Talk:Rowan Williams/Archive 1

Archive 1

Colin Powell

This explains the basis and foundation for America's strength and success through the years. Powell Quote

When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush. He answered by saying that, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."

It became very quiet in the room.

-- anon

I guess Williams should have said that empire is less about land ownership and more about control. Evercat 20:34, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Wrong Archbishop - http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/powell.asp (I am constantly surprised that people don't check snopes first on this sort of thing)

Superficialty and outdatedness of article

This article needs a lot of work. It is superficial and outdated; it refers to a couple of media storms in which Rowan Williams has been involved, but says nothing about the Jeffrey John affair, subsequent developments in the US and Canada in relation to the role of gay people in the church, and the Eames and Rochester reports. It says nothing at all about Williams' theological work, other than to record the unspecified objections of unnamed critics who regard him as unorthodox. Anyone like to have a go at improving this?

Yeah, maybe I shall write here 2 lines hither and thither. In fact, in his book "Lost Icons", he explains how he has during the tide been changing his mind about gay people. He is pro, but doesn't wish any overwhelming of the scandal... Waelsch 11:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Image

Hey guys, I'vu put some photos with Rowan Williams on the commons. Could you put this photo - of the English-speaking version - on the commons? Thanks! Commons:Category:Rowan_Williams - Waelsch 15:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Putting in headings

This is a mass of text which should probably be broken down into a few more subsections. im going to have a go. Tyhopho 16:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. I fully expect that others will improve on the titles I have used and the structure of where everything is but I think this is a big improvement. I think it helps greatly as no longer do you have to sift through a large amount of text to get to a specific point on a topic. It may also encourage expansion of these topics. I also found some statements languishing at the bottom which were moved into better places in his biography and career. Lastly, this did not ad

Where have they all gone and why? I really don't see the point of removing those headings! garik 12:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Orthodox Christianity

In this paragraph, it looks like there may be a confusion between "orthodox" and "Orthodox." It so happens that both parts about RW are correct; he's both orthodox and knowledgable about the Orthodox. But those two aren't the same thing. Would anyone mind if I tried to separate those out a bit in that paragraph? 00527 19:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Creationism

Yesterday I extended the lead sentence on the section of his stance on creationism to "...Williams expressed the view that creationism should not be taught in schools as an alternative to evolution" (italics signify my addition). Fairly swiftly, this was reverted by User:Dave souza and an extension to the quoted transcript added. I still feel that without the qualification of the way in which he says creationism should not be taught, this sentence is misleading, and the way in which the quoted text is used to back it up without qualification is also misleading. If you go back a couple more sentences in the transcript, you'll see what I mean.

So if creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory alongside other theories, I think there's - there's just been a jar of categories, it's not what it's about. And it - it reinforces the sense that...

AR: So it shouldn't be taught?

AC: I don't think it should, actually. No, no. And that's different from saying - different from discussing, teaching about what creation means. For that matter, it's not even the same as saying that Darwinism is - is the only thing that ought to be taught. My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it.

So the interviewer asks if "it" should be taught and William says "no." But this "it" is not simply creationism as a whole and on its own, it refers back to the description Williams just gave.

I haven't changed anything back because I'd like to know that people are agreed first, rather than start a potential edit war. So now that I've explained myself does anyone still disagree? I hope mine isn't an irrational point of view, but I do feel the interview has been grossly misquoted, even by the Guardian on their front page when they published it in the G2 section. BigBlueFish 11:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm sympathetic to the idea of retaining your version, but, to help me, could you say what you think Williams means? Is he saying creationism could be taught, but in such as way that it doesn't conflict with evolution; if so, how is this possible? SP-KP 15:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As the first link shows, the Guardian which conducted the interview interpreted it as a statement that "creationism" should not be taught in schools. The Guardian is quick to publish retractions if there is a dispute over interpretation, and there is no indication of such a retraction. The statement ties in with the stance of Church of England, which supports theistic evolution in arguing that scientific theories and evidence on origins and evolution are compatible with the church's faith in creation, and the words used by Williams confirm that stance. This contrasts with the popular usage of creationism to mean the movement opposing evolution, scientific dating, cosmology and the empirical basis of science. Williams does not confine his opposition to it being taught as an alternative to evolution ..dave souza, talk 16:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure any sort of popular usage of creationism can be used to describe Williams' statement. He clearly says that it has been incorrectly categorised. Creationism also clearly lists theistic evolution and related ideas as types of creationism. It is not our business how people misuse the term in over-general or over-specific ways. I hadn't taken the time to read the Guardian online article, but I have a feeling this is the same article as appeared on the front page, or an edited version. The article is written in order to write the controversial headline and it DOES make category mistakes. If you can find the full G2 article I urge you to read it, because it has a much more neutral, reliable and accurate stance. To anwer SP-KP's, question, my interpretation of what he said is best described by what he said - that schools should not teach in such a way that "creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory alongside other theories". I see that as simplifying to opposing the teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution. From the quoted transcript it is not accurate or informative or neutral to simplify any further. BigBlueFish 20:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

