Talk:Donald Wuerl

Untitled

Actually, the Diocese of Pittsburgh is overseen by a bishop, not an archbishop. John Cardinal Wright was not the archbishop of Pittsburgh.

Historically, the Archbishop of Washington, D.C. was elevated to the status of Cardinal. It is not something that has to be done. However, given that D.C. is the capital of our country, there is a good chance that Wuerl may be elevated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.119.242 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 7 December 2006

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The mansion that housed Wuerl

The passage that begins with "The mansion that housed Wuerl" seems unrelated to this biographical entry. It appears to have been sold off by Wuerl's successor, but we learn dimensions and pricing and how many predecessors lived there. Was Wuerl criticized for living there while merging parishes etc.? That would be worth including, with a rewrite of what we have now. Otherwise I'd suggest this passage doesn't belong here. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Donald Wuerl. 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/20060614043713/http://www.diopitt.org/news_051606.php to http://www.diopitt.org/news_051606.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130901171332/http://demossnews.com/manhattandeclaration/press_kit/manhattan_declaration_signers to http://demossnews.com/manhattandeclaration/press_kit/manhattan_declaration_signers
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101025155319/http://adw.org/family/marriage_ssm.asp to http://www.adw.org/family/marriage_ssm.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100111094013/http://www.adw.org:80/news/news.asp?ID=714&Year=2009 to http://www.adw.org/news/news.asp?ID=714&Year=2009

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Donald Wuerl. 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/20091231014722/http://www.diopitt.org/wel_former_bishops.php to http://www.diopitt.org/wel_former_bishops.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0703915.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091231014722/http://www.diopitt.org/wel_former_bishops.php to http://www.diopitt.org/wel_former_bishops.php

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Donald Wuerl. 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/20110605193422/http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2003-0206-111237/inhoud.htm to http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2003-0206-111237/inhoud.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I tagged it NPOV as the section claiming Wuerl has a "zero tolerance" policy for priests who sexually abuse children is at odds with recent reports. The Washington Post is reporting that the recent Grand Jury report says "...Wuerl’s actions in Pittsburgh as mixed, at times stopping abusive priests from continuing in their ministries in the diocese and at other times guiding them right back into parishes." A US News headline says " The Latest: Priest Abuse Report Faults Cardinal Donald Wuerl" and the sub-headline continues: "A Pennsylvania grand jury report on clergy sexual abuse faults Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the former longtime bishop of Pittsburgh, over his handling of abusive priests." So the article is clearly not accurate in its depiction of his actions.96.127.243.251 (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You are assuming that the grand jury report is accurate. That is a very big and perhaps unwarranted assumption.112.119.86.182 (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, because it makes total sense to rely on a nearly decade-old newspaper article over a 1,356-page grand jury report published by the attorney general of Pennsylvania after a two-year investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btswanfury (talk • contribs) 17:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia explicitly privileges secondary sources. One of the reasons for that is to avoid the kind of sloppy fact-checking associated with moral panics.112.119.86.182 (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

We do privilege secondary sources. However, a newspaper article is a primary source, unless it's a comprehensive article of a certain type.

In any event, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article was written in June 2003, so its statement that Wuerl has "a national reputation for zero tolerance of priests who molest minors" is evidence for what his reputation was in 2003. It cannot possibly be a reliable source for Wuerl's reputation as of August 2018. (Newspapers in 2003 also reported that Bill Cosby had a sterling reputation as a family man, that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that Hillary Clinton opposed same-sex marriage. Times change.)

I've changed the sentence so it preserves this claim (which has important historical value) but it also notes that this statement was made in 2003. Will that solve this controversy? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 06:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

From the article as it is now I don't see a reason to tag either the whole article, or the entire sexual abuse section, as WP:POV. While not myself expert on the subject, and with no axe to grind, I don't see much sign of either unreferenced opinion, or selection and "sanitisation" of what is included (there are more than plenty of examples of heavy POV-isation of articles throughout Wikipedia). Some of the discussion here seems to relate to just one sentence, easily resolved without tagging the article. Accordingly I've removed the POV tags. I don't doubt that they'll be reinstated (with justification discussed here) if appropriate. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. And thanks for your great copyedits. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 21:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Alleged Cover-Up of Pedophile Activity

Pennsylvania’s new Grand Jury report Aug 14, 2018

I suggest to add a paragraph about the recent significant event about the Pennsylvania’s new Grand Jury report. How about the draft paragraph below? I tried to include both point of views (POV), with their respective sources.

