This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Citation 4 for Ellen Leonard is no longer valid as it has a broken pdf and the source can't be found. Is there another citation for this important fact as a first? -- RosPost 17:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Since citation 9 is self-referential, it might be better to find something like this quote from a book review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RosPost ( talk • contribs) 07:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I was asked by my co-members of the Women in Religion Wikiproject to review and to help improve this article, so that we can remove the cleanup template currently here. I've already done some copyediting to make this bio read more encyclopedic in tone. There are a few paragraphs that can be reworked to further this goal. I think the best way to do that is to rewrite the paragraphs in question here because they constitute major edits and cuts, which should be discussed on a talk page before publishing them in the article. I'll also explain the reasons for my changes.
Research section, 3rd paragraph
As Leonard points out in her February 2012 article about Vatican II and the role of women religious in Scarboro Missions Magazine, the Second Vatican Council instructed Catholics to "discern the signs of the times". [1] She also said that Vatican II "reveals dramatic changes in worldview". [1] Leonard continues, stating that one of most important teachings coming out of Vatican II was its emphasis on baptism, which was "recognized as the common sacrament" [1] and universal holiness, which required using one's experience as a source for studying theology. In a paper she presented to the Catholic Theological Society of America in 1988, she discusses how her own feminist and Canadian experiences could be used as a source for studying theology. She also clarifies that her goal was a consideration not of whether experience should be used, "but how experience is being used as a source for theology today, with an emphasis on the foundational role of present experience and a recognition of the widening experiential base for theological reflection". [2] Leonard again addressed her themes about the use of experience in theology in a later article entitled "Experience as a Source for Theology: A Canadian and Feminist Perspective," written for the journal Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses in 1990. [3]
I think you can omit it. I added it as a restatement of the sentence in the first paragraph of this section that leads to reference #7. Engmaj ( talk) 22:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
OK, but I think it would be worth keeping the construction "the universal call to holiness" not just an emphasis on "holiness." That's at the heart of the argument she is making in these papers. Engmaj ( talk)
fair enough. Engmaj ( talk) 22:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
That sentence was a paraphrase of the second paragraph of the paper. Engmaj ( talk)
OK Engmaj ( talk) 22:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Somebody who has institutional access to the 1990 article may find a statement acknowledging this. I can read the first page on Google Scholar but am not willing to pay to access the entire article. If you are more comfortable with "Leonard again addressed" instead of "reworked" that's fine. Engmaj ( talk) 22:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Feminist and ecological Christologies section
will return to these questions tomorrow Engmaj ( talk) 22:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that this paragraph requires revision. Yes, that is a summary from her paper, in which she writes "The women's movement and the ecological movement constitute what Vatican II called 'signs of the times." on page 93 of the source referenced. Engmaj ( talk)
Does she explictly state the purpose for her lit review?
Yes, she states "Ecological and feminist voices are challenging a Christology which is both anthropocentric and androcentric. Is it possible to reconstruct Christology in a way that retains the centrality of the Christ symbol but that takes seriously ecological and feminist concerns? Can Christology contribute to a viable future for all humanity and for all creation? This article will consider the challenges, some ways that these are being addressed, and suggest one possible direction for an inclusive Christology." The phrase "After a literature review of works that identified the androcentric and anthropocentric bias in traditional Christology," summarizes the first section ("I/Challenges") of her paper. This list: "she focuses on the work of theologians Rosemary Radford Ruether, Sallie McFague, and Elizabeth Johnson, and focuses on "four aspects: (1) biblical foundation; (2) continuity with the tradition; (3) promotion of the full humanity of women; and (4) openness to the whole of creation."[13] summarizes her paper by listing her ensuing section headings II/Rosemary Radford Ruether, III/Sallie McFague, III/Elizabeth Johnson (she has two sections labeled III) V/Biblical Foundation, VI, Continuity with Tradition, VII/Promotion of the Full Humanity of Women, VIII Openness to the Whole Creation, IX/Conclusion. Engmaj ( talk) 16:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Does she explictly state that the solution is Wisdom Christianity?
Yes, she describes Wisdom Christology in her section VIII Openness to the Whole Creation and the quoted material is from the section that she has headed IX/Conclusion Engmaj ( talk) 16:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm sure you can see where I'm going. If this paragraph is more conjecture, again, we need to remove it or find sources that support it.I hope that my input, changes, and feedback is helpful. Please excuse my thoroughness, er pickiness, but this would be similar if we submitted this bio to a peer review or to GAN. Please discuss and let me know how else I can be of assistance. Best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 18:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate all your careful attention to this page, Christine and share your desire to see the tag removed. However, I would like to see the Early life and education section revert to including "She traces her connection to the Congregation of the Sisters of St. Joseph to the moment of her birth at St. Michael's Hospital, describing it as "under the eye of Sr. Vincentia," in CSJ-Toronto ministry records cited by biographer Mary Ellen Chown.[2]" If it needs to lose the "in CSJ-Toronto ministry records cited by biographer Mary Ellen Chown." and just go directly to the footnote, so be it. That is a detail for which there is a source. It's also distinctive and the kind of thing that as a kid we would have called a Fun Fact to Know and Tell.
