"he went to Georgetown University" –– went usually means attended when speaking of a university. I would use a "began teaching at" or "joined the faculty of"
Third sentence in second paragraph of the lead would read easier as: "He instituted uncompromising discipline and curtailed intercollegiate athletics which stoked fierce opposition from students and their parents, resulting in his removal by the Jesuit superiors in 1908."
It does not appear that the person you wikilink to (Oliver H. Prince) is the same person as Oliver Prince Buel. Different birth and death years.
Ergo Sum18:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)reply
H4 heading "Conversion to Catholicism" is not necessary. Suggest merging with above and titling "Education and conversion to Catholicism". ---
C&
C (
Coffeeandcrumbs)
18:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Coffeeandcrumbs: Removed duplicate links for all except: 1)
Society of Jesus because the two times it occurs in the lede are as "Jesuit" and "Society of Jesus", and it's not obvious to those unfamiliar with the subject that those are the same, and 2)
Hull, Massachusetts, because it appears once in the text and once in a photo caption.
Ergo Sum00:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Comments from Epicgenius
@
Ergo Sum: At first sight, this looks like a really nice article. Somehow it's on my related changes list, and I don't know why I'm even monitoring this article, but I have seen drastic improvements since September. To me, it looks almost at FA quality.
That said, I have a few preliminary comments:
Later in life, he left the Catholic Church, married, and became an Episcopal minister. - Any way this can be incorporated into the previous sentence, or somewhere else? I see that this is mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the lead as well. But chronologically, this doesn't really flow, especially as you mentioned his early life in the following sentence.
Bearing the same name, his father was David Hillhouse Buel - is this necessary? His father bears the same name, so you don't need to mention the father's name again?
Buel's ancestry included a number of prominent and influential families, including the McDougalls, Hansons, Wilmers, and Hillhouses, - "including" is repeated here.
His earliest American ancestor, William Buel, arrived in 1630 from England - would you say "had arrived in 1630"?
I try to avoid overuse of the pluperfect by restricting it only to instances when it is necessary to distinguish two different past events.
Ergo Sum21:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)reply
after chapel services at which Yale required attendance of all students - "after the chapel services" ... I'm assuming this is the specific service that Yale is requiring students to attend?
He also considered abolishing the football team altogether, which Columbia University, New York University, and Stanford University had already done - "altogether, as ... had already done"
I'm not seeing anything too major, just a few more things:
"Allerton Heights, Massachusetts" is a duplicate link; the first instance of this link has the text "Point Allterton, Massachusetts". But they both lead to
Hull, Massachusetts, for some reason.
Neither Allerton Heights nor Point Allerton are official places, nor do they seem to be colloquialisms used anymore today. As far as I can tell from a bit of research, they're both areas of modern-day Hull, Massachusetts.
Ergo Sum03:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Their marriage produced no children - "They did not have children", perhaps? This sounds unwieldy as currently phrased.
Buel lived in poverty, so much so that at one point, he almost starved - I think this can be condensed, e.g. "Buel lived in so much poverty that..." However, it isn't necessary
He was survived by his wife, with whom he had no children - The second part of this sentence seems redundant, given the point I made a few bullets above.
Reference 6 should be limited access, since it's technically in the public domain but NYTimes.com limits the number of pre-1923 articles that non-subscribers can view.
Support - I generally think this article is well-written and clear, and can't find anything that really sticks out. If you have time, could you take a quick look at my
current FAC? I'd appreciate it very much, but it's OK if you can't.
epicgenius (
talk)
03:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)reply
With regards to SandyGeorgia's oppose, my opinion on this article is unchanged. I don't really see a Catholic POV here, but I grew up in a Buddhist family, so I may be completely ignorant. I do agree that you should look into the difference between ministers and priests, though.
