Talk:Theodore McCarrick/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Suggestion prompted by reading Catholic-hierarchy site

Rather than going ahead and editing this in right now, how about something like "(resigned cardinalate)" along with the Archbishop title? Catholic-hierarchy site has such a note, and that site too is now referring to McCarrick as Archbishop. Carlm0404 (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I have put that in today (July 31) as proposed. Carlm0404 (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

This is just a misuse of the infobox format. And sloppily done to boot. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, so just use the nearby references to cardinal, right? Carlm0404 (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you feel a need to “use”. See the rest of the infobox. It’s a previous position and its listed with the appropriate dates. Just like Louis Billot was just a priest until you changed it. We removed McCarrisk’s "rank= Cardinal Priest" cause it’s no longer true, as well. There are plenty of examples of bishops who resign in similar circumstances and there’s no reason to handle this differently. See Robert Finn (bishop) or Juliusz Paetz. We don’t indicate who resigned at age 75 and who resigned under pressure, lawsuit, conviction, etc. The infobox is designed to handle demographic info without that sort of commentary/explanation. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, the addition of an appropriate field for cardinal_end might be useful if this is going to keep happening. But that’s another issue I guess. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Blog for background

This may not be a Reliable Source but it looks loaded.Someone may want to follow leads. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/cardinal-mccarrick-everybody-knew/ 12.144.5.2 (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Neither of the refs for that claim satisfy WP:RS --LaserLegs (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Section heading

Currently, the section on the latest news reads: "Accusations of sexual abuse and removal from public ministry". Isn't there a guideline about keeping section headings concise and succinct? This one just seems a bit wordy to me. Admittedly, the section has two components and both are described in the current header, but it seems like the first half is the most important and germane to the situation, where his removal from ministry is simply the natural consequence. If there are follow-on consequences, shall we add them to the heading as well? Is there a way to describe the situation in fewer words? 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

And is this section a sub-head of "Retirement", as it is now, or a change of subject worthy of its own heading? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with changing it to simply "Accusations of sexual abuse". The removal from ministry is a conseqeunce, as you said. Whether to keep it under "Retirement" is unclear. Right now his biography is divided into four headings -- "Early life and education", "Priesthood", "Episcopal career", "Retirement" -- representing four stages in his life. Since the public accusations and removal from ministry occurred during his retirement, it might be best to keep it subordinate to that. On the other hand, the actual abuse occurred before his retirement, so that suggests it should be a separate heading altogether. I don't have a strong opinion either way. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 21:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

NYT refs and Higuera

@Display name 99: regarding your edit the string "Higuera" simply does not appear in the ref [1] no matter how "carefully" I read it, I cannot manifest those characters into existence. It also makes no mention of this being "This was the earliest known occasion in which a priest complained to a superior.". I've reverted your changes, please discuss here. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Here are the quotes:

"The first documented complaint about Cardinal McCarrick came at the latest by 1994, when the second priest wrote a letter to the new Bishop of Metuchen, Edward T. Hughes, saying that Archbishop McCarrick had inappropriately touched him and other seminarians in the 1980s, according to the documents."

Ok, then "This was the earliest known occasion in which a priest complained to a superior." this is unclear (or maybe I'm simple minded) because that reads like this is the This was the earliest known occasion in which a priest complained to a superior - about any kind of sexual misconduct. Probably my fault. I'll revert, thanks! --LaserLegs (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

and

"When Archbishop McCarrick was appointed to Washington, Father Ramsey spoke by phone with the pope’s representative in the nation’s capital, Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo, the papal nuncio, and at his encouragement sent a letter to the Vatican about Archbishop McCarrick’s history." Display name 99 (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see, NYT doesn't include "Higuera". My bad. I swear I read Gabriel Montalvo and didn't connect that to Gabriel Montalvo Higuera. My bad, I'll own that screw up, thanks. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia defining adult homosexual conduct as abuse?

There seems to be a general consensus that McCarrick never approached minors, nor is there any allegation of violence or coercion.

All that remains is homosexual conduct between adults. Why are we calling this abuse? 87.147.189.34 (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

-- No, he was convicted by the Catholic Church of "sins against the sixth Commandment" meaning sexual sins, with minors and adults.

It is abuse because he misused his authority over those adults. They were seminarians or priests and he was an Archbishop and then a Cardinal. It's like when a teacher has sex with their student who is 18 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18E:8200:557:D859:7526:8BC:3290 (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

There are three kinds of allegations against McCarrick.

1. Allegations that he abused minors.

On June 20, 2018, Cardinal McCarrick was removed from public ministry by the Holy See after a review board of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York found an allegation "credible and substantiated" that he had sexually abused a 16-year-old altar boy while a priest in New York. Patrick Noaker, the attorney for the anonymous complainant, alleged two incidents at St. Patrick's Cathedral, one in 1971 and the other in 1972. Noaker stated that when measuring the teen for a cassock, McCarrick "unzipped [the boy's] pants and put his hands in the boy's pants."

And again:

In late July 2018, a New Jersey man whose uncle had known McCarrick since high school alleged that McCarrick had sexually abused him for 20 years, and that McCarrick had exposed himself to him when he was 11 and had sexually touched him beginning when he was 13.

In the article, these sentences appear with lots of footnotes to reputable sources. Do you agree that the term "abuse" is fully appropriate for such cases?

2. Allegations of completely consensual sex between McCarrick and adult seminarians and adult priests. These are never called "abuse" in the article.

3. Allegations of unwanted sexual advances that McCarrick made toward seminarians. These did not involve violent rape, but they did involve his deliberately putting these men in positions they wanted to avoid, in full knowledge of the fact that he held almost absolute power over their future careers. They are therefore very similar to the majority of the allegations against Harvey Weinstein and others. I agree with you that the term "abuse" is misleading. But these are not consensual, either. What is the best term for these? Sexual harassment? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 03:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up: The American Psychological Association defines "sexual abuse" here as "unwanted sexual activity, with perpetrators using force, making threats or taking advantage of victims not able to give consent." Does category #3 above fit that definition? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 05:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you could try using "sexual harassment" for the case of seminarians, who presumably are already of age of consent for consensual sexual activity. And, yes, it causes deep concern to have it come from someone who has such power over their careers. There was the published case of Desmond Rossi, in active ministry in the diocese of Albany, who spoke out with support of his local bishop; Rossi was uncomfortable as a seminarian under McCarrick, and it fell to McCarrick to approve Rossi's transfer out of the Newark archdiocese jurisdiction (understood to also need approval of the bishop at the receiving end). Carlm0404 (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

McCarrick was laicized on the 15th of February, because that is when he was notified. A law is not a law until it is promulgated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18E:8200:557:D859:7526:8BC:3290 (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Residence in retirement (BEFORE going into seclusion in Kansas in 2018)

"Retirement as archbishop" section's 2nd paragraph mentions residences but fails to mention Little Sisters of the Poor. If you go to https://cathstan.org/Content/Default/Mobile-Master/Article/On-his-60th-year-as-priest-Cardinal-McCarrick-praises-witness-of-priests-and-laypeople/-3/-7/8440 , you find May 18, 2018 article which says "Cardinal McCarrick, who turns 88 on July 7, now lives at the Jeanne Jugan Residence of the Little Sisters of the Poor in Washington." When did he start living there?

I am well aware that May 2018 is just 1 month before scandal became public, causing McCarrick to leave public ministry and later the Cardinalate (and as stated, go into seclusion far from the East Coast). Carlm0404 (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

And here is the text from this Wikipedia article I was referring to: >After his retirement, McCarrick resided for some time at the Redemptoris Mater Seminary in the Archdiocese of Washington. He subsequently moved to the grounds of the provincial headquarters of the Institute of the Incarnate Word in Chillum, Maryland, in a building on a complex that included a seminary.

Carlm0404 (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

C-Span Video confirms McCarrick lead the graveside service of Ted Kennedy

He was not just a simple speaker.[2].2601:447:4101:5780:435:D511:8ECF:F20A (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

defrocked

There has been some argument about use of the term "defrocked," since official Catholic law does not use that term; the official term is "laicization". But Reliable Sources are mostly using the word "defrocked"[3], which is far more commonly understood, and IMO we do need to use that word in the lead even if we also use "laicization". After it was removed from the last sentence I restored it as "...the most senior church official in modern times to be laicized[10] - commonly referred to as defrocking - and is believed to be... " Everybody OK with that? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The most important person in this discussion is the WP reader. Defrocked is the term he or she will understand. It's the term being used in the press. I'm not sure that we need to split definitional hairs here. It strikes me that this discussion is like Clinton's ninety minute discussion with prosecutors before he said, "I did not have ...," a disingenuous use of definitions by most people's yardstick. Rhadow (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course "defrocked is okay".--138.245.3.78 (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Ravenpuff was correct to restore "defrocked." Use of "dismissed," it seems to me, is a form of whitewashing and not the term used in the press. Rhadow (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Can the violet in the infobox be changed to normal gray?

Is there some possible way to continue using the "infobox Christian leader" with all its parameters, but without the violet background-color? B/c violet is, among other things, the color of bishops, and emphatically not of laymen. (Note for those who know about things: I think for things such as that, "current legal status", not "sacramental character", is the thing to look at.)--138.245.3.78 (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

To capitalize or not to capitalize?

Our article often capitalizes references to the Catholic Church in text as “the Church” :

Within the Church, McCarrick was variously regarded as a moderate[3][4] or progressive.[5]
The emergence of these reports and the lack of action from the Church hierarchy infuriated Catholics and sparked demands for action against Church leaders believed to be responsible.[2][10]
Although McCarrick was sometimes labelled a liberal, he was noted for adhering to Church teaching on abortion, same-sex marriage, and the male-only priesthood.[7]

… but sometimes doesn’t:

...but continued to be a prominent figure in the church well into the 2010s
After a church investigation and trial, he was found guilty of sexual crimes against adults and minors and abuse of power, and was dismissed from the clergy in February 2019.[13] McCarrick is the most senior church official in modern times to be laicized and is believed to be the first cardinal ever laicized for sexual misconduct.[14]

We should be consistent. IMO we should not capitalize the freestanding word “church” - except when required as part of the name of an individual church, or in a direct quote. It may be that individual Catholics capitalize "Church" as a token of reverence or respect, but we are a neutral encyclopedia, and we recognize that there are many churches, not necessarily one Church. I notice that our article “Catholic Church” does not capitalize “church” by itself in text. Let’s reach a consensus how to handle this in this article. What do others think? -- MelanieN (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Since no one has responded, I am going to make all standalone reference to "church" be lower case. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Chronological order

I find "On October 6, Pope Francis authorized the Vatican archives to conduct a "thorough study" to answer how McCarrick managed to rise in church ranks despite reports that he had slept with not only seminarians, but also young priests."
This follows a paragraph which references ,2019. Please consider supplying the year (2018?) and/or moving it up one paragraph, because October ,2019 is still future.Carlm0404 (talk) 03:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

Seeing as McCarrick is no longer a cardinal, bishop or priest. Perhaps the Bishop infobox should be changed to a non-clerical infobox. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

In the Roman Catholic Church, once you are a priest, you are always a priest. See Canon 4 of Session 23 of the Council of Trent. http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT23.HTM --PluniaZ (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

He's no longer a bishop, so perhaps the infobox should be changed. GoodDay (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe that is the infobox for "Christian leader"; there is also one for "Clergy" and "Religious biography" see List of infoboxes:Religious person. I'm not sure which of the three is most appropriate. Probably the current one since was known as a "Christian leader". Manannan67 (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

According to Catholic teaching, once someone is ordained a priest or consecrated a bishop, he will always be able to validly administer the sacraments and offer Mass. Only that if he is laicized, he is not ALLOWED to do so. So as PluniaZ pointed out, he's still a priest. He is simply forbidden from acting as one in any capacity. The infobox states that he was laicized, so I don't think that anything needs to be changed at this point. Display name 99 (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and WP:BLP issues regarding statements about Cardinal Wuerl

This article has several WP:NPOV and WP:BLP issues in its statements regarding Cardinal Wuerl. The article cannot state in Wikipedia's voice that allegations against Wuerl have been "proven to be true". That is editorializing. The discussion of Wuerl also ignores the nuances in what Wuerl claims to have known and not known. Likewise, the discussion of the May 28, 2019 Crux article contains various editorializing statements, such as "as Vigano claimed" and makes several analytical jumps in assessing the implications of the correspondence written by McCarrick. These paragraphs should be conformed to the corresponding paragraphs in the current version of the article on Cardinal Wuerl. --PluniaZ (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

- Maybe the article cannot state these accusations were true but it is really not honnest to keep untold Wuerl has effectively transmitted Montalvo's report to Vatican, or, at least, that he's accused to have by the Washington Post. Besides, he effectively knew about it in the past because he said he "forgot". If he's forgotten, it means he admits he knew. _ Moreover the quote "Archbishop Vigano presumed that Wuerl had specific information that Wuerl did not have" is out of context. We do not who said this and it looks as though wuerl was definitly out of cause, which is not true. Le Vernaculaire (talk) - At last, it is necessary to distinguish the different "McCarrick Cases" and Wuerl's level of implication. Nota : he is not being accused to be accomplice, because he naturally averted Vatican.(ps : I am coming from the french version)Le Vernaculaire (talk)

Protection

@Display name 99 and PluniaZ: I have protected the article for two days because of edit warring. The goal is to give you time to work out a compromise approach here, rather than by reverting each other in the article. Please be respectful toward each other and discuss in good faith. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request

Please remove the duplicate word "which which" - thanks - Arjayay (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Arjayay, I think it would help if you pinged an administrator and said where in the article the duplicate word is. Display name 99 (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It is in the final paragraph of "Warnings about McCarrick's conduct", but a search for "which which" is not very complicated - Arjayay (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Done -- MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Issues regarding McCarrick's letters released on May 28, 2019

On May 28, 2019, CBS and Crux released stories about a newly revealed set of letters written by McCarrick. These letters were provided to CBS and Crux by McCarrick's former private secretary, Msgr. Anthony J. Figueiredo. The documents released consist solely of letters written by McCarrick. While these letters may establish what McCarrick knew or believed to be true, they do not establish what anyone else knew or believed to be true. As such, statements in the discussion of this story to the effect that the letters confirm that other people knew about the allegations or restrictions against McCarrick, such as Vatican officials or Cardinal Wuerl, are at most inferences and as such cannot be stated in Wikipedia's voice. --PluniaZ (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes they do confirm it, as even acknowledged by his secretary. Read the sources better[4][5]. This is also not a place for you to dictate your own point of view as fact.2601:447:4101:5780:4025:53F8:E70C:2E0B (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, those sources contain (1) partial content from letters written by McCarrick and (2) allegations made by McCarrick's former private secretary. They also contain a denial from Cardinal Wuerl. That is the only factual information in those sources. From that factual material, we cannot state in Wikipedia's voice that any Vatican officials or Cardinal Wuerl knew anything. --PluniaZ (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The documents are a selection of partial e-mails in the possession of McCarrick's former personal secretary. They indicate what McCarrick told others, but, in themselves, do not prove the truth of the statements made, as can be seen by his letter of August 25, 2008 to Cardinal Sambi that he was prepared to comply with the directives, which he almost immediately did not do. He was "strongly exhorted" to curtail further travel w/o permission. Alluding to advising "his Archbishop" may only have been "cover" for travels he intended to make anyway, but now under the guise that Wuerl sanctioned them. Wuerl did not have jurisdiction to supervise a senior cardinal, only the nuncio himself had such authority. Manannan67 (talk) 05:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Superfluous material in Vigano section

The section on Archbishop Vigano is unnecessarily long and contains extensive material that simply is not relevant to this article, which is supposed to be a biography of Theodore McCarrick, not Archbishop Vigano. Cardinal Dolan saying he was a "little impatient" after a month of waiting for the Pope in September 2018 is not historically significant and does not belong in a biography of Theodore McCarrick. The subsequent paragraph is a needless digression into media sensationalism about a "civil war" in the Catholic Church, sourced solely to a well known conservative opinion columnist for the New York Times, Ross Douthat, who makes a living by rousing up conservative hysteria over "liberals" in the Catholic Church. His opinions about an imaginary "civil war" in the Catholic Church do not belong in a biography of Theodore McCarrick. The other source given for that paragraph (CNN) doesn't say anything at all about a civil war or a liberal/conservative divide. I am removing that as a source for the paragraph because it does not support the assertions in the paragraph. The paragraph as a whole, as well as the Dolan quotation need to come out, and the entire section on Vigano needs to be shortened and made encyclopedic. --PluniaZ (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

PluniaZ, how you're just shamelessly making stuff up. The paragraph is sourced solely to a Ross Douthat article because YOU removed the CNN article. Seriously, WTF? Furthermore, the paragraph does not state that there ever was a Catholic civil war, only that it has been described as such. So we aren't taking Douthat's observations as fact. The stuff in the paragraph about an ideological divide mainly comes from Douthat, but the CNN article also talks about battles between liberals and conservatives. Here's a quote from near the end of the article: "Dawn Eden Goldstein, an assistant professor at Holy Apostles College and Seminary in Connecticut who lives in Washington (she teaches her courses online), said some of the calls for Wuerl to resign are coming from conservatives who want to take down one of Pope Francis' top allies." The article is more focused on the "insurgency" from Catholic laity against bishops. That is where the term "Catholic insurgency" comes from, so it is false to say that the CNN articles does not support the claims made in the paragraph. That term is not used in Douthat, which means that because you removed the CNN article, it's currently unsourced. Arguing over whether or not to include a citation to a source recognized as reliable is extremely petty. Of all the things to argue about, the CNN citation is one of the dumbest. Please restore it. Display name 99 (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from WP:PERSONALATTACKS.

