Talk:Stanford Memorial Church/Archive 1

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stanford Memorial Church/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Comments

In comparing this article to the GA Brown Memorial Presbyterian Church, there are a few queries that arise. Is it possible to have a history of use of the church in regards to past ministry as well as past music ministry. With such a notable organ or selection of 3 organs, there should be some musical claim to fame regarding the people associated with using the organs. With a large gallery of pictures (many unlabelled) there could be some prose about the windows themselves possibly as in the aformentioned article. In the lead there is no mention or introduction given to the use of the church...ie the multidenominational feature. Is there any follow up to the claim of the pipe organ which has the unusual ability to play in either equal or just temperament. Is there any information from the Historic American Building Survey (HABS). These last two point were raised in the deletion discussion as notability for the church, but don't seem to be in the article itself. SriMesh | talk 03:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it's taken me so long to get to this. I've accomplished some of your suggestions, like improve the images and added some about the church's "use". However, I think that to complete these suggestions, I need to do some more extensive research and writing. I suspect that the GAN will expire before I find the time. If so, I'll resubmit the nom at a later time, when the article is more ready. Thanks for the suggestions for improvement. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that I have now addressed all the comments above by SriMesh. I have included the history of past and present ministries of the church, done by expanding the staff section and bringing more of the bios of the deans and organist. I wasn't able to find anything about the "musical claim to fame" with the organists. I suppose if people want to know more about the current organist, Robert Huw Morgan, they can look at his Stanford bio or at his webpage, which I included in the new External links section. All the images in this article are now labeled. There's actually quite a lot of prose about the stained glass windows already. I beefed up the non-denominational nature of the church, and made it more prominent in the lead, as requested.

I also beefed up some info about the Fisk-Nanney organ, but the challenge for me, not being a musician, is the exact wording. For example, the webpage for Stanford's Office for Religious Life doesn't say anything about "equal or just temperament", and not knowing anything about that myself, I included what the source said, that it uses "dual temperaments". Perhaps someone with some expertise can improve it.

Finally, I included the HABS report about the church in the External links section. I hope that this satisfies the concerns addressed. Thanks for the input; I believe that they've improved this article a great deal. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Article Passed

Good morning User:Figureskatingfan. I have finished my review of Stanford Memorial Church and have passed the article to GA status. Let me begin by saying, you have done a great job in researching, - citing – referencing and writing the piece and should be commended for the time and effort you placed into the article. However, I do have a few suggestions concerning the flow and structure of certain paragraphs and headings. I would mention in the opening paragraph the design architect. Likewise, in the history section. I would move the paragraph, starting with “In 1898”, up in this section. In addition, I would just use a sentence or two mentioning the earthquakes, than breakout the explanation of the damaged caused by the quakes into a separate heading. Also, I would like to see an expansion and separate heading with regards to the history and use of the organs.

As I stated in my opening remarks, you have done a great job. I believe with some expansion, and a few tweaks here and there, you may be able to get this to Feature Article status. Good luck to you and again, nice work. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Shoessss, thanks for the pass, and for your kind words. In the past few days, between dealing with a nasty case of strep throat, I've worked on some improvements to this article as per your remarks above. I've mentioned the architect in the lead. I've moved the "In 1898" section as you suggest, and created a new section, "Earthquakes". I haven't been able to tackle expanding content regarding the organs, though, but will do so, based upon information on the Stanford website, probably in the next few days. I suspect by that point, it will be long enough to warrant breaking off into a separate section as you suggest.

I'm kinda surprised that you think that this article is FA-worthy. One of the reasons I submitted for GA is that I believed that it simply doesn't have the potential to become a FA. I'm not sure that it can be expanded any further. It could use some expertise, from an editor who actually attended Stanford and has actually visited the church. That's not me--my education occurred at lowly CSUs. We'll see what happens. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I had placed comments on the talk page, which were moved to the GA review. I am not up to doing a GA review at this time, and would need a second opinion on church, architectural articles also. So have asked the person who moved my comments to move them back. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 21:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Done - see below. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the below, since SriMesh's comments were already here. See above. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Organ expansion

Sounds weird, I know, but I have finally gotten to expanding this section, as per Shoessss' comments when he passed this article to GA. As previously stated, I believe that one of the weaknesses of this section is the fact that as its main editor, I'm not a musician, so I'm not sure the wording is correct. It could use an expert to ensure its accuracy. When it goes through a FAN, as Shoesss has suggested, I'll try to find one to look it over. I'm not ready to do this yet, since I have other irons in the fire. At this point, though, I'm happy with how this article has progressed thus far. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Deans

I'm not sure how to include this. Originally the dean were known as "Dean of the Chapel", this was changed in the mid 1990's to "Dean of Religious Life". (http://facultysenate.stanford.edu/archive/1997_1998/minutes/106094.html and search for Gregg). Also until the 1960s no other worship services were allowed on campus except that at Memorial Church. Catholic students had an off-campus chapel "St. Ann's Chapel" (sold by the dioces in 1999) built in memory of of Ann Brokaw, a Stanford student killed in a car accident, in 1951 by her mother Clare Booth Luce and stepfather Henry Luce (http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2003/julaug/show/heritage.html). This chapel is not directly relevant to this wikipedia article but the old policy of limiting worship on campus is important in understanding the role of Mem Chu. --Erp (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think that this is an important piece that needs to be added to this article. Erp, some of the sources you provided also discuss this theme. It's my intention to include that piece in the next few days. (I'd have done it tonight, but the strep throat I'm suffering from is clouding my thinking.) I'll also include the info about St. Ann's. I'm not so sure we can include the faculty senate minutes, though, since it doesn't state the reason for the change in the dean's title. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I was doing some checking on dates since Minto and Napier overlap. Napier certainly became Dean of the Chapel in 1966 and Minto seems to have either stepped down to a lower position or left (I checked the Stanford yearbooks). --Erp (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Also on Ambrogi, See http://reform-network.net/?p=1335 and search for Stanford. The first minister for all of 4 months, Heber Newton, was former rector of All Souls' Protestant Episcopal Church where in 1891 he had been charged with having "liberal religious views" and had resigned in 1902. Apparently one rumor for his later resignation from Stanford was from the irateness of other ministers when he issued a call to find a "common denominator of religion". I'm looking at the New York Times obituary December 20, 1914.--Erp (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Scartol

Once again, FSF, very nice work. Your dedication and thorough research have resulted in a very interesting article, which informed me about this lovely building. (I can see myself making a special trip to see it when I get back out that way.) Some comments are below; as always, incorporate or reject them as you will.

