Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Hillhouse Buel (priest)/archive1

David Hillhouse Buel (priest)

 * Nominator(s):  Ergo Sum  05:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a President of Georgetown University at the turn of the 20th century who was very unpopular there, left for New England, quit the Jesuits, left the Catholic Church, caused a scandal by marrying, became an Episcopal minister, and died in poverty.  Ergo Sum  05:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Support from Coffeeandcrumbs
I will do a full review later but here is what I noticed at first perusal.--- Coffee  and crumbs  07:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC) --- Coffee  and crumbs  07:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "he went to Georgetown University" –– went usually means attended when speaking of a university. I would use a "began teaching at" or "joined the faculty of"
 * Fixed.  Ergo Sum  20:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Third sentence in second paragraph of the lead would read easier as: "He instituted uncompromising discipline and curtailed intercollegiate athletics which stoked fierce opposition from students and their parents, resulting in his removal by the Jesuit superiors in 1908."
 * Rephrased.  Ergo Sum  20:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "performed pastoral work and teaching for several years" –– shouldn't this be "taught for several" or "returned to teaching for several"
 * Fixed.  Ergo Sum  20:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a word, punctuation, or something missing between "Catholic Church" and "was ordained an Episcopal minister"
 * Fixed.  Ergo Sum  20:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * last sentence in the lead runs on for a bit too much
 * Rephrased.  Ergo Sum  20:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Watervliet Arsenal is to this day located in West Troy, New York, the distinction you want to make, I think, is that West Troy has since been renamed. The way that footnote a is worded reads like the Watervliet Arsenal was physically moved.--- Coffee  and crumbs  15:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I made an edit myself to resolve this.--- Coffee  and crumbs  16:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe I've resolved each of your comments.  Ergo Sum  20:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I believe I've responded to all of them.  Ergo Sum  18:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "His grandfather was a Congregational..." –– Which grandfather is this in reference to? "Charles McDougall"? Charles McDougall's grandfather? or Rev. Buel's grandfather on this father's side? --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know. The source only says his (the article's subject's) grandfather.  Ergo Sum  01:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * According to Hillhouse 1924, this is his ancestry on his father's side: Captain David Hillhouse Buel → Samuel Buel → Harriet (Hilhouse) Buel → John Griswold Hillhouse → William Hillhouse (b. 1751). William Hillhouse's third child was James Hillhouse (b. 1754). The claim of prominent ancestry is weak without an example. Please confirm that his great great great uncle was James Hillhouse and add James as example of a prominent Connecticut statesman. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Done.  Ergo Sum  18:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe also Oliver H. Prince was his great great uncle. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear who you're referring to here. Same as below.  Ergo Sum  02:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It does not appear that the person you wikilink to (Oliver H. Prince) is the same person as Oliver Prince Buel. Different birth and death years.  Ergo Sum  18:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As confirmed above and stated in the source for "his great-great-great-uncle, who graduated in 1773", the name of this ancestor is James Hillhouse. Please state that. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Done.  Ergo Sum  18:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Instead of the honorific "Father Michael J. McGivney", state the reverend's pastoral position at the time.--- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Rephrased.  Ergo Sum  02:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "There," is unnecessary and jarring. Another option is to begin "At St. Mary's Church," --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Rephrased.  Ergo Sum  17:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "rather than unseemly subjects" is POV and should be attributed as McGivney's or Buel's opinion. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Rephrased.  Ergo Sum  17:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The way you have Medea (play) linked is not ideal. It is better to state the title Medea: A Travesty and then give a parenthetical relation to the ancient play. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Clarified.  Ergo Sum  17:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * H4 heading "Conversion to Catholicism" is not necessary. Suggest merging with above and titling "Education and conversion to Catholicism". --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Done.  Ergo Sum  18:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The following articles are duplicate linked in the lead section: Catholic Church and Society of Jesus. The following are duplicate linked in the body: Priesthood in the Catholic Church, Classics, and Hull, Massachusetts. Once the duplicate links are de-linked, you have my support. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed duplicate links for all except: 1) Society of Jesus because the two times it occurs in the lede are as "Jesuit" and "Society of Jesus", and it's not obvious to those unfamiliar with the subject that those are the same, and 2) Hull, Massachusetts, because it appears once in the text and once in a photo caption.  Ergo Sum  00:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Epicgenius
At first sight, this looks like a really nice article. Somehow it's on my related changes list, and I don't know why I'm even monitoring this article, but I have seen drastic improvements since September. To me, it looks almost at FA quality.

