Talk:Justin Welby

Smyth's abuses

There's an existing section. It needs major revision following the publication of the Independent Review. S C Cheese (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

He is still Archbishop of Canterbury

Welby has announced his resignation but the date on which he steps down is still TBC. I have overwritten a lot of edits suggesting that 12 November 2024 was his last day in office - please don't reinstate them. JayZed (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you're right; a careful reading of the announcement reveals he intends to resign, but has not set a date. Our problem is that media sources are generally just reporting 'Welby resigns'. Can you find secondary sources which recognise the resignation is not yet in effect? DBD 16:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. This one, for example: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/12/justin-welby-step-down-archbishop-canterbury JayZed (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Good luck reverting; there's plenty of good to be found in today's edits besides the mistake with the date. Remeber also Archbishop of Canterbury, List of Archbishops of Canterbury, Diocese of Canterbury, Church of England, List of bishops in the Church of England &c. &c. DBD 16:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not reverting the edits, just overwriting the bits that state that his term has ended. I don't have time to do all the other articles though! JayZed (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, given Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, we should limit to only to his intention to resign as that's what can be established without doubt. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree. His statement says that "exact timings [about his resignation] will be decided once a review of necessary obligations has been completed", meaning that his resignation isn't effective yet. Baldwin de Toeni (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Namelessposter (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully tagging in @Flusapochterasumesch, who takes the opposite view - that "although he will continue some duties in the meantime, he has resigned." Namelessposter (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay dokay, I agree with you folks and I was in error. I see now that when it is said that someone resigns, this is a customary way of saying that they 'give notice of their intention to resign', and from a precise legal perspective, their resignation occurs at the last instant of their employment. Therefore while working a notice-period or a hand-over period, the person has not/is not 'resigned'. In contrast, it might be said that someone "has resigned with immediate effect". The mere fact that the latter phrase is in customary use is sufficient to confirm that, in the absence of the words "immediate effect", an announcement of "resignation" is shorthand for "intention to resign at a future time to be agreed". Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe the current wording of the article is correct, as stated in his letter he has "Having sought the gracious permission of His Majesty The King, I have decided to resign as Archbishop of Canterbury." therefore he has tendered his resignation. however he remains the Archbishop of Canterbury proved in the same letter when he says "I will delegate all my other current responsibilities for safeguarding until the necessary risk assessment process is complete" So he is still the Archbishop of Canterbury for now however he is not acting in a capacity that conflicts with this incident namely safeguarding Knowledgework69 (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You are correct. According to Church Times, he has announced his resignation but exact timings of his departure would be confirmed in due course. Wikipedia should not describe him as archbishop in the past tense or state the see is vacant until reliable sources confirm that his resignation has become effective. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You're right, however someone has made invalid edits referring to his tenure in the past tense. I must confess I still can't get my head around the previous/current/differences aspect of the 'history' tab, so I'll kindly leave it to someone else to undo the erroneous edits. Welby is, sadly, still the Archbishop of Canterbury, and will remain so until a successor is appointed or he dies - whichever comes first. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Would this be unencyclopedic?

Would it be considered unencyclopedic to change:

"Welby believed that Gavin Welby was his biological father until paternity testing in 2016 showed that he was Browne's son"

to

"Welby believed that Gavin Welby was his biological father until paternity testing in 2016 showed that he was in fact Browne's bastard son"? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it would be unencylopedic. I don't believe wikipedia uses the stigmatising word, bastard, to refere to this type of situation. Neither of the references use the word. I doubt that Welby has used the word to describe himself that way? Knitsey (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed - It would be completely inappropriate. KJP1 (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Used as it is in that sentence the word is archaic, or at least not contemporary standard common usage, so it is unencyclopedic. It shouldn't be used for other reasons too, as others have described. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for the clarification. I think it might have been a rhetorical question on my part and yes, it might have subconsciously or consciously betrayed some of my personal feelings. For the latter I apologise. Someone posted on my talk page their bewilderment that I had vehemently opposed a similarly archaic term used in T.E. Lawrence's article. The difference, I suppose, is that T.E. Lawrence was a widely respected and good man, who was not embroiled in child abuse scandals. I'll step away from this article now, as I'm content that it's in good hands and many editors are intent on maintaining an accurate and encyclopaedic biography of Welby's life; the article is balanced and includes the positive aspects of Welby's life where applicable.

Again, thank you to those who replied to my entry; and my apologies for my snideness. I'm not a particularly prolific editor and I believe that 99 times out of 100 my edits are well-intentioned, well-informed, well-written, well-reasoned and serve to improve Wikipedia for everyone. I acknowledge that on a few occasions I've let personal-feelings or emotions get in the way of editorial impeccability. With (sincerely) only a teeny glint of facetiousness, I'd suggest that it's a positive thing for Wikipedia to have the odd contributor who chucks the occasional bit of snideness, humour or satire into the pot - if for nothing else it balances out the wider (and sometimes stifling) trend among editors for unrelenting, inflexible commitment to regimented encyclopaedicalityness. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed edit - some consensus/discussion requested please

The lede contains this text

"As Archbishop, Welby officiated at a number of notable events, including the funeral of Elizabeth II, the coronation of Charles III and Camilla and the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, and his tenure coincided with the ordination of the Church of England's first female bishop and its approval of blessings for same-sex couples."

