Talk:St Stephen's House, Oxford

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents


[edit] Fr Couratin

To write about St Stephen's House without mentioning Fr Couratin is rather like performing Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. He followed Dr Mitchell and for many years set a high standard of scholarship, liturgy, and morality . His relaxed drawl and quick wit, described by one writer as like Noel Coward in a clerical collar, concealed real discipline and devotion to his calling. He left a permanent mark on those who came under his influence.It is interesting that a considerable number of his former students are now in the Holy Catholic and Roman Church."

moved from end of article - if people think it's needed, could they find a way of adding it back in Anthropax 21:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Would the last paragraph not be more appropriate in a footnote? I gives a somewhat one sided impression.

There is a picture of the altar at St Stephen's House, Norham Gardens under the image section. Messrs Garzo and Underdown please do with it what you will. I found it in a folder of old photographs.

[edit] Culture section

Please do not remove cited information from the article before discussing it here first. David Underdown 09:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the most recent edit of the culture section. I would discourage excessive emphasis on past excesses which were dealt with some decades ago. I fear that the inclusion of what might be seen as an hobbyhorse on an otherwise neutral article would rather discredit an otherwise very informative piece. Jacob Donald Hicks 22:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is what was removed - The college has, at times, had a reputation for being quite camp and attracting a number of gay ordinands, especially in the late 1970s. David Hope, later Archbishop of York, was recruited as principal in the 1970s to rein in excesses and to ensure the college remained on track in its mission.[1]. Richard Kirker of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, quoted in A Church at War: Anglicans and Homosexuality, claims its proportion of gay students has been as high as ninety percent, although this would seem significantly overstated . Prominent gay cleric Jeffrey John is an alumnus. A.N. Wilson writes that in his time there students were given opposite-sex "names in religion". [2]
Although this isn't the best writing and wp work it certainly can be worked with rather than expunged altogether. I suggest reviewing the references given to see what they actually say and find a way to work a neutral-ish version back into the article. Referencing that a school has had gay members in the past, or even currently, shows the school is at least a little diverse and like the rest of the world actually has gay people within its ranks. Benjiboi 03:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
It should also be noted that these are the first references in the article at all so removing them is suspicious at best, homophobic at worst. Benjiboi 03:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
It was precisely the fact that it is the only referenced material in the article which has lead to me reverting the repeated wholesale removal of information. It is only one paragraph in the article, so I don't really think it can said to give undue weight to the issue. Plus the overall issue of gays in the clergy is still a particularly challenging one for Anglicanism. The mention of Jeffrey John in this context is perhaps slightly gratuitous, though he is perhaps the highest profile such figure in the Church of England. Yes the events are past, but given the points also made in the article about how many students have previously gone on to positions of influence, then many students form 30 years ago are potentially in such positions. The other thing that concerned me is that many of edits removing the information came from IP addresses associated with Oxford University, suggesting the possibility of an attempted whitewash. People should perhaps review Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest, as well as on citing sources. David Underdown 08:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's assume good faith for the moment and focus on adding relevant and good material back into the article. My hunch is to also come up with some proposed text on this page then roll back the protection to allow registered users to edit which should slow disruptive edits from anon IP's who would have to register before editing. If they register and then abuse the system that can be easily dealt with in a number of ways. If this sounds acceptable can you start a new talk section and post a draft of proposed text? Then we can all vet it to look for the best word choices and such so it actually has the best chance of adding to the general reader's understanding of the article's subject. After this process other improvements to the article can also take place once the full protection has been lifted. Benjiboi 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the typos, and thanks for sorting them out. I didn't mean to accuse anyone of acting in bad faith, it is a natural wish for people to make institutions with which they are associated look good - it is hard to reach the degree of detachment necessary to realise that Wikipedia requires to put both sides of the coin. Most of the current text is fine, just completely lacking in any sources (which should ideally be independent of the institution). In particular the various quotes relating to Fr Couratin must be sourced, or deleted. I doubt whether we really need the full staff list however. I should point out that I had nothing to do with the original insertion of the piece of text that has primarily been in dispute, and my main desire has been to get some discussion of its validity going here. When repeated use of edit summaries and user talk messages failed I requested protection as the best way to kick-start that - which seems to have had the desired effect. David Underdown 13:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem on all counts. let's just come up with whatever text needs to be introduced, reference anything likely to be seen as controversial and go forward. Benjiboi 14:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

So, where are we going with this? Can we put the information back in? Or are we going to whitewash? It's been quite some time now. Carolynparrishfan 19:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned we should verify that the references support what is asserted then re-add the text. Anyone can do it, I'm no expert on the subject of the article so was deferring to those who are familiar with the material. if you wish go for it. I'm here as an experienced editor and observer to help calm vandalism and offer outside opinion. I'm very happy to help whatever way is best. Benjiboi 20:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, two of them were online sources that anyone could check and one is a book that I have read. Carolynparrishfan 02:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Then please re-add the content. Benjiboi 23:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
But I can't...because it's protected...Carolynparrishfan 00:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Ha! And so it is. I've put in a request to roll protection back to semi-protect we should have an answer within a day at the very most probably sooner. Benjiboi 00:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. Go for it! Benjiboi 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This whole section could be improved if notice were taken of the memoirs of Eric Kemp who was a governor of the House during the period in question. See "Shy but not retiring - the Memoirs of the Rt Revd Eric Waldram Kemp" . He says that the atmosphere of high camp and too much alcohol (p218) set in under Fr Allen, Fr Couratin's successor, and that it was noteworthy in the late 60's when Michael Ramsay spoke to Kemp about the possibility of withdrawing recognition of the House as a suitable place for ordinands. Allen resigned, a stop gap was appointed and Hope took up his appointment in 1974. As it stands the last paragraph is not historically accurate. I expect that Wilson must have been there briefly when Allen was Principal. Fr Allen was a very holy man but lacked the toughness of Arthur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.230.181 (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've adjusted the dates in light of your comment. The fact taht Hope was sent in to sort things out is sourced, and as you say that was in 1974, so late 60s/early 70s does indeed make more sense. David Underdown (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Arthur always taught that homosexuals had "a natural vocation to chastity" and often became excellent priests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.243.41 (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There were certainly some few fairly open homosexuals there in the 1950's and one does not know what they may have called each other in private, but the rest of the House had names such as Neville, John, Peter, Paul, Jeremy, Sydney or Fred. Wilson's description of so-called "names in religion " of a feminine nature must describe a practice that came in under Derek Allen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.243.41 (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

   Should the last sentence in this section not come just after "Unguarded Hours" as an expansion of Wilson's book?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.233.203 (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History section

Could Fr John Saward be included under distinguished former students? Unlike many of the others listed he has published extensively on theology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.176.41 (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC) I suggest breaking this longer section into smaller, more digestible parts. Benjiboi 21:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Church of St John the Evangelist

From the official website it seems this is important and would be a good section to introduce and develop. Benjiboi 10:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photos of St Stephen's and church

If anyone is able photos of the various notable buildings uploaded to the commons and linked here would help improve the article. Benjiboi 11:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)