We could also do with knowing what "AR" said before the exchange quoted above, as I don't think we can be sure what "it" is without knowing that SP-KP 16:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

See full transcript as now linked at the end of the section. One thing to be wary about is no original research: the Guardian article also linked is interpretation of the interview from a reliable source: if this is contested by another reliable source that should be referred to, but we should not be adding our own interpretations. ..dave souza, talk 20:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A literal interpretation of a statement quoted in an interview is far more reliable than either a headline or lead paragraph of a front-page newspaper article, both of which aim to summarise AND emphasise the importance of the rest of the article. BigBlueFish 20:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of any further response I've made the suggested qualification of his statement, also expanding the quote from the transcript. If this was too bold then do let's discuss how it should read. BigBlueFish 20:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Major reversion

I would like to draw your attention to a text reversion by User:Thurifer that occurred on July 24 that eliminated the structure introduced by Tyhopho on March 30. This was a reversion to a very old text. Compare this diff of the July 24 version with a 19 January version. The old version was restored again July 27. Therefore I am reverting to Tyhopho's 24 July version. It appears to me that the two subsequent edits to the old version had been fixed in the intermediate five months, but someone else can verify. Gimmetrow 22:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Bravo. I commented on this above. I didn't revert because I thought it seemed a point for discussion. But I see no good reason not to change back. The headings are useful. garik 14:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Pink boxes

What's the problem people have with the pink boxes on the right? Is it that they're redundant? What is it? Maybe there's a good reason for the removal that I can't see, but no one's had the kindness to explain that on the talk page. Considering the person who removed them also removed the 'r' from Canterbury, changed lecturer to genius, and criticised to criticized, I think they're playing silly buggers. So I've reverted. garik 14:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Editorials disguised as "Updates"

I am alarmed at the tone of the recent and most adimant "update" here, gareth. The last update to Dr. Williams' article has made this posting one of a particularly negative tone. Before, it was a biography with some notes regarding contoversy. The current article is controversy with a tiny bit of biography. This seems to me to be a bit unfair. Also, the tiny photo with large pink stripes running about are disrespectful. If one wants to commant on someone's life, they should start a blog or something, not do it here. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thurifer (talk • contribs) .

What is the proper way to clear this sham of an "update"??? It is wrong. One can only look at Benedict XVI's article and see the tone of respect given to his ancient office. I cannot re-edit and re-edit - I have a life. But this unbalanced edge makes a mockery of the balance I think that the Wikipedia aspires to be. This is just giving a hacker something to be proud of I guess. Commentary through editing.--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thurifer (talk • contribs) .

I think you're right on the color. It looks odd. I just changed it to more neutral tones, and will try to find out what the "approved" color is for this field when I can. Gimmetrow 17:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone reverted back to the garish color scheme with an edit summary "rv to bishop's colour." I really have no idea why this is a bishop's color. Most person infoboxes have no colors, and those that do are much more sedate, eg, Benedict XVI (the color I had changed it to), Hilary Putnam, or George W. Bush. I formally propose changing the color scheme on the template to tan to match the Pope template, or to a light blue to match the philosopher template. Gimmetrow 22:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

By 'gareth', I assume you're addressing me, Thurifer. I very much agree that the article could do with a good deal more biography, though I certainly don't think removing all the headings was helpful. If any useful biographical details have been removed, they can be put back and should be - if they're useful and accurate, anyway! And, of course, if anyone knows more about his life, they're free to add more info. I do feel, however, that we're better adding biographical information than removing information on controversy. He's been very involved in difficult issues during his time as Archbishop and I don't see any problem with showing that.

I confess I'm mightily confused about how the infobox was in any way a comment on Rowan Williams' life: to me it just looks like basic information organised in a neat way. Maybe the photo was a bit small, but not in any obviously disrespectful way. I do agree that it's nice to have a big picture though. I don't see how the colour is disrespectful either; I believe it is indeed the bishops' colour (though I can't tell you the historical reasons for that being the case). The George Carey article has the same scheme and he doesn't even get a proper photo!