I have re-read both the CNN article and the Douthat article. Neither of them support the statements in the paragraph under dispute. The paragraph claims that the Vigano allegations and PA Grand Jury Report have produced a "Catholic civil war" in which large numbers of Catholics have called on Pope Francis and bishops implicated in cover-ups to resign. However, the CNN article identifies only one bishop under pressure to resign, Cardinal Wuerl. Douthat does not identify any. And neither article mentions calls from "significant numbers of lay Catholics" for Pope Francis to resign. Moreover, immediately after Dawn Eden Goldstein accuses conservatives of wanting to take down Wuerl because he is a Pope Francis ally, the article states, "But the people calling for Wuerl's removal in Washington are also a mix of liberal and conservative, young and old, men and women." This contradicts the entire theme of the disputed paragraph, which is that there is a civil war between liberals and conservatives over which bishops should resign.

More importantly, I again raise my objection to the excessive length and detail of the section on the Vigano accusations. This is not a biography of Archbishop Vigano. It is a biography of Theodore McCarrick. There is no need to chronicle the day-by-day reactions to Vigano's claims. If consensus is not reached on this page to shorten the section, I will take it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies, as I do not believe this level of detail is appropriate for a biography of a living person. --PluniaZ (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack. It's pointing out that your criticism of the paragraph being sourced solely to Douthat is grossly dishonest because you were responsible for removing the CNN citation over my objections. Seriously, how did you not expect me to notice that? If your concern is with the paragraph itself and with other parts of the article, I'm not sure what removing the CNN citation is supposed to accomplish. As for your claim about the facts in that particular paragraph not being supported by sources, I will point out that a similar paragraph on another article contains a link to this NYT article which includes "Catholic civil war" in the title. I'm not sure why it isn't here. Like the Douthat article, it's a conservative op-ed. But again, the paragraph never takes what is says as fact, but instead, reports on what people are saying. This is what Wikipedia is supposed to do.

To a degree, I understand your concerns about excessive focus on Vigano. I am willing to allow you to shorten some content related to him without protest. However, I reiterate that it is important to show how the scandal has affected the Church, not just which priests or bishops did what, when, and where. Hence, this paragraph is crucial and needs to go back into the article. I think that it should be re-added with the link to the second NYT article. Display name 99 (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC) Regarding the quote from the CNN article, I also wish to note that the paragraph does not distinguish between liberals and conservatives over the question of whether certain bishops should resign, only Pope Francis. It says: "Significant numbers of lay Catholics have called on bishops implicated in alleged cover-ups as well as Pope Francis to resign." There's no mention of ideology there. It then goes on to describe pretty clearly that conservatives are mostly the ones calling for Francis to resign while liberals are mostly defending him, but I think that we can probably agree that that's true. Display name 99 (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The only sources presented that refer to a "civil war" in the Catholic Church are op-ed pieces by conservative opinion columnists Ross Douthat and Matthew Schmitz. It is not encyclopedic to repeat every claim made by an opinion columnist about a topic. The rest of the the claims in the disputed paragraph are false. No source states that "Significant numbers of lay Catholics have called on bishops implicated in alleged cover-ups as well as Pope Francis to resign." No source states that "Large numbers of conservatives, many of whom have long disliked Pope Francis, have called on him and certain bishops to resign following the Viganò letter and other revelations, while liberals, most of whom have been supportive of Francis's papacy in the past, have more commonly criticized the letter and defended Francis."

The first sentence in the first paragraph you added about Cardinal Wuerl needs to be deleted. No source states that Wuerl was "suspected" of having known about McCarrick.

The last sentence you added about "supporters of Vigano" also needs to be deleted. The first source given, from the UK Catholic Herald, does not say anything about supporters of Vigano, does not say the sanctions were not official, and does not say the sanctions were only loosely enforced. The second source given is LifeSiteNews, which is an extremist website with no reputation for accurate news reporting and hence not a WP:RELIABLE source. See: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/life-site-news/ --PluniaZ (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Correct, we don't need to repeat every claim, but this is a claim made by two very high-profile people. Both of their articles appeared in the New York Times, which is probably the most prominent newspaper in the nation. That's important. The CNN article clearly talks about many lay Catholics wanting Wuerl to resign. There are quotes from people demanding that he resign as well as a quote from somebody else about a "mob mentality." It says that a priest received a standing ovation after calling for Wuerl to resign. If you want more than just Wuerl, here's an article from very recently in which a university president requests that the Bishop of Buffalo, NY, step down over allegations of protecting abusive priests. The sources also talk about demands for Pope Francis to step down, so your statement that the "significant numbers of lay Catholics" sentence is not supported by the sources is untrue. I'm sure I can find even more stuff for you. As for your allegation about the statement on Pope Francis being unverified, if the three articles are insufficient, here is a NYT article which frames the problem as being based on ideology. I'll admit that I could have done a better job of including good sources to support the paragraph, but they're there if you look for them.

As for Wuerl, the post article states: ""The explosive allegations against McCarrick, which include two other accusations of abusing minors as well as those of harassment of seminarians, tipped off a full-blown crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States. All along, Wuerl has largely rejected charges that he played a role in it." There can be no charges unless there is suspicion. If you want, I can change "suspected" to "accused" or "charged" in order to make it more line with the article. Here's a quote from a Crux article from September 7: "In recent weeks, Wuerl has faced questions over his knowledge of the alleged sexually coercive behavior of ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick." Please explain to me how this means anything other than Wuerl was suspected of knowing about the allegations against McCarrick. And the question isn't even particularly relevant now anyway, because Wuerl stated that he did learn about the Ciolek allegation but forgot about it. Whatever suspicions there were had to be at least partially true.

For the question of LifeSiteNews, I'm going to quote Lawrence King, who summed up the reasons for using it very well on the Vigano talk page. He wrote: "If this page were using data from LifeSiteNews to establish controversial claims as facts, that would be a problem. But biographies of living persons routinely cite statements by the person himself/herself, and that's the very essence of bias. The Richard Nixon page quote Nixon himself as saying "I am not a crook." Should this be deleted? Every person is biased in their own case, without exception -- even you and me and DN99. But the important thing is that the Richard Nixon page does not say "Nixon was not a crook" (which would be a misuse of a source) -- it says "Nixon said 'I am not a crook'," which is true. In the same way, the Vigano article is right to document Vigano's own claims about himself, even when he chose to publish then on LifeSite News." Hence, we can relate what LifeSiteNews claims to be true without actually taking a position on whether or not it is true. And before you say that we shouldn't be writing about opinions and speculations from fringe websites, I'd like to point out that this theory was advanced by just about everyone who tried to argue that there were some sort of restrictions. Douthat discusses it in the NYT article, for example. We point out what people questioning Vigano argue, and we should represent what those supporting him are saying as well. Display name 99 (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, no source states that significant numbers of Catholics have called on Pope Francis and bishops to resign. If you disagree, then provide a quotation from a source to that effect. The article on Bishop Malone does not mention McCarrick and is therefore unrelated to this article.

The two Wuerl paragraphs at the end of the "warnings" section should be deleted in their entirety. The content of these paragraphs is already relayed in the Vigano section, albeit more briefly, which is appropriate, since this article is a biography of Theodore McCarrick, not Cardinal Wuerl. And claiming that there were "suspicions" is absolutely unacceptable when not a single source states that there were suspicions - it is not appropriate for Wikipedia editors to infer that there were suspicions based on our interpretation of the sources. WP:BLP demands the immediate removal of that statement.

The reasoning used to justify LifeSiteNews as a source in the article on Archbishop Vigano is inapplicable here. The rationale in that article is that the subject of the article chose to use LifeSiteNews to make claims about himself. That is not the case in this article - McCarrick has not used LifeSiteNews to write about himself. But given that LifeSiteNews is probably used on many Wikipedia articles, I will bring this to the attention of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and let them settle it.

Finally, as a new point, the ordering of the sections needs to be adjusted to match the real life chronology. McCarrick was removed from public ministry two months before the Vigano letter, so that needs to come first. That will require extensive work to fix, which can only be done once the edit protection is lifted from the article. --PluniaZ (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

If the sources don't talk about significant numbers of Catholics wanting bishops and/or the pope to resign, what is "Catholic insurgency" supposed to mean? The article on Malone does mention McCarrick, yes, but it still shows how Catholics were calling on multiple bishops to resign shortly after these allegations emerged.

I think that the Wuerl paragraphs belong in the "warnings" section. The revelation that he knew about the Ciolek allegation is not directly related to Vigano, and the release of the McCarrick correspondence was not done by Vigano either. Your claim that the sources don't support the idea of their being suspicions is absolutely ridiculous considering the two sources that I just quoted. Again, I can change the article to say that he was "charged" with knowing or "accused" of having knowledge of McCarrick in order to better align it with the source says, although it means essentially the same thing.

We're using LifeSiteNews to show what supporters of Vigano are saying, not because we're taking what is written there as fact. I believe that the question of LifeSiteNews being acceptable to use has already been answered by them, so please check before you send it there. Display name 99 (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It's clear that we are not going to agree. I am making a request for comment. --PluniaZ (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Protected Edit Request

Please delete the following statement that begins the second-to-last paragraph in the section Theodore_Edgar_McCarrick#Warnings_about_McCarrick's_conduct: "Donald Wuerl, McCarrick's successor as Archbishop of Washington, was suspected by some of having knowledge of McCarrick's activities, allegations which he repeatedly denied." The sources provided do not state that Wuerl was suspected by anyone of having knowledge of McCarrick's activities. As Donald Wuerl is still a living person, this statement violates WP:BLP and needs to be removed immediately. --PluniaZ (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Please don't. This is an example of an editor trying to circumvent the talk page discussion process in the midst of a content dispute. For my arguments as to why it should stay, please see above. Display name 99 (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Stop with the personal attacks. Last warning. --PluniaZ (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Display Name 99. This not the first time that that this editor is gaming the system. Thucyd (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

PluniaZ, do not remove others' talk page comments as you did here. Every criticism of another person's editing style is not a personal attack, and this comment by Thucyd was not. WP:TPO says: "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." This wasn't even what I would consider uncivil, so do not touch it again. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Superfluous material in a biography of a living person that is not supported by the sources provided

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

It is disputed whether this biography page should include the following material: (1) the material that was added in this diff: Disputed Material 1 and (2) the material that was removed in this diff: Disputed Material 2. --PluniaZ (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Remove Both - Disputed Material 1 goes into unnecessary detail about a person, Donald Wuerl, who is not the subject of this biography page. Moreover, the content of Disputed Material 1 is already covered in a more appropriate, concise form in the following sentences of the current version of the article in the section Vigano Allegations: "After the report was released, Wuerl's spokesperson denied that he was aware of any misconduct by McCarrick, but Wuerl subsequently acknowledged that he had been aware of certain accusations against McCarrick." And: "On May 28, 2019, McCarrick's private secretary Msgr. Anthony J. Figueiredo released letters written by McCarrick suggesting that while senior Vatican officials placed restrictions on the former Cardinal after abuse allegations surfaced, they were not official sanctions and were not strictly enforced under the papacies of either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope Francis."

The final sentence in Disputed Material 1 is superfluous as it does not directly relate to the subject of this biography and is not supported by the sources given. Neither source claims that the sanctions were not official or were loosely enforced.

Disputed Material 2 is a needless digression into claims of a "civil war" in the Catholic Church that has nothing to do with the subject of this article. If you read the underlying sources, they do not in fact claim that the McCarrick allegations have produced a "Catholic civil war", but that there already is or else will be a Catholic civil war over doctrinal matters, not Theodore McCarrick. Moreover, the claims in Disputed Material 2 that large numbers of Catholics have called on Pope Francis and bishops to resign is not supported by any of the sources given - none of the sources state that large numbers of Catholics have called on Pope Francis and bishops to resign. The sources establish that there was a large movement calling on one bishop, Cardinal Wuerl, to resign, but that belongs in the biography of Cardinal Wuerl, not Theodore McCarrick. --PluniaZ (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Keep Both, maybe change "significant numbers of" to some as compromise-The paragraphs on Wuerl are short and can be made shorter. The essential information is there and is supported by the sources. What we have on him is not much longer than what we have for some of the other bishops in that section, and it is all relevant and factual.

The final sentence of Disputed Material 1 is: "However, a spokesperson for Wuerl denied that he had any knowledge of the sanctions." That is important for the article in order to be fair to Wuerl.

As for disputed Material 2, I would accept changing "significant numbers of" to "some" as a compromise in order not to imply that the number of those calling for resignations is greater than it is. The paragraph does not state that Catholics have called on large numbers of bishops to resign, only those "implicated in alleged cover-ups." Wuerl is chief among them. So is Richard J. Malone, Bishop of Buffalo, who has faced calls for his resignation.

It is false to say that the sources do not support the idea that there were unofficial, loosely enforced sanctions. The LifeSiteArticle says: "The next key claim of Viganò is that having been told to cease his public ministry by Pope Benedict, McCarrick resumed travelling, speaking and so on under Pope Francis, who made use of him as a trusted adviser. Of this one can say: it would be incredible, it would simply not cohere with publicly known facts, if this were not true. As Cardinal and Pope, Ratzinger tried hard to rein in abusers, but he drew back from public actions which would cause grave scandal. Thus, as Pope he finally managed to cashier the monster Maciel, but did not grasp the nettle and suppress his foundation, the Legionnaires of Christ. Against considerable opposition, Pope Benedict appointed a clean bishop to the tainted see of Brussels, to succeed Cardinal Daneels, but did not intervene further in the Belgian church, or punish Daneels, leaving his appointee, Leonard, isolated and ineffective. He accepted the resignations of four Irish bishops accused of covering up abuse, but failed to use the psychological moment to clear out the hierarchy more fully. Pope Benedict's papacy was, truly, painful to watch. The claim that Pope Benedict quietly told McCarrick, who had already lost his vote in any future conclave due to age, to live a life of penance and prayer must be true, because Benedict must have known about the problem, and we know that nothing more public happened to McCarrick at that time." Douthat writes, "And given the distracted and ineffectual way that the last pope ran the church, it’s very easy to imagine a distracted and ineffectual attempt to restrict McCarrick being subverted and ignored by the cardinal and his allies in the hierarchy." Display name 99 (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC) I have also listed several sources throughout a discussion in an above section to supplement what is already there. I encourage anyone looking into this to examine those, not just the sources listed in the diffs. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment - The paragraphs on Wuerl are duplicative of material that is already contained in the article. There are no other paragraphs in the article devoted to particular persons other than the article's subject, Theodore McCarrick.

The final sentence of Disputed Material 1 is "Supporters of Viganò countered by suggesting that the sanctions were not official and were only loosely enforced." None of the sources provided state this. It is your interpretation of the sources. Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for editors to put forth their interpretations regarding the subject matter. We are here simply to restate what the primary and secondary sources say in an impartial, encyclopedic manner.