That said, I have a few preliminary comments:
 * Later in life, he left the Catholic Church, married, and became an Episcopal minister. - Any way this can be incorporated into the previous sentence, or somewhere else? I see that this is mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the lead as well. But chronologically, this doesn't really flow, especially as you mentioned his early life in the following sentence.
 * Rephrased.  Ergo Sum  18:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Bearing the same name, his father was David Hillhouse Buel - is this necessary? His father bears the same name, so you don't need to mention the father's name again?
 * I mentioned it in order to wikilink it.  Ergo Sum  18:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I was thinking "His father was also named David Hillhouse Buel". epicgenius (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Buel's ancestry included a number of prominent and influential families, including the McDougalls, Hansons, Wilmers, and Hillhouses, - "including" is repeated here.
 * Rephrased.  Ergo Sum  18:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * His earliest American ancestor, William Buel, arrived in 1630 from England - would you say "had arrived in 1630"?
 * I try to avoid overuse of the pluperfect by restricting it only to instances when it is necessary to distinguish two different past events.  Ergo Sum  21:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * after chapel services at which Yale required attendance of all students - "after the chapel services" ... I'm assuming this is the specific service that Yale is requiring students to attend?
 * Yes.  Ergo Sum  22:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * rather than unseemly subjects - This sounds subjective. I wonder if you meant: subjects considered "unseemly" at the time?
 * Oh yeah, Coffeeandcrumbs also mentioned this above. But consider my comment too. epicgenius (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Rephrased.  Ergo Sum  22:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * receiving the degree of Bachelor of Arts - "receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree"? Also, a BA is pretty common nowadays.
 * Rephrased.  Ergo Sum  21:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * He also considered abolishing the football team altogether, which Columbia University, New York University, and Stanford University had already done - "altogether, as ... had already done"
 * Rephrased.  Ergo Sum  22:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Failure to abide by this agenda resulted punishment according to a new demerit system - "resulted in punishment
 * Did Buel implement this system? I assume he did, but the article should probably say so directly.
 * I think I've made it clearer.  Ergo Sum  22:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * with a number of students withdrawing and few matriculating - Do you have any specific figures? It would be interesting to know.
 * The source doesn't have any figures, so I don't know where I would be able to find those.  Ergo Sum  22:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

More later. epicgenius (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I think I've addressed them all.  Ergo Sum  22:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * All right, will take a look later. epicgenius (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing anything too major, just a few more things:
 * "Allerton Heights, Massachusetts" is a duplicate link; the first instance of this link has the text "Point Allterton, Massachusetts". But they both lead to Hull, Massachusetts, for some reason.
 * Neither Allerton Heights nor Point Allerton are official places, nor do they seem to be colloquialisms used anymore today. As far as I can tell from a bit of research, they're both areas of modern-day Hull, Massachusetts.  Ergo Sum  03:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Their marriage produced no children - "They did not have children", perhaps? This sounds unwieldy as currently phrased.
 * Depends on the ear, I suppose. It used to be a common expression. I've rephrased.  Ergo Sum  03:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * including being a guard in the subway - This links to New York City Subway. If you meant to link here, I think you should spell out the entire link, e.g. "a guard in the New York City Subway". By the way, you can probably also add a link to Conductor (rail).
 * The source seems to suggest it is the NYC subway, but I'm not positive, so I've just linked to rapid transit.  Ergo Sum  03:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Buel lived in poverty, so much so that at one point, he almost starved - I think this can be condensed, e.g. "Buel lived in so much poverty that..." However, it isn't necessary
 * That phrasing strikes me as a little odd.  Ergo Sum  03:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * He was survived by his wife, with whom he had no children - The second part of this sentence seems redundant, given the point I made a few bullets above.
 * I've kept this instance and removed the previous one.  Ergo Sum  03:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Reference 6 should be limited access, since it's technically in the public domain but NYTimes.com limits the number of pre-1923 articles that non-subscribers can view.
 * Corrected.  Ergo Sum  03:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

That's all for now. epicgenius (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. All addressed. Do you have more forthcoming?  Ergo Sum  03:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I think that's it for now.
 * Support - I generally think this article is well-written and clear, and can't find anything that really sticks out. If you have time, could you take a quick look at my current FAC? I'd appreciate it very much, but it's OK if you can't. epicgenius (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * With regards to SandyGeorgia's oppose, my opinion on this article is unchanged. I don't really see a Catholic POV here, but I grew up in a Buddhist family, so I may be completely ignorant. I do agree that you should look into the difference between ministers and priests, though. epicgenius (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Ceoil