Really I feel the only serious issue to be dealt with is the inclusion of more useful biographical details. garik 18:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Reference style

For the first time, this weekend, someone has added references to the article. It is good to see! I accidentally edited this to create a mix of styles - both footnote and embedded link. This creates an opportunity to choose a house style for the article. Do you prefer embedded links or numbered footnotes or Harvard references for citations? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Revision

I hope I have not upset anyone by my fairly drastic revision of material. It was hitherto rather episodic. As I happens I know RW, but my reason for including material is that I have access to (published) material (now included in references) which adds another side to RW's life and thought, in particular his association with the Left. We do need a theologian to do something extensive - my work is based on his article on 'orthodoxy' in EC&R. It is intended to be constructive. Roger Arguile 14:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

This article had been chiefly a biography of Dr. Williams, but whoever re-wrote it wrote from a generally negative view, with only a "soundbite" of a biography, leaving the majority of the article to controversy. The mear listing of all of these issues is selective and therefor opinionated - all leaders have opinions that are both opposed and approved of. I would like to see a more unbiased view of this widely admired theologian and homilist. Thurifer 06:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Thurifer

If lots of biographical information was removed in the rewrite, then why not just put it back in the present version alongside the sections on his involvement with issues? I think having such a section is good, since he has seen, and dealt with, a lot of difficult issues in his time as archbishop. Of course, you may well argue that most other archbishops have as well, so perhaps that's a failing of the articles on them, not of this one. And any biographical article is inevitably selective - if you feel important stuff has been left out, then put it in! garik 13:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned that the view of a Sunday newspaper that Williams's views on homosexuality are a surprising U-turn gets so much coverage in the article. I tried to tag it as current event, but really I think it should be deleted.

Apart from that, the balance seems OK. It seems to me that the only major recent rewrite was done by a fan of Williams (in a balanced way.)

Thurifer, you are free to propose more changes. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

'widely admired' is POV. I have a great admiration for RW but he has been criticised in the Church Times and elsewhere for the density of his style. He IS 'widely admired' but also criticised. I attempted to provide a bit of balance.I am sure that it can be improved and I shall have another go shortly. But as Hrodulf has noted before, sometimes people make assumptions about the views of the editor without sufficient justification and sometimes wrongly. Roger Arguile 14:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does it always seem to happen to you? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thurifer, perhaps you could explain your concerns a bit more so everyone can work together to address them and get the NPOV tag removed? Garik and Arguile have explained the importance of describing the thorny issues (controversies) that he has become involved in as a leader. Clearly you disagree, saying that listing controversies is implied criticism of Williams. Could you explain further? Perhaps it would also be useful if you could point us to an older version of the article that you feel is more balanced. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thurifer has not come back to respond to the rebuttals from Arguile and Garik. I think the consensus of editors is that the article does not deserve a blanket hit-and-run neutrality banner. I am tempted to remove the {{POV}} banner, but instead, based on Thurifer's original complaint, I am putting {{POV-section}} at the top of sections 2 and 3, for now. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I shall removed the POV label on Orthodoxy. It can be improved of that i have no doubt, but my stuff is mostly quotation.Roger Arguile 20:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I am back after a much needed vacation. I have no problem with the NPOV banner being moved above the area of the article which I find to be unbalanced. One need only look at the articles of the current leaders of the major branches of Christendom to realise that the majority of this article listing various controversies is a thinly disguised editorial, and not worthy of Wikipedia. Has not Benedict XVI been equally contoversial? Why not reorganise his article as a litany of contoversies? Why? Because these issues do not address the totality of a leader and of that person's life and in the case of a minister, his ministry. It is biased in the sense that listing of these controversial matters - one by one - become the majority of the article. While I agree that Dr. Williams' tenure has indeed been a time of change and termoil, one can say that of almost any leader in the Western Church today.User:Thurifer 01:40, 29 Oct 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what Thurifer says and will do some tinkering. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Roger Arguile 13:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Your "tinkering" was a splendid rewrite. It presents a more balanced view of what I understand as the facts. What is more, the prose flows better. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

U-turn

By the way, I am looking for some support in deleting the U-turn paragraph. Perhaps I am not going to get any. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't support deletion of the whole paragraph, but the sentence referring to u-turns is gratuitously POV. That a person who assumes high office may moderate their previously expressed views in the wider interest is hardly surprising, and those who claim it is an "astonishing u-turn" are simply making polemic. Myopic Bookworm 16:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

His priorities have been clear since his appointment, and certainly since the Bishop of Reading question. There was no sudden change in priorities when he gave an interview to a Dutch newspaper. However, that is me contradicting the Sunday Times, which is not good encyclopedia editing. I might seek authorities to confirm or deny what I thought was common knowledge. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the U-turn para needs modifying. Bookworm is right. Remember that the Sunday Times is simply the product of a collection of 'hacks' who have to produce so many thousand words to earn their bread and keep the paper selling. Personally, I think that Rowan has been surprised at how violent the onslaught has been. His honesty in admitting a change of view is refreshing. Roger Arguile 20:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the hacks of the 'Sunday Times' (a newspaper which I do not regard highly) have forgotten that an archbishop is not elected on a political manifesto. Myopic Bookworm 14:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Right! They forgot that in the Church of England (unlike other Anglican churches), bishops are not elected at all. The quotations in the Sunday Telegraph article itself suggest that "accusations of an astonishing U-turn" is partly hype. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Styles

