ARCHIVES
DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG
Barnstars, Awards, etc.
Reminders
Topical Archives:
Deletion & AfD, Speedy & prod, NPP & AfC, COI & paid editors, BLP, Bilateral relations
Notability, Universities & academic people, Schools, Academic journals, Books & other publications
Sourcing, Fiction, In Popular Culture Educational Program
Bias, intolerance, and prejudice
General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb , Mar-Apt , M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2008: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2009: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2010: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2011: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2012: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2013: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2014: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2015: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2016: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2017: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2018: J, F, M , A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2019: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2020: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2021: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2022: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2023: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O
-
DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG
Hi DGG. Do you or any of your watchers know any good experienced editors that work on articles about religious denominations, and that would interested in cleaning up Open Episcopal Church, which is apparently an LGBT-friendly denomination? The article is a mess (and seemingly POV) and the citations include a lot of primary and social media stuff. I somehow took pity on the two newbies squabbling over it when it came up at a recent declined RFAR. I've helped out a little at the talk page but I lack sufficient interest to actually help clean up the article. Any help or advice would be appreciated; I don't really know of a good go-to editor on this. It doesn't actually necessarily need an editor interested in the subject matter; just could possibly make do with someone who enjoys clearing things out and cleaning things up. Softlavender (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC); edited 14:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) Softlavender a suggestion for you: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests Atsme📞📧 13:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now done some copyediting on it; I think right now what mostly remains to be done is more specialized weeding out of uncited, badly cited, or problematical text I think. A fair amount of the sourcing is either poor, primary (or self-published), and/or dead & needs checking on Wayback. Also, some of the text is just gibberishy ecclesiastical stuff that needs major overhaul, possibly from someone whose field of interest more closely matches ecclesiastical subjects. Softlavender (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Softlavender, there are very few religious articles on Wikipedia that in my opinion don't have those issues. I could go on for days about the issues facing articles related to the Catholic Church, but the solution to many of the historical articles in that religion and other major world religions is often to gut and rebuild, which is an option in that case because of how much scholarly work has been done from both secular and religious academics on the history of major religions. I might pop over to the one you're linking here later, but since it appears to be a relatively new denomination that has a smaller membership than the population of town I live in, you aren't likely to find as many secondary sources that can be used to construct a good article. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @TonyBallioni: Speaking of horror religion articles that deserve WP:TNT, another one that came up at a recently declined
RFAR or ANI is Religion and sexuality. Again, I took pity and tried to help the squabblers on the talk page, but as far as the article itself, it is so bad I had to tag-bomb it (which I have only ever done once before in my life). At least the Open Episcopal Church is a very modern thing, but too small a thing to have many wiki eyes on it, as you say. I have no personal interest in it. I agree with you about religion articles (especially Christian/Muslim); I generally stay away. Softlavender (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to read the religion and sexuality bit, but the prose is so bad I lost interest and then skimmed to see that it is essentially a bunch of listings. For what it is worth, history of religion articles are actually quite enjoyable as no one really cares enough to fight about them and there are scholarly sources around. My current content project is trying to bring the 17th century papal conclaves to good topic status. The issue there is that until recently, they were all almost entirely based on two self-published sources and a 1930s history of the papacy that modern scholars regard as little more than a gossip rag. They've been pretty easy to fix and don't have many of the issues you have with improving most non-historical religion articles. As for the topic at hand, I'm going through the prose now seeing what I can fix. The talk page conversation might be too much for me, but I can try for the basic ones that at least bring it into compliance with WP:V and WP:NPOV. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- UPDATE: The article in question has been substantially improved, and the tags at the top removed. It's not great, because the text is choppy and many references are either lost to the mists of time or non-existent, plus there is not a lot to report about the tiny denomination (understatement). For those interested in improving fairly important articles, hop over to Religion and sexuality and feast your eyes on that disaster. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]