Talk:Saint Clement's Church (Philadelphia)

Mystery worship reports
I invite whoever keeps deleting the Mystery Worship reports to state their objections here. Otherwise, I will have to consider this vandalism. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I read the articles linked to in the "Mystery Worship" link, and both of the articles were obviously biased reviews based on the personal theological convictions of the writers. The Wikipedia link guidelines WP:EL state that external links should refer to pages that have a neutral point of view.  Those links clearly aren't neutral.  A quick search of Google revealed a quite informative page on the Project Canterbury website that provides numerous primary source documents on the history of St. Clement's Church.  A link to this page, which can be found here, would probably be more appropriate. 68.81.204.124 (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement in those guidelines that each link be NPOV. Rather, we may not favour one POV in choosing the links. Originally, there was one link to a very positive review. I added a link to a more negative review, yielding one of each. How much more balanced can you get? Incidentally, your comments will carry more weight if you register for a username, apart from the benefits of privacy protection. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I rather like the "Mystery Worship Reports." I realize that they are one person's opinion, but they do contain much detail that's interesting. From one on a church in New York, for instance, I found a "missing" bit of information on the church's architecture that made the other information I had fit together and make sense. Also lots of times, the images are more informative than others found on official websites.clariosophic (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts on improving the article

 * References are needed! The is only one now, but that is not enough.
 * A section on Architecture is needed since this is one of the two reasons the church is on the National register, the other reason being Religion. The interior is covered, but the exterior is glossed over.
 * Photographs will add tremendously to the article, but they must meet the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia Commons.
 * Please remember that this is an encyclopedia article and requires a neutral point of view. It is not a PR page. clariosophic (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

S. vs St
S. may not be common, but it is the church's name. Surely that trumps other considerations? Carolynparrishfan (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Carolyn. Regardless of what the Wikipedia conventions are, it seems like the spelling of the article title should conform with the actual spelling of the name of the subject.  "Saint Clement's Church" would be appropriate, as would "S. Clement's Church".  Dgf32 (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, it seems as though most parish church articles on Wikipedia use only the name of the city without the state, for example "S. Clement's Church, Philadelphia" instead of the current "Saint Clement's Church (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)". It's common knowledge Philadelphia is in Pennsylvania, it conforms with other parish articles, and if anyone had a doubt of where Philadelphia is, Pennsylvania is contained in the first sentence of the article.  If there aren't any objections, maybe you should go ahead and change the title to "S. Clement's Church, Philadelphia". Dgf32 (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, but I must Strongly Disagree on the "S." abbreviation for Saint or St. It does not follow encyclopedic standards and it does not follow Episcopal Church standards. The Episcopal Church Annual, which uses lots of space-saving abbreviations, always uses "St" for saint. S is too easily taken for South, etc. If you don't like St., then I could agree on Saint, which the church itself does use as the header on its website.
 * As to the state name, I would prefer it, but it would be acceptable to delete it. There is a danger of ethnocentrism, though. Everyone thinks his or her own city should stand alone, whether it is that well-known or not. clariosophic (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Anonymous: as much as Wikipedians might hope for it to be so, not everyone follows our encyclopedic conventions. S. Clement's is an example. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC) (Moving comment addressed to "Anonymous" that was inserted into my comment clariosophic (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC))
 * Clariosophic, I've tabbed the second paragraph of your comment so that the first paragraph no longer looks like an orphaned anon comment. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sunday Schedule?
Is a schedule of Sunday services really appropriate for an encylopedic article? As clariosophic said above, remember that this is an encyclopedic article and not a PR page. Dgf32 (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That was me. I thought it said a great deal about the parish. It is quite an unusual schedule for an Anglican parish. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I've incorporated the information on the liturgical schedule that you added into a section on liturgy. Dgf32 (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Saint Clement's Music Staff and Choir
I've removed the list of the members of the church choir that was added as such a list is not generally appropriate for a Wikipedia article as it not encylopedic content. Dgf32 (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversies: unreliable source?
So the Controversies section was added by User:Quilter1949 on 11 January, and I have some concerns about the source(s) used (both link to the same website, so really just one source). The source is an Orthodox Anglican (their term) website with an obvious anti-gay bias. Furthermore, the articles themselves do not seem reliable. The second article (source 5) says that it got some of its information from the Sunday People (now The People), a tabloid. Beyond that, the sources mentioned are a "Midwest website," and an anonymous "Vestryman" for source 4, and a "Facebook comment" for source 5. I reccomend that this section be deleted unless better sources are found. Howicus (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I added the "controversies" tag. The controversies section seems designed to shock the reader, with its references to torture especially.  Howicus (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * David Virtue [sic] is not a source at all, in the Wiki sense, and the lifting of entire phrases (including his signature misuse of "pansexual") is absolutely inappropriate. I commend Howicus' editorial caution, but after the unsourced, unencyclopædic, and tendentious is taken out, there's really nothing left. (The apparent implication that gay clergy are a novelty to be "introduced" to traditional Anglo-Catholicism is particularly funny). I'm going to go ahead and remove the section. There have been controversies at S. C's which could be sourced - around membership during the previous incumbency and liturgical reform during the present one. If such a section is desired it would be best to stick to those sources. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I got rid of the tag.  Howicus (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The David Virtue article was based on articles printed in British newspapers and interviews with current and former Vestry members. Those can be referenced directly rather than the articles for Mr Virtue's 'blog, if preferred? Also, I'm fine with a section heading of Recent Controversies, if that's more in line with Wikipedia standards? In any event, it's my intention to rewrite and re-include the Controversies section unless there are good reasons not to. Pgoings (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

the move
I added a citation a 1929 article in The Philadelphia Inquirer that said that the plans to move the church were complete, and that they were ready to begin two- or three-month process, culminating in the move itself, which would take several days.

It would be much more satisfying to have an article saying that the move had been completed, but I have been unsuccessful so far finding one. (Is the completion of the move less newsworthy than its planning? Are my database searches failing because of bad OCR? I've waded through plenty of references to "St. Element's" and "St. Olement's".) This article gives the addresses of the two houses on Cherry Street that were demolished for the move, and those addresses, 2028 and 2030 Cherry, don't exist now. So that's pretty solid, since the church is now right up against 2032.

I also edited the lede to mention the move. I don't think I'm the only person who thinks that, whatever interesting things can be said about this church, nothing tops the fact that the entire thing was picked up and moved forty feet. I think it should get its own section, even if it's just a subhed under "Architecture". TypoBoy (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)