Talk:St. John's Episcopal Church, Lafayette Square
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the St. John's Episcopal Church, Lafayette Square article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[Untitled]
editWho built St. John's Episcopal Church? I can't find that info in the entry. What labor force erected the Church? Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.77.188 (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Too many images
editI feel there's too many images packed into the history section of the article. They should be moved to a separate Gallery section. Chris6d (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, Chris6d. Actually makes the article difficult to read. However, I am not well-versed in the syntax of what it takes to make pictures do what I want them to do, and my few attempts so far have been frustrating, to say the least. Are you any better at it than I am? I would fully support such edits, and if someone else makes them, then I can put off learning how to master images on Wikipedia for a while longer. JimKaatFan (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Chris6d: @JimKaatFan: I combined the portraits into a couple of interstitial galleries (these can be moved as a unit) because wow, that is a lot of people to be painted. Let me know what you think. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Time to end the virtual lockdown
editAny reason why this page is locked while not updated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.224.250 (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, there were a bunch of anonymous IP address editors adding unsourced content. The page was not locked, FYI, it was semi-protected. JimKaatFan (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Editor JimKaatFan wanted some reliable sources about the fire at St John's church that occurred during the George Floyd protests
editFeel free to decide if any of these are reliable
https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2020/05/31/george-floyd-death-dc-mayor-curfew-arrests-latest/
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/3rd-day-george-floyd-protests-washington-dc/2318177/
https://www.rt.com/usa/490354-stjohn-church-fire-washington/
https://www.inquisitr.com/6086414/st-johns-church-fire-washington-dc/
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/george-floyd-protests-05-31-20/h_4d82d8863670a0aa3e15914123c11332
https://www.foxnews.com/us/george-floyd-cities-brace-riots-national-guard-troops-mobilize
https://nypost.com/2020/05/31/several-fires-lit-near-white-house-as-d-c-protests-continue-to-rage/
https://wtop.com/dc/2020/05/dc-protests-of-george-floyds-death-expected-for-a-3rd-night/
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/historic-st-johns-church-fire-025954610.html
24.229.219.34 (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- You're a little late. I added that paragraph already. JimKaatFan (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Diocesan bishop's statements are "NPOV"?
editUser:KidAd has reverted the article to their preferred version and demanded that I plead my case. KidAd states "Removed WP:NPOV / WP:UNDUE material sourced to a Facebook post." Let me address these concerns:
- WP:NPOV ("Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias") and WP:UNDUE ("fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources"):
- The current headline of the Washington Post as I write this is "Tear gas used to clear peaceful crowd ahead of Trump’s walk to church." The Associated Press headline is "Tear gas, threats for protesters before Trump visits church". For the New York Times, "Tear Gas Clears Path for Trump to Visit Church." The relevant headline in BBC News is "Protesters tear gassed to clear path for Trump". By far the most positive headline is by Fox News - "St. John's Church rector on aftermath of fire, impromptu Trump visit: 'Like I'm in some alternative universe'". Given the preponderance of published, credible sources, the NPOV voice would be to focus on tear gas, the removal of protestors, Trump's visit, and (perhaps less prominently) the peaceful nature of the protestors. KidAd's preferred version is to replace "Trump ordered tear gas to be used on peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square in order to take a photo op in front of church" with "Trump walked to the church". I find it hard not to conclude that KidAd's version is the NPOV one.
- The given extended quotes by the involved persons, namely the diocesan bishop and the rector on church grounds, both mirror the published, credible sources in the focus on the violence, Trump's visit, and nature of the protesters. Could they have been trimmed by a diligent editor? Sure. Are they worth wholesale removal? WP:RV enjoins editors: "If you see a good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of reverting it." KidAd's edits here fall far short of this standard.
- Lastly, "material sourced to a Facebook post" as a reason for removal. Per WP:FACEBOOK, Facebook can sometimes be used as a reliable source: "The official page of a subject may be used as a self-published, primary source, but only if it can be authenticated as belonging to the subject." This is the relevant post of a account for a Gini Gerbasi who lists her profession as "Rector at St. John's Episcopal Church, Georgetown, Washington DC" and has an account with photos of meeting religious figures going back at least eight years. A trivial search reveals that "Gini Gerbasi" is in fact a member of clergy at St. John's. In fact, since I began writing searches are now turning up news articles related to her response to her being driven away from the church. Given that the only reason to automatically remove content "sourced to Facebook" is only if it cannot be authenticated as belonging to the subject, I would like to hear KidAd's reasoning for why he thinks that this is a fake Facebook account deserving automatic removal.
I think I covered everything. The content wasn't perfect, but it was certainly a reasonable foundation to build on, in my opinion, and not deserving of wholesale removal. KidAd, your response? - Featous (talk) 07:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- First, please tone it down. Remember to assume good faith and avoid treating this like a debate. It is not.
- As for the NPOV issue, it it WP:UNDUE to copy-and-paste an entire Facebook post into a Wikipedia as some sort of rebuttal. Using social media platforms such as Twitter, Linkedin, or Facebook for information is generally avoided because it is WP:USERGENERATED. There are plenty of sources covering the story now, so there is no need for the Facebook post to be included.
- Additionally, Wikipedia relies on reliable sources for information, but that does't mean Wikipedia is literally "ripped-from-the-headlines." Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wikipedia content should be reliably sourced and neutral.
- Next, any notion that I prefer a version of the article that says, "the president walked..." is false. If you note this diff, you will see that I did not add that content. Also, I'm not opposed to using quotes in the article if they are reliably-sourced, but Wikipedia should not be a WP:QUOTEFARM. Overlong quotes detract from readability, and can often be significantly trimmed down while maintaining the information.
- Last, I'll briefly direct my version of the contested material. The most recent version reads:
President Donald Trump later visited the church after speaking to reporters about the protest. After Trump's visit to the church, Rector Gini Gerbasi criticized the president in a Facebook post, stating that tear gas had been used to disperse nearby protesters. He also characterized the visit as a "political stunt."
This version provides necessary context and information without being wordy or over-reliant on quotations. It mentions the Facebook post without quoting or linking to it, seeing as reliable sources are now covering the statement made in the post. This version remains neutral. Per WP:NPOV, contentious labels should be avoided – depending on the case of course. Here, characterizing the event as a "photo op" ads nothing but bias, as would the characterization of "a display of strength" or "valiant effort." - For now, I think we should wait for some other opinions to come in to establish a consensus. If you want, feel free to remove the material I added and restore the page to this version, before either of us made edits, until a consensus is reached. KidAd (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Looks to me that the current version, described above by KidAd, is fine. Covers the bases and is sourced, seems NPOV. It's also obvious to me, as well, that you can't copy and paste an entire Facebook post into an article, that's a non-starter. JimKaatFan (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- FWIW, and it's my opinion of how the "2020" section affects the quality of the article, I admit, I wanted to say somewhere here that I'm glad this "2020" section is here and I don't find it to be biased. I came to the article because all the reporting I've seen is incomplete... I hoped to get the basic story, including the fire and the controversial events of the next day, and it's all here.
I'm very glad editors have updated the article with this content.(striking out "I'm very glad" remark; the quality of this section was good a day or so ago when it was consise and short, but it's been getting worse and worse as editors have "improved" it... I'm leery of edit warring, so I'll just wait to edit it back to a better state someday.) Cellodont (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- FWIW, and it's my opinion of how the "2020" section affects the quality of the article, I admit, I wanted to say somewhere here that I'm glad this "2020" section is here and I don't find it to be biased. I came to the article because all the reporting I've seen is incomplete... I hoped to get the basic story, including the fire and the controversial events of the next day, and it's all here.
Recent History section has inaccuracies & is subjective
edit1. Suggest deleting last 2 sentences in Recent History Section. Unrelated to the subject, opinionated, adds no value to the subject historical church AND Rector Gini Gerbasi is or was a Rector at St. Johns "Georgetown" NOT St. Johns Lafayette Square. 2. Suggest removing Reference 11; only a mention of the church; adds no value to the subject (see #3). 3. Keep Reference 12 - this article IS all about the subject Historical Church while incorporating current events. 4. Suggest removing Reference 13, not necessary, not really about the subject church whereas Reference 12 and 14 sufficiently cover the events as related to the Church. 5. Keep Reference 14 as it accurately discloses "Rev. Robert Fisher, the rector of St. John's Episcopal Church in Washington D.C. -- located in Lafayette Square near the White House". Furthermore, the real Rev of St. Johns Lafayette square was at an interview with Martha MacCullum when President Trump visited the church. 6. Remove references 15, 16, 17 because among other things the articles erroneously refer to the Rev of a Georgetown church not the subject, the articles appear to be more about the protests and riots rather than being informative articles about the Historical Church and too much opinion and distortion of unrelated facts. Mdandjax (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not done. Section is fine as is. JimKaatFan (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Fire was not accidental
editThe article claims that "a fire that started outside of the church spread to the basement of the church's parish house". I was there when this happened on Sunday night. There were three fires. One in the street, one in a small building in Lafayette Square, and one in the basement of the church's parish house. The fire was not merely "spread" from another fire, because I witnessed a group of men break into the basement and light it on fire. Are there any other sources that can be cited? Because the fire was definitely started on purpose and not just "spread" from an adjacent fire. Thanks. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Here's the wording from the NYT article cited as the source for that sentence: "Others started fires, one of which may have spread to the basement of St. John’s, the Episcopal church that has been attended at least once by every chief executive going back to James Madison. Firefighters soon put out the flames." JimKaatFan (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- I just wonder if there are other sources that make it more clear that the fire was deliberately started. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
2020 Riots
edit"Fire causes minor damage to St. John’s, the ‘church of presidents’ in Washington, during night of riots" https://www.episcopalnewsservice.org/2020/06/01/fire-causes-minor-damage-to-st-johns-the-church-of-presidents-in-washington-during-night-of-riots/
- This is a peripheral article, make your case for rewording at the parent article's talkpage: Talk:Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church. Peripheral articles are not for content forks, they should be consistent with parent articles.Acroterion (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)