Talk:Salvatore Cordileone

Bishop of Oakland until his installation date

Per WP:CRYSTAL, do not change the infobox or succession boxes until Cordileone is enthroned at his installation ceremony, which will occur in a few months, probably September. That is when he will take posession of the archdiocese. Until then, he is still bishop of Oakland, with the official powers of Diocesan Administrator. Elizium23 (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

That is NOT necessarily true. Unless he was specifically appointed administrator of the Oakland diocese by the pope he is not automatically the diocesan administrator. However, he IS, in fact, the archbishop of San Francisco because while the decision to appoint him may have been taken several weeks ago it was announced today because today is the day the pope signed the document of his appointment. The installation in October is not canonical; it is liturgical and does not "confer" his authority on him. If he died tomorrow he would still be considered the archbishop of San Francisco because he was appointed today. In addition, Archbishop Niederauer's resignation was accepted by the pope. When Cordileone's predecessor in Oakland was transferred the diocesan conultors elected an administrator to run to diocese until a new bishop was appointed. That may very well be the case once again in Oakland. You are assuming he has been named administrator but that is not known. One thing is for certain: his tenure as bishop of Oakland ended TODAY. He is no longer the bishop of Oakland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inpectore (talk • contribs) 21:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length at Talk:Charles J. Chaput and you are completely mistaken. Please read Canon Law if you want a reliable source. Elizium23 (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.intratext.com/ixt/ENG0017/_P1G.HTM

Can. 418 §1 Within two months of receiving certain notification of transfer, the Bishop must proceed to the diocese to which he has been transferred and take canonical possession of it. On the day on which he takes possession of the new diocese, the diocese from which he has been transferred becomes vacant.

§2 In the period between receiving certain notification of the transfer and taking possession of the new diocese, in the diocese from which he is being transferred the Bishop:

1° has the power, and is bound by the obligations, of a diocesan Administrator; all powers of the Vicar general and of the episcopal Vicar cease, without prejudice to can. 409 §2;

http://www.intratext.com/ixt/ENG0017/_P1D.HTM

Can. 382 §1 A person who is promoted to the episcopate cannot become involved in the exercise of the office entrusted to him before he has taken canonical possession of the diocese. However, he is able to exercise offices which he already held in the same diocese at the time of his promotion, without prejudice to can. 409 §2.

§2 Unless he is lawfully impeded, one who is not already consecrated a Bishop and is now promoted to the office of diocesan Bishop, must take canonical possession of his diocese within four months of receiving the apostolic letters. If he is already consecrated, he must take possession within two months of receiving the apostolic letters.

§3 A Bishop takes canonical possession of his diocese when, personally or by proxy, he shows the apostolic letters to the college of consultors, in the presence of the chancellor of the curia, who makes a record of the fact. This must take place within the diocese. In dioceses which are newly established he takes possession when he communicates the same letters to the clergy and the people in the cathedral church, with the senior of the priests present making a record of the fact.

§4 It is strongly recommended that the taking of canonical possession be performed with a liturgical act in the cathedral church, in the presence of the clergy and the people.

So you see, the bishop has received certain notice of his new assignment today. He has not taken canonical possession of the diocese, because that is performed with a liturgical act in the cathedral church, in the presence of the clergy and the people. Between the time of his appointment and the time of his enthronement, he has the powers and obligations of a diocesan Administrator. I am tired of repeating myself and reverting the article. Please discuss here or WT:CATHOLIC instead of edit-warring with false information violating WP:CRYSTAL or I will simply report you to the administrators for disruptive editing. Elizium23 (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This article now (27 July, 02:05 UTC) has numerous factual errors which have been introduced by editors unwilling to collaborate here on the talk page and would rather edit-war because they think they are "right". You have been proven wrong by Canon Law, and this has been discussed at length at Talk:Charles J. Chaput and I have an open thread at WT:CATHOLIC where you are also welcome to join in conversation and collaboration, rather than edit wars. Elizium23 (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I have added the tags {{Crystal}} and {{Accuracy}}. Please do not remove them until you have participated here and we have fixed the problems I am concerned with. I have raised them on your talk page, QvisDevs (talk · contribs), and I expect to see you participate here before you edit the page again, except to restore the tag you deleted. Warnings have been issued, I plan to escalate this to more dispute resolution soon. Elizium23 (talk) 07:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I just don't see why the inclusion of the statement by the officer that stopped Cordileone for drunk driving is relevant? It just seems a case of soft-soaping. So he was polite - so what? Surely more significant that he broke the law and was drunk while driving a vehicle. This could have led to him killing someone. He also had other passengers in the car - surely of more significance as he was also endangering their lives. Why not mention this? What happened after - did he appear in court? If we're going to say something on this issue then let's not just stick to the unthreatening bits. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistent, NPOV dispute

The current structure of headings unilaterally imposed is inconsistent with all other Catholic bishop articles and far too narrow to admit additions. Cordileone is a bishop who teaches the faith. He is not a politician or an activist. The headings should reflect the fact that he has consistently expressed Church teachings on homosexuality. His position in the USCCB committee, for example, is not political activism but his duty as an apostle of the Church; and his interview with EWTN was not political activism. What we have now is essentially a WP:POVFORK within the same article, and I feel it is untenable. Elizium23 (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this earlier! While Cordileone's views may be the same as any other bishop, not all bishops draft legislation (etc.) and it's certainly not in the job description. If he'd just made controversial sermons, I don't think we'd be having this conversation. It'd be easier to subsume under one of the chronological career headings if he didn't continue this behavior from job to job, but it seems unproductive to me to, for instance, split up his drafting and funding of Prop 8 from his later comments on it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say it has to be chronological. But wouldn't it be easier to add material, under one heading such as "==Beliefs and teachings==" and "===Stance on homosexuality===", rather than split things up along the lines of whether they are political or not? Because that's what we're going to have to do with the structure you have proposed. And furthermore, attempting to purge the article of all references to "Support of traditional marriage" is a violation of WP:NPOV and the right to self-identify. Elizium23 (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

