Talk:Roger Mahony

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
WikiProject California This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] Roger Cardinal Mahony

I believe that this is the standard naming for cardinals. Any objection to moving the article? -Will Beback 19:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. The article should have the standard name for a cardinal. D323P (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
In all of his own uses, Mahony places the "Cardinal" title before his first name. This actually is NOT incorrect, and as referred to in the wikipedia article for Roman Catholic Cardinal, other Cardinals style themselves similarly.(Westofpch (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Priority of making the article Roger Mahony conform to all other articles on Roman Catholic Cardinals

Westofpch, I appreciate your taking an interest in the article Roger_Mahony. I also appreciate your willingness to explain in your edit summary that your examination of the Archdiocese website indicated that the Cardinal preferred to use the title of his office ahead of his proper name, and so that therefore the lead sentence of this article should reflect this observation, instead of conforming to centuries of traditional Roman Catholic usage of clerical titles.

It is very important, however, that you provide verifiable, reliable sources for inclusion in this article which would explain whether the decision to print the office title ahead of the Cardinal's proper name was made personally by the Cardinal himself, or whether this choice was made in fact by the site creator, Deacon Eric Stoltz, if you still wish to have this detail included in the text of this article.

Unfortunately, when you made the editing change to the article, you also accidentally brought this encyclopedia entry out of conformity with the dozens of other Wikipedia articles on past and present members of the College of Cardinals, as it is a style convention in this encyclopedia that the title Cardinal should be included immediately before the last name when describing the subject's full name anywhere in the body of the article, especially in the lead sentence of an article entry.

Now the article Roger_Mahony does not match the other articles on Roman Catholic cardinals. Not to worry-your edit can be reverted. If you still disagree, please stop by and make a comment on the talk page, or you can also contact me directly. Cheers! 198.252.8.202TalkHistory 02:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I think it is proper to revert

To User:198.252.8.202 Thank you for your recent note to me regarding your edits to the wikipedia article on Cardinal Roger Mahony. As someone who has lived in the Los Angeles Archdiocese under the prior Archbishop, Timothy Manning, it was very noticeable that the new/current Roman Catholic Cardinal did not follow the more common convention of placing the "Cardinal" title between first and last name. This is not just a whim of the Deacon in charge of the webpage, but rather common practice of the Cardinal himself, as is evident all of his publications in not only in his webpage but also in other archdiocesan publications (e.g. The Tidings); furthermore, mainstream publications that regularly cover Cardinal Mahony, such as the Los Angeles Times, use the form "Cardinal Roger Mahony." There is now a well established record of Cardinal Mahony using the title in that way, and therefore it follows that it will not conform to other Wikipedia articles of other Roman Catholic Cardinals who choose to use the title differently. And as I mentioned in above, the Wikipedia article for Roman Catholic Cardinals states that this form is correct. I think it is proper to revert to this form. Please continue this discussion on the article Talk page or send me a message again.Westofpch (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible confusion between personal preferences and style conventions for Wikipedia articles

Westofpch, thank you for coming back to my talk page and to the article Roger Mahony so quickly [on May 19]. Unfortunately, we seem to be talking right past each other, and, as a result, you have accidentally misunderstood the issues which I have raised with you concerning your recent editing of the entry on the Cardinal.

First of all, I realize that messages, simply because of the inherently remote nature of this type of communication, can seem to carry a somewhat hostile tone at times due to this remoteness, and so, in order to compensate for this effect, I will take good care to try to sound as non-hostile in my responses as possible – even when I mean to relay a message that is critical in nature.

  • Roger Cardinal Mahony's use of his own name, and title. Purely by way of explanation, I mentioned that your reference to the Cardinal's decision about use of his office title was unclear at the present time, but you misunderstood. I meant that no one can include this fact claim unless verifiable, reliable sources (plural) are given in the article which establish the Cardinal's usage of his name and title.
  • Encyclopedia article style convention[s]. When you referred to the entry on Roman Catholic cardinals, you explained that your decision was correct. What the article says in fact is that both usages are correct, but you did not acknowledge that in your message – and I wonder why. It appears that you might have confused your personal preferences with the issue of article style conventions in this encyclopedia. No reader or editor may capriciously decide to change an article to suit their personal judgement, even in regard to how the subject uses their name and title themselves, because style conventions have to be maintained consistently throughout the entire encyclopedia.