According to the Pennsylvania’s Attorney General new Grand Jury report, Cardinal Donald Weurl aided a mass and concentrated effort to cover-up sex abuses within six Pennsylvania dioceses. Involving more than 1,000 children. Weurl disputed the allegations. Stating “While I understand this report may be critical of some of my actions, I believe the report confirms that I acted with diligence, with concern for the victims and to prevent future acts of abuse,”

Sources

Francewhoa (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

---

I added two annotations where I thought they were applicable. Feel free to contribute. Dmarquard (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Dmarquard: Thanks for your reply and contributions :) I like the location you choose in the Wikipedia article. Because according to the report the alleged cover-up of pedophile activities were during Wuerl's episcopal career. I merged the duplicate content. Kept all sources. For neutral point of view (NPOV), I added both views. Francewhoa (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Wuerl's ties To O'Malley are very interesting

It's best they are included in the article.2601:447:4101:41F9:C40D:F5DB:D0DB:CE8A (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

"A priest is still a priest"

The following was recently added:

Peculiar also is Wuerl's dealing with the George Zirwas-case. This priest had a long history of being related to child sexual abuse and child porn production. He finally was killed in Cuba. When Wuerl presided over Zirwas’ 2001 funeral, the former bishop according to the report said: “A priest is a priest. Once he is ordained, he is a priest forever.”.

As far as I (not an expert) know, the statement that a priest is a priest forever is standard Catholic doctrine: some sort of irrevocable theological process has taken place that can't be changed. A priest can be disciplined, or even forbidden to do anything priestly (defrocked), but remains technically a priest correct me if wrong). So this statement has no particular significance. I'd also criticise the opinoniated (POV) wording "Peculiar also is Wuerl's dealing" I think the passage is quite redundant, and should be dropped (but I haven't sleeted it without discussion). It's like stating "Wuerl affirmed that the Pope is a Catholic", or that once a person is baptised as a Catholic, they are forever Catholic in the eyes of the Church.

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

You are completely correct. I would lean toward removing the Wuerl quote. The material itself is surely true (in other words, Wuerl really did utter these words at Zirwas' funeral). But I think that, in context, the quote suggests to those not familiar with Catholic theology that Wuerl was defending Zirwas by these words. What if we reduced it to simply indicate that Wuerl presided over Zirwas' funeral, without including this quote? Readers can decide for themselves whether this fact is significant. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 19:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Personally I'd drop the whole block, officiating at a funeral is a normal duty, why add bulk to the article? But I don't have any strong opinion. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I concur with removing all reference to the funeral. The Catholic Church is in the forgiveness business for one. Second, it is normal for Bishop's to preside over the funeral's of their priests. The fact that Wuerl conducted this funeral doesn't say anything about him one way or another, other than that he was a Catholic Bishop doing a routine part of his job. 112.119.86.163 (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

I am quite dubious about some of the assertions in the article, to be honest. In view of more recent developments they do seem to amount to whitewashing. If the revert-prone IP would care to talk about them, perhaps some of them should be removed. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Please be more specific: "some of the assertions" and "recent edits" are unclear to me. I looked at the edit history of this page to figure out which edits you were referring to, and there have been so many changes today that I don't know which you mean. Someone is adding statements to the lede about Wuerl being "controversial" and "implicated". Someone else is adding the statement "Wuerl has been a strong advocate within the Catholic hierarchy for confronting sexual abuse more directly." I'm guessing these are not the same person!

I agree we should discuss these things on the Talk page.

My personal view is this: Reliable sources prior to August 2018 say Wuerl was tough on sex abuse, including the Cipolla case and others. The Pennsylvania report accuses Wuerl of not doing a good job in some cases. Both of these are based on reliable sources, so both of them belong in the article. The lede of an article should be brief. I would be happy to have the lede very briefly mention that (1) Wuerl had a good reputation before August 2018 on sex abuse, and it is documented that he stopped some abusers; (2) the Penn report accused him of bad things. However, the lede must not state as a fact that Wuerl is guilty of something that he has been accused of, even if some Wikipedia editors are personally convinced he is guilty. It is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy to do that (example: the lede of the O. J. Simpson article does not say that OJ murdered his wife!) — Lawrence King ^(talk)

I suggest that we should start by undoing all the recent IP edits. These add material to the lead and elsewhere which is not justified by the cite. We cannot say that a living person "was involved in the systematic cover-up of child abuse within the Church" based on a cite which in fact merely says that the Attorney General doesn't believe him. I think this material must be removed immediately based on the BLP policy.