epicgenius (
talk)
17:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
CommentsSupport from Ceoil
Overall I feel the article is too couched, and apologetic. To take an example: "his abrupt departure from Georgetown... was sent to Philadelphia"; ie fired you mean. His dismissal is stated clearly in the lead, but glossed in ambig language in the body...is it because of use of different sources?Ceoil (
talk)
02:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Ceoil: Couched? Certainly this was not my intention. I do admit to thinking a lot of writing on Wikipedia is much too inelegant; my writing style is (hopefully) not that. But, if it is ambiguous, that is only because the sources don't state explicitly things that one might reasonably infer. This is actually quite common of formal 19th century American writing. Can you point to any particular instances of sources saying one thing and my writing obscuring the point? If you can provide a few examples, I can try to tighten up the language, but I doubt I could rework my writing style generally.
Ergo Sum02:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Will take a closer look in next few days Ergo. I suppose what I forgot to say is that this is one of the more interesting of your articles that I've read, frankly its pacey, and I read it through quickly without taking notes. I need to put my finger on vague stated impressions, hold on....
Ceoil (
talk)
08:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Continuing the work of his predecessor, Buel reduced the prominence of athletics, de-professionalizing the football, baseball, and track programs - this seems unclear, or could be better stated, though I know exactly what it means
The last sentence of the lead could be clearer - how do the "however" and "spent his last years in New York City" connect.Personally, if I was to end up in NYC, that would be great.
File:Beacon_Road_(Allerton)_station_postcard.jpg: source link is dead
The link hasn't been archived, and there's almost certainly no equivalent page existing today, given that it was an online auction. I don't think this should impact the copyright verifiability.
Ergo Sum01:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
File:Georgetown_University,_Washington,_D.C.4a11813v.jpg: where is the given photographer from? The LOC source says Detroit Publishing Co.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
21:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Although he was born an Episcopalian, and died an Episcopalian (refusing last rites from a Catholic priest), and resigned from the Jesuit Society, the first sentence in the lead has him as a Catholic and Jesuit: "David Hillhouse Buel (July 19, 1862 – May 23, 1923) was an American Catholic priest and Jesuit who served as the President of Georgetown University." The New York Times refers to him as an ex-Jesuit.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
07:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"Two of Buel's brothers, Samuel and Clarence, went on to become Episcopal ministers.[8]" The source says they were ordained to the priesthood. Confusing this switch to minister.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
08:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
SUGGEST: "David Hillhouse Buel (July 19, 1862 – May 23, 1923) was an American Episcopal and ex-Catholic priest who served as the President of Georgetown University." Then ex-Jesuit can be worked in to the next sentence. Minister --> priest throughout the article. Those changes should address the POV.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
14:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
@
SandyGeorgia: I'm not very familiar with Episcopalianism, but I've always heard them referred to as Episcopal ministers, including self-referentially. As far as I can tell,
Episcopal minister is an accurate description here, even if not the most common. If the prevailing terminology is Episcopal priest, then I'll change it to that. As for the framing of the lede, all of his career achievements were directly connected with his being a Jesuit, and he was a Catholic priest for the substantial majority of his adult life, and an Episcopal priest for only a short while at the end of his life. I think the current phrasing of the lede is quite fair.
Ergo Sum16:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I think the reliable sources listed are more usable than a Wikipedia article, and strongly disagree with the lede phrasing; ex-Catholic and ex-Jesuit are the correct terms. I hope this can be resolved so I will not need to lodge a 1d oppose.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
16:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
@
SandyGeorgia: I've changed Episcopal minister to priest. I trust your advice that it's the appropriate terminology. (Just for reference, the Episcopal Church says
"minister" includes both priests and laymen). As for the lede, I have to reiterate my comments above. He was an Episcopal priest for literally one year and had nothing notable happen in connection with that. You're welcome to object if you like, but I must strenuously disagree.
