Talk:Katharine Jefferts Schori/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments

Comments to be added to Women as theological figures (and a better redirect from katharine Schori. Jackiespeel 21:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Raised a Roman Catholic?

This article says she was raised RC, something that definitely warrants inclusion in the biography. ekrub-ntyh ^talk 23:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have noted this in my edit. I've found no reports as to when she was received into the Episcopal Church, however. Given the influx of "Romans" into the Episcopal Church (and the simultaneous "Crossing the Tiber" into the Roman Church by Episcopalians and Anglicans) this seems fitting. Ceremony1968 00:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

She said in an interview that her parents left the RC church for ECUSA when she was 8 or 9, so she would have been confirmed in the Episcopal church. I'm looking for a reference to that effect which can be cited.--Wine Guy 00:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Done.--Wine Guy 01:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation of name

Does anyone know how Jefferts Schori pronounces her last name? Is it SHORE-EE or SCORE-EE? — Gareth Hughes 18:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is SHOR-ee, that pronunciation was used during yesterday's CNN live interview with the bishop. Inteviewer Kyra Phillips used SCOR-ee once, and then quickly corrected herself.-Wine Guy 18:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you: it's nice to know who we're talking about. — Gareth Hughes 18:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure she was truly Schori for her mistake. Carolynparrishfan 04:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Consecrators and Succession

J. Neil Alexander was not one of the bishops who consecrated Katharine Jefferts Schori. The chief consecrator for Jefferts Schori was The Rt. Rev. Jerry Alban Lamb, Episcopal Bishop of Northern California. A reference for this can be found in http://www.churchpublishing.org/general_convention/pdf_gc_2003_journal/hendersonville2001.pdf

In fact, Neil Alexander was only ordained and consecrated Bishop of Atlanta on July 7, 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Neil_Alexander). This was more than 3 months after the ordination and consecration of Jefferts Schori to be Bishop of Nevada.

Thanks for the Hendersonville reference. I thought something didn't seem right, but did not have a good reference to hand. I'll correct it presently.-Wine Guy 22:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. P.S. On the subject of the consecrators, I created the article for Bishop Irish last night. It's the first article I've started from scratch, so any feedback from more senior and experienced editors would be most welcome. I'll get started on the other two.--Wine Guy 22:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction on consecrators. The Morehouse publication of the Church Annual had Alexander down, and it struck me as odd due to the sequence of ordinations, but having had no further information to counter, I had put it down. Thanks for the correction.CJJDay 19:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, but why on earth does aynone care that she is the 963rd bishop, let alone want to mark it with N.B. in bold letters? (I'm from the UK, and have generally considered obsession with 'who consecrated who' as a mark of schismatics and episcopi vagantes, not fully paid-up Anglican provinces.) Myopic Bookworm 13:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the articles on the historic episcopate and Apostolic Succession will help to answer your question. As a fully paid-up episcopalian, I would tend to disagree with your comments about the "obsession with 'who consecrated who'". The note very simply, in your own words, "present(s) factual information in a(n)... unbiased way." As for the N.B., it is a style that has been adopted on several bishops' pages.--Wine Guy 20:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

They don't really help much, since I'm quite familiar with the doctrinal issue. I think it may be an establishment thing: episcopal succession in England is so ingrained that until recently no one would ever have bothered to question the consecration of any Church of England bishop, whereas the US is full of small Anglican-type churches whose origins are not entirely obvious, and which are not all in communion with each other or Canterbury. This situation in the UK may change, though: opponents of women's ordination do worry about whether their succession could be compromised, and no doubt this will become more of an issue (and possibly a formal schism) if the C of E proceeds to consecrate women bishops. As for N.B., even if it's used elsewhere then my question still stands: does this (to me) pointed use of emphasis not compromise the plain, neutral presentation of the facts? Myopic Bookworm 10:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

THe point of the N.B. was not to offer point of view, rather I made it bold arbitrarilly. Feel free to turn it to a non-bolded NB. For crying out loud, it's not that big of a deal. THUS the "NB" rather than bolding the whole fact. Being a NB meant hey "oh by the way". If there is a better term than NB to show this, than I'm sure you can change all the bishops pages to a less offensive "pointed use of emphasis" that is a more neutral presentation of the facts.

It probably isn't *so* important whether she is the 963d or 959th bishop of ECUSA. Some people just happen to like such details. Bishop Pierre Whalon told me while visiting my parish that Franklin Turner (Suffragan of Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania, who confirmed me) had a vanity license plate with BP and then his number. Whalon knew his number too, but did not think it necessary to put it on his license plate (I'm not sure if he has a car registered in Paris.). I think the N.B. being there and being in bold is probably not necessary, but I think it is useful to mention it where known.--Bhuck 14:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Bookworm, you make several good points. When I think back to my time in England, I can't think of one instance of discussion on 'who consecrated who', yet here in the U.S. I recall many such discussions going back to my childhood. It is food for thought, and you are right about this likely becoming an issue in the C of E. On the subject of the N.B., would it make more sense for the line to read: Bishop N. is the XXXth bishop consecrated... ?--Wine Guy 23:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you've made the change, I concur. I'll use that style for new bishop articles, and I'll change the others as I come accross them (if you haven't already). PAX. --Wine Guy 19:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

WAIT Last I checked if we discuss something on this page, we need to finish the discussion before acting. The NB should not have been changed until the discussion was finished. It should be reverted back to the way it was. CJJDay 21:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I would have thought that after four days of silence on this relatively minor topic, that there was no more discussion to finish. But, let's beat this dead horse some more. The definition of N.B. or Nota Bene from The American Heritage Dictionary is:

abbr. NB Used to direct attention to something particularly important. ETYMOLOGY-Latin nota bene, note well-nota, singular imperative of notare, to note + bene, well.