Once that is done (and I'm about to do it) I suggest we move the section "Position and actions on sexual abuse" to the end of the section "Child abuse controversy", retitling it "Previous position and actions on child abuse". That would fix what I see as the main problem at the moment - the important 2018 developments are buried under a vast screed about how marvellous he used to be. What do you think of that? Pinkbeast (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, that section title ("Child abuse controversy") was added by the IP, but I think there is a need for a section title there under my proposal. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the title "Position and actions on sexual abuse" makes no sense, because his position is not notable (Wuerl's stated position on sexual abuse is that it's bad -- duh!). His actions are notable.... and this fact is so basic as to not be notable. But I think that the sections should be chronological. Per your suggestion, I moved the two subsections together, but I felt they should be chronological. I named the overall section "Actions regarding clerical sexual abuse", and the two subsections I renamed "Actions known before August 2018" and "Accusations in August 2018 grand jury report". Then I added very short paragraph at the beginning of the section which says, "From 1988 to 2018, Wuerl was widely considered to be a bishop who was proactive in confronting sexual abuse. After the release of a grand jury investigation report in August 2018, he received a great deal of criticism for how he had handled some abuse cases." That seems a concise summary to me. But I'm sure it can be improved.

The section names can surely be improved as well. Here are the key points I think the section names should convey. (1) We should avoid phrasing that suggests that Wuerl himself has been accused of abusing anyone, since the accusations concern his alleged failure to stop priest abusers and possibly covering up abuse, not Wuerl himself doing it. (2) An accusation in a grand jury report is major and notable, but it's still far short of an indictment, much less a conviction, so we have to be clear these are allegations from a credible source, not facts. (3) The subsection title "Actions known before August 2018" is awkward, but the two sections are distinguished by when these things became known, not when they happened.

What do you think? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 07:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I think your recent changes have to some degree addressed my main gripe with it being in chronological order, in that previously the 2018 revelations were kind of buried, but now we know they are coming. (This is also why I have put a sentence mentioning them in the lead).

I wonder if we might remove the para beginning "In 2010, Wuerl argued ..."? Information about what Wuerl _did_ to fight abuse seems more useful than information about what he said. He was hardly going to say anything radically different - one cannot imagine him saying "basically, the Church has done nothing", for example - and presumably anyone in his position, no matter their actual record, would have said something similar. As such, it strikes me as not very notable that he said these things. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Viganò allegations

The first paragraph of this section is quite heavyweight; the article is not about Viganò, nor McCarrick. Could it be compressed a bit? I was thinking:

In June 2018, Cardinal McCarrick, Wuerl's predecessor as Archbishop of Washington, was removed from public ministry by the Holy See after a review board of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York found an allegation "credible and substantiated" that he had sexually abused a 16-year-old altar boy while a priest in New York. In August 2018, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, former apostolic nuncio to the United States, released an 11-page letter describing a series of warnings to the Vatican regarding sexual misconduct by McCarrick. These warnings had been sent to the Vatican by three nuncios to the United States; Montalvo in 2000, Pietro Sambi, and Viganò himself in 2006 and 2008.

References

This gets us to Wuerl's alleged failings without going into the relationship between the Pope and McCarrick, which does not seem pertinent here. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I think this has only been exacerbated with the addition of the paragraph about Lopes. The article is not about these people. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I concur. 112.119.86.163 (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

He has apologized

The Washington Post has an excellent, lengthy article examining Wuerl's career, his early work against child abuse by priests, (Wuerl had been seen as a pioneer in the church on this topic — advocating in the 1980s for victims' rights and for transparency and concluding that pedophilia was not curable.) and his recent problems. Well worth reading in full. I have added some of the content in my last edit in the resignation section.

Note especially that Wuerl apologized.