The only bishop for whom there have been calls to resign that reliable sources relate to Theodore McCarrick is Donald Wuerl, who is already discussed in the article. The calls for Bishop Malone to resign are unrelated to McCarrick - not a single source claims that there is a relationship between the two. Not a single source states that Catholics are calling on Pope Francis to resign. --PluniaZ (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

PluniaZ, I'm going to leave the final sentence of the Vigano section alone for now. Our changes of coming to an agreement there are slim. But I would like to propose an alternate version of the paragraph. Here it is, minus the sources:

The McCarrick case and Viganò allegations, happening at about the same time as the conclusion of the Grand jury investigation of Catholic Church sexual abuse in Pennsylvania, which alleged systematic cover-up of clergy sex abuse by bishops in Pennsylvania over decades, produced what has variously been described as a "Catholic insurgency" or "Catholic civil war." Significant numbers of Catholics across ideological boundaries have called for greater accountability and transparency within the Church. The issues have however opened up ideological divisions within the Church, especially over the role of homosexuality in clergy abuse and allegations of negligence by Pope Francis. A large number of conservatives, many of whom have long disliked him, have sharply denounced him, while liberals, who have been generally supportive of Francis's papacy in the past, have more commonly criticized the letter and defended the Pope. Matthew Schmitz, editor of the conservative journal First Things, identified three sides to this civil war: those on the "right" who want a crack-down on sexually active gay priests, those on the "left" who want the Church to change its teaching on the immorality of homosexual sex, and those supporting "a muddled modus vivendi" in which the Church continues to proclaim "that homosexual acts are wrong while quietly tolerating them among the clergy.

That paragraph has almost nothing to do with the subject of this article, Theodore McCarrick. Neither McCarrick nor Douthat nor the CNN article claim that the McCarrick incident has produced a Catholic civil war. The CNN article (solely in the headline) states that there was an insurgency against Cardinal Wuerl, but that belongs in the biography of Cardinal Wuerl, not Theodore McCarrick. Moreover, dozens if not hundreds of opinion columnists have written about this issue. Repeating Matthew Schmitz's views violates WP:UNDUE. If you want to create an article about a perceived "Catholic civil war" in which the views of all opinion columnists are presented with equal weight, you are welcome to propose such an article for creation. But none of that belongs in a biography of Theodore McCarrick. --PluniaZ (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The terms "Catholic civil war" and "Vatican power struggle" were both used in the headlines of NYT articles, which go on to talking about them more in depth. A priest in America Magazine wrote an article arguing against the idea that a Catholic civil war existed, but the fact that he did so shows that it's an idea which has gotten some attention and therefore warrants our notice. It deserves to be covered in this article because it would be happening if not for McCarrick. I'd accept removing the Schmitz commentary. On a broader note, my proposed solution for the Wuerl paragraphs and my proposal here both show that I am willing to compromise. I think it would be good of you to make a similar gesture. Display name 99 (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Remove Both(Summoned by bot) This is way outside my area of expertise, but the concise arguments of PluniaZ above, seem sound. Briefly that much of this content is off-topic (the subject being McCarrick) - while other parts are not actually supported by the sources, or don't have enough RS to support the claims made (Significant numbers of lay Catholics have called on bishops implicated in alleged cover-ups as well as Pope Francis to resign)? Pincrete (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Pincrete, were you aware that PluniaZ and I reached a consensus to include a modified version of both paragraphs in the article? For example, the sentence you quoted about "significant numbers" has been significantly altered, and those words are no longer used. We reached this consensus painstakingly and after much negotiation. Part of it was done off of this talk page, so I don't blame you for not seeing it. Here is what we agreed to by compromise and which PluniaZ just removed. I think the content in the article is supported by these sources and would be happy to answer specific questions. I don't consider it off-topic at all. The Wuerl paragraph is simply devoted to what he knew about McCarrick, and we already have a full section devoted to what bishops knew or might have known about him. The second paragraph concerns the impact of the McCarrick case on the Catholic Church. How is that off-topic? Would you be willing to modify your vote in light of the revisions to these paragraphs? Also, PluniaZ, I reprimand you for removing these paragraphs when it was obvious that Pincrete was basing their vote off of the original version of the paragraphs and not the compromise versions. I don't think that is appropriate. Display name 99 (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Brief reply, if you had reached agreement, why is there an RfC? I agree that the other editor probably shouldn't have removed content while the RfC was open (unless it seriously breached BLP), but I'm not going to get involved in that spat. I haven't fundamentally changed my response.Pincrete (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Pincrete, the RfC is open because PluniaZ started it before we reached consensus and then never closed it. I didn't close it either, unfortunately. If you're willing to accept the compromise that we came to, either one of us can restore the content and close it right now. MelanieN, sorry to bother you again, but I'm going to go ahead and ping you because you've been the only administrator I know of involved with this article. Display name 99 (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

So what is the closure the two of you have agreed to? How should it be worded? (This is a good example of why you should not launch an RfC until you have first attempted to reach agreement on the talk page without one. See WP:RFC.) I note that the two of you are reverting each other on the article page again. Am I going to have to lock it a second time? Or can you two learn that WP:Edit warring is against the rules? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC) P.S. and does Pincrete agree with the version you agreed on? It sounds like they wanted both versions removed. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, we have not agreed to any closure. We did attempt an agreement before PluniaZ launched an RfC and eventually reached one while the RfC was still open. The problem was that neither PluniaZ nor myself shut the RfC down afterwards. An editor has now weighed in and agreed that the content should be removed. However, the content that they stated should be removed was the content that existed prior to our compromise. PluniaZ has now used that as an excuse to go back on our agreement and remove the content that was agreed to during the compromise, which was modified to assuage their objections. To me, this is extremely questionable both because Pincrete based their response on the original version before the compromise and because the RfC is still technically open. Does that make sense? There was another paragraph that PluniaZ removed with only a vague explanation. I reverted, and they re-reverted and posted a message below on the talk page, which I have responded to. There's no more edit warring going on there and hopefully won't be. Display name 99 (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC) Note: the text that was removed includes content that you added to the article on our mutual request. Display name 99 (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Closing RFC and seeking dispute resolution. Display name 99 (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protected Edit Request

Display name 99 (talk) and I have reached consensus on his talk page that the following change should immediately be made to the article in order to comply with WP:BLPSOURCES:

Remove the sentence: "Donald Wuerl, McCarrick's successor as Archbishop of Washington, was suspected by some of having knowledge of McCarrick's activities, allegations which he repeatedly denied."

Replace that sentence with the following: "Donald Wuerl, McCarrick's successor as Archbishop of Washington, faced questions regarding how much he knew about McCarrick's activities."

Please make this change immediately in order to comply with WP:BLPSOURCES, which requires that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." --PluniaZ (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Innuendo in a BLP article?

Is it appropriate for Wikipedia to repeat innuendo about BLP article subjects? The deleted paragraph in this DIFF consists entirely of innuendo and is sourced entirely to anonymous sources. The quoted statements in and of themselves tell us nothing about the article's subject. "He placed his hand on other men." Ok, lots of guys do that, especially in prior decades. It doesn't necessarily mean anything sexual. And there is no express statement in the source that it was of a sexual nature. It is all left for the reader to imply. This is innuendo and I don't think it's appropriate for a BLP page.

As a secondary objection, the source is a primary source, but it is offered to give criticisms of the article's subject. Per WP:BLPBALANCE, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources." Per WP:PRIMARY, "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." That is exactly what the CNA article is. It simply recounts the anonymous stories of seminarians and offers no analysis of its own. Per WP:SECONDARY, "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." This CNA article fails to do that. It is a primary source and cannot be used to offer criticism of the article's subject. --PluniaZ (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

There's no criticism or praise in the article. It simply recounts what is in the primary source. There aren't any statements in the article which are not supported by the source. Per WP:PRIMARYCARE, "Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles. However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source." How is what we have anything but a straightforward and descriptive statement of what is found in the source? Is there anything in the paragraph that isn't supported by the source? Display name 99 (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

It's criticism because it's innuendo - the statements, which say absolutely nothing of consequence if taken at face value, are presented by CNA in a way that suggests there is a deeper, nefarious meaning behind them. Per WP:BLPBALANCE, this is criticism and needs to be sourced to a secondary source. --PluniaZ (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

PluniaZ, there's no criticism if we're just repeating back what a reliable source says. CNA is a reliable source, and the interviews that they conducted are important to understanding the allegations against McCarrick. It's one thing to complain about citations to LifeSiteNews, but here we're dealing with a non-partisan news source that is widely recognized as reliable. The guideline never says that praise and criticism from secondary sources HAVE to be included in an article, only that they should be if such a secondary source can be found. The problem is that these allegations are so recent that it's probably not possible to find a source that is really secondary. The claim that the article "doesn't say anything substantive about McCarrick" is false. Not only does it contain the information that was already in the article, but it also includes allegations that McCarrick was sleeping with seminarians and placing his hands on them in a manner which made them uncomfortable. I would gladly add this information to the paragraph in order to make it more substantive. In order to have one less thing to worry about, I urge you to consent to this course of action. Display name 99 (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts

The matter of "who knew what when" appears to be far more nuanced that a scattershot account of accusations and disclaimers suggest.

Both O'Connor and Bea opposed McCarrick's promotion to Washington, but the decision was not made by the Congregation for Bishops, but by JP II and his personal secretary who both viewed McCarrick as a personable bishop with important contacts and access to generous donors. Msgr. Dziwisz was aware of rumors circulating about McCarrick, but discounted them as similar to the gossip communists spread about priests in Poland.
Vigano may actually believe much of what he says, but his views are colored by an obsessive paranoia that he was exiled from his previous position in Rome by a gay mafia, whom he sees Francis as tolerating rather than opposing. Ramsay states that at the time McCarrick was inviting seminarians for sleep-overs at his beach house, the contemporary view was that since there was no mention of any inappropriate touching it was not considered immoral. It was "odd", "crazy", and arguably an abuse of authority. Had he thought it anything more, he would have taken more forceful action, as he did when he successfully moved for the expulsion of one of McCarrick's proteges. Over the past twenty years, with a greater awareness of sexual harassment/abuse and more recent revelations regarding the bishop's conduct, Ramsay's views have evolved, but he is careful to distinguish how he saw things then, and how he understands them now. In November 2000, Ramsay conveyed information as he understood it at that time, which was as "highly inappropriate". It seems unlikely, given that Montalvo pushed for something in writing, that the nuncio had anything more than a suspicion of rumors, however, Vigano claims Montalvo reported "gravely immoral behavior with seminarians and priests." Montalvo was too experienced a diplomat; if he had reason to believe allegations of "gravely immoral behavior", I suspect he would have had an in camera conversation with the Congregation. However, to parse out each misstatement by Vigano is both tedious, and would make the article unreadable,
It is interesting to compare the coverage by the sources. (cf. National Catholic Reporter vs. National Catholic Register) Secular media is primarily interested in whatever salacious headline will generate clicks. A few commentators have observed that this has less to do with McCarrick than with pushing the idea that "Pope Francis is taking the Church to Hell in a handbasket". In the long run, it will make little difference, since the Pope gets to appoint the successors to his opponents as they age out. -Rome has never left the Renaissance. What's really entertaining is that it's the Italians that get this. Manannan67 (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the article is excessively detailed in a way that is not encyclopedic. The article reads like a ticker tape account of the latest news and gossip about who knew what and what McCarrick may or may not have done on any particular occasion. I don't see this excessive detail in other BLP pages (except for some other prominent Catholic clergy). My view is that the entire section on sex abuse should be cut down to a few paragraphs covering (1) the early settlements, (2) the 2018 public announcement by the NY Archdiocese, (3) one paragraph stating that there is controversy over who in the Catholic hierarchy may have been aware of allegations against McCarrick and (4) a final paragraph covering the outcome of the Vatican trial and his laicization. --PluniaZ (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

If you that, we will lose an incalculable amount of crucial information. WP:Article size caps articles at 100kB. We're currently at 29 kB. There's no need to worry about being excessively detailed. Display name 99 (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I seriously doubt any of it is "crucial". The Vigano section could stand a serious cut as most of it is in his own article. Manannan67 (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The question of whether sanctions were imposed on McCarrick by Benedict XVI, as Vigano alleges, and the evidence for or against such a theory, is a matter that directly relates to McCarrick. It is isn't just about Vigano. Where the subject begins to drift further away from McCarrick is in analyzing how Vigano's report was received by various bishops and parties in the Church. Fortunately, that is already discussed much more heavily at the Vigano article. Really, if I had to point to any content that could be cut, I would signal out the part that you recently added about Vigano allegedly "twisting facts." Because it's an issue solely with Vigano's credibility and does not directly relate to McCarrick, how do you justify adding it to the article while at the same time calling for the removal of large amounts of other material? Please at least be consistent. Display name 99 (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Take it all out, that's fine with me. But Vigano's a poor source for sanctions, since he failed to impose them himself. Manannan67 (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand what you mean. We're not here to make a judgment on whether or not Vigano is trustworthy. Doing so would be in violation of WP:NPOV. We're just here to represent what he says and to report on evidence and statements that have emerged regarding possible sanctions. Display name 99 (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe L'affaire McCarrick and the ongoing controversy and fallout of who knew what and when, should have its own article where it can be expounded upon? Such an article can be linked from McCarrick, Viganò, Wuerl, et al. — Archer1234 (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The Vigano allegations are discussed in depth at the Vigano article. There's been talk of splitting that into a separate article, but that is best raised at the Vigano talk page. We do have a few paragraphs on who knew what. I suppose it's possible we could create a separate article about knowledge or alleged knowledge about McCarrick's activities by Church bishops, which would include the "Warnings about McCarrick's conduct" material from this article and the stuff about the Vigano letter from the Vigano article. I don't feel strongly enough about it to make a proposal to this affect, but I see PluniaZ has gone ahead and significantly shortened the Vigano section on this article already. Display name 99 (talk) 04:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Manannan67 (talk) and Archer1234 (talk) - which version of the article do you prefer, the old or new version in this diff: Diff of disputed versions. My version is the older version. I think the advantage of my version is that it combines and organizes the pre-2018 material into a chronologically ordered section that flows naturally, whereas the newer version doesn't have any cohesive structure to it. I also think the newer version goes into unnecessary detail, cramming in seemingly every news report that has ever been issued about this period, and including too many generalities in what is already a very dense section, (e.g., "There have been questions about how much senior Catholic officials might have known about McCarrick's actions." - Yes, we already get that from the article). The rest of the section on sex abuse is largely the same, except I combine smaller paragraphs into larger ones - I think that makes it easier to read but maybe that's just me. The final sentence about where McCarrick lives seems creepy and unnecessary in a BLP. --PluniaZ (talk) 05:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

As far as Vigano is concerned (1) since most of this is on his own page, all it needs is a brief summary and a link -which it already has. (2) It's not a matter of assessing his credibility, but a question of balance. If you list all his various allegations, then you also have to mention those who have called him on it, and then what you've got is a "he said/he said" situation. Even now, since there is nothing to qualify his statements, it gives the impression that it's not only true, and but for him there would be no investigation. I would keep the Warnings (which seem largely contemporaneous0 separate from the relatively recent Vigano material, at least for the time being. Ramsay kept a copy of his letter to O'Malley, but the former nuncio doesn't seem to have done likewise.