Furthermore, the definition of the imperative verb form-Of, relating to, or constituting the mood that expresses a command.

So, in other words, whether in bold text or not N.B. says to the reader "You must take note of this!!", not "oh by the way" as you suggest was your intent. Therefore, I propose (again) that this line be changed to: "Bishop Jefferts Schori was the 963rd bishop consecrated in the Episcopal Church" without the unneccessary N.B.--Wine Guy 05:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, there have been four editors involved in this discussion; Myopic Bookworm, Bhuck, CJJDay, and myself. If I may, please allow me to summarize the views stated thus far by the participants of this thread:

• Myopic Bookworm-Views are quite clear, as he has already made the proposed change once.
• Bhuck-"I think the N.B. being there and being in bold is probably not necessary"
• CJJDay-"If there is a better term than NB to show this, than I'm sure you can change all the bishops pages to a less offensive "pointed use of emphasis" that is a more neutral presentation of the facts." (from an unsigned post made by CJJDay 14:11, 24 June 2006)
• Wine Guy-Need I say more?

How much more discussion and consensus do we need?--Wine Guy 06:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The use of N.B. (especially in bold type) is used to mark something really important that the reader has to take note of. Quite clearly, the content of this note is not noteworthy — "If you notice this notice, you'll notice this notce is not worth taking notice of". — Gareth Hughes 10:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I am incredulous that anyone considers this an issue requiring an edit war. Myopic Bookworm 13:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

However, starting from Uncle Sam, you can see that the order of consecration of bishops in the former colony is well noted. — Gareth Hughes 13:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

stance on homosexuality

It's my understanding that she recently said, in an interview, that she does not believe homosexuality is a sin. Being as this is a major point of controversy in most sects of Christianity, including the Anglican/Episcopelian church, I think this warrants inclusion. Unfortunately, I cannot find the interview where she talks about this. Can someone find this? - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 23:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Status as stub article

Is this article really still a stub? She is a major figure, but still, there are several paragraphs here. ekrub-ntyh ^talk 03:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the stub designation.--Bhuck 14:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right, although IMHO there is more to be added, such as what she did while bishop of Nevada, her views on current issues, etc. Depending on what happens re: ECUSA v. Anglican Communion, she may turn out to be an even more historic figure than she is already. Hopefully this article will become more comprehensive.--Wine Guy 23:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

On a similar note, since the convention is now over, is this still a current event?--Wine Guy 23:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Controversy?

Perhaps there ought to be a section about the controversy of her election, and, conversely, some of the strong support she has faced. Perhaps this should mention briefly the objection some have over the ordination of women as bishops (and esp. as a primate), including the dioceses that have taken action for alternative oversight (not just Fort Worth). Also, I've read a bit about a sermon she preached soon after her election in which she referred to "Mother Jesus," which hasn't pleased some -- I can hunt down the source of that. On the flip side, supporters have been numerous, and many have been wearing buttons to commemorate the election -- "It's a girl!" Since she may likely become the focus of much of the discussion between the ECUSA and the Anglican Communion at large (or at least a big part of it), and very well may be the a big part of whether the ECUSA stays in its present state, I think more should be added about this. Thoughts? --Meeples 06:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Add to "Controversy" the padded resumé controversy - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Jefferts+Schori+resume+Dean&btnG=Search -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.50.164 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 22 July 2007

The "padded resume" needs a more legit source then an anti-Schori website. I removed it until somebody can source it properly. The other "controversy" was a quote from an article that made no allegation that her comments were controversial. I removed it as it is WP:OR to assert her words were "controversial". -- SECisek 18:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully on the birth rate thing not belonging on this page. As for the padded resumé, the important sourcing here is the original document from the Nominating Committee of the Episcopal Church itself, found on the site of the Episcopal Church - http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/PB.Booklet.EnglishFinal.pdf . This is the most crucial material and evidence. As for the rest -It was David Virtue's virtueonline that "broke" the story written by Terry Ward - so here it is the "primary source," also referred to by other articles, since it the breaking story and the article covering the investigation itself. It is not controvesial, since I have looked, and haven't seen it contested, and it is very much verifyable. The article goes at length to verify its claims with appropriate documentation, as an investigation should. Leaving out a reference of Ward's work would also deprive Ms. Schori her opportunity for a rebuttal, since her discussion here with Ward is the only place she refers to it. The information here could also be sourced from one of the delegates to the 2006 convention, who seems to regret that delegates didn't check their facts first - http://generalconvention2006.blogspot.com/2006/08/we-did-remember-to-check-her.html - but this article points to an article on Worldnetdaily, which then goes back to Terry Ward's story on VirtueOnline. Normally I would want to cite a source that doesn't engage in the rather heated rhetoric common to Virtue's more editorial pieces, but here, he got the story. VirtueOnline is frequently critical of Schori, but isn't merely an "anti-Schori" site, and is cited by religion publishers like the Christian Post. His site has also been listed on the Wikipedia page for the General Convention as an external source, for more than a year now. But I agree - if I had the choice between citing a different site and this, I would have done so - but DV "got" this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmc41 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