  ... wrote to members of the archdiocese and said, "I am sorry and ask for healing for all of those who were so deeply wounded at the hands of the Church’s ministers. I also beg forgiveness on behalf of Church leadership from the victims who were again wounded when they saw these priests and bishops both moved and promoted". https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2018/10/12/pope-francis-accepts-retirement-dcs-archbishop-cardinal-wuerl-amid-criticism-wuerls-handling-abuse-claims/?utm_term=.c5a429615dbb%7Ctitle=Pope Francis accepts resignation of D.C. archbishop Wuerl, amid criticism of the cardinal’s handling of abuse claims|publisher=Washington Post 

I have not included the following information, but perhaps it should also be included elsewhere in the article:

   Aug. 25, a former Vatican ambassador published a largely unverified letter on conservative Catholic sites accusing Wuerl — along with popes Benedict and Francis — of knowing McCarrick was dangerous but still allowing him to function as one of the church’s highest clerics. https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2018/10/12/pope-francis-accepts-retirement-dcs-archbishop-cardinal-wuerl-amid-criticism-wuerls-handling-abuse-claims/?utm_term=.c5a429615dbb

Peter K Burian (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits! The Wikipedia article should -- and does -- cover all aspects of Wuerl's story, including the apology. The letter you mention in your last paragraph has an entire section in this article already: see Donald Wuerl#Viganò letter. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 20:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and WP:BLP issues in "Knowledge about McCarrick"

Two points with the current version of the section "Knowledge about McCarrick": First, the contents of the alleged file in the Pittsburgh Diocese have been relayed to us only by Robert Ciolek, so any allegations about what those files contain need to be attributed to Ciolek and cannot be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Second, the final paragraph overstates the information presented in the Crux article. The correspondence does not show that Pope Benedict XVI imposed travel restrictions on McCarrick, "as Vigano claimed." That is editorializing and interjecting the Wikipedia editor's interpretation of the information into the article. The only facts in the Crux piece that are relevant to this article are that (1) McCarrick wrote a letter claiming that he had discussed his travel restrictions with Wuerl, and (2) Wuerl has denied that he was aware of the allegations. A short, encyclopedic description of those facts is all that is warranted in this article. --PluniaZ (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

PluniaZ, please check the edit that I made. I restored some of the information which I believe you unnecessarily removed but left out some of the supposedly inflammatory wording. Display name 99 (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we should remove the quote from McCarrick's letter about Wuerl's "help and understanding." I don't see how that is a material quotation in what is supposed to be an encyclopedic article. The paragraph already states that McCarrick's letter states that he discussed the restrictions with Wuerl. I don't see how the quote adds anything. --PluniaZ (talk) 02:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It shows that McCarrick saw Wuerl as someone who gave him comfort and was supportive of him. It tells us what Wuerl's attitude was like, at least in the way that McCarrick saw it or chose to represent it. I understand that the quote is embarrassing for Wuerl, but that is not a valid reason for leaving it out. Not that you said it was, but I'd still like to point that out. Display name 99 (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC on paragraphs related to McCarrick case