Ergo Sum16:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes, the link you provide reinforces that priest is the term most often used (as do the Canons of the Episcopal Church, a source which I supplied above), and that minister is less specific, encompassing even laypeople. Nowhere in the recent New York Times source given above is the word minister used to describe an Episcopal priest. I am sorry to hear that we disagree on the lead. :( I will ping previous reviewers here for another look and, unfortunately, lodge an oppose. @
Ceoil,
Coffeeandcrumbs, and
Epicgenius: It isn't my "advice", though; my concern is based in sourced information, and the switch from priest to minister indicates a Catholic POV is present (only Catholics are "priests"); now I worry if there is other Catholic POV in the article.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
16:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
As I say above, I don't suggest that only Catholics are priests, but that my familiarity was with referring to Episcopalians as ministers. Considering that I'm not part of those circles, I've happily changed it. AGF would generally counsel against inferring an ulterior motive.
Ergo Sum16:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
My sincere apologies if you believe I ascribed an ulterior motive; I do not believe I did that. POV is rarely intentional, and more typically the author is not even aware that a subtle POV may influence their writing. I said the text may be POV, which is decidedly different than saying an editor intentionally inserted POV. The
New York Times article I cited above gives a very good overview of the relationship between the Episcopal and Catholic churches, and is worthy of a thorough read to aid in understanding the broader picture, even beyond the use of individual words.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
17:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
PS, should you remember (I am not demanding), there is no need to ping me. I follow FACs I comment on unless I indicate I am unwatching, and those blooming pingie thingies are just an irritation. Thanks,
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
16:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Just to be clear in framing this discussion: you object to what you believe is a POV in the first two sentences of the lede. You suggest there may be other POV throughout; I disagree and invite you to do a thorough review of the whole article.
Ergo Sum16:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I am happy to leave this to the editors who supported the FAC, and awaiting their opinions. There is little to be gained by having me comb through sources when, presumably, anyone supporting the article already did that. Does giving
due weight to the sources not indicate that it is quite significant, according to all sources, that he left the Catholic priesthood and the Jesuit Society? If so, why are we labeling him Catholic and Jesuit in the first line?
MOS:LEADNO.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
17:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Possible solution, for discussion:
David Hillhouse Buel (July 19, 1862 – May 23, 1923) was an American priest who served as the
President of Georgetown University. He was a
Catholic priest and
Jesuit for much of his life, but later quit the Jesuit order to marry, and subsequently left the Catholic Church to become an
Episcopal priest.
This edit resolves my final (unspoken) concern about POV, if the lead is addressed. While it was only one little word, I was concerned about the other, which is subtly POV, as it overlooks that the Episcopalian faith has elements of both protestantism and catholicism. While it sometimes describes itself as protestant, it is in communion with Rome. I am quite impressed that
Ceoil picked that up, especially after I hesitated to raise such a nitpicky issue. If we can get the first two sentences dealt with, I will strike my oppose (and see nothing else in the article that should hold up promotion). Regards,
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
19:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I don't know much about Episcopalian theology, but I do know that Catholic theology does not regard Episcopalians as in communion with the Catholic Church. In any event, your proposed lede works for me with
this one minor tweak to indicate that the two events did not happen at the same time.
Ergo Sum20:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
You are correct, and we editconflicted as I was attempting to rephrase there. So, instead, I will strike one sentence, and leave it to the New York Times article to explain the relationship. Now it is my lack of knowledge of the different branches of Catholicism showing! If you can finish up the lead with your corrected suggestion, then, I can strike my oppose and we're good here. I am bending here on one of my least favorite words in the 'pedia (subsequently-- see
User:SandyGeorgia) ... but it is probably OK considering the delay in time. Best regards,
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
20:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I've implemented the proposal on the article. An alternative that doesn't use "subsequently" might be: "...and near the end of his life, left the Catholic Church..."
Ergo Sum20:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm not fussed about that ... whatever you prefer. I have struck my oppose, but don't typically support without having more thoroughly read sources or checked for comprehensiveness. For the coords, I see nothing (small or big) to hold up promotion. Unwatching now, nice work!
