# Talk:José María Gil Tamayo

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/11/06/181106b.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 04:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:José María Gil Tamayo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: The Blue Rider (talk · contribs) 11:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: SnowFire (talk · contribs) 04:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello.  See that this one has been sitting in the GAN backlog for awhile, so I'll give it a shot.  As a slight warning, my Spanish is a tad rusty and there's clearly a lot of Spanish in the references to read, but hopefully it'll be okay.  SnowFire (talk) 04:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
As a general comment: I'm a little worried that a lot of the sources to this article seem to be basically Church press releases, or based on them.  I get that by its nature, a lot of information is going to be coming from the official source, but I'm hoping that there will be some independent, secondary sources here as well.  (For example, a lot of the referenced articles after he was appointed Archbishop of Granada appear to be quoting the exact same source, down to identical phrasings.  In these cases, the reference count can be misleading, because it's just an echo chamber of reposts.)  I'm also seeing some very direct quotes of the sources, which is okay sometimes when there's just factual data you're reporting, but watch out for close paraphrasing, which can happen even in translation.

I did a throughout research and I couldn't find any other sources.
Also, usual proviso that you should feel free to push back on prose comments - these are suggestions, not demands.

after his ordination, he did pastoral work in rural villages and delivered lectures in Latin America and the Caribbean
Are these lectures really so important as to qualify for the lede?  This source dedicates a mere sentence fragment to "ha dictado conferencias en Puerto Rico," as do sources copying it like [1] and [2].  If they were important, which source covers them?

Yes, it gives an overview of his pastoral work. The three sources cover it.
I feel there has to be a miscommunication somewhere because this isn't responsive to my point.  As I already said, no, these three sources do not give an overview of this work.  If by "cover it" you mean "have the same copy-pasted half sentence from the official biography at https://archidiocesisgranada.es/diocesis/jose-maria-gil-tamayo/ ", then yes, they do, but they don't go into any detail at all.  To repeat myself, I'm talking specifically about the Puerto Rico work, not Tamayo's history in general.  I'm not convinced at all here.  If these lectures were lede-level important, prove it by showing a source, any source, that offers more than half a sentence on them.  As is we have no idea how significant these were.  Where is this alleged overview?  Why isn't it used as a source if it exists?
Gil's sacerdotal ordination was on 7 September 1980; he was incardinated in the Archdiocese of Mérida–Badajoz by Antonio Montero Moreno.
You'll have to forgive me if these terms are better known among English-speaking Catholics, but they're pretty unfamiliar to me, and I consider myself comparatively well-read.  Or rather, I know "sacerdote" is "priest" in Spanish of course, but I haven't heard of it used particularly often in English.  "Incardinate" is a similarly rare word.  If you want to say that yes, these terms are known, then fine, but ngrams suggests that "incardinated" is extremely rare if nothing else.  Maybe "priestly ordination" and "received into" instead?

Hmmm, I don't really agree, "received into" sounds strange to not say incorrect and priestly and sacerdotal are similar but aren't really the same thing.
For nine years, he dedicated himself to pastoral work in rural villages, serving as a parish priest, vicar, and religion teacher. In one of these villages, he initiated collaboration with local radio stations to share religious teachings for those who couldn't attend mass.
"dedicated himself" is a very flowery way of putting it.  Maybe just "he performed pastoral work"?  Also, "collaboration" reads rather more hostily than probably intended here.  Was this really "sharing religious teachings"?  I presume this is from [3] which is frustratingly vague on the subject of what precisely he did.  Which town?  Did he host a radio show?  Was it a religious service or like a talk show?  Dunno if the sources exist, but that would be useful.  If that source is truly all we have, I'd suggest reducing this to something equally vague, like "He worked with local radio stations to provide Christian content, especially for those who couldn't attend Mass."