...And they seem to be among the only sources to have "got" this one. A quick google search showed that this "controversy" is discussed in blogs, opinion pages, and privately owned-non-NPOV editorial sources, but the "controversy" has not been mentioned in any respected news source (BBC, AP, New York Times, etc.) What is more the chain of reporting that does exist is, by your own admission, rather incestious. All reporting sources trace back to the editorial by Terry Ward.

This isn't exactly breaking news anymore, and yet it does not seem to have been picked up by the mainstream media. It is not a noteworthy controversy if it is not widely held to be controversial. The first citation shows what she stated it on her resume, but unless an accepted new source "gets" that it is controversial, the section should be removed.

Bios of living people are governed under strict rules here at Wikipedia, so I am going to remove the material again. Please do not construe this as the first salvo in an edit war. Let us continue the discussion here. Did this get picked up by ANY major news source? If it did, return the text and cite it. If it is a true controversy, there WILL be many better citaions than Virtue Online.

The bishop IS an extremely controversial figure. One need not reach to find easily cited examples of controversy worthy of inclusion. I do not feel this is an example worth of note, however. Best wishes and let us continue this discussion -- SECisek 16:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

She is indeed incredibly controversial, and this article is anything but neutral in its description of her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RevRL (talk • contribs) 00:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a wiki: feel free to change it. The Wednesday Island (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, this isn't controversial I guess; there is a section on the PB's election, for which this information is relevant; I'm sure that many devout Episcopalians find this quite normal, but it is certainly valid information concerning the legitimacy of an election, as an electoral process was followed based largely on this information provided for the delegates by the National Church. I've used NPOV language describing it, and linked to her reasons for the choice of language. If someone prefers a different source for a rebuttal with a quote from her, feel free also to link, but I couldn't find any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.87.15 (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The editorial stance in this section is weird. The article is full of all sorts of completely unsubstantiated and unreferenced claims about what Schori has said. But her well-substantiated written statements are removed because ... because ... they were not reported by the New York Times ?? What happened to Wiki's goal of no point of view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdavenport (talk • contribs) 02:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Quotation from Church of England Newspaper article?

The following ungrammatical paragraph was recently added to the article, and then quickly removed.

Despite promises to work with conservatives and evangelicals within ECUSA, Jefferts Schori has made a number of unfortunate comments showing her distaste for those on the traditional side of the Church. Her attitude to those that don't agree with her interpretation of doctrine and scripture have recently been subjected to legal action from the Bishop. She said that members who disagreed needed to 'be treated like child abusers'<ref> Church of England Newspaper No.5906 - 25 January 2008 </ref>

Does the citation hold up? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I did a few searches. It turns out to be a lengthy Jan 16 interview with the bishop for the wire service, Religion News Service. USA Today also took it: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-01-20-episcopal-schori_N.htm. It doesn't say exactly what is said above, but I am sure someone can use the RNS piece as a source for updating the Wikipedia article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

How can an attitude be subjected to legal action? *confused* The Wednesday Island (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Confusing :). It seems that secessionist clergy/parishes have been the subject of legal action. --91.84.123.1 (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Lay people have also been hit by legal action when parishes leave, it's not only clergy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.28.201 (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"Good Samaritan School of Theology"

I made, then undid, a change to the statement that Schori was "Dean of the Good Samaritan School of Theology". I removed the change because I belatedly noticed there had already been discussion of the issue, and the source I cited was deemed not reliable. I agree that the article should not say there is a "controversy," because there really isn't much of one. Nevertheless it seems wrong that the article states that Schori was "Dean" of this "School," when there is zero evidence that any institution by that name ever existed. Just do a web search on it - there are no references to it that provide any info at all apart from the claim that Schori was once its Dean. Several bloggers have remarked on this, and no one has ever seriously contested the claim that the school simply does not exist. I think a reasonably neutral way of qualifying the statement should be found, but I'm not sure how to do it. Mrhsj (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

After some consideration I tried the following:

She is described in church documents as having been dean of the "Good Samaritan School of Theology" there(ref to ENS) (it is unclear what this refers to; no school by that name appears in major directories of theological schools(refs to two directories)).