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
20:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"he went to Georgetown University" –– went usually means attended when speaking of a university. I would use a "began teaching at" or "joined the faculty of"
Third sentence in second paragraph of the lead would read easier as: "He instituted uncompromising discipline and curtailed intercollegiate athletics which stoked fierce opposition from students and their parents, resulting in his removal by the Jesuit superiors in 1908."
It does not appear that the person you wikilink to (Oliver H. Prince) is the same person as Oliver Prince Buel. Different birth and death years.
Ergo Sum18:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)reply
H4 heading "Conversion to Catholicism" is not necessary. Suggest merging with above and titling "Education and conversion to Catholicism". ---
C&
C (
Coffeeandcrumbs)
18:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Coffeeandcrumbs: Removed duplicate links for all except: 1)
Society of Jesus because the two times it occurs in the lede are as "Jesuit" and "Society of Jesus", and it's not obvious to those unfamiliar with the subject that those are the same, and 2)
Hull, Massachusetts, because it appears once in the text and once in a photo caption.
Ergo Sum00:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Comments from Epicgenius
@
Ergo Sum: At first sight, this looks like a really nice article. Somehow it's on my related changes list, and I don't know why I'm even monitoring this article, but I have seen drastic improvements since September. To me, it looks almost at FA quality.
That said, I have a few preliminary comments:
Later in life, he left the Catholic Church, married, and became an Episcopal minister. - Any way this can be incorporated into the previous sentence, or somewhere else? I see that this is mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the lead as well. But chronologically, this doesn't really flow, especially as you mentioned his early life in the following sentence.
Bearing the same name, his father was David Hillhouse Buel - is this necessary? His father bears the same name, so you don't need to mention the father's name again?
Buel's ancestry included a number of prominent and influential families, including the McDougalls, Hansons, Wilmers, and Hillhouses, - "including" is repeated here.
His earliest American ancestor, William Buel, arrived in 1630 from England - would you say "had arrived in 1630"?
I try to avoid overuse of the pluperfect by restricting it only to instances when it is necessary to distinguish two different past events.
Ergo Sum21:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)reply
after chapel services at which Yale required attendance of all students - "after the chapel services" ... I'm assuming this is the specific service that Yale is requiring students to attend?
He also considered abolishing the football team altogether, which Columbia University, New York University, and Stanford University had already done - "altogether, as ... had already done"
I'm not seeing anything too major, just a few more things:
"Allerton Heights, Massachusetts" is a duplicate link; the first instance of this link has the text "Point Allterton, Massachusetts". But they both lead to
Hull, Massachusetts, for some reason.
Neither Allerton Heights nor Point Allerton are official places, nor do they seem to be colloquialisms used anymore today. As far as I can tell from a bit of research, they're both areas of modern-day Hull, Massachusetts.
Ergo Sum03:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Their marriage produced no children - "They did not have children", perhaps? This sounds unwieldy as currently phrased.
Buel lived in poverty, so much so that at one point, he almost starved - I think this can be condensed, e.g. "Buel lived in so much poverty that..." However, it isn't necessary
He was survived by his wife, with whom he had no children - The second part of this sentence seems redundant, given the point I made a few bullets above.
Reference 6 should be limited access, since it's technically in the public domain but NYTimes.com limits the number of pre-1923 articles that non-subscribers can view.
Support - I generally think this article is well-written and clear, and can't find anything that really sticks out. If you have time, could you take a quick look at my
current FAC? I'd appreciate it very much, but it's OK if you can't.
epicgenius (
talk)
03:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)reply
With regards to SandyGeorgia's oppose, my opinion on this article is unchanged. I don't really see a Catholic POV here, but I grew up in a Buddhist family, so I may be completely ignorant. I do agree that you should look into the difference between ministers and priests, though.
