Talk:Richard A. McCormick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

[edit] Notability

He's a major American moral theologian. E.g., see: http://woodstock.georgetown.edu/publications/report/r-fea61b.htm especially 5th paragraph.

Here's copy from a website review of book about McCormick: Richard A. McCormick and the Renewal of Moral Theology. - book reviews National Catholic Reporter, Nov 17, 1995 by William F. McInerny

"This is Paulinus Ikechukwu Odozor's first book, and it is superb. His thesis is clear and eloquently presented: Jesuit Fr. Richard A. McCormick has engaged in, and significantly shaped, the renewal of Roman Catholic moral theology. From analyzing McCormick's groundbreaking doctoral dissertation to the latter's work into the 1990s, Odozor seeks to study this preeminent Jesuit's contribution to the renewal of moral theology. No easy task." etc.

From the other side of the aisle, HG 19:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well one is an obituary, people normally say good things about someone in an obituary, so I'm not trusting that greatly. The second is a review of a book about the author and the source is uncited. Again, seems a bit distant. Please have a read of WP:CITE. If he's that significant then there must be more out there! Rich257 19:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


Also, I don't know what you mean when you say the source is uncited. The book is reviewed in a significant Catholic periodical and it's published by a major university press. Lots of other people with bio's don't have such books about them. HG 20:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I misread your reference through the way it was written. The NCR seems a good source, you should add the review reference to the article. Rich257 20:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I won't take this personally (and neither should McCormick). See this NY Times article, he's named first for a reaction to the Vatican and he's a "leading Catholic authorit[y]." Anyway, isn't there a Catholic project wikipedian who can weigh in here? http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9B0DE2DB173AF932A25750C0A961948260 HG 20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not personal — I tag all articles that make claims, lack sources and lack references with {{notability}} unless it's blindingly obvious that they are notable. The point of tagging them is to encourage the original editor, or others, to add references and sources, it doesn't necessarily mean that the article will be deleted, however articles without sources are likely to be.
The New York Times is a good reference and should be added to the article. Rich257 20:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)