Talk:St James' Church, Sydney/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: StAnselm (talk · contribs) 11:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I am happy to take on this review. I have had a preliminary look at the article, and will give it closer attention tomorrow. St Anselm (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not far from GA standard. There are, however, a few OR and clarity issues to tighten up:

The lead says "St James' is known for having more liberal and diverse theological perspectives than most other churches in the diocese on certain issues, particularly sexuality and the ordination of women." If that is true, it needs to be fleshed out in a separate section, which the new "Theology" section is on the way to doing. The "an open and inclusive Christian community" quote there, is not enough, however. The clause on the website about "sexual orientation" should be mentioned. But it would be preferable to have a secondary source as well.
The reference to Preachers, prophets and heretics: women's ministry in the Anglican Church of Australia (p. 179) is not a particularly good one. Yes, it does use the phrase "conservative exclusive evangelicanism", but it doesn't seem to be particularly neutral on the issue of women's ordination. In any case, a reliable source contrasting St James and the rest of the diocese would be better.
The last sentence in the Theology section is a bit confusing. What do we mean by "St James'" position? Statements made by the leadership? Actions taken in the church? Certainly, the event of having Goldsworthy and Blackwell preaching in the church is significant in this regard, but "St James' argued for the change to accept women's ordained ministry" needs a reliable source. And what does "welcoming those in positions of spiritual leadership" mean? Does it mean that Goldsworthy and Blackwell had a formal role in the congregation, or that they were welcome to preach because they were in leadership positions in the Anglican church more generally?

Here are a couple more sourcing type issues:

"...along with a more interpretive, less literal reading of scripture than is common in its diocese." This is original research. The Porter reference is more appropriate for the sentence that follows - I notice she describes the church as being Anglo-Catholic, and not practising evangelical worship. But the question of how St James' interprets Scripture is more subjective, and needs a citation.
"St James' work for the poor... has been continuous from the 19th century" - that sort of claim should be backed up an independent source.

These are the only points that I can see, though it may take some work getting appropriate references. St Anselm (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

- Yes, it will take some work with the sources. Distilling centuries of theological dispute and variations in practice into a paragraph or two is a challenge - no wonder I left it till last! Will get onto it as soon as I finish some other work due in the next few days. Thanks! Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Have added a link to a newspaper report about the current Rector's response to the ex-archbishop's stance and yes, the theology section needs fleshing out (but concisely!)

- The connections of a number of ordained women to St James have been included and specific examples of women on the church's staff are given. I have clarified the Goldsworthy/Blackwell reference. Will clarify the interpretive comment in an expanded theology section.

- Have added a quote from the reference that was there about the continuity of service to the poor. There are various other places in the rest of the article that support this claim. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: should a link to something be repeated when that something appears later in a list? For example, "Richard Hill" is linked when he first appears (in the section "First years"), and again when he is in the lists of "Past and present clergy", and again in the list of "Bells". Similarly, "Francis Greenway" is linked in the opening para and again in the list of bells. I think it must be helpful to readers to have links in these internal lists (although three times is perhaps too many) but a necessary first appearance in the beginning of an article theoretically ought to preclude a repetition. What is good practice? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'm the best person to ask - I have had gentle disagreements with others about this in the past. I often go for one wikilink per section, and so I would think Greenway might be slightly underlinked. I would definitely link everyone in the list of clergy and choirmasters - I assume the ones not linked in those lists don't have articles. (By the way, I've had a good look to see whether Peter Kurti could have an article, but I don't think he reaches the notability threshold. In my searching I found this [definitely unreliable] source that you might be interested in.) St Anselm (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further on the theology question - is St. James in favour of same sex marriage? That would demonstrate a clear difference to the Diocese's position. Similarly, St James' says "We are a diverse group of people that welcomes all, regardless of age, race, sexual orientation or religion" - has anyone in the Diocese made any statement saying we should not welcome people of different sexual orientation. It might be tricky to find a source confirming this, and so demonstrating that this church has a different theology to the rest of the diocese might be harder than it looks - as opposed to the issue of different worship, which is very clear in Porter. St Anselm (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- I expect that there are diverse views held in the congregation but for the purposes of the article, I guess that it should demonstrate an engagement with the issues of the day, from Hill's concern for the labourers and Carr Smith's involvement with the question of women's suffrage to the current debate about sexuality. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, the other rectors need articles. I have material on Allwood, Latimer Jackson and Wentworth Shields. Richard Hill and William Carr Smith have recently had new articles so they now have blue links. Lots of work is needed on Allwood and Micklem and also Broughton for that matter.

- There have been sermons and seminars on the same-sex issue. Will try to find refs. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been resisting the temptation to jump in and change things myself, or tag individual statements. But this edit, quite frankly, is original synthesis. What makes you think (other) churches/people in the diocese don't take into account "biblical criticism, cultural changes, translation difficulties," etc.? St Anselm (talk) 07:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the ""...along with a more interpretive, less literal reading of scripture than is common in its diocese." etc etc" has to go. Enough has been said to make it clear that St James' is very different from the rest of the Diocese. However, "biblical criticism, cultural changes, translation difficulties," etc. is very much part of what Theology students study at Moore College. I would tend not to labour the theology issue. It is not easy to sum it up, and I don't think it needs a whole section. Sufficient to deal with it under "Ministry".

It would be advisable to leave the article for a bit, while St Anselm is attempting to assess it. Amandajm (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, it is hard not to synthesise. It is necessary perhaps to focus on commonality as much as distinctiveness in providing a general encyclopedic account. Have thus tried to give short overview for this relevant, if very difficult topic. Perhaps the new summary (with citation) works? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's been a couple of weeks, and we've made some progress towards resolving the issues. Here are some remaining issues:

The word "diverse" in the lead sounds weaselly. Removed.
The sentence "One of the first women ordained..." should be moved from the lead to the main body. Done
The Porter footnote in the liturgy section should be moved to the next sentence. Done
The first sentence of the theology section is still original synthesis. Rewritten
The bit about "welcoming" women clergy needs to be rephrased - if it means inviting them to preach, it should say that. As it stands, it sounds like name-dropping. Done
The Carnley quote is dubious - does Carnley say that St James' is one of that number? Rewritten

I have had another go at this with the goal of accounting theologically for the differences a visitor might observe. Carnley's book is clear but detailed and comprehensive. It takes as one of its topics these differences in practice and interpretation. It would be evident to a reader/visitor which churches fit into his contrasting descriptions.

This is an interesting way to study theology - trying to get it into two or three sentences with regard for our purpose, audience and genre. Is it better now? I hope it is at least a qualified success. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. St Anselm (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry, I forgot this one) Mention should be made of how they welcome people regardless of sexual orientation. (Perhaps St James' aims to be "an open and inclusive Christian community" welcoming all people "regardless of age, race, sexual orientation or religion") Added

OK, it's not perfect, but even good articles are meant to be works in progress. I'm going to pass it now (since I don't want this review to drag on forever), but I am doing so pointing out that Carnley does not seem to specifically include St James' in his description (though Porter certainly does with respect to liturgy). St Anselm (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]