epicgenius (
talk)
17:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
CommentsSupport from Ceoil
Overall I feel the article is too couched, and apologetic. To take an example: "his abrupt departure from Georgetown... was sent to Philadelphia"; ie fired you mean. His dismissal is stated clearly in the lead, but glossed in ambig language in the body...is it because of use of different sources?Ceoil (
talk)
02:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Ceoil: Couched? Certainly this was not my intention. I do admit to thinking a lot of writing on Wikipedia is much too inelegant; my writing style is (hopefully) not that. But, if it is ambiguous, that is only because the sources don't state explicitly things that one might reasonably infer. This is actually quite common of formal 19th century American writing. Can you point to any particular instances of sources saying one thing and my writing obscuring the point? If you can provide a few examples, I can try to tighten up the language, but I doubt I could rework my writing style generally.
Ergo Sum02:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Will take a closer look in next few days Ergo. I suppose what I forgot to say is that this is one of the more interesting of your articles that I've read, frankly its pacey, and I read it through quickly without taking notes. I need to put my finger on vague stated impressions, hold on....
Ceoil (
talk)
08:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Continuing the work of his predecessor, Buel reduced the prominence of athletics, de-professionalizing the football, baseball, and track programs - this seems unclear, or could be better stated, though I know exactly what it means
The last sentence of the lead could be clearer - how do the "however" and "spent his last years in New York City" connect.Personally, if I was to end up in NYC, that would be great.
File:Beacon_Road_(Allerton)_station_postcard.jpg: source link is dead
The link hasn't been archived, and there's almost certainly no equivalent page existing today, given that it was an online auction. I don't think this should impact the copyright verifiability.
Ergo Sum01:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)reply
File:Georgetown_University,_Washington,_D.C.4a11813v.jpg: where is the given photographer from? The LOC source says Detroit Publishing Co.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
21:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Although he was born an Episcopalian, and died an Episcopalian (refusing last rites from a Catholic priest), and resigned from the Jesuit Society, the first sentence in the lead has him as a Catholic and Jesuit: "David Hillhouse Buel (July 19, 1862 – May 23, 1923) was an American Catholic priest and Jesuit who served as the President of Georgetown University." The New York Times refers to him as an ex-Jesuit.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
07:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
"Two of Buel's brothers, Samuel and Clarence, went on to become Episcopal ministers.[8]" The source says they were ordained to the priesthood. Confusing this switch to minister.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
08:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
SUGGEST: "David Hillhouse Buel (July 19, 1862 – May 23, 1923) was an American Episcopal and ex-Catholic priest who served as the President of Georgetown University." Then ex-Jesuit can be worked in to the next sentence. Minister --> priest throughout the article. Those changes should address the POV.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
14:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
@
SandyGeorgia: I'm not very familiar with Episcopalianism, but I've always heard them referred to as Episcopal ministers, including self-referentially. As far as I can tell,
Episcopal minister is an accurate description here, even if not the most common. If the prevailing terminology is Episcopal priest, then I'll change it to that. As for the framing of the lede, all of his career achievements were directly connected with his being a Jesuit, and he was a Catholic priest for the substantial majority of his adult life, and an Episcopal priest for only a short while at the end of his life. I think the current phrasing of the lede is quite fair.
Ergo Sum16:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I think the reliable sources listed are more usable than a Wikipedia article, and strongly disagree with the lede phrasing; ex-Catholic and ex-Jesuit are the correct terms. I hope this can be resolved so I will not need to lodge a 1d oppose.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
16:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
@
SandyGeorgia: I've changed Episcopal minister to priest. I trust your advice that it's the appropriate terminology. (Just for reference, the Episcopal Church says
"minister" includes both priests and laymen). As for the lede, I have to reiterate my comments above. He was an Episcopal priest for literally one year and had nothing notable happen in connection with that. You're welcome to object if you like, but I must strenuously disagree.