I think the absence of that school name from major directories is reasonable grounds for an assertion that there is some uncertainty about what the name refers to; readers can draw their own conclusions from there. Mrhsj (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Mrhsj, the issue here was whether this is something which is controversial or not. I've added it to the section on her election, where it belongs as it's about how she was elected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.87.15 (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

We now have an entire paragraph on the issue, which I believe may be giving it undue weight. Someone preparing a list of the candidates' qualifications misunderstood a grandiose title given to the head of a church's adult education department. It might be notable if KJS had herself claimed to have this title with intent to deceive people into thinking she'd been an academic dean, but I don't find any record of her having mentioned it other than to explain to the press what it meant. To take a parallel case, back in '03 when there was a movement to get Wesley Clark to run for president, his supporters claimed he had an MA from Oxford. This title, like "Dean of the Good Samaritan School of Theology", does not mean what most people would assume it means on first hearing it. Had Clark himself or his staff gone around saying he was an Oxford MA, he would have been committing a dishonest act even while telling the truth. But in fact it was his supporters who made this claim, which doesn't make it notable at all. The Wednesday Island (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

A notable difference in this case is that it appeared on the official materials provided to delegates to inform their decisions on how to vote. It is significant since if it is not Schori's own doing, it shows at least a very high level of ineptitude on the part of General Convention; and no inquiry was made with public findings regarding the incident. Schori also had the opportunity to tell General Convention that there was a problem with her election profile; it seems she did not. So as elections go, this is quite notable. It takes two sentences to present the information, but I think it's generous since we are also offering her rebuttal, which will bring many to the same conclusion as yourself. The sentences also do not contest the validity of the election, etc; it remains open to the reader here to draw conclusions - the reader may, for example, find this to be an example of a courageous "underdog" being creative in taking on a system that is misogynistic.91.176.228.18 (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This matter appeared on Google alert today "Episcopal Presiding Bishop “Revises” Her Online Biography at Wikipedia" By David W. Virtue www.virtueonline.org March 18, 2011. I'm not sure if it has anything to add. One thing, however, should be clear; editors are not required to disclose their identities to interested parties, or even to Wikipedia. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the edit at issue. The material is based on a World Net Daily story: [http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=37277 "New top Episcopal bishop challenged on her resume]: School of theology, priestly experience questioned, but same-sex marriage advocate will lead U.S. church" Posted: August 01, 2006 © 2011 WorldNetDaily.com. World Net Daily is not usually considered a reliable source, although this particular article has no obvious problems. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The information provided to delegates does contain the language, "Pastoral Associate & Dean, Good Samaritan School of Theology Corvallis, OR 1994–2000". User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I really like the edit you just made that just adds the information neutrally. Nice job. Mrhsj (talk) 02:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The user Matisse412 at least voluntarily offered the information of his / her employment at Episcopal Church Center, and that this edit had been suggested by PB Jefferts-Schori; the honesty here is to be appreciated. In the edit comparisons, I also appreciate the two small re-touchings of language and grammar.

On the other hand, Presiding Bishop Jefferts-Schori, or at least her office, has already been informed once of the ethics of Wikipedia editing. Barbara Alton, personal assistant to Bishop Charles Bennison, had used language implying a justification from the Presiding Bishop in order to remove information on the page on Bishop Bennison, after having removed it and its being reverted a few times, and having been warned and banned a few times (block record: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ABarbaraalton&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= conrib record: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Barbaraalton ) The Presiding Bishop's office learned of the importance of this when Barbara Alton's apparent claims had become prominent in a number of news sources and she saw fit to clarify her lack of direct involvement - http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_89447_ENG_HTM.htm. It was inappropriate for the Presiding Bishop to give one of her employees the task of editing her wikipedia page in this manner. "Episcopal Presiding Bishop “Revises” Her Online Biography at Wikipedia" has a Church Center representative claiming that the employee was removing information which was "incorrect." However, Matisse412 doesn't tell us which information is incorrect - or provide alternative sources for the information which is already sourced.

I'd suggest that the paragraph in question be restored, maintaining Matisse412's grammatical modifications in the other parts (an improvement, imho); and that Matisse412 feel free in this talk page to provide information and evidence on what might be inaccurate in this paragraph. I see that Matisse412 has already been warned regarding NPOV edits, which is good; perhaps Matisse412 could also inform the rest of Episcopal Church Center and the Presiding Bishop of these policies. Jmc41 (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Warning an office is not warning a particular editor; as to the Church, give it up... Some problems with reliable sources here: the information provided to delegates at the election of a bishop is generally peer reviewed; but that is no excuse to continue to include it in her work history when she's telling us it is not correct. On the other hand virtueonline.org is a blog with an activist point of view. What is missing is any evidence that deception was intended or that the information was relied on by the delegates. It is not something that needs to be suppressed as libelous information, but should not be used to support wild allegations of fraud. I'd rather wait and see it there is coverage in the main stream press of some aspect of this. I don't feel comfortable using either virtueonline.org or World Net Daily as a source. Not that it matters that much, but I regularly attend Little Shepherd of the Hills Episcopal Mission in Crestone. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