I guess I prefer the first version. The more concise, the less confusing.
A few minor points: Should Warnings come before Allegations? They certainly had warning long before there was anything definite.
Sandri never said Montalvo told him about McCarrick. Saldi never mentioned McCarrick's name at all. Per Ramsay's Commonweal article, Sandri was vetting McCarrick's secretary Figueiredo for a possible appointment and wanted to know if he'd been involved "in the stuff you mentioned previously" -or words to that effect. From this Ramsay understood that Montalvo had forwarded his letter of Nov. 2000.
Under Allegations: "As a result, in 2009 or 2010 Pope Benedict XVI..." I would take out "As a result" because it isn't clear what was done, and if it was because of Vigano or some other heavy-hitters in the wings (like the Archbishop across the river for example, or others. Dolan was head of the USCCB at the time. That outranks any nuncio, and Ramsay was one of his pastors). There's a couple of other places that could arguably be tightened up. Too much minor detail tends to bury the significant developments, but that's enough for now. Manannan67 (talk) 06:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Manannan67 (talk). I agree with your proposed changes. I don't think there is any need for two separate sections on Warnings vs Allegations - I've combined them into one section in my proposed draft. --PluniaZ (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

"Warnings" is definitely large enough for its own section in my view. The allegations against McCarrick personally and questions about what other bishops may have known are two separate matters, so I don't see any reason for combining them. I'd be fine with putting the Warnings section before "Allegations." Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I can see Warnings leading into Allegations because I think they were separated in time. First, a lot of gossip about a creepy bishop; then sometime later individuals willing to confirm specifics. I'm not sure Michael Reading saying, something like 'yeah, I heard stuff. I thought he was creepy too', really adds anything, since he doesn't say he ever reported it to anybody.(talk) 23:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm also unsure about the quote from Lopes. "I was a seminarian when Theodore McCarrick was named archbishop of Newark. And he would visit the seminary often, and we all knew." It is clearly meant to indicate that Lopes was a seminarian at Immaculate Conception in South Orange, New Jersey. But he wasn't. He went to St. Pat's in Menlo Park, California. He never attended school in New Jersey. Is he saying McCarrick frequently visited Menlo Park? That this was scuttlebutt on some cross-country seminarian grapevine? As a gradute of ISI is he just jumping on the bandwagon? Is either he or the writer being deliberately misleading or just disingenuous? Questions. Manannan67

Thanks Manannan67. I had the same thoughts about the Lopes quote. Seeing as Lopes was born in 1975, I'm confused as to how he could have been a seminarian when McCarrick was ordained Archbishop of Newark in 1986. He must have meant "Washington, D.C." instead of "Newark". I'll propose some language. --PluniaZ (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

PluniaZ: FWIW here's Lopes' official CV,[6]; and here's the full interview [7] in which he immediately qualifies his statement by saying he was talking about "rumors". -and then he goes completely off-topic. Manannan67 (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Manannan67. Per WP:BLPGOSSIP, we should not be including rumors, so I will take it out. --PluniaZ (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Display name 99 - I asked Manannan67 above which version he preferred, yours or mine, and he said mine. His exact quotation is "I guess I prefer the first version. The more concise, the less confusing." The first version is mine. That is 2:1 in favor of my version. If you don't like it, you can do an RfC, but please don't edit war against the Talk Page majority. --PluniaZ (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

It appears I misread the article a few times, which led me to incorrectly believe that deception here occurred again, for which I apologize. PluniaZ, this version is not exactly the same as the older one that you linked. There, the Warnings section is completely gone. Here, you've moved half of its content into the Allegations section and left the other half in. This makes no sense to me. Either get rid of the section entirely or leave everything in it. Manannan67, I respectfully ask you to reconsider two things. One is the removal of the paragraph from the Catholic News Agency report. This paragraph, cited to a reliable source, is the only one in the entire article which actually describes McCarrick's alleged sexual misconduct towards non-minors. Isn't that important? Shouldn't that be included? I strongly disagree with PluniaZ's statement that it consists only of innuendo. These are detailed allegations concerning the things that McCarrick was accused of doing and they are cited to a RS. We don't repeat the statements in Wikipedia voice but simply report what the accusers are saying. My biggest concern here is how we can possibly have a biography of McCarrick without devoting any attention to the exact sort of thing that he was accused of doing with adult seminarians, which make up a major part of the allegations against him.

I also think that the sentence on what Vigano's supporters suggested about sanctions is firmly supported by the source and other sources that I could pull up and was wondering if you could provide your opinion on that. Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Display name 99, no worries. There have been a lot of edits so it's hard to keep track of everything. I think we are pretty close to a good version of the article. I originally proposed that we combine the Warnings and Allegations section, but Manannan67 agreed with your proposal to split them into two sections when he said above, "I can see Warnings leading into Allegations because I think they were separated in time." That's what I tried to do in my latest version of the article - a section with the early warnings from the 1990s, then the allegations centered around the mid-2000s lawsuits.

Manannan67 has a lot of good thoughts that he's listed below. My proposal would be to let him take a crack at the next version of the article and we both could comment on it. --PluniaZ (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

PluniaZ, I think it just keeps getting worse. Some of the revisions you made, such as shortening the Vigano section, were good. But you've removed tons of well-sourced and relevant information and I see myself increasingly getting bulldozed and at times I daresay bullied off of an article that I was the primary contributor to for almost a year and where I added much if not most of the content. I know I don't own it, but it is still frustrating. Display name 99 (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Display name 99, my recommendation is that you do an RfC so that we can get community consensus. --PluniaZ (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Warnings re McCarrick

PluniaZ and Display name 99: sorry it took so long to get back to you, but I went through both the earlier version and the current one line by line. These are my observations with rationale (I hope).

"There have been questions about how much senior Catholic officials might have known about McCarrick's actions. After McCarrick was removed from active ministry on June 20, 2018, numerous bishops denied any prior knowledge of McCarrick's misconduct." -Move to Vigaro section because his whole point is that people knew.

"These denials have been called into question by some." I wouldn't bother with Lopes for reasons given above. It appears he may not even have been in the country at the time, and he mainly wants people to know that he's one of the youngest bishops (!?).

"Documents obtained by The New York Times reveal that in 1994 a priest wrote a letter to Bishop Edward T. Hughes, McCarrick's successor as Bishop of Metuchen, stating that McCarrick had inappropriately touched him." -Move down to discussion of NYT.

Cardinal Agostino Cacciavillan said etc., etc., etc., ... The authors suggest that this was because as bishop, McCarrick was an efficient fundraiser for the pope's causes, including anti-Communist efforts in Poland." -Cacciavillan is good. He is one of the first to say something, and gives some historical context. n.b. changed "supposedly" -which implies O'Connor did nothing, to "reportedly" which is more neutral.

Father Boniface Ramsey, pastor of St. Joseph's Church, Yorkville, ... Egan "didn't want to hear it." -Ramsay is demonstrably credible.

Richard Sipe stated that he wrote a letter to Benedict XVI in 2008 saying that McCarrick's activities "had been widely known for several decades." Sipe delivered a letter to Bishop Robert W. McElroy in 2016 concerning alleged sexual misconduct by McCarrick. McElroy asked if Sipes would be willing to share corroborating material that would substantiate his allegations. Sipe said that he was precluded from sharing specific documentary information. McElroy said "[T]he limitations on his willingness to share corroborating information made it impossible to know what was real and what was rumor." -Move up from Allegations because at this point that's still really all it is until someone is prepared to back up the rumors; which I clarified from the source quoted.

Mike Kelly of the North Jersey Record reported that in a conversation with Cardinal Joseph W. Tobin of Newark, Tobin said that around the time he became Archbishop of Newark in 2016, he heard "rumors" about McCarrick having slept with seminarians, but chose not to believe them, stating that at the time they seemed too "incredulous" to be true. Kelly himself had attempted to investigate the rumors in 1998, "but no seminarians would talk". -Identified anonymous journalist and paper, and noted his own acknowledged failed attempt to break the story- and why.

In a 2008 letter to Vatican Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone, McCarrick wrote that he had shared his bed with seminarians.... ." -Move down to Allegations as this seems to be McCarrick's rebuttal to same.

In 2012, The New York Times Magazine scheduled but never published a story detailing McCarrick's abuse of adult seminarians, based on court documents of the legal settlements between McCarrick and former seminarians, and an interview with one of the victims. -Totally ambiguous about this. Duin is stated something she got third-hand, and Dreger claims the article was killed by an editor who happened to be gay -which I don't really see the connection. NYT Magazine appears not to have commented. Nobody appears to have come forward before 2018, so maybe like Kelly at NJ Record they couldn't move forward without sources or risk libel.

On August 29, 2018 Bishop Steven J. Lopes criticized his fellow bishops ... -Agree with removal of Lopes. More "I heard stuff" stuff -which in his case may or may not be true.

Display name 99: I'll get back to you on CNA once I have a chance to go through it. Cheers to you both. Manannan67 (talk) 04:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Allegations:

OK, I think I've got this sorted out. -The problem with CNA is that when they're not sounding like a tabloid, they veer off from McCarrick to broader issues. All the fellows they're quoting are just confirming water-cooler scuttlebutt, and none appear to have reported it earlier. The best reporting is coming out of the NJ papers, as they get the facts and keep a tight focus w/o unnecessary speculation on tangential issues. Too much of the religious-oriented sites are opinion and analysis.

-As always, "follow the money". Ciolek received 80k fr Newark, Trenton, and Metuchen. Metuchen's share of 50k was not about McCarrick, but an allegation of some prior abuse by a high school teacher. (At present, the article says it was Trenton, but that whole section is confusing. "it is unclear...")(Also, parenthetical observation, Ciolek apparently also filed a separate claim with the Diocese of Pittsburgh relative to a relationship with a faculty member at St. Mary's Seminary, it seems subsequent to his experience in South Orange. No wonder it's difficult keeping all this straight.)

In 2018, multiple media outlets reported that a number of priests and former seminarians under McCarrick had come forward alleging that McCarrick had engaged in inappropriate conduct with seminarians. These included reports that he made sexual advances toward seminarians during his tenure as Bishop of Metuchen and Archbishop of Newark. Rumors of McCarrick conduct towards seminarians dates back to his tenure as secretary to Terrence Cardinal Cooke (1971-1977.) McCarrick reportedly routinely invited a number of seminarians to a house on the shore with limited sleeping accomodations, resulting in one of them sharing a bed with the bishop.-Condon, Ed (August 17, 2018). "New allegations surface regarding Archbishop McCarrick and Newark priests". Catholic News Agency. Retrieved August 17, 2018.

In 2005, the Archdiocese of Newark and the Dioceses of Trenton and Metuchen paid a total of $80,000 to a former priest, who stated that McCarrick would touch him in bed, but only above the waist, and that they never kissed. The Diocese of Metuchen's contribution also included an allegation against a teacher at a high school located at that time in the diocese.

According to the New York Times, a second alleged adult victim was a former priest who received a settlement of $100,000 from the Diocese of Metuchen in 2007. He said McCarrick asked him to join him in bed, where McCarrick put his arms and legs around him. The priest was later forced to resign from the priesthood himself after he allegedly abused teenage boys. n.b. -this appears to be the same individual mentioned in Warnings who first wrote Hughes in 1994; maybe that should be brought down here.

According to Donald Cardinal Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, nobody from these dioceses informed him of these settlements, even after the retired McCarrick began living on the grounds of a seminary in the Archdiocese of Washington.

Heyboer (July 17, 2018), Pattison (August 24, 2018), and the Archdiocese of Washington are all solid sources and seem to state things clear and in context.

Mention of the Archdiocese of New York claim are appropriate in the Removal section, as that appears to have finally triggered action. (I suspect only New York or Los Angeles would have sufficient "sand" to take down a cardinal.)

In a 2008 letter to Vatican Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone, McCarrick wrote that he had shared his bed with seminarians. He said that "this was never done in secret or behind closed doors," and that he had never "had sexual relations with anyone, man, woman or child, nor have I ever sought such acts." -Might move this to Removal, as it seems there must have been some maneuvering at the Congregation to force him to make any statement.

-As it's going on 4:00 a.m., I'll check Vigano again tomorrow. Sleep well. Manannan67 (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Manannan67, most of these sound like solid revisions and I have no objection to you adding this content into the article. I still want to press my case with the CNA article. How is it that serious and, it certainly appears to me, heavily substantiated allegations of sexual misconduct seem to you like "tabloid" material and "water-cooler scuttlebut?" Can you explain that a little more deeply? And how does the fact that the article discusses things not directly related to McCarrick take away from the fact that it is a reliable source which has interviewed people claiming that McCarrick engaged in certain behavior? True, the actions weren't reported earlier, but neither were lots of other allegations that are already in the article. Should we get rid of them too? You've done some good work here but these arguments seem weak. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

R U referring to the Condon article? Manannan67 (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The one right here. Display name 99 (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Exactly what would you like to include? "The dean of our theology school was a classmate at CUA with McCarrick, and he knew about the rumors,” is not exactly a heavily substantiated allegation of anything. I have included both Condon's indication that rumors went back to McCarrick's time in NY, as well as his mention of the bedsharing, Rossi's view that it was entirely calculated, Ciolek's description of what actually occurred, as well as the account of the recipient of the 2006 payment. "A standing joke that they had to "hide the handsome ones" before he arrived," only confirms that McCarrick had forfeited any respect. It all just comes across as a bunch of guys "ranking" on the boss when he's no longer boss and they feel safe to do so. What I have included is both specific and attributed to particular individuals. If you want some kind of expansion that McCarrick's behavior created a generally toxic environment, (which I suppose is Condon's whole point) something of that nature can be added. But much of Conlon is about other malfactors. I'm trying to stay focused on McCarrick rather than the general atmosphere of the Archdiocesan seminary. Manannan67 (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Here is the paragraph that was removed by PluniaZ:

A news report by the Catholic News Agency, based on interviews with six unnamed priests of the Archdiocese of Newark, described McCarrick's alleged actions while Archbishop of Newark. According to one of the priests, when McCarrick would visit the seminary in the Newark diocese, he "would often place his hand on seminarians while talking with them, or on their thighs while seated near them...It was really unnerving." Several other priests interviewed for the story spoke about similar experiences. One of the priests stated that McCarrick "had a type: tall, slim, intelligent – but no smokers," and that McCarrick would invite young men to stay at his house on the shore, or to spend the night in the cathedral rectory in central Newark. This same priest is quoted as saying that "priests would tell me 'he's sleeping with them' all the time."

I propose restoring this paragraph as was. There are two major allegations here. One is inappropriate touching. Several people besides the ones mentioned in this article have alleged that. The second one is sleeping with seminarians, something that McCarrick admitted to doing to Bertone in 2008. You identified two specific quotes from the article that you said you had a problem including; neither of them are here. All of it is only about McCarrick and has nothing to do with the general seminary atmosphere, although I would support adding a single sentence, no more, about that in accordance with your suggestion. Display name 99 (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I looked at that paragraph more than once and I'm afraid I'm with PluniaZ on this. "[T]he priests agreed to speak to CNA only under the condition of anonymity." So what you've basically got are a half-dozen anonymous bobbleheads, all nodding in agreement well after the fact to no purpose, since none of it can be used against McCarrick. It's easy for somebody to say, "Yeah, the Archbishop was one creepy dude," off the record. If I find a specific mention of "inappropriate touching" from Rossi or Ramsay or any other RS, I'll add it. But that paragraph is utterly useless. Manannan67 (talk) 04:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess we should just delete any mention of sexual abuse in this article then because the only public allegations were made decades after the fact by people who often remained anonymous. How is that not where your argument leads?

To say that "none of it can be used against McCarrick" is wrong. This report came out on August 17. McCarrick wasn't defrocked until earlier this year, which happened because of allegations like this. And we're not treating their claims as necessarily being true either. We're just reporting on accusations that were made against someone in interviews with a reliable source. Display name 99 (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I recommend to keep the paragraph. The paragraph is under the accusations headline, I assume, so I believe there would be no breach of WP:NPOV. If I am missing something, just tell. Thoughts?Manabimasu (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The paragraph violates WP:BLPGOSSIP, which says: "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." The CNA article consists entirely of anonymous sources, is rife with weasel words (e.g., "he had a type" - what is that supposed to mean?), and repeats gossip (a priest repeats what other priests told him). And then the CNA article drifts off into rumors about a gay subculture without any precise delineation between what pertains to McCarrick and what pertains to a perceived gay subculture in general. BLP articles need to be written "conservatively". There are already a ton of sources in the article documenting concrete allegations of abuse without this gossip piece. --PluniaZ (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Please see the Allegations section which details what students actually experienced by two seminarians who did, rather than six who merely heard some rumors about it. Manannan67 (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I am fine with the current state of the article as written by Manannan67. If anyone has serious reservations about it, I recommend you start an RfC to get community consensus. --PluniaZ (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

1. The source is reliable. 2. As far as truthfulness, all RS pretty much agree at this point that McCarrick is a sex abuser. What the priests say is consistent with what we know about McCarrick. 3. It is the only content that we would have discussing McCarrick's actual alleged behavior with seminarians, so it's definitely relevant. 4. I don't see a lot of weasel words. I think it's clear what "he had a type" means. It means that he had a distinct preference for what sort of seminarians he would target. 5. Yes, the article relies on anonymous sources, but I don't think that it outweighs the fact that the source is reliable, the information credible, the fact that it's relevant, and the lack of weasel words that I was able to detect. Finally, as Manabimasu pointed out, the paragraph belongs under allegations, meaning that, once again, we aren't taking a position on whether the allegations are true but just reporting on what's being said. Display name 99 (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm a college student and busy at the moment with a summer course. But in the coming days, if no clearer consensus emerges, I will probably start an RfC to solicit community opinions on what are now three disputed paragraphs. Display name 99 (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

A. Which three. I presume one is this CNA drivel you keep pushing. What are the other two?

B. 1.) There's reliable and Reliable. CNA is owned by EWTN: "In the early 1990s, EWTN began producing more of its own programs. This effort marked a conspicuously conservative shift in its overall orientation". The National Catholic Reporter is "progressive". I tend to avoid both when there are better sources available. 2.) What the "priests" say is hearsay, and doesn't add anything to the piece but salacious gossip. 3.) "It is the only content that we would have discussing McCarrick's actual alleged behavior with seminarians." Wrong. Your attention is respectfully drawn to the Allegations section, wherein two claimants describe what they specifically experienced. Since none of CNA's chorus appear to even admit that they ever attended the beach house, how is their insight somehow better informed than those who did? 4.) I take it that as you don't see "a lot" of weasel words, you apparently recognize some. 5.) the information as it stands "is credible" to the credulous.

