Talk:Saint Gallen Group

problematic overall

While I have doubts about almost everything in this article, the worst thing is the breathless whodunnit tone. An encyclopedic approach would detail events and persons. Instead the approach is "this was a secret so i'll tell how we know about it", starting with the illiterate sentence: Public knowledge about the group came to light in... Really? public knowledge came to light? All in all what substance there is could be added as two or three sentences to the appropriate biographies and conclave articles. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree. I've made a couple of edits in some obvious areas where there are no sources to back claims. But the whole article troubles me deeply - it's a highly hysterical conspiracy piece with very very dubious sourcing. It needs a lot of work if it's going to stay as an article in it's own right. I suggest we delete the whole thing. No reason why much of the material (the bits that are worthwhile - and there are not many) can't just be moved into other articles. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The entry for Godfried Danneels already has a very chatty account that could use a rewrite. I added some about meetings up until 2006 only to Achille Silvestrini, Lubomyr Husar, José Policarpo, Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, Walter Kasper, Karl Lehmann, and Carlo Maria Martini. Ivo Fürer has no entry. It's interesting to see how poor, or poorly annotated, these entries are by and large.

I'll try to add a bit about the run-up to the next conclave for a smaller list, though certainly without that hideous journalistic invention Team Bergoglio.

The entry for Papal conclave, 2005 is all about process. It doesn't really address the issues facing the electors. That would take quite a bit of work to put together. And I don't see an appropriate place in Pope Benedict XVI. Both articles could really use a good paragraph on expectations going into the 2005 conclave.

And now I see other names mentioned (Adriaan van Luyn and Basil Hume) so I guess membership was about a dozen.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

What about merging encyclopedically relevant content to another appropriate article location? Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I've done that without the invented name "Group". Added to about 8 entries. Had to create one entry and really overhaul another. Need to go back and be sure I've used the best citations. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 11:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Ivo Fürer

The Bishop of St. Gallen offered his own account in just a few sentences. To quash rumors and conspiracy theorists. I'll translate the German later, but here it is. Bmclaughlin9 (talk)

Good work. There doesn't look to be a great deal of substance to this other than a group of like-minded bishops were keen to find a candidate more suited to their vision of the church. If it must have its own article - of which I'm still a little doubtful - then agree that it should be brief and to the point. Rather than creating a conspiracy where there doesn't really seem to be one. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk) - I've tried to sharpen the material and condense so it's less sprawling. Would very much welcome your thoughts. If other editors have specific concerns then suggest they raise them on talk first to avoid edit-warring.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think mass blanking of referenced material from reliable sources which you just don't happen to like or are desperate to remove, for whatever reason, consists of "sharpening material." There is no Wikipedia guideline that suggests articles need to be "less sprawling" (subjective) or "condensed" to the extent of whittling them down from article length to little more than a stub. As you are wishing to radically change the article the onus is on you to propose specific changes, under WP:BRD. Claíomh Solais (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

As I said be specific if you think radical change has been made. If you think there is an important point that has been lost or altered then state it here and we can decide how to cover it. There has been no "mass blanking". Guidance does point to encourage articles to be clear and avoid unnecessary repetition. It was pretty badly written before. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Ivereagh's relationship to Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor

Given that Ivereigh's role as spokeman for Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor in the early 2000s is actually mentioned in the reference about the story, it would appear pertinent to mention it here. Especially as he is writing about something that involves Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor directly. As it stands the reader cannot tell if Ivereigh is a supporter or hostile to Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor and co, when he is decidedly pro. Claíomh Solais (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This is actually WP:SYNTH - by including the statement that Ivereigh worked in the office of Cardinal Cormac (and Cormac is described as being a member of this "club") he therefore had access to information that no-one else did and thus his opinions should be given additional weight. There is, however, nothing in the material that suggests he did indeed have access to such material. If you think, however, the connection to Cormac is important to state then suggest you need more material clarifying that Cormac was a key member of this "group". At the moment it looks like his link is hazy to say the least.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of article?

