Talk:Joseph Li Shan

removal of blockquote

Can the user who want to remove this make their case here for why they think this isn't useful for the article? The section on views has no other content in it than this; it is not like other bishops where we can find them making regular statements to media sources. Reesorville (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources and MOS:QUOTE. The speech can (and should) be summarized. It could be, for example, part-shortened and part-summarized. It contains many sentences which are WP:UNDUE. This is not an article on sinicization, it is an article about the man. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

That's not the full text. The source is linked in the references that you can check if you can read Chinese. It is a portion from the speech that I think shows his views on the government's role regarding the church in China. If we had lots of other examples of quotations from him, I would be in favour of making it shorter too, but at the moment, I don't think it is exhausting the reader. I think you must be very unfamiliar with the state of the church in China if you think that the topic of sinicization and government-control is not so relevant for a page about a bishop. Reesorville (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

You appear to have misread the PAGs I linked. I never said it was the entire speech. The issue is the real estate it takes up on the page, and the effect it has on the reader. If I come to this article as an uninformed person (I will remind you, the point of Wikipedia is to educate uninformed readers), I am assaulted with this extremely long quote that isn't even about this man. I see why it is included, but it very likely does not need to be this long. Specific parts of this quotation are long and repetitive. Wikipedia is not a repository for quotations or speeches. e.g. "The Sinicization of Catholicism, requires the upholding of a political self-consciousness and to always improve the political stance of its thinking" and "Among the construction of the clergy team, the strengthening of the Sinicization of the missionary team is never ending." But a statement such as "More than half a century ago, the Catholic Church of China took upon itself to choose its own holy bishops and advanced the Sinicization of the Catholic Church's organizational structure" is a fact. It is not the view of this man. It can be summarized with a factual restatement. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been advertised at the NPOV noticeboard. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think I understood your point, but what is really the issue with real estate if there is in fact no other content in the section? I think the quotation as it is better than a summary since it puts it in the same context that he said the words without any spin or editing. You didn't try to summarize this when you came here, you just deleted it and left it blank. How does that help an uninformed reader? If you really want to summarize it, you can try to write it here and we'll see what it looks like. .Reesorville (talk) 02:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I removed the entire quotation because it is WP:PRIMARY and no secondary sources were linked, a huge red flag. (BTW, did you translate this? If so, that's an even bigger problem with WP:NOR). Here's my attempt at summary using secondary sources, which we should have done in the first place.

rejected draft

NPOV draft #1 In 2019, Li Shan made an address at the Beijing Catholic Forum for Sinicization of Theology, in which he promised to continue to promote the "sinicization" of Chinese Catholicism. He advocated for alining the beliefs of the Church with the ideology of the Chinese Communist Party. Li Shan has argued this is a component of patriotism, in line with the official position of Chinese premier Xi Jinping. [1] The Catholic Church in China has long been divided between the government-sanctioned Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association (CPCA) (which the Vatican does not officially recognize) and an underground church, whose appointments and organizations are not acknowledged or endorsed by Chinese government authorities. [2] Li Shan has argued sinicization is a logical continuation of the Chinese Catholic Church's decision to choose its own bishops more than half a century ago, and as agreed upon by the Vatican in 2018. [3] This agreement allows the CPCA to select episcopal candidates which are then approved by the Holy See.

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The source being quoted is a party-controlled Chinese Catholic newspaper that reprinted his speech in their article; it is a secondary source. A translation, done faithfully, is definitely not considered to be OR on wiki.

I think your summary contains some significant inaccuracies and problems. To summarize: As far as I am aware Li Shan has never said those words that he advocated for 'aligning Catholic teaching with communist ideology', and that would be a spin and OR. The statement 'the Chinese Catholic Church' decision to choose its own bishops' is definitely an issue with NPOV; a massive number of people and much RS would disagree with you that that decision was made by the church, and not one imposed upon the church. On the same measure there is also a lot of people and RS that would disagree that the church currently 'chooses its own bishops'. I have never seen a speech in which Li Shan ever publicly commented on the 2018 Vatican deal, so you can't allege here that he has views in relation to it. Furthermore there is no evidence that the 2018 deal is codifying the previous episcopal independence of the state-run church.

