Talk:St Nicholas Church, Durham

message: The below comments are all added by the person who made the initial edit suggestion, a new editor who chooses to remain anonymous. 146.66.47.172 (talk)
Hi TSP, thanks for starting this discussion. I was planning on doing so at the end of the week when I had more time. Here are some thoughts from me about the reasoning for the edit and also about the editing process so far, and in the future.
==== Comments on the editing process ====
# I note that the recommended processes as outlined in pages like WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD have not been followed so far by either me or by the people reverting my edits.I have appreciated you pointing to these policies as they are useful and I had not found all of them when previously searching through policies as a new editor. For example, I had never head of WP:BRD before. However, reading through that policy, I don't think it was fair to imply that it was only me who was not following WP:BRD. For example, the page says, "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD." So by the time you linked to WP:BRD, it had already been abandoned by both myself and Gaia Octavia Agrippa. (Arguably, we were never in a BRD cycle, if we compare the first reversion to the advice for reverting given on the WP:BRD page).Reading WP:BRD also helped me come across WP:ONLYREVERT, which I think gives wise advice. Fellow editors may want to re-acquaint themselves with that page, particularly the sections on "Reverting drives away editors", "Alternatives to reverting", and "Explain reverts"). These sections give a good articulation of how this experience has been for me as a new editor.Anyway, The more important point is that a discussion is happening now and that is hopefully a good way to reach consensus we didn’t reach through edit summaries.
# Some of the sections on this page seem like they are edited by people involved in the church. E.g. the Notable Clergy section has unsourced information about whether clergy are still part of the ministry team, which I saw that you recently updated. I also note that this section uses the term "here" while I would expect "there" would be normal. I don't think either of those things are bad, in fact I think it's good to have insider info which I'm sure is accurate, even though a pedant could call it "original research". I am just saying that these are some of the indications that suggest there is editing from people involved in the church. As well as giving advantages, this could potentially have drawbacks if not managed wisely.I think it is at least worth considering whether someone involved in the church is the appropriate person to be making editorial decisions to cancel people's good faith attempts to improve a page (particularly when those good faith edits could be interpreted as introducing negative connotations associated with the church, however indirect). I am not saying we can only edit pages if we’re somehow 'neutral': after all, none of us are. Personally, I'm not part of St Nicholas' or the CoE, nor am I British, but I have been personally moved by learning about Carey’s leadership failure. Therefore, when I came across his name unexpectedly when reading about churches, I cared enough to make the edit. We're aiming for NPOV articles, not the impossible goal of being entirely neutral people.Another page I’ve come across via WP:BRD is WP:OWN, and some of the WP:OWNBEHAVIOR section did remind me of some things that have happened in this unfortunate edit war (going back to the first reversion saying that my edit is "needless", which is one of the listed examples of ownership behaviour). I would like to request that all editors, whether involved in the church or not, please humbly consider the wisdom of the WP:OWN page as part of our self-reflection on how we can each best contribute to the common property of our Wikipedia page.
==== What we are discussing ====
# Here's the situation we're in: I have made a good faith edit to improve the article. Other editors aren’t happy with that edit. In light of the above-discussed Wiki policies, a good faith edit should be removed entirely only if it "makes the article clearly worse". It being unnecessary is not a warrant to remove a good faith edit. So that is what we need to determine in this conversation: from a neutral point of view, does amending how Carey is described to mention his leadership failure “actually make the article worse” than the status quo (mentioning his later role without mentioning his failure at exercising that role)?
## I’m very willing to negotiate wording of the edit and I appreciate suggestions. So even if the current wording does make the article worse, the question is: Can we find any way to mention Carey’s leadership failure that improves the article or, as a minimum, does not make the article "clearly worse"? If and only if every possible wording makes the article "clearly worse", a complete cancellation of my edit suggestion is appropriate. Otherwise, negotiation and improvement of my edit is the correct course of action, as per all the above policies.
# To clarify, my edit suggestion is to mention the leadership failure as part of Carey's description in the "Notable Clergy" section. I originally made the mention in a different section, but it was rightly pointed out to me that the leadership failure does not relate to Carey's time at St Nicholas'. At least, it is relevant only in the most indirect way (insofar as it raises about his approach to safeguarding in his earlier ministry posts). It is not relevant enough to make it applicable to a section narrating Carey's time at St Nicholas', which is where I originally wrote it. I do still think it is relevant to the "Notable Clergy" section (I don't think I had noticed the "notable clergy" section when I made the first edit, so I assumed the historical section was the only time in the article that Carey was mentioned as a notable former clergyperson).
## On the other hand, if there have been any statements from current St Nicholas' clergy about Carey as a former vicar after the information came out, then the info would be relevant for the history section as part of more recent history at St Nicholas'. It would be applicable not where I previously wrote it, but in a new sentence at the end of the paragraph about Carey's time at St Nicholas', briefly saying that years later, this troubling info about the former vicar came to light, meaning that he could not be a vicar/presider/preacher anymore, and what St Nicholas' said or did in response.