But as you yourself have pointed out, it's not about his "stance," which is just the stance of the RCC. It's about his actions, as is proper for his own article. I agree that there's potential for disorganization with regard to the parts that aren't political, but I don't think the solution is to mis-label or to disorganize further! Re "traditional marriage", if you wish to use non-neutral and potentially inaccurate language, you should make it clear that you're quoting by using quote marks, rather than putting it in Wikipedia's voice. If we decide to do that, we should probably also clarify what it's talking about (eg. "opposing same-sex marriage, which he refers to as 'promoting traditional marriage'," assuming we can find a source where that's how he describes it). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It is reliably sourced, so I don't see why it has to go in "scare quotes". This article is clearly unbalanced right now. I am working to shift it into the center. Also, about that "drafted Prop 8" line. I can't find that in any source. Therefore I am tagging that assertion for accuracy, so it either needs to be sourced or removed. Saw your edit summary and removed the {{fv}} tag. Here at Wikipedia we report what the WP:RS say. Elizium23 (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this some sort of Halloween-tide joke? The source states outright "Cordileone made headlines in 2008 when he helped draft Proposition 8" (and the other one "the march sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage and the Family Research Council" - the inaccuracy was in saying both are hate groups, and I've corrected it. The trans issue in the exec. order doesn't seem to be sourced, as you said, so shall I just remove it entirely?). I've also removed the poor sources that you added as an excuse to use non-neutral language. Instead, we should use reliable sources, like the one I just added, and follow their use of neutral and appropriate language. I'm really surprised at your disruptive behavior here. I think we can also address the OR tag - the interview refers repeatedly to the Prop 8 case then-pending at SCOTUS, but not DOMA, so would you be fine if we just removed the reference to DOMA, or do you think the reference to Prop 8 should also be tweaked? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

They are not poor sources, they are perfectly valid news sources with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking. Just because you don't like their POV is no excuse. Now don't delete my painstaking work on references and effort to bring this article to WP:NPOV standards. Elizium23 (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's go primary for a moment here. It is called the "Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage", not the "Ad Hoc Committee Against Same-Sex Marriage". Everywhere I can find, Cordileone's mission is defined as defending marriage. It is not adequate to just say he's "defending marriage" in Wikipedia because nobody understands what the definition of the word is anymore. Thankfully they are copious WP:RS which make it clear it is a defense of traditional marriage. This means fighting divorce, cohabitation, and various other evils which Cordileone sees as eroding marriage. Elizium23 (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Defence of "traditional marriage" is a nonsense term. What is "traditional"? Shall we turn to the Bible - most of the old testament prophets were polygamous. The Romans permitted same-sex marriage. For a good chunk of the past 2000 years the Christian churches discouraged people from getting married unless they absolutely had to. And then only to have children. And marriages didn't need to be inside churches and carried out by priests. The Catholic church permits divorce - you pay them a fee and they call it "annulment". This idea of defending traditional marriage and Church teaching is a nostalgic nonsense. And I am sick to death of people trying to follow me around from article to article to push some sort of right-wing religious political agenda. If you want to edit articles then start to show some even-handedness - try saying some balanced things about the Catholic Church and LGBT rights alike. Stop using these articles as some sort of freelance support for the Vatican press office.Contaldo80 (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

What is so wrong with using reliable secondary sources to support such terms as "traditional marriage"? If you don't like it then we can go to WP:RSN. And don't remove maintenance tags, and don't restore contentious unsourced assertions, without fixing the problems. Elizium23 (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You're acting as though "traditional marriage" is the universally accepted term and that reliable secondary sources use "protecting traditional marriage" instead of "opposing same-sex marriage", but that's clearly not true! (FWIW, I quickly looked for a style guide on the subject and didn't find anything, but extremely cursory searching in a couple of major mainstream news organizations found that the phrase is almost never used except when attributed to people who use it. In contrast, "same-sex marriage" is obviously a term accepted across the board.) I added a reliable secondary source attesting that Cordileone's membership on this committee was about opposing same-sex marriage, while you added a low-quality agenda-based source which used "traditional marriage" and scare-quoted SSM and still pointed out that the role begins and ends with opposing same-sex marriage. As I suggested above, it should be fine to point out that he or his subcommittee describe their mission in such and such a way, but I'm boggled at this desire to obscure what reliable sources say they actually do. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Low-quality agenda-based sources: USA Today, SF Chronicle, Bay Area Reporter. These all share the same poor opinion of the Catholic Church and sloppy reporting through-and-through about Catholic issues. We use Wired and Ars Technica to reference articles on technology. We use medical journals and peer-reviewed sources to reference medical articles (in fact they are mandated by WP:MEDRS). I can't believe that somehow Catholic news sources with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking, reporting on Catholic issues, referenced by an article on a Catholic bishop, is somehow low-quality. As for agenda-based, all sources have bias, that is no reason to denigrate them. Elizium23 (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Bay Area Reporter, but if you're going to argue that USA Today and SF Chronicle are low-quality inadmissible sources and that we can only use agenda-based Church-affiliated sources to write about Catholic priests, you're extremely wrong. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying they are inadmissable, I am just saying that their level of reliability insofar as reporting on Catholic doctrine and practice is patently and sometimes purposely inept. Elizium23 (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have evidence of this being the case other than "sometimes they don't report on church activism using the church's preferred promotional language"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

USA Today flags Letterman's bigotry NY Times wages war on Catholicism Cover-up at NYT and Washington Post Media - 2012 annual report on anti-Catholicism Elizium23 (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL, the Catholic League. Try again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I can do without your incivility. Elizium23 (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Elizium23 are you simply a Catholic editing articles from a Catholic viewpoint? In which case do you think you have the objectivity and impartiality to be involved in these discussions? Are you able to demonstrate that you don't have a particular axe to grind? Because from what I've seen so far, it seems you have. I don't have objections to Catholic editors editing articles, but I do mind if those edits are ideologically or politically driven. And I'm really getting fed up with it. Can everyone please take extra care to be even-handed, neutral and balanced. It might even be nice to move outside your comfort zone and add something to an article which at a personal level you may have little sympathy for. Otherwise we're just ending up with a playing-out of the "culture wars". Acceptable for some US-based editors, tiresome for those of us that aren't.Contaldo80 (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black? Just asking. Esoglou (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No, because not every single edit I have made on wikipedia has been made with the sole purpose of denigrating the Catholic church. I've added lots of material to a whole range of articles to highlight Catholic teaching, history, and art in a neutral, objective and illuminatory way. But it remains my concern that a number of Catholic editors are using these articles to wage a war purely in defence of the Catholic church. It's lazy, wrong-headed, and increasingly irritating. Yes, by all means seek to improve coverage when working with Catholic-related articles, but don't approach everything as if the foundations of the institution are under constant attack. This does no-one any favours.Contaldo80 (talk) 10:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Today on the bus I was fantasizing about removing the {{POV}} tag because the article had begun to look much better, but then Roscelese got to it again, destroying the balance we had achieved. I am opposed to the constant focus on negative and POV terms to fashion a WP:Attack page. I am opposed to the suppression of solid sources on the bogus grounds that they are agenda-based or biased. All sources have bias and agenda, in particular about the polarizing topic of Catholicism. It is important to rely on a mixture of these sources in order to adequately represent valid viewpoints. I have not sought to delete any sources from this article, no matter how lousy or biased I think it is. I have not sought to hide negative criticism or give it a less prominent place. I don't think either of those tactics makes for a better article. This article is meant to be a neutral summary of Cordileone's life and work, not a WP:COATRACK for criticism of tradtional marriage, Catholic Church, political rallies or the organizations which sponsor them. Elizium23 (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Preferring neutral, reliable sources to sources with an explicitly stated journalistic agenda isn't coatracking or POV. NPOV entails reflecting neutral and reliable sources, not making sure that all non-neutral POVs are represented in our text. Is Cordileone's activism, and that one rally, in opposition to same-sex marriage? Undoubtedly. Both neutral and non-neutral sources acknowledge this as a fact. Removing it from the paragraph on the committee is totally out of line, and attributing it as though it were an opinion is also uncalled-for. Is it in support of "traditional marriage"? That's a POV expressed by its supporters (which I actually left in the paragraph on the committee rather than removing). I'd also love to remove the POV tag, but your insisting that its removal is conditional upon the article's refusal to state that Cordileone's position has entailed working against same-sex marriage, and removing or demoting the sources that say this in preference to obviously inferior sources, is counter to that goal. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I have given no such refusal. The revision currently says "against same-sex marriage" four times in one section! Elizium23 (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