Engmaj (
talk)
Everyone, I'm so pleased with and excited about the work we've done on Dr. Leonard's article! It's always fun for me to see an article come into its own and fulfill its potential, especially one about such a worthwhile topic. I think that we should think about taking the risk of added scrutiny and submitting it to GAN. I'll work on improving the structure of the refs in a little while. Thanks, all! Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 17:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Engmaj ( talk)I'm not sure what is gained by changing the heading "Contributions to the understanding of Catholic modernism" to "Research," especially given that the section on on the feminist and ecological christologies also reflects Leonard's research or at least her writing and theological argumentation. Modernism was one big research interest of Leonard's that is parallel to the work on christologies.
If those of you more experienced in Wikipedia think we should remove the Legacy section, OK. It was originally trying to reflect something of the organizational structure Chown used in summarizing her biography. She saw learning teaching and mentoring at the University of St. Michael's College as a major strand in Leonard's life.
The introduction to the festschrift says it was conceived to "honour the research and writing, the paedagogy and mentoring of Ellen M. Leonard." The editor notes that all the contributors were either learners from or teachers to the theology faculty. The citation for her honorary degree lays it out by the quoted statistics. So it may have been clunky, but it was an attempt to summarize what others argued was a major contribution--she shaped the field by helping to educate the next generations of scholars in it. That's a different contribution than the one she made through her own research and writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engmaj ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
References
:2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I would recommend that we put Leonard's research on Catholic Modernism, and her views on feminism and ecology, into a separate section entitled "Research and Theology", or something like that. Right now its all blended into her bio. But it might read better and be easier for general readers if the facts of her life are separated out, and then an in depth analysis of her work is in a separate section. See for example, Sally McFague: /info/en/?search=Sallie_McFague PMCH2 ( talk) 01:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I put in two page numbers but don't know how to take out the requests for page numbers, or maybe I can't because I didn't make the request.-- RosPost 09:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I fixed two page numbers of Chown, but don't know how to delete the request. RosPost 09:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with the template put in this section. It's customary for Honours sections to be formatted as a list instead of in prose. Whole lists are often created, depending upon the notability of the subject. I recommend removing the template. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 18:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Citation 4 for Ellen Leonard is no longer valid as it has a broken pdf and the source can't be found. Is there another citation for this important fact as a first? -- RosPost 17:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Since citation 9 is self-referential, it might be better to find something like this quote from a book review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RosPost ( talk • contribs) 07:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I was asked by my co-members of the Women in Religion Wikiproject to review and to help improve this article, so that we can remove the cleanup template currently here. I've already done some copyediting to make this bio read more encyclopedic in tone. There are a few paragraphs that can be reworked to further this goal. I think the best way to do that is to rewrite the paragraphs in question here because they constitute major edits and cuts, which should be discussed on a talk page before publishing them in the article. I'll also explain the reasons for my changes.
Research section, 3rd paragraph
As Leonard points out in her February 2012 article about Vatican II and the role of women religious in Scarboro Missions Magazine, the Second Vatican Council instructed Catholics to "discern the signs of the times". [1] She also said that Vatican II "reveals dramatic changes in worldview". [1] Leonard continues, stating that one of most important teachings coming out of Vatican II was its emphasis on baptism, which was "recognized as the common sacrament" [1] and universal holiness, which required using one's experience as a source for studying theology. In a paper she presented to the Catholic Theological Society of America in 1988, she discusses how her own feminist and Canadian experiences could be used as a source for studying theology. She also clarifies that her goal was a consideration not of whether experience should be used, "but how experience is being used as a source for theology today, with an emphasis on the foundational role of present experience and a recognition of the widening experiential base for theological reflection". [2] Leonard again addressed her themes about the use of experience in theology in a later article entitled "Experience as a Source for Theology: A Canadian and Feminist Perspective," written for the journal Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses in 1990. [3]
I think you can omit it. I added it as a restatement of the sentence in the first paragraph of this section that leads to reference #7. Engmaj ( talk) 22:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
OK, but I think it would be worth keeping the construction "the universal call to holiness" not just an emphasis on "holiness." That's at the heart of the argument she is making in these papers. Engmaj ( talk)
fair enough. Engmaj ( talk) 22:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
That sentence was a paraphrase of the second paragraph of the paper. Engmaj ( talk)
OK Engmaj ( talk) 22:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Somebody who has institutional access to the 1990 article may find a statement acknowledging this. I can read the first page on Google Scholar but am not willing to pay to access the entire article. If you are more comfortable with "Leonard again addressed" instead of "reworked" that's fine. Engmaj ( talk) 22:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Feminist and ecological Christologies section
will return to these questions tomorrow Engmaj ( talk) 22:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that this paragraph requires revision. Yes, that is a summary from her paper, in which she writes "The women's movement and the ecological movement constitute what Vatican II called 'signs of the times." on page 93 of the source referenced. Engmaj ( talk)
Does she explictly state the purpose for her lit review?