In the Anglican-Episcopalian Church, Bishops are refered to as "Right Reverend." Archbishops and Presiding Bishops are refered to as "Most Reverend." Archbishop Williams is Most Reverend and Right Honorable. Right Honorable due to his position in the House of Lords. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.14 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Rt. Hon. comes from his position on the privy council. It has become customary not to use those styles much in the encyclopedia. Instead the different styles and occasions to use different forms of address are explained at Archbishop of Canterbury#Style and privileges. This house style for articles is summarised at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes, though in practice, the tone of an article is settled by what its most active editors agree upon. My personal view is that it makes the article harder to read which is why I reverted a recent anonymous addition of a prefix to the name at the top of the infobox (the infobox is the panel on the top right of the page with the portrait photo.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Serious Revision

I have done some serious work on the article to which some people may take exception. I want to explain why. First, there was a deal of information which derived from media articles and, in one case, a newspaper article quoting an interview in another newspaper! I realise that WP is, to a degree sui generis rather than being a 'safe' encyclopaedia but this will not do as best evidence. Newspapers are really not a serious source, even if they are the favourite of the prospective editor. This approach has also contributed to the scrappy episodic nature of the article. Thus I have retitled some sections. The role of the archbishop as head of the Anglican Communion is likely to be a very large section over time and my assembling of small pieces is only a provisional contribution. Likewise ecumenism will grow. I hope to expand on Williams's relationship with Islam as I have the text of a serious lecture which he gave in Cairo in 2005. I think the Richard Dimbleby lecture repays re-reading and I could expand on my precis of it.

I have removed some pieces of trivia. His opinions on Philip Pullman and the Simpsons are scarcely of encyclopaedic significance, welcome as they may be.

I have no doubt that the greatest objection will be to what I have done to the section on homosexuality. I have retained the general outline of his first opinions and the revision oif them, but I really think that the reaction of others of whatever theological view is something which can wait until more considered responses are forthcoming.

I am doing as severla people have suggested. Could we have a discussion before anyone goes for a reversion. Roger Arguile 17:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have done some more tinkering and would be happy to defend and amend on the basis of any comments. I hope the result is more balanced Roger Arguile 20:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have done something which may be regarded as unencyclopaedic ie put in a topical section in order to inform enquirers. It is not intended to be permanent. Someone may tell me that this is inappropriate in which case please delete it. Someone may tell me that this is an inappropriate way of dealing with current events. I fear that I have not the perhaps necessary inclination to look at the protocols. I notice that articles sometimes become prolix because of the addtion of tidbits of information which do not merit permanent inclusion in a brief article. It is also much more difficult to be impartial in the light of publicity. any comments? Roger Arguile 11:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it seems a good idea. Im not sure how useful it is to say There was a certain amount of critical press coverage of his comments in the interview: it might be more accurate (but unacceptably POV) to say There was, as usual, a certain amount of ill-informed and ill-intentioned press criticism of his comments. Myopic Bookworm 13:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Most Reverend"

I don't know whether Rowan would be appalled at the insertion of all his titles. He certainly is not stuffy or pompous as this makes him appear. Is it necessary, even if factual?Roger Arguile 22:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like mockery to me but I wouldn't know too much. Isn't wikipedia policy suppose to use the most commonly used name in the article, except at the beginning?Tourskin 21:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Loathsome with Jews, complacent with Muslims

Several analysts [1], [2] point out what seems to be a not-so-new pattern. What a pity, really ! RCS 11:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Relations with Catholic Church (Rome)

Nothing, whatsoever is mentioned in this article or in this article about relations with other Churches, such as the Catholic Church or Orthodox Church. All I know is that the bloody hatred of the Thirty years war is not the attitude held today. Anyone care to shed some light? Please do so!Tourskin 21:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The topic is not relevant to the biography of Rowan Williams, or really even to the office of Archbishop of Canterbury. I think it is clearly covered at Anglicanism. Myopic Bookworm 09:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Theologian and poet

This article says, 'Williams is a distinguished theologian and poet.' He is certainly a distinguished theologian. Personally, I think it's unfortunate that he has spent recent decades of his life being a bishop, which has meant he has been unable to fulfil his potential as a scholar. But presumably be thinks being a bishop is more important. However, the suggestion is that he is also 'a distinguished...poet'. I should have said he was a very minor poet, but his poetry achieves a relatively large audience because he is archbishop of Canterbury. I would also suggest that 'poet' properly refers to somebody whose main activity, or main reason for fame, is writing poetry. Would we describe Churchill as a painter? Could we have something like, 'Williams is a very distinguished theologian and writes poetry.'--Oxonian2006 13:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but that's a bit feeble: I think I'd drop the mention of poetry altogether at the top of the entry. It's quite adequately covered further down. At the head, though, it might be more worth pointing out his academic interests as a theologian, and that he has a particular interest in the relation of faith and literature (though I'm not sure whether you'd call him a "literary scholar"). Myopic Bookworm 09:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pleased somebody agrees, and I hope I didn't overstate my case. Compared to being archbishop of Canterbury and having become Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at the age of 36 his work as a poet is not so important. I wouldn't call him a literary scholar. I think his interest in literature is rather typical of a certain type of Anglican. I once heard Richard Harries preach at a confirmation in Oxford and the whole sermon seemed to be about T.S. Eliot. I know an Anglican Franciscan several years ago preached every day in Holy Week on Eliot. I don't know whether Williams is particularly interested in Eliot, but I'm sure I've made my point.--Oxonian2006 14:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy Issues

