Talk:Thomas Rosica

LifeSiteNews
No reason was given for deleting the mention Rosica's criticisms of LifeSiteNews. It makes sense to include it, given that he is a notable Church leader in the department of social communications, and that he is also a member of the Roman Curia's communications council. ADM (talk) 06:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

With reference to the removal of references to Fr. Rosica's interview with Gregory Baum; these should be reinserted. The section deleted commented on the fact that the interview was controversial (a matter of public record); it linked not only to LifesiteNews but to the interview itself, where viewers can watch the entire video interview to draw their own conclusions. The LifesiteNews references were not libelous; in law, a statement that is true (even though considered damaging) is not libel nor defamation. In a free society issues, disagreements should be debated not censured. Boinkus (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not delete it, but having reviewed the page history, I support it's deletion. It was biased (by only referencing LifeSiteNews' own article) and worse, it did not accurately represent Fr. Rosica's actual published statements. Please review:
 * Fr. Rosica's original article/blog post: http://saltandlighttv.org/blog/?p=6502
 * Transcript of a follow-up interview with Fr. Rosica on Sirius XM Radio: http://saltandlighttv.org/blog/?p=6801
 * A third-party article about this in the Catholic Register: http://www.catholicregister.org/content/view/3410/849/
 * Considering that this issue is about mudslinging, you need to be especially careful not to repeat those biases here. -- Mecandes (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability, libel and mudslinging
Users need to review wikipedia's guidelines on Verifiability before inserting or editing information.

Where he spoke (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Remove non-attributed theological discussions.
The current closing (2nd last) paragraph as of 29-May-2013 quotes Christian canon law but this is neither biographical, part of the references attributed to Fr. Rosica, nor necessarily Fr. Rosica's own position.

It seems to be an edit declaring a position the author wishes everyone to adhere to ala a discussion group.

While the discussion might be valid in a discussion forum or even as a declaration in a theology forum it is not part of this biography. The actual reference and discussion by Fr. Rosica is appropriate and does discuss his position and does provide his own references. Putting words into his mouth (even if they are sourced from Catholic canon and even if they turn out to be his position) does not belong inserted into his biography by a Wiki edit.

Remove it ?

Copiousthoughts (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, agree; boldly removed. Orbst (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of archives
Why was history of my posting from August 8th 2016 at 16:19 deleted? Where he spoke (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

LifeSiteNews
LifeSiteNews is not a credible source. Once the discussion at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard is complete, all material sourced to LifeSiteNews will need to be purged from this article. --PluniaZ (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite of Plagiarism accusations
The section on the accusations of plagiarism needs to be rewritten. It relies too heavily on biased commentary from conservative media outlets such as LifeSiteNews, the Canadian National Post, and Catholic News Agency, all of which have a clear axe to grind with Father Rosica. There is community consensus that LifeSiteNews is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia articles. The conservatively biased National Post has a clear agenda against Father Rosica, evidenced by the hyperbolic accusations in its articles, e.g., "so far, almost everything Rosica has published has been found to include substantial plagiarism." Likewise, Catholic News Agency is a subsidiary of a rival Catholic media enterprise, EWTN, and its excessive coverage of this story indicates that it is attempting to discredit a rival, Salt + Light Television. It is not appropriate for Wikipedia to be repeating verbatim accusations made by a person's enemies. This is especially true in a biography of a living person:


 * "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material."

--PluniaZ (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BLP, "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." Hence, users wishing to add or restore material to this article must come to the talk page and present valid reasons for doing so.  As no user has done so, I am reverting to the prior version of the article. --PluniaZ (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC about flagrant personal attacks in a BLP
The current version of Thomas Rosica consists of an attack page listing everything anyone has ever accused him of doing wrong. Can someone with common sense please review the flagrant personal attacks that a user is trying to insert into this article:. --PluniaZ (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Citizenship
The article says Rosica is Canadian, but he was born in the USA. Presumably he is an American citizen by virtue of having been born in the USA, but he might have dual citizenship or maybe he surrendered his American citizenship. Do we have any reliable sources to validate his citizenship? — Archer1234 (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

This is very curious, as most sources who talk about his biography mention he was born in the USA, but still refer to him as a "Canadian priest", despite the fact that he only moved to Canada as an adult. I wasn't able to find a single source that describes him as American-Canadian or "American-born" and a single source refer to him as "Canada-based". Should we follow the sources and leave it as it is, or use a different terminology? PraiseVivec (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The source for the two articles that describe him as Canadian is the Catholic News Agency.  I've written an email to their news desk to find out if they can validate that he is Canadian or, if they cannot, will they be updating their articles to remove the reference.  I have no idea whether they will reply to my email or take action to update their articles.  In the meantime, since his designation as "Canadian" is uncertain, I will be bold and update the article to remove "Canadian" from the lede. — Archer1234 (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Retractions of articles written by Father Rosica
User:Thucyd is repeatedly attempting to insert accusations that Father Rosica's works have been retracted. This violates WP:BLP for a number of reasons:

1. WP:BLP sets the following requirement for biographies of living persons:


 * "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material."

User:Thucyd is attempting to turn this article into an attack page against Father Rosica by digging up everything he's accused of ever doing wrong.

2. WP:BLPSTYLE states that BLP pages should be written as follows: "Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources." Thucyd is not summarizing reliable sources, but digging through primary sources in an attempt to list every individual retraction that has occurred.

3. WP:BLPBALANCE states, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources." Individual notices of retraction are primary sources. Compiling them together and making them into a paragraph on a Wikipedia article is WP:OR.

4. WP:PRIMARY states, "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Digging up notices of retraction is analogous to these examples.

5. WP:BLPSPS states, "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." According the foregoing Wikipedia policy, there needs to be a level of "editorial control" for a blog to even be considered permissible as a source about a living person. But Retraction Watch has not editorial review process. According to its website, it has a single staff member. The two co-founders have other full-time jobs, and there is no indication that the board of directors acts in an editorial review capacity.

6. WP:DIARY states, "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person." Likewise, there is no need to list every single paper written by Father Rosica that has been retracted.

In conclusion, unless you can find a reliable secondary source (not Retraction Watch, not individual notices of retraction) to substantiate accusations against Father Rosica, don't include it in this article. --PluniaZ (talk) 02:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)