Talk:Ellen Leonard

Citation 4

Citation 4 for Ellen Leonard is no longer valid as it has a broken pdf and the source can't be found. Is there another citation for this important fact as a first? --RosPost 17:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I found the right document on the internet archive and added a link. It will take the reader there, but there is still a reference format error that I can't figure out how to correct. Sorry! Engmaj (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Repaired -- Jaireeodell (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Since citation 9 is self-referential, it might be better to find something like this quote from a book review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RosPost (talk • contribs) 07:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Review by Figureskatingfan

I was asked by my co-members of the Women in Religion Wikiproject to review and to help improve this article, so that we can remove the cleanup template currently here. I've already done some copyediting to make this bio read more encyclopedic in tone. There are a few paragraphs that can be reworked to further this goal. I think the best way to do that is to rewrite the paragraphs in question here because they constitute major edits and cuts, which should be discussed on a talk page before publishing them in the article. I'll also explain the reasons for my changes.

Research section, 3rd paragraph

As Leonard points out in her February 2012 article about Vatican II and the role of women religious in Scarboro Missions Magazine, the Second Vatican Council instructed Catholics to "discern the signs of the times". She also said that Vatican II "reveals dramatic changes in worldview". Leonard continues, stating that one of most important teachings coming out of Vatican II was its emphasis on baptism, which was "recognized as the common sacrament" and universal holiness, which required using one's experience as a source for studying theology. In a paper she presented to the Catholic Theological Society of America in 1988, she discusses how her own feminist and Canadian experiences could be used as a source for studying theology. She also clarifies that her goal was a consideration not of whether experience should be used, "but how experience is being used as a source for theology today, with an emphasis on the foundational role of present experience and a recognition of the widening experiential base for theological reflection". Leonard again addressed her themes about the use of experience in theology in a later article entitled "Experience as a Source for Theology: A Canadian and Feminist Perspective," written for the journal Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses in 1990.

• I've removed the first sentence in this paragraph -- "All of the issues important to Tyrrell were again in the forefront after Vatican II." -- because it seems like a conjecture made by the editor. Is it? If it is, we need to remove it because we're not supposed to make conjectures in encyclopedic writing. If not, is this a conjecture Leonard states? If it is, we can put the sentence back in, as long as we preface it with something like, "According to Leonard..." and cite it appropriately.

I think you can omit it. I added it as a restatement of the sentence in the first paragraph of this section that leads to reference #7. Engmaj (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Okey doke. You'll see that I made further changes to the paragraph above. Do they work for you all? If so, we'll go ahead and put it in. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• I think that this bio often depends too much on quotes; that's why I paraphrased the second part of the Scarboro quote.

OK, but I think it would be worth keeping the construction "the universal call to holiness" not just an emphasis on "holiness." That's at the heart of the argument she is making in these papers. Engmaj (talk)

• You'll see that I continued to paraphrase the quote from her paper, as well as the other changes I made to that section of this paragraph. I also removed the emphasis because I assumed that they were added by the editor, a practice that is also non-encyclopedic writing. We're not supposed to add to the quotes we use from any source because that's making a judgment call about what's important and what's not.

fair enough.Engmaj (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you can take out the conjecture by going to how feminist theology interprets a call to holiness or how another feminist interprets the call to holiness. The call to holiness is the notion that the laity are also "Church" and are the "people of God" and are moral agents along with the bishops and the theologians. This idea is in a Vatican II document I can find for you. I am not sure how they put it in the Wikipedia article on feminist theology, but feminists interpret this idea "people of God" as women too are the people of god and we must start theology with women's experience. Women are moral agents and women must trust their own experience. Leonard probably has this written somewhere in a document since she is a feminist theologian. RosPost 07:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes I realize this, but I don't think that Leonard's bio is the place to explain that; again, it's editorializing (which is a better way to say than "postulating") and after looking around at some policies, it (and other things that have happened here) violates the No original research policy, specifically, the WP:SYN policy. This kind of thing certainly belongs in the articles about womanism and feminist theology. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• I removed the sentence that begins, "This discussion..." because it again isn't encyclopedic and reviews the paper.

