Talk:St. Paul's Cathedral, Dunedin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject New Zealand (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Anglicanism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon St. Paul's Cathedral, Dunedin is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Pauls[edit]

I understand it's called Pauls not Paul's, anyway apostrophe-less is the style of the newspaper where I work for mention of this cathedral.Nankai 20:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Dismissal of Mr. David Burchell[edit]

To the unknown / anon user / poster: This is a formal warning. Please cease and desist from your vandalism of the St Paul's page immediately. This is a repeated level 3 warning, before I seek to lock the page against you. UltraZit (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)UltraZit

Regarding this dispute: I have requested a 3O on this page (resolution of editorial dispute by third party). I suspect what I am actually dealing with here is not a sensible dispute, but a familial-based wish to have the issue removed from the public eye.

Content was removed regarding a private email source which is not verifiable. This fails to meet Wikipedia's standards for sources / content and was thus removed.

Content regarding legal follow-up was biased and non-factual, without supporting content (no evidence relating to the statement in cited source) and was thus removed.

Suspected vandalism of this page by partisan sources is occurring and have placed a watch on the page. May request lock and third party assistance if it continues.

Content regarding that pew sheet "referred incorrectly to his "resignation"" is incorrect => aforementioned pew sheet is available on wikimedia commons, and clearly states the following content:

Announcement from the Bishop It is with great regret that I announce the departure of the Director of Music, Mr David Burchell. For more than two years, there has been an ongoing disagreement involving the Director of Music which The Chapter, The Dean and myself have tried, with the utmost care and patience to resolve. After the expenditure of considerable time, energy and money it appeared, at the end of 2010, that a satisfactory outcome had been reached. Disappointingly, this has not proven practicable, and it is the considered and prayerful opinion of the Dean and myself that in the best interests of the future development of the Cathedral, Mr Burchell’s enormous musical skills would be most usefully applied elsewhere.

+ Kelvin Wright

Regards, UltraZit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UltraZit (talkcontribs) 03:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I have heavily edited the section in question to reflect the basic content of the sole independent reliable source in use. I tried to keep it brief as the limited coverage available, IMO, indicates this is of passing interest in the long term. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

This issue has long been dealt with (above) regarding neutrality, and a lock on the page was considered. Don't push the envelope. The content regardling this issue is clear, cites documentation that is publicly available and was published by the Anglican diocese, and followed through by the ODT, and clearly meets Wiki content and quality guidelines. It has also been through third party analysis.

Am removing the City of Dunedin choir content, as it has no place on a St Paul's page. Perhaps a David Burchell page may be warranted, if you feel he is notable enough for Wiki? Then all content can sit side by side, and people can battel it out.

If you have issues with this topic, and would like to meet and discuss face to face, am happy to do so (assuming you're a Dunedinite). Leave a comment on my userpage, and we'll sort a time out. But Wikipedia doesn't need this.

I am undoing your edits, and ask that you do not attempt to bias this page again. Please respect history. Cheers UltraZit (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)UltraZit

I am unsure what "history" you are asking me to respect. I have no intention of discussing any portion of this off-Wiki. The issues I have with the article are with making sure the article presents relevant, verifiable information in as unbiased a way as possible. Importantly, I am in no way connected to St. Paul's, the Choir or any other institutions or any of the people involved.
We have the Otago Daily Times article as a source. This seems to be independent of the individuals and organizations and, as near as I can tell, a reliable source. As such, we can include information from it. (Whether or not we should and how much is an issue of weight, to be discussed below.
I see no indication of "third party analysis", so I have no comment on anything anyone else may have said about this.
I do not know what you mean by "ODT".
I'm not sure what you think you would accomplish, nor do I see any reason for any level of protection on this article.
I do not see sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources for Burchell to meet our notability guidelines. In fact, I question how much, if anything we have to say about him here.
Now to the meat of the issue. "St. Paul's Cathedral Pew Sheet notice, 30th January 2011." is not an independent reliable source, nor is it, as presented, verifiable. If the Pew Sheet in question were available to us, we might use it to verify what St. Paul's said about the issue. In terms of determining whether or not this was a meaningfully important event in St. Paul's history, however, it would be worthless.
The version you present, clearly ties this to the unsourced Dr. White "controversy" ("Following this"). I see no source indicating any connection. You make very specific allegations about Burchell which are not supported by any of the sources presented. I am removing this as a violation of our policy on biographies of living persons. Please do not restore it without proper sourcing or evidence of a consensus opinion that it is not a violation.
Due to the clearly contentious nature of the material, I am restoring the less contentious and clearly sourced version until such time as there has been significant discussion to the contrary. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Undue emphasis on White/Burchell dismissals?[edit]

