Talk:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Bari-Bitonto

Misuse of Sources in this article
The following two paragraph-sentences occur in the article on the Archdiocese of Bari:

"By contrast to Bisanzio's Catholicism affections, Andreas, the archbishop from 1062 to at least 1066, kept an eye to the roots of his Faith, for example journeying to Constantinople, and at some point even converting to Judaism. Archbishop Andreas then fled to Muslim-dominated Egypt, where he eventually died in 1078.

"Remarkably, the next archbishop Urso (1080–1089) was captured by the Muslim forces and converted to Islam. "

What Steven Epstein actually says is the following:
 * What little John tells about his youth concerns a story about Andreas, the renegade archbishop of Bari. The rumor eventually reached Bari that this Andreas fled to Constantinople, converted to Judaism, was circumsized, and then went to Cairo. Joshua Prower has looked closely for the seeds of truth in this rumor and found a captured archbishop of Bari named Urso in Egypt around the time of the First Crusade (1095-99) who had converted, presumably to Islam. There was indeed an Andreas archbishop of Bari who whent to Constantinople in 1066 and was never heard from again. These stories may have become conflated in young John's mind and set an example that it was possible to entertain doubts about Christianity, convert, and then flee to the only safe place for such a person, the wrold of Islam. John believed that Andreas had become a Jew, not a safe decision for any Latin or Greek Christian in southern Italy to make.

Epstein makes clear several times the dubious quality of the story. He immediately picks out the word 'rumor'. The scholar Joshua Prower, looking for the 'seeds of truth in this rumor,' found a similar tale about a different Archbishop of Bari, Urso. But as for Andreas, he got to Constantinople and was never heard from again. Andreas' conversion and circumcision cannot be verified. Urso cannot be said to have been captured by Muslims or to have been converted to Islam. He may have been converted, though that is a gratuitous assumption, and it may have been a conversion to Islam, but that too is a gratuitous assumption and there are other possibilities. Neither of the two sentences in the article can stand as facts. The POV Catholic tone of the sentence about Andreas is offensive and tendentious, especially in the context of conversion to Judaism and Islam. --Vicedomino (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.gcatholic.org/dioceses/diocese/bari0.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Vicedomino (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

A considerable amount of text was copy-pasted directly from the website of Gabriel Chow, called GCatholic, which is a copyrighted page.

The copy-paste includes most of the first twenty-five lines on the page.

I have removed the offending text from the article. --Vicedomino (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed flag of Italian Republic, per [WP:ICON]
I removed the Italian Republic flag (of 1946) icon from the Infobox, in accordance with several sections of WP:ICON; specifically (quoting),


 * Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many....
 * Flags make simple, blunt statements about nationality, while words can express the facts with more complexity. [Bari was part of the Lombard Kingdom, of the German Empire, of the Angevin Kingdom of Naples the Cisalpine Republic, and the Bourbon Kingdom of Naples, and the Kingdom of Italy of the House of Savoy. The Italian flag used was that of the Republic of Italy.]....
 * Do not rewrite history. Flags should not be used to misrepresent the nationality of a historical figure [including some bishops], event, object, etc. Political boundaries change, often over the span of a biographical article subject's lifetime. Where ambiguity or confusion could result, it is better not to use a flag at all, and where one is genuinely needed, use the historically accurate flag.

--Vicedomino (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)