In conclusion, please give this matter some more thought. It does not matter what rules of style the Los Angeles Times, for example, has adopted for itself, because that decision does not affect style conventions inside Wikipedia. There are basic rules for how Catholic articles, for instance, must all match, and a matter such as how Cardinal Mahony uses his own title bears no relevance to what is written in this encyclopedia. Please let me know what you think. 198.252.8.202TalkHistory 21:57, Tuesday May 20, 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of following Wikipedia's style. However it says the opposite of what you're asserting. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Clergy)#Cardinals. It says:
  • In the titles of articles, cardinals generally go by their full name (both first name and surname) alone, without the title "Cardinal", as "Ascanio Sforza", not "Cardinal Ascanio Sforza", nor "Ascanio Cardinal Sforza".
So "Roger Mahony" matches the WP standards. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I once read on the Dutch Wikipedia that according to the Code of Canon Law of 1983 that Cardinals have the status of "Princes of the Holy See" and that their title "Cardinal" has to be treated accordingly as if it's a title of nobility, i.e.: title Cardinal between the given name and the surname. Demophon (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any mention of "Princes of the Holy See" in this undated version of the Canon Law.[1] Regardless, Wikipedia makes its own decisions on how to use titles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I have to look it up how and why the Dutch Wikipedia has this statement. Of course we have follow the Wikipedia guidelines as much as possible. But remember they are not molded in solid iron, and when there is prove these guidelines can be adjusted. After a proper debate of course. But first I have to look it up! I will come back with it later. Demophon (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


Will Beback, Demophon, thank you — both of you — for coming back so quickly to this article, as I could certainly use some help from you two. At least I can clear up some of the confusion about the Cardinal's title by making these few technical points:

  • First, Westofpch cited the article section Cardinal_(Catholicism)#Title, not the article section Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Clergy)#Cardinals, in order to explain why it was justified to comb throughout the entire article, including templates, and change every single listing of Mahony's name, when his full name was described, from the traditional usage that appears in every other biographical article on a Cardinal to the usage of putting the office title before his first name.

    Now, here is why that judgement is wrong, in the context of this article section: "Since 1630, cardinals have taken the style Eminence. In accordance with Latin tradition, they, like the pope, sign by placing the title (Papa, abbreviated P.P., or Cardinalis abbreviated Card.) after their first name, as, for instance, "Benedictus P.P. XVI" or "John Card. Doe". This order is also found when referring to cardinals in English, and is the form that James-Charles Noonan, in The Church Visible, p. 205, cites as the correct form.....However, the form that places the title before the first name, e.g., "Cardinal John Doe", in line with usages concerning other figures, both lay and religious (such as "Pope Benedict XVI", "President George W. Bush", "Archbishop John Smith"), is the usual form on the Vatican website and in the media; some dioceses, such as the Archdiocese of Los Angeles,[9] the Diocese of Westminster[10] and the Archdiocese of Wellington,[11] opt for this style.....Ultimately, it is a matter of personal preference which form one chooses to use, as both forms are now generally recognized."

    Previously, Westofpch said above on this page (as well as on the talk page I am using) the following: "And as I mentioned in above, the Wikipedia article for Roman Catholic Cardinals states that this form is correct. I think it is proper to revert to this form." Why would this editor misstate what the article actually says in order to give the rationale for this change? I don't know, and, speaking frankly, since I am not a mind reader, I do not know whether Westofpch has any kind of ideological ax to grind which would serve as any kind of motivation for editing Roger Mahony in this manner; nor would I care to speculate on the matter, since it would not advance the quality of the article.

  • Second, you, Willmcw, referred me to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Clergy) in order to indicate why you reverted — but this link is not even relevant to the editing issue at hand. Don't worry, Will, I'm not sniping at you — in fact, when I first began looking into this issue, I actually made the same mistake of looking at this link first, in order to figure out exactly how previous editors (especially ones who are, or were, part of WikiProject Christianity) had actually edited all of the other article entries on Cardinals in order to establish the traditional style convention in the first place. Unfortunately, your citation does not deal with the Roger Cardinal Mahony-vs.-Cardinal Roger Mahony issue because your Wikipedia conventions reference only deals with internal Wikipedia rules for naming articles — in other words, article titles, not titles which pertain to the persons who are the subjects of these various articles.

    Obviously, this is why the article has to be named Roger Mahony, and not something else. Will, you are actually dealing with article titles, not titles of church authority. So, in other words, you reverted a reversion which someone other than me carried out because you are confusing the article title issue with the Roger-Cardinal-Mahony/Cardinal-Roger-Mahony decision that we have to make.

  • Third, Demophon, you have actually provided the correct conventions link on your talk page without realizing it. Will, take a look at MOSBIO/Honorific prefixes in order to see what has gone wrong. This section actually contradicts itself, because it begins by saying "3. Styles should not be used to open articles on royalty and clergy. Thus the article on Pope Benedict XVI should not begin 'His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI... ' nor should the article on Queen Victoria begin 'Her Majesty Queen Victoria...'" But the section then goes on to say "Clergy should be named as described in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Clergy)."