What, a trade? I see two I can remove if you'll restore my text prioritizing reliable sources in the committee paragraph and the rally paragraph. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. If that means deleting the quote Cordileone's speech, I feel it is very important to actually reflect what happened at the march in context of the objections raised before it. If you want to quote all the anti-LGBT rhetoric Cordileone used in his speech then you can quote that too, for good balance. Elizium23 (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you find a reliable secondary source for the quote? I'm not categorically opposed to including it, you just need a proper source that doesn't have a stated commitment to promoting the same agenda as Cordileone. But that's not what I was referring to - I'd like to restore my wording for both of those paragraphs, and if you're concerned about the number of times "against same-sex marriage" (etc.) appears in the article, I can balance it out. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The Catholic News Service is a reliable secondary source, though not necessarily a neutral source, as they clearly report from the Catholic point of view, so I tweaked text to say content supported by it was POV of the Catholic press. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that's fine, but the weaselly "described as" for the neutral and reliable descriptor remains in the article. Let's restore the properly sourced and neutral version of the paragraphs and then add your text for the CNS descriptor. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and put that through, but, obviously, retained most of the constructive or non-destructive intervening changes. Still to do: find reliable secondary sources for any quotes from Cordileone you wish to include. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It would still be helpful to find reliable sources for his quotes. He's a public figure, surely he's been quoted enough in reliable sources that we don't need to use poor sources, as though this were his own website. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Elizium23 for being one of the few on this website with some common sense! 96.48.36.40 (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

St. Gianna Physicians Guild

It's unclear to me whether Cordileone is still on the board of this organization or in fact whether it's even still active. He's listed as "Bishop of Oakland" on the site, which seems not to have been updated in two and a half years. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

March for Marriage as name of the event

Elizium23, I removed "March for Marriage" as the name of event because it wasn't in the first source at all, and it wasn't stressed in the second source (I actually didn't see it at first, but after closer inspection, it is mentioned toward middle of the article). I wasn't really clear if this was official title of the event or not. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

See what happens when you think following reliable sources will get you anywhere :P I suppose we should also be saying "which the mainstream media said took place in June 2014" or "described as happening in Washington DC." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy notice: Per Roscelese's inquiry, this is being discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Los Angeles Times as RS for statement about event. -Location (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That was a much appreciated courtesy notice, Location. Without it, I might never have able to add my own little contribution to the discussion. Thank you. Esoglou (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

I noticed edit wars regarding content disputes have subsided and the article as currently written seems fairly neutral to me. Does anyone object to removal of the neutrality tag?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I would not object to the removal of the tag as long as the "Catechesis on marriage" section is restored. It was removed here with other changes. Elizium23 (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you find a non-SPS for it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This one even talks about Cordileone himself, so it shouldn't be hard to fit in the article. Elizium23 (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

If you go to www.newslibrary.com and search "marriage unique for a reason" multiple sources pop up. Perhaps someone can recreate section using some of those sources.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hm, searching that phrase + Cordileone didn't get me much (mostly briefs and releases; there's this). I do think it's important to find discussion of this catechesis from sources that are neither personally affiliated with Cordileone nor institutionally devoted to advancing the same agenda; Elizium, what do you feel it is important to include, so that we can see what other search terms can help us find good sources? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Quit moving the goalposts. First you want a non-SPS, now you want a non-Catholic source. CNA is perfectly unbiased and accurate in reporting on the Catholic Church and it's a fantastic source to use in this case. Elizium23 (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, please, CNA has an explicitly stated agenda. Your standards for a lack of bias in sources are seriously out of whack. Do you have a better source or no? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:BIASED Elizium23 (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The question isn't whether he actually said the things CNA says he said, which is what that section relates to. I know you know that. Do you have a better source or no? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Perfect is the enemy of good. CNA is good. But in answer to BoboMeowCat's question, you have chosen to be the one who puts up her hand and says: "Me!" Esoglou (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

explanation about liturgical form?

I find this in "Bishop of Oakland" section:

"This was the first time a Pontifical High Mass was offered in Northern California since the 1970s liturgical changes."

Earlier in the paragraph, it was pointed out that this Mass was in "Extraordinary Form" (i.e., Tridentine), but it's possible to have a Pontifical High Mass in the "Ordinary Form" (also called Vatican II rite), which does NOT have to be either in the vernacular or on an altar facing the congregation (although both of these ARE widely seen in that form of Mass). Also, the liturgical changes were in mid and late 1960s, with the Vatican II rite's missal coming into use in 1969 or 1970. I don't know the circumstances enough to suggest the proper rewording.