Thanks, such kind words. You're always so helpful. Visiting MemChu has been put on my list of things to go see, too. I want to sit in the church and look at the windows and mosaics and listen to the organ and let it all soak into my soul. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• I recommend some reorganization:

• Combine the first part of "History" (ending with "Stanford Memorial Church was dedicated...") and the "Architecture" section into one called "Construction". (Keep "Architecture" as a sub-section.)

Man, it's been awhile since I was able to get to this! Blame it on RL and the US figure skating championships this weekend. Anyway, I'm not so sure this is a good idea. The standard for higher-quality "church building" articles (which at this point, seem to be GA) is for a "History" section at the beginning. If we were to do as you suggest, it would decimate this article's History section. So I'm opposed to this change. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Combine "Organs" and "Use" into a section called "Facilities" (with "Organs" as a sub-section).

Done; see I'm not completely unreasonable. ;) I also had to move around some of the images for aesthetic reasons. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

History

• I would like to see this presented in a chronological fashion. As it is, we jump from from 1893 to their original intentions, to their trip around Europe, to his death. Instead, it would be better to have the ideas presented first, then the Europe trip, then his death, and then her moving ahead with the plans. Likewise, the paragraph about decorating the chancel with mosaics should go after the construction info.

Okay, I think I was able to fulfill this request. Let me know if I've missed anything.

• It was the only reproduction made at the time. This seems like an odd thing to say. If other works were being reproduced at the time, it would make sense to include such info: "Unlike other works, which were reproduced frequently...".

Done, I think.

• Hey, it was dedicated on my birthday!

January 25, 1903--man, you're old! ;) That was just a couple of days ago, so happy b-day! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would combine the final two paragraphs before the "Earthquakes" section. I'd also like to see a little more info about the Perry murder. Right now it feels awkwardly stuck in.

1st recommendation done. Ya know, there's a reason the Perry murder info is awkward. Actually, it was this that began my involvement with this article. At the time, I would've loved to have seen this information removed, because although it was well-sourced (the link has since gone broken), I think the editor that removed it originally was correct in his assertion that it really didn't belong in this article. I was able to find two more sources that backs it up, but it doesn't change my mind. I was hoping a reviewer would recommend deleting it, but since you didn't, I went ahead and deleted it, anyway. It's my intention to create a new section on this talk page with the original information in case anyone disagrees. What do you (or anyone else) think about that? --Figureskatingfan (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• The quotations in the "Earthquakes" section are distracting. My rule is: Only use quotations when absolutely necessary, and make it clear in the text who's being quoted. Also, each quote needs a citation immediately after it to avoid confusion about which info comes from which source. (You do this well in the "Architecture" section: According to architectural historian Willis L. Hall, the church's twenty stained glass windows "are as much a feature of the church as the mosaics".)

To be honest, this is one of my weaknesses, back from my college days, when I was taught that when you put in a new source, it covers everything up to it. I'm trying to break this bad habit, so thanks for catching it. Fixed, I think.

• WP:MOS#Images orders us not to place left-aligned images just below third-level headings. I would advocate the same for quote boxes, as in the "Influence" section. (Seems like it could be put one paragraph down.) The same goes for the box on the left of "Organs" later on. Also, use em dashes (rendered in Windows with alt-0151, or on the Mac with shift-option-hyphen) instead of double-hyphens. And the attribution in the quote box should be right-aligned on a line of its own.

All done. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• ...compared to other important US universities... "important" feels weird here. How about "prominent" or "prestigious"? (They're problematic, too, but less so.)

I used "prominent" because "prestigious" is used a couple of sentences later.

• I'd like to know more about what role the church played in the first part of the 20th century. The history seems to skip from the 1906 quake to the 1950s.

I included what I was able to find. Maybe my researcher, Erp, can help with that. ;) At the same time, though, the "Influence" section includes the religion courses the deans taught throughout Stanford's history, while they were trying to buck the system and get a Religious Studies dept. rolling. That's not enough?

Architecture

• I believe it's standard practice to present measurements (as in "a cruciform structure measuring 190 feet long and 150 feet wide") in both feet and metric units. See MOS:CONVERSIONS.

Done.

• I don't know if the MemChu website's claim that its organ is "one of the finest in the world" can be considered reliable. I'd find confirmation in another source or drop that quote.

I cut the quote.

• I'd like to see a citation for the claim that the Fisk-Nanny is the only organ capable of reproducing nearly all organ music from the 16th to 18th centuries.

This is a victim of the same bad habit mentioned above. Looking at it now, it's very unclear, so I add the phase "the only organ in the church..." --Figureskatingfan (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think the gallery would look best toward the bottom of the page, or at least after "Use".

Done, a couple of days ago.

Use

• For future reference: An ellipsis (...) should always be preceded by a non-breaking space (rendered on Wikipedia as " ").

Thanks for the catch. I double-checked, and all uses are correct.

• I don't think the bit about the guided tours is really important. I'd vote to lose it.

Okay.

Staff

• The trend in Wikipedia these days, to avoid overlinking, is to remove wikilinks from common places like Boston and New York City. (I've done so where I've found them, but you might want to do another pass.)

