Talk:Reinhard Marx

Untitled

Religious style: Monsignor? Actually not. We're talking of a German archbishop. His style, if "Your Excellency" is not used, is "Mr. Archbishop". A the beginnings of speeches, "most reverend Mr. Archbishop". In not to much time under the condition of St. James, "Your Eminency" (which is more common than Excellency) or "Mr. Cardinal". The only clerics Germans call Monsignor are Chaplains of His Holiness, even Prelates of His Holiness and Protonotaries Apostolic are "Mr. Prelate", which leads even to incorrect but colloquial usage of "Mr. Monsignor" for the Chaplains of H. H. And the one Chaplain of H. H. I somewhat know is called "Mr. Provost of the Collegiate Church" ("Herr Stiftspropst"), maybe also to avoid the unknown Italian title. --77.4.59.69 (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Reinhard Marx. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130428013340/http://attualita.vatican.va:80/sala-stampa/bollettino/2013/04/13/news/30794.html to http://attualita.vatican.va/sala-stampa/bollettino/2013/04/13/news/30794.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Contaldo80, can you please explain why Crux Now fails the reliability test? I added that material myself and I'm not sure why the source wouldn't be reliable. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Napier's comments

I've suggested moving some material added by ReesorVille from the section on opposition to the section on homosexuality. I did this (I) because the material clearly relates to the views of Marx expressed in 2016 and would be duplication really to have the response from Napier somewhere else apologise and (ii) because I'm not sure it's helpful to have a big section called "opposition" which seems to collect odds and ends from anyone that disagrees with Marx on something (which could end up being a very long list!) and not really in keeping with WP style guidance as it looks like WP:UNDUE. Happy to re-consider however. At the same time I renamed the section to include "LGBT rights" as I think Marx is very much talk about active recognition of gay people rather than passive response to "homosexuality" as a weakness that must be endured. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me whether the material is in one section or the other, or whether or not the article retains an 'opposition' section. However, the criticism and attacks against Marx deserve mentioning in the article somewhere because there have been some very high profile disputes among church leaders in the past several years, with Marx being a big target in the middle of these disputes. Furthermore, I don't know of any statements of Marx in support of transgendered persons, and I think we can't assume that he would have such statements or hold such views simply because he speaks about defending the rights of homosexuals, hence LGBT may not be an appropriate tag. It might seem more embracing than 'homosexuality', but it may also be less accurate. If such statements could be found, however, than the LGBT would be OK as a title.

Similarly, 'anti-abortion group' in the abortion and euthanasia section is a less accurate term than 'pro-life group'. Pro-life groups are against abortion, against euthanasia, against suicide, pro-family, etc. The ideology that typically makes up 'pro-life' is larger than simply being opposed to abortion only, although that is its main core issue. However, the issue about 'pro-life' not being a neutral term is also correct to point out, since many people will disagree with the idea that these people are even fighting to defend life. I recommend that the neutrality issues with the term would be better solved by putting 'pro-life' into quotes or italics or something like 'groups that refer to themselves as pro-life', etc. In that way both accuracy and neutrality are preserved. Reesorville (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes perhaps LGBT is not quite right as there isn't any trans stuff in it although the term LGBT is commonly used. The alternative is "Gay rights" and I'm happy to change to that. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

No objection on my part to that title here.Reesorville (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanksContaldo80 (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Christian Pfeiffer

Reesorville I have removed the section of text you added for the time-being while we address concerns around [[NPOV. You added "In September 2018, a summary of a report that had been commissioned by the German bishops' conference to investigate clerical sex abuse in Germany was leaked to the press before it was supposed to be presented by Cardinal Marx. Allegations were made by Professor Christian Pfeiffer, who leaked the summary, and members of the media, that claimed the German bishops under Marx's leadership attempted to control the outcome of the report". It is a serious and controversial claim to suggest that Marx directed bishops to leak the report and so influence the outcome. The only source we have currently for such a claim is LifeSiteNews which is a conservative religious news organization. I am comfortable about making such a contentious claim using only a somewhat partisan website. Can we have the claim or issue covered by a number of additional mainstream news source please - otherwise we risk defamation of Marx. Be helpful to get your thoughts. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

In the English-speaking world, it tends to be only Catholic news sites that give a lot of coverage of news concerning German cardinals, many of which are partisan. In the German-speaking world, coverage of Marx and other German cardinals can be easily found in the German mainstream media. Unfortunately, I don't speak German, so I am not much help at locating those articles and using them to post here to back up particular claims.