Water soaking of homeless section

The re-adding of the section "Water soaking of homeless" seems contentious and not properly sourced.[1] The reference makes no mention at all of Cordileone. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

While a few sources do mention Cordileone in connection with this controversy (Daily Mail would be a poor source regardless of whether or not it mentioned him), this seems like something best covered in the diocese's article and/or cathedral's article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The sources I could find that mentioned Cordileone, did so in the comments section or were blogs. This does seem to be a legitimate controversy though, covered beyond just the tabloids: http://abc7news.com/religion/sf-church-to-remove-sprinklers-that-drenched-homeless/563354/ The original complete lack of sources followed by a reference to Daily Mail made it seem really sketchy, but it appears there is legitimate RS coverage for this, but I agree it seems better to cover this on the diocese or cathedral article.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sourced

@Matxjos: the sources also specify his opposition to antidiscrimination policies. Were you aware of this? It's in the article already. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm highly doubtful that Matxjos is aware or interested. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Language proficiency

The lead tells us that "Cordileone has fluency in reading and speaking English, Spanish, Italian and Latin". Wow! Is that it? Is that really such a remarkable talent that it needs to go into the lead? Sounds like someone's taken a snippet from his CV or a press release.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggested re-thinking of Lede

I realize a couple years ago @Elizium23: attempted to the same, but after re-reading the lede several times, I believe it definitely needs to be re-worked as it is clearly WP:POV. The first sentence is indisputable. The second: "Cordileone is chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Subcommittee for the Defense of Marriage." is also fine, as it is accurate. The third: "He has received criticism due to his outspoken opposition to same-sex civil marriage and LGBT adoption." is venturing into WP:POV since a) it is upholding CHURCH DOCTRINE on these topics (i.e. not his personal view) b) his role of Archbishop predispose he will uphold church doctrine on these and all issues, so nothing remarkable about this c) ANY church leader of his level in ANY diocese of the US will have received "criticism" by one group or another for holding these views. So, unless we are prepared to put this in the lede for all public figures (both religious and political) we should take it out and focus on what categorizes Archbishop Cordileone as unique or a summation of his life. Also, I would disagree on the commentary about Archbishop Cordileone being a polyglot is not "remarkable" enough to be in the lede. Granted Romance language are similar, but as someone who speaks all the abovementioned languages (among others) adding English to that mix is indeed remarkable; since according to many studies less than 1/5th of Americans can hold a conversation outside of English with any proficiency (compared to over 1/2 of Europeans) http://www.forbes.com/sites/collegeprose/2012/08/27/americas-foreign-language-deficit/#f7103be382f1 . I have no idea on the number of Americans who are tri-lingual, let alone 4 languages, but just on statistics alone, this is in fact "remarkable". Lastly, the final sentence reads: "A conservative theologian, he is known for his willingness to use the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite of Mass." I know this EXACT phrase is found word-for-word from another of news sources, but I would wager 90% of people editing this would not know how to explain what a "conservative theologian" is...because it is in fact superfluous (there is a trend in the US attempt to categorize everything in terms of conservative vs liberal, that simply does not apply to theology).

Would really like to get some input here as I believe this lede really needs to be readdressed with fresh eyes.Trinacrialucente (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not particularly familiar with the language issue, but "he's not anti-marriage, all Catholics are anti-marriage" is a silly argument. He's particularly known for it in a way that few Catholics are, even in the clergy, and it belongs in the lede. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

What you consider a "silly argument" is irrelevant. And no Catholic is "anti-marriage", which leads me to believe you meant to type so-called "anti homosexual marriage". Regardless, that's just one of the points cited above.Trinacrialucente (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

And once again, the Archbishop is not saying what MOST Archbishops in the US have stated at one point or another. If you pick ANY archbishop in the US, you will most likely find they have written in support of traditional marriage, specifically in light of the recent Supreme court rulings

1. http://www.diocesepvd.org/letter-to-catholics-on-the-approval-of-same-sex-marriage-in-ri/
2. http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/same-sex-unions/
3. http://cfdiocese.org/mydiocese/a-pastoral-letter-from-bishop-brewer-on-same-sex-marriage-and-the-diocese-of-central-florida/
4. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/26/bishops-blast-supreme-courts-same-sex-marriage-rul/

The list goes on. I'm actually fine with it in the lede, but it's a bit foolish and unscholarly to say he's known for it in "a few way Catholics are, including clergy". It just means you are unaware that MOST bishops have written about it at some point or another. Your not knowing something is not the litmus test for whether or not something is a fact.Trinacrialucente (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

His opinion on marriage is quite notable thanks to his position on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Subcommittee for the Defense of Marriage. And I would say that every mention of this issue is laden with WP:POV because it is more accurate to say he is a supporter of traditional marriage, but most Wikipedia editors simply won't abide that language in this or any other article. Elizium23 (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Believe me, I get it @Elizium23:. And to restate what I wrote above, I'm fine keeping it in the lede...I just want to reemphasize that he did not do anything contrary to what many (if not most) of the bishops did after the SCOTUS ruling. And obviously, you have years more experience editing this article as I just came across it a couple days ago. So, if you'd like to rephrase anything to more accurately fit the citation/quote, the please do and we can review it with fresh eyes.Trinacrialucente (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

We are deluding ourselves. All catholic bishops have to uphold Church teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman. However, the bulk keep their heads down - say only enough to avoid being dragging before the Holy office and leave it at that. Cordileone is notable for the active and visible opposition to LGBT rights in whatever form - to the point of attending rallies with all sorts of unsavoury characters. This is perfectly notable to keep in the lead. Don't even get me started on the term "traditional marriage" which is a nonsense in itself. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: morality clauses

The cited sources allude to the fact that part of the controversy is that teachers are being re-classified as ministers in order to do an end run around antidiscrimination laws - that's interesting, did you find any sources that talk more about that, Trinacrialucente? As you pointed out, it's not simply Cordileone's beliefs that are well-known, so any more detail about actions and policy changes would improve the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Salvatore J. Cordileone. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.catholic.com/radio/event.php?calendar=1&category=&event=5504&date=2009-01-14

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage

I know a couple of editors have failed in their efforts to have me punished for edit warring. But I want to make greater effort to justify me edits. My concern has been that we spend far too much space in this article setting out direct quotations from Cordileone himself. Aside from these being somewhat self-serving, they also run the risk of appearing quite dull to the general reader. I don't see any reason why we can't summarise the key points in the text while avoiding a word for word repetition. My judgement is that there is very little that Cordileone has said on public record that it is essential for us to record in its entirety in this article - I just don't think it's significant enough. Happy to be persuaded otherwise but it's not exactly the Gettysburg Address. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Contaldo80, I recently undid an edit [that you made], but accidentally submitted it before writing a summary. I'll explain here. I think that "Described it as" is the key part here. The people that we are referencing viewed the march was being in defense of their idea of traditional marriage. It's how they described it. [So they're obviously not referring to polygamy, but marriage between a man and a woman. I don't think many people will get that confused with anything else.] Display name 99 (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, I did not fail in any effort to get you punished for edit-warring, because I actually recommended against blocking you when the option was presented to me by an administrator. Please don't make it seem like it was the other way around. My purpose in reporting you was to stop the reverting. You had not yet reached the point where it seemed you could be blocked.