I've tagged both of these sections as they seem to place unreasonable emphasis on these firings. The White section is completely unreferenced. The Burchell section hangs on one article. Comments? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I cannot comment on the White section, and do not have the content for referencing. However, the event is well remembered, resulted in the creation of a separate choir, resulted in a sacking (rare in churches), and in television interviews, of which I have seen copies (tapes). Certainly of enough significance to warrant discussion, and it belongs under no other category.
I would argue that front page ODT (as was the case for Mr Burchell) constitutes significance enough to warrant reasonable emphasis on a wiki page, and I believe most wikipedians would be in agreement on this. Again, it resulted in a sacking, two years of mediations, several thousand dollars legal fees for the Cathedral, and extreme hostility between several parties involved. It warrants attention (according to the ODT and radio sources at the time), and once again, fits no other category. This section has suffered repeated vandalism and am concerned about further vandalism, hence the rollback to a third party approved option. UltraZit (talk) 04:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)UltraZit
The White section is unreferenced and makes contentious claims about living persons. I have removed it as a violation of our policy on biographies of independent reliable sources.
That the story was on the front page of one newspaper indicates that one newspaper saw it as one of the more significant stories on that day -- maybe. I can certainly point you to stories of Boy Scouts having a recycling drive on the front page of one newspaper on one day. That is trivial. If this event is noteworthy and significant to the history of St. Paul's, there would certainly be more than one article in one newspaper. I see no indication of this. Your claims are unsourced and of no help. I see no indication that "most wikipedians" would agree with you. One article in one newspaper on one day is not an indication of a significant event in the history of a 150 year old church. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Restored (again!) and will request a lock on this page if "edits" continue. UltraZit (talk) 04:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)UltraZit

I have again removed the contentious claims about Burchell as clear violations of WP:BLP. Until this specific information is sourced, it must be removed. If you restore it, you will be warned again. If you restore that material again within 24 hours of your first restoration of it, you will be briefly blocked from editing for violating WP:3RR. My removal of this particular material is a clearly documented WP:BLP exception to WP:3RR. If you restore the material with no new sourcing (within the 24 hours or not), it will be reverted, with escalating warnings. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion requested[edit]

Requested. We have two conflicting versions of a section. Version #1 (mine), written as a stand-in until WP:UNDUE questions are resolved, reads as follows:

"Director of music David Burchell was dismissed by the Bishop of Dunedin in early 2011.
The Dean of Dunedin says the incident is not comparable to the "Raymond White affair" and declined to comment further. The Bishop of Dunedin states Burchell's departure follows an "ongoing disagreement involving the director of music." The disagreement is thought to follow attempts to resolve differences between Burchell and former choir members, centred on alleged "bullying" of members and the expulsion of a family two years ago.
Burchell had been appointed in 1999 following the previous director's dismissal. He retains his role as musical director of the City of Dunedin Choir."

This is sourced to the Otago Daily Times article, which both sides accept as a source.

Version 2 includes what I believe are WP:BLP violations (redacted below, visible in the link) and reads:

"Following this* has been the recent dismissal of Mr David Burchell as Director of Music in January 2011. An announcement from Bishop Kelvin Wright in a St Paul's pew sheet stated that this was the result of over two years of "ongoing disagreement involving the Director of Music which The Chapter, The Dean and (the Bishop had) tried, with the utmost care and patience to resolve."
The dismissal occurred after Mr Burchell had redacted BLP violation based around the same ongoing issue."

This is sourced to the previously mentioned article and another source "<ref>St. Paul's Cathedral Pew Sheet notice, 30th January 2011.</ref>" * Refers to another section I have since removed under WP:BLP as unsourced contentious claims about a living person.

The issues seem to be as follows: 1) Is the "Pew Sheet" a reliable source such that material from it can be used for this section? 2) Based on the sources present, is this a significant enough event to warrant our coverage of it? 3) If the section should remain, what form should it take?