If your looking for mention of "inappropriate touching", please see Allegations, Para.4 from an individual who actually experienced it and whose account was found credible to the tune of $100,000. As for sleeping with students, both Condon and Rossi discuss that and its already in the article. What is this extraordinary fondness for redundancy with eminently weaker sources?

C. "To say that "none of it can be used against McCarrick" is wrong. This report came out on August 17. McCarrick wasn't defrocked until earlier this year, which happened because of allegations like this." Nonsense. This report only came out two months after McCarrick was removed from ministry. "...allegations like this". Wrong. Allegations that no one is prepared to back up are useless. It was the presentation of a credible claim of assault of a minor that finally took him down.Manannan67 (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll refrain from addressing your concerns with the CNA article as it is clear we aren't going to agree. I'll deal with this again when I have time to set up an RfC, which should be in under a week. The other two paragraphs were removed by PluniaZ here. In my view, PluniaZ's removal of the paragraphs was done against Wikipedia guidelines and with dishonesty. This is both because an RfC was currently open and because the editor who voted to remove them based their vote on a version of the paragraphs that existed before a compromise. See the two "Superfluous material" sections further up on this talk page. An edit-warring complaint here received no response and was archived. You can go there to read PluniaZ's and my rationales. Display name 99 (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Three paragraphs

I have already made my opinion clear as to the paragraph in dispute from Condon's CNA article. Regarding the other two, in the long run, I more or less agree with PluniaZ in as much as the first clearly belongs in the Wuerl article and the second in the Vigano article. I will try to see if there is anything that is retrievable from either without the McCarrick article turning into a fork of either Wuerl or Vigano. As to whether this was all just a proxy skirmish between left and right, that too is, I think, better handled elsewhere, (possibly under Vigano, as his letter seems to have ignited simmering discontent) -as placing the politics here both distracts and diminishes what McCarrick did, if it's primary effect is really to provide a forum for a "spitting" contest between left and right. McCarrick's conduct was sufficiently outrageous both regarding sexual abuse/harassment and refusing to follow a direct instruction from Rome. It should not be diminished by important, but collateral issues. (And for that matter, you could just as well take it back to Amoris laetitia.) Manannan67 (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

All three paragraphs are unnecessary in an article of this length. The article is already too long for people who are looking for an encyclopedic entry rather than a WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.

The CNA article is WP:BLPGOSSIP.

The Wuerl paragraph is about a person who has their own article on Wikipedia. It belongs there.

The "civil war" paragraph is sensationalism by a few opinion columnists giving their hot take after the McCarrick allegations came out. No one today is writing about a "civil war" that traces back to the McCarrick accusations. As Manannan67 points out, it goes back to at least Amoris laetitia. --PluniaZ (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Upon further review it appears the paragraph re Wuerl is included in its entirety in Wuerl's article. I call WP:CFORK. It does not belong here. (And that doesn't even address it's single-sourced.) It would appear that the second paragraph is also in the Vigano article in its entirety. It would seem to indicate that my initial impression of where they belong was surprisingly accurate. At this rate may we anticipate a complete silverware service? WP:DROPTHESTICK Manannan67 (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC about three disputed paragraphs

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Failed to reach consensus. PluniaZ (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Should the article include the two paragraphs that were removed here as well as another paragraph (sourced to a Catholic News Agency article) that was removed here (first paragraph in diff)? Talk page consensus is currently 2-1 against the first two paragraphs and split 2-2 on the third. The removals happened a little while ago but the timing of this RfC has been delayed due to previous failed attempts to find a solution (see conversations on this talk page over the last month for more information) as well as the fact that I've been very busy for the last week or so. Pinging PluniaZ, Manannan67, and Manabimasu who offered opinions here in talk page discussion. Thank you for your patience. Display name 99 (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep all three-

The first paragraph, concerning Wuerl's knowledge of McCarrick's activities, is well-sourced and relevant to the article. We already have more than four paragraphs in the article devoted to what other bishops were said to have known about McCarrick, but for some reason, nothing about Wuerl, even though there have been more reports in the media about his alleged knowledge of McCarrick than anybody else. Anybody who says that this is off-topic needs to be able to explain why we shouldn't just delete the whole "Warnings about alleged misconduct" section as well as the first sentence of the last paragraph of the "Allegations involving priests and seminarians" section.

The second paragraph covers the broader impact of the McCarrick case as well as the Vigano allegations which came from it. Understanding how the case has affected the Church and how it is being interpreted by different groups is arguably just as important as who knew what when. Everything here is supported by citations, so I do not understand why this is controversial.

The third paragraph is reliably-sourced and contains accusations of improper behavior by McCarrick which are consistent with information that we currently have in the article. Someone pointed out that CNA is owned by EWTN, which is a conservative-leaning organization. However, CNA articles are reliable and are not ideologically-orientated. No-one has made me aware of any reputation that it has for falsifying reports or writing in biased language. Furthermore, the article does not endorse the idea that what these people say is true, even though their claims match up strongly with other allegations of misconduct against McCarrick already in the article. We simply report on statements that people made in an interview with a reliable source. That is exactly what Wikipedia is supposed to do. Editors opposed to this paragraph's inclusion in the article have criticized its credibility on the basis of allegations being made anonymously decades after the events were said to have taken place. As with the first paragraph, the arguments that are being made for this paragraph being left out of the article could also be used to remove much more information if we were to apply them consistently. Display name 99 (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Every single public accusation against McCarrick was made decades after the alleged abuse, often by people keeping themselves anonymous. Should we remove these as well? Display name 99 (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

"Anybody who says that this is off-topic needs to be able to explain why we shouldn't just delete the whole "Warnings about alleged misconduct" section as well as the first sentence of the last paragraph of the "Allegations involving priests and seminarians" section." -Your logic simply does not follow. If anything, it's an argument to leave them out as vague redundancy. Manannan67 (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

What redundancy? There's nothing in any of them about Wuerl. Display name 99 (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

"We already have more than four paragraphs in the article devoted to what other bishops were said to have known about McCarrick," ...Wuerl comes up in the Vigano section where Vigano says he discussed McCarrick's conduct with him. Manannan67 (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing about the Washington Post story alleging that Wuerl knew about McCarrick in 2005, the admissions by the Dicoese of Pittsburgh, the Archdiocese of Washington, and Querl himself of the same, or the correspondence from McCarrick that was released on May 28 stating that he discussed the restrictions with Wuerl. All that we have is the statement from Vigano, which by itself does not prove anything, unlike the Post article or the admissions from Wuerl and the dioceses. Why is it acceptable to have all of these paragraphs about what other bishops knew, including, as in the case of Cacciavillan and McElroy, admissions that they heard heard reports about McCarrick's conduct, but we cannot include the same information for Wuerl? Display name 99 (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The article's is about McCarrick, not Wuerl, thus giving your proposed addition undue weight. Cut it down to one or two sentences and find another source besides Boorstein. Manannan67 (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The article also isn't about McElroy, Egan, Tobin, or any of the other bishops who were mentioned. I could accept cutting it down a sentence or two but I have no idea why you're insisting that I find another source. Boorstein's article is the original story and it's in the Washington Post, a mainstream media outlet. Display name 99 (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

If it was so important, other Rs would have picked up on it. She relies too much on Ciolek, someone allegedly abused by three different people in three different dioeses (one of which may have paid for law school), twice as an adult. Really rotten luck. Manannan67 (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

There's one right here. Just out of curiosity, does this rule that you just invented saying that there have to be at least TWO reliable sources apply to everything else in the article, including in the "Warnings" section, or just for this one paragraph for some reason? Display name 99 (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Never said it was a rule. Neither it is inept. Manannan67 (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Display name 99 -For the third paragraph, you should make a diff that shows only the paragraph under dispute so people don't get confused. --PluniaZ 01:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to make a diff. But I added an explanatory note above stating that it was the first paragraph in the diff. Display name 99 (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Remove all three

All three paragraphs are unnecessary in an article of this length. The article is already too long for people who are looking for an encyclopedic entry rather than a WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.

The first paragraph is devoted to a person, Donald Wuerl, who is not the subject of this article. This paragraph is copied verbatim from the Wikipedia article about Wuerl. This article already describes Wuerl's alleged knowledge of McCarrick's activities in three sentences. That is more than enough.

The second paragraph is media sensationalism written by a few opinion columnists giving their hot take immediately after the McCarrick allegations first came out. There are no recent articles written with the benefit of hindsight and reflection that claim the McCarrick case has meaningfully increased ideological divisions in the Catholic Church. More importantly, this paragraph attempts to spin the horrific crime of sex abuse into a left-right political issue. Wikipedia shouldn't stoop to that level.

The third paragraph is WP:BLPGOSSIP. It is sourced to a single article that consists entirely of anonymous sources repeating vague innuendo ("he had a type", "he would <gasp!> place his hand on someone when talking to them" and the best "the bishop prided himself on recruiting young men from the diocese to enter the seminary" - um, yeah, that's what every Catholic bishop does, it's literally their job). And another quote is an anonymous source repeating what other unnamed sources told him. And then the article seamlessly segues into a rant about an alleged "gay subculture" in the Archdiocese of Newark, trying to blame sex abuse on gays. The article is written with a clear homophobic bias, citing unnamed sources using weasel words to try to blame the sexual abuse crisis on gays, which makes it unacceptable as a source for Wikipedia articles. --PluniaZ (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The other bishops who are said to have heard about McCarrick's behavior aren't the subjects of this article either, and yet we have more than four paragraphs on them. I should like to note that the paragraph in the Wuerl article contains five sentences at the end which aren't in the paragraph for this article. As for the extent to which Wuerl is already mentioned, this article only describes Vigano's allegation, not the allegations from the Post article or the admission by Wuerl.

The second paragraph is sourced to journalistic articles and opinion pieces in mainstream media outlets. Everything in the paragraph can be found in those articles. Your response here indicates a certain amount of bias that I remind you to keep in check.

Yes, the sources for the third paragraph are anonymous. So were the people who accused McCarrick of molesting them as minors. Should we take their claims out of the article? The part that says that "he had a type" isn't vague. I think people know exactly what that means. You left out the part where the person being quoted said that McCarrick placing his hands on people was "unnerving." There's normal physical touching and then there's physical touching, if you get where I'm going. And what about the part about McCarrick sleeping with seminarians? That something that he literally admitted to in the letter to Bertone that we still have in the article. Recruiting people to seminaries is usually a job mainly delegated to the diocesan vocations director. The bishop or archbishop doesn't normally spend a lot of time with prospective candidates until they're literally about ready to enter the seminary. Back when I was considering entering the diocesan seminary, the person who came to my house to talk to me wasn't the archbishop of the archdiocese. It was the priest in charge of vocations. I ended up deciding not to pursue the priesthood in the archdiocese, so I never even met the archbishop throughout the whole process. If McCarrick did spend a lot of time with boys and young men personally recruiting them to go to the seminary, I think that would be unusual. As for the alleged anti-homosexual tilt, the article relies almost exclusively on what the people are saying. There's very little commentary written by CNA staff. And since when can Wikipedia never use any articles which express an opinion on something? Display name 99 (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

This is worse than argumentative, it's repetitious. Manannan67 (talk) 05:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Trim/summarize the first and third, keep the second

1. the information in the first paragraph should be trimmed to the first sentence, "Wuerl faced questions regarding how much he knew about McCarrick's activities"--with a wikilink either for Wuerl or to "Wuerl faced questions."

2. The second paragraph is good as is. Please keep it.

3. the information in the third paragraph could conceivably have a place in the article, but not as direct quotes, they are too decontextualized to be more useful than unhelpful. Rather, I think they should be summarized along the lines of "six priests were interviewed and some thought he was creepy or remembered rumors (or even, "and some were unsupportive of him")--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Don’t know enough about all of this to be helpful, but perhaps that is helpful in itself. Coming here is one with no knowledge of these matters, that they are mentioned in good sources suggests to me that we are to have at least some minimal mention of them here as well. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, Epiphyllumlover and Hyperbolick, you guys can stop brigading this Talk Page. Your edit history of cooperating together is well established, and I have already documented that Epiphyllumlover (who has no connection to Biographies group to which this RfC was directed) has been canvassing for votes. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing. --PluniaZ (talk) 06:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I was about to leave the same message. Epiphyllumlover: please see WP:CANVAS Manannan67 (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Was asked my opinion, gave it honestly. I don’t much care what happens with this article. Outside my field. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Epiphyllumlover. I appreciate your response. Without wading into the controversy over alleged canvassing, I want to argue that the first paragraph is really pointless if we only keep the first sentence. The article already establishes elsewhere that Wuerl faced questions about whether he had known about McCarrick's activities and how much. The point of this paragraph is to show that he DID know about something and admitted to as much. I don't think there's really much of a point to keeping just the first sentence. I'm okay with trimming it down, as I've said already to somebody else, but it would have to be to at least 2-3 sentences. Otherwise, there's no point to keeping anything. Display name 99 (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that one sentence doesn't communicate much... my intent was to 1. allow "Wuerl interested readers" a hint and a wikilink to digress into that article--my understanding is that Wuerl is regarded as controversial by some, but has limited name recognition. I am of the opinion that the "Wuerl interested readers" will likely judge him on the basis of their existing opinion of him, no matter what we claim in this article. It is sort of like if instead of Wuerl, it was O.J. Simpson or Trump, in that the mention of his person tends to exacerbate polarization and open up a can of worms and some people will already believe he is dishonest anyway. 2. compromise between you PluniaZ; if he wasn't fighting this, I would be okay with the whole paragraph. Lastly, as for canvassing, I would have been just fine had Hyperbolick voted the exact opposite I did. (I thought probably Hyperbolick wouldn't want to vote because it is about sex abuse, but because he had both edited and weighed in on another page which summarized this general topic and seems to know more about the subject than I do (although in retrospect I was mistaken about this), it seemed fair to notify him).--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I still think we'd have to add at least one more sentence, maybe two, for it to have any point at all. That would still be a significant reduction from what is there now. As for canvassing, I think we can remove the tag at the top of the RfC if you promise not to do it again. Display name 99 (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The tag should be removed because it is is incorrect-- I did not think Hyperbolick had a specific viewpoint at the time I invited him, and I did not invite anyone else (nor can I think of anyone else to invite). If you remove the tag, expect that it will only solve your problems if the RfC does not in your favor.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The canvassing policy does say that it is acceptable to alert others about discussions and invite them to participate so long as one does not intend to influence the direction of the discussion in one way or another. So as long as what you say is true, I don't think you've broken any policy. I'll go ahead and remove the tag, but I'd be mindful about this in the future, as it can easily be perceived in the wrong way. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Having decided against "wading into the controversy over alleged canvassing...", it seems (at the very least) a bit presumptuous to then go and delete the tag w/o at least touching base with PluniaZ, who put it there in the first place, particularly since more than one editor recognized blatant "canvassing" - "as long as what you say is true...if you promise not to do it again" notwithstanding. The tag should be restored as it was manifestly appropriate. Manannan67 (talk) 05:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The tag says "There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article." The message left on Hyerbolick's talk page does not attempt to recruit Hyerbolick to adopt any specific viewpoint. It is entirely neutral. Hence, what the tag says is false in this scenario. The policy WP:Canvassing allows notifying other editors of discussions as long as the notifications are written in a neutral way. So I'm convinced that all of us, including myself, were wrong to consider the behavior of Epiphyllumlover canvassing. Display name 99 (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