The blitz to include the recent sharia law controversy in this article has led to some inappropriate methods, most notably the inclusion of the controversy in the opening paragraph. We need to look for a better way to include the issue more organically into the whole of the article. I will begin by removing the mention of the controversy from the opening paragraph, as its inclusion is not appropriate.S0343463 (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've now done that. Further things that ought to be discussed are the inclusion of the current affairs tag at the top of the article, and integrating the section on the sharia law controversy into the section on his beliefs and views.S0343463 (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable". This will probably deserve mentioning in the article, perhaps as the reason as to why he resigned. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.231.175.43 (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should be mentioned. However he hasn't resigned; not sure where you got that piece of information from! Nor, in my personal opinion, is he likely to. In any case, we shouldn't speculate here. Dixontm (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Its probably best to wait until this thing settles down and he clarifies his comments. This is wikipedia, not wikinews. (Mrutter (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

Dixontm, that was an unsuccessful joke of mine, thinking the worst. If archbishops can resign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.95.1.181 (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Williams controversy

Does anybody have the sources & writing style to add Williams' Islamic controversy to the article? GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Bikerprof (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Made a start on this, and added relevant link to the speech.

Could someone attempt to summarise Williams' lecture in a paragraph? You don't have to be a theologian or lawyer to understand the text, but it's densely written and quite long. --Sam Dutton (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that as it presently stands, the article on the lecture is very good indeed. An improvement might be to make clear that footnote 30 (at the time of writing) is a link to the text of the lecture itself rather than a further article about it. As it stands however, the entry summarises what the Archbishop actually said in his lecture, while at the same time noting the reaction to how it has been reported. I hope I can be forgiven the slightly unencyclopaedic observation on a Talk Page that the Archbishop does not have a written style which easily lends itself to soundbites. The present summary however is, I would suggest, fair, impartial and accurate. Informed Owl (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl

i assume by "article on the lecture" you mean "paragraph on the lecture"? By the sounds of the media fuss going on, it might sometime have to expand into a full article. In any case, i added some more key points from his text.

i agree with: "An improvement might be to make clear that footnote 30 (at the time of writing) is a link to the text of the lecture itself rather than a further article about it." - i shifted the link to just after the word "lecture", which i think makes it clearer. As it was before, at the end of the first sentence, the reader might think that the ref is a general discussion of the fact that the lecture attracted controversy.

BTW (comment): it seems rather ironic that in his talk he talks about the incorrect widespread (in the UK) opinion that sharia = traditional Saudi Arabia/Taliban type sharia and people's irrational fear of modern sharia debates, and the response seems to have confirmed his description of the misunderstanding... A major part of his talk is saying that any recognition/incorporation/whatever of sharia into UK law would have to be sure not to remove any human rights and freedoms which people have under state law. Anyway, the irony judgment is just my opinion, not an NPOV fact. :) Boud (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by article, I meant paragraph. Apologies for any confusion! Informed Owl (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl

Islam controversy

Most Christians have called for his immediate resignation, so I have added a current event tag. This is by far the biggest controversy so far that he is in. EgraS (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, no they haven't. There are over a billion on the planet, and most haven't. Nor is there any evidence that most British Muslims are delighted. Also, 'English' and 'British' aren't interchangeable. 00:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Addhoc (talk • contribs)

Sources say that most Christians who have commented on the matter want him to resign. EgraS (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is one source saying that "must quit". (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that Col. Edward Armitstead constitutes "most Christians". The claim is absurd and needs to be massively toned down. It also doesn't belong in the lead - at most, a reference to the controversy with a link to the section of article dealing with it in more detail. Vilĉjo (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As much as I personally believe that he should resign, if someone can show through a known, reputable source that 500,000,001 or more (i.e., the definition of "most" in this context) Christians believe that he should resign, then the,"...most Christians believe..." statement should be added. However, I believe that because the statement was only made a few days ago, it is a bit premature for any source to make such allegations. Sallicio (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Sallicio

I've updated the line 'and was the subject of demands from the press for his resignation' and included 'and the general public for his resignation.' The furore over his comments by the vast majority of the population in the UK is not reflected in the piece, saying it was a media-led attack does not in any way mirror the depth of feeling felt by the public over this matter. If the BBC board comments are still online I will attach a link as an example of the utter outrage felt by many people A sample link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/7234426.stm Twobells (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Source of "inevitable"???

The present text states:

saying that the implementation of Sharia law in Great Britain was "inevitable".[32]

The reference is http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23083487 and it does not claim that Williams said that the implementation of Sharia law in GB is "inevitable", it only claims that he agreed to a BBC reporter who used the word "inevitable".

Here is a link to the full text of the BBC interview, at least, according to Williams professional website. http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1573 The word "inevitable" is not present in the text. Either Williams, his coworkers, or the BBC or someone else has incorrectly published the text of the interview, or MSNBC has misquoted Williams.

In any case, he didn't say that in his talk (unless the website text of his talk is incorrect). Boud (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This doesnt use that exact word, but has the same meaning. EgraS (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[3]

argued that adopting some aspects of it seemed "unavoidable". - sure, but it's still a situation of us quoting what a media organisation says that he said. i think this is a case where it's relatively easy to separate the full texts of public statements/interviews by a public person from dependent media reports (summaries/soundbites) on what he says. If there is evidence that the archbishopofcanterbury website has incorrect logs of his speeches/interviews, then please someone give us the external, reference sources that give alternative versions of what he really said. Both the dependent media versions and the (nearly) primary source versions are valid for the article, but they need to be clearly distinguished IMHO. In any case, i tried to improve the misquote. Boud (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it not best that any references to sources be as first hand as is possible? By this, I mean either the BBC website or that of the Archbishop. While I would not usually suggest limiting references to one news provider, when a particular provider is the source of the very story being considered (in that it ran the interview in the first place), it is probably best to limit references for transcripts to that source. By all means refer to others for any encylopaedic comment on the story, but avoid referring to other sources for transcripts etc so as to keep it as reliable as possible.Informed Owl (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl

Currently there are absolutely no neutral topics or mediums I have found with regards to Williams statements. Almost every news source has leapt straight into the same position of presuming and misquoting Williams to the extent of causing a national outcry. The BBC coverage of the debacle is probably the worst of all for the fact that it hides behind its cosy friendly exterior, whilst "begging the question" on his future by repeatedly asking things such as "Do you think he should quit?" and "Is he in his last days?". We have to be incredibly careful to highlight what is:

A - his words.

B - inferred belief from second parties.

C - frothy mouthed foaming lunacy from small fractions of the public and synod.

It's extremely easy to get a soundbite in support of his sacking if you go looking for one. I would also argue that his "controversial" view on Sharia law should be included within his "Social and political views and involvements" rather than sticking out like a sore thumb.--Koncorde (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sophistry At Work? I am very unhappy by the way the article refers to the entire 'sharia' issue as a 'press controversy' as though William's speech was nothing more than a tabloid-led row, when the opposite is true. The media covered the story later and only after receiving letters from their readers. Ordinary citizens wrote in to newspapers, their local mp's and posted onto forums expressing their outrage and calling for his resignation. I have done some very minor editing to the controversy paragraph to reflect the feeling amongst the public.Twobells (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Twobells, could I suggest you carefully review the humorous essay WP:TRUTH and the official policy WP:VERIFIABILITY? PhilKnight (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Amusing.--Koncorde (talk) 10:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Languages

I've just contacted the Lambeth Palace press office to confirm the eight languages that Rowan Williams speaks or reads, and the list I was given is different from the one on the Wikipedia page. I was told that he speaks English, Welsh, German and French, and that he reads Latin, New Testament Greek, Hebrew and Russian. So it seems that the reference cited at present is probably wrong. Sophisticated penguin (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew does seem more likely than Spanish, but we can only use published sources, so unless we can find better we're stuck - Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. David Underdown (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Link to St Paul's Lecture

Rowan Williams recently gave a lecture on 'Early Christianity and Today: Some Shared Questions' in St. Paul's Cathedral. I think that this would be a good thing to external-link to. Be it either to the original site, with the transcript (http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=744), or to the perhaps-more-user-friendly version available elsewhere (http://fora.tv/2008/06/04/Rowan_Williams_Early_Christianity_and_Today). (I can't put it up myself, for fear of potential conflict-of-interest issues). Jamesfranklingresham (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Clergyman or bishop

I'm sorry, I don't see that clergyman is either particularly old-fashioned, or incorrect for bishops. A quick search on the Guardian website http://browse.guardian.co.uk/search?search=clergyman&sitesearch-radio=guardian&go-guardian=Search returns a respectable number of hits, one of which is even using it to describe a cardinal. Clergyman is more consistent with wider wikiepdia practice, reflecting the whole of his career, rather than only the later parts of it. In military contexts for example, an article will normally state army officer, nay officer, air force officer, rather than general, admiral etc. David Underdown (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has been ordained for 27 years, I cringe at the use of "clergyman." It is unnecessarily long and cumbersome. Why not use the term "cleric"?--Fr Lev (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually that might be better - although it quite often seems to be applied to muslim preachers(erroneously?) in common usage these days, although usage for Chritian clergy (including Williams) does still seem to be reasonably common. David Underdown (talk) 10:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

PC?

