Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Salvatore J. Cordileone

Salvatore J. Cordileone


19 July 2013

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Regarding the appointment of Catholic bishops and archbishops to dioceses. Canon law says that they do not obtain the powers of governance until they are installed. Many editors are coming in, upon the announcement of a new appointment, and add information in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. For example, Cordileone was bishop of Oakland until he was installed in San Francisco, but his article immediately said he was archbishop of San Francisco upon his appointment. Articles for the corresponding "old" diocese are immediately changed to Sede vacante while these bishops remain in control. Articles for the corresponding "new" diocese are immediately changed to the new leadership when they are in fact typically "sede vacante" upon the acceptance of the emeritus bishop's resignation.

This dispute is still going on, at Talk:Bishop of Ardagh and Clonmacnoise, and is somewhat intractable because there are many, many editors involved: many IPs and others come in to edit their own diocesan article and local bishop bio. I attempted central discussion of this on the Catholicism WikiProject but got little response.

This is a perennial, chronic problem which crops up every few weeks as the Holy See issues appointment notices and it festers on a few articles for a few weeks or months and then the problem goes away when the bishop is installed.

Part of the problem is an over-reliance by editors on the unreliable source catholic-hierarchy.org, which is user-generated content with a single site admin who does all the work and no reputation for editorial oversight: i.e., not WP:RS.

More of the affected articles, those which received discussion, are listed below. A list of all affected articles is large; there have been scores of episcopal appointments in the two years since Charles J. Chaput sparked this realization that perhaps we should wait before updating infoboxes and the like. A full list of all affected articles is Category:Catholic bishops plus List of Roman Catholic dioceses (alphabetical); eventually, every one will undergo a new appointment from Rome and be affected by WP:CRYSTAL violations.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Exhaustive discussion in all sorts of places:


 * Talk:Charles J. Chaput
 * Talk:Samuel J. Aquila
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism/Archive_2012
 * Talk:Salvatore J. Cordileone
 * Talk:Mario Poli

How do you think we can help?

Please achieve a consensus of the facts based on reliable sources and reflecting current Catholic practice. Canon Law has not always been this way, but this is the current situation and it can be respected and accommodated while staying within Wikipedia policy. The incorrect updates are threatening the integrity and factual accuracy of Wikipedia and a violation of the policy Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball.

I don't know why I am involved in dispute with the Salvatore J. Cordileone article since I've never made any edits to that page. I very rarely edit United States Catholic bishop/archbishop articles, I am mainly involved with United Kingdom and Ireland bishop/archbishop articles. I do have dispute with Elizium23 who removes current appointees from lists/tables of bishops/archbishops because he/her believes they should not be listed until they have been consecrated and installed. I do not dispute that those current appointees have not yet taken control of their dioceses, but I do dispute that they are being removed until they are do take control. There are many people in the past who have been appointed/elected/nominated/etc but for one reason or another were unsuccessful taking control of their dioceses, yet they are listed in the various lists/tables of bishops/archbishops. If people in the past are listed, then there is no reason why current appointees shouldn't be listed, so long it is made clear they haven't yet been consecrated and installed. I suggest the names of those current appointees should be in italics, and only when they are consecrated and installed that they be put in bold. Two publications Handbook of British Chronology (ISBN 0-521-56350-X) and Maps, Genealogies, Lists: A Companion to Irish History, Part II (ISBN 0-19-821745-5) lists not just successful candidates but also unsuccessful ones. If those publications are listing them, then surely Wikipedia should do the same? However, if it is decided that current appointees should not be listed until take control, it would effectively mean that any unsuccessful ones in the past would have also have to be removed, leaving only successful ones left. Scrivener-uki (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Opening comments by Scrivener-uki

Number 1 of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." An appointment of someone to an Episcopal see is notable and almost certain to take place. Unlike political offices, which have two or more candidates and have to stand for election, ecclesiastical offices have only one candidate who has already been appointed. Baring very rare unforseen circumstances those appointees formally take control of their ecclesiastical office once they have been consecrated and installed. In addition to the two publications I've mentioned, there is a website British History Online: Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae which records of bishops and higher clergy for the dioceses of England and Wales from 1066 to 1857. That website lists not just successful ones but also unsuccessful ones. So if those publications and that website can list unsuccessful candidates, then there is no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't list current appointees. Scrivener-uki (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Since this DR/N has been reopened and further has been added above, I've added further comments of my own.

Salvatore J. Cordileone discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.