However, in relationship to this particular claim, I would like to draw attention to the specific wording I used. I didn't write that the German bishops and Marx tried to influence the outcome, I only wrote that it was alleged that they did, and the persons who alleged it were Christian Pfeiffer and people in the media. Unless, the accuracy of the Catholic news sites is being called into question when it says that Christian Pfeiffer made such an allegation or that the people who run and write articles for those sites do not count as 'members of the media', then I think we shouldn't require any further source, so long as that wording is used and the article stays neutral on the question of the truthfulness of the allegation itself.

If that argument is not convincing, then I think we'll need someone who speaks German to provide the mainstream sources. Reesorville (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Reesorville - very constructive. My concern remains that we risk repeating unproven allegations and by doing so give them the appearance of fact. We should be particularly cautious as I'm sure there are an endless number of allegations made about Catholic bishops but which could be deliberately defamatory. As this particular point is contentious I think it reasonable that we seek a second source to indicate that the making of the allegation is at least notable. One religious media website seems to be insufficient - although I fully acknowledge your point about the paucity of English media potentially covering this story. I think if we can have a couple of german news sources then that would reassure me that we are not allowing a platform for the spreading of malicious gossip. Thanks again. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I have run across a mainstream English source that deals with the particular story that I've now included in the article, although it doesn't mention the accusations against Marx particularly that were on the Catholic sites. Reesorville (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyright cleanup

Content added by 67.184.212.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been removed from this article for copyright reasons. In spite of warning, the individual using this IP has persisted in copying content from copyrighted sources without compatible licensing to Wikipedia. Please do not restore any removed text without first ensuring that the text does not duplicate, closely paraphrase or plagiarize from a previously published source, whether the one cited or another (issues have been detected from other sources than those named). Based on the editing pattern of this person, we cannot make the assumption that the content is usable. You are welcome to use sourced facts that may have been removed to create new content in your own words or to incorporate brief quotations of copyrighted material in accordance with the non-free content policy and guideline. See Wikipedia:Copy-paste and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/67.184.212.160. Thank you. --💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 16:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Facebook photo

Hi, I have removed the Facebook photo tempest-in-a-teapot, because Church Militant is a known unreliable source. Their opinion of "controversy" is of no consequence to Wikipedia. There is no remaining WP:RS to demonstrate WP:DUE which is the inclusion threshold for such things. If a mainstream news source has documented this, it can be added back. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• The language "Marx generated controversy" is usually a dead giveaway for this sort of manufactured controversy. To be significant, an editor should be able to say who criticized Marx for this. It's more evidence of a lack of sense of humor than controversy. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Church Militant or similar sites that attack prominent clergy represents a minority viewpoint, but the sentence in the article was simply that 'controversy existed' not that the people who took opposition to the photo-op were right or that the controversy was merited; it only consisted of one line to note that this thing existed. Within a section on the Cardinal that is titled 'opposition', I think any public attack on him by an outlet with wide viewership is appropriate to make note of there. If it is better, I think it could be changed to something like 'some Catholics criticized Marx for... ' etc. Reesorville (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Reesorville, wide viewership? LOL! "some Catholics"? {{who?}} This is a textbook case of WP:UNDUE. Elizium23 (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Church militant has hundreds of thousands of facebook and youtube subscribers. How many is needed before it can be called 'wide viewership'? Reesorville (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Reesorville, followers are not a reliable source. How do we know how many of them are human, and how many are Russian bots, or sockfarms, or banned, etc? Elizium23 (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to this question about how to tell which ones are actual followers for this site or any site. However, I don't think it is an unreasonable assumption to think that most of those are probably real people. Reesorville (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Reesorville, I think a salient question would be: who actually generated the controversy? Was it Marx on Facebook, or Michael Voris' sensationalistic tabloid muckracking that riled up his base of fanatics? It doesn't really matter to us on Wikipedia, anyway. Elizium23 (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

When is there 'controversy' that is not generated by people reporting and commenting on it? Of course, the controversy is created by those outlets. Here is what would appear to be a Catholic tv station in Poland that commented on the same controversy, is this acceptable to you?: https://pch24.pl/kard-reinhard-marx-radosnie-fotografuje-sie-z-pomnikiem-karola-marksa/ Reesorville (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, why not. Elizium23 (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, I 've deleted church militant and added the Polish site. Wish you a happy St Boniface day, patron saint of Germany. Reesorville (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

pro-life vs anti-abortion

I've twice reverted an attempt to label the 2015 pro-life march in Germany as 'anti-abortion', because the source material in the link is clearly talking about issues beyond just abortion. I think if there is an issue with a NPOV title, it can be better resolved by putting the words 'pro-life' into quotation marks or italics as I've now done, otherwise accuracy is lost and the reader is left thinking that Marx's participation is simply referring to anti-abortion. Reesorville (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)