An advantage of the removed text is it doesn't include it in her work history or imply that it belongs to her work history; it also makes no allegations of deceit, but simply states that this information was provided, and allows the PB alone to state why the information was so provided, without imputing intentions. Virtueonline is usually good for those things which are sourced (as here), but shouldn't be relied on for its opinion pieces, which are often speculative - but are usually clear about separating editorializing from sourced fact. It is most certainly a POV site - and needs to be treated as other highly-specialized POV sources providing specific facts which are generally reliable, but whose interpretations shouldn't be cited. With reporting on specific, niche-oriented areas, frequently information is available in POV sources which no non-POV source deems worthy enough to cover in depth - for Anglican news, this means we may need to rely on valuable information from news sites like this and ekklesia.org.uk, but which are far from being NPOV. We have here the additional source from episcopalchurch.org; so we should cite the simple fact (which is relevant, as it indicates a problem with the election which the PB herself would have known of), but not make any allegations (as the PB may not have been the one providing the information). As an encyclopedic source, we're also interested in information which isn't likely to be of interest to average newspaper readers, and thus tend to cite more niche-related material than mainstream news. In addition to being relevant to the election, the information helps explain other confusing information floating around the web (including at episcopalchurch.org - see e.g. http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_76174_ENG_HTM.htm; and previous versions of our own article) that the PB was dean of a school of theology. If Matisse412 wants to be of help here, perhaps Matisse412 could ask Church Center to provide some sort of clarification for the election materials via a statement in EpiscopalLife - that would be more helpful than simply deleting the content. FWIW I was Episcopalian decades ago and then moved to Europe and became a part of the Church of England. Jmc41 (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This edit comment is, of course, absurd. Exposing sexual abuse by priests is pretty much a take no prisoners enterprise. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I should make clear, just to re-iterate - Matisse412 didn't have anything to do with the Bennison edits, and Church Center staff said the PB had never spoken with Barbara Alton (you're not saying this either I know; I brought up the whole Barbara Alton business and simply want to re-clarify for anyone here who may be scanning & not reading).Jmc41 (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added this to her biography:

The statement in her biography that she was Dean of the "Good Samaritan School of Theology" in Corvallis, Oregon, from 1994–2000, refers to her having been in charge of the adult education programs of the Church of the Good Samaritan.

