Talk:St Nicholas Church, Durham

George Carey's record

An IP editor (who I therefore can't tag) has been repeatedly adding content about George Carey's actions relating to sexual abuse allegations when he was Archbishop of Canterbury to this article.

The Wikipedia Manual of Style on lists says: "Keep lists and tables as short as feasible for their purpose and scope: material within a list should relate to the article topic without going into unnecessary detail". Accordingly, our list of former clergy includes only their connection to the church; and a brief assertion of their notability, e.g. the most notable other post they held.

I'd suggest that the repeatedly-added content is, firstly, not relevant - it doesn't have anything to do with to his time at St Nicholas', nor is it necessary to establish his notability; and arguably also a violation of WP:NPOV in suggesting that this is the overwhelmingly most significant part of Carey's record; which I'm not sure sources support, e.g. the Britannica entry on George Carey, which describes him primarily as a "theologian noted for his evangelical beliefs", and mentions his handling of abuse allegations only in a single sentence at the end of the penultimate paragraph.

Finally, I would refer all involved editors to WP:CONSENSUS, which warns against repeatedly making the same edit and against trying to discuss disputes across multiple edit summaries. TSP (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. I agree it is not relevant to this article, which is about a much earlier time in his career. I have just requested some semi-protection of the page. Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I did a quick sweep across other articles with Carey content, and the editor doesn't seem to have made any attempt to add similar content elsewhere; which is good as it wouldn't be appropriate there either, but also odd. I'm genuinely curious to know why they think that this article needs to mention Carey's later actions, but haven't felt the need to add them to, say, Trinity College Bristol. TSP (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

TSP, fair enough to be curious. The answer is I didn't make the edit as part of any systematic editing of mentions of Carey. This is just the article where I happened to come across his name when reading about churches in the area. It's the first time I've come across his name on Wikipedia since hearing about the sad stories of abuse and failed management of abuse in the CoE (similar to what has been seen in many other churches and organisations), specifically Carey's part in that failed management. I was taken aback to see him mentioned in an entirely positive and neutral light. That's all. You're right that the same point applies to other articles like Trinity College Bristol. 146.66.47.172 (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Feline Hymnic, would 'semi-protection' not be something that is more appropriate for a situation of vandalism? Previous people involved in this editing negotiation have acknowledged that my edit was a good faith attempt to improve the page, not vandalism. 146.66.47.172 (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from the edit proposer

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

1. 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.
   
   
2. 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

1. 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)?
   
   
   1. 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.
      
      
2. 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).
   
   
   1. 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

1. 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?
   
   
2. 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.)
   
   
3. 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.
   
   
4. 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."

1. "George Carey, now-disgraced Archbishop of Canterbury, was vicar of St Nicholas from 1975 to 1982."
   
   Advantages: Pithy. Disadvantages: Probably not NPOV.
   
   
2. 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.
   
   
3. "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.
   
   
4. 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.
   
   
5. 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)

References

Responses

That is an extremely long explanation of your opinions; but I don't think any of it forms a justification, under Wikipedia policy, for including this content in this article in any form.

• Manual of Style on lists: Keep lists and tables as short as feasible for their purpose and scope: material within a list should relate to the article topic without going into unnecessary detail
• Wikipedia:No original research: To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (emphasis in original)

You say "brief assertion of notability" is not the same as just saying the absolute minimum that is "necessary to establish his notability" - but the Manual of Style literally does say that: "as short as feasible for their purpose and scope". You mention the slant of Wikipedia's article as evidence that this needs to be included every time Carey is mentioned;Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

WP:OWN is always relevant - but there are now three editors here disagreeing with you and not one agreeing with you. (You've decided to question my neutrality, but I wasn't the editor who first reverted you.) Is it perhaps time to consider that the problem here is not with the other editors?

From your final comments, you seem to think you have a moral crusade to carry out here in drawing maximum possible visibility to Carey's offences. That is not what Wikipedia, or this article, are for. Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers is not policy, but is instructive and I think relevant; as is WP:SOAPBOX (which is a policy).

The list of former clergy of St Nicholas', Durham, is simply that. We don't say if Pete Broadbent is a good Bishop of Willesden or John Wenham a terrible biblical scholar. We say their name, their connection to the church, and the reason they are notable, and we link to their article. That's it. That is all we include for anyone on the list, and all that is appropriate. "as short as feasible". The links to people's own articles are right there if people want to know more. TSP (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

TSP, thanks for reading my long response. While it is not relevant to the topic at hand, I hope you took on board my points about experienced editors going against policies too, not just me.

