Talk:Minor Canons of St Paul's

This article is the subject of a request emailed to the Volunteer Response Team (VRT).

Issues identified are: Private e-mail with personally identifiable information posted without permission of all involved.

The VRTS ticket number is 2008010510008958.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anglicanism Mid‑importance

	Minor Canons of St Paul's is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AnglicanismWikipedia:WikiProject AnglicanismTemplate:WikiProject AnglicanismAnglicanism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity: Catholicism Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Low-importance).

Cardinals

If we're going to say the title "cardinal" is still in use today, let's provide a citation. It does little good to delete a citation which says it was in use at least until 1898 and replace it with a fact tag stating that it's still in use today. The onus is on those claiming its current use to provide a citation; there is no onus on anyone to "prove" that it is not currently used. Unicted statements may be removed, particularly those that are questionable. Snocrates 21:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated the desired edits that claim current use while maintaining the citation that proves use through 1898. Fact tags have been added to claimed current use information. This information will be deleted if citations are not provided in a reasonable amount of time. Snocrates 21:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous citation "proved" nothing. As it existed, it was WP:OR to state that "We found a reference to the cardinals from 1898 and therefore the term must have fallen into disuse after this." The list of Cardinals in Novum Repertorium Ecclesiasticum Parochiale Londinense ends in 1898 with the then-current incumbent because the book was published that year, not because the term fell into disuse. There was another volume that listed clergy to 1911, hence the wild speculation in the article that the term may have still been in use as late as that year. The author of that edit clearly could not state that it was in use for certain in 1911 because while he knew of the existance of the 1911 list in the Guildhall Library's copy of W. Sparrow Simpson's The Charter and Statutes of the College of Minor Canons he did not have access to the volume. So he did one thing you cannot do at Wikipedia: he speculated.

Spotting this all as WP:OR, I did a little OR myself. Out of curiosity, over the weekend I contacted the College of Minor Canons about this and a reply which demonstrated that the edits were made in good faith. What is more, it is just a matter of time until I find a admissible citation because it is a fact. This does put the onus on those who claim it is no longer used to find a citation supporting their claim. They never will, because the claim is false. You try and cite your position before I cite mine. I am working on language and citations that are correct and avoid any WP:OR. If you really believe the above to be wrong, you attempt to do the same for your position. Best, -- SECisek (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Largley done, the only outstanding citation is "the only female Cardinals in all of Christianity". If I don't find a citation in a reasonable amount of time, I'll kill this as the WP:OR that it is. I want to thank Snocrates for the challenge to improve this article. Work will continue, possibly to GA. -- SECisek (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. The previous reference was not being included to prove that it fell into disuse after 1898—all it could demonstrate it that it was used at least until 1898. I had nothing to suggest that it was used or not used after this date, and I don't have an agenda for proving it one way or the other. Cheers, Snocrates 20:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]