I honestly think that the quotes are best in order to allow the readers to comprehend the full context of what he is saying. Incorporating the quotes into the text communicates some of that, but not all. For instance, your recent edits took out the part about "painting...with broad strokes," which is important for understanding what Cordileone is saying. As for whether it's self serving or not, I don't care. Let the reader decide. We are here to communicate to the reader what Cordileone's position on the issues is. So let's give it to them, unfiltered, and let them draw their own conclusions. Display name 99 (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Contaldo80, I have attempted to initiate a discussion here. I see that you have edited Wikipedia today. Please respond to my points. If you do not, I shall undo your recent edits and try to find some sort of quote to put in the article which criticizes Cordileone's views, for the sake of balancing different perspectives and not trying to be apologetic. This should address the concerns that you have raised. Feel free to suggest one. Display name 99 (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You tried and failed miserably to get me blocked or reprimanded - because you were wrong to suggest it and not because of any generosity. You were not given any recommendation as it wasn't yours to take. Traditional marriage firstly is a meaningless term. There are different cultural practices for marriage - what is traditional in one time or place is not universal. So we are not having that wording thanks. Secondly I don't agree that we need to quite cordileone at length - he's not an important thinker and so we can paraphrase without losing the gist of the points he's making. The role of an encyclopaedia is to filter - leave the full citation for the wiki quote site. . Contaldo80 (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Contaldo80, first I think it would save time if you were to cease with your ridiculous lie that I tried to get you blocked. Read the text of the report. I said very clearly that I didn't think a block was necessary, as you had not yet violated 3rr. I also take note of the fact that the administrator who responded indicated that you could have been blocked because of the fact that you were clearly displaying edit-warring behavior, despite not technically having reached the limit imposed by the aforementioned policy. So a bit of humility (or at least refraining from outright fabrications) on your part would be beneficial.

If you read the version of the article that you redacted carefully you should see that we're not actually stating that marriage between a man and a woman is the universal definition of "traditional" marriage. Instead, we're telling how it was described. You can agree with it or not. Conservatives described the march as being for traditional marriage. That's fact and it's also all that the version of the article says. Whatever traditional marriage means exactly, if anything at all, is for the reader to decide.

You might say that Cordileone isn't an important thinker. He's not in the sense that we would include lengthy quotes from him on articles relating to metaphysics, human nature, and other important articles on philosophy and theology. But this is his biography, which means that he is the most important person to it. So we should communicate his ideas clearly and comprehensively. Display name 99 (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC) Also, Roscolese cut the size of the quote considerably. That's a decent compromise in my estimation. Can we both just accept that and walk away from the issue? Display name 99 (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

No we can't. I've seen so many articles where Catholic apologists have tried to insert lenghty quotes from individuals to suggest their words have been misconstrued. The onus is on you to say what specifically you think is missing from the current article and what would specifically be improved by a lengthy quote. Long quotes make for tedious and awkward to read articles. And you're a fine one to lecture about being blocked as an editor. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Contaldo80, it's not a lengthy quote at all. I've seen plenty of quotes in articles with quotes that are actually too long that stretch on WAY further than that. I'm also not trying to function as a Catholic apologist. That argument is undermined by my willingness (and attempt, even) to include quotes from someone opposed to Cordileone's views on the subject. I simply believe that we should communicate the ideas of the people involved clearly and directly, and quotes taken directly from them are often the best way to do it. This particular quote-not a lengthy one at all after Roscelese cut it down-does the service of showing that Cordioleone would reject attempts to negatively stereotype or project hateful attitudes towards those disagreeing with −the position of the Catholic Church on the subject.

I suppose I can let the traditional marriage issue go. The quotes aren't exactly a major issue, although I'd still prefer not to have them. Anyway, if we can't agree on anything regarding the quote, maybe we can try WP:Third opinion. Display name 99 (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I stand by my position. It is not clear to me what additional information would be relayed by having an extensive quote. Long quotes make for bad encyclopaedia entries. Wikiquote is the place for these. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Third opinion

Yashovardhan Dhanania (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 (Display name 99)

....

Yashovardhan Dhanania, thank you for taking this on. I feel that adding quotations complete and independent of the other sentences in the text shows the positions of the people involved most clearly. Originally, the quote from Cordileone at the March for Marriage was much longer than what it is now. Another editor, Roscelese, cut down its size considerably. I feel that there is no reason why this should not be accepted as a reasonable compromise. Contrary to Contaldo80's arguments, it is not a "lengthy" quote excerpt at all, but clear and concise. Contaldo80's preferred version also removes the part in which Cordileone advises against "paint[ing] our opponents on this issue with broad strokes," which I feel is important to presenting all major aspects of Cordileone's teachings on marriage, in order to avoid POV issues.

Finally, Contaldo80's argument that the use of so many quotes from Cordileone coming off as "too apologetic" is undermined by my willingness and attempt to include quotes from people disagreeing with him on the matter. I'm not trying to make the article biased in favor of Cordileone. Instead, I want clarity and comprehensiveness. Display name 99 (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry I seem to have missed that "short sentence" part. Anyway, I summarized it in a short sentence in my Third opinion report, but I shall do so again. COntaldo80 believes that the inclusion of indented quotes makes the article unreadable and too apologetic, while I disagree. Display name 99 (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (contaldo80)

....

We also have to be mindful of apologetics. I've dealt with a lot of articles concerning homosexuality and catholicism where some editors want to insert a lot of directly quoted material - mainly so that readers try to "soften" the perception of what Catholic leaders say about gay rights and obfuscate. I'd rather we keep to the unvarnished facts. This stuff about cordileone "loving" his opponents etc is not necessary but simply PR. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Contaldo80, the "broad strokes" part of the quote is perhaps the most important thing that I feel is being left out. We include lots of stuff similar to that in articles about Catholic bishops known for being more liberal. Refusing to do so for a conservative bishop seems like a NPOV violation. Like we're trying to portray them as bigoted or intolerant. Display name 99 (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Well I don't think this is the place for me to express my own thoughts as to whether they are actually bigoted and intolerant but the evidence certainly points speaks for itself. To address your specific point however - are you able to point to an example of an article that is lenient towards the musings of "liberal" bishops? We can learn from that. But the fact that you're making the point suggests that your agenda is very much about making "conservative" bishops look as good as possible. And this worries me. We are not a PR machine. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Contaldo80, I suggest you look at the Reinhard Marx article. Its section on "Homosexuality and the church" contains many quotes longer than the one which I wanted kept (which are italicized for some reason) and does a great job of making Marx seem open and tolerant towards LGBT people without including any criticisms of him from people who believe he is undermining the doctrine or the integrity of the Church. I'm sure there are some to be found. (Also, if our third editor believes that the quotes in this article be limited due to fair use or paraphrasing issues, I will accept that result.) Display name 99 (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Third opinion by Yashovardhan Dhanania

