concerns about this article's neutrality that would warrant retaining the {{POV}} tag at the top? It was added in December 2012 while the above discussion was taking place. The disputed wording has been removed, and in fact, I remember removing much analysis that relied only on primary sources. So if there are no further concerns about neutrality here, I will proceed to remove the {{POV}} tag. Elizium23 (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Photo

There are available photos of Cardinal Tagle on the official website of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Manila that are available for download... I think its free for use since its uploaded on MediaFire. Here's the url: http://rcam.org/others/articles/official-photos-/1149 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.173.44 (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Luis Antonio Tagle. 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/20160305124601/http://rcam.org/archbishops/luis-antonio-g-tagle-sec to http://www.rcam.org/archbishops/luis-antonio-g-tagle-sec
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111015003522/http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/filippine-philippines-filipinas-papa-pope-el-papa-8980/ to http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/filippine-philippines-filipinas-papa-pope-el-papa-8980/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Apostolic administrator

A source is required to prove that His Eminence is Apostolic Administrator. Moreover, this is not a formal title, but he merely obtains the powers of one, so it is not correct to put the title into the Infobox and mentioned in the text. Also, I question the applicability of Canon 418 §2, because this is not a straightforward transfer to a new see, he's going to have a titular see as a Curia official. Does any RS state his date of installation of acquiring the powers of his new position? Elizium23 (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

As to acquiring the powers of his new position: As Francis has said of other curial appointments, “It’s a job.” The Press Office has on occasion announced that an appointment has a delayed effective date (Scicluna when moved to Saints, for example), but not in this case. There’s no reason imagine it does not take effect when announced. That would seem particularly the case when the retirement of the predecessor is announced at the same time, as in this case. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, OK. So will he have a titular see? Perhaps not; perhaps he will remain emeritus of Manila? Elizium23 (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

YouTube as a source

WP:YOUTUBE says "While there is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, the links must abide by the guidelines on this page." So what guidelines do the links to the YouTube video in this article violate? --PluniaZ (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I would say that it is likely a copyright violation. It is not published by a verified channel, such as a news outlet, and is not usable as a reliable source. At any rate, it is a WP:PRIMARY source and we shouldn't be using it this way to begin with. Elizium23 (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

It's the official YouTube Channel for Salt + Light Television, containing their own broadcast. How is that a copyright violation? We are allowed to use primary sources. And please don't revert me until you have gained consensus to do so. Per WP:NOCON, the material is to be left in until there is consensus to remove it. --PluniaZ (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, I was looking at the wrong video. My mistake. I withdraw the comment. --PluniaZ (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Accurate source on his term as Archbishop?

Is there any accurate WP:RS other than the Manila Cathedral's Facebook page, that explains when Tagle's term as Archbishop officially ended, and when his term as Prefect begins? I'm a little tired of not really knowing. Elizium23 (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Not the primate

@Midnightkid: Tagle is not and has never been "Primate" of the Philippines. There is no primate of the Philippines, and as far as I can tell, it was a fiction invented on Wikipedia by zealous nationalist editors. I found zero sources to support the assertion. There's just no evidence that such a title ever existed, even the editors admitted it by qualifying it as de facto primate — that means it was not a legal title. Please do not add it to this article or any others. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Credentials, titles, post-nominals

Per MOS:CREDENTIAL, a title should not be used: titles are things that go in front of the name, like "Dr." and "Professor". Things that go after the name are post-nominals, and covered by MOS:POSTNOM, and in fact there is a field for them, which we are using, and there are instructions for adding them to the infobox within that same guideline. So yes, it is appropriate to include these post-nominals where the guidelines permit them. Elizium23 (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Cardinal Tagle.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle Pallium.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)