Talk:Vincent Nichols

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

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

Archbishop-elect
The header of the article is misleading. Nicols is not "Archbishop-elect" at all, as any sort of bishop-elect is someone who is appointed, not yet consecrated bishop. Nichols is an ordained bishop and has been for years! I think (but could be wrong) he should be Archbishop-designate.

Furthermore, he is not Aposotolic Administrator of Birmingham - he is still Archbishop of Birmingham until translated to Westminster on May 21st. The see is not sede vacante (unliek Westminster at the momemen).


 * Indeed, that was my understanding too. I think I've clarified it now. --Lo2u (T • C) 17:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the source in the text from the official press release uses the term "archbishop-elect", though he must technically be archbishop-designate too. I can't find any source that refers to Nichols as "apostolic administrator" though, and in the absence of evidence either way, I think it's best to say merely that he remains at Birmingham. --Lo2u (T • C) 19:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate some sort of clarification about this. My understanding (this may be completely wrong) is that Cormac is now retired; he is no longer an archbishop and becomes a bishop emeritus. That is why he is no longer entitled to call himself Archbishop of Westminster. Westminster is sede vacante and Cormac, as the senior bishop in the diocese, becomes apostolic administrator.

On the other hand, the see of Birmingham will not fall vacant, if it does at all, until 21 May, when Vincent is translated from Birmingham to Westminster. Bishops do not normally spend interim periods as apostolic administrators when they are translated between dioceses. Vincent has not retired; he is still an archbishop so presumably there would be no reason to make him an administrator and he remains Archbishop of Birmingham. Once Vincent has been translated from Birmingham, there may be reason to appoint an apostolic administrator until a new archbishop has been appointed.

Is this correct? --Lo2u (T • C) 20:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


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

Popetown
Regarding the description of Popetown, why assume I haven't seen it? And why describe the programme as satire simply on the grounds that there's no evidence it isn't: surely the burden of WP:Verifiability goes the other way? It's not controversial to call Popetown controversial is it? I mean the BBC commissioned it and then refused to show it because of the anger it had provoked before it had even been seen. In Germany there was talk of a prosecution, in other countries channels have faced boycotts and even prosecutions. One might argue that omitting the word "controversial" seems a little selective and therefore POV. In the absence of examples of satire, I think it's best to do what the Popetown article does and call it an animated sitcom. I really don't see why one would choose to omit the fact that the cartoon caused a lot of controversy. --Lo2u (T • C) 14:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok - sorry, what I meant to say is that we haven't been allow to see it in the UK. I think the point on controversy is that it was "controversial" in the UK precisely because key figures such as Nichols objected to it - hence causing the "controversy"! It seems odd therefore to make the point that Nichols was involved in a controversy over a controversial programme. I just think it over-labours the point. Calling it controversial seems to me to be pushing a POV - one that suggests that it was absolutely right for Nichols to intervene; despite the view that it may not have been right for him to intervene at all in an issue of public censorship.


 * By all means call it an animated sitcom if you must; but I'm not sure what the issue is over the word 'satire'? The dictionary definition is "trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly". Perhaps if you've seen it then you might argue that it makes no satirical points at all but just happens to involve the pope in a non-offensive comic way - but if people like Nichols objected then it rather suggests to me that they found something more objectionable in the content, and something that was critical of catholic doctrine/ individuals? Contaldo80 (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm happy to lose the word "controversial"; really, I just used the description on the website. However, I think something will be lost if we merely say that it's a cartoon without in some way hinting that it caused offence or controversy to some, though of course that should be done in a neutral way. Personally, I just see "controversial" as a short and non-emotive way of saying "which some Catholics found offensive", which strays a little into POV territory.


 * My objections to the word "satirical": firstly, I think it's more accurate to group it with South Park and the Simpsons and so on than with, say, the Daily Show or Have I got News for You, which are actual satirical programmes rather than merely sitcoms that contain satire. Secondly, by using a word like "satire" we might appear to take sides in an argument about whether the programme was offensive or merely funny. A lot of Catholics found the programme defamatory rather than satirical. The word "satire" has undertones of "lighten up, it's just a bit of irony", which I would like to avoid. --Lo2u (T • C) 17:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand the point you are making, but with all due respect it doesn't matter whether a number of catholics did (or did not) find the programme defamatory. The issue is whether it is satirical - was it written with the intention to expose vice or folly? I don't know the answer to this myself, I'm afraid, as I've never watched it. Satires can be seen be seen by some as defamatory, but still count as satires. It's important that we try to adopt neutral language. Likewise I would agree that elsewhere we might describe Popetown as 'controversial', but the fact is that Nichols contributed to the controversy in the UK and therefore it's redundant to use the description in this specific case. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * On the first point, let me put it another way: your definition of satire was: "trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly". In this case, the vice that would have been "exposed" is the pope's sexual promiscuity, the "folly" would be the fact that this pope has the mental age of a seven year old. Can you see the problem with calling the programme a "satire", which suggests the programme reflects reality and which really is a pretty defamatory term (whether it is employed by programme's makers or by Wikipedia) rather than using the word "sitcom", which makes no such pretensions?
 * On the word "controversy", which as I say I don't insist on, the programme had aroused a lot of controversy before Nichols commented on it. There was a significant amount of anger and this caused the BBC to cancel a programme that it had commisioned. I'm just concerned that the sentence as it is lacks context. The Cardinal didn't, for example, persuade the BBC not to show Popetown so that there'd be more room for Songs of Praise or because he objected to entertainment on a Sunday. The reason the prorgamme wasn't broadcast is that Nichols persuaded Mark Thompson that Catholics would find it offensive. At the moment the sentence doesn't make that clear. --Lo2u (T • C) 14:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said I haven't been allowed to view it as I live in the UK. If you say it's just a case of silliness then maybe it's not appropriate to call it a satire. If through the silliness it is trying to make a point about say the church's recent handling of the sexual abuse crisis then it would be a satire. My only concern is that we describe it for what it is, mindless of the offence it may or may not cause. To settle the controversy point how about we just add something like "Nichols criticised the BBC for plans to show the animated series Popetown, which he claimed could give offence to some Catholics."