Thanks for the clarification. I'll give my opinion based on. WP:COPYQUOTE. Basically, excessive use of direct quotations is discouraged more so for copyright and fair use issues. However, if it's really not possible to paraphrase the quote in a neutral way, you can directly quote the original. I'd suggest trying to paraphrase the quotation(s) in a neutral manner. If a re write isn't possible then the quote is the best way forward. Yashovardhan (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Yashovardhan Dhanania, I don't think that they violate fair use at all. They come from an interview, not a book source, and are not even that long compared to other quotes that I've seen in articles. That was really not the main issue to begin with. Do you believe that the quotes violate WP:NPOV and that they make the article unreadable, as Contaldo80 says they do, or not? That is what the dispute is over, and is why a third opinion was requested. Display name 99 (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

YashovardhanDhanania - thanks. Your observation is helpful. Agree we should really try very hard to paraphrase rather than quote in full as a first step. It can't be that difficult to do. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Display name 99: What I meant was, as Contaldo80 said, to rewrite the quote in your own way. It's really not that difficult to do so if you try. You can request help at various help desks which specialise in writing good content such as WP:GOCE. A quote does not violate WP:NPOV as long as all opinions are expressed. Re-writing the quote in a neutral way without changing the meaning is actually preferred than making a WP:QUOTEFARM. Yashovardhan (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Yashovardhan Dhanania, thank you for your assistance on this matter. I have recently edited the article while attempting to heed your advice. Contaldo80, please take a look at my recent edit. If you have no quarrel with it, this issue is finished. Display name 99 (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks fine. See, that wasn't that hard to do. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

Opening a discussion here about what should be in Salvatore Cordileone's opening text? As one possible source to indicate what was most notable in his career, I did a YouTube search on Salvatore Cordileone. This yielded a video with 69k views of him performing a traditional mass (far higher than any other videos in which he features, generally under 5k or 1k views): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bexdIUyU-Ow https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Salvatore+Cordileone I'm concerned that editors may be pushing an agenda by wishing to define Cordileone's career singularly by his upholding catholic teaching on marriage as the most prominent feature. His activity in this area seems worthy of mention in the article generally, but in the opening paragraph, as a defining mark, I'm not so sure. Thoughts? As an unreliable an indicator as it may be, even Googling his name doesn't produce articles that reference his stance on marriage high up in the results. Statements, particularly in the intro that are picked up by Google in their search's info box, should be backed up by sources. Rnolds (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Rnolds: I see you twice removed the paragraph about Cordileone's "outspoken opposition to LGBT rights, including same-sex civil marriage". The first time, you removed with the edit summary "Removed unsupported assertion", even though it was, in fact, supported, by the Catholic Herald, generally considered to be a fine source especially on Catholicism. The second time you removed without any edit summary, though this time the text had two sources, including the New York Times, generally considered to be the most respected newspaper in the Western Hemisphere. Could you explain, please? --GRuban (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@GRuban:
To clarify, I didn't remove the sentence initially but I reworded it to reflect the source in which his career was covered, in the Catholic Herald. i.e. as a defender of traditional marriage, rather than someone who attacks (very emotive wording). To consider, Wikipedia has a global audience and perceptions of rights vary across the world.

Sources can be used to justify statements, but as an albeit rookie editor here, my aim was to be neutral which I think Wikipedia strives for too. I fear every source has a bias and perspective on issues. My position was that a source that reflected Cordileone's own language was more neutral than seeing him through the lens of either the Catholic Herald or NYT.

We would both agree I think that NYT should be considered a respected source for the purpose of Wikipedia, but we still need to be careful with statements such as "most respected newspaper in the Western Hemisphere". It may be a challenge for you to support that assertion, or considering that the Western Hemisphere's view is the one that should prevail.

Moving on from the wording of this sentence, I'm questioning now whether we should mention his position on marriage at all in the opening paragraph. Can we can truly back that up – beyond the assertion in the NYT – that it was a defining or notable feature of his priesthood? In terms of page rank and YouTube views his online legacy at least appears to be in other areas.

Wikipedia's neutral POV is important to maintain, or it may loose its status as a trusted source of knowledge on the internet. We have a challenge however where the sources we use to backup statements are themselves partisan.

In all events other than in the partisan secondary source of the NYT, it doesn't appear that a defining and headline grabbing feature of Salvatore's preisthood should be his support of traditional marriage – especially when emotively reworded as an attack on rights.

@Dlohcierekim: @FreeKnowledgeCreator:

FreeKnowledgeCreator you added the contentious text back again, and then Dlohcierekim you locked the page – but neither of you engaged in the the discussion.

FreeKnowledgeCreator, your argument that 'I am the one who wants it removed' and therefore it should be reverted I don't really follow. Is the validity of content on Wikipedia determined by the length of time it has been live and published on the site? e.g. Whatever is posted first should hold?

Surely the default – especially for a page about a living person – should be not to say anything at all until consensus (through reasoning above) is reached?

Have you any comments please on my concerns with the content above?

It seems that Cordileone's anti-gay rights record is an uncomfortable truth. It's probably worth pointing out that when he is promoting his availability for speaking engagements, he advertises that he "has become known for his outspoken opposition to same-sex civil marriage and LGBT adoption."[2] If he's not ashamed of it, why should we be on his behalf? It's clearly what he's known for. - Nunh-huh 01:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nunh-huh: that's a circular reference (ie. copying from a previous version of Wikipedia) so that particular source is not usable, but in general, Cordileone's opposition to gay rights is probably the best-known (=most notable) thing about him, yes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to have found one of "ours", but I agree that there doesn't seem to be any shortage of sources, some of which will be found to be untainted... And of course, if his handlers are quoting us, they can hardly also be objecting to the quoted characterizations. - Nunh-huh 02:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Thank you for highlighting Roselese.

In the absence of any sources in your favor to support the line, (vs I feel the video views at YouTube supporting his notoriety for Latin Mass if anything is to be highlighted) please can we agree to remove this sentence?

Side note:

I think we may find the quote you then referenced (much like the Google panel... which is also automatically pulling from Wikipedia) will autoupdate.

The prevalence of such scripts underlines the great responsibility we all have as editors to report fairly on people. Especially biographies of living persons.

Thank you.

Rnolds (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Rnolds: Are you trying to make the argument that the NY Times, the LA Times, the Catholic Herald etc. etc. all rely on Wikipedia? I'm sorry, that's preposterous. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Roscelese: No I wasn't saying that at all. I was highlighting as an aside that Wikipedia has a great influence in the world, and as such we should be very careful in how we write. I'm confident though, seeing your generous contribution to the project generally, we're aligned here.