    Worse, the very next section, MOSBIO/Academic titles, says "Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name." This very confusion has been provoked precisely because Wikipedia: Naming conventions (Clergy) has nothing to do with anything other than the titles of the articles. Maybe I can illustrate how serious this confusion is by pointing to a different way in which Wikipedia is inconsistent. Both of you should take a look at User_talk:Demophon#No_degrees_in_the_first_sentence_please in order to see what I am talking about. The unvarnished truth is that every other biographical entry on a Cardinal describes the full name of the person in the traditional format (e.g. Edward Cardinal Egan, Bernard Cardinal Law, John Cardinal O'Connor, etc., etc., etc. [except the obvious exception, Cardinal Richelieu]), and yet this principle of entry formatting is not being applied uniformly elsewhere in Wikipedia.

When you made the reversion, Will, you (1) did not take a look at any of the other articles on Cardinals in order to see how they were formatted, (2) you may not have consulted anyone who is either part of WikiProject Christianity or part of WikiProject Catholicism (I haven't checked), and far worse, (3) you obviously did not scroll down the article in order to see what other editorial changes you would also revert as well, because when you reverted the article you also reverted 2 corrections of the misspelling "Eminance." I'm guessing you didn't mean to do that, and I realize that you also want as good an article as we can get. I believe that we are all agreed that WP naming conventions for the names of article entries basically work, and that therefore this article should be named Roger Mahony. Do either of you want to place a RfC on the talk page of either WikiProject Christianity or WikiProject Catholicism? I won't stop you. In the meantime, simply in order to make sure this article matches the other entries on Roman Catholic cardinals, I'll just revise the entry again and correct the 2 misspellings, and, when both of you are no longer busy and can get back to this article, we can all decide what to do from there. 198.252.8.202TalkHistory 19:44, Thursday May 29, 2008 (UTC)
Is 74.10.45.34 also 198.252.8.202,or are they two different people? If folks are using talk pages it'd help if they'd register accounts. The "eminances" are hidden fixing them is secondary. For the other guideline on titles, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific_prefixes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
These have probably been mentioend before, but the webpages on the archdiocese site say "Cardinal Roger Michael Mahony".[2][3] There would have to be a very good reason, supported by references, to override the usage preferred by the subject and by the archdiocese. Arguments based on synthesis with various rules would be original research, prohibited by WP:NOR. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, it is incorrect to say that all articles on American cardinals use the old form. See William Henry Keeler. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

To User:198.252.8.202: Thank you for taking the time to reply and give further rational for your point of view. It seems clear that (a) we both want to present information in good faith which is clear, correct, and verifiable, (b) that we do so within Wikipedia guidelines of verifiability and style convention, and (c) we disagree on how best to do this in the case of Cardinal Mahony.

In support of your point of view, you essentially brought up three points (two in bullets, one in your conclusion). I will respond to each in turn below:

"Roger Cardinal Mahony's use of his own name, and title. Purely by way of explanation, I mentioned that your reference to the Cardinal's decision about use of his office title was unclear at the present time, but you misunderstood. I meant that no one can include this fact claim unless verifiable, reliable sources (plural) are given in the article which establish the Cardinal's usage of his name and title."

To this end, I offered up multiple verifiable, reliable sources which establish the Cardinal's usage of his name and title as "Cardinal Roger Mahony": reprints of speeches the Cardinal has given, letters he has published, and articles he has written all titled or signed as "Cardinal Roger Mahony." While each of these is an independent occurance, they all come from the Los Angeles Archdiocese (whether from their website or from their diocesan newspaper, The Tidings); in my mind, this would be the definitive source, but since some might actually regard it as ultimately being insufficient, I offered up quotes from the Los Angeles Times showing their usage of the cardinal's name and title as "Cardinal Roger Mahony." You seem to have a different issue with this reference (which I will address below), but regardless of your issues with either, the point of fact is that there are already multiple "verifiable, reliable sources (plural) given . . . which establish the Cardinal's usage of his name and title" as you request.

"Encyclopedia article style convention[s]. When you referred to the entry on Roman Catholic cardinals, you explained that your decision was correct. What the article says in fact is that both usages are correct, but you did not acknowledge that in your message – and I wonder why."

You are absolutely correct in that the article says that both usages are correct. I did not feel that I had to state that explicitly since the vast majority of cardinals use the title as you prefer, i.e. Sean Patrick Cardinal O'Malley. In my mind, it is analogous to being accused of refering to an article about an eclipse but failing to mention the sun is visible most of the time, when both writer and reader know the obvious conventions. In this case, you and I both know that most cardinals use their titles between their first and last names. I unhesitatingly stipulate as to the correctness of the more common order of first-Cardinal-last, and I referenced the wikipedia article on Roman Catholic cardinals as evidence that both are, in fact, correct. I anxiously await your acknowledgment of this same fact.

