Talk:James Pike

Cleanup

Jumps around - for example "following his son's suicide" without previous reference to the event. One of several examples of poor prose. I don't know enough about the topic to do it myself. Interesting article though. Wikipeterproject 04:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Started some work

Edited line stating that Pike marched with King (he met with King before the march) and cleaned up the issues surrounding his son's suicide. I'll continue to fill in the bibliography and add citations.

--RFlynn1000 12:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

More work

Added standard infobox for Bishop, expanded early life, include complete (I think) bibliography of books published.

--RFlynn1000 14:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this NPOV?

I wonder if the conclusion drawn at the end of this sentence is NPOV (italics mine):

"In his personal life, Pike was a chain-smoker, an alcoholic, craved attention, and was likely addicted in some way to romance and relationships."

I didn't write this phrase and while it seems a correct conclusion based on the research I've done, it seems a little biased and judgmental. Any thoughts?

--RFlynn1000 19:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a psychological opinion rendered by a church source, so it's not exactly an authoritative source, but at the same time, it draws the reader in to the article. If a corroborating source can be found, leave it in, otherwise remove it. —Viriditas | Talk 12:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The source given supports the first parts of the sentence, but not the final clause that RFlynn1000 particularly draws attention too, so far as I can see. David Underdown 15:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence, which was "He craved attention and was likely addicted in some way to romance and relationships." It's speculative, the source from which it is drawn is not reliable, and, to be frank, the sentence itself is stupid and I can't imagine what it means. ~twistedapples

First-order deacon

I'm reasonably well-versed in Anglican terminology, but I'm not sure what is intended to be meant by the description of someone as a "first-order" deacon. I think this needs to be explained more fully. David Underdown 13:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback David!! I've expanded the section on Pike's ordination of the first woman as "first-order" deacon, explaining (I think) that it reflect the first stage in the ordination process as a priest and that it is now called "transitional deacon.

--RFlynn1000 20:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Everything" citation for Bishop Pike

Here's an online encyclopedia entry on Bishop Pike. Facts cited should be checked for their source, but as the article contains many details that may be worth including in this Wikipedia article, I'll give the link: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1311819

Not sure on the POV on this "Everything" article

Some of the basics facts seem inline with what I've read, but with uncited lines like "He plundered diocesan funds to support his mistress", I'd feel uneasy about using much from it. Any other opinions?

RFlynn1000 19:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"For this" vague

In the article's sentence He was ultimately censured by his brother bishops in 1966 for this and resigned his position shortly thereafter, the words "for this" seem vague. If it references the previous paragraph, was he censured for meeting with Dr. King or for his views? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.213.86 (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

In the song "Andy Fell" by Human Sexual Response, Pike is referenced in a story about the suicide of a student. The line stated "Someone heard him mumbling about Bishop Pike. He fell out of the window in the middle of the night."

Is this notable? Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

References

Need more references. Please help out. Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Involvement in Bergrud's death

I added a bit about this here, but my edit was reverted by User:Viriditas, so I am discussing it here per WP:BRD. It strikes me that this is a significant event in Pike's life, and should be included (in some form) in the article. I quotes from a Touchstone Magazine article, which was reviewing David M. Robertson's A Passionate Pilgrim: A Biography of Bishop James A. Pike. It struck me that the Touchstone review provided a convenient summary, but of course we could quote Robertson directly (the incident covers several pages of the biography). Now, is there any reason to suppose Robertson is not a reliable source? Has this version of events ever been seriously disputed? StAnselm (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Neither source says anything about the involvement in any death at all, does it? So why did you make that claim? You added a link to a personal memoir by Lauren Winner about coming back to Jesus after she went through a dark night of the soul when her mother died and she went through a divorce. Is that relevant? Why? Finally, you added a link to a book review that claims he "dragged her comatose body down the hall to her own apartment, lied to the police, and destroyed evidence". That's quite a claim. Yes, I think you should quote Robertson directly, in context, here on this talk page. Please don't ask me to prove a negative. The question isn't whether it has been disputed, the question is whether it has been proved to have actually occurred. Do you have a link to Robertson's text online? What does Robertson actually say? Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The Robertson book is not on Google, but it is on Amazon. It says "Pike dragged the now-comatose Bergrud from their shared apartment, number 307, down the hall of the building, to the apartment that was nominally her residence" (p. 178). It goes on to say "by the bishop's private, later account, he also discovered two suicide notes in their shared apartment, one addressed to him, and the other two her three step-children... The note to the stepchildren ended with some lines about him, the specifics of which Pike never provided. He tore off the bottom half of this note containing these sentences, apparently to destroy it later, and placed the top half by the pill bottle" (p. 179). "Meanwhile, the police had become suspicious. Pike had stated to them that Bergrud had telephoned him from her apartment shortly before lapsing into unconsciousness" (p. 179). There's a whole lot more, of course, and it is quite clear that the Touchstone article provides a faithful summary. StAnselm (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, that is not clear at all. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, which part would be going against or beyond what Robertson says? StAnselm (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, you haven't provided anything that corroborated it. I'm still in the process of reading Robertson, thanks. How about providing other book reviews or reliable sources about Robertson that mention this as a significant aspect of his life. In other words, do all biographical sources discuss it? Viriditas (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

