Talk:St Paul's Cathedral, Dunedin

message: I understand it's called Pauls not Paul's, anyway apostrophe-less is the style of the newspaper where I work for mention of this cathedral.Nankai 20:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pauls

message: Requested.
We have two conflicting versions of a section. Version #1 (mine), written as a stand-in until WP:UNDUE questions are resolved, reads as follows:
:"Director of music David Burchell was dismissed by the Bishop of Dunedin in early 2011.
:The Dean of Dunedin says the incident is not comparable to the "Raymond White affair" and declined to comment further. The Bishop of Dunedin states Burchell's departure follows an "ongoing disagreement involving the director of music." The disagreement is thought to follow attempts to resolve differences between Burchell and former choir members, centred on alleged "bullying" of members and the expulsion of a family two years ago.
:Burchell had been appointed in 1999 following the previous director's dismissal. He retains his role as musical director of the City of Dunedin Choir."
This is sourced to the Otago Daily Times article, which both sides accept as a source.
Version 2 includes what I believe are WP:BLP violations (redacted below, visible in the link) and reads:
:"Following this* has been the recent dismissal of Mr David Burchell as Director of Music in January 2011. An announcement from Bishop Kelvin Wright in a St Paul's pew sheet stated that this was the result of over two years of "ongoing disagreement involving the Director of Music which The Chapter, The Dean and (the Bishop had) tried, with the utmost care and patience to resolve."
:The dismissal occurred after Mr Burchell had  redacted BLP violation based around the same ongoing issue."
This is sourced to the previously mentioned article and another source "St. Paul's Cathedral Pew Sheet notice, 30th January 2011."
* Refers to another section I have since removed under WP:BLP as unsourced contentious claims about a living person.
The issues seem to be as follows:
1) Is the "Pew Sheet" a reliable source such that material from it can be used for this section?
2) Based on the sources present, is this a significant enough event to warrant our coverage of it?
3) If the section should remain, what form should it take?
The other involved editor states ze has other sources, letters from members, "official docs and letters from three affected members" (see Talk:City_of_Dunedin_Choir). I feel these unverifiable, unpublished sources are irrelevant. The other editor also states that the material in question "has been approved by third party as verifiable and wiki worthy" (on my talk page). I am unable to determine who this was or what was said. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. Re the pew sheet questions, please see my comments at Talk:City_of_Dunedin_Choir#Content_re_abuse.2C_neutrality_and_removal_of_members. Once all the material based upon the pew sheet is removed from the article, it does seem to me to give undue weight to this relatively minor incident to mention it in the article. If it is to be mentioned at all, it ought to be limited to a maximum of a sentence or two, but frankly I do not think that it should be mentioned at all unless it can be shown to have received more notice in reliable sources than the one mention in Otago Daily Times. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'm removing it, unless/until a consensus develops to the contrary. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

text: The third opinion presented disagrees with you. To press this further, I'd suggest a request for comment. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: While I generally do not edit articles if I have issued a Third Opinion about them, I have an obligation as an editor to remove negative information which violates the BLP policy. I have removed that part of the restored material (all about White and all about Burchell except that which can be substantiated by the usable parts one newspaper article). I did not remove the rest because that is merely an undue weight issue and must be settled between the parties. I express no opinion about the POV tagging. I will ask for user blocks or page protection if the BLP material I have removed is restored without being documented with reliable sources. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

text: I'll let this sit for a bit. Then, if there has not been substantial policy/guideline-based discussion to the contrary, I will remove the section again. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

text: The current consensus is to not include it. Based on our policies/guidelines, this is a trivial event as it has not been discussed in multiple independent reliable sources. Rather, we have one independent source that I presume is reliable. Is there any other independent reliable coverage before I remove this? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember that, per the guidelines of the Third Opinion project, Third Opinions are "neither mandatory nor binding," and thus do not "count" towards consensus. They're just advisory opinions and it is up to the involved editors to either come to agreement or to form consensus through other editors, perhaps through a request for comments. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:3O|Third opinion requested]] 

message: Another editor has tagged the article as potentially not presenting a neutral point of view. As there has been no discussion to this end, I am asking for discussion before removing the tag. (I am unsure if the weight/BLP issue above is what the editor has in mind. If so, I do not believe this dispute represents a POV problem. If we discussed one side of the issue, we would have an POV problem. Not discussing an issue is a question of depth. Comments? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Should the article discuss the recent firing of the Director of music? (See also discussion of this issue above.) - SummerPhD (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The concern centers around the poor sourcing. We have ONE independent reliable source about this issue. The White issue was removed as unsourced and removed. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC re recent firing of director of music 

message: * Discuss, no, mention maybe. The risk of undue weight is the main remaining concern, I can see, however, that were there a significant section on the history of the church as a religious and social group, which would be appropriate, that including this as part of that section would be quite reasonable. Rich Farmbrough, 22:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The concern centers around the poor sourcing. We have ONE independent reliable source about this issue. The White issue was removed as unsourced and removed. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Threaded discussion

message: A section needs to be added outlining the abuse of children at this Cathedral, centred around the documentary “sex,lies, and videotape” FairDinks (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual abuse of choir boys