I suspect that the speech in question was something that Li Shan was obliged to read by the Patriotic Association and not something he wrote himself. However, that speculation is OR, and unfortunately I can't write that in the article for that reason. I still think that putting the original speech in is probably best, because it captures the context in which he said those things without any spin; he was basically reiterating and applauding the party policies with regard to the church. IF you find more quotations from Li Shan that can show other views he has, then I would be willing to go back and make it shorter myself so that there isn't any undue weight just on this quotation. But as I said earlier, there really isn't that much out there in RS showing what he thinks about different issues beyond these sorts of things. Reesorville (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

What I have done: link RSes which support sentences.

What you have done: Proclaim that RSes do x, y, and z without actually providing RSes which say those things, and indeed in direct contradiction to what the quotation actually says

(e.g. you said a massive number of people and much RS would disagree with you that that decision was made by the church, and not one imposed upon the church but the quotation says "More than half a century ago, the Catholic Church of China took upon itself to choose its own holy bishops and advanced the Sinicization of the Catholic Church's organizational structure" which is also supported by RSes [4] [5] [6] [7])

If we do not have RSes analyzing Li Shan's views, then it is improper to depict those views at all, quotation or not. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Your RSes don't support what you have written. I just identified all the problems that I see with your summary. If you look at the links you are citing, where do you see those links saying what you are writing?

Your example of this claim that the church made its own decision during Mao Zedong's leadership to choose its own bishops - in all the links you are citing, where do they actually see this claim being made that the church 'chose this itself'? Li Shan's own speech or the church's own statements can't be considered RS for this. Against this claim, here is a report from the US state department (https://web.archive.org/web/20130213223223/http://www.cecc.gov/pages/annualRpt/annualRpt11/AR2011final.pdf), on page 96: "Since the 1950s, the government and Party have denied Catholics in China the freedom to accept the authority of the Holy See to select bishops, and the state-controlled church asserts that it has the authority to approve the ordination of bishops in China.26 Officials have cited the principles of ‘‘independ�ence’’ for Catholics in China and the ‘‘autonomous’’ selection and ordination of bishops as a basis for rejecting the authority of for�eign entities (including the Holy See) over the state-controlled church,27 and China’s State Administration for Religious A" Reesorville (talk) 11:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The US state department is not a reliable source for this content. To avoid all of this, I've just foregone mentioning any agency in who implemented the agreement, simply that it was reconciled. Much cleaner — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to stop you if you want to add this material, but I think the quotation was still better and more accurate for the reader. Here you are writing what the Patriotic Association's position is, but you are not saying what Li Shan has spoken personally, which is a better way of showing his own views than identifying the position of the organization he belongs to (and became the leader of last week).

I few key things I would suggest you include though from the blockquote if you are going to try to paraphrase: 1) that he supports the communist party's direction/plans for the church, 2) that he views the history of the church's 'independence' and development under party control as positive (don't say that it is a fact that the church chose itself, but say that he considers it a fact) 3) that he cites the decalogue as a reason to obey the government ('love of country'). Those things have significance for the question of the contemporary church in China. I think the blockquote does a better job at this, but if you can capture all that without it being lost or worded in a way that people are going to challenge whether it is accurately reflecting his views, I think it is OK. Reesorville (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like you are well on your way to paraphrasing it yourself, and as you seem very interested in this material appearing, it is totally fine for you to start putting in some paraphrases (in brief!). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, I've added what I think may work. I still put a piece of the quotation in, because I think it is better this way and less likely to be challenged than if I just wrote something like: 'he quoted church teaching to explain why Catholics need to follow the government's sinicization policies'.Reesorville (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Bishop vs. Archbishop

This is a peculiar question related to canon law that I am not sure if someone could answer: should Li Shan be called bishop or an archbishop? His diocese is an archdiocese and he is recognized as a legitimate bishop by the Pope, but I'm under the impression that bishops are supposed to travel to Rome to receive a pallium when they are made archbishops, but Li Shan never did this. Would he still then be counted as a bishop or is the pallium irrelevant to the question of when someone becomes an archbishop? Reesorville (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)