I can see how you are trying to dispel POV controversy here, and this intention is to be applauded. But I do believe that we need to add more. One concern: if we leave it like this, it's unsourced - how do we know that this statement refers to this? I don't think you need to worry about NPOV here - the main source is the Episcopal Church itself, the other facts here are non-controversial. The controversy would be in the interpretation of the facts - and we can cite the Presiding Bishop herself so she's given her space to interpret them. How candidates are presented by the institution to which they belong is most certainly relevant to an election; so this should probably be included in the election section - and this remains relevant in the hundreds of pages on the net which still cite these credentials. We needn't stipulate that this is controversial, or that it implies anything about motives or the character of the election itself. A second concern: because we are intentionally sidestepping context, the sentence is rather awkward - "The statement in her biography" - seems to imply there's "a" biography or only one biography, whereas these election materials are not really biographies at all, but more in the style of a curriculum vitae. It would be better put, "The statement in the career information provided the Joint Nominating Committee for the Election of the Presiding Bishop ..." - but then again we are really doing our best in walking around the context instead of stating it directly. An advantage of the original language is that it succeeds in doing exactly what you (Fred Bauder, 18 March) say we need to do here: avoiding allegations of fraud or ill intent, while nonetheless not suppressing facts which are NPOV. Jmc41 (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I have converted this information to a short phrase that she was in charge of adult education supported by a footnote which references both the biographical summary which contains the Good Samaritan School of Theology experience and her quoted explanation from the original VirtueOnLine article in 2006 which sources the information in the subject. I reserve judgment with respect to whether there should be mention of this in the election section or whether the matter should be included in a criticism section. If there is a substantial audience for virtueonline (I have no idea) there should be verifiable published sources about their criticisms or other published material about the matter. I think right now there is only blog repetition. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I take it then that you wouldn't mind my restoring the paragraph from the election section? It seems to me the most logical place for this as it has to do with the election. Jmc41 (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If you can find mainstream coverage of the controversy; an Anglican blog is not enough. Did those who voted for her complain or feel they were not well informed? User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. The fact that this details appears in an official church-published biography establishes it as a notable biographical fact. But we have no reliable source to establish that it is a controversial issue in connection with the election. If there is really a notable controversy about this, there ought to be some example of a church leader going on record saying so. Mrhsj (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree; we should refrain from suggesting that this is controversial, and stick to the facts; if we are confident that it is non-controversial, the Presiding Bishop's own words on the matter should probably be enough to dispel anyone's reservations, and we should be careful in quoting them in a manner that does them justice. I like how Fred Bauder came up with the idea of placing the entire quote in a footnote - we certainly can provide more context in a footnote like that, as the originally deleted paragraph failed to do. VirtueOnline is not a "blog" - it's a niche news source in its own right which also provides highly POV, "activist"-like commentary pieces (though many are upset with it - DV has probably upset just about everyone who closely follows Anglican news at one time or another). DV has been doing this full-time for many years, and until a few years ago, was the only news source that covered certain Anglican matters in depth, and from what I have seen, has about as much representation at Anglican gatherings like ACC and Primates Meetings as the Episcopal News Service. You'll find David Virtue repeatedly quoted in the BBC, and even a few times in the New York Times. However, whether VOL is a "blog" or a "news source" here is irrelevant. We need to be refining our thinking and questions here. Is the information here NPOV? It is, we are not reporting any viewpoint, and we aim to present the information in a manner which is not "slanted" toward one moral evaluation or another. Are these facts relevant to coverage of the election striving to be encyclopedic and NPOV? Yes, as long as the language used does not claim there is controversy, for which we don't have adequate evidence. So we do not need any news sources or church leaders citing this as controversial, since this is not a claim we are making. The information on "The Good Samaritan School of Theology" was published far and wide in Episcopalian sources before the election (many still up), and worldwide after the election - see e.g. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-06-18-episcopal_x.htm and http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-11-04/news/0611040223_1_female-bishops-presiding-bishop-frank-griswold-first-openly-gay-bishop/3 and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800875.html - with an ENS account repeating this information linked in our own page currently, having been added as early as 2006. Is it likely that the PB's quote in VOL is false? Not very likely - VOL is an important news source in the Anglican world - and many will surely find that the quote settles the matter in favor of the PB, since her own rector used this word, and the intention certainly was in favor of social justice issues as supported by TEC - and we also have no complaints from the PB or her followers that the quote was inaccurate. According to Quantcast.com, the number of visitors of VOL regularly peaks out above the entire site of http://episcopalchurch.org which not only contains the Episcopal News Service, but all the various resources such as "Sermons that Work," Bible study guides, strategic / demographic planning for specific regions & congregational reports, etc. etc.; and the number of visits is consistently about twice the number of visits to episcopalchurch.org. VOL is not known for misquoting people - though the opinion pieces most certainly shouldn't be used in Wikipedia. And VOL is given journalist credentials at Episcopalian events such as General Convention. So the "real" source here is not really VOL - it's a quote from the PB herself which we should take to be accurate unless there are legitimate reasons for doubt. And the fact that she spoke with the writer from VOL, and never retracted or criticized, provides further evidence of the legitimacy of some of the facts cited in this particular article from VOL. In the Anglican world - in order to provide encyclopedic coverage of such things as Primates Meetings, and important quotes from Primates about matters relevant to the Communion - we can't simply require everything to come from Time, The London Times, etc. etc.. We need also to use discernment in using materials published by e.g. Thinking Anglicans - http://thinkinganglicans.org.uk - which is a blog site with some highly-informative articles, but definitely overall an activist perspective - e.g., the piece which TA's chief editor Simon Sarmiento provided the Church of England Synod when it voted on a matter concerning the ACNA - which was found to be not only quite slanted, but also containing much information which was shown to be inaccurate. In such a case - we rely on information from Thinking Anglicans which is verifiable - e.g., quotes (person can be contacted, or might contradict) or official church publications (idem ditto). This is the general practice in Anglican wiki pages. E.g., to bring up a controversial counterpart to the PB, it's also the case with ex-Primate Peter Akinola - one controversial issue related to him is sourced by ThinkingAnglicans - even though ThinkingAnglicans lacks many of the distinguishing marks of a "news source" which VOL has - such as large readership and first-hand coverage of Anglican events (this is not to say VOL is "better" than ThinkingAnglicans - e.g., ThinkingAnglicans in general does a much better job of using neutral language than VOL, and VOL's language is frequently very "unquotable" (and imho needlessly inflammatory in his opinion pieces - though he seems to be getting better). But this is only one of many criteria of sourcing reliable information. But this is, imho, a good thing - when ThinkingAnglicans provides "solid" information (and not opinion) which can't be sourced elsewhere, which is highly relevant, that information needs to be used; and we would have very sketchy pages here on Wikipedia about contemporary Anglicanism if we cited only Newsweek et al. You'll find Anglican pages on Wikipedia regularly sourcing VOL and ThinkingAnglicans; what's essential is that this is done with care, that viewpoints are avoided, and that the information is relevant (and preferably verifiable). Mainstream news sources tend to quote both David Virtue of VOL and Simon Sarmiento of TA on various issues regarding the Communion; and both these sources are "go-to" places for different parts of the Communion communicating important facts and expressing important news. Though in general, other sources like The Church of England Newspaper, or George Conger's blog, which contains CEN articles not freely available online a week or two after posting, are preferable to either VOL or TA.

It is true that the fact that The Good Samaritan School of Theology does not exist has not been widely reported; and that mostly "conservative" sources picked it up - e.g. WordlNetDaily and FreeRepublic - but our main source for the fact that this has been reported is The Episcopal Church itself, plus many mainstream newspapers with international readership. It's very important that we ask ourselves: what here is a fact, and what here is a viewpoint? That it is significant I think has been more or less proven - we have from VOL a confirmation that this person did actually have the suggestion of the PB that this information be removed, without specifying what was wrong with it. If we "marginalize" it by relegating it to a footnote, unless we have highly compelling reasons to do so - we are complicit in removing sourced and relevant facts from reliable sources - The Episcopal Church itself - at its own request, after Church Center had been implicitly warned of the ethics of Wikipedia editing after Barbara Alton had been banned multiple times (with the ENS article trivializing the many, many removals as Alton's simply "did not have the time to follow the Wikipedia process for correcting misinformation" and failing to note the many warnings and multiple blockings). The person from Episcopal Church Center this time claimed that the information in the paragraph was "inaccurate" - again, without saying what or how - and again, the paragraph was simply removed, and not improved, nor constructive criticism provided. Would it not be wiser to restore the information (perhaps checking to make sure the language is NPOV), and request Episcopal Church Center to either demonstrate the inaccuracy with sources (merely personal communication wouldn't be appropriate in this case since we don't do original research), or otherwise to issue a statement regarding how and why the information is inaccurate - e.g., that a clerical error occurred?