Returning to the point at hand please can you respond to my proposal to remove the sentence. We have a single highly partisan source (NYT) that describes (itself without source) that Salvatore's priesthood as defined by his position on marriage. Even within the NYT article itself we have: "Asked what is the one thing people in San Francisco should know about him, Bishop Cordileone, who has also been active against the death penalty and in favor of an immigration overhaul, said he was “not a single-issue person.”...the NYT then pull unnamed "Experts" (often journalist parlance to bolster an invented position) to state the opposite. I concede that all outlets are partisan to some extent, but at Wikipedia I think the goal – is it not? – is to rise above that and present a neutral POV?

If not removing the sentence another route would be expanding it considerably to give a more balanced overview? What are your thoughts please? Or perhaps we could write "Cordileone has spoken on upholding traditional (in the sense of the Catholic church) views on marriage, to many (particularly in the Western Hemisphere) this is seen as an attack on LGBT rights, including same-sex civil marriage [1][2], " It's a bit of a mouthful but at least it strives to achieve an accurate and neutral POV. My preference would be save this kind of nuance for the body of the article. The lead, opening statement is better place to give non-contentious, non-partisan, and well-supported by sources statement about his vocation.

:@Nunh-huh:"It seems it's an uncomfortable truth" To who? "I agree that there doesn't seem to be any shortage of sources" Please state them. I've stated mine. Thus far an activity of Salvatore's that has attracted considerable attention is his traditional approach to mass. At least this is something we can highlight at ease without slipping into a partisan view. Traditional marriage vs. marriage between same sex couples is highly contentious and emotive to many. Painting Salvatore as an "attacker" of rights is bringing politics into this encyclopedia.

@Dlohcierekim: @FreeKnowledgeCreator: Given your input in editing and locking the article please do you have please any insight into Cordileone's career or perspective on this discussion please to share? Thank you.

The intro paragraph is supposed to summarize the article. That's what it says in WP:LEDE. It turns out that this article has a large section, Salvatore_Cordileone#Opposition_to_LGBT_rights about Salvatore Cordileone's opposition to LGBT rights. (That section has, as I count it, 15 sources, including Huffington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, Catholic News Service, etc.) Therefore the intro paragraph would be incomplete without a sentence mentioning Salvatore Cordileone's opposition to LGBT rights. --GRuban (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@GRuban:@Gruban Thank you for highlighting the WP:LEDE. I'm happy to concede I wasn't aware of the summarizing nature of the intro, so I understand better now why removing the sentence entirely (without adding a lot more to the article in general) wouldn't make sense today. From what I've learnt thus far (I haven't done that much Wikipedia editing) I believe Wikipedia still strives to adopt a neutral tone of voice WP:Neutral_point_of_view. The current language referring to attacks on LGBT rights is not neutral ("attack" particularly is very emotive), I understand better now in the course of this discussion how my initial edit to change it to "defending traditional marriage" is not neutral either. What are your thoughts please on adopting language that covers both bases? Here are some options to consider and/or refine: 1) "Cordileone has spoken on upholding traditional views on marriage[1], to many (particularly in the Western Hemisphere) this is seen as an attack on LGBT rights, including same-sex civil marriage[2]" . 2) "Cordileone's sermons on upholding traditional views on marriage[1] have also been seen as an attack on LGBT rights, including same-sex civil marriage[2]" or 3) "Cordileone's speeches on upholding traditional views on marriage[1], have attracted attention for being perceived as an attack on LGBT rights, including same-sex civil marriage[2]". I'd be very happy to consider further suggestions along these lines. Please note I moved the sources so we have the Catholic source going into more detail on a traditional marriage and then the NYT given as the source for the contrasting viewpoint. I hope this is helpful, and thank you everyone on the thread for your time and energy considering this amend. I apologize if my initial approach to editing appeared combative. Using the talk feature here also is a first for me on Wikipedia. Thank you again. @Nunh-huh: @Dlohcierekim: @FreeKnowledgeCreator: @Roscelese:

@Rnolds: None of these are an acceptable encyclopedic presentation of the facts. No source, even the poor-quality biased ones, disagrees with the idea that Cordileone opposes same-sex marriage. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Rnolds, I haven't participated in this discussion thus far, but I agree with Roscelese. Incidentally, your attempts at pinging me are not working. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Rnolds: First, to get a Template:Reply (or re, or ping) to work, you need to sign your post, with the four tildes ~~~~ at the end. (It can be tricky.) Second, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. It doesn't mean we never express any debatable views, or that we always express all views; it means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." In this case, the significant views from reliable sources generally consider Cordileone's stand to be against gay marriage; even though some, including he himself, phrase this as "in favor of traditional marriage", and we should mention this in the appropriate place in the article body, in the lead, where we are trying summarize, we need to reflect what the majority call it. --GRuban (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@GRuban: Thank you for the tip on signing replies. Very much appreciated! I'm generally thankful as well for the tone of our discussion, it speaks volumes to your character in a good way that we can have different perspectives on what for many are sensitive topics but you can still lend me a hand in way of using this platform. Thank you again.

To reply to your points, regarding a neutral point of view the definition you highlighted by Wikipedia is very much my general understanding also – where we disagree perhaps I think is what constitute's reliable or especially 'the majority'.

Regarding reliable I'd like to propose that we're giving the NYT too much authority if we don't recognize that even in articles that are not opinion pieces or editorial there is always (but increasingly so in the current climate of post-Trump media in the US) a partisan bias. By preferring to describe Cordileone's words through the lens of the NYT we are tainting it with that bias.

In respect to "majority" I'd propose that the majority of the world's population would see Cordileone's actual language, and not the NYT's reworking of it, on marriage as the most easily related to and understood. The overwhelming majority of the world understands marriage as between man and woman. (At least well over 2/3rds, if not 3/4s.... since 24% of the world's population is Muslim Islam_by_country, 16% Catholic, and then consider that the world's two most populous countries India (17%) and China (20%) also have traditional views on marriage – notwithstanding some double counting there hence my rounding down). The overwhelming majority of the world's population would not see Corileone's sermons that champion marriage between man and women in terms terms of what marriage is not, i.e. that he doesn't champion marriage between same sexes.

We only really have evidence for his being known for being opposed to same-sex marriage in his immediate locale (particularly San Francisco, but that could include the United States as well...).

Therefore how about we consider the following wording:

"Cordileone has become known in San Francisco for his opposition to same-sex civil marriage.[1][2]"?