Isn't his status as a Privy Councillor implied by the Rt Hon, as he lacks a title of nobility? As such, should PC not be removed from his post-nominal suffixes? Computerjoe's talk 12:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite right, and I shall change it. PC is only used for peers.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Lord Bishop/Archbishop

Editors persistently remove the word "Lord" from the archbishop's former titles as bishop of Monmouth and archbishop of Wales. The article Lord Bishop makes it perfectly clear that all bishops are entitled to the title "Lord (Archb)(B)ishop". Bishops may be referred to without it, but it does form part of the full title of all bishops, diocesan and suffragan, in the Church of England and in other Churches within the Communion, and irrespective of membership of the House of Lords.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

First bishop to serve as primate of two provinces?

Is this strictly accurate? What about people like Donald Coggan and Michael Ramsey who were archbishops of both York and Canterbury? Weren't they primate of two provinces? 62.60.106.214 (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The 'Anglican Communion' article lists 38 provinces including the Church of England, but Canterbury and York are both provinces ... help!! 62.60.106.214 (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Conusingly Province has a double meaning a Province of the Anglican Communion may consist of one or ore Ecclesiastical provinces. The wording can probably be tightened. David Underdown (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of the External Links

I sense that some of the external links that are placed in this article serve to present a certain POV of the subject without the burden of commentary, perhaps as an attempt to preempt the possibility of either being marked as NPOV or allowing space for contrary and/or critical commentary. One of the more obvious one is the link to the Haaretz op-ed, The Archbishop's guide to Muslim intolerance, which links to a critical article on the subject but doesn't really allow for contrary opinion since it is presented as an external link rather than as part of the article.

Other links of questionable intent would be the ones entitled "Conservative Evangelical critique of the Archbishop's theology" and "Church must be 'safe place' for gay and lesbian people" which would probably be better presented as a section or part of a section within the main article rather than as a stand-alone un-commented external link. - Bob K | Talk 22:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Rowan's with Timmy Mallett

Why are good faith edits being removed?

Because you haven't supported a single edit with a valid reference in support of your changes 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 18:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If there's really stuff in The Daily Telegraph about this it should be easy to find an online copy, yet I don't seemto be able to do so, see [4]. David Underdown (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have looked without joy for the same information. In view of the BLP issues involved, I have semi-protected both this article and the Mallett article for 3 days. Bencherlite^Talk 16:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Traditional Anglicans" section

There is absolutely no justification for a whole section in an article about Rowan Williams on the recent Vatican announcement regarding Anglicans who may wish to become Roman Catholics. And the polemical comments by one POV pushing editor do nothing to help the cause - quite the opposite. The section needs to be removed. Any reference to this issue can be made briefly and appropriately elsewhere in the article with a link to the article on the issue. Anglicanus (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The historical importance of the section is undeniable. Williams leads a protestant church which is facing mass fragmentation. An exodus of anglicans from their former group into the Catholic Church says something about Williams' leadership, and the nature of anglicanism. The section should be reduced, vital points amplified and extraneous material put aside.... but deleting valuable information because it paints a disagreeable (but honest) picture simply won't do. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is important to the Church of England, and to Anglicanism (in which article this issue is already extensively mentioned). Williams was present at one of the simultaneous press conferences where the announcement was made, but until we see how many actually make the leap, it's very hard to actually assess what this actually means for Williams's leadership (who would strongly disagree with you characterisation of Anglicanism as being wholly Protestant incidentally). David Underdown (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Polemical POV arguments of the kind that Notpietru are making don't do anything to support the addition or inclusion of this section in this article. This is meant to be an encyclopedia article about Rowan Williams - it isn't a blog for all sorts of information or commentary on events in the Anglican Communion or the Roman Catholic Church. The section does not belong in this article and needs to be removed. Anglicanus (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Polemical POV arguments? If you spent more time reading/editing than deleting, your opinions might hold more weight. Considering your wholesale deletion of information, however, I'll ignore your discourtesy and consider it characteristic. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think you are going to achieve anything by being offensive and patronising then you better think again. Your comments are blatantly polemical and POV. If you think that intelligent people will be attracted to Roman Catholicism by your kind of attititude then you are very much mistaken. Anglicanus (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

