Talk:Vincent Nichols

message: This article is almost devoid of references, as are other articles about the Roman Catholic church in England.  Does the statement "if you add information to an article, be sure to include your references, as unreferenced facts are subject to removal"  not apply?  The Future Ministry section was almost entirely speculation.192.38.117.2 (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: My feeling is that this article name doesn't comply with the relevant naming convention which specifies that the name chosen should be "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". As Vincent Nichols is nearly always called "Vincent Nichols", without a middle name, does anyone object if I move the article? --Lo2u (T • C) 21:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As no one has objected, I'm going to be bold and move the page. I know I've not left very much time but I consider this fairly uncontroversial and it can always be reconsidered. Unfortunately, the name of this page is determining the names of articles in other languages that are now being created so it is important to get it right quicky. --Lo2u (T • C) 14:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: The header of the article is misleading. Nicols is not "Archbishop-elect" at all, as any sort of bishop-elect is someone who is appointed, not yet consecrated bishop. Nichols is an ordained bishop and has been for years! I think (but could be wrong) he should be Archbishop-designate.
Furthermore, he is not Aposotolic Administrator of Birmingham - he is still Archbishop of Birmingham until translated to Westminster on May 21st. The see is not sede vacante (unliek Westminster at the momemen).
:Indeed, that was my understanding too. I think I've clarified it now. --Lo2u (T • C) 17:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the source in the text from the official press release uses the term "archbishop-elect",  though he must technically be archbishop-designate too. I can't find any source that refers to Nichols as "apostolic administrator" though, and in the absence of evidence either way, I think it's best to say merely that he remains at Birmingham. --Lo2u (T • C) 19:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

text: This is pretty much correct. There has been some discussion on this. He remains Archbishop of Birmingham until 21st May (Canon 191.1 I think) - though his authority to govern that diocese is limited to that of an administrator (another Canon - can't remember the number). He is generally referred to as Archbishop-elect - even though he is a bishop already. I have never heard of the distinction between 'elect' and 'designate' being used in the Catholic Church. Cormac has retired and is now Archbishop emeritus. However, Vincent is the Apostolic Administrator of Westminster, as is usually the case when a bishop has been appointed and not yet taken canonical possession. The source of this authority is usually the apostolic letter of appointment from the Roman Pontiff. He formally becomes Archbishop of Westminster at his installation (though in reality it takes place just before at the presentation of his apostolic letter to the College of Consultors of the Archdiocese and the taking of the profession of faith, which takes place in private). At that moment the Archdiocese of Birmingham becomes sede vacante, the College of Consultors meet to elect a Diocesan Administrator. (Note difference between Apostolic Administrator named by the Pope and a Diocesan Administrator who is elected by the Consultors. The latter is the norm in a sede vacante. The latter has less authority to govern autonomously than the former.) Hope this is useful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Booj37 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archbishop-elect 

message: While I'm very happy to support any reordering of the article which makes it clear what the issues are so readers can go straight to them. Nevertheless my view is that we've ended up with too many headinsg right now and it stops the flow of the article; making it very difficult to read. There are 2 ways I guessing of doing this - (1) chronological - which is what we had before (things listed as he does/ says them) and (ii) issue based - which we have now (but perhaps with more joined-up issues)? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many headings 

message: I have upheld the deletion of a large part of the section on Homosexuality as a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of how Church doctrine works. This bishop can change as much about the faith as I can, or the Pope can: that is, none. There is perhaps space for writing a bit in general about his stance on Church doctrine but all this "he said, she said" back-and-forth about things that are not going to change are wholly unproductive for a WP:BLP. Elizium23 (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Paragraph 1 can be summed up by "No way". Not news and not a notable event in his life. Paragraph 2 can be summed up by "I don't know". Not news, not notable. Paragraph 3, ditto. I can see the case for Paragraph 4 and 5 being left in, as a summary of his stance on the matters. There's a case for Paragraph 6 as well (the part about Soho Masses). Paragraph 7, possibly... it's almost WP:SYNTH to put this in a BLP about the bishop because it's really about the archdiocese; does the article mention his name? Paragraph 8 can be combined with Paragraph 6 and shortened a bit to comply with WP:DUE. That's my position on the material. I welcome others' comments. Elizium23 (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexuality 

message: I am not sure of the status of The Pavement magazine as a reliable secondary source. An evaluation of its editorial oversight and reputation for fact-checking is in order. Elizium23 (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it, if someone can provide a link to the article then we should discuss it. Even if it is proven there is a further debate as whether the biography of a patron of a charity the right place to talk about controversy surrounding the charity itself. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