As long as no one else attempts to recruit specific editors to this page, I think we can let it go and focus on article content. --PluniaZ (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible solution regarding first paragraph

Three editors including myself have agreed that a shortened version of the first paragraph could or should be re-added. I propose coming to an agreed upon version here and, if one is reached, striking that paragraph from the opening of the RfC and just focusing on paragraphs 2 and 3. Here is the previous version of the paragraph, which is itself a compromise, so that we can use it as a reference point:

Wuerl faced questions regarding how much he knew about McCarrick's activities. He consistently denied any knowledge of McCarrick's behavior prior to June 2018. On January 10, 2019, The Washington Post published a story stating that Wuerl was aware of allegations against McCarrick in 2004 and reported them to the Vatican.[ref] Robert Ciolek, a former priest who reached a settlement in 2005 after accusing several Church officials including McCarrick of sexual misconduct, told the Post that he recently learned that the Diocese of Pittsburgh has a file that shows that Wuerl was aware of his allegations against McCarrick. According to Ciolek, the file includes documentation that Wuerl, who was Bishop of Pittsburgh at the time, shared the information with then-Vatican ambassador Gabriel Montalvo. Both the Diocese of Pittsburgh and the Archdiocese of Washington acknowledged that Wuerl knew about and had reported Ciolek's allegation to the Vatican. The Archdiocese of Washington said that Wuerl did not intend to be "imprecise" in his earlier denials, and that they referred only to claims of abuse against minors, not adults.[ref] Days later, Wuerl himself apologized, stating that his earlier denials were the result of a "lapse of memory."[ref]

Here is my proposed revised version, which was been shortened by about half:

Wuerl faced questions regarding how much he knew about McCarrick's activities. He consistently denied that he had any knowledge of McCarrick's behavior prior to June 2018. On January 10, 2019, The Washington Post published a story ~~stating~~ claiming that Wuerl was aware of allegations against McCarrick in 2004 and reported them to the Vatican.[ref] Both the Diocese of Pittsburgh and the Archdiocese of Washington, as well as Wuerl himself, all acknowledged that he had known about allegations against McCarrick, but insisted that he did not mean to be deceptive.[ref][ref]

PluniaZ, Epiphyllumlover, and Manannan67, I ask you to consider accepting this as a permanent compromise in order to end the dispute over one of three paragraphs and just focus on the other two. If anybody has objections to adding it in while the RfC is still open, please let me know, but if we can agree on something I don't see anything wrong with it. Display name 99 (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

That is the first paragraph, not the second. Frankly I don't think Epiphyllumlover's views count for anything since he has demonstrated himself to be a problematic editor on articles that relate to Catholicism. He didn't come here in response to the RfC, but because he constantly tracks the WikiProject Catholicism Talk Page and checked my contributions after I recently posted there. We will leave the article as is for now and leave the RfC up to allow impartial editors to chime in. I might even suggest restarting the RfC without any discussion from us to allow someone else a chance to offer their view without having to read through pages and pages of arguments from the same people who have been arguing about this for over a month. --PluniaZ (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Display name 99, thank you for improving it. I will accept it fully if "published a story stating that Wuerl" is weakened somehow, possibly to "published a story claiming that Wuerl". PluniaZ is right to be concerned about the use of rumor/gossip in the article and weakening it would help, if only a little.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with PluniaZ, wait for other views. -Wuerl claims (1) he understood the question to be about child abuse, and (2) he had a "lapse of memory" re other twenty year old allegations. Credible or to not, to construe this as "deceptive" seems NPOV (unless it's a direct quote). Manannan67 (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

PluniaZ, thank you for the correction. I've replaced second with first. There's nothing wrong with tracking the Catholicism talk page. I don't know how you know that he checked your contributions or what evidence you have to support the assertion that he's been a "problematic editor." Right now, all of these criticisms are unsupported and just come off as needlessly bitter or hostile. You might not like Epiphyllumlover very much (even though he's agreed with you here almost as much as he has me), but that doesn't mean that we discount his vote. I actually think that Hyperbolick's response should count as well because, due to the fact that Epiphyllumlover wrote his note in a neutral fashion, I saw nothing in it that meets the definition of canvassing. Now if you can provide diffs showing that these two editors have a strong and well-defined history of tag-teaming together at other disputes, that might change my mind with regard to Hyerbolick's response, but not Epiphyllumlover. But for right now, I think that we should count everyone who has posted here so far. We've also had enough RfCs, dispute resolution requests, and other things by this point.

Epiphyllumlover, I have replaced "stating" with "claiming." Manannan67, the exact word used is "imprecise." I could accept replacing deceptive with "imprecise" or "inaccurate," or something else less strong. Display name 99 (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Display name 99, "Presently one would need more than two active editors coordinated on a topic to make much of a difference;" -that's a quote fr Epi to Hypo. This so-called "coordination" appears to go back at least a couple of months and on more than one article. The fact that you choose to see "nothing in it that meets the definition of canvassing" in someone who tends to support your view seems a bit disingenuous. I actually think that Hyperbolick's response not should count as well because his only contribution to the discussion thus far is "Don’t know enough about all of this to be helpful,...I don’t much care what happens with this article. Outside my field." There's no hurry to make a determination. Other informed and independent voices are always helpful. Manannan67 (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It's no more disingenuous than seeing the opposite in someone who mostly opposes you. I don't know where that quote is. It's not that I choose not to see any kind of behavior. I'm basing my response off of the message recently left on Hyperbolick's talk page. I'm not aware of any additional "coordination" between these two editors. This is the first interaction that I can recall having with either of them. If such coordination exists, it's up to the editors making the accusation to prove it by providing diffs, which neither you nor PluniaZ have done. So far, all allegations have been unsupported by any evidence. Regarding Hyperbolick's admitted lack of knowledge, as they said, it sometimes helps to have an editor who isn't familiar with a subject and doesn't have a strong opinion on it to look at things and make a determination. Many of the people reading our articles are uninformed, and hearing from people like them about what aligns with the sources and Wikipedia policy and what doesn't often helps us create a better encyclopedia. If you have no objection, I will make a neutral post on the talk page for Wikiproject Catholicism to notify other editors of this discussion. Display name 99 (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Display name 99 for changing the word to "claiming"--also I accept whatever additional changes you might make at either of the other editors' requests.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing reminder

Since "canvassing" has been mentioned in different contexts in this Rfc a dozen times, and there seems to be some misconceptions about what it says, I thought I'd post this reminder about it.

As far as I can tell, everyone here seems to agree and recognize that failure to maintain a neutral point of view in the wording of a notification about an ongoing discussion is a form of canvassing. (In particular: it is Campaigning.) However, this is not the only form of canvassing; there are three other types. Two of them ("Spamming" and "Stealth canvassing") don't seem to be an issue here, afaict. However, the other one, Votestacking, may be relevant. By way of comparison, Campaigning is the type of canvassing that involves how you notify someone, whereas Votestacking is the type of canvassing that involves who you notify.

Even if you notify someone, or a list of editors, in a completely neutral way so you're not guilty of campaigning, it may still be canvassing if votestacking is involved. With regard to avoiding votestacking, it is appropriate to notify editors who have made substantial edits to the article, editors who have participated in previous discussions about the same topic, experts in the field, and editors who have asked to be pinged. (See WP:APPNOTE for details.) To avoid the appearance of votestacking, my personal rule of thumb, is that if I notify any previous editor of the article with substantial edits, then I notify all of them (I use 4% of article byte text as my threshold for "substantial edits"). If I notify any contributor to a previous Talk page discussion about the topic, then I notify all of them. And so on. Be aware that using {{ping}} to notify editors from the Talk page is not good enough; number one, because IPs cannot be pinged, and secondly, because some users may have notification alerts turned off in their preferences. So you have to notify editors individually on their Talk pages, to do it properly. Mathglot (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Where to go from here

PluniaZ and Manannan67, hello. It's been weeks since there have been any responses to the RfC, which is plenty of time, and I'd like to know how long you'd like this to continue for. I think it's time we close it down and go back to work trying to find a solution. We could start by adding the compromise version of the Wuerl paragraph proposed above. I'd prefer replacing "claiming" with "alleging" per WP:Claim. We could then work on trying to find compromise versions of the other two paragraphs. The consensus for these two at the RfC, counting Epiphyllumlover's vote and not Hyperbolick's, seems to be leaning towards including shorter versions of the paragraphs. Display name 99 (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Consensus is not achieved through majority vote, but "by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." See WP:CON. The RFC has not added any quality to the arguments on either side of the dispute. The comments from new editors in the RFC simply indicate a preference for particular edits without addressing the quality of the arguments for such edits in light of Wikipedia policy. Therefore, consensus has not been reached. Since this is a biography of a living person, the disputed material should be left out per WP:NOCON. --PluniaZ (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"Wuerl has denied that he had any knowledge of McCarrick's behavior prior to June 2018. On January 10, 2019, The Washington Post published a story saying that Wuerl was aware of allegations against McCarrick in 2004 and reported them to the Vatican.[ref] Both the Diocese of Pittsburgh and the Archdiocese of Washington, as well as Wuerl himself, have all acknowledged that he was aware of allegations against McCarrick regarding adults, but Wuerl said that when asked, he understood that it was about acts against minors." -I could live with this added to the last paragraph of Allegations where Wuerl is already mentioned. More than that begins to skew the article to Wuerl. Manannan67 (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I think we should go back to this version as far as the Wuerl references are concerned: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theodore_Edgar_McCarrick&oldid=902018197. The single sentence at the end of the first Vigano paragraph says everything we need to know: Wuerl initially denied having knowledge but subsequently acknowledged having some knowledge. For any more details regarding Wuerl, the reader can visit his bio page. --PluniaZ (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm good with that. Manannan67 (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd accept that as long as the following two sentences are added: "Correspondence that was released in May 2019 shows that McCarrick claimed to have discussed restrictions imposed on him by the Vatican with Wuerl. A spokesperson for Wuerl denied that he had any knowledge of the sanctions. [ref]"

As for the other two paragraphs, PluniaZ, WP:CON only says that for BLPs, a lack of consensus "often" results in the removal of the content. It does not say that this will have to be the case. It would be impossible for any of us to objectively assess the quality of the arguments made, anyhow. Unless an uninvolved editor does so, we should move forward based on what the four people whose responses in the RfC we're counting have said. Display name 99 (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

We've already established here that Epiphyllumlover commented on the RFC out of a vendetta against me. He never made a single policy argument, or any argument at all, but simply stated his preference for certain edits without explaining why, which counts for nothing in establishing consensus. Also, if you want people to respond to an RfC, state your views once in a concise manner so that people don't have to wade through endless repetitious arguments in order to understand the dispute. The RFC on this page has become illegible due to excessive commenting by the same people who were already debating this issue endlessly before the RFC. No one is going to read all that. If you really want consensus from the community, shut down the RFC, open a new one, state your views once in a concise manner, and then leave the rest of the discussion to other members of the community who haven't previously commented. Since you have difficulty creating diffs, I would be happy to write the RFC this time. --PluniaZ (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I won't create a second RfC, but if you want to do so, go ahead. But I think there's already enough here to work with. I stated my views as concisely as possible when opening the RfC. I summarized them in three paragraphs, one for each of the disputed material. Anyone wanting to understand my position only had to read three paragraphs. Display name 99 (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I will close the current RFC and write a new one tonight. I would strongly encourage everyone who has previously commented on this debate to keep their comments to a minimum so that new members of the community can contribute. --PluniaZ (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

That sounds good. Format the diffs how you like, but please make sure that they point to the versions of the paragraphs in the original RfC that I started. I think that we should hold off on any further activity with the Wuerl paragraph and wait to see how this new RfC goes. Display name 99 (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conditions for closing an Rfc

@PluniaZ: This Rfc was improperly closed. I'm not suggesting that you (or anyone) reopen it at this point, because it was a bit of a train wreck, but everyone should observe the recommendations for closing an Rfc. Anyone may recommend closing an Rfc, but if they are involved in it in any way, they should not do it themselves. Per WP:RFCEND, the originator may close it by withdrawing it, or it may be closed by consensus agreement of the participants (there seemed to be agreement among two editors to close it; not sure if that counts as consensus, though), or anyone can request that an independent, neutral observer close it, by posting a request at WP:AN/Requests for closure.

Secondly, given that it was closed, a second Rfc on substantially the same topic, such as the one below, is not normally opened immediately after a previous one closes, even if it is closed as no consensus. Please do due diligence before starting one, by following the procedures at WP:RFCBEFORE. There are also other ways to attempt to resolve disputes such as mediation, and third opinion. See also WP:DRN.

Once an Rfc is started, the idea is to get outside editors involved, and to do that, it should be publicized properly. If you haven't done that already for the new Rfc below, please do so now. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

It was properly closed. See #2 in WP:RFCEND: "The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time, and one of them can remove the RFC template." There were only 3 active participants. The 2 of us with the main disagreement (including the person who created the RFC) agreed that the RFC should be closed, and the third participant (User:Manannan67) has been actively monitoring this page and voiced no objection. We have also properly advertised the RFC and followed all the other procedures you mentioned. --PluniaZ (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment

WITHDRAWN

No new responses. Taking to WP:Third opinion. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It is disputed whether the three added paragraphs in this Diff should be included in the article. --PluniaZ (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Remove all three

The discussion of McCarrick's alleged sexual abuses is already extensively detailed and covers every documented accusation against him. See WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.

The first paragraph is WP:BLPGOSSIP. It is sourced to a single article that consists entirely of anonymous sources repeating vague innuendo ("he had a type", "he would place his hand on someone when talking to them", etc). The source does not contain any verifiable claim of historically significant acts or events involving McCarrick. The source is also homophobic and bigoted, spinning the abuse crisis as the product of a "gay subculture" in the Archdiocese of Newark.

The second paragraph is devoted to a person, Donald Wuerl, who is not the subject of this article. This paragraph is copied verbatim from the Wikipedia article about Wuerl. This article already describes Wuerl's alleged knowledge of McCarrick's activities in three sentences. The reader can visit Wuerl's bio page if they want to learn more.

The third paragraph is media sensationalism written by a few opinion columnists giving their hot take immediately after the McCarrick allegations first came out. It is now almost a year later, and there are no secondary sources written with the benefit of hindsight and reflection that claim the McCarrick case has meaningfully increased ideological divisions in the Catholic Church. More importantly, this paragraph attempts to spin the horrific crime of sex abuse into a left-right political issue. Wikipedia shouldn't stoop to that level. --PluniaZ (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep all three

The first paragraph is reliably-sourced to Catholic News Agency, a publication which is used many times throughout the article. It contains accusations of behavior by McCarrick which are consistent with information that we currently have in the article. No-one has made me aware of any reputation that Catholic News Agency has for falsifying or misrepresenting reports. Our article does not even endorse the idea that what these people say is true, even though their claims match up strongly with other allegations. It simply reports on statements made in an interview with a reliable source, as Wikipedia is supposed to do. Yes, the allegations were made anonymously decades after the events were said to have taken place. But every single public accusation against McCarrick was also made decades after the alleged abuse, often by people keeping themselves anonymous. How is this any different? Allegations that the article is "homophobic and bigoted" come from a part of the article that is separate from where the interviews with purported witnesses on McCarrick are discussed, which makes it a separate issue in my mind. Whether or not it even tilts towards the conservative view on homosexuality or not is for the reader to decide, but the characterization of such opinions as "bigoted" suggestions a level of bias that is not fully appropriate for an editor while on Wikipedia.

The second paragraph is extremely well-sourced and relevant to the article. We already have more than four paragraphs in the article devoted to what other bishops were said to have known about McCarrick's activities, but for some reason, the most critical information about Wuerl is left out, even though there have been more reports in the media about his alleged knowledge of the subject than anybody else. Anybody who says that this is off-topic needs to be able to explain why we shouldn't just delete the whole "Warnings about alleged misconduct" section as well as the first sentence of the last paragraph of the "Allegations involving priests and seminarians" section. I've already proposed a compromise version. Here is a rough diff of what that would look like. I could accept wanting to make the paragraph shorter but I think that deleting it altogether makes no sense.

