Talk:Salvatore Cordileone

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  tag. Here at Wikipedia we report what the WP:RS say. Elizium23 (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: LOL, the Catholic League. Try again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I can do without your incivility. Elizium23 (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?  Just asking.  Esoglou (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Today on the bus I was fantasizing about removing the  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inconsistent, NPOV dispute 

message: 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)
thread_title:  St. Gianna Physicians Guild 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  March for Marriage as name of the event 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Can you find a non-SPS for it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: WP:BIASED Elizium23 (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality tag 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm highly doubtful that Matxjos is aware or interested. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of sourced 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Language proficiency 

message: I realize a couple years ago  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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
#http://www.diocesepvd.org/letter-to-catholics-on-the-approval-of-same-sex-marriage-in-ri/
#http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/same-sex-unions/
#http://cfdiocese.org/mydiocese/a-pastoral-letter-from-bishop-brewer-on-same-sex-marriage-and-the-diocese-of-central-florida/
#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Believe me, I get it .  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Suggested re-thinking of Lede 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re: morality clauses 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Salvatore J. Cordileone. 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.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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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): ....
, 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 '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)
replies: text: 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)

text: , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: , 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)

text: , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:   What I meant was, as  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)
replies: text: , 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)
replies: text: Looks fine. See, that wasn't that hard to do. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rv 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sexual abuse