Major General James G. Blunt

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Style

What is the basis for the style "Very Reverend"? As far as I can see Fr Barron is neither a canon nor an honorary chaplain to his Holiness. Mark.hamid (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to reliable sources such as usml.edu bio and archdiocese of Milwaukee. It would seem he is entitled to this style as Rector of the seminary, to which he was appointed in 2012. Elizium23 (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At this time after his appointment, Barron is already entitled to the style "Most Reverend", that is if BigLabs87 (talk · contribs) will stop warring to keep it out. However, Barron is not yet a bishop, and so use of the infobox is inappropriate. Elizium23 (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent NPOV language

@BrandonVogt1225: I noticed you just made a significant modification to the lede and other parts of the article, while noting in your edit summary that you were an assistant of Bishop Barron. First of all, welcome to Wikipedia. Second, there are a number of policies that Wikipedia content must abide by, including having a neutral point of view, not using original research, and not using puffery. Much of your contribution was beneficial (if additional citations are added), but much of it violated these policies. I would advise that you rework your additions so that they are not in violation of Wikipedia's policies, otherwise they will be reverted. If you have specific questions about whether something violates a Wikipedia policy, feel free to ask. Ergo Sum 20:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ergo Sum: Thanks! Really helpful. I definitely don't want to violate any Wikipedia rules. But when you say "much of it violated these policies," can you get more specific? I'd be happy to remove those portions or rework to meet the rules. Thanks again!
@BrandonVogt1225: What I had in mind particularly was the tone of the language added to the lede, which is replicated elsewhere. The information added is without citations, which makes it unverifiable. Wikipedia's standard of verifiability is heightened for biographies of living persons, so having inline citations to support the claims is especially important. Moreover, per WP:NPOV, the tone of some of the language may be excessively flattering, and can be rephrased in a more neutral tone. Ergo Sum 20:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ergo Sum: That makes sense. I'll review all that. Also, how can I can add an up-to-date photo? I tried to add one of the headshots from our press kit (we own the copyrights to all those photos) but it was rejected for copyright reasons? Not sure what to do. Thanks!
@BrandonVogt1225: Yes, you're right; the photo was removed for copyright reasons. Since the image(s) you're trying to upload are unfree (subject to copyright), you'll need to release the rights to them under a license of your choice (See more here) in order for them to be used across the Wikimedia projects. You can do that here (more information available here). Once you release the images under your choice of acceptable licenses, it will be able to be used by anyone, subject to the stipulations of the license, across the Wikimedia projects. Ergo Sum 20:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: move as primary topic (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Barron (bishop) → Robert Barron – Should have leveled WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by now? While disambiguating destination article. PPEMES (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support move. The only other Robert Barron article with daily views close to Robert Barron (bishop) is Robert V. Barron, which seems to average about half or less than half of the bishop's views. Ergo Sum 19:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ergo Sum. The Bishop's internet outreach has probably made himself the primary topic. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support according to the pageviews, the bishop got over 88% of the pageviews in the last year. This is the primary topic.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ergo Sum. Recentism does not apply when the main opposition is a character actor known for one movie role and the other two are completely unknown, naturally bishops tend to have the long term significance. The actor will keep the V. disambig anyway, so it won't affect anything. GuzzyG (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dare we hope?

From the article: 'Barron is a proponent of Hans Urs von Balthasar's “dare we hope” theory, declaring there is "objective ground" for a "hope that all men may be saved".'

The proposed modifications:

First, the theologian Larry Chapp, who is a von Balthasar scholar, maintains that the German translation of “dare we hope” is flawed. In the original it is rendered "should we hope", which gives a much different nuance. Chapp has stated that much of the contention with von Balthasar comes from this mistranslation. This is one of those things that Wikipedia can't change until the culture changes, so we obviously can't do this for some time yet. Please retain this for future reference.

Second, the word 'theory' has, or arguably should have, primarily a scientific connotation. A better word in this sentence would be 'theology'.