 Done
In 1992, he assumed the role of directing Medios de Comunicación y de la Oficina de Información for his diocese
Nit, here and elsewhere: This is not a requirement for GA status, but is good practice and is a requirement for FA status...  you might want to consider the Template:Lang tag for accessibility.  Basically, mark this with {{lang|es|Medios de Comunicación y de la Oficina de Información|italic=no}} so that screen readers "know" to pronounce this in Spanish.  Additionally, for a random non-Spanish speaking reader, it might be helpful to add a glossed translation into English in parentheses afterward.  (The same for later Spanish bits - non-Spanish speakers seeing "Red Informática de la Iglesia en América Latina" will think red-the-color, not red-the-Internet.)

Since, I don't plan to bring this to FA, I will pass this suggestion. Thanks.
Gil has been a professor in communication technologies at Pontifical University of Salamanca.[1][3][5]
Again a case of three sources that are too close, so close that they were clearly copying each other.  But none of these sources bother to say when he was a professor and for how long.  Do any of your other sources happen to cover this?  (Also, as a tiny nitpick, I'd argue the wikilink to "professor" is overlinking - per WP:OL, no need to link common English words that aren't super-relevant.

Removed "professor" wikilink. The sources don't say when nor how long.  Done
Internationally, he has delivered lectures in El Salvador, Puerto Rico and Cuba.
Did he?  The sources seem to say he was a visiting professor at es:Universidad Católica de El Salvador (side note: that's a red link on EN wiki?  Huh.) which is if anything more prestigious than just delivering some lectures.  And on the Puerto Rico side, it's back to "why is this relevant" - we have so little detail it's hard to know how much it mattered.  I'm not 100% sure what he did in Cuba.

provided pastoral communication services to the Episcopal Conference of El Salvador and Chile
Apologies if I've misinterpreted the source myself, but I'm not sure that's what the source says?  "ha asesorado sobre temas de pastoral de las comunicaciones a los obispos de las Conferencias Episcopales de El Salvador y de Chile".  He didn't do the pastoral communication for the conference, he advised them on how to do it themselves, if I read that correctly.

 Done
In 2006, he became member for the Comité internacional preparatorio del Congreso Mundial de TV Católicas and also took charge of the event's press direction.
This sentence doesn't really work.  "became a member", and the "took charge of the event's press direction" is phrased very strangely.  This also seems to be quoting the original sentence a little too directly.  "He worked at the press office for the Congreso Mundial de TV Católicas" perhaps?

 Done
Gil was the spokesperson of the Spanish language in the XIII Synod of Bishops in the Catholic Church in 2018.
What does this mean?  Was he, like, an interpreter?  An advocate for Spanish-as-a-language?

Sources only say he was the "portavoz", which means interpreter.
https://dle.rae.es/portavoz doesn't seem to agree.  Normally interpreters are random salaried people and it's not particularly prestigious.  I would suggest "advocate" based on the RAE definition.
Advocate in spanish would be "defensor" or something similar. Portavoz means spokesperson. The Blue Rider  16:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I get what you're saying, but this isn't a 1:1 "let's translate portavoz in a vacuum."  In English, a spokesman / spokesperson is something like when an organization hires a PR person to make advertisements or hold press conferences and make announcements.  See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spokesman .  But this is very strange in the context of a language, which is not an organization and can't appoint anyone.  The Spanish language itself didn't somehow pick Tamayo to be its representative at a conference; that's impossible.  To the extent there's an analogy for languages, it's entities like the RAE or the Académie Française which claim to do things on behalf of a language as a whole.  This is why I'm suggesting advocate; anyone can advocate on behalf of something.  Maybe as an analogy: imagine an environmental group.  Saying that they're advocates for environmental protection is fine in English; saying that they're spokespeople for the environment is a rather weird and pretentious claim, as if some sort of Gaea-style goddess of the environment picked them to be their representatives.  It's the same deal with a language.  SnowFire (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I think you are misinterpreting things, he was hired as a spokesperson for that organization, specifically for the Spanish-speaking audience. He isn't advocating the spanish language at all. The Blue Rider  21:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Checking the source... I actually agree, that makes more sense.  So the good news is "spokesman" or "spokesperson" is fine, but I'd still suggest changing the sentence, because it's currently saying "he was the spokesperson of the Spanish language" which is why I was assuming he had some role as "representative of Spanish" or the like.  "Spokesman of the XYZ in Spanish" would be more accurate then.  SnowFire (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
 Done though sounds a tad unnatural
Furthermore, he was the deputy of the Spanish language of the Holy See during the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI (February-March 2013)
Same question here - what does "deputy of the Spanish language" mean / imply?  Also, per MOS:DASH, use an ndash for a date range like this.