Ergo Sum16:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes, the link you provide reinforces that priest is the term most often used (as do the Canons of the Episcopal Church, a source which I supplied above), and that minister is less specific, encompassing even laypeople. Nowhere in the recent New York Times source given above is the word minister used to describe an Episcopal priest. I am sorry to hear that we disagree on the lead. :( I will ping previous reviewers here for another look and, unfortunately, lodge an oppose. @
Ceoil,
Coffeeandcrumbs, and
Epicgenius: It isn't my "advice", though; my concern is based in sourced information, and the switch from priest to minister indicates a Catholic POV is present (only Catholics are "priests"); now I worry if there is other Catholic POV in the article.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
16:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
As I say above, I don't suggest that only Catholics are priests, but that my familiarity was with referring to Episcopalians as ministers. Considering that I'm not part of those circles, I've happily changed it. AGF would generally counsel against inferring an ulterior motive.
Ergo Sum16:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
My sincere apologies if you believe I ascribed an ulterior motive; I do not believe I did that. POV is rarely intentional, and more typically the author is not even aware that a subtle POV may influence their writing. I said the text may be POV, which is decidedly different than saying an editor intentionally inserted POV. The
New York Times article I cited above gives a very good overview of the relationship between the Episcopal and Catholic churches, and is worthy of a thorough read to aid in understanding the broader picture, even beyond the use of individual words.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
17:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
PS, should you remember (I am not demanding), there is no need to ping me. I follow FACs I comment on unless I indicate I am unwatching, and those blooming pingie thingies are just an irritation. Thanks,
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
16:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Just to be clear in framing this discussion: you object to what you believe is a POV in the first two sentences of the lede. You suggest there may be other POV throughout; I disagree and invite you to do a thorough review of the whole article.
Ergo Sum16:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I am happy to leave this to the editors who supported the FAC, and awaiting their opinions. There is little to be gained by having me comb through sources when, presumably, anyone supporting the article already did that. Does giving
due weight to the sources not indicate that it is quite significant, according to all sources, that he left the Catholic priesthood and the Jesuit Society? If so, why are we labeling him Catholic and Jesuit in the first line?
MOS:LEADNO.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
17:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Possible solution, for discussion:
David Hillhouse Buel (July 19, 1862 – May 23, 1923) was an American priest who served as the
President of Georgetown University. He was a
Catholic priest and
Jesuit for much of his life, but later quit the Jesuit order to marry, and subsequently left the Catholic Church to become an
Episcopal priest.
This edit resolves my final (unspoken) concern about POV, if the lead is addressed. While it was only one little word, I was concerned about the other, which is subtly POV, as it overlooks that the Episcopalian faith has elements of both protestantism and catholicism. While it sometimes describes itself as protestant, it is in communion with Rome. I am quite impressed that
Ceoil picked that up, especially after I hesitated to raise such a nitpicky issue. If we can get the first two sentences dealt with, I will strike my oppose (and see nothing else in the article that should hold up promotion). Regards,
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
19:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I don't know much about Episcopalian theology, but I do know that Catholic theology does not regard Episcopalians as in communion with the Catholic Church. In any event, your proposed lede works for me with
this one minor tweak to indicate that the two events did not happen at the same time.
Ergo Sum20:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
You are correct, and we editconflicted as I was attempting to rephrase there. So, instead, I will strike one sentence, and leave it to the New York Times article to explain the relationship. Now it is my lack of knowledge of the different branches of Catholicism showing! If you can finish up the lead with your corrected suggestion, then, I can strike my oppose and we're good here. I am bending here on one of my least favorite words in the 'pedia (subsequently-- see
User:SandyGeorgia) ... but it is probably OK considering the delay in time. Best regards,
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
20:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I've implemented the proposal on the article. An alternative that doesn't use "subsequently" might be: "...and near the end of his life, left the Catholic Church..."
Ergo Sum20:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm not fussed about that ... whatever you prefer. I have struck my oppose, but don't typically support without having more thoroughly read sources or checked for comprehensiveness. For the coords, I see nothing (small or big) to hold up promotion. Unwatching now, nice work!
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
20:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply