Talk:Open Episcopal Church

Article creation

Please can you give time for the article to be brought into compliant status with your guidelines.(Helen194848 (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC))

At the moment the article is completely empty. Once you add text the tag will re removed. However do note that the article will have to comply with other Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:N or it may be re-tagged with a different deletion tag. Travelbird (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Mistakenly uploaded a blank page. Have corrected this now hopefully.(Helen194848 (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC))

I have amended the article as instructed I think...I hope...sorry, am new to this..there are so many other references that could be included to satisfy notability, I'm not sure how many should be placed there. (Helen194848 (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC))

That's encouraging. Spent a lot of time on it. Thanks for your advice and help. (Helen194848 (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

More info

There seems to be a lot more cited info on the church at User:Helen194848. The wiki article as it exists now seems to have undergone POV changes since the original article created by that editor: [1]. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

/subpage

Recent edits

Some of the recent edits by Integrity4488hope are really poorly sourced. I am not editing as I do not want to be engaged in an edit war and violate Wikipedia rules, nor do I want dialogue with whoever is behind this user name as they do not understand how to present information properly or how to use sources. So this is to inform any of the policing editors. Gorilla1978 (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I have responded to the request for editing by the Wikipedia admin and have tried to make the article objective, providing citations where requested and completing a factual chronological history, with citations. wherever available.Integrity4488hope (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

This page needs to be heavily edited to remove subjectivity and the obsessive and disproportionate focus on the irrelevant private life of one person. For instance, the Christmas lights issue is nothing to do with the church but is a private matter of charity by Blake. The 'publicity' Blake has gained that is cited has nothing to do with the church. This is about the OEC not one person. Please could someone remove all these irrelevant and aggrandising parts? Gorilla1978 (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I would take a different view from the the points Gorilla1978 makes above. I suggest the remaining paragraph that may be considered 'subjective' is the one s/he inserted "In 2014 a significant number of people left the Open Episcopal Church because of Jonathan Blake's social media posts and his response when faced with criticism about them. Those who left included priests, deacons, ordinands, a lay herald and the Bishop of Scotland. In addition some international churches in communion with the OEC severed ties. Since this time, several clerics have left the church and its number of active ministers was reduced. [62]"

Subjective, because it provides an explanation for events that would be contested. S/He does not give a citation for the international churches s/he states severed ties with the OEC. It refers to clerics leaving and numbers reducing, when membership of an organisation is in constant flux. I request that s/he consider editing the paragraph accordingly.

S/He raises issue with references to Blake. Specifically the Christmas lights. I submit that sustained church fundraising for charity as an expression of social outreach, about which a Channel 4 documentary was made, is relevant. I submit too that if the leader of a church comes to public attention, it has a consequential effect on the profile and publicity accorded the church. The references also show the ubiquitous nature of the church and its atypical manner of mission, widely covered in the media.

S/He suggests that references are 'aggrandising' when in fact they are of a mixed nature, representing the range of public comment and information about Blake in the public arena.Integrity4488hope (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph Integrityr4488hope cites above is not subjective at all as it gives no opinion or observations and only states facts (statements verifiable as true or false). As this is not an established church with accountable leadership who maintain accurate or reliable objective records open to scrutiny, there is no way this information can be furnished with links to peer assessed or objectively reviewed sources. However the events described are fact and there are extensive emails and witness statements that can be provided to support these facts, although these would not be appropriate or aesthetic to be put on Wikipedia. But they can be provided and added should a moderating editor wish them to be. The criticisms levelled by Integrity4488hope against the paragraph Gorilla1978 added are hypocritical considering Integrity4488hope uses highly questionable sources of little objectivity or reputation for many points they make. Many of the points made are aggrandising and not relevant to the OEC as they relate to private matters. Do you see details of the private life and activities of the Archbishop of Canturbury on the Church of England entry? Do we find out about the current Pope's personal issues on the Roman Catholic or even the Vatican entry? Not so. Therefore it would be helpful if these trivial private details were removed. The paragraph added by Gorilla1978 is important so that people have an accurate picture of the OEC and do not misunderstand what it is. Gorilla1978 (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that the words "because of Jonathan Blake's social media posts and his response when faced with criticism about them" is subjective and is contested. The OEC is an 'established' church, has accountable leadership, as set out in its Canons, that provide democratic structures of governance, including the provision for the removal of clerics by disciplinary structures and of the archbishop by majority vote. The canons require the church and its clergy to maintain records and to be open and accountable. Gorilla1978 refers to 'facts' being supported by 'extensive emails and witness statements'. Such material could be adduced from those who would contest Gorilla1978's interpretation. There is a difference between fact and opinion. The fact is that people have left the OEC as individuals or in groups since its founding. This is objective and incontestable. The reasons they left is open to different interpretations. This is subjective. Gorilla1978 accuses me of hypocrisy. However I have provided citations for edits from a range of third party and scrutable sources. S/he repeats the 'aggrandising' point. However the references to Blake are mixed. The size of the two main denominations mean that their Wikipedia entries cross reference repeatedly to other Wikipedia articles covering all aspects of their activity, including the private lives and public ministry of their notable members. The OEC is a small denomination where relevant information is containable within one entry at present and where its relevance, impact and likely longevity is closely linked to the activities of its clerics. The citations given indicate the particular nature and praxis of the church. Gorilla1978 is reluctant to edit her/his entry so 'people have an accurate picture of the OEC and do not misunderstand what it is'. I am not sure what is meant by this, but I suggest that the paragraph in question does not achieve this.Integrity4488hope (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• People, thank you for discussing on this talk page. Please remember to nest your replies properly under the post you are replying to by using one more colon than the post you are replying to. I have done that for both of you above. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for showing how to enter comments properly.Integrity4488hope (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

After this comment I am done responding to Integrity4488hope's statements. This editor clearly does not understand the difference between fact and opinion in very basic theory, but mlre importantly the mitigating and often contiguous continuum that exists between these two concepts. It is impossible to present any facts using language, without some subjectivity. To be purely objective one would only have to present statistics. The difference between my additions and those of this editor are that mine are LESS subjective than theirs. The objection to Blake's social media posts is provable through the audit trail of emails and social media, as is the claim that people left the church because of his response. This can be argued easily. Of course there are no other sources than those emails, social media posts and comment threads themselves, but it is difficult to link to them here and also in terms of emails presents a confidentiality issue. With clearance on this those emails could be presented. I will not respond to Integrity4488hope any further and will only respond to someone who understands the basic process of presenting arguments in objective way, and indeed the way language works itself. Good day. Gorilla1978 (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know who is proposing that emails or social media comments be used as citations and/or as points of comment, but on Wikipedia we can only do that if there are reliable neutral independent sources which refer to those things; we cannot refer to those things in Wikipedia's voice or use them as citations. We cannot write Wikipedia merely from our personal knowledge or personal experience; everything must be from reliable independent neutral sources. This article is already overly long considering the church's minor standing; I suspect the solution to all of this article's problems would be to greatly trim it, and also eliminate all primary-source citations and any text based on them. Softlavender (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It is Gorilla1978 that is suggesting using emails and social media comments. I think there is only one primary-source citation. The multiple others indicate that the church has generated considerable independent comment, hence the length of the article, which, if one scans the history, has been already considerably trimmed.Integrity4488hope (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

There are not neutral sources for the events I cite, however much of what Integrity4488hope has written is also inadequately sourced or lacking neutrwl sources. This is because the OEC is not an established organisation with an accountable leadership. I think the solution would be to remove this article entirely. It is of little public importance for the reasons Softlavender states above, and has no real or significant notability. Gorilla1978 (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Per a request by Softlavender at another user's talk page, I have gone through and removed unsourced material that is not in compliance with our policies and guidelines. Those statements which still need in-line sourcing but I thought could likely be easily verified and weren't in direct conflict with our standards I have tagged as needing citation. For anything else that is added, please remember to use in-line citations to reliable sources if you think it might at all be controversial or appear like a sales bit. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Stuart section