Personally, I like that trend. When I'm done here, I plan on passing through to catch all the repeated unnamed references, another WP trend that I like, and I'll look out for this as well.

• The reader will be wildly curious to know about the disagreements which led to Newton's leaving. Dish?

I know! There just isn't anything out there about it! Erp's working on it, though. From the evidence, however, it seems that Newton was a radical ecumenicalist, and as ecumenical as Jane Stanford was, he was too over-the-top for her. For example, in 1883, he was charged with heresy and fired from All Soul's Church in NYC. He also wanted to converge all creeds from all Christianity. I suspect that was why he left MemChu, but there's no evidence of it that we've been able to find.

• ...and sought to unify the churches in the United States. I assume this refers to all Christian churches? If so, specify?

See what I mean? Fixed.

• Some of the past deans' tenure dates are rendered with dashes (some with spaces, some without), and some with the word "to". They should be standardized (and if dashes are used, they should be en dashes).

Yah, I knew you were gonna bring that up. Fixed. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Other

• The link to "Historic American Buildings Survey" appears to be broken.

Fixed.

Good luck with this! Kudos again for all your hard work. Scartol • Tok 20:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks for the valuable comments, as usual. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

More about the deans

From the New York Times article of April 7, 1903 (page 1) titled "Rev. Heber Newton Resigns: His attempt to harmonize San Francisco Sectarians Met with an Unfavorable Response" states "The probable reason for his retirement is the severe criticism which he encountered in his efforts to harmonize the differences in creeds. ... He is a believer in the abolition of severe sectarianism, and evidently believed he could bring about among churchmen of California a better idea of unity than they had previously possessed." However an article on May 4, 1903 (page 1, NYT again) is titled "Rev. Mr. Newton's Resignation: Mrs. Stanford Refused to Have Paid Choir in University Chapel". However the article ends "Other differences stimulated the friction between the Rev. Mr. Newton and the trustees". His obit (NYT Dec. 20, 1914, page 15) states Newton had been investigated by the Episcopal church for "entertaining 'Liberal Religious Views'" in the 1890s. I'm not sure how much of this can be incorporated in the article. I'll note that Jane Stanford did not replace him with someone notable but instead put the church in the charge of a local minister, Gardner.

Also according to the NYT Jane Stanford's funeral took place at the church in March 1905 (NYT Mar. 25, 1905, page 9) the clergymen taking part included a Rabbi, a Presbyterian, a Methodist, an Episcopal bishop and a Baptist. Jane Stanford apparently liked breadth of belief in her religious ceremonies.

This brings up a question for me. I'm not sure if we can use this information, since it isn't easily accessible. I will ask someone with more knowledge about WP policies (i.e., Scartol) before I add it here. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so Scartol says it's okay to use a source not easily accessible. I'd like to use these sources, since they're very interesting and would add to the article, but before I do, I need the authors of the NYT articles and the page number of the Trueblood info, since I can get the rest of the citation from Amazon or Google. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There were no reporters' names on the articles above. I no longer have easy access to the Trueblood autobiography so it may need to wait on that. I'll see what I can find through other means. --Erp (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

In Elton Trueblood's autobiography he mentions that the church vestry (which I think is what is now known as the Round Room) was used by Orthodox Jewish students for Friday night services. Unfortunately I have neither title nor page number.

Trueblood's autobiography is entitled, While It Is Day. Both Amazon and Google list it, but they don't include previews. This is unfortunate because Trueblood was quite an interesting fellow. Amongst other things, he wrote an important biography about Lincoln. If you could get the page number about the Jewish services, that would be great. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"I observed among our soldier students the obvious strength of the Orthodox Jews with whom I met in the vestry of Memorial Church on Friday evenings." "The Best of Elton Trueblood: an anthology" (1979) page 84. publisher Impact Books. editor James R. Newby. Not quite what I remembered. I also uncovered some historical info from "A Chronology of Stanford University and its Founders", Stanford Historical Society, 2001. For February 17, 1966 (page 90) it states "The Board of Trustees approves sectarian worship services in Memorial Church on a trial basis as part of an overall expansion of the university's religious program." The entry then goes on to state that the Board of Trustees went on to get court approval to change the Founding Grant (an amendment in 1902 by Jane Stanford had prohibited "all denominational alliances" on campus) so sectarian services could be allowed permanently. --Erp (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/3780/edition_id/67/format/html/displaystory.html has an article on Stanford's first Jewish Associate Dean of religious life and indicates that the title changed to that from Associate Dean of Memorial Church when she was appointed in 1996.--Erp (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Erp, thanks for this; the article you cite above was already used here, but I just missed that important piece of info. Thanks for catching it for me. I will tackle the above stuff now; this just seemed easier to deal with first.

I created a new section out of Erp's additions, as separate from Scartol's comments, to make it easier to focus on. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm revisiting this article, since I'm now ready to move it towards FAC, and I've just added the info about Mrs. Stanford's funeral. (Found some interesting trivia about her: Did you know that she died under mysterious circumstances, meaning that she might have been poisoned while vacationing in Hawaii?) Of course, the list of clergy who officiated at ther funeral reminded me of the joke: A Rabbi, Presbyterian, and Methodist walked in Jane Stanford's funeral... ;) --Christine (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Same-Sex commitment ceremonies and marriages at MemChu

I've added a little bit on this. I'm not sure of the exact date Stanford permitted this though I did find an article describing a commitment ceremony in August 1995 in the San Jose Mercury. The first same-sex state recognized marriage was performed just before prop 8 was passed in November 2008 which halted all such in California, but, I learned that by talking to the minister who performed the ceremony and so I have no source I can cite.--Erp (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As you know, that would constitute WP:OR. The NYT article is fine, I think. I changed the wording a bit and added another sentence from the article. Thanks for finding it, Erp. I like this teamwork we've been doing; you find the research and I add its content to the article. Works for me! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Found an article from the San Francisco Chronicle (reference on the article page). Looks like the NYT article was off by a couple of years (it was 1993 not 1995).

