Talk:Greg Burke (journalist)

He's been promoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.207.196 (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Section: Controversy

As user:REMP81, I don't feel the section 'controversy', as least as currently present, is encyclopedic. Here's why:

1. There are no sources other than the actual twitter page indicating this is a noteworthy event
2. The sentence "Greg Burke's identification with the Catholic Church and Opus Dei lead many to assume that his work would express kindness, humility, courtesy, and respect. Nonetheless, at least one verifiable report has surfaced that Burke does not conduct himself according to these Christian values." is not written in a neutral way. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Questioning someones values and overall conduct on the basis of one omission to respond to a request is questionable to state the least.
3. Calling a bunch of tweets a 'grassroots movement' seems like a wild overstatement.

Etc. for now, I am removing the comments as to the christian virtues or the lack thereof from the article, and inviting user:98.221.104.135 either to improve the section, remove it, or defend the current state it is in. Regards, Malus Catulus (talk)

I have once again removed the section, doesn't seem notable and has no reliable sources. Warned user about possible edit warring. Greyjoy ^talk 10:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Your characterization of "edit warring" is on the mark. You are correct. However, your warning is misdirected in 3 ways. First, if you were objective and unbiased, your "edit warring" observation would have been applied to both me (Kevin) and Kiwipat. Second, I (Kevin) have been adding good content while Kiwipat has been deleting good content. Third my content additions have explanatory comments while Kiwipat are just by fiat. I will lay out again below why the Controversy paragraph content is good.

1. I agree that Wikipedia requires reliable sources. I have met this requirement. This Controversy is supported by evidence (see screenshot). It is also independently verifiable. For example, browse https://twitter.com/GregBurkeRome/status/972150688414404608 to see 86% (26/30) of Greg's Twitter activity are requests for Greg to respond to Brian. Anyone with an Internet connection has access to this reliable & independent source. One does not even need a Twitter account to view to grass roots movement - login is not necessary.
2. Context is paramount for "Notability". The same behaviour or activity has different levels of significance depending on the actor, the actor's role, and the actor's espoused positions. For example, if Kiwipat does not attend Mass on Sunday, that is not noteworthy. However, if the Pope skips Sunday mass, then that clearly is noteworthy.
   1. 1.2 billion Catholics would consider Greg's decision to ignore parishioner Brian as remarkable & attention-worthy for the top Church Communication Leader.
   2. Greg was hired to "manage communications”. That is per official, public Vatican announcements.
   3. Greg's LinkedIn role is "Senior Advisor of Communications".
   4. Greg tweets advocate communicating ("Communicate with everyone, without exclusion") ("Never break communication") ("It's necessary to listen, and not ignore"). Greg's advocacy of these sound communication principles is public record.
   5. Greg's Church is founded on a responsive doctrine. For example, the apostle Luke 6:30 "Give to everyone who asks you". That is diametrically opposed to ignoring them.
   6. Pope Francis chartered his Church leaders (Greg) to "go out among your flocks, smell like sheep", not ignore them. Parishioner Brian is such a sheep.
   7. Greg's uncommunicative behavior is both remarkable and worthy of attention for the Leader of Church Communications. That is the definition of noteworthy.
3. Let's not harass Wikipedia editors who are adding content that is factual, relevant, supported by evidence, independently verifiable, significant, and notable. Instead, please censure those (Kiwipat) who remove those facts. - Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.104.135 (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

 Administrator note In order to stop the edit war, I have protected the page against editing and have also reverted the article back to the version prior to when the edit war began.

To give general advice on the situation, I'm afraid Twitter is not a reliable source for the purposes of writing a high-quality encyclopedia article. Wikipedia content must depend on published sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and anyone can create a Twitter account and post tweets with it. You haven't provided any other source for the material you are adding. Furthermore, Wikipedia's no original research policy states that we cannot synthesize sources to draw conclusions that are not explicitly stated in the source. This means that if there is such a "grassroots movement" as you describe, a reliable secondary source should explicitly state that such a grassroots movement exists in order for Wikipedia to cover it. In this sense, Wikipedia is merely a summary of what other people have written about a topic, not what individual Wikipedia editors think about a topic.

Regarding "notability", Wikipedia has a special way of determining notability: we look at how much coverage exists in reliable secondary sources about the topic. If the Pope skips Sunday mass, we can be sure that a lot of reliable secondary sources will cover the incident in detail – have reliable secondary sources covered this event in detail? Wikipedia policy requires that high-quality reliable sources be presented for all content about living persons (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons), and I'm afraid I don't see evidence of that requirement being met here. Accordingly, do not reinsert the content without both (1) presenting reliable secondary sources which support the content and (2) establishing a consensus to reinsert the material. Thank you, Mz7 (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Michael, your thinking is very lucid, and well-explained. Your demeanor is kind, respectful, and productive. You are truly an excellent ambassador for Wikipedia. Sehr gute Arbeit - danke, mein Herr. 我很高興你在地球上 - Kevin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.104.135 (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)