 * Yes that's fine with me, thanks. I've not seen enough to say categorically the programme doesn't satirise sexual abuse scandals. However, I don't think that was the point of the silliness. --Lo2u (T • C) 15:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Homosexuality
I have upheld the deletion of a large part of the section on Homosexuality as a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of how Church doctrine works. This bishop can change as much about the faith as I can, or the Pope can: that is, none. There is perhaps space for writing a bit in general about his stance on Church doctrine but all this "he said, she said" back-and-forth about things that are not going to change are wholly unproductive for a WP:BLP. Elizium23 (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

On 10 April 2009, Nichols appeared to shrug off calls by former Prime Minister and Catholic convert Tony Blair, who had suggested the Church change its views on homosexuality. Archbishop Nichols responded by saying, "I am afraid the way the Catholic Church thinks is rather different to [Blair's thinking] and...I will take my guide from Pope Benedict actually."

In an interview in July 2010, Nichols responded in an ambivalent fashion to a question posed by BBC journalist Stephen Sackur on whether the Catholic Church might one day recognise gay unions. The exchange began with Sackur considering the situation in the Church of England:S.S. Some of their vicars are also prepared to sanction gay unions. That church is showing flexibility. Is the Catholic Church not going to have to do the same eventually? V.N. I don't know. Who knows what's down the road? This uncertainty about whether the Church might come to approve of homosexual relations in future was restated in an interview with the Daily Telegraph published in September 2010. Asked whether the Church should one day accept the reality of gay partnerships, Archbishop Nichols responded by saying, "I don't know", going on to contend – in the words of his interviewer – that "the old language – of mortal sin, for example – was... a misguided attempt to motivate the faithful."

Following the papal visit of September 2010, Nichols participated in a BBC discussion in which he stated, on the subject of the English and Welsh bishops' attitude to homosexual civil partnerships: "In this country we were very nuanced. We did not oppose gay civil partnerships. We recognized that in English law there might be a case for those. What we persistently said, is that these are not the same as marriage." The 2005 document outlining the English and Welsh bishops' stance with respect to civil partnerships was subsequently revealed to have been rejected when submitted for review to authorities in the Vatican. At a press conference on 26 November 2011, Archbishop Nichols remarked that he "would want to emphasize that civil partnerships actually provide a structure in which people of the same sex who want a lifelong relationship [and] a lifelong partnership can find their place and protection and legal provision."

However, while Nichols has welcomed civil partnerships, he has been strongly critical of the proposed introduction of gay marriage, which he described in December 2012 as 'a shambles'.

Nichols initially refused to criticise Masses being held in the London parish of Soho, organised by way of special provision for a community of people of a same-sex orientation. In a direct response to protestors he said, "anybody who is trying to cast a judgement on the people who come forward for communion really ought to learn to hold their tongue". Critics such as William Oddie, a former editor of the Catholic Herald, have argued that "whole ethos of the Soho Masses is a committed denial of Catholic teaching on homosexuality, a denial in which they are encouraged by the Archdiocese of Westminster". In January 2013, Nichols ordered that the Masses should be stopped.

In July 2011, the Archdiocese of Westminster agreed to host a conference in its diocesan pastoral centre (All Saints, London Colney) for an organisation called Quest, which describes itself as aimed at gay people "seeking ways of reconciling the full practice of their Catholic faith with the full expression of their homosexual natures in loving Christian relationships".