That sentence was a paraphrase of the second paragraph of the paper.Engmaj (talk)

• Notice that I folded in the comment about Leonard's Canadian and feminist experiences earlier.

OK Engmaj (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'm keeping the final sentence, retooled of course, even though it could technically be a conjecture, unless it's stated in Leonard's journal article. If it isn't, we may need to remove it later, or find another source that supports it.

Somebody who has institutional access to the 1990 article may find a statement acknowledging this. I can read the first page on Google Scholar but am not willing to pay to access the entire article. If you are more comfortable with "Leonard again addressed" instead of "reworked" that's fine. Engmaj (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Feminist and ecological Christologies section

will return to these questions tomorrow Engmaj (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• 1st paragraph: Before I do a rewrite of this paragraph, I have a few questions. Is any of the information here something that Leonard states in her journal article? Does she explictly situate the women's movement and the ecological movement within Vatican II?

I'm not convinced that this paragraph requires revision. Yes, that is a summary from her paper, in which she writes "The women's movement and the ecological movement constitute what Vatican II called 'signs of the times." on page 93 of the source referenced. Engmaj (talk)

Does she explictly state the purpose for her lit review?

Yes, she states "Ecological and feminist voices are challenging a Christology which is both anthropocentric and androcentric. Is it possible to reconstruct Christology in a way that retains the centrality of the Christ symbol but that takes seriously ecological and feminist concerns? Can Christology contribute to a viable future for all humanity and for all creation? This article will consider the challenges, some ways that these are being addressed, and suggest one possible direction for an inclusive Christology." The phrase "After a literature review of works that identified the androcentric and anthropocentric bias in traditional Christology," summarizes the first section ("I/Challenges") of her paper. This list: "she focuses on the work of theologians Rosemary Radford Ruether, Sallie McFague, and Elizabeth Johnson, and focuses on "four aspects: (1) biblical foundation; (2) continuity with the tradition; (3) promotion of the full humanity of women; and (4) openness to the whole of creation."[13] summarizes her paper by listing her ensuing section headings II/Rosemary Radford Ruether, III/Sallie McFague, III/Elizabeth Johnson (she has two sections labeled III) V/Biblical Foundation, VI, Continuity with Tradition, VII/Promotion of the Full Humanity of Women, VIII Openness to the Whole Creation, IX/Conclusion. Engmaj (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'm satisfied with your explanation and will take your word for it that it's a summary of the article. I will do some minor CE, though. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Does she explictly state that the solution is Wisdom Christianity?

Yes, she describes Wisdom Christology in her section VIII Openness to the Whole Creation and the quoted material is from the section that she has headed IX/Conclusion Engmaj (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure you can see where I'm going. If this paragraph is more conjecture, again, we need to remove it or find sources that support it.I hope that my input, changes, and feedback is helpful. Please excuse my thoroughness, er pickiness, but this would be similar if we submitted this bio to a peer review or to GAN. Please discuss and let me know how else I can be of assistance. Best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate all your careful attention to this page, Christine and share your desire to see the tag removed. However, I would like to see the Early life and education section revert to including "She traces her connection to the Congregation of the Sisters of St. Joseph to the moment of her birth at St. Michael's Hospital, describing it as "under the eye of Sr. Vincentia," in CSJ-Toronto ministry records cited by biographer Mary Ellen Chown.[2]" If it needs to lose the "in CSJ-Toronto ministry records cited by biographer Mary Ellen Chown." and just go directly to the footnote, so be it. That is a detail for which there is a source. It's also distinctive and the kind of thing that as a kid we would have called a Fun Fact to Know and Tell. Engmaj (talk)

