This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Episcopal Church (United States) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Episcopal Church (United States). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Episcopal Church (United States) at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Good evening all.
A University of Kentucky IP [ [1]] has twice reverted [2] and [3] what is essentially the same addition of comments by the Presiding Bishop, on the grounds that they are "editorializing". This IP address has previously made constructive edits to the article ( [4] and [5]), so I do not think this is vandalism, however I do think it is a misunderstanding of the editorializing policy here [6]. The policy says that "Wikipedia should not take a view ..." - ie it is about the encyclopedia maintaining an impartial tone, not about deleting the views of the Presiding Bishop - who we do not expect to be impartial! But perhaps the IP considers that my introduction of the comments is not sufficiently encyclopaedic. I've done my one revert [7], so might some other editors pitch in please?
- is it appropriate to include the Presiding Bishop's comments? and - if so, how should they be introduced, and - if so, are they appropriate here, or elsewhere in the article?
I will let IP 128.163.236.100 know of the discussion here, and welcome their comments in particular.
With all respect,
Springnuts ( talk) 00:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Springnuts is once again trying to editorialize on this article. 128.163.239.30 ( talk) 13:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
References
Regarding this removal of LGBT information from the lede, @ Necropolis Hill: failed to state a valid reason for removal; just because LGBT is not mentioned for the Methodists does not mean we need to delete it here. It is quite WP:DUE to include something about how the USA ecclesial community fits into the worldwide Anglican Communion's controversy on acceptance and ordinations. Elizium23 ( talk) 00:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I am currently looking at the "Logos, Shields & Graphics" page of the official website for the Episcopal Church. They provide color codes for the specific colors that make up the shield, as well as pictures of the shield - but I find the mini crosslets in the upper-left corner of the shield are different from the ones on this Wikipedia page. I don't know technical heraldic terms, but it doesn't appear to be a "cross bottony" with the knobs. I'm not sure of the origin of the Wikipedia page's variant and thus whether I should attempt to change it. I'm including the version of the shield from the website for comparison.
https://www.episcopalchurch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/12/Shield.png
2610:48:100:1A9E:0:0:0:DC ( talk) 17:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
under 'separations' in 'recent history' - The Epixopal Diocese of Fr Worth lost the court case. https://www.episcopalnewsservice.org/2021/02/22/fort-worth-loses-fight-for-church-properties-as-us-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-dioceses-case/ 142.163.195.154 ( talk) 10:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
The word "the" is part of the official name, hence TEC. 2600:8800:5E82:FD00:1526:97D4:22E1:AD3B ( talk) 23:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
The word the at the start of a name is uncapitalized, regardless of the institution's own usage (researchers at the Ohio State University not researchers at The Ohio State University)
Instead of text in the info box going on multiple lines, the info will only use one line continuously and this makes the info box large and unwieldy and more difficult to read the main body text next to it that is now spread out over many lines. It is even weirder as if you go into visual editing the info box issue is fixed and it is normal and how it should be. This should be fixed as it will make the page easier to read and digest TheMightyShipp ( talk) 23:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.This article has "Articles with unsourced statements" tags from February 2013, April 2020, and now January 2024 that has not been addressed. The last three paragraphs of the "Ecumenical relations" section are unsourced. It also has an "Articles needing additional references" tag from April 2015, "Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases" from March 2017, and "Vague or ambiguous time" from March 2017. It is not unreasonable to consider B-class criteria (#2),
The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuraciesis relevant. Unsupported content, that has been tagged can be removed. However, there is the concern of original research.
Furthermore, it allows its members great freedom in the interpretation of its official teaching and is extremely tolerant of deviation from that teaching, and list of various and sundry things but nothing, that I found, to support the content.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Episcopal Church (United States) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Episcopal Church (United States). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Episcopal Church (United States) at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Good evening all.
A University of Kentucky IP [ [1]] has twice reverted [2] and [3] what is essentially the same addition of comments by the Presiding Bishop, on the grounds that they are "editorializing". This IP address has previously made constructive edits to the article ( [4] and [5]), so I do not think this is vandalism, however I do think it is a misunderstanding of the editorializing policy here [6]. The policy says that "Wikipedia should not take a view ..." - ie it is about the encyclopedia maintaining an impartial tone, not about deleting the views of the Presiding Bishop - who we do not expect to be impartial! But perhaps the IP considers that my introduction of the comments is not sufficiently encyclopaedic. I've done my one revert [7], so might some other editors pitch in please?
- is it appropriate to include the Presiding Bishop's comments? and - if so, how should they be introduced, and - if so, are they appropriate here, or elsewhere in the article?
I will let IP 128.163.236.100 know of the discussion here, and welcome their comments in particular.
With all respect,
Springnuts ( talk) 00:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Springnuts is once again trying to editorialize on this article. 128.163.239.30 ( talk) 13:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
References
Regarding this removal of LGBT information from the lede, @ Necropolis Hill: failed to state a valid reason for removal; just because LGBT is not mentioned for the Methodists does not mean we need to delete it here. It is quite WP:DUE to include something about how the USA ecclesial community fits into the worldwide Anglican Communion's controversy on acceptance and ordinations. Elizium23 ( talk) 00:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I am currently looking at the "Logos, Shields & Graphics" page of the official website for the Episcopal Church. They provide color codes for the specific colors that make up the shield, as well as pictures of the shield - but I find the mini crosslets in the upper-left corner of the shield are different from the ones on this Wikipedia page. I don't know technical heraldic terms, but it doesn't appear to be a "cross bottony" with the knobs. I'm not sure of the origin of the Wikipedia page's variant and thus whether I should attempt to change it. I'm including the version of the shield from the website for comparison.
https://www.episcopalchurch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/12/Shield.png
2610:48:100:1A9E:0:0:0:DC ( talk) 17:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
under 'separations' in 'recent history' - The Epixopal Diocese of Fr Worth lost the court case. https://www.episcopalnewsservice.org/2021/02/22/fort-worth-loses-fight-for-church-properties-as-us-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-dioceses-case/ 142.163.195.154 ( talk) 10:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
The word "the" is part of the official name, hence TEC. 2600:8800:5E82:FD00:1526:97D4:22E1:AD3B ( talk) 23:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
The word the at the start of a name is uncapitalized, regardless of the institution's own usage (researchers at the Ohio State University not researchers at The Ohio State University)
Instead of text in the info box going on multiple lines, the info will only use one line continuously and this makes the info box large and unwieldy and more difficult to read the main body text next to it that is now spread out over many lines. It is even weirder as if you go into visual editing the info box issue is fixed and it is normal and how it should be. This should be fixed as it will make the page easier to read and digest TheMightyShipp ( talk) 23:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.This article has "Articles with unsourced statements" tags from February 2013, April 2020, and now January 2024 that has not been addressed. The last three paragraphs of the "Ecumenical relations" section are unsourced. It also has an "Articles needing additional references" tag from April 2015, "Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases" from March 2017, and "Vague or ambiguous time" from March 2017. It is not unreasonable to consider B-class criteria (#2),
The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuraciesis relevant. Unsupported content, that has been tagged can be removed. However, there is the concern of original research.
Furthermore, it allows its members great freedom in the interpretation of its official teaching and is extremely tolerant of deviation from that teaching, and list of various and sundry things but nothing, that I found, to support the content.