You raise some good points and it may well turn out that a consensus agrees with you.

That said, could you please clarify your stance on the actual question under discussion?: In describing Carey’s notability, in a way that’s “as short as feasible for [the] purpose and scope” of summarising Carey’s notability, does mentioning both his highest leadership role *and* his failure at exercising it (such that he has had leadership privileges removed) “make the article clearly worse” than mentioning only the highest leadership role? (I.e. not just an unnecessary edit but an active worsening?)

If there is a consensus that the answer is yes, the edit should be erased rather than improved.

As part of considering this question, we can reflect on how WP:SOAPBOX might apply to either the inclusion or the exclusion of the information.

We don’t know yet what other editors believe in answer to this question. We know one editor reverted my original edit (with an WP:OWNBEHAVIOR edit summary) and that another editor thought I was vandalising after reading your original talk contribution.

For my part, the answer is no; it doesn’t make it clearly worse (in my opinion, if phrase right, it makes it better). 193.181.35.157 (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

It isn't relevant to the topic of the article. So yes, it makes it a worse article about St Nicholas Church Durham, by making its content less relevant.

Wikipedia policy also helps to protect us from having to make subjective judgements like whether something is "worse" than something else. Is there a reliable source specifically connecting this content to the topic of this article? If not, Wikipedia:Original research explicitly says it cannot be included. TSP (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

There is also WP:COATRACK. If the article is about topic "A", it should remain focussed on topic "A". if it mentions an ancillary topic "B" it should not digress or be distracted onto details of topic "B"; it should remain focussed on its primary topic "A". This article is about the church. It mentions another topic, one of its many vicars. But there is no need for it to be distracted onto that ancillary topic. There is a wikilink to the ancillary topic (Carey); readers are quite capable of clicking on the link if they are interested. That is enough for this article.

Your issue is about Carey. This article is about the church. To discuss Carey, the appropriate place is the talk page at the Carey article, not this talk page about the church. There, not here, is he place for discussion of how the particular aspect which concerns you (which is him, long after he had left the church) should be handled systematically across the range of possible articles. I hope that helps. Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks TSP and Feline Hymnic. Feline Hymnic, interesting thought, but I don't know how a discussion on that page on how to edit other pages would go, particularly when editors of those pages are likely to similarly respond "not relevant to our article, sorry I mean this article". That's a bit snarky, of course, but I am a bit annoyed at the process that's happened here. On a sheer human level I would have appreciated any kind of acknowledgement from any other editor that there were also policy/guidance breaches by experienced editors in this discussion. I know I've annoyed you all as well, but I hope you will at least appreciate I've acknowledged my own policy/guidance breaches after they've been pointed out to me. I also genuinely appreciate being alerted to these policy/guidance pages. They'll be useful if I ever decide to edit on Wikipedia again.

But I don't think there's any point me continuing to discuss those points. It is clear that I will not be achieving consensus that it's an improvement to the article to rephrase how Carey's notability is described to include reference to the important harm he did with the power entrusted to him. And I would need to have uncontested consensus for status quo not to "commonly" prevail as per WP:NOCONSENSUS. 146.66.47.172 (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Could I encourage you to continue editing on Wikipedia. But do so in areas that are not likely to be controversial; use it, rather, to gain practical experience of working with and alongside other editors in areas where there is likely to be general agreement, with minimal risk of disagreement. Also, get yourself a username. You mentioned earlier that your anonymity is important. Wikipedia fully supports and encourages that. Indeed, when I started (way, way back in 2007 or so) there was a positive recommendation to avoid using one's real-life name. I can assure that that my real-life name is nothing resembling "Feline Hymnic"! Get embedded into the real, practical experience of routine, non-controversial editing. Gain that track record: your colleague-editors will often take into account a reliable track record should an edit become a topic of disagreement. I hope that helps. Feline Hymnic (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, Feline Hymnic. I am somewhat worried that "taking into account a reliable track record" sounds a bit like a few of of the statements mentioned under WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. 146.66.47.172 (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't get hung up on that. It was minor. Wikipedia editors (such as me and, presumably, "TSP") have limited time, so a quick look at a track record can give us a quick, albeit, incomplete, overview. But this is minor.

Keep on editing. Ideally (but not essential) have some sort of registered username, equivalent to "TSP" or "Feline Hymnic". Choose topics which are non-controversial, non-headline-grabbing. Build up that feel for working with others on improving articles. Topics might be geographical areas local or familiar to you. Or hobby areas. That sort of thing. But if you have a deep, personal, emotional attachment to a topic, it may be prudent to keep away from it, at least to begin with.

Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)