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

Should the article include these paragraphs concerning Donald Wuerl's purported knowledge of sexual misconduct by Theodore McCarrick, former cardinal and Wuerl's predecessor as Archbishop of Washington? Display name 99 (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes-The content is well-sourced and objectively written. It all directly relates to Wuerl and is not in any way off-topic. PluniaZ cited WP:BALASP, which does not apply here both because considerable attention is given to other content in the article and because Wuerl's alleged knowledge of McCarrick's behavior has received enough coverage in the media to justify a lengthy section. Even if this was undue weight, removing all of it would not make sense. It is nonsensical that when The Washington Post, one of the most important newspapers in the United States, publishes a piece accusing Wuerl of having knowledge of sexual misconduct by McCarrick and of misleading others about it, that we say absolutely nothing about it in his biography. This content does not come from LifeSiteNews. It does not come from Church Militant. It comes, at least in part, from The Washington Post. How it can then be found to not belong in the article is bewildering until one realizes that one of the editors involved told me that "we should be seeking to protect" the "good name and reputation" of Catholic bishops. [1] Sadly, I think the reason that these paragraphs were removed simply boils down to the fact that they reflect poorly on the subject of the article. That is unacceptable. Display name 99 (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• No - The paragraphs contain an excruciating level of detail that violates WP:BALASP, most of it concerning 2 people who are not the subject of this article, and most of it contained in the articles on those persons at Carlo_Maria_Viganò#August_2018_letter and Theodore_Edgar_McCarrick#Viganò_allegations. We do not need a day-by-day account of what Wuerl's spokesperson said in response to a letter that is only tangentially related to Wuerl, what Wuerl's spokesperson meant by what he said, etc. --PluniaZ (talk) 03:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to you, hardly any of it is in the McCarrick article. Most of it can't be found in the Vigano article either. Wuerl's knowledge of allegations against McCarrick in 2004 is mentioned only very briefly Vigano article. It is included in much more detail here because it has much more to do with Wuerl than it does with Vigano. Display name 99 (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes - the removed paragraphs include a Washington Post article specifically about Wuerl, which clearly constitutes content that has received significant coverage in a reliable third party source; and this is a lengthy article, which the removed paragraphs do not form an excessive proportion of. That said, it could probably be cut down a bit in places - the style is a little wordy in places (e.g. it's probably unnecessary to state that Wuerl 'faced questions' - that can be inferred from the fact that he answered those questions) and the back and forth with Ciolek, who is not a main subject of this section, is perhaps covered in slightly excessive detail. TSP (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes - The information in these paragraphs is well sourced and relevant to the page. Moreso, the information doesn't come from some passing mention in a barely related article, but from a Washington Post article that is entirely dedicated to the Wuerl's knowledge of sexual misconduct allegations against Theodore McCarrick. Also, the scandal that lead to Wuerl's resignation from the position of arch-bishop is central to this man's career and should be explored in depth by the article. What are we going to write about, if not this? His views on the transubstantiation of the Eucharist or the nature of the Holy Trinity? I understand that some editors are worried about the way in which WP:BLP can be broken by adding information about abuses committed by others to a living person's page and thus linking them in a way to sexual abuse, but this is not the case, as, again, this scandal is a defining moment in this man's career and arguably in the recent history of the Catholic Church in the United States. Also, let's be honest, these complaints are sometimes made in good faith, but not always and you only need to check out the talk pages of a handful of articles dealing with the Catholic Church to see that there is a (poorly) orchestrated attempt to keep as many unsavory information out of said articles from users who are very ready to invoke each and any Wikipedia guideline, as long as means less info about sexual abuse will make it to the article. PraiseVivec (talk) 10:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Agree with TSP, cut it down some with less reliance on Ciolek. Manannan67 (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Resolution

PluniaZ, TSP, PraiseVivec, and Manannan67, here a diff of a version of the disputed content to add into the article. In accordance with what you have said, I kept the bulk of the content but cut things down a little bit. The first sentence has been removed and there's a little less on Ciolek. Mainly, his refusal to accept Wuerl's apology, though mentioned, is not quoted. I think that this reflects the views that most of you have expressed well and I hope it meets your approval. Display name 99 (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

PluniaZ, TSP, PraiseVivec, and Manannan67, WP:RFCEND says that an RfC can be closed if consensus is obvious to participants. I think that the consensus here is fairly clear: that we keep the bulk of the material but cut some of it down a little bit, particularly Ciolek. I think that my proposal conforms to that, so if there are no objections, I will add it soon and close the RfC. Display name 99 (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I have added it. Display name 99 (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Expatriate in Italy

Per the article Expatriate, I would say that Wuerl does not meet this defintion, as he studied for the priesthood for a while in Rome and then returned to his life in these USA. An expat usually has some impetus to stay abroad for a purpose, and for an extended or indefinite time. Elizium23 (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• The term in Wikipedia is consistently used to cover people who for a time studied abroad and then came back to their country. There is no requirement that people permanently remain outside their country to fit the expatriate category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

  Johnpacklambert, do you have a citation for this bit of original research? We do need to satisfy WP:CATV. Elizium23 (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• An expatriate is any citizen of one country who is resident in another country. That is what the term means. You have no justification for excluding students from this category. They are regularly considered expatriates. The opening sentence on the article say "An expatriate (often shortened to expat) is a person residing in a country other than their native country". So student clearly are covered. If we are going to follow the second one, we would also have to make this class based and exclude undocumented short-term migrants. I see no justification for any of these limitings of the actual definition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

  So definitely WP:OR and no citation then. OK. Elizium23 (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)