Finally just to raise some general, broader thoughts for you all to consider. Should we be concerned about "the majority" dictating truth (if this is actually Wikipedia policy?). Such an arbiter of truth could be a dangerous direction for the platform. There have been many occasions in human history, from the handing down of the Law to Moses and the Jewish nation, to the arrival of Jesus Christ, to Pythagoras being amongst folks who put forward that the world was a sphere, where the minority were actually in a better position to understand truth (I know putting Jesus alongside Pythagoras will be contentious in way of 'truth' where we bring faith into it, clearly I write from the perspective as a Christian, arguing for the truth of Jesus is a whole other discussion!). Regardless as arbiters and influencers of what becomes commonly received Gospel truth, Wikipedia editors have a great responsibility to wield that power carefully. Majority rule may turn into mob rule if we're not careful. We need to balance protections and even the championing of minority groups (when there is goodness within them) with a responsibility to keep in check how sometimes such interest groups may be damaging other freedoms and institutions in society that we have come to take for granted. Institutions such as the family, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech (and not to have our speech respun and represented with bias and added 'color'), even some minority interest groups that don't see us as all inherently born equal regardless of lineage. In many, many ways areas Wikipedia is a wonderful expression of this, but such freedom needs to be protected and considered carefully. We need to be on guard for how our local worldview clouds our perspective. It worries me to be in a very partisan manner championing one newspaper (the NYT) as the "most respected".

Anyway sorry to go on a bit there, just some general thoughts... you all must be interested in knowledge to spend your free time on a project like this. I by comparison have spent very little of my voluntary time as such, contributing to the wealth of human knowledge, so for this I am in all of your shadows and you have my sincere respects. Thank you again for your considered contribution to this discussion. I've learnt already from you!FreeKnowledgeCreator Roscelese Nunh-huh Dlohcierekim Rnolds (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Not the hypothetical majority of the world. The majority of reliable sources that actually write about Cordileone. That is actually Wikipedia policy, I quoted it and linked to it. That said, I would not be opposed to "Cordileone has become known for his opposition to same-sex civil marriage.[1][2]" since the sources do focus on that part of his opposition. I don't think we need to repeat "in San Francisco", since he is the archbishop of San Francisco, after all, we say that in the first sentence, it would be unlikely that we would then be writing about what he is known for in Poughkeepsie or Duluth. --GRuban (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC) --GRuban (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@GRuban:Thank you for the helpful suggestion and clarification. How about we combine the sentences? "Salvatore Joseph Cordileone (born June 5, 1956) is an American prelate of the Roman Catholic Church and the archbishop of San Francisco, California, United States where he has become known for his opposition to same-sex civil marriage.[1][2]. A conservative theologian, he is known for his willingness to use the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite of Mass.[3]" Without the location qualification it sounds like his notoriety is broader than it is. Rnolds (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#First_sentence (It seems like we have a rule for everything, doesn't it? That happens when a hundred thousand volunteers work on something for 17 years...) says that the first sentence should tell the reader who or what the subject is. I think being the archbishop of San Francisco is a big part of his identity, being actively opposed to gay marriage is a much smaller part. I'm pretty sure we'd have an article about Cordileone even if he wasn't known for his opposition for same-sex marriage, I believe just being an archbishop is a pretty big deal; strangely I can't find a complete listing in Wikipedia, but I suspect we have articles for most if not all of the Roman Catholic archbishops in the United States, or even the world. But it does seem like we're getting closer. Can you explain why it's a big deal to you to specify that he's only known for opposition to gay marriage in San Francisco? I mean, for one thing, if the New York Times, Huffington Post, etc., write about it, I don't really think it's true, since they are not really limited to San Francisco. --GRuban (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@GRuban:Thank you for your feedback and that's incredible... 100,000 volunteers! It really is quite amazing when you step back to think what's been achieved. Again props to you for putting in the time and being an active part of that tribe. RE: the preference for San Francisco, my concern is that generally it makes this single issue sound far bigger than it actually is. The Wiki page has become the Salvatore Cordileone as seen through the lens of partisan media sources (NYT, Huffington Post) etc that use emotive language "e.g. anti LGBT rights instead of pro-traditional marriage" to spin his stance in a certain, negative way.

I don't think it's very fair on him to put what people write about him in this way higher up in the hierarchy of reputable sources than what he actually says and does himself (in other words we need to pay great attention not just to the source itself, but the degree to which within the source the actual person being spoken has been directly and accurately quoted (in full!). This is particularly problematic when the NYT pull out trite statements like "experts agree". Also the more partisan a source, the more problematic it becomes.

Ultimately though, without my investing considerable further time to go through his entire page and adding more information about his career generally to give it balance, your conclusion is fair and reasonable. Interestingly that's a smart outcome on Wikipedia's part! There's incentive there for me to add to the project's richness. That said I still have a concern – whilst I admire Wikipedia in many ways – that more power is given to others than the source being written about itself. A possibly evolution of Wikipedia might be to have more of a weighting system for sources, where 'primary' sources e.g. direct speech quotes or recordings of the person themselves gets a higher weighting than secondary quotes and opinions (even in popular publications). Very tricky though. Clearly the flexibility in the talk page also offers the chance to have those kinds of discussions.

All in all let's go with your suggestion "Cordileone has become known for his opposition to same-sex civil marriage.[1][2]"... I do think that's an improvement and I defer to your greater familiarity with Wiki protocols and policies. Thank you for your time working with me here. Best wishes for the rest of 2018! Keep up the good work on Wikipedia. Rnolds (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Roscelese, Nunh-huh, Dlohcierekim, and FreeKnowledgeCreator: Folks, are you also OK with shortening the line in the lead section to "... opposition to same-sex civil marriage."? The best sources do seem to stress that part, rather than general opposition to LGBT rights. --GRuban (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@GRuban: in expanding that sentence, I was following the body of the article which also talks about his opposition to antidiscrimination policy. But yeah, if the sources generally focus on his opposition to marriage, that seems like the thing that should be in the lede. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@GRuban:@Roscelese:@Nunh-huh, Dlohcierekim, and FreeKnowledgeCreator: Thank you all your time and attention. Now updated as discussed. At a later date I'd like to add more to the article generally, focusing on his other achievements. It's been an interesting experience contributing to Wikipedia and this is the first time I've engaged in a talk discussion. Especially interesting is how engagement encourages more engagement and contribution, so as a whole the project gets richer and more detailed. Best wishes to all. Rnolds (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Rv

Reverted change to section header, since the section already notes multiple areas in which the subject opposes LGBT rights. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Sexual abuse

It's unclear why the info I removed would belong in Cordileone's bio rather than our article on the diocese. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)