The ceremony -- what Gregg called an exchange of ``vows of commitment -- was conducted by the Rev. Diana Akiyama , associate dean of the chapel, who said later, ``I am convinced that these two persons have thought carefully and deeply about the spiritual and religious dimensions of their promises.

... Gregg said the two ``approached our office. They were religious people who wanted their commitment, their promises to each other, to take place in a church, presided over by a member of the clergy. They made a very strong case for this.

Gregg obtained approval from the university administration, and the ceremony took place. ....

``It was a very, very good event involving two very solid people, Gregg said. Gregg said his staff had discussed performing a ceremony for a gay couple before Allen and Rouman made their request.

``We tried to push to the background the political and public relations issues, and we concluded it would be the right thing to do on behalf of people we're supposed to be serving, Gregg said.

``These are two people who love each other, Gregg said. ``How can you say that is not blessable?

I've included some of the article above in case you want to mine it for other things. --Erp (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've mined it. Thanks for transcribing the article for our use. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Arlis Perry

As I state above, when I addressed Scartol's comments, I'm creating a new section about the Arlis Perry murder. In September 2008, User:Excirial deleted this information added by User:Jimmyg1982, and there was a brief and minor controversy about it. (See here.) I stepped in and helped resolve it, and that began my involvement with this article. At the time, I changed the wording a bit and since it was well-sourced at the time, "voted" to keep the information, at least until we received some feedback to remove it again. Scartol came the closest to that, but I agree with Excirial that it doesn't belong here, so in anticipation of its FAC, I removed it anyway.

In case there's controversy about my editorial decision to delete this information, I've re-created it below. The original source has since gone broken, but I was able to find two other sources (one of which cites the broken link), and I'll put them here as well.

"One of the Bay Area's most sensational unsolved crimes" occurred in the church: the murder of 19-year old Arlis Perry, who was living on campus with her new husband. She was found murdered in the church in the early morning hours of October 13, 1974.

http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2007/9/28/inCardinalBlood
http://www.stanforddaily.com/cgi-bin/?p=1053

--Figureskatingfan (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Clock tower

Though the clock tower on the church was never rebuilt, the clock itself was saved and still exists in a separate building. http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/june13/robclock-613.html

Unfortunately the wikipedia article on the Stanford Clock Tower is woefully mangled and a bit vandalized.--Erp (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again - what cool things you learn on WP! You're right, the clock tower article is horrible. It probably won't take much to redo, and I'm sure it'd earn me another DYK, so I'm gonna have to put it on my list. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Early History from completion to circa 1950

Unfortunately most of what I've found probably falls under the rubric of Original Research. First the church fell way behind schedule. The dedication was originally schedule for March 9, 1902 and then postponed several times until actually happening on January 25, 1903 (big article in the San Francisco Chronicle, January 26, 1903, page 3, no author, "Stanford Memorial Church Dedicated Yesterday with Impressive Ceremonies").

Participants of note included Rabbi Jacob Voorsanger of Congregation Emanu-El (San Francisco, California) who read the first lesson "Solomon's prayer at the dedication of the temple of Jerusalem from Second Chronicles". (Stanford really did have a diversity of faiths in the church from the beginning) Heber Newton preached the sermon. There was also a second service in the afternoon at which D. Charles Gardner gave the sermon. In between the two services the church had its first christening. (all from the article).

I had forgotten that the spring of 1903 was also when Stanford had its infamous typhoid epidemic that killed 8 students (the class of 1906 got both epidemic and earthquake). The graduation festivities were canceled (but that is sidetracking). Newton resigned in April but stayed on during the epidemic. After a delay the university announced it was because of a dispute over the arrangement of the choir. Newton publicly denied this but did not state the reason. All original research so you can't use it, but, it might give some hints for hunting. (from SFC article, Aug 30, 1903, page 26 "Memorial Church to be without regular Pastor") The trustees decided not to fill the position of a regular preacher (the position Newton had held) and instead the Chaplain Gardner would alternate Sundays with a visiting preacher. Gardner would continue to do all the Sunday afternoon services.

Can't really find anything but weddings and funerals (well there is the earthquake) and sermons by important figures in the SF Chronicle (though the archive ends in 1922). I think Gardner tried avoiding controversy.

I should try to trackdown the Friday night Jewish meetings in the vestry that the Trueblood autobiography mentioned since officially the only religious services until the late 60's on campus was suppose to be the official ones in MemChu itself (hence the reason for St. Ann's for the Catholics).--Erp (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So I added the stuff about the church's dedication. I was able to find a really interesting article about the typhoid epidemic, but there was no mention of MemChu or of Newton. After thinking about it, I don't think adding the info about Newton's resignation is appropriate, since there's already a mention of it in the "Past deans" section. I also don't think that the second SFC article info is important enough to add here. If you could find the info about the Jewish meetings, that would be great. Oh, and thanks for your research, as always. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The typhoid was mostly for putting things in context of what was happening in the first few months, but, is best for a non-wikipedia original research paper. There were several SFC articles mentioning services in MemChu for those who died. Also one mentioning the second wedding at MemChu as the groom was credited with keeping the death toll down. Again not really something to put in this article. I did find some references to a "Brandeis Club" circa 1950 followed by the Hillel Center both off-campus.[1][2] I just checked and found it a bit odd that given some of the minor places at Stanford in wikipedia that there is no article on the Old Union.[3] I'm mentioning that because the Old Union housed for many years the Hillel Center and now has on the third floor much of the religious stuff pushed out of MemChu (it also has some interesting architecture).--Erp (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Layout and duplicate

Layout of Stanford Memorial Church

Not sure whether this is entirely kosher. It is based on a sketch in the brochure which I bitmapped traced and turned into svg. If it is ok, it would be relatively easy to modify to show what might be useful to show.