text: If we are going to make claims about organisations we need them referenced. Also I am not sure why this is relevant to the biog of a patron of the charity unless her personally has been involved in the decisions & policies you are talking about. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Exceptional claims require exceptional references, as well as a solid reason to link the subject of this biography with the alleged activities of the charity. Please read the policy on WP:BLP. Contentious, poorly-sourced assertions are to be removed immediately. The question is not whether the Pavement article is online or not, the question is whether it is reliable for making these statements. I also have a suspicion that the user account making the initial edit has a connection with the magazine itself, based on the user name chosen and the quality of the edits. Therefore I have notified them of a possible conflict of interest. I am even more suspicious now that there is a fresh set of IP addresses come to defend that edit. Sock puppetry and meat puppetry are forbidden activities on Wikipedia, so tread carefully, especially since you now seem to be engaged in a edit war which is also forbidden. Elizium23 (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

text: I am sorry you feel you are being bullied but your edits are not within the guidelines. This was was Elizium23 was trying to explain. If you are going to make contentious claims in an article you have to ensure you are making edits in the right place and reference them correctly. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Pavement magazine 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Vincent Nichols. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  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  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.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article1499944.ece
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Vincent Nichols. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828200122/http://www.iyln.com/ to http://www.iyln.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Vincent Nichols. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091024000252/http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/24513.php?index=24513&lang=en to http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/24513.php?index=24513&lang=en
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Vincent Nichols. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080727063240/http://www.stmaryandstjohnsparishes.co.uk/histstm.html to http://www.stmaryandstjohnsparishes.co.uk/histstm.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091124151356/http://www.catholicchurch.org.uk/ccb/catholic_church/catholic_bishops_conference_of_england_and_wales/departments/catholic_education_and_formation to http://www.catholicchurch.org.uk/ccb/catholic_church/catholic_bishops_conference_of_england_and_wales/departments/catholic_education_and_formation
*Added  tag to http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/23659.php?index=23659&lang=en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080504000257/http://212.77.1.245/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/b7_en.htm to http://212.77.1.245/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/b7_en.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090509212657/http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/ccb/catholic_church/media_centre2/press_releases/press_releases_2009/archbishop_nichols_unanimously_elected_president_of_bishops_conference to http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/ccb/catholic_church/media_centre2/press_releases/press_releases_2009/archbishop_nichols_unanimously_elected_president_of_bishops_conference
*Added  tag to http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/ccb/catholic_church/media_centre2/press_releases/press_releases_2009/archbishop_of_westminster_receives_pallium_from_pope_benedict_xvi
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011095225/http://dnu.org/service/commongood.pdf to http://www.dnu.org/service/commongood.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130627071545/http://www.csan.org.uk/newsarticle/child-poverty-statistics-archbishop-vincent-nichols-catholics-must-shy-adding-voice-public-debate/ to http://www.csan.org.uk/newsarticle/child-poverty-statistics-archbishop-vincent-nichols-catholics-must-shy-adding-voice-public-debate/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Vincent Nichols. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090408215302/http://www.catholicchurch.org.uk/ccb/catholic_church/events/pope_announces_archbishop_elect_of_westminster to http://www.catholicchurch.org.uk/ccb/catholic_church/events/pope_announces_archbishop_elect_of_westminster
*Added  tag to http://www.zenit.org/article-27269?l=english_date=20.10.2009&lang=en
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: @Trey Maturin: Nichols' birthdate was well-sourced and cited elsewhere in the article; if you couldn't be bothered to find it then I'm sorry but you'll be reverted. I've supplied the citation for anyone who was sceptical of the plain facts. Elizium23 (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If the above is true, I severely object to you using automated tools to rollback good-faith edits with incorrect edit summaries like you did. You've been here long enough to know that this behaviour is not acceptable. Wikipedia is not a videogame: slow down and use correct edit summaries in future. — Trey Maturin has spoken 12:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand by my revert: your removal was not constructive. The fact is sourced and verifiable and you apparently quick-reverted several edits in a row without vetting them. I found that your other removals were valid. I am not sure what you are trying to accuse me of. You went to my user talk page to accuse me of this as well, but you're in the wrong here. Why did you remove a verifiable fact from this article? Elizium23 (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that you hid your response to my talk page message by coming here rather than replying to me directly; I also note that you're not denying your misuse of automated tools; and I note that you are combative when challenged about this issue. — Trey Maturin has spoken 17:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure how replying in the correct place is "hiding my response". It was improper of you to go to my talk page with the issue when it relates to this article instead. Yes, I use automated tools to edit Wikipedia, what of it? There is no prohibition on what I'm doing. And I did use a correct edit summary, stating my rationale for reverting you; why are you chastising me to "slow down"? Elizium23 (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthdate was sourced