"...It appears that you might have confused your personal preferences with the issue of article style conventions in this encyclopedia. No reader or editor may capriciously decide to change an article to suit their personal judgment, even in regard to how the subject uses their name and title themselves, because style conventions have to be maintained consistently throughout the entire encyclopedia.In conclusion, please give this matter some serious thought. It does not matter what rules of style the Los Angeles Times, for example, has adopted for itself, because that decision does not affect style conventions inside Wikipedia. There are basic rules for how Catholic articles, for instance, must all match, and a matter such as how Cardinal Mahony uses his own title bears no relevance to what is written in this encyclopedia. Please let me know what you think."

A few points here:

  • You are absolutely incorrect in assuming or inferring that my "personal preferences with the issue of article style conventions in this encyclopedia" in any way affect my attempts to edit this article . While I do not have access to the style guide of the Los Angeles Times, I do find it interesting that the newspaper currently refers to "Cardinal Roger Mahony" while in the past they used the form "Timothy Cardinal Manning" for Cardinal Mahony's predecessor as Archbishop of Los Angeles and that Cardinal Manning preferred that style when referring to himself. I also find it interesting that one of the other major newspapers in the area, the Orange County Register also uses the style "Cardinal Roger Mahony." The Los Angeles Times, the Orange County Register, and I seem to be following the convention and example set forth by the Cardinal himself in his own writings. In contrast, I have not chosen to make similar edits to any other cardinal, e.g. Edward Cardinal Egan, since in his own writings Cardinal Egan chooses to place his title between his first and last names.
  • Your reference to style conventions inside Wikipedia is an interesting one. Upon checking Wikipedia:Manual of Style, one will see that there is no reference as to the preferred usage within Wikipedia for use of the title of Roman Catholic Cardinal within that man's name. It is clear then that the issue is still up for discussion and debate (as all of us are now doing here). I can only conclude (without malice, mind you) that your references to "article style conventions in this encyclopedia" and "style conventions inside Wikipedia" are not references to any agreed upon manual of style within Wikipedia, but merely a statement about the most common usage of the title within Wikipedia. I am not surprised that this is more commonly used within this encyclopedia considering that it is, by far, the most common usage by cardinals throughout the world; however, "more common" does not equal "more correct" and until there is clear consensus on this issue, it is prudent to continue to allow for either correct usage.
  • Your subsequent statement of "No reader or editor may capriciously . . ." along with your statement on the Roger Mahony talk page that "I do not know whether Westofpch has any kind of ideological ax to grind which would serve as any kind of motivation for editing Roger Mahony in this manner; nor would I care to speculate on the matter, since it would not advance the quality of the article" is, whether or not you intend it, inflammatory and clearly violates the Wikipedia policy of assuming good faith. While you try to caveat your statements and/or make them generic, this passive aggressive style is still accusatory, regardless of your intent, in the same way as the following very similarly worded statement: "I do not know whether Person X beats his dog; nor would I care to speculate on the matter. . . ." Merely raising it as a possibility in a public forum such as Wikipedia is tantamount to accusation, whether or not that is your intent and whether or not you place caveats at the beginning of your article stating that it is not your intent. I urge you to refrain from such statements as we continue this lively debate.

To summarize my arguments and line of thinking:

  • 1) Both styles (i.e. "Roger Cardinal Mahony" and "Cardinal Roger Mahony" ) are widely acknowledged to be correct usages of the title for a Roman Catholic Cardinal, both within Wikipedia and in other sources outside this encyclopedia.
  • 2) Roger Mahony himself uses his title as "Cardinal Roger Mahony" as is evidenced in his own writings and speeches. This evidence is referenced within Wikipedia and is available through a number of sources, both online and through other media.
  • 3) No clearly established rules or style guidelines have been established on Wikipedia as to this issue.
  • 4) Given all of these three, it is within the spirit and mandate of Wikipedia to present complete, thorough, and unbiased information that the article for Roger Mahony duly refers to his title of Cardinal in the manner which he himself prefers.

With this in mind, I will state my intent to revise the article such that it makes reference to Cardinal Mahony's preferred usage of his title without changing the entire article; however, this should NOT be construed as my acceptance of the form "first-Cardinal-last" in cases where the Cardinal himself chooses to use his title differently; on the contrary, I strongly consider this issue still open until such time as a genuine consensus is reached and/or Wikipedia administrators make a definitive ruling, I welcome and look forward to continued lively (and respectful) debate on this topic. Westofpch (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)