Also in the article the external mosaic is described twice (once as "Christ Blessing the People" and once as "Christ welcoming the righteous into the Kingdom of God"). --Erp (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is ok. It won't hurt to include it and see what happens. I think that it might be a good idea to create a subsection in the Architecture section, since it's long enough as is and would be even longer with this image. I will also correct the error you found. Thanks, Erp, you rock. --Christine (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Four organs

Someone reminded me that Stanford has four organs, so I added info on the fourth, a continou built by Martin Pasi. Also some rewording was suggested.--Erp (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Erp. This was kinda confusing, because some sources say that MemChu has three organs, and others say four. The "Staff profile" article about Morgan says that there are only three, but it was written in 1999, before the continou was acquired in 2001. (Remarkably, three organs was considered "unique," so four is even more so.) Stanford's Office for Religious Life only mentions three, but the church brochure lists the continou. Hence the confusion. Go tell them to fix it, would ya? ;) I changed the wording slightly, because you missed the keys materials. Thanks for changing the wording in the lead, which makes it more accurate.

Btw, an organ expert *did* take a look at this section. User:Cor anglais 16, who has some impressive credentials in the organ, made some valuable contributions (see here) back in February. It looks like what we need is an expert in the MemChu organs, to ensure both accuracy and to check the prose. I'm sure you can tell that this has been the most difficult section for me. I know less about organs than I do about architecture and art. But we've been able to get some good help to make up for the deficiencies of this article's main editor. --Christine (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already sent a note about the Office of Religious Life web pages though due to budget cuts it may be a while. I agree it was confusing. The continuo is easily movable and sometimes moved [it is in the side chapel right now] (assuming I've got the right organ) so doesn't fall quite in the class of the other three (which are definitely not easily moved). I was talking to one of the docents the other day and she showed me some nifty earthquake pictures of the church (e.g. the chancel with the statues of the apostles and the rubble around them); I didn't broach wikipedia yet. --Erp (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Tables

After experimenting on the sandbox Erp created for this purpose, I placed a table of the lists of mosaics in MemChu. I still need to play around with it to make it look prettier, and to wikilink it appropriately. I suspect that I'll do the same for the windows and inscriptions, as suggested in this article's failed FAC. I will use this space to record issues to address as I go, and anyone is welcome to participate if he/she chooses. Also, please discuss anything related to the tables here.

• Taken from above-mentioned sandbox, regarding this note from Erp:

  Dome uses tromp d'oiel mosaic and carving (the weight of actual mosaic and stonework was deemed to be to heavy)

Erp, we need to know the source for the above. Dummy me has no idea what it means; what is "tromp d'oiel mosaic"? Actually, if you could provide your source for all your lists, that would be great. If you made this list yourself, I think that would be okay, since it parallels Hall's list and it's something anyone visiting the church would see.

Actually that is from the docent's talk and should be trompe-l'oeil. It is painting that looks like carving and mosaic (not definite on the mosaic but the apparent carving is painted not real). BTW the twelve mosaics in each transept balcony are split into two sets of six. So each balcony is six mosaics, ten windows, six mosaics in an arc. I got my list from Hall also and did some extra hunting on which artists (for the windows). --Erp (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• The Latin in the mosaics: Domus Dei Locus Orations and Domus Dei Aula Coeli. As I have stated previously, I only went to a CSU school, so my classical education is lacking. I think that we need English translations of these phrases. I tried a translation webpage, which sucked, so I'm calling for Latin experts to help. I'll do a userpage search and elicit help that way as well. --Christine (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

My Latin is also almost non-existent. Domus Dei is House of God. "Aula Coeli" seems to be hall of heaven and "Locus Orations" place of prayer. So the two translations might be "The House of God, a Place of Prayer", "The House of God, a Hall of Heaven". Now that I've given a bad translation someone might come along and give a good one. --Erp (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added your "bad translation". Will look for expert later. --Christine (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Appearance. I do not like the way the table looks. Please, someone who understands how to place them, could you fix? Perhaps it needs an embedded table. --Christine (talk) 05:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Or, on the other hand, as I've thought about it a couple of days, perhaps it needs new article(s). Art of Stanford Memorial Church? I don't want this pretty little article to turn ugly, as I suspect adding a couple of tables might. --Christine (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• I was wondering that myself. Frankly in my opinion the mosaics aren't great art (the Last Supper is best but, like the windows, it is a copy of better art). The true treasure of the church is the organ. BTW one Stanford wedding made the front cover of Time back in 1967 and an article just an odd fact not really relevant to the article.--Erp (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of the organ, Robert Morgan approved our request to put one of his videos on the article. I have to ask Awadewit how to do that. After I complete all the tables, I'll contact her and Scartol and get their opinions. Not the most interesting tasks I've ever done on WP. The article you cite is interesting, but you're right; it's not relevant. It's too bad the article didn't say something like, "This is one of the first interracial marriages at MemChu", because I suspect that it was. --Christine (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it was the first (in California Asian-American/European-American might well have happened earlier even if not African-American/European-American, though post 1947 when the law banning interracial marriages was struck down); it would be interesting to know but I suspect not much fuss was made at the time of the first. Great news on the approval for a video. --Erp (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Images

I believe that I have substantially improved the images in this article. Thanks to Flickr, we've gone from thinking there was a severe limitation in image choice, to having a large pool of possibilities. With apologies to Scartol, who believes that images in FAs should be scattered, I have placed all the images here on the right. I placed them on the right because, IMO, in the process of adding images, it seemed to work aestically. The quote boxes are also all on the right, for the same reason. I deleted some quote boxes that are no longer necessary as well. --Christine (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I very much doubt the Novak picture is of him at MemChu. I also have doubts about the copyright status of the wedding picture (given that it is probably a professional photograph and that copyright remains with the photographer not with the couple). --Erp (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Erp, you're correct about the Novak picture; as the caption states, it was taken at an event in Washington in 2004, years after speaking at MemChu about the Vietnam War as the article states. The caption doesn't state that the speech depicted occured at MemChu, but it does state that Novak was "one of many speakers at MemChu in its history". I don't think that's gonna be a problem for reviewers. I looked for a more suitable image, like one of Trueblood or Gardner or Napier, but there aren't any free ones that I could find. Regarding the wedding picture: it was taken from Flickr, and the photographer states there that with credit, it's appropriate to use as a free image. --Christine (talk) 02:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