Short of that, I see no other way of dealing with this honestly - if we don't wish to cite WorldNetDaily, VirtueOnline, or another of the more specific / less mainstream sources - of simply noting that the phrase was used, that it is no longer used, and that it's dubious as to whether a school of theology with that description existed. We are already going into considerable detail about the PB's election, some of which is rather unsourced and dubious (have any provinces of the Communion registered any disappointment that a woman was elected PB?) - and when Jefferts-Schori's election is discussed informally online, the fact of the presentation of this information is discussed much more frequently than, e.g., if it's the case that some provinces don't like the fact that a woman was elected PB (which, frankly, I think is low on their list of concerns about +KJS, though I haven't made this an issue) - perhaps what's difficult here is that the fact of the information is nearly indisputable - whereas the interpretation of assigning value to the dissemination of this information is impossible to evaluate thoroughly without having more information from the persons involved. Other sources don't tend to bring it up - but then again, they are not attempting to provide detailed, encyclopedic coverage of the PB's election, as are we.

Forgive me for going on at length here - but I find this quite important, and I see we're continuing to ask "is this controversial?" when I think it's been clearly established: there is a highly relevant fact here which itself is in no way controversial.

To summarize: we have no grounds to say this is controversial or to imply value judgments; and the simple unadorned fact (i.e., that this was reported) is far from controversial, having been more or less broadcast to the world by TEC Church Center itself, and is highly relevant, having been reported more frequently than most facts presented on this page, and never having been retracted or corrected by TEC (though implicitly confirmed by, and explained by the PB). As long as we present no allegations or viewpoints, it is NPOV, and it is more relevant to her election than most of the other information provided in this section. And given the circumstances of TEC's recidivism into "censorship," imho only a highly relevant challenge to this information should prevail for it to be removed or marginalized to a footnote. The hypothesis that some might find the fact (and not the interpretation) controversial - when the PB herself clearly doesn't find it controversial, and no controversy is being remotely hinted at, is not an adequate challenge, since neither TEC nor the PB have given any grounds to question the fact and have rather affirmed it. - Jmc41 (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia's reliable source policy is too strict, producing absurd results as only supporters and critics are likely to publish extensively on most of the internal affairs of religious organizations. However, important issues are covered in The New York Times and from time to time in published books and journals. That this controversy is not is a clue. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Fred Bauder, can we agree then, given the above: "We don't necessarily need to see this as controversial; nor to signal this as 'a controversy,' but that: this most clearly pertains to the election itself, and is worth mentioning in the text of the section on the election?'" Since March, this issue has appeared in The Church of England Newspaper (June 17, 2011) and been brought up on Archbishop Cranmer's blog, which seems to be the biggest UK blog covering religious issues (see note by Churchmouse on his blog on this matter), and frequently cited by informational sources covering Anglican topics - here in Wikipedia, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Broadhurst fn #7; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Christianity_(TV_series) ftn #1; also noted in quite a few other blogs. Most of the details we have in the "election" section are rather trivial by comparison, and some - if they've been raised at all elsewhere - only with speculation (e.g., the "they don't like her because she's a woman" general narrative). So I believe we have covered the "we can't prove it's controversial" issue (we don't say it is), and have also covered "it's relevant" (for Anglican news - this being Anglican as she's a Primate of the Communion, Church of England Newspaper is a good "primary source"). ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmc41 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, I seem to have wandered into a hornet's nest, albeit it several years after the fact. Without having seen the Talk page yet, I innocently made some changes to the section involving the "Dean of Theology" business. I started out by simply noticing that a reference given in that part of the article was very spare, just title and url, and that the link was now dead; also, no archived version of that url was to be found. (Ref with url ending in PB.Booklet.EnglishFinal.pdf above, and in the article.) So I went about seeing if I could find the document referred to, and create a more complete reference using {{cite web}}. I found the document on another site, archived it so it wouldn't be lost, and created the new reference for it. (I can be a reference junkie sometimes, adding some of the lesser-known, but useful params; I also like to include the |quote= param where it seems helpful, and this seemed like one of those cases.) I added the controversial part of the resume to the quote param so it would appear in the footnote in the references section, and removed a rather too-longish segment from the article itself paraphrasing the profile text (seems like anyone interested in the details could refer to the footnote, and if that wasn't enough, click through to the document.) The article seems the better for it, and I do prefer having the quote inside the ref, although now that I've seen the Talk page and gleaned that this is perhaps a touchy issue I question whether the extended quote inside the {{cite web}} is too much, and maybe I should shorten or eliminate it? Mathglot (talk) 03:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

See

"See" of course means "seat", and if you look at Washington National Cathedral, you'll see it correctly reports that WNC is the official seat of both the PB and the Bishop of Washington. I have therefore reverted another editor's change of WNC to "United States". Tb (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Daughter's occupation