 * Overall I feel the article is too couched, and apologetic. To take an example: "his abrupt departure from Georgetown... was sent to Philadelphia"; ie fired you mean. His dismissal is stated clearly in the lead, but glossed in ambig language in the body...is it because of use of different sources? Ceoil  (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Couched? Certainly this was not my intention. I do admit to thinking a lot of writing on Wikipedia is much too inelegant; my writing style is (hopefully) not that. But, if it is ambiguous, that is only because the sources don't state explicitly things that one might reasonably infer. This is actually quite common of formal 19th century American writing. Can you point to any particular instances of sources saying one thing and my writing obscuring the point? If you can provide a few examples, I can try to tighten up the language, but I doubt I could rework my writing style generally.  Ergo Sum  02:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Will take a closer look in next few days Ergo. I suppose what I forgot to say is that this is one of the more interesting of your articles that I've read, frankly its pacey, and I read it through quickly without taking notes. I need to put my finger on vague stated impressions, hold on.... Ceoil (talk) 08:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you had an opportunity to give the article a look?  Ergo Sum  19:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Continuing the work of his predecessor, Buel reduced the prominence of athletics, de-professionalizing the football, baseball, and track programs - this seems unclear, or could be better stated, though I know exactly what it means
 * Tweaked it a little bit.  Ergo Sum  01:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There, he officially resigned from the Society of Jesus on July 12, 1912 - more clearer context needed
 * Rephrased the opening prepositional phrase.  Ergo Sum  01:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The last sentence of the lead could be clearer - how do the "however" and "spent his last years in New York City" connect.Personally, if I was to end up in NYC, that would be great.
 * They aren't meant to interact. "However" applies to the first clause, and the second clause is a different thought.  Ergo Sum  01:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I dont think you have quite nailed it. The however is good, but the following claims understate, or at least are vague, re the fall.


 * I reviewed the sources and their formatting, and there are of the usual high standard from this nominator
 * After a series of trivial prose edits, havnt found anything substantial to complain about
 * Support  Ceoil  (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review.  Ergo Sum  01:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Beacon_Road_(Allerton)_station_postcard.jpg: source link is dead
 * The link hasn't been archived, and there's almost certainly no equivalent page existing today, given that it was an online auction. I don't think this should impact the copyright verifiability.  Ergo Sum  01:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * File:Georgetown_University,_Washington,_D.C.4a11813v.jpg: where is the given photographer from? The LOC source says Detroit Publishing Co. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Detroit Publishing Company is already indicated in the Notes section and in the licensing tag.  Ergo Sum  01:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, but why does the photographer credit not match that? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. I've fixed it.  Ergo Sum  01:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the image review.  Ergo Sum  01:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

"Episcopal minister"?