==== Why I think the leadership failure should be mentioned ====
# As you note, "our list of former clergy includes only their connection to the church; and a brief assertion of their notability", which is consistent with MOS:LONGSEQ. A "brief assertion of notability" is not the same as just saying the absolute minimum that is "necessary to establish his notability". The issue is, simply, what should be mentioned in a "brief assertion of notability" for someone who once held leadership privileges but then was stripped from these and other privileges due to a failure in exercising them. Should it only mention the leadership privileges one held, or should it also mention the failure in exercising those privileges that led to their removal?
# It is not true that any mention of Carey's leadership failure is making the argument that "this is the overwhelmingly most significant part of Carey's record'. (It may be true that some the current wording makes this point. As discussed, I'm willing to negotiate wording.)
# TSP cited the Britannica article as an example of an article that only mentions Carey's leadership failure briefly near the need. However, Carey's article here on Wikipedia page is a bit different. The introduction section contains a paragraph on Carey's leadership failures with a focus on what they means for his formal roles in the church permission to officiate. This seems consistent with the suggestion that the leadership failure that resulted in loss of leadership privileges is part of the basic essential information about Carey as a notable individual.
# I argue that the leadership failure is an important part of his notability and specifically an important part of his tenure as Archbishop of Canterbury (which is already mentioned). This is not to say (and I never claimed) that the leadership failure is the only important thing, or the most important thing, about Carey's career as a clergyperson or as an Archbishop. This is a matter of opinion. What is not a matter of opinion is Carey's objective status as per church law. On this measure, his leadership failures are important enough that it's changed his career to one where he has lost the right to officiate as a clergyperson.
==== Options for the edit ====
Current text in Notable Clergy section: "George Carey, later Archbishop of Canterbury, was vicar of St Nicholas from 1975 to 1982."
# "George Carey, now-disgraced Archbishop of Canterbury, was vicar of St Nicholas from 1975 to 1982."Advantages: Pithy. Disadvantages: Probably not NPOV.
# The text that I wrote: "George Carey, later found to have covered up complaints of sex abuse against clergy in his subsequent role as Archbishop of Canterbury, was vicar of St Nicholas from 1975 to 1982."Advantages: Largely based on objective facts. Disadvantages: Too long. Level of detail and sentence structure arguably gives non-NPOV amount of focus on leadership failure.
# "George Carey, later Archbishop of Canterbury (officiating permission later revoked), was vicar of St Nicholas from 1975 to 1982."Advantages: No longer gives the incorrect impression that Carey is notable in the same way as any other clergyperson who rose to the highest clergy position in the Anglican Communion. Now clarifies that an essential part of his notability as a clergyperson and an archbishop is that he commmitted "serious breaches of duty" as an archbishop and, as a result, can now no longer preach or preside as a clergyperson in any church.Disadvantages: Makes the detail on notability longer than any other item on the list (though the entire bullet point is still shorter than some others on the list).I think the advantage outweighs the disadvantage in this case. It's fair that it takes more words for a "brief assertion of Carey's notability" because Carey is both more notable than anyone else on the list and notable in a more complicated way, as he both took a high position of leadership and was found to have failed at it.
# Don't include the info in the Notable Clergy section but actually in the history section where Carey is first mentioned. Include it in a new, brief sentence as the sad end to the narrative about Carey's time at St Nicholas - that, years later, this troubling info came to light about the important former vicar, meaning that he could not be a vicar/presider/preacher anymore. I assume it was a sad time for St Nicholas' when all this came out. This would be arguably not relevant to this historical section. However, it would be relevant if it also stated what St Nicholas' said or did in response at the time, e.g. if the current vicar released a statement about the developments.
# Any other suggestions for another edit option?
==== Two final comments ====
Finally, I note the irony that Carey's leadership failure was precisely in suppressing evidence of abuse in order to whitewash the image of the church. I think we should ask ourselves if we are repeating the same mistakes as stewards of what is said about the notability of someone who would no longer be allowed to come back and officiate at St Nic's because of his failure to protect churches under his care from abuse.
One last final comment: To paraphrase Blaise Pascal, I am sorry I wrote such a long contribution. I did not have time to write a shorter contribution.
146.66.47.172 (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from the edit proposer 

message: Finally, I note the irony that Carey's leadership failure was precisely in suppressing evidence of abuse in order to whitewash the image of the church. I think we should ask ourselves if we are repeating the same mistakes as stewards of what is said about the notability of someone who would no longer be allowed to come back and officiate at St Nic's because of his failure to protect churches under his care from abuse.
One last final comment: To paraphrase Blaise Pascal, I am sorry I wrote such a long contribution. I did not have time to write a shorter contribution.
146.66.47.172 (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two final comments