An anonymous editor from the air force three times deleted mention of the daughter's occupation, claiming an apparent bogus "national security" risk to saying that she flies VIPs around. I object to the deletion of the text, and ask that the text remain until a consensus develops for its deletion. I believe the text is appropriate, given that it is common for biographies to say something about the family of the subject and their lives too. The whole family is pilots, and that's part of the point. Tb (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about the alleged national security issue that someone raised. But I object to it on two other grounds: notability and verifiability. On notability, I think it is simply trivia that doesn't belong here. On verifiability, where is the reliable source for this information -- particularly for putting it in the present tense? Mrhsj (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability is easily addressed; you've tagged it now and I will look for a reference. Not sure what you mean by "notability"; that's the standard for having an article about a subject, but not generally a standard for the contents of an article. KJS is surely notable. As for relevance, which you don't mention, I think it's clearly relevant as I've already outlined above: it describes the family hobby of aircraft. Tb (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tb - it's notable, and if it is verified, it should stay in. "National security" sounds very grand, but it doesn't make a lot of sense here. Coemgenus 18:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I see someone has yet again deleted the material on "national security" grounds so let me address this more directly. If the information is already available from public sources, then nobody's security is harmed by repeating it here. If it is not already available from public sources, then it has to be deleted anyway. So I see no reason "national security" has to be considered. If I'm wrong, please cite relevant Wikipedia policy. Mrhsj (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on this point, Mrhsj. The anonymous user(s) issue is a separate one. Tb (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've provided rather firm references; the official biography of KJS on the ENS site, and the article about her in the Stanford alumni magazine a couple years ago. This should also address any "national security" issue; the woman herself has been happy to discuss this about her daughter's employment, in rather public forums. Tb (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I still think the details about what types of planes the daughter has flown are non-notable and far afield from the article topic -- one mention in an alumni mag puff piece doesn't make it an important fact about Bp. Schori. But I don't feel strongly enough to debate the point further. Mrhsj (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't care much about the details of planes either. It lends color, which is presumably why ++KJS mentioned it herself. But I doubt that was the "national security" issue. Tb (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems

The "they don't like her because she's a woman" narrative without substantiating fact. I.e., 'the election of a woman would prove controversial to provinces that don't ordain women' - Is this why it is controversial to such provinces, because she is a woman, or maybe because she was one who defied the Primates' Emergency Meeting after their own representative had signed this? Ditto for "Fort Worth, which does not ordain women, immediately asked for alternative primatial oversight."

No mention of her Christology, which is, of the things for which she is "disliked," the issue which causes the most controversy / dislike.

I would suggest that we remove this type of language unless we can find evidence that i.e., Fort Worth, the provinces mentioned, etc., acted the way they did primarily because a woman was elected to this position. "She's a woman" has been present in none of the condemnations of TEC over the last decade, while other issues have been. As it stands, the article is rather ridiculous in this respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.7.53 (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, if a someone, or moreso a diocese or province does not beleive that women should be ordained (whether deacon, priest or bishop), the fact Jefferts Schori is female is bound to be somewhat problematic (and some would go so far as to say that such an ordination is simply invalid without an Ecumenical Council, and others simply believe that the bible says women should not be placed in authority over men). Anyone who knows anything about the recent history of Anglicanism will know that the ordination of women has been a flashpoint. There are still ongoing issues in the Church of England as to whether women will be appointed to the episcopate, and on her recent visit to England I understand Jefferts Schori was not allwoed to wear her mitre for these sorts of reasons. David Underdown (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

David, that's the problem - we have only "bound to be somewhat problematic" but then a lot of language which insinuates that this is the main issue, when anyone who knows anything about the recent history of Anglicanism also knows that this has to do with her Christology and having been a consecrator of Gene Robinson after the Communion through the Primates Meeting told TEC that this would cause a "tear in the fabric" (i.e., a schism). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.34.127 (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Who is on record as objecting to her Christology, and what about it are they objecting to? I remember some people got upset that she quoted Julian of Norwich during her installation, but that's about all I remember. The Wednesday Island (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Wednesday unfortunately there hasn't been much "official" word on this - the Communion decided to run with the sexual ethics issue, probably because it was a more "presentable" one, having to do with concrete sacramental acts, where a "line" could be drawn - which of course is much more difficult with Christology. There hasn't been much analysis of her Christology, as she's not really a theologian, and many of her supporters also admit that there are problems with her theology. So it isn't really "interesting" to analyze, not something a proper theologian would be interested in doing. There isn't much new here, it's mostly a mish-mash of problematic theology coming from various authors of popular theology. It was mentioned in an open letter from Archbishop Akinola to Archbishop Williams published after - I believe - the Kingston, Jamaica Anglican Consultative Council meeting. Anglicans don't tend to "raise issues" very much, there's a lot more article / blog stuff on this than official words from the provinces. But you can be quite sure that gender is a null issue compared to her Christology for these provinces.

I don't think that people got upset that she quoted Julian of Norwich - I think it's rather the context in which she extracted a quote which, outside of context, is "loaded." This is a theme of Julian of Norwich's, and an important one. It's sort of like, if I wrote an article on Obama's feminine qualities, and as a rhetorical device said "the woman Obama is gentle with children" etc. etc., and then later "conservative" pundits were to use my article to write headlines like "Woman Obama raises taxes" etc. etc.. Context is very, very important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.188.61 (talk) 10:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)