Softlavender, do we have any sourcing for the Stuart section? TonyBallioni (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

No, but it provides the requested chronology and I have no doubt about its accuracy; it comes from someone deeply connected with the church (see the link in the section at the top of this page called "More info") who speaks in first person plural. Softlavender (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

New version (subpage)

I would like to ask TonyBallioni to review a new version of the article I have created here: Talk:Open Episcopal Church/subpage. I have trimmed the lengthy uncited sections, but retained a coherent narrative and timeline. My problem with the version you last approved of [2] is that dates are missing, the timeline is obscure and confusing, and the narrative is choppy and makes little coherent sense. The problem with the live article as it stands at this moment [3], with the material I added from the article-creator's original draft (mostly uncited OR but convincingly authentic), is that it is largely uncited, and most of the clerical infighting is over-lengthy and not hugely relevant (not to mention uncited). Since no one seems to currently want to do Google research to remedy the lack of verifiability, I have trimmed most of the fat and cut out the separate sections on the Archbishops entirely, while retaining a coherent narrative and an adequate number of dates. What do you think? Softlavender (talk) 07:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, thank you for your work on this. I think it is probably the best way forward. I still have some concerns with the verifiability of the paragraphs without inline citations (arguably OR concerns as well), and I think it would need the needs more citations tag to at least alert the reader of the concerns, but I think the subpage is probably the best option we have now. My one concern with dates is that ideally we would have the exact dates of the episcopal consecrations if they are claiming apostolic succession (which is a big if, but they seem to be doing so from what I can make out). Its not enough to make me not want the general months in the article, but it is something worth noting. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I am going to post the new version, and you can make whatever emendations to it you desire, or add any tags you feel important. Softlavender (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, added refimprove because of the WP:V issues. I'll pop back around to this later today or tomorrow and see if there are any other tweaks that I can make. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Fine with me. By the way, I do not understand ecclesiastical jargon ("episcopal consecrations", "apostolic succession", etc.), so I leave that stuff to you. But in terms of exact dates, I think I may have removed some of those (check the original creator's draft in the "More info" section at the top of this page) and only left year dates, because I didn't know exact dates were important. Also, I'm not even clear whether this is an Anglican church or a Catholic church. There is a Category that says it is an independent Catholic church. Softlavender (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

On that note, if you feel all of the eccelesiastical consecrations and Councils and convenings and successions and infighting that I added in but then ultimately decided to excise, are important since it's from a Catholic church (I now see that it says so in the article), you are welcome to put them back in. I took them out because I thought you would probably object to so much uncited material, and because the infighting and ecclesiastical stuff was starting to dominate the article. But I can understand if to a Catholic-minded reader or editor that stuff is important. (I guess it's like "lineage" stuff in Buddhism -- I'm not a Buddhist but I have edited a number of Buddhist articles). I hope that makes sense. Softlavender (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

PPS: I discovered that they do claim apostolic succession: [4]. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think most of the infighting stuff being taken out is fine, those don't really matter as much. Dates of consecration matter because these small breakoff groups tend to go out of their way to emphasize their valid orders (John Wesley did the same at one point if I recall). Basically they aren't viewed as churches in the sense used by Catholics and the Orthodox if they lack valid bishops. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I catch your meaning. When I have the notion I'll check back into the original draft and see if any of those consecrations bear replacing in the article. Softlavender (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Other issues

There seems more to this than meets the eye:

https://annaraccoon.com/2016/08/01/no-laughing-matter/

I see there are other sources. We can’t use the Daily Mail, apparently, but what about The Times? 193.154.173.233 (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

A rival account (with a hilarious - unhinged? - list of names):

http://bishopjonathanblake.blogspot.com/2017/02/press-release-concerning-met-police.html

And a tweet which (astonishingly, given the above) is still online, so I’ve kept a screenshot:

https://twitter.com/bishopjonathan/status/757947877511626752?s=21

193.154.173.233 (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)