.....odd. I'm not especially interested in what faith you (or others) follow. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It may deserve a sentence, or possibly a whole paragraph, at some time in the future, but the article is about Rowan Williams, not the Anglican Communion. Let's wait and see what develops. This is, after all, an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and there may be many disinterested readers to whom the doctrine is less important than the man himself. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 16:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems a healthy course of action. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments such as: "demise of the unhealthy branch of protestantism", "collapse of a pseudo-communion" (from your recent edit summaries) are hardly neutral. It's potentially a very important development, but given the lack of detail in the initial announcements it is too soon to assess its direct impact on Williams himself. The information already exists in the relevant article, Anglicanism, and is simply unnecessary here. David Underdown (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, David, about it being unecessary in an article about Rowan Williams. The section in the Anglicanism article is about all that is necessary at this stage. Anglicanus (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The information will be included in this artice, as and when it becomes clear that this has been a major development/trend in anglicanism, the movement which Williams leads. His major claim to notability is his position as leader of the anglican communion, and what he has done/has failed to do in that capacity. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Except he doesn't lead the Communion in anything like the same way the Pope leads Roman Catholicism. He has a degree of precedence and influence due to holding the mother see of the Communion but that is all. Each province of the Communion is independent. David Underdown (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact he is more of a figure head than an actual leader, and what that means in relation to the disintegration of anglicanism, is not something I'd dispute. He is nothing like a Pope, nor indeed a Catholic priest. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You will need to come up with much better arguments than this kind of nonsense. Articles do not predict the future and should also avoid speculation. You can believe all you like about Rowan Williams and the "disintegration of Anglicanism" but this is only your opinion. I might as well just pop over to the article on Pope Benedict and offer my opinions on his personality and shortcomings and also speculate about the disintegration of Roman Catholicism while I'm at it. Would this be acceptable to you? I very much doubt it somehow. You have come to this article with an agenda and this is not acceptable in any respect. And, for the record, considerably more Roman Catholics - both clergy and lay people - are becoming Anglicans than vice versa. I do not state this as some kind of triumphalism - just to remind you that people are moving in all sorts of directions when it comes to which church they want to belong to. Anglicanus (talk) 07:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering your user name, your edits, and your attitude, I find your assumptions about my "agenda" a little silly. Re your threats; I hope vandalising articles isn't something you normally go in for. It is of no consequence which church people think suits them. These articles do not reflect opinions nor predictions. I suggest you reread my comments and those offered by Jongleur. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reread your comments and my impressions of your attitudes has not changed. I also reread Jongleur's comment and I totally I agree with them. Jongleur wrote: "It may deserve a sentence, or possibly a whole paragraph, at some time in the future - but this is an encyclopedia article about Rowan Williams, not the Anglican Communion." A "sentence" or a "paragraph" at "some time in the future" is a totally different thing from a long section about something which doesn't even currently exist in the real world and which is written with no connection to Rowan Williams whatsoever. Anglicanus (talk) 09:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This issue already has an article about it at personal ordinariate which is where the information most appropriately belongs. At present the news of the proposed personal ordinariates has no major significance within an article on Rowan Williams and there is no valid reason to have a whole section on it - especially when it is not related in any way whatsoever to Archbishop Williams. For these reasons I have again removed the section. This has absolutely nothing do with "vandalism" or "censorship" - it has everything to do with where information is appropriate - and where it isn't. Anglicanus (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Bury your head in the sand, then - much good it'll do you. I plan on following Jongleur's suggestion and, when events are suitably developed, shall make necessary edits to reflect current realities. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hardly burying our heads, as pointed out, the information is in relevant places, within the general article on Anglicanism, and an article specifically about the new structure. What hasn't yet been proposed is any sort of text which is relevant to an article on Williams. David Underdown (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Presumably, his responses. Self evident? Yes. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Interview with Emel magazine

This seems to be rather not-notable as it was only covered by Times Online. Williams has given interview to numerous media sources. If need be, we can merge it with his views on the Middle East elsewhere. Bless sins (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Nationality Welsh?

No doubt his ethnicity is Welsh but his nationality is surely British isn’t it? He’s Archbishop of Canterbury, not Wales, part of the Church of England and most certainly loyal and supportive of the Monarchy. It should be British unless he has a specific preference. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

His citizenship is certainly British, but the term "nationality" is simply underspecified —it would not be incorrect to describe Rowan Williams's nationality as either Welsh or British, or both. Both are nationalities, just as Wales and the UK are both countries. You may well be aware of this by the way! I just want to be clear that this question has no hope of resolution with reference to the meaning of "nationality". You're quite right to make reference to his particular preference, however, for which it would be nice to have a source—we can't simply assume what he considers himself to be. In the absence of any such source, however, I think we should stick with Welsh; it has the small advantage of being more specific, and of implying the other option. garik (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I only bought it up because of him being the Archbishop. Welsh is certainly acceptable. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Children

If it's worth naming his children on his wife's page, it's worth naming them here too. User:sarahjeantaylor

Eyebrows

I've read this whole thing through and no where in the article does it mention the two bloody huge eyebrows. I mean that's some serious brow he's sporting like owls have landed on his face. I think the article needs to mention the eyebrows who's with me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.230.197 (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As a curate, I had Rowan Williams as spiritual director (when he was Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity), and he would not mind anyone looking askance at the eyebrows. Renata (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm with you.130.216.69.94 (talk) 05:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

"Royal wedding"

A very high-profile event, but could this be integrated elsewhere? It's a bit odd to have a whole section with one sentence. Rob (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll look into it. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)