Yes, she states "Ecological and feminist voices are challenging a Christology which is both anthropocentric and androcentric. Is it possible to reconstruct Christology in a way that retains the centrality of the Christ symbol but that takes seriously ecological and feminist concerns? Can Christology contribute to a viable future for all humanity and for all creation? This article will consider the challenges, some ways that these are being addressed, and suggest one possible direction for an inclusive Christology." The phrase "After a literature review of works that identified the androcentric and anthropocentric bias in traditional Christology," summarizes the first section ("I/Challenges") of her paper. This list: "she focuses on the work of theologians Rosemary Radford Ruether, Sallie McFague, and Elizabeth Johnson, and focuses on "four aspects: (1) biblical foundation; (2) continuity with the tradition; (3) promotion of the full humanity of women; and (4) openness to the whole of creation."[13] summarizes her paper by listing her ensuing section headings II/Rosemary Radford Ruether, III/Sallie McFague, III/Elizabeth Johnson (she has two sections labeled III) V/Biblical Foundation, VI, Continuity with Tradition, VII/Promotion of the Full Humanity of Women, VIII Openness to the Whole Creation, IX/Conclusion. Engmaj ( talk) 16:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Does she explictly state that the solution is Wisdom Christianity?
Yes, she describes Wisdom Christology in her section VIII Openness to the Whole Creation and the quoted material is from the section that she has headed IX/Conclusion Engmaj ( talk) 16:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm sure you can see where I'm going. If this paragraph is more conjecture, again, we need to remove it or find sources that support it.I hope that my input, changes, and feedback is helpful. Please excuse my thoroughness, er pickiness, but this would be similar if we submitted this bio to a peer review or to GAN. Please discuss and let me know how else I can be of assistance. Best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 18:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate all your careful attention to this page, Christine and share your desire to see the tag removed. However, I would like to see the Early life and education section revert to including "She traces her connection to the Congregation of the Sisters of St. Joseph to the moment of her birth at St. Michael's Hospital, describing it as "under the eye of Sr. Vincentia," in CSJ-Toronto ministry records cited by biographer Mary Ellen Chown.[2]" If it needs to lose the "in CSJ-Toronto ministry records cited by biographer Mary Ellen Chown." and just go directly to the footnote, so be it. That is a detail for which there is a source. It's also distinctive and the kind of thing that as a kid we would have called a Fun Fact to Know and Tell.
Engmaj (
talk)
Everyone, I'm so pleased with and excited about the work we've done on Dr. Leonard's article! It's always fun for me to see an article come into its own and fulfill its potential, especially one about such a worthwhile topic. I think that we should think about taking the risk of added scrutiny and submitting it to GAN. I'll work on improving the structure of the refs in a little while. Thanks, all! Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 17:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Engmaj ( talk)I'm not sure what is gained by changing the heading "Contributions to the understanding of Catholic modernism" to "Research," especially given that the section on on the feminist and ecological christologies also reflects Leonard's research or at least her writing and theological argumentation. Modernism was one big research interest of Leonard's that is parallel to the work on christologies.
If those of you more experienced in Wikipedia think we should remove the Legacy section, OK. It was originally trying to reflect something of the organizational structure Chown used in summarizing her biography. She saw learning teaching and mentoring at the University of St. Michael's College as a major strand in Leonard's life.
The introduction to the festschrift says it was conceived to "honour the research and writing, the paedagogy and mentoring of Ellen M. Leonard." The editor notes that all the contributors were either learners from or teachers to the theology faculty. The citation for her honorary degree lays it out by the quoted statistics. So it may have been clunky, but it was an attempt to summarize what others argued was a major contribution--she shaped the field by helping to educate the next generations of scholars in it. That's a different contribution than the one she made through her own research and writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engmaj ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
References
:2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I would recommend that we put Leonard's research on Catholic Modernism, and her views on feminism and ecology, into a separate section entitled "Research and Theology", or something like that. Right now its all blended into her bio. But it might read better and be easier for general readers if the facts of her life are separated out, and then an in depth analysis of her work is in a separate section. See for example, Sally McFague: /info/en/?search=Sallie_McFague PMCH2 ( talk) 01:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I put in two page numbers but don't know how to take out the requests for page numbers, or maybe I can't because I didn't make the request.-- RosPost 09:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I fixed two page numbers of Chown, but don't know how to delete the request. RosPost 09:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with the template put in this section. It's customary for Honours sections to be formatted as a list instead of in prose. Whole lists are often created, depending upon the notability of the subject. I recommend removing the template. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 18:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)