Talk:Robert Duncan (bishop)

NPOV

This article is rather biased and does not reflect impartially on Bishop Duncan. I do not see the need to include his disagreement with Bishop Robinson, as Bishop Duncan's ministry is farther reaching than this current tiff. By including Robinson, in every aspect including as a "future oponent" in Seminary, the reader is polarized into either being pro or con Duncan. Let this be about Duncan, not Duncan and his response to Robinson.

Without a doubt there is bias, but not of the nature that you indicate. The introduction appears to take its text straight from http://www.pghanglican.org/leadership/duncan. (I have not diff'ed the two sections of text, but it appears to be a copyright violation.) This reveals amazing bias, as presents the POV of the Bishop himself.Kevin.j.hutchison (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree

Bishop Duncan is most known for his role in the homosexual bishop dispute (i.e., his dispute with Robinson). It is crucial to discuss his public image.

I, too , disagree.

This controversial figure is therein handled with kid gloves. The Episcopal News Service reports that Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori will ask the House of Bishops to decide on September 18, 2008, whether Bp. Duncan has abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church.

If the bishops agree with the findings of a review panel that he has abandoned communion, their next move would be to depose Duncan.

Slauters (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

However this turns out, this will obviously be very notable news about Duncan's career, and no one could reasonably object to its inclusion in the article. So far, the decision has not been reported, but as soon as it has (within the next day or so), I hope someone will make the necessary additions. Wareh (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 07:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

POV and factual fixings

I removed the following bit: "Critics of this action maintain that this vote, taken only five days after notice was given to members of the House of Bishops, is not consistent with the canon law of the Episcopal Church."

• The claim is that of one person, George Conger, who is a partisan and not a disinterested critic.
• The business is canonically required to come up at the meeting, and notice has been around for months.
• The claim is about the rules of order of the house of bishops, not the canon law of the church.
• Neither Duncan nor the Diocese of Pittsburgh has challenged the decision.

This is thus a fringe opinion. To fix the sentence, one would need to say "George Conger" and not just "critics", and at that point suddenly it is clearly not on-topic, because the issue in the article is not George Conger or the procedures of the House of Bishops, but rather Duncan and his autobiography. If you can find a neutral way to discuss the canon law question without bloat, that's fine, but what's here is the presentation of one fringe legal theory and the absence of any countervailing information. Tb (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the word "Nevertheless" from a key sentence in the section "Conservative leadership". The word indicates the article's belief that the second action (deposition by the house of bishops) is somehow contrary to the previous action (non-inhibition by the panel-of-three). This is thus pushing the POV of a fringe opinion which claims that somehow--despite any indication in the canons--the panel of three must inhibit before the house of bishops can depose. The word "nevertheless" suggests that the house of bishops somehow overstepped or acted contrary to that non-inhibition. Removing the word simply leaves a clear description of the factual sequence, without the POV-laden word, pushing the point of view that the house of bishops acted ultra vires. Tb (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

+Duncan's attorney claims the deposition was invalid, but I suppose this has more to do with pre-trial posturing than that we're going to see it made as a serious argument. I wouldn`t go into the canonical (de?)merits of this case in this article. If it starts coming up in property suits it might be worth referring to. --Scarpe (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

External links

The choice of external links for an article is subject to NPOV rules just as the article is. The selection which had existed (and which I just removed) is all pro-Duncan. For such a controversial figure, this is a POV selection. Moreover, news articles about a person are not generally good external links. If someone wishes to find a balanced collection of links and add it, that would be fine with me, but some pruning is necessary, and it needs to not be a collection which amounts to a single POV. Tb (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

With regards to news articles, it all depends on the value of the outlet. I`ve added a number of links with regards to the international reception of the news of D's deposition. As far as I`m aware all claims made in that section are factual. --Scarpe (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not whether they are factual, but whether the selection exhibits POV bias. Tb (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

post-deposition edits and NPOV

I have done my best to touch up the article, do a section on the responses from figures of authority in the anglican communion, and sort out some of the claims that had been made. The article now, however, is somewhat uneven, there's too little on his actual episcopacy. But I simply know too little about the man to actually write anything sensible about his running of the episcopalian diocese of Pittsburgh. Somebody else might be of more use here. I would like this article even better if it were not NPOV-tagged and I think we should work towards this. I would like to hear concrete suggestions for the amelioration of this article. Regards, --Scarpe (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the article has been a place to tot up the latest "heroic accomplishments" of a controversial figure. This is largely, I think, because his supporters care more about the article than his opponents. So much of the text is puffery (the budget of a charity? why is that here?). Tb (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Tb is right. It's a question of proportion. There would be nothing wrong with adding a single sentence saying that conservative Anglicans disagreed and maintain he's still a bishop somehow, with all of these various stories' sources in a footnote. But to narrate so many statements is undue emphasis. Wareh (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Where to put the ACNA archbishop selection information?

Where in the currently article would his selection by the 'province in formation' as its provisional archbishop be properly included?

Maybe near the top, but where is the article on the province in formation? ACNA?--Bhuck (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now after setting up the appropriate redirects and locating the article, I would suggest that his selection as archbishop first be mentioned in the ACNA article with documentation, and then we can see where it would best fit in this biography here.--Bhuck (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it should replace the statement that he is a bishop of the Southern Cone, unless he is simultaneously a bishop in both ACNA and the Southern Cone, in which case we should also add an explanation of how this came to be, and in exactly which church it is that he has jurisdiction.--Bhuck (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

ACNA doesn't seem to claim any jurisdiction yet, or to have any individual clergy or lay members, so Bp. Duncan would not be a bishop of ACNA yet. However, he is the moderator of the Common Cause Partnership, and that belongs in the lead. Chonak (talk) 05:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"his canon to the ordinary"

The full sentence says "In 1992, Alden M. Hathaway, then Bishop of Pittsburgh..., named Duncan his canon to the ordinary." Duncan was named his canon, and Hathaway was (as Bishop of Pittsburgh) the ordinary, and his ordinary, so all that makes sense. Is "canon to the ordinary" an actual title? or can "to the ordinary" be left out? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I know it's confusing, but "canon" and "canon to the ordinary" are not the same thing. Perhaps this set of definitions helps. Jonathunder (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I linked directly to canon to the ordinary so people would know this is one title. Ltwin (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Robert Duncan (bishop). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091023111759/http://www.anglicanchurch-na.org/stream/2009/10/anglican-church-north-america-responds-vatican-ann.html to http://www.anglicanchurch-na.org/stream/2009/10/anglican-church-north-america-responds-vatican-ann.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150205070106/http://casp.org/press-release-4-13-12-r.pdf to http://www.casp.org/press-release-4-13-12-r.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)