So, having finished reading the actual source, it is very clear now that you are not only cherry picking, but you are deliberately giving undue weight to certain parts of this story. I'm very sorry to see that, but it looks like my suspicions were correct. The entire incident is prefaced by a passage mentioning that Bergrud had almost killed herself before several times (by drug overdose and in a fire) and is followed by a statement that says the police accepted the reports with the matter being dropped. Funny how you left all of that out. To make matters worse, Robertson is very clear about the fact that everything else is pure speculation. If this is the best you can do, then I'm afraid we have a very serious problem with your edits. Your initial statement of fact, that Pike had "dragged her comatose body down the hall to her own apartment, lied to the police, and destroyed evidence" is not only pure speculation, it quite possibly never happened. Not only that, you purposefully chose a partisan book review as a secondary source to make it seem like it was a factual statement without any question. The only problem is that Robertson makes it exceptionally clear that it is only speculation, on his part, and he is very careful to say that it was one of three possibilities. With that said and with the police closing the investigation, you have absolutely nothing but pure unbridled speculation that is of no lasting significance and has no business being anywhere near this article. Viriditas (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

In terms of asking you to prove the negative, I had thought from your comments that you were familiar with the incident/accusation, and that it had been discredited. Anyway, I would be happy to say, "According to biographer David M. Robertson..." but we could still quote the Touchstone article. StAnselm (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we are at that point yet. This is not resolved. Viriditas (talk)

By the way, the above version of events is corroborated by Jack Cashill in his What's the Matter with California?: Cultural Rumbles from the Golden State and Why the Rest of Us Should Be Shaking, page 130. Cashill notes "the police saw through Pike's scheming in a San Francisco minute". This does seem to be a matter of the public record, and excluding it from the article would present serious NPOV concerns. StAnselm (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not yet convinced by your use of sources, and it's bordering on cherry picking at the moment. I would like a minute or two to actually read the sources themselves. I'm not exactly sure why you are in hurry to denigrate a dead man, but it seems out of proportion to what the sources actually say. I'm more concerned about the NPOV concern of undue weight at this point. I would suggest that you slow down a bit and allow this discussion to mature. I've asked for additional sources above. Viriditas (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

See above. I'm not convinced by the significance of this pure speculation. We deal with facts, not unproved rumors. Viriditas (talk) 05:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:James Pike/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Work to be done I've requested images for use in the article from agencies where Pike worked - still waiting to hear. I know that images with Pike and MLK are around, and many images of Pike have been taken - In his day he clearly enjoyed media exposure. I'm sure that an image available for use here will turn up. Anyone else have comments on other areas that could improve this article? --RFlynn1000 13:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Added great Creative Commons image - any other ideas for improvement? --RFlynn1000 18:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)p

Last edited at 18:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 19:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on James Pike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311165039/http://www.gracecathedral.org/enrichment/crypt/cry_20011114.shtml to http://www.gracecathedral.org/enrichment/crypt/cry_20011114.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070401191310/http://www.philipkdick.com/aa_g-fame-bishop.html to http://www.philipkdick.com/aa_g-fame-bishop.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Vietnam War

Wasn't he also a critic of America's involvement in the Vietnam War? I didn't see that noted in the article....but I myself cannot think of a good RS for it. Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rja13ww33: Yes he was. He was also one of the most visible Christian leaders to incorporate the peace symbol into his clergical attire, wearing the peace symbol next to his cross to show his opposition to the Vietnam War. This is discussed in David M. Robertson's A Passionate Pilgrim: A Biography of Bishop James A. Pike (2007), pp. 195-198. There's quite a bit of material there. To briefly summarize, Pike previously supported the Vietnam War up until 1967, at which point he reversed himself, joining 250 clergy and other celebrities to help conscientious objectors. He later joined Harvard theologian Harvey Cox, bishop of the California diocese Rev. Kilmer Myers, and Cornell Jesuit chaplain Rev. Daniel Berrigan in this endeavor. According to Robertson, Pike's opposition to the war was rooted in studies of early Christianity (which had tremendous influence on the work of writer Philip K. Dick) and his presence at the 1967 Pacem in Terris conference, whose guest speakers vocally opposed the war. The 300 participants of the conference were said "to have agreed that the war in Vietnam was at best a mistake"; conference supervisor Robert Hutchins included Pike's name on this list. On April 8, 1968, a tumultuous and chaotic year in US history, Pike delivered a sermon synthesizing these beliefs titled "The God of Law and Order Is Dead" at Central Presbyterian Church on Park Avenue. In that sermon, Pike wrote, "Jesus was a revolutionary like the Vietcong and a freedom fighter like Martin Luther King Jr." Robertson notes that Pike "made unambiguously clear his belief in a Christology of revolutionary protest against those who have 'made an ideal out of law and order,' and who were willing to acquiesce to the Vietnam War." That's a summary of at least three pages, so you may want to read the material to get a better sense of it. Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I may add something of this to the article. Being a Episcopalian old enough to have (vague) recollections of this....I thought it was a significant omission. Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

It is a significant omission, but the biography didn't exist when I created the page in 2005. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Interesting primary source

I just ran across an interesting primary source, for anyone who's interested: an interview Pike gave in 1967 to an "underground paper" in Seattle: File:Helix, v.2, no.2, Sep. 29, 1967 - DPLA - e0803ae32faefe1a808926cc68c720e7 (page 8).jpg. It looks like at least something close to a verbatim transcript. - Jmabel | Talk 20:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)