The third paragraph covers the broader impact of the McCarrick case as well as the Vigano allegations which came from it. Understanding how the case has affected the Church and how it is being interpreted by different groups is arguably just as important as understanding what each bishop knew and when and how he chose to respond, which the article devotes quite a bit of time to. It's true that all of the sources to the paragraph are from the months after the McCarrick case become public and in the days after the Vigano report was released. I don't see how that discounts them. The media has largely stopped actively reporting on McCarrick and Vigano at all aside from tracking new developments. And most of that is done by just a few small conservative or traditionalist sites. Display name 99 (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Please note, I'm not commenting ---for the moment. Manannan67 (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment – I have some concerns about this Rfc, which I've commented on above, in this epilog to the previous one. I notice it's been quiet for ten days; perhaps that's for the best. If you go ahead with this Rfc, please be sure it is properly, and neutrally, publicized in the proper venues, and linked to the previous one. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot, you've now made three comments on this talk page. None of them have been in the least way helpful. If you wish to offer an opinion on the content that is in dispute, feel free. Otherwise, you aren't contributing anything valuable and I suggest you go away. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PluniaZ, sadly, for whatever reason, this RfC is no more successful than the first. If Manannan67 has nothing to add, we could take this to WP:Third opinion and follow whatever the intervening editor there says. I'd also be willing to go with the latest compromise version of the Wuerl paragraph and replace the Vigano paragraph with a single sentence. That would leave only the CNA paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- What at this point is "the latest compromise version of the Wuerl paragraph"? Manannan67 (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Manannan67, sorry, I should have been more clear. It's the one here that I linked to in my RfC vote. Display name 99 (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

How about: Viganò also stated that he discussed McCarrick's conduct with McCarrick's successor as Archbishop of Washington, Cardinal Wuerl. Wuerl denied that he had any knowledge of McCarrick's behavior prior to June 2018. On January 10, 2019, The Washington Post published a story alleging that Wuerl was aware of allegations against McCarrick in 2004 and reported them to the Vatican.[ref] Wuerl later clarified that he was unaware of any allegations of child abuse, and those pertaining to seminarians had been forwarded to Rome. As for any sanctions allegedly imposed on McCarrick, a spokesperson for Wuerl stated, "Archbishop Vigano presumed that Wuerl had specific information that Wuerl did not have.”[ref] Vigano later acknowledge there were no formal sanctions, but rather private instructions. -this summarizes both what is currently in the article with the proposed paragraph w/o getting into coverage of a "spitting contest" between Vigaro and Wuerl. Manannan67 (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I don't think that the quote adds anything that isn't already in there. This paragraph's explanation of Wuerl's denial is not entirely accurate. The Archdiocese of Washington said that Wuerl was speaking about allegations of child abuse; Wuerl himself said that he had a "lapse of memory." I also think that the paragraph should include the fact that McCarrick claimed to have discussed the restrictions surrounding him with Wuerl. That's an important bit of information that's being left out. It's much more important than getting into the weeds about the sanctions being formal or informal, which is already mentioned in the article and does not need to be repeated in this paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

(1) That is not a quote. I put it in italics to differentiate a proposed draft from my own comments. This is a quote: Wuerl said in a Jan. 12 letter that when "the allegation of sexual abuse of a minor was brought against Archbishop McCarrick, I stated publicly that I was never aware of any such allegation or rumors." But the context, he said, was in discussions about sexual abuse of minors, not adults. He said in the Jan. 15 letter that the survivor in the Pittsburgh case had asked that the matter be kept confidential, he heard no more about it, "I did not avert to it again," and "only afterwards was I reminded of the 14-year-old accusation of inappropriate conduct which, by that time, I had forgotten."[8] …this was in the context of a report from the Pittsburgh Diocesan Review Board, which reviews allegations of abuse, about a separate case and "at the conclusion of this report, the survivor indicated the 'inappropriate conduct' " he observed by McCarrick. (-whether observe is all he did is another matter.) (2) If the suggested paragraph "doesn't add anything", then I'm fine with leaving things exactly as they are. (3) You seem to miss entirely the importance of his claims re the so-called "sanctions". That is the coatrack on which he hangs all his allegations that everybody and his brother knew all about everything, and therefore, is no small matter if it should subsequently appear to be a "crock". Manannan67 (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Manannan67, the quote that I was referring to was "Archbishop Vigano presumed that Wuerl had specific information that Wuerl did not have." I don't see how that adds anything that isn't already in the paragraph. Here is what Wuerl said: "Nonetheless, it is important for me to accept personal responsibility and apologize for this lapse of memory. There was never the intention to provide false information." [9] He never directly said that the reason why he denied knowledge of misconduct by McCarrick was because he believed that the question dealt only with minors and not adults. This was the explanation of the Archdiocese, not Wuerl. Wuerl said that he forgot, which is not what your proposed paragraph says. As for the question of sanctions, I didn't feel like it was necessary to reiterate that there was a controversy over formal v. informal sanctions in this paragraph. We talk about it elsewhere in the McCarrick article, in more detail in the Vigano article, and I don't think it relates very heavily to Wuerl. My real question is why you have chosen to leave out the fact that McCarrick claimed to have discussed restrictions that were placed on him with Wuerl. Display name 99 (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Manannan67, I am fine with your proposal in italics, provided that in the second sentence we say, "Wuerl's spokesman denied ..." rather than "Wuerl denied." --PluniaZ (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

If we're going to choose between whether to include the statement by Wuerl's spokesperson or Wuerl himself, wouldn't it be better to go with the latter? Display name 99 (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Display name 99 (A) You're talking about two different things. "Archbishop Vigano presumed that Wuerl had specific information that Wuerl did not have." -refers to the so-called sanctions, not allegations of abuse. Please try to keep things straight. (B) As for, "He never directly said that the reason why he denied knowledge of misconduct by McCarrick was because he believed that the question dealt only with minors and not adults." -Why do you persist in saying something is not said, when it obviously is? I have marked the relative portions in bold as you seemed to have missed them. (C) "McCarrick claimed to have discussed restrictions that were placed on him with Wuerl", I guess we'll need the precise quote. Manannan67 (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Manannan67, (A) I understand what the quote refers to. I still don't think it adds anything. If Wuerl was aware of sanctions, he would also have had to have been aware that there were allegations of abuse, although perhaps not specific allegations. I apologize for the confusion. (B) I did mix this one up, sorry. (C) I'd be fine with it if we added something to the effect of the following: "McCarrick claimed to have discussed restrictions that were placed on him with Wuerl, but Wuerl denied that he had any knowledge of such restrictions." You can keep the sentence about formal v. informal sanctions if you want, but I think that this is notable enough to be included. If you agree to add this, we can settle the disagreement regarding the Wuerl paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

So, Manannan67, what is your response? Do you consent to the paragraph being added with the above sentence? Display name 99 (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

- WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE states: "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." Therefore, Display name 99, if you wish to restore the deleted material, the burden is on you to obtain community consensus for your proposal to restore the material. We have had three RFCs on the material and have not obtained community consensus to restore the material. You are welcome to attempt to gain community consensus to restore the material in any way that complies with Wikipedia policies. --PluniaZ (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I've closed the RfC and am taking this to WP:Third opinion. Please let me know if you have any objections. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I object. This is not a dispute between two editors. WP:Third Opinion is only for disputes between two editors. Also, please ask before you close RFCs. You have done that twice now without asking. --PluniaZ (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed you were ~~smart enough to know~~ that requesting a third opinion would have to mean that an open RfC would be closed, or that if you thought that requesting a third opinion was improper, you would have said so after I originally stated that I might do so, not after I had already done it. Display name 99 (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

On another note

Regardless as to whether or not the third paragraph is inserted, the Vigano section as is currently stand needs to be seriously cut back; partly because it's covered in his own article, and partly because the reader has to wade through five paragraphs to find that he walked backed his statements: to wit, so-called sanctions -well, maybe note. And this doesn't even get to Cardinal Ouellet, prefect for the Congregation of Bishops, calling him out for ""incredible and absurd" claims. I could add this, but it rightfully belongs in the Vigano article, as does any discussion of Vigano's antipathy towards Francis for not being sufficiently strict regarding homosexuals. Manannan67 (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer to go back to this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theodore_Edgar_McCarrick&oldid=902018197. You've added more material from a secondary source in edits to that version, but I feel that the article is not as clear and concise as it was in the prior version. --PluniaZ (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I take it we're talking about the Vigano section of June 15. It appears that a number of statements are presented as fact and not clearly attributed to Vigano, such as "Subsequently, Archbishop Pietro Sambi (nuncio from 2005 to 2011) had informed the Vatican again." Did he or is this just Vigano saying it? If, the former, than it would need a "fact" tag. The same goes for his alleged 2006 memo. Is this a claim and can anyone substantiate it? The point is made that "Pope Francis subsequently removed these sanctions" but does not indicate that "Vigano subsequently acknowledged that Pope Benedict had made the restrictions private..." Except for Figueiredo's comment, Vigano's various allegations stand at face value. That is why I would move most of it to the Vigano article where it can be receive a fuller treatment. If I get time, maybe I'll try and work something up.Manannan67 (talk) 04:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Briefly -On August 25, 2018 Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, released an 11-page letter describing a series of warnings to the Vatican regarding McCarrick.[81] Viganò stated that Montalvo, then nuncio to the United States, had informed the Vatican in 2000 of what Vigano characterized as McCarrick's "gravely immoral behaviour with seminarians and priests." Vigano said that in 2006, while working at the Vatican, he wrote his own memo regarding McCarrick, but nothing was done.[81] In 2008, Viganò says he wrote a second memo, including material from Sipe.[81] In 2009 or 2010 Pope Benedict XVI allegedly placed severe restrictions on McCarrick's movements and public ministry, not allowing him to travel beyond the grounds of the seminary where he was living and not permitting him to say Mass in public.[81] However, according to Viganò, Pope Francis subsequently removed these sanctions and made McCarrick "his trusted counselor."[81] Viganò also stated that he discussed McCarrick's conduct and the penalties surrounding it with McCarrick's successor as Archbishop of Washington, Cardinal Wuerl, who through a spokesperson denied that he was aware of any restrictions on McCarrick. "“Archbishop Vigano presumed that Wuerl had specific information that Wuerl did not have.”[84] Viganò called on Pope Francis and any others who he claimed covered up McCarrick's conduct to resign.[81]

Archbishop Viganò, the papal representative to the United States from 2011 until he was recalled to Rome by Pope Francis in 2016, did not provide documents proving that sanctions were imposed by Benedict. Nor did he provide evidence that Francis knew about the sanctions or that he lifted them. Michael O'Loughlin, writing in America, noted that the cardinal’s public schedule picked up considerably in 2011, when Archbishop Viganò arrived at his post in Washington. Vigano subsequently acknowledged that Pope Benedict had made the restrictions private, perhaps "due to the fact that he (Archbishop McCarrick) was already retired, maybe due to the fact that he (Pope Benedict) was thinking he was ready to obey."[86] On May 28, 2019, McCarrick's private secretary Msgr. Anthony J. Figueiredo released letters written by McCarrick suggesting that while senior Vatican officials placed restrictions on the former Cardinal after abuse allegations surfaced, they were not official sanctions and were not strictly enforced under the papacies of either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope Francis.[86][87][88] The Archbishop largely ignored the Pope's instructions.

"Asked about the letter during his press conference while returning to Rome from Ireland, Pope Francis confirmed that he had read it but refused to respond to it in detail, telling the journalists on the plane, “Read the statement carefully and make your own judgment. I will not say a single word on this.” He also said they had the “journalistic capacity” to draw their own conclusions."

- there's some interesting stuff on Vigano, but that belongs on his page. Manannan67 (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I feel like the second and third paragraphs in your draft are unnecessary. How about this:

On August 25, 2018 Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, released an 11-page letter describing a series of warnings to the Vatican regarding McCarrick.[81] Viganò stated that Montalvo, then nuncio to the United States, had informed the Vatican in 2000 of what Vigano characterized as McCarrick's "gravely immoral behaviour with seminarians and priests." Vigano said that in 2006, while working at the Vatican, he wrote his own memo regarding McCarrick, but nothing was done.[81] In 2008, Viganò says he wrote a second memo, including material from Sipe.[81] In 2009 or 2010 Pope Benedict XVI allegedly placed severe restrictions on McCarrick's movements and public ministry, not allowing him to travel beyond the grounds of the seminary where he was living and not permitting him to say Mass in public.[81] However, according to Viganò, Pope Francis subsequently removed these sanctions and made McCarrick "his trusted counselor."[81] Viganò called on Pope Francis and any others who he claimed covered up McCarrick's conduct to resign.[81]Viganò also stated that he discussed McCarrick's conduct and the penalties surrounding it with McCarrick's successor as Archbishop of Washington, Cardinal Wuerl, who through a spokesperson initially denied that he was aware of the allegations but subsequently acknowledged that he had been aware of certain accusations against McCarrick.[83][84]

In October 2018, the Vatican announced that it would conduct an investigation into how allegations against McCarrick were handled.[86] On May 28, 2019, McCarrick's private secretary Msgr. Anthony J. Figueiredo released letters written by McCarrick suggesting that while senior Vatican officials placed restrictions on the former Cardinal after abuse allegations surfaced, they were not official sanctions and were not strictly enforced under the papacies of either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope Francis.[87][88][89] In an interview published on May 28, 2019, Francis directly addressed the accusations made in Viganò's letter for the first time. He stated that he "knew nothing" about McCarrick's conduct.[90]

--PluniaZ (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I suggest moving the Figueredo sentence up to follow "trusted counselor". I would move "Vatican announced that it would conduct an investigation" down to the next section on Vatican activities. Also, Francis telling the reporters to basically "do your job" says a lot more than any outright denial. Manannan67 (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Alternatively

I see there is a link in the "Vigano allegations " section to "Carlo Maria Viganò § August 2018 letter". If more specificity is required, a second link could be added to "Donald Wuerl#Viganò letter" and hashed out there where it more properly belongs. Manannan67 (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

If you think that Wuerl's alleged knowledge of McCarrick's activities and sanctions "more properly belongs" in the Wuerl article, I encourage you to take a look at what has been going on at that article. Some editors don't seem to think it belongs anywhere. Display name 99 (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that you're arguing over three different articles simultaneously, but with nearly the same content. Manannan67 (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not the one changing them. Display name 99 (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, it is correct that nothing above section 5.5.4 Vigano allegations is in contention? -or is it? Manannan67 (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

There are still the same three paragraphs that are still technically in contention here, including the Wuerl paragraph where you have yet to give me an answer regarding my proposed addition to the compromise paragraph you suggested. After we settled that, I meant to propose even more heavily redacted versions of those two paragraphs, like getting them down to just a couple sentences. Display name 99 (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I have added the version of the Wuerl paragraph that you proposed above with the addition that I suggested. I have waited for two days for a response about the sentence that I presented, which I think is long enough. Hopefully it will not be reverted. Display name 99 (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Solution for final two paragraphs

Manannan67 and PluniaZ, I hope that we have come to a conclusion regarding the Wuerl paragraph. I have gotten the CNA and Vigano paragraphs down to two sentences each and I propose that they be added in. Here is a link to the diff. I think that this reflects the opinions that we've heard on the talk page reasonably well. Neither you two nor I will get everything that we want from this, but it's still a way to end it. Display name 99 (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Please do not add disputed material without obtaining consensus from the community. See WP:BLP. The burden is on you to obtain community consensus if you wish to add disputed material. --PluniaZ (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Manannan67 made a proposal which you essentially agreed to. I offered a small change. You both had two days to either accept or reject it but chose not to. You should have made known your feelings before. Display name 99 (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC) I also note that you ignored my proposed revisions to the other two disputed paragraphs. Any comment on those? Display name 99 (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The lack of an immediate response is due to fact that I have been physically incapacitated for the past forty-eight hours, not disinterest. In as much as you were given time to complete your summer course, you needn't be in such haste. I will respond at greater length once the analgesics kick in. Manannan67 (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

My apologies. I noticed a decrease, although not a complete stoppage, in editing activities from you for the past two days. My main problem is not with you but with PluniaZ's revert, although I would have appreciated a message from you telling me what was going on so long as you had you been in good enough condition to provide one. Anyhow, I will await word from you. I offer my best wishes for your recovery. Display name 99 (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The first proposed paragraphs has the same problems as heretofore discussed at length: "rumors" by "unnamed" priests. The argument that if that is not allowed in then the other allegations should come out, just doesn't make sense, since it is those allegations (with their greater specificity) that make this statement from CNA superfluous. Pluniaz has also given their opinion at length. RFCs have proved no particular help. If nothing develops from Dispute Resolution, then I don't see much more discuss regarding this section.