Put ndash; rephrased to spokesperson instead of deputy.  Done
Similar to below, I'd suggest "advocate" perhaps.  "Spokesperson" is a bit over-dramatic and unclear.
I disagree, "portavoz" means spokesperson, not advocate. The Blue Rider  16:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
In the Roman Curia, Gil was the consultant of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications from 2006 to 2016.
Same question here too - "the consultant" is rather mysterious.  What did that role do / imply?  And was he really "the" consultant?  I'm not sure I get the impression from the original Spanish there was only one...  but maybe I'm off.

Most sources about fairly minor bishops don't go into much detail, they just say he was a consultant; changed "the" to "a".  Done
During 13 years (1998-2011), the archbishop of Granada was the director of the Director of the Media Commission Secretariat
No he wasn't.  Gil was, not the archbishop.  (And the date range is clearly more important than the year length - "From 1998 to 2011", perhaps.)

 Done
He has been secretary general of the Spanish Episcopal Conference from 2013-2018
Another ndash.  And despite suggesting removing some wikilinks above, I'd definitely add a Wikilink here to Spanish Episcopal Conference, that'd be relevant.

Spanish Episcopal Conference is linked in the previous sentence. Added ndash. The Blue Rider  02:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough.  Note: I know some people use this style, but I'd prefer you don't strikethrough my comments - strikethrough is usually reserved for when the person writing the message retracts it (i.e. me in this case).  If you want to mark stuff as done, then maybe use Template:Done ( Done) ?
Think that's enough for now.  Really hoping that there are some more sources than just the current 1/3/5 for the Priesthood section... SnowFire (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
@The Blue Rider: - see you made some edits this weekend, just making sure you saw this.

I am currently in exams season so I don't really have time to do this right now; but it should be over in the next few days. I hope you don't mind. Thanks. The Blue Rider  14:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I suppose I might as well follow-up on the rest of the article, I made some minor edits.  

He had many technological-related roles due to his degree in information science.
Is this really shown by the rest of the article?  I'm not saying it's not true, but working with radio stations is only very loosely a technological role - maybe he was just talking.  Similarly, his other roles are often described as "communications", which CAN mean tech, but can also just mean writing messages and email campaigns and the like.  Even if he did do tech roles, was it established it was because of his degree?