• I agree with this suggested reversion. It's in the book chapter and it helps to tell the story of how Leonard joined the Congregation. I do think the wording could be shorter--as suggested by Engmaj, make the statement and cite it. Jaireeodell (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I have made edits to the article to remove quotes and to try to summarize points instead. I left quotes where relevant to Leonard's own theology or contributions to theology. I took out the Legacy section because it seemed to me to be an argument by the editor for her notability and not a summary of other people's views about her impact. While I respect that she had an impact as a teacher, in my opinion, her primary notability lies with her work on Catholic modernism. I would love to see a summary of how her work has contributed to that field of research but I dont have time to read the Festschrift about her.PMCH2 (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm good with this. I went ahead and put it back, with some minor CE. A question, though: who is Sr. Vincentia? We should explain who she is, and if she has a WP bio, link it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Everyone, I'm so pleased with and excited about the work we've done on Dr. Leonard's article! It's always fun for me to see an article come into its own and fulfill its potential, especially one about such a worthwhile topic. I think that we should think about taking the risk of added scrutiny and submitting it to GAN. I'll work on improving the structure of the refs in a little while. Thanks, all! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Engmaj (talk)I'm not sure what is gained by changing the heading "Contributions to the understanding of Catholic modernism" to "Research," especially given that the section on on the feminist and ecological christologies also reflects Leonard's research or at least her writing and theological argumentation. Modernism was one big research interest of Leonard's that is parallel to the work on christologies.

If those of you more experienced in Wikipedia think we should remove the Legacy section, OK. It was originally trying to reflect something of the organizational structure Chown used in summarizing her biography. She saw learning teaching and mentoring at the University of St. Michael's College as a major strand in Leonard's life.

The introduction to the festschrift says it was conceived to "honour the research and writing, the paedagogy and mentoring of Ellen M. Leonard." The editor notes that all the contributors were either learners from or teachers to the theology faculty. The citation for her honorary degree lays it out by the quoted statistics. So it may have been clunky, but it was an attempt to summarize what others argued was a major contribution--she shaped the field by helping to educate the next generations of scholars in it. That's a different contribution than the one she made through her own research and writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engmaj (talk • contribs) 21:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Structure of page

I would recommend that we put Leonard's research on Catholic Modernism, and her views on feminism and ecology, into a separate section entitled "Research and Theology", or something like that. Right now its all blended into her bio. But it might read better and be easier for general readers if the facts of her life are separated out, and then an in depth analysis of her work is in a separate section. See for example, Sally McFague: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Sallie_McFague PMCH2 (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@PMCH2, I think this is a good idea. I can make the changes if no one objects. In these cases, when I'm looking for consensus, I give it 7 days, but since we're on this editing roll, I'll give it until Tues. 8-16 morning. I also tend to go ahead with my proposals for these kinds of major changes if no one chimes in, since I take silence as consensus. ;) Best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Page numbers

I put in two page numbers but don't know how to take out the requests for page numbers, or maybe I can't because I didn't make the request.--RosPost 09:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I fixed two page numbers of Chown, but don't know how to delete the request. RosPost 09:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@RosPost: Are you sure those are the correct page numbers? The last page of Mary Ellen Chown's "Ellen Margaret Leonard, CSJ: A Life of Transforming Grace" (2020) appears to be numbered 208, but the numbers you provided are over 300. Is it possible that we're looking at different editions? Graham (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I just fixed the page numbers from Chown and removed all the templates. Please make sure I got them all. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Honours section

I disagree with the template put in this section. It's customary for Honours sections to be formatted as a list instead of in prose. Whole lists are often created, depending upon the notability of the subject. I recommend removing the template. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with keeping it as a list. Seems more readable that way.Engmaj (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

While I think it is readable, I have seen this tag applied like this on other pages. I didn't see this discussion and went ahead and created a paragraph with the same info, with slight modifications. If you find it problematic, feel free to revert. Or, I can recreate the list. I removed the tag. PMCH2 (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)