In January 2013 it was reported that Archbishop Nichols ended the special Masses for gay Catholics at a London church. Archbishop Nichols said Masses at Our Lady of the Assumption Church in Warwick Street, Soho, would end by Lent 2013. He said the Masses were not in line with the church's central teaching on sexuality. Gay rights charity Stonewall said: "It is a real shame he's taken away an opportunity for gay Catholics to celebrate Mass in a safe environment." The church will be dedicated at Lent to the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, a group set up by Pope Benedict XVI in 2011 for Anglican clergy who defected to Roman Catholicism. Why was the above taken out? Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Paragraph 1 can be summed up by "No way". Not news and not a notable event in his life. Paragraph 2 can be summed up by "I don't know". Not news, not notable. Paragraph 3, ditto. I can see the case for Paragraph 4 and 5 being left in, as a summary of his stance on the matters. There's a case for Paragraph 6 as well (the part about Soho Masses). Paragraph 7, possibly... it's almost WP:SYNTH to put this in a BLP about the bishop because it's really about the archdiocese; does the article mention his name? Paragraph 8 can be combined with Paragraph 6 and shortened a bit to comply with WP:DUE. That's my position on the material. I welcome others' comments. Elizium23 (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

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

To delete my edit you said "we need online reference". I believe the fact I provide a reference without a web adress is ok. You have not deleted the edit with ref 23 about the tablet. Just go online to the pavement website.

The pavement is a magazine read mainly by social workers from the homelessness sector and by the poorest in the society, the homeless. In that article the boss ot the catholic charity ackowledged the fact..

I understand that some may feel deeply unconfortable with that fact. When a cardinal make statements urging the charities to work toward the church for the poor as Pope Francis said, but the charity he supports as a patron was found out to have policy punishing the poor for sleeping around Westminster cathedral. A charity with very close links with the cathedral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.64.120.138 (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC) — 217.64.120.138 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If we are going to make claims about organisations we need them referenced. Also I am not sure why this is relevant to the biog of a patron of the charity unless her personally has been involved in the decisions & policies you are talking about. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Exceptional claims require exceptional references, as well as a solid reason to link the subject of this biography with the alleged activities of the charity. Please read the policy on WP:BLP. Contentious, poorly-sourced assertions are to be removed immediately. The question is not whether the Pavement article is online or not, the question is whether it is reliable for making these statements. I also have a suspicion that the user account making the initial edit has a connection with the magazine itself, based on the user name chosen and the quality of the edits. Therefore I have notified them of a possible conflict of interest. I am even more suspicious now that there is a fresh set of IP addresses come to defend that edit. Sock puppetry and meat puppetry are forbidden activities on Wikipedia, so tread carefully, especially since you now seem to be engaged in a edit war which is also forbidden. Elizium23 (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

As a newcomer willing to contribute I feel now being bullied. I may be wrong. As a way to go forward I propose the use of a mediator. A mediation by an editor with no interest in catholicism. Thanks. Homelesslondon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.64.120.138 (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you feel you are being bullied but your edits are not within the guidelines. This was was Elizium23 was trying to explain. If you are going to make contentious claims in an article you have to ensure you are making edits in the right place and reference them correctly. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Vincent Nichols. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article1499944.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vincent Nichols. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828200122/http://www.iyln.com/ to http://www.iyln.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vincent Nichols. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091024000252/http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/24513.php?index=24513&lang=en to http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/24513.php?index=24513&lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Vincent Nichols. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080727063240/http://www.stmaryandstjohnsparishes.co.uk/histstm.html to http://www.stmaryandstjohnsparishes.co.uk/histstm.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091124151356/http://www.catholicchurch.org.uk/ccb/catholic_church/catholic_bishops_conference_of_england_and_wales/departments/catholic_education_and_formation to http://www.catholicchurch.org.uk/ccb/catholic_church/catholic_bishops_conference_of_england_and_wales/departments/catholic_education_and_formation
 * Added tag to http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/23659.php?index=23659&lang=en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080504000257/http://212.77.1.245/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/b7_en.htm to http://212.77.1.245/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/b7_en.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090509212657/http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/ccb/catholic_church/media_centre2/press_releases/press_releases_2009/archbishop_nichols_unanimously_elected_president_of_bishops_conference to http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/ccb/catholic_church/media_centre2/press_releases/press_releases_2009/archbishop_nichols_unanimously_elected_president_of_bishops_conference
 * Added tag to http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/ccb/catholic_church/media_centre2/press_releases/press_releases_2009/archbishop_of_westminster_receives_pallium_from_pope_benedict_xvi
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011095225/http://dnu.org/service/commongood.pdf to http://www.dnu.org/service/commongood.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130627071545/http://www.csan.org.uk/newsarticle/child-poverty-statistics-archbishop-vincent-nichols-catholics-must-shy-adding-voice-public-debate/ to http://www.csan.org.uk/newsarticle/child-poverty-statistics-archbishop-vincent-nichols-catholics-must-shy-adding-voice-public-debate/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vincent Nichols. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090408215302/http://www.catholicchurch.org.uk/ccb/catholic_church/events/pope_announces_archbishop_elect_of_westminster to http://www.catholicchurch.org.uk/ccb/catholic_church/events/pope_announces_archbishop_elect_of_westminster
 * Added tag to http://www.zenit.org/article-27269?l=english_date=20.10.2009&lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Birthdate was sourced
@Trey Maturin: Nichols' birthdate was well-sourced and cited elsewhere in the article; if you couldn't be bothered to find it then I'm sorry but you'll be reverted. I've supplied the citation for anyone who was sceptical of the plain facts. Elizium23 (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


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