The other involved editor states ze has other sources, letters from members, "official docs and letters from three affected members" (see Talk:City_of_Dunedin_Choir). I feel these unverifiable, unpublished sources are irrelevant. The other editor also states that the material in question "has been approved by third party as verifiable and wiki worthy" (on my talk page). I am unable to determine who this was or what was said. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. Re the pew sheet questions, please see my comments at Talk:City_of_Dunedin_Choir#Content_re_abuse.2C_neutrality_and_removal_of_members. Once all the material based upon the pew sheet is removed from the article, it does seem to me to give undue weight to this relatively minor incident to mention it in the article. If it is to be mentioned at all, it ought to be limited to a maximum of a sentence or two, but frankly I do not think that it should be mentioned at all unless it can be shown to have received more notice in reliable sources than the one mention in Otago Daily Times. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm removing it, unless/until a consensus develops to the contrary. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to third party. Relevant link to notice in ODT is front page full article with photo - worth notice IMO. Do not consider dispute resolved, and am concerned SummerPhD is attempting to censor this issue. Am returing ODT reference as doc originally quoted, and as doc remained with approval of third party WikiManOne. UltraZit (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)UltraZit.

The third opinion presented disagrees with you. To press this further, I'd suggest a request for comment. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
While I generally do not edit articles if I have issued a Third Opinion about them, I have an obligation as an editor to remove negative information which violates the BLP policy. I have removed that part of the restored material (all about White and all about Burchell except that which can be substantiated by the usable parts one newspaper article). I did not remove the rest because that is merely an undue weight issue and must be settled between the parties. I express no opinion about the POV tagging. I will ask for user blocks or page protection if the BLP material I have removed is restored without being documented with reliable sources. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll let this sit for a bit. Then, if there has not been substantial policy/guideline-based discussion to the contrary, I will remove the section again. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Am happy with text as it currently stands re Burchell dismissal. ("Dismissal of David Burchell. Mr David Burchell was dismissed as Director of Music in January 2011 following a long-standing disagreement involving allegations of bullying and expulsion and resignation of choir members.[3]") POV problem resolved at present - presume it will remain resolved! No further discussion required. Cheers. UltraZit (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)UltraZit

The current consensus is to not include it. Based on our policies/guidelines, this is a trivial event as it has not been discussed in multiple independent reliable sources. Rather, we have one independent source that I presume is reliable. Is there any other independent reliable coverage before I remove this? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Please remember that, per the guidelines of the Third Opinion project, Third Opinions are "neither mandatory nor binding," and thus do not "count" towards consensus. They're just advisory opinions and it is up to the involved editors to either come to agreement or to form consensus through other editors, perhaps through a request for comments. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality[edit]

Another editor has tagged the article as potentially not presenting a neutral point of view. As there has been no discussion to this end, I am asking for discussion before removing the tag. (I am unsure if the weight/BLP issue above is what the editor has in mind. If so, I do not believe this dispute represents a POV problem. If we discussed one side of the issue, we would have an POV problem. Not discussing an issue is a question of depth. Comments? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC re recent firing of director of music[edit]

Should the article discuss the recent firing of the Director of music? (See also discussion of this issue above.) - SummerPhD (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

  • Discuss, no, mention maybe. The risk of undue weight is the main remaining concern, I can see, however, that were there a significant section on the history of the church as a religious and social group, which would be appropriate, that including this as part of that section would be quite reasonable. Rich Farmbrough, 22:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC).
  • We follow the sources, and something IMO Christendom does not need is white-washing of church disputes.  But bringing this issue into an encyclopedic context may be a challenge.  The current article uses the word "bullying" in Wikipedia's voice, even though the source does not.  So we have entered into the realm of BLP violation with what is now in the article.  And what about the supposedly infamous "Raymond White affair"?  It seems to be undue to mention the current dispute without the more important 1998 dispute.  I'd say try to keep the material and hope that someone adds material about the "Raymond White affair".  But it needs to be written from a neutral point of view, which may not be practical with only one source.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
The concern centers around the poor sourcing. We have ONE independent reliable source about this issue. The White issue was removed as unsourced and removed. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Follow the sources, but do not place in Wikipedia's voice. What is current is fine. Hipocrite (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove the mention of the firing. It seems out of place in the article, and there is only one source that mentions it. I think that including it would be both recentism and giving it undue weight. — Mr. Stradivarius 07:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)