The more I think about this then the more I'm inclined to suggest that this article be deleted. There isn't really that much substance to it. essentially a group of clerics met to talk about church politics. The suggestion is that some of them then went on to band together to elect the current pope (which they all denied). Does this really need a separate article? It seems a bit WP:FRINGE. Evidently aimed at suggesting there is some sinister "liberal plot" to undermine the papacy! If it must remain then we should keep it short. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I've cleaned this article up. Removed ambiguity and repetition. If other editors think important material has been removed then please state here and we can consider adding it back in. But no case to consider re-insertion of lots of previous material which was of a low editorial quality. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

"a sort of mafia club" (Dutch: in soort maffiaclub),

In proper Dutch that would be "een soort maffia club". (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not proper Dutch. It's a quote. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bmclaughlin9: ??? Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#St._Gallen_Group It seems you are responsible for adding this mistake, and the fake news. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. You seem not to have bothered to see which contributions are mine. I'd agree that 99% of what's written about this discussion group is conspiracy theorists' material. Thanks for that link! Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bmclaughlin9: I apologize; I have mistaken you for someone else. Mea culpa. The words "in soort maffiaclub" mean that he is in the club, you know, a member of the club. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Clean-up

I stand by the earlier clean-up I made. Claíomh Solais - I advise you not to simply enact a whole scale reversion as this is not constructive. Bmclaughlin9 and I have worked diligently in trying to make this article as respectable as we can - despite the fact that it is bordering on fringe. My concern is that you are using this article to push a political agenda (highlighting factions within the Catholic church opposed to traditionalist teaching). By doing so you may be exaggerating the evidence. Frankly I'm very close to suggesting the whole article be deleted as it's a lot of nothingness.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Restored content

@Claíomh Solais and The Quixotic Potato: there is currently a rough consensus based on the fringe noticeboard, this talk page, and what people have been saying in edit summaries that the trimmed down version is better. Claimoh, what in particular do you think is missing that should be restored? We can try to work towards a consensus to restore specific items if need be. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#St._Gallen_Group. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Project status

I'd seriously challenge that this is an article of mid importance. More appropriate as low: "While still notable, these are highly-specialised or even obscure, not essential for understanding the wider picture ("nice to have" articles)" Contaldo80 (talk) 12:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I deleted an external link

The external link contained the words "the homosexual agenda". The information from the external link can be used in the article, but the external link doesn't add much to the article. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted. LifeSiteNews is not a mainstream or neutral news source and should not be used in my view. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It was sensationalist character assassation. Yes. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Notability

I added the Notability tag to the article per the recent AfD that closed as "No consensus". Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

A year on and we're still no closer to establishing the notability of this article. Could it be time to delete it. What do others think? Contaldo80 (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

On the drastic March 2019 revision and expansion of the article

This talk page showed so many things that were wrong or questionable in the article that I thought only a drastic revision would satisfy its critics. In what follows I will refer to various points that they raise.

But I must first address the notability question, for that is the reason for its expansion. Contaldo80 is right in thinking that what the group did was in itself not important enough to warrant an article. But the conspiracy theories about what they did were and are notorious — widespread and typical of numerous conservative members of the Catholic Church. These theories do deserve discussion and they are now discussed in §5. However, an article devoted exclusively to the conspiracy theories would be unintelligible without reporting on the object of these theories, viz. the persons and events described in the other sections of the article. This makes the article longer than Contaldo80 and some other critics will likely find desirable. But it is unavoidable if the quality of the article is to be increased.

Here is a list of the most important changes in the article, most of which react to points made by the critics.

• I added a picture of Ivo Fürer, the group’s host.
• I have undone "the breathless whodunnit tone" and replaced it with detailed descriptions of events and persons.
• I have relied on sources that are much more reliable (mainly the two sources which revealed the existence of the group). Most of them don't go for conspiracy theories.
• The list of members is now complete and sourced.
• That "hideous journalistic invention 'Team Bergoglio'" (uninformative anyhow) is no longer used.
• The name "Group" was not invented; I have justified and sourced its use.
• The URL of the VTM webpage was made up by a journalist and is not the Danneels quote. The article now quotes exactly what Danneels said and translates it. (NB My native language is Dutch.)
• Basil Hume was never a member of the group. Given the number of sources that say he was, I thought it necessary to make an educated guess about how that rumor came about, but I relegated this to a footnote.
• I corrected and completed the reference to the biography of Danneels. Polla ta deina (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have a video where Cardenal Danneels says "the maffia" in joke tone. First Wikipedia Entrance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuzV4zdAgpU 181.90.21.127 (talk) 05:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Burn sage in latterns

Wooden boxes about doll sizes with so many nails 2600:1010:B122:B2E9:4D14:52A3:5DD9:A3A7 (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)