Talk:Rowan Williams

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rowan Williams article.
Article policies

This article uses British English dialect and spelling.
According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Archive
Archives
/Archive up to September 2007

.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)[1]
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)