The first and most obvious issue is the non-sequiturial, follow-on nature of this sentence. Welby's officiating notable events ought to be one sentence, and the things that coincidentally occurred during his tenure ought to be made into a separate sentence - and then deleted.

That aside, the inclusion of the word "coincided" made this text jump out at me as ripe for edit. Unless Welby was instrumental in the creation of the first female bishop and the church disassociating itself from blatant institutional homophobia, should these things be included in the lede in this manner (whereby one might infer he's personally to be lauded for effecting two positive reversals of archaic/discriminatory Church policy)?

The first female bishop, Libby Lane, became an Anglican priest in 1994, one year after lawyer and former oil-executive Welby became the same. So he certainly was not involved in Ms Lane's appointment to the clergy. After serving the church for around 21 years, Ms Lane was elected in 2015, by a group that did not include Welby, as an Anglican Bishop. That sounds like a reasonable and hard-earned promotion for 21 years of service.

So when I see the word "coincidentally", WP:Pedantry dictates that I must take it literally. These two very positive moves towards a less-bigoted-church only happened to occur during Welby's tenure as A of C and were not in fact attributable to him. Please correct me if I am wrong?

Otherwise there will be a lot of work to do to find every article relating to events or tenures occurring or spanning 2015, and adding the text, "when, coincidentally, the first female Anglican Bishop was elected."

I propose starting with "Popular British boyband released their album 'Made in the A.M.' in 2015, which, coincidentally, was the precisely the same year that the first female Anglican Bishop was consecrated."

I've no issue with the article detailing the facts of Welby's extraordinarily rapid rise from lawyer and oil executive to history's most politically linked/politicized Archbishop of Canterbury - but please let's not grace him with implied credit for events that merely coincided with his tenure and had very-little-or-nothing to do with him.

Thanks you in advance,

F etc. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Welby was head of the church when the decision to appoint women bishops was taken, with his enthusiastic support, and he personally consecrated Treweek to the episcopacy. He was not purely coincidental to the change, as the rather tendentious hypothetical suggests. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The text I raised the issue with is not about Treweek.

The text I raised the issue with admits itself the events were coincidental.

The point which you dismissed (terribly terribly pompously my good chap!) is that coincidences are just that. I see you replied to me just after three-thirty today. Coincidentally, I was moving my bowels at precisely that time.

If the events detailed in the text I quoted are actually attributable to Welby, then edit it to say so and stop wasting my time you pompous dolt. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Defamation?

After molesting 11-year boys in the oil industry, Welby trained for ordination at St John's College, Durham. He served in a number of parish churches before becoming Dean of Liverpool in 2007 and Bishop of Durham in 2011, serving in the latter role for just over a year before succeeding Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury in February 2013.

This is a very dangerous statement to make without evidence. Gambing (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Why have you, an editor for seven years with over 160 seemingly helpful edits, posted this garbage? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Gambing I feel the need to apologize to you again. When I read your entry and then looked at the article, the version you quoted had already been reverted. And I mistakenly thought your talk entry was a separate vandalism. Whilst I certainly do not advocate for Welby, it was a vicious statement and I regret that I wrongly imagined it was your doing. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this has now been reverted. Unsourced statements like this in a WP:BLP should be deleted immediately without bothering to go to the talk page. PatGallacher (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, okay, my apologies to @Gambing. I gather from @PatGallacher's addition that someone had vandalized the article and this is what Gambing was quoting. Apologies and thanks to you both. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies graciously acknowledged. And thank you @PatGallagher for the advice re prompt deletions. I am still very much a newbie at all this. Gambing (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Disparity in the articles use of styles & titles of Welby's biological parents

Welby's apparent biological father is given the title 'Sir' in this article, a title he was given in the year 2000. He is referred to as "Sir Montagu" in the context of the episode in the 1950s when he fathered Welby. He was not 'Sir' at that time, and I have no issues with him being referred to as 'Sir Montagu' in the descriptions of events that occurred prior to his title being acquired.

However I see that his biological mother is referred to as just 'Jane'. But in fact she died bearing the aristocratic style "Jane, Baroness Williams of Elvel".

So there is an obvious disparity in the article as it now stands. It seems obvious that either both of Welby's biological parents should be referred to using their aristocratic styles, or neither should be. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with User:Flusapochterasumesch, we should be consistent in how we apply aristoratic style and it should be applied appropriately as suggested. I will leave it to those across the pond to apply the titles. Jurisdicta (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I've removed "Sir" from Browne in the text and infobox.

Jane is included in the infobox as Jane Williams, a name she acquired long after becoming Welby's mother, but not as Baroness Williams; which seems a slightly odd compromise. TSP (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Notable events? Prince George's christening is more notable than Henry's wedding

Given the Archbishop of Canterbury's historical & constitutional importance to the British Monarchy, surely the christenings of Prince George (2nd in line of succession), Princess Charlotte (3rd in line of succession) and Prince Louis (4th in line of succession), all of which were conducted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, are more notable than Harry's nuptials? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

agree on the christening Drew Stanley (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that sources would bear up that assessment of importance? The Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle was a major televised event, watched by a global audience estimated in the hundreds of millions; the christenings were private events which have not been felt notable enough for their own Wikipedia articles. As ever, we follow the sources, not our own beliefs on constitutional significance. TSP (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)