Removed "due to...".  Done
Okay, but is the earlier part of the section still true?  What were his technological-related roles?  The closest seems the radio work IF it was on the tech side, but it isn't clear to me that this is what he did there.
Would communication-related jobs be a better phrasing?
Based on what's currently in the article, yes.  (Maybe he really did do technological related roles but it's not sourced currently if so.)
 Done
The career-as-bishop section has some fairly minor material IMO.  It's sourced but none of it seems TOO super-important, more like he was just commenting on news of the day.  If he really played a strong role here, it would help to have better sources to show what it was.
Anyway the biggest concern remains what I mentioned above - do we have any better sources than basically a Church press release and news articles that are very clearly copying parts of that press release for his earlier history?  SnowFire (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@The Blue Rider: It's been more than a month.  I get that real life gets in the way some times and there's no deadline, but should I just mark this as failed for now?  Or do you think you'll be able to get to this? SnowFire (talk) 03:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
So sorry, I will do this tonight. The Blue Rider  15:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I will say as a broader, overall issue...  I want to stress the above concern about the sources for Tamayo's early life & priesthood all generally seeming to be drawn from the same press release, down to copying the wording exactly, so that section is currently more shakily sourced than it "looks".  GA criteria 3a is only "broad" in coverage, so we don't need to be vacuuming up absolutely everything ever written about Tamayo, but can you attest that you've searched for more independent sources here?  If you find some, great, and if you don't, then verifying this is the best we have is fine.  But it would be nice if other sources did exist here.  SnowFire (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
@The Blue Rider: Do you think you'll have time to finish this review off?  SnowFire (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
@The Blue Rider: One last ping.  I'm going to close this review otherwise.  I don't think the article is that far off, but at this point it might benefit from a fresh set of eyes.  FWIW, to be clear, I am not necessarily demanding major revisions here, but I do think it's reasonable to verify that these sources are indeed the best available and the article meets 2b / 3a and is broad in coverage. But potentially simply saying "Yes, I've searched for other sources, and there isn't anything else" might be enough here. SnowFire (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I think I have answered everything. Thanks for the review.
I'm trying not to be snippy here, but as I stated repeatedly, the sourcing was the most important concern.  It was the very first thing I raised in June 2024, as well as repeated at the end of my initial review - I wrote it was the "biggest concern."  I raised the issue of sourcing again in my pinging later over a month ago.  Good sourcing is what will make this a GA, showing that it has a broad overview of the sources.  And you finally, finally get back to me months later with...  a copy-paste of the suggested sentence and zero additional context.  This was the most important part, the thing we should have been talking about earlier.  I'm fine with AGFing, the GA standards are not that strict...  but it's a lot easier if you give the reviewer something to work with.  All of the phrasing nitpicky stuff you responded on was just side chatter.  The sourcing was what I wished we had been talking about for the months this review was open, where you explained why these were the best sources and how you looked for them, yet you've only given me the bare-bones on at the last possible second when we're getting asked what the holdup is.  And while I had plenty of time when I took this review on months ago, I no longer do.  I'm sorry if there was a problem on my side somehow about not communicating that this was the important part.
I decided to check on Google some.  Lots of useless hits because Tamayo is just being the person interviewed in the media for what the conference said.  https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/256645/spanish-archbishop-i-am-not-going-to-bless-even-one-homosexual-union is a recent news story, although up to you if his stance on same-sex blessings is relevant enough to cover.   https://www.vidanuevadigital.com/2022/07/24/gil-tamayo-un-arzobispo-coadjutor-para-reconstruir-granada/ and https://www.vidanuevadigital.com/2022/07/16/jose-maria-gil-tamayo-coadjutor-de-granada-para-ser-el-futuro-arzobispo/ suggests that there was questionable financial management in Granada before Tamayo's arrival and that Martínez had not handled the pedophile priest issue well, and Gil Tamayo was brought in early as coadjutor for a fresh set of eyes, but I could see arguing this is speculation and more about his predecessor anyway.  https://elpais.com/noticias/jose-maria-gil-tamayo/ is a category of news articles that mention Tamayo on El Pais, but didn't look through these.  If you find anything here or in future news reports, might be handy maintenance.
This would have been much easier if you had given me at least a little insight into the research you did.  Stuff like what / where you checked.  I'm sorry if this appears too demanding, but sourcing is really the thing that a reviewer has the least room to compromise on.  If these weak sources are truly the best available, fine, it's something that happens with more obscure topics, just...  make the case.  Something to keep in mind for the future, perhaps.  Like I said, I am willing to AGF here, I'll pass the article if you're going to assert this is as good as it gets.  SnowFire (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
@SnowFire: is this review ready to be closed? Fritzmann (message me) 20:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Fritzmann2002: I wrote up a reply about a week ago but didn't want to send it off as being too negative and not forward-facing enough, decided I'd do some digging myself, and then got completely buried in work.  Sorry.  Agree that this nomination was open too long. SnowFire (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)