To-do list accomplished, more or less

As of this afternoon, I have completed the to-do list created after this article's failed FAC. All that needs to be accomplished is that the tables need to be improved and the close paraphrasing needs to be looked at. I will go ping Scartol about the tables, and leave a note for Awadewit (who's currently on vacation). As per the FAC, I also restructured the History section to include the discussion about MemChu's past deans and current staff. Once the two issues that are left are addressed, this article will return to FAC. --Christine (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I notice that there is now a "perrow" tag on the gallery of stained glass images. Alas, this causes a yucky horizontal bar on my monitor. (This is considered a web design no-no.) Without the "perrow" tag, apparently, we get one lone image by itself on the second row. I suppose my only suggestion is to have three up top and two below. (But then we end up with yucky white space on the right.) Maybe make the images smaller? Anyone have any better ideas than I do? Scartol • Tok 00:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if the solution would be to put the gallery before the tables, which I went ahead and did. Does this in actual fact solve the problem, and am I still committing web design sin? You let me know, 'kay? If this doesn't do it, then perhaps the last resort (gasp!) would be to remove the gallery altogether. --Christine (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

New Organ reference and Choir

The Palo Alto Weekly, a local newspaper, had a long article on Robert Huw Morgan and the organs http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=12616 which might be of interest. In particular he is taking over directing the Stanford Memorial Church Choir in the Fall (Gregory Wait the former director retired from the choir today after 30 years directing, this is not mentioned in the Weekly article). Info on the choir can be found at http://music.stanford.edu/Ensembles/ --Erp (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Erp. Do you know just how much you rock? The Morgan article is great! It makes me wish we hadn't moved away from the Bay Area, just so that I could go hear his Bach marathon. I looked at the other website, about the choir, but it doesn't really have anything about MemChu. I will try to incorporate the content into the article this morning, since I'm supposed to take in my laptop for repairs this afternoon, and my computer access will be limited in the next few days. --Christine (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Video file

I have uploaded File:Robert Huw Morgan Bach FugueG.ogg at Commons. It now needs the appropriate OTRS material sent. Awadewit (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Dude! Thanks! (Watched a little Lost this afternoon.) ;) --Christine (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Added file to article, then sent appropriate email with Morgan's permission to OTRS/Commons. --Christine (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Completed to-do list

I am pasting the to-do list here, since it is now completed. This article is now ready to be re-submitted for FAC; all we're waiting for is to resolve the license permission issue for the Morgan video in the "Organs" section. An administrator at Commons has requested that we be more specific about the type of license, so I've emailed Dr. Morgan to release the correct license to us. (He's on vacation until next week, so it may be a little while.) --Christine (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There are no active tasks for this page

• Solve close paraphrasing.

   Done Reviewed by Awadewit.

• Improve/add images, using Flickr as a resource.[4]

   Done

• List church artwork.

   Done, still needs work on tables.[5]

• Expand architectural details.

   Done

• Better present "trivia" (i.e., summarize list of staff into History section).

   Done

• Improve/expand discussion regarding earthquakes and earthquake damage.

   Done

Similar FAs:
Beth Hamedrash Hagadol (Manhattan, New York)
Congregation Beth Elohim (Brooklyn, New York)
Netley Abbey
St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery

Mostly based upon 4/09 FAC.

Congratulations!

My computer has been on the blink! I was so happy to get it back, and find that this article now has a nice little star. Amandajm (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is nice. Thanks for your part in getting it there. --Christine (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

As a Stanford grad who was married in MemChu, I was pleased and surprised to see this excellent article featured today on the Main Page. Congratulations and thanks to those Wikipedians who brought it to us. Hult041956 (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful to see MemChu make the main page of Wikipedia. Congrats to all who contributed. (Go Stanford!) jengod (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting statements

• "Designs for the church were submitted to Jane Stanford and the university trustees in 1898, and it was dedicated in 1903."
• "The church was commissioned by Jane Stanford (1828–1905) as a memorial to her husband, Leland Stanford (1824–93)"
• Note 1: "The Stanfords built the university to honor their only child, Leland Stanford, Jr., who died in 1884..."

Leland, Sr. died before the church was commissioned, thus "The Stanfords" is confusing, as is the memorial. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The university was founded by both in memory of their son, a church envisioned by both as part of the university but actual commission was only done by Jane Stanford and it was made a memorial to her husband. I'll look over and see if the wording can be made clearer. --Erp (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV?

A lot of this seems fairly biased... particularly the section about the church's influence. It paints secularism in a bad light by repeatedly quoting people for the church as opposed to the more NPOV approach of quoting someone painting secularism in a bad light as well as quoting the opposing view. Perhaps if there were more than one sentence with a conflicting view from "this church made stanford, a former bastion of LIBERAL ATHEISM, great!" then this article would be more deserving of being featured.71.113.244.168 (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a bit difficult to comprehend what you are trying to convey. First most of the article is about the building and its history not the influence of the Deans. Second the influence section was carefully sourced but it is a bit tricky to source non-influence and it could probably be improved (but then all articles can be). If you have any sources, I and the others who worked on the article would be glad to see them. I'll reread the article to see if it overstates anything; there is one phrase so far that might be a bit problematic (however don't confuse religious studies with religion nor secular with atheistic). I was mostly the digger of sources on this article not the writer, but, it might be relevant to note that I am a liberal atheistic humanist. --Erp (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

And I, this article's main editor, happen to be a conservative, traditional Catholic. But please don't count that against me. If Erp or I any of the other editors who have worked on this article had some sort of conservative agenda as the anonymous IP is intimating above, you'd think that it would've been revealed in its extensive vetting. Isn't it amazing that it didn't come out before? --Christine (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The main purpose of that paragraph is to contextualize what came next as part of a general history; we needn't launch in to a tangential debate because we need to aggressively apply NPOV. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"the University's architectural crown jewel"?