Thanks Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed 'theory' to 'theology' Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walls and bridges

What a wonderful message you crafted today - Sunday, 23 Jan 2022. As a 72 year old man I can still vividly recall the profound disappointment I felt in my early 20s concluding that I had to terminate my time with the Jesuits after 4 years “in formation”. We (the Jesuits-of the late 60s and early 1970s) had abandoned almost all that Ignatius had counseled us to do as a community of religious dedicated to a unique form of “missionary” work - work which had been recently redefined by Pope Paul VI as a dedication to a world in free fall into agnosticism and atheism. (He felt we were uniquely positioned to build those bridges to those stranded in confusion and modern forms of self-destructive egotism.) Had you, and more like you been there to guide, advise, and even discipline those willing only to tear down the beautiful walls of our traditions in art, literature, spiritual practice, music, liturgy and intellectual rigor that was the unique 2000 year-old city of God, many of us would have been able to continue to dedicate ourselves to building bridges from that lovely city of truth, beauty and goodness to aid a profoundly disordered world. My four years were not wasted, I know, but would that they could have gone on to be four or more decades of service to God in priestly service to the Church. I am glad you are with us now and with our seminarians and I pray, with many others, for more like you. James T 2601:404:C500:4BBB:444D:2161:35A5:9AB9 (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dylan influence

Shouldn’t Bob Dylan be listed among Bishop Barron’s influences? I have never seem anyone as interested in Dylan as Bishop Barron is. There are many YouTube videos where this is evident, specially considering Bishop Barron’s way of preaching through culture. 45.226.116.45 (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms update

It looks like Bishop Barron may have changed his coat of arms. This photo on Facebook of the cathedra at Saint John the Evangelist Co-Cathedral shows the panel with the bishop's coat of arms has been changed: https://www.facebook.com/cocathedralofstjohn/photos/pcb.2252800444877710/2252800398211048 SlowJog (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SajoR may be interested. Elizium23 (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also @Roberto221. Elizium23 (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23, @SlowJog It's changed slightly now that he's the head of a diocese. The right side is his personal Coat of Arms, the left side is the diocese Coat of Arms. If he were to head another diocese, the left side would change but not the right. It's common in the US to combine the Diocese and Personal Coat of Arms to make it a Bishops Coat of Arms but not in the rest of the world from what I've seen. Auxiliary Bishops only get a personal Coat of Arms.

Roberto221 (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23, @SlowJog A few nuggets: Bishops Mark E. Brennan and Paul D. Etienne changed their personal Coats of Arms when they became bishops of other dioceses. Bishop John M. LeVoir incorporated the diocese CoA in the middle of his personal CoA instead of the left side. Bishop Frank Joseph Dewane still uses his personal CoA as opposed the Bishop Coat of Arms (Left side/Right Side). Archbishop Bernard Hebda still uses the old Archdiocese CoA in his Bishops CoA. I'm trying to get SajoR to post Archbishop Allen Vigneron Bishops CoA since Detroit has also changed its Archdiocese CoA. Coadjutor bishops use their personal CoA until they've succeeded to head the diocese...

Roberto221 (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Succession

Auxiliary bishops do not actually succeed one another. Therefore it does not make sense to include them in "succession boxes" because there is no line of succession. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23 I usually leave it there since my understanding is that his succession is how he moves from one place to another, like a résumé, and not who he succeeds in a diocese.

Roberto221 (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The very purpose of a succession box is to show the place of the subject of the box (the person—or other entity—whose article the box is in) in a succession of people (henceforth referred to as a succession chain). Because of this, most boxes include three people, namely the subject, their predecessor, and their successor. The purpose of the article prose is as a resume; the succession boxes are explicitly for chains of succession and not for other purposes. If we wish to depict a list of offices or posts then we should find a standardized way to do it that does not abuse succession box templates. Elizium23 (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to say that the succession box template description has sold itself short. I think that is certainly its primary purpose, but there is value in also showing the succession of an individual's offices. While the template, I think, should be used more sparingly in furtherance of this latter purpose, this seems like a clear case warranting it. Perhaps it is time to broaden the description on the template page to reflect this. Ergo Sum 20:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But if there is not even any succession, what exactly is the point, other than a bulleted list that shows what offices were held in what order during certain years? Succession boxes show predecessors and successors. For auxiliary bishops, there are none to show! Elizium23 (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just that: showing the offices a person held in an easy to read, structured way. Ergo Sum 11:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's very wasteful of space to show that an officeholder had no predecessor and no successor when the templates we use are designed to depict that very information. Elizium23 (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YouTuber infobox

Should we add a YouTuber infobox under the “Media works” section of the article? I feel like that would be a good place to start in organizing statistics on his social media following, which are currently represented with bullet points. aeromachinator (talk to me here) 03:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Barron