 * Why Episcopal minister? The Episcopal Church refers to them as priests, and the term minister is reserved for laypersons in lay ministry.  "The provisions of these Canons for the admission of Candidates for the Ordination to the three Orders: Bishops, Priests and Deacons shall be equally applicable to men and women." In fact, even a married Episcopalian priest can become a Catholic priest, so I am not understanding the switch in terminology within the article. The New York Times very old source in the article uses the term minister, but that is 1922; should we not use the current term, as the article does when it says: "Buel then sought admittance to the priesthood of the Episcopal Church, of which he was a member before converting to Catholicism in college."?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  06:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Although he was born an Episcopalian, and died an Episcopalian (refusing last rites from a Catholic priest), and resigned from the Jesuit Society, the first sentence in the lead has him as a Catholic and Jesuit: "David Hillhouse Buel (July 19, 1862 – May 23, 1923) was an American Catholic priest and Jesuit who served as the President of Georgetown University." The New York Times refers to him as an ex-Jesuit.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  07:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * "Two of Buel's brothers, Samuel and Clarence, went on to become Episcopal ministers.[8]" The source says they were ordained to the priesthood. Confusing this switch to minister.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  08:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , this Catholic POV throughout the article needs to be corrected. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * SUGGEST: "David Hillhouse Buel (July 19, 1862 – May 23, 1923) was an American Episcopal and ex-Catholic priest who served as the President of Georgetown University."   Then ex-Jesuit can be worked in to the next sentence. Minister --> priest throughout the article.  Those changes should address the POV. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not very familiar with Episcopalianism, but I've always heard them referred to as Episcopal ministers, including self-referentially. As far as I can tell, Episcopal minister is an accurate description here, even if not the most common. If the prevailing terminology is Episcopal priest, then I'll change it to that. As for the framing of the lede, all of his career achievements were directly connected with his being a Jesuit, and he was a Catholic priest for the substantial majority of his adult life, and an Episcopal priest for only a short while at the end of his life. I think the current phrasing of the lede is quite fair.  Ergo Sum  16:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the reliable sources listed are more usable than a Wikipedia article, and strongly disagree with the lede phrasing; ex-Catholic and ex-Jesuit are the correct terms. I hope this can be resolved so I will not need to lodge a 1d oppose.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've changed Episcopal minister to priest. I trust your advice that it's the appropriate terminology. (Just for reference, the Episcopal Church says "minister" includes both priests and laymen). As for the lede, I have to reiterate my comments above. He was an Episcopal priest for literally one year and had nothing notable happen in connection with that. You're welcome to object if you like, but I must strenuously disagree.  Ergo Sum  16:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the link you provide reinforces that priest is the term most often used (as do the Canons of the Episcopal Church, a source which I supplied above), and that minister is less specific, encompassing even laypeople. Nowhere in the recent New York Times source given above is the word minister used to describe an Episcopal priest. I am sorry to hear that we disagree on the lead. :(  I will ping previous reviewers here for another look and, unfortunately, lodge an oppose.   It isn't my "advice", though; my concern is based in sourced information, and the switch from priest to minister indicates a Catholic POV is present (only Catholics are "priests");  now I worry if there is other Catholic POV in the article. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As I say above, I don't suggest that only Catholics are priests, but that my familiarity was with referring to Episcopalians as ministers. Considering that I'm not part of those circles, I've happily changed it. AGF would generally counsel against inferring an ulterior motive.  Ergo Sum  16:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My sincere apologies if you believe I ascribed an ulterior motive; I do not believe I did that. POV is rarely intentional, and more typically the author is not even aware that a subtle POV may influence their writing. I said the text may be POV, which is decidedly different than saying an editor intentionally inserted POV.  The New York Times article I cited above gives a very good overview of the relationship between the Episcopal and Catholic churches, and is worthy of a thorough read to aid in understanding the broader picture, even beyond the use of individual words.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Strong oppose, 1d, Catholic POV; noting that a POV concern is much more concerning than my typical 1a, 1c, or 2 reviews. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * PS, should you remember (I am not demanding), there is no need to ping me. I follow FACs I comment on unless I indicate I am unwatching, and those blooming pingie thingies are just an irritation.  Thanks, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear in framing this discussion: you object to what you believe is a POV in the first two sentences of the lede. You suggest there may be other POV throughout; I disagree and invite you to do a thorough review of the whole article.  Ergo Sum  16:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am happy to leave this to the editors who supported the FAC, and awaiting their opinions. There is little to be gained by having me comb through sources when, presumably, anyone supporting the article already did that. Does giving due weight to the sources not indicate that it is quite significant, according to all sources, that he left the Catholic priesthood and the Jesuit Society?  If so, why are we labeling him Catholic and Jesuit in the first line? MOS:LEADNO.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Possible solution, for discussion: Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * David Hillhouse Buel (July 19, 1862 – May 23, 1923) was an American priest who served as the President of Georgetown University. He was a Catholic priest and Jesuit for much of his life, but later quit the Jesuit order to marry, and subsequently left the Catholic Church to become an Episcopal priest.
 * this wording is preferable to me. Ceoil  (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I like this wording as well. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * This edit resolves my final (unspoken) concern about POV, if the lead is addressed. While it was only one little word, I was concerned about the other, which is subtly POV, as it overlooks that the Episcopalian faith has elements of both protestantism and catholicism. While it sometimes describes itself as protestant, it is in communion with Rome. I am quite impressed that  picked that up, especially after I hesitated to raise such a nitpicky issue.  If we can get the first two sentences dealt with, I will strike my oppose (and see nothing else in the article that should hold up promotion). Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about Episcopalian theology, but I do know that Catholic theology does not regard Episcopalians as in communion with the Catholic Church. In any event, your proposed lede works for me with this one minor tweak to indicate that the two events did not happen at the same time.  Ergo Sum  20:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You are correct, and we editconflicted as I was attempting to rephrase there. So, instead, I will strike one sentence, and leave it to the New York Times article to explain the relationship. Now it is my lack of knowledge of the different branches of Catholicism showing! If you can finish up the lead with your corrected suggestion, then, I can strike my oppose and we're good here. I am bending here on one of my least favorite words in the 'pedia (subsequently-- see User:SandyGeorgia) ... but it is probably OK considering the delay in time.  Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've implemented the proposal on the article. An alternative that doesn't use "subsequently" might be: "...and near the end of his life, left the Catholic Church..."  Ergo Sum  20:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not fussed about that ... whatever you prefer. I have struck my oppose, but don't typically support without having more thoroughly read sources or checked for comprehensiveness. For the coords, I see nothing (small or big) to hold up promotion.  Unwatching now, nice work! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)