Amid so many architectural rhinestones, the Stanford Memorial Church does stand out. But there should be a better reference for this quote than the University's own Office for Religious Life. Has any outside architectural authority made this "crown jewel" claim? This quote seems self-promotional; the implication of it that Stanford University's architecture is itself notable. Anyone want to take this on? –Tikibird (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think using the above-mentioned source is a bad thing. There has been lots of discussion about this article's sources (wow, am I repeating myself tonight!), and no one has ever taken issue with whether or not it's a reliable source. WP policy states that "self-published" sources (and Stanford's Office for Religious Life could be classified that way) should be avoided, but there are cases when they're acceptable. I believe that this source fits the exception. --Christine (talk) 05:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"The Plaque Before and After the 1906 Earthquake"

As a student at Stanford in the 70s, I learned a bit of lore that, prior to the '06 earthquake, the plaque read "Dedicated to the memory of Leland Stanford, Jr. and to the greater glory of God." At the direction of Jane Stanford, the story goes, the new plaque installed on the rebuilt church reversed the clauses. She apparently speculated that God had had objected to second billing....

I'd put this in the article, but have no source. Perhaps someone still on campus can scare up a source?

--Pmench (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice theory, but there are problems with it. (Do you Stanford students not take Logic? I'm a lowly CSU graduate,and I did! ;) Anyway, the problem with it is that Jane Stanford died before the 06 earthquake, and the smaller plaque was installed afterwards, by the university trustees. It was they who ordered that the original inscription be removed and that the smaller one be placed below the facade. According to the article that talks about it, the insinuation was that the trustees felt the original inscription was garish and inappropriate, and that the smaller one better fit the church's architecture. Personally, I think it was a good decision; the original dedication was so ugly, and the smaller plaque is more appropriate. --Christine (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

They may take logic, history might be more of a problem (speaking as a student from circa 1980) :-). The article actually has pictures of both dedications (though you'll have to blow up the original church picture to see it). Order is the same in both, God first then Leland Stanford. Most universities acquire various myths, personally I like the one that explains the red roofs at Stanford; Jane wanted to be able to see the university easily from heaven. --Erp (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I know this is a FA, but I read the lead on the main page, and it struck me that it is a little repetitive with "Stanford Memorial Church" in the lead:

Stanford Memorial Church (also known as MemChu) is located at the center of the Stanford University campus in Stanford, California, United States. It was built during the American Renaissance by Jane Stanford as a memorial to her husband Leland. Designed by architect Charles A. Coolidge, a protegé of Henry Hobson Richardson, the church has been called "the University's architectural crown jewel".

Designs for the church were submitted to Jane Stanford and the university trustees in 1898, and it was dedicated in 1903. The building is Romanesque in form and Byzantine in its details, inspired by churches in the region of Venice and, especially, Ravenna. Its stained glass windows and extensive mosaics are based on religious paintings the Stanfords admired in Europe. The church has four pipe organs, which allow musicians to produce many styles of organ music. Stanford Memorial Church has withstood two major earthquakes, in 1906 and 1989, and was extensively renovated after each.

Stanford Memorial Church was the earliest and has been "among the most prominent" non-denominational churches on the West Coast of the United States....

Surely one mention of the subject is enough? The mention at the end of the second paragraph sounds, to me, silly, especially as the previous two sentences have as their subjects "it" and "the church". Personally, I would change the third paragraph one too. Anyway, I'll leave the decision up to the person/people who got the article to FA, but for me it is rather unwieldy. But maybe it's just me :) Darth Newdar ^talk 14:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but yah, I think it's just you. ;) Seriously, though, this article has been through a lot of work, by lots of people, and no one else has had issue with the lead as it now stands. Of course, that doesn't stop anyone from making a contribution if they think it will improve the article. IOW, if you wanna change the wording slightly because you think it's repetitious, knock yerself out, as they say. If it's not vandalism, and it's not a change that changes meaning or goes against the consensus, I can't see myself reverting it back. --Christine (talk) 04:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, I'll just leave it alone then. Darth Newdar ^talk 12:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

chancel confusion

I just realized that the article has mixed up two parts of the church.

First the dome is above the crossing not the altar and the altar is not in the middle of the chancel but in the back half behind the altar railing (check the map* above in this talk page to get an idea). I've rewritten a bit but may have messed up a bit on the rewriting. Normally the altar is not used in services but a separate communion table is placed in the front half of the chancel. This is also where performances can take place (I can't vouch for performers never being in the back half). --Erp (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

* "map above" refers to File:Memchu.svg; April 2009 discussion is preserved in Talk:Stanford Memorial Church/Archive 1#Layout and duplicate. — Athaenara ✉ 05:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Bible verses

