Talk:Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh

Catholicism Low‑importance

Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Catholicism task list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : see Draft articles
Assess : see Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles; Category:Unknown-importance Catholicism articles
Cleanup : Blessed Virgin Mary (see the talk page)
Collaborate : Invitation template needed, see Category:WikiProject invitation templates
Copyedit : Cuthbert Tunstall
Expand : Angelus; Roman Catholicism in Kosovo; Bishop Adolph John Paschang; Cum sæpe accidere; Altar Society; American Board of Catholic Missions; Bernard Häring
NPOV : Americanism (heresy); Ensoulment
Photo : see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Catholicism
Stubs : see Category:Stub-Class Catholicism articles; Category:Catholic Church stubs
Update : Peer review; John Aloysius Maguire
Verify : Archdiocese of Glasgow; Archbishop of Westminster; Bishop; Saint Mungo; Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral
Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Regarding third-party notice

It is daft to suggest that a list of incumbents in an office within an organisation is compromised by the details of the list being derived from the organisation's own records - what third-party citations are you expecting? Any publications on the matter will also source the information from the organisation itself - because that is the only source the information can originate from. It certainly does not negate the neutrality of the article - unless there is someone who argues with the details - in which case it would be the contention which needs to be cited. JohnArmagh (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:GNG says the requirement for an article is that 'a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject' currently none of the references are independent. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In which case the requirement, taken to this level, is illogical and counter-productive; it determines that lists of officials in an organisation are not valid for Wikipedia, because that organisation's own records lacks neutrality. As I said, that is just plain daft. Take the list of popes - it is the catholic church which determines who is the pope - not some "independent source". Such independent source's opinion on the matter doesn't count for diddly-squat. Which independent source's determination as to who is Secretary-General of the United Nations counts more than the United Nations' own say-so? It simply does not work to insist that WP:GNG be adhered to unless there is, as I said previously, a source which contends the list is inaccurate. JohnArmagh (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are misapplying WP:GNG. GNG is part of a notability guideline, used to determine whether a subject should have an article on Wikipedia. Per WP:PRIMARY, there is nothing wrong with using primary source "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." The names and related information of those that have held an office certainly falls into that. KTC (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if those are your positions, I'll just nominate the article for deletion, shall I? Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and this has none. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 06:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, then sure go ahead and nominate it for AfD. If you have a look at WP:BEFORE, you'll see that "if ... adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." -- KTC (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. I was merely suggesting an alternative course of action if anyone still insists that the current references are sufficient. From where I'm standing I see no "adequate sources" in the article and don't know of any off the top of my head, so I'll be retagging the article shortly. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance "adequate sources" are derived from the official sources - and that is sufficient for this article and others like it. Your attitude is certainly becoming disruptive - you are trying to impose your version of "If you don't play the way I want to then I'm going to trash your toys and take my toys away with me." Wikipedia is not the place to throw your toys out of the pram. JohnArmagh (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged

I have tagged this with {{unreliable sources}} because it relies almost completely on catholic-hierarchy.org, which is user-generated by one person with no editorial oversight, and a poor record for fact-checking. As you can see currently, catholic-hierarchy shows that there is an archbishop of this diocese, which there is not, per Canon Law, a bishop does not attain control of his see until he is both consecrated and installed there. Elizium23 (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the unreliable sources tag because the article no longer relies almost completely on catholic-hierarchy.org. If that website is seen as an unreliable source, then discuss it at Template talk:Catholic-hierarchy and not here. Scrivener-uki (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for efficiently addressing all the tag issues. I have no more concerns at this time. Elizium23 (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]