This article was nominated for deletion on 15 December 2022. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Open Episcopal Church 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 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please can you give time for the article to be brought into compliant status with your guidelines.( Helen194848 ( talk) 13:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC))
Thank you. Mistakenly uploaded a blank page. Have corrected this now hopefully.( Helen194848 ( talk) 14:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC))
I have amended the article as instructed I think...I hope...sorry, am new to this..there are so many other references that could be included to satisfy notability, I'm not sure how many should be placed there. ( Helen194848 ( talk) 16:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC))
That's encouraging. Spent a lot of time on it. Thanks for your advice and help. ( Helen194848 ( talk) 16:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC))
There seems to be a lot more cited info on the church at User:Helen194848. The wiki article as it exists now seems to have undergone POV changes since the original article created by that editor: [1]. -- Softlavender ( talk) 05:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Some of the recent edits by Integrity4488hope are really poorly sourced. I am not editing as I do not want to be engaged in an edit war and violate Wikipedia rules, nor do I want dialogue with whoever is behind this user name as they do not understand how to present information properly or how to use sources. So this is to inform any of the policing editors. Gorilla1978 ( talk) 10:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
After this comment I am done responding to Integrity4488hope's statements. This editor clearly does not understand the difference between fact and opinion in very basic theory, but mlre importantly the mitigating and often contiguous continuum that exists between these two concepts. It is impossible to present any facts using language, without some subjectivity. To be purely objective one would only have to present statistics. The difference between my additions and those of this editor are that mine are LESS subjective than theirs. The objection to Blake's social media posts is provable through the audit trail of emails and social media, as is the claim that people left the church because of his response. This can be argued easily. Of course there are no other sources than those emails, social media posts and comment threads themselves, but it is difficult to link to them here and also in terms of emails presents a confidentiality issue. With clearance on this those emails could be presented. I will not respond to Integrity4488hope any further and will only respond to someone who understands the basic process of presenting arguments in objective way, and indeed the way language works itself. Good day. Gorilla1978 ( talk) 21:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
There are not neutral sources for the events I cite, however much of what Integrity4488hope has written is also inadequately sourced or lacking neutrwl sources. This is because the OEC is not an established organisation with an accountable leadership. I think the solution would be to remove this article entirely. It is of little public importance for the reasons Softlavender states above, and has no real or significant notability. Gorilla1978 ( talk) 13:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Softlavender, do we have any sourcing for the Stuart section? TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I would like to ask TonyBallioni to review a new version of the article I have created here: Talk:Open Episcopal Church/subpage. I have trimmed the lengthy uncited sections, but retained a coherent narrative and timeline. My problem with the version you last approved of [2] is that dates are missing, the timeline is obscure and confusing, and the narrative is choppy and makes little coherent sense. The problem with the live article as it stands at this moment [3], with the material I added from the article-creator's original draft (mostly uncited OR but convincingly authentic), is that it is largely uncited, and most of the clerical infighting is over-lengthy and not hugely relevant (not to mention uncited). Since no one seems to currently want to do Google research to remedy the lack of verifiability, I have trimmed most of the fat and cut out the separate sections on the Archbishops entirely, while retaining a coherent narrative and an adequate number of dates. What do you think? Softlavender ( talk) 07:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
There seems more to this than meets the eye:
https://annaraccoon.com/2016/08/01/no-laughing-matter/
I see there are other sources. We can’t use the Daily Mail, apparently, but what about The Times? 193.154.173.233 ( talk) 19:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 15 December 2022. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Open Episcopal Church 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 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please can you give time for the article to be brought into compliant status with your guidelines.( Helen194848 ( talk) 13:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC))
Thank you. Mistakenly uploaded a blank page. Have corrected this now hopefully.( Helen194848 ( talk) 14:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC))
I have amended the article as instructed I think...I hope...sorry, am new to this..there are so many other references that could be included to satisfy notability, I'm not sure how many should be placed there. ( Helen194848 ( talk) 16:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC))
That's encouraging. Spent a lot of time on it. Thanks for your advice and help. ( Helen194848 ( talk) 16:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC))
There seems to be a lot more cited info on the church at User:Helen194848. The wiki article as it exists now seems to have undergone POV changes since the original article created by that editor: [1]. -- Softlavender ( talk) 05:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Some of the recent edits by Integrity4488hope are really poorly sourced. I am not editing as I do not want to be engaged in an edit war and violate Wikipedia rules, nor do I want dialogue with whoever is behind this user name as they do not understand how to present information properly or how to use sources. So this is to inform any of the policing editors. Gorilla1978 ( talk) 10:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
After this comment I am done responding to Integrity4488hope's statements. This editor clearly does not understand the difference between fact and opinion in very basic theory, but mlre importantly the mitigating and often contiguous continuum that exists between these two concepts. It is impossible to present any facts using language, without some subjectivity. To be purely objective one would only have to present statistics. The difference between my additions and those of this editor are that mine are LESS subjective than theirs. The objection to Blake's social media posts is provable through the audit trail of emails and social media, as is the claim that people left the church because of his response. This can be argued easily. Of course there are no other sources than those emails, social media posts and comment threads themselves, but it is difficult to link to them here and also in terms of emails presents a confidentiality issue. With clearance on this those emails could be presented. I will not respond to Integrity4488hope any further and will only respond to someone who understands the basic process of presenting arguments in objective way, and indeed the way language works itself. Good day. Gorilla1978 ( talk) 21:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
There are not neutral sources for the events I cite, however much of what Integrity4488hope has written is also inadequately sourced or lacking neutrwl sources. This is because the OEC is not an established organisation with an accountable leadership. I think the solution would be to remove this article entirely. It is of little public importance for the reasons Softlavender states above, and has no real or significant notability. Gorilla1978 ( talk) 13:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Softlavender, do we have any sourcing for the Stuart section? TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I would like to ask TonyBallioni to review a new version of the article I have created here: Talk:Open Episcopal Church/subpage. I have trimmed the lengthy uncited sections, but retained a coherent narrative and timeline. My problem with the version you last approved of [2] is that dates are missing, the timeline is obscure and confusing, and the narrative is choppy and makes little coherent sense. The problem with the live article as it stands at this moment [3], with the material I added from the article-creator's original draft (mostly uncited OR but convincingly authentic), is that it is largely uncited, and most of the clerical infighting is over-lengthy and not hugely relevant (not to mention uncited). Since no one seems to currently want to do Google research to remedy the lack of verifiability, I have trimmed most of the fat and cut out the separate sections on the Archbishops entirely, while retaining a coherent narrative and an adequate number of dates. What do you think? Softlavender ( talk) 07:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
There seems more to this than meets the eye:
https://annaraccoon.com/2016/08/01/no-laughing-matter/
I see there are other sources. We can’t use the Daily Mail, apparently, but what about The Times? 193.154.173.233 ( talk) 19:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)