In the church, almost all of the windows and many of the murals cite in their captions their corresponding bible verses explicitly with both a quotation and citing chapter and verse. I would like to make note of that somehow but not in a way that will intrude. I am not religious but I feel that the choices, which often involve only a subset of particular verses, should be recorded because it is fairly easy to do so and because those choices are historic. The exact wording is usually KJV or American KVJ. Should I simply start a separate page for such? Suggestions?--Word2need (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am religious, and to be honest, I don't see the need for this. There are lists of every window and mural in the church already, with links to the corresponding Wikipedia articles of the Bible stories depicted. Of course, this shouldn't stop you from being WP:BOLD, so if you, as an editor, feel that this inclusion would improve this article, go for it. If anyone objects, they will, believe me, and more discussion will occur and this article will be all the better for it. --Christine (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason I focus on the Bible quotes and other words that can be seen in the architecture is because they are unambiguous. I focus not so much on the art as on the words because we can all agree about what those words are. They are clear choices made by the designers during the creative process and efficiently lead to insight about the intentions of the designers. I can now see that it would be too intrusive so I may just make such a list elsewhere and later add a brief reference in the article.--Word2need (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The citations are sometimes too abbreviated on the mosaics (chapter and verse but not book); we could put them in the tables but should do so only if the window/mosaic gives the citation or the verse. The article does have links to separate articles on the various scenes if they exist. Perhaps put together what you can in a sandbox and we can figure whether/how to put them in the article. There are some definite patterns in the windows/mosaics (e.g., that the raising of Jairus's daughter links with the window depicting Leland Stanford Jr. being raised). --Erp (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted all the edits by the banned User:Word2need, but this is a problem that needs to be fixed. There are two named refs "Memchu"; someone needs to check all of them, sort them into the two different ones, and fix all the named refs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And I've seen that my friend User:Erp has fixed the problem. Thanks. I've discovered that one of the ways to deal with this kind of issue is to change the refs to inline refs, and I've done that with all the major articles I manage. I think that it should be done with this one as well. It's my intention to do so, but it'll be a while, since starting on Thursday, I'm going on vacation for 10 days. I'll put this on my list of things to do what I get back! --Christine (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

new organ

The church has acquired yet another organ to bring the number up to five. Don't have much info yet accept a bit about the opening concert.[6] It is Tudor style and sitting in the side chapel. I'll edit the article when I find some more info (unless someone else adds stuff first). --Erp (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's gotta be some kind of record, right? I'm sure that as we get closer to the concert date, they'll be more in the Bay Area press and music press about that. I'll be on the lookout for sources, too, but I'm sure that you can better access, Erp. Thanks. Christine (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure it is a record as three of the organs are not huge. This one is rather ornate and second smallest; I'm looking forward to hearing it. The maker is Hupalo and Repasky who are a local firm. It is also on loan and not officially owned by the University (though I get the feeling the loan is long-term). However my source isn't exactly citable; the program notes for the concert should have the most accurate and full info so I'll try getting hold of that. The other bit of news and I'm wondering whether I can wrangle an appropriate picture for the article is the Dalai Lama will be speaking at the church in October (for the second time). Unfortunately only students can attend (by lottery) and I strongly suspect restrictions on photos inside the church. --Erp (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting concert with a bit of a lecture about the new organ. It is a reconstruction (with educated guesses) of a pre-reformation English organ. Educated guesses are needed because no English organ survived the reformation though a couple of pieces were found in the late 20th century.[7][8] This is the first reconstruction done in this country and one of only three done in the world and is very much meant to investigate academically how the organ music written at that time in England (and Wales) would have originally sounded (no organ survived but a lot of the music did [some of which were played at this concert and with a student working the bellows]). It is on loan to the church until a buyer is found (ideally a donor willing to buy it for Stanford). However I have nothing I can cite properly yet (though something written should appear sooner or later) nor am I sure how much of this belongs in this article. --Erp (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Now something at http://www.hupalorepasky.com/work/tudor/tudor_organ.html by the makers. They also link to it being played using the hand pumped bellows. I have my own picture of the organ and am gathering info in my sandbox.--Erp (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, Erp. This brings up a few questions, though. If we have to, we can use the maker's source, but are there any other sources out there about the new organ? And the info in your sandbox: where did you get it? It's cool information, but if it's OR, we shouldn't use it. We can use your picture, though, for sure. Christine (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

A moderate amount is from the notice board by the organ (I took a good picture of that which I have not uploaded) which seems to be a combo of the makers (overlap with some stuff on their web page) and Robert Huw Morgan (given his talk at the inaugural concert) if I were to guess (I should probably just ask Huw Morgan). I'm on two minds on the notice board as a source but it is in a reputable academic setting and Huw Morgan does hold an university academic position and is an acknowledged expert on organs which is a plus if he is responsible for the notice board (most if not all the notice board material appears at http://www.stanford.edu/group/religiouslife/cgi-bin/wordpress/memorial-church/history/memorial-church-organs/#Tudor). The web page http://www.goetzegwynn.co.uk/tudor.shtml (which is a fascinating article) has some info on the first recreations by Goetze and Glynn (though I'm not sure how to reconcile two organs they did with the Hupalo/Repasky organ being the second, perhaps second five rank and one of the two Goetze/Glynn did is not five rank, I just don't know enough about organs). Looks like I should pin Huw Morgan to see if anything has been formally published yet. (btw another chore is updating links to the Office of Religious Life as they've just revamped their web pages) --Erp (talk) 08:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that the info on your sandbox was from the noticeboard. Remember that this article relies heavily on university sources, especially the Office of Religious Life. It's an excellent model of a FA that uses primary sources, I think, and I hold it up all the time. Remember that WP policy states that we should generally use secondary sources, but that there are exceptions. This article proves the exception, and quite well, if I must say. When you're done with your research (excellent as always), let me know and I'll update it. Christine (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources found during FAR

• Arlis Perry: [9] Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stanford Memorial Church. 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/20130922042736/http://histsoc.stanford.edu/pdfST/ST34no3.pdf to http://histsoc.stanford.edu/pdfST/ST34no3.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) 05:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stanford Memorial Church. 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/20130617055955/http://www.stanford.edu/group/religiouslife/docs/weddings/wedding_program.pdf to http://www.stanford.edu/group/religiouslife/docs/weddings/wedding_program.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) 01:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Jane Shaw's departure

To add, once her successor has been named: [10] Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

successor named, Tiffany L. Steinwert. [11] but she doesn't start until February 2019 so we may want to hold off. --Erp (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree. Erp, can you alert us when that happens? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)