Wuerl is another matter entirely. -to be continued. Manannan67 (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a matter of interpreting consensus at this point. You and PluniaZ want it completely removed. I want it kept in its entirety. The only other editor to respond to the RfC (not counting Hyperbolick) said that they favored a shorter version in the article. That means that we're split evenly 2-2 between those editors who favor some version of it being in the article and those who don't. The current version of the paragraph is less than half as long as the original. I think it best reflects the total quantity of opinions that have been voiced at this article. So even if you're not a fan of it, I think you should consent to it being added out of respect for Wikipedia guidelines on consensus. Also, if you can think of a version that would be acceptable to you, I'd love to hear it. Finally, in addition to sharing your thoughts on Wuerl, I'd like to hear what you may have to say regarding the revised Vigano paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Not sure who this other editor is; in any event there seems to be limited participation in the discussion, and no apparent rationale given. That aside, "out of respect for Wikipedia guidelines on consensus" {!?) R U serious? 2-2 is not any sort of consensus. Please see WP:DTS;

as to Wuerl: the claims re allegations of misconduct on McCarrick's part, and knowledge of any restrictions are two separate items and should be treated as such; the first under Allegations, the second under Vigano. As to the first, I have revived the previous proposal which seemed to have minimal objections:

Archbishop Donald Wuerl denied having any prior knowledge of claims regarding sexual abuse on the part of McCarrick. In a Jan. 12 letter, Wuerl stated that when "the allegation of sexual abuse of a minor was brought against Archbishop McCarrick, I stated publicly that I was never aware of any such allegation or rumors." But the context, he said, was in discussions about sexual abuse of minors, not adults. He said in the Jan. 15 letter to the priests of the Archdiocese that the survivor in the Pittsburgh case had asked that the matter be kept confidential, he heard no more about it, "I did not avert to it again," and "only afterwards was I reminded of the 14-year-old accusation of inappropriate conduct which, by that time, I had forgotten."[5] - I took note that PluniaZ prefers the second sentence refer to Wuerl's spokesperson, but it appears it was his own letter to the Archdiocesan priests.

The other editor is Epiphyllumlover. Wikipedia guidelines on consensus refer to interpreting the general climate of opinions at the article talk page. Even if there is no consensus, the policy can be applied to determine the best way to move forward based on what people have said, which usually requires giving everybody a little bit of what they asked for. For example, if two editors want a paragraph to be removed from the article, one wants it it to be kept, and another wants it to be kept but abbreviated, there is clearly no consensus, but the best way to act would probably be to add a heavily abridged version into the article, which is what I have proposed. If we cannot come to an agreement here, I can take this to the dispute resolution noticeboard and ask an editor to weigh the arguments against each other and the number of people supporting each position and come to a final resolution. I will however wait to hear your opinion on my proposed Vigano paragraph.

The Wuerl paragraph looks pretty good, but I think that this sentence should be added in somewhere: "On January 10, 2019, The Washington Post published a story alleging that Wuerl was aware of allegations against McCarrick in 2004 and reported them to the Vatican." That's the central point of the story and it gets lost. We should not jump to Wuerl's January 12 letter while providing no context about why that letter was written. I'm fine with including the paragraph in the Allegations section (although I really think it should go under "Warnings," but whatever) so long as the sentence about Wuerl's purported knowledge of sanctions is allowed to go in the Vigano section. Does this work? Display name 99 (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

If it's placed under "Warnings" with the other five clerics, it needs no further context. If that is not acceptable then you are free to take it to dispute resolution. -I'm not addressing Vigano until I finish with Wuerl, to wit: the discussion of restrictions. Manannan67 (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Manannan67, put it wherever you think is best. I just think that it should have the "On January 10, 2019" sentence and that the information about Wuerl's purported knowledge of sanctions should be allowed in the article somewhere. If you do this, we'll be done with Wuerl. When I was talking about dispute resolution, I was referring to the CNA paragraph, not Wuerl. Display name 99 (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic note

Should the article refer to McCarrick as a "former prelate" in its first sentence? The Church's procedure for laicization means that someone is no longer permitted to present himself as a priest or bishop, or to perform any of the duties of one. But it does not mean that they could not administer the sacraments as a bishop and do so validly, because the Church holds that ordination and episcopal consecration cannot reversed. Were McCarrick to consecrate a bishop, it would be illicit but valid. The sentence already identifies McCarrick as a "former bishop." A prelate is a bishop, so I think "laicized bishop and former cardinal" is adequate. Any thoughts? Display name 99 (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I support this. If he was just a priest this controversy would have been smaller.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I know Church teaching is that "Once a priest, always a priest" - but where does the Church teach "Once a bishop, always a bishop"? --PluniaZ (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I see now it is clear in the Catechism, so I agree with the proposed wording (which is already in the article). http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a6.htm --PluniaZ (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Restrictions

After sorting through at length various accounts this is what I can make out of it:

In August 2008, due to as yet unproven rumors concerning alleged misconduct regarding seminarians, McCarrick was "strongly exhorted to maintain a low profile". Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops further directed McCarrick to relocate from the seminary where he was residing and restrict his public appearances and travel. This request was personally conveyed by the papal nuncio to the United States Cardinal Pietro Sambi. Sambi's successor, Carlo Vigano, later reported a "stormy conversation" between Sambi and McCarrick. (Query: how does Vigano know this since he was in Rome at the time?) McCarrick objected to the Vatican’s request that he move to either a monastery or a hospice. In a letter sent to his former secretary Msgr Figueiredo, he said he had advised Sambi in late August 2008 that he intended to comply, although his subsequent conduct belies that. He also said that he had shared the information with his Archbishop (Cardinal Donald Wuerl). Wuerl has since denied any knowledge of any restrictions on McCarrick. (Wuerl would not have had any authority over his predecessor; jurisdiction would have lay with the nuncio.) After Sambi's death, McCarrick moved to the rectory of an upscale parish in Washington. Figueiredo was personal secretary to McCarrick from September 1994 to June 1995, while McCarrick was Archbishop of Newark -which begs the question, was he aware of the beach house? did he have occasion to convey any invitations? Manannan67 (talk) 05:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the Wuerl paragraph. I added the extra sentence that I proposed about the January 10 article because you voiced no objection to it. I also added sources in the paragraph. None were originally included. In his original letter, Vigano cited Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, who worked at the nunciature at the time, as his source for the meeting between Sambi and McCarrick. After the letter was released, Msgr. Lantheaume declined to offer any lengthy response but said that Vigano told "the truth." [10]

The facts that you give about the sanctions are correct. But here's what I would like to have mentioned. In correspondence that was published on May 29, 2018, as you pointed out, McCarrick claimed to have discussed restrictions that were imposed on him with Wuerl. He even said that Wuerl's "help and understanding is, as always, a great help and fraternal support to me." Wuerl again denied that he had any knowledge of the sanctions. [11] I'd like for this information to be reflected by a single sentence in the Vigano section: "McCarrick claimed to have discussed restrictions that were placed on him with Wuerl, but Wuerl denied that he had any knowledge of such restrictions." What is your response to this proposal? Display name 99 (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Manannan67, time to explain. (A) What was wrong with the sentence that I added? (B) If you thought that something was wrong with it, why didn't you say so when I proposed it? (C) Why do you think that it's acceptable to have a paragraph in the article with lengthy quotes that doesn't have sources? Not having them in the beginning was bad enough. Removing them after I added them is even worse. Display name 99 (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You added more than just citations. Manannan67 (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Like what? Display name 99 (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC) Besides the sentence which is a simple recitation of fact and which you voiced no objection to when I proposed it on the talk page. Display name 99 (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You propose a lot of stuff that is duplicative, redundant, and of no particular help. This page is now over 162K which is well more than the recommended length. I have tried to archive some of the old stuff with little effect because much of it relates to endless discourse that goes around in circles to no point whatsoever. After weeks of discussion there is absolutely no headway at all. No one is going to wade through all this palaver. Third opinion does not apply, two RFC's produced nothing of consequence. -I suggest you take your concerns to dispute resolution. Manannan67 (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Your concerns about length are without foundation. WP:Article size caps articles at 99 kB prose size. This article clocks in at only 28 kB. A single sentence really isn't going to change much. Is that the only reason why you've reverted? You still haven't coherently articulated a reason for why you undid my edit, and I believe that this is the first time that you've raised a concern over the length of the article. It hasn't been weeks of controversy- months actually. The war that has been raging at this talk page, chiefly over three paragraphs, has gone back to late May. It's been more than two RfCs. I think we're at four now. I'm trying to end this as quickly and painlessly as possible by proposing heavily shortened versions of two of the three paragraphs and come to an agreement with you on the Wuerl paragraph. Your rejection of my compromise proposal of the CNA paragraph, refusal to say anything about my proposed Vigano paragraph, and now this unexplained revert are what's keeping this nightmare going. I intend to follow your suggestion and take this to dispute resolution at some point within the next 24 hours. In the meantime I propose that there be no activity on the page related to disputed points. Display name 99 (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Once again there appears to be a problem with reading comprehension. I'm talking about the Talk page; which should be blatantly obvious as one does not tend to archive the article. Recommendations for Talk pages are entirely different. As to the article, it's an encyclopedia entry, not a bloody term paper. Manannan67 (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Huh? I asked you to state your reason for reverting, and if you weren't talking about the article above and were instead complaining about the length of the talk page, that means that you were just rambling and getting off topic. Do you even have a reason? I've asked you many times to give it but as I said, you have yet to provide a straightforward and coherent explanation. Display name 99 (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested project assistance

I have requested assistance from members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism and Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies as "more eyes" to help assist in forming a consensus. DRN referral. If this does not work please feel free to re-submit DRN request. I have no opinion or part in the content dispute. Aloha!--Mark Miller (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Mark Miller. I honestly think that we can forget about the LGBT categorization. Other editors feel strongly about it, but I'm personally indifferent to it and Epiphyllumlover even said that it was fine to revert him. Display name 99 (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like there is at least some agreement between editors here so, that's at least something to build on towards a resolution.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Supposed excessive detail

PluniaZ, I agree that it's unnecessary to restate that McCarrick was sentenced to live a life of prayer and penance. I'm fine with that part being removed. But I'm not sure how it's excessive detail to say that several communities refused to accept McCarrick, that his move to the friary was made in secrecy, and mentioning that the diocese would not be incurring costs in housing him. All of this seems relevant. Display name 99 (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I could not find any source that states any communities refused to accept McCarrick. The move being "in secrecy" is one journalist's characterization of his move. I fail to see how the details of the travel arrangements of one trip made by a person are relevant in a BLP. As for costs, I think we can say that the Friary will be providing for McCarrick without renumeration from McCarrick or the local diocese. --PluniaZ (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the Slate article:

"Victoria was also chosen in part because St. Fidelis was the only place that would accept him, according to Father Christopher Popravak, who at the time of McCarrick’s arrival served as provincial minister for the Capuchins’ Denver Archdiocese, which operates the friary. The then–archbishop of Washington, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, tried several other options before approaching Popravak and the bishop of Salina, Gerald Vincke, who both granted permission in mid-September of 2018."

The move was not announced until the day after it took place. That means that it was kept secret. That is fact, not merely some journalist's characterization. Regarding cost, all we have that I'm aware of is a statement from Vincke saying that the diocese would not incur any cost. Quite probably that means that the friary would pay for housing him, but we would need a source to tell us that before putting it into the article. Display name 99 (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't say that any communities refused to accept McCarrick. That is your inference, but it is not stated in any of the sources. Per WP:NOR, Wikipedia editors are not permitted to draw our own conclusions based on our interpretation of sources. Our job is to "summarize and rephrase" what reliable sources state.

The details of one flight that a person took in their life is hardly worthy of mention in a BLP. See WP:BALASP.

The Slate article contains a quote from the Salina diocese saying they aren't paying for McCarrick, as well as a representative of the friary saying that McCarrick won't be paying for his stay there either. I included this in the article as a compromise, deleting the other two unnecessary details, but if you're going to contest this, then I am for the removal of all of this material. Wikipedia is not the place to keep a diary about the day to day details of how McCarrick spends his life. Frankly I don't even know why we are mentioning the details of where a retired 89 year old man lives. See WP:DIARY. --PluniaZ (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Because this is his biography and where the Church has chosen to send McCarrick is an important part of its response and is a matter of legitimate public interest. I am in favor of what you now have in the article. Let's leave it alone.

Forget the details of the flight, even though I am in favor of their inclusion because of how important their flight was. The move was not announced until after it happened so that there would not be publicity. I fail to see how that is not relevant enough to be mentioned. Display name 99 (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

When you wrote, "I am in favor of what you now have in the article. Let's leave it alone", I thought you meant you were fine with that version of the article. No, I am not fine with your most recent change. Feel free to request a third opinion or RfC. --PluniaZ (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

person, not boy?

I found "James had been the first boy McCarrick had ever baptized." Why do you have "boy" instead of "person"? "person" would also account for girls. (James was only using his first name in the recent press until he disclosed that he was James Grein.) Carlm0404 (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Moved from Kansas friary -- just saw this today

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/theodore-mccarrick-has-moved-from-kansas-friary-21637 Carlm0404 (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 16 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 11:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Theodore Edgar McCarrick → Theodore McCarrick – Most reliable sources do not use McCarrick's middle name, e.g. The Washington Post, BBC, CNN. Searching for "Theodore McCarrick" yields 354,000 results, while "Theodore Edgar McCarrick" has only 44,500 results. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we should remove "Edgar" from the article title, as "Theodore McCarrick" should be sufficient to identify him (that title already redirects here, anyway). — RAVENPVFF · talk · 07:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Support this is standard en.wiki practice, and I propose that we move bishops' articles en masse away from those featuring middle names, especially where there is no need to include them and WP:RS do not include them. Elizium23 (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Clerical trappings for this wikipedia article

There was an earlier discussion about that, right? I just noticed complete lack of such trappings for Rudolph Kos, laicized after having been a priest of the Dallas diocese. Carlm0404 (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Pope Francis had been a cardinal from the same consistory

That's 2001, when the future Pope was still known as Jorge Bergoglio. He and McCarrick both became cardinals at that consistory. It would fall to Pope Francis to remove McCarrick from ministry. Carlm0404 (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion prompted by reading Catholic-hierarchy site

WikiProject class rating

Blog for background

Categories

Section heading

NYT refs and Higuera

Why is Wikipedia defining adult homosexual conduct as abuse?

Residence in retirement (BEFORE going into seclusion in Kansas in 2018)

C-Span Video confirms McCarrick lead the graveside service of Ted Kennedy

defrocked

Can the violet in the infobox be changed to normal gray?

To capitalize or not to capitalize?

Chronological order

Infobox

WP:NPOV and WP:BLP issues regarding statements about Cardinal Wuerl

Protection

Protected edit request

Issues regarding McCarrick's letters released on May 28, 2019

Superfluous material in Vigano section

Protected Edit Request

RfC: Superfluous material in a biography of a living person that is not supported by the sources provided

Protected Edit Request

Innuendo in a BLP article?

Thoughts

Warnings re McCarrick

Allegations:

Three paragraphs

RfC about three disputed paragraphs

Possible solution regarding first paragraph

Canvassing reminder

Where to go from here

Conditions for closing an Rfc

Request for Comment

On another note

Alternatively

Solution for final two paragraphs

Off-topic note

Restrictions

Requested project assistance

Supposed excessive detail

person, not boy?

Moved from Kansas friary -- just saw this today

Requested move 16 January 2020

Clerical trappings for this wikipedia article

Pope Francis had been a cardinal from the same consistory