Talk:Tim Dakin

Citation for ordination as deacon and priest

It can surely not be a coincidence that an anonymous editor has noted the lack of a citation for these at a time when contributors to at least two websites are questioning whether Tim Dakin received Holy Orders which should have been recognised by the Church of England.

I have looked back on the version of the Article when it was first set up and as I would expect there is a link there to Crockfords, to act as a reference for the two ordinations. Unfortunately, the link which was included at the time now appears to be dead.

Could someone with access to Crockfords - it is subscription only - please restore the link, in such a way that it will be archived. I think we have to accept that a source such as Crockfords should be treated as authoritative by an encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia, unless and until someone comes up with some very cogent evidence which might cast doubt on an entry there. I cannot see that Wikipedia can or should try to resolve any arguments over the legalities surrounding the Church of England's recognition of acts of ordination by a bishop of the Church of Kenya.Ntmr (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@DBD: I note your recent edit to the Tim Dakin Article. Please see my contribution to the Talk page on 5 June. Are entries in Crockfords verified in any way or do they also rely entirely on a self-completed “entry form”? If they rely entirely on self-submitted information then they are clearly not as authoritative as I assumed. Ntmr (talk) 09:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ntmr: I'm afraid the answer isn't simple. Since I have myself completed Crockford forms, I can tell you that it is at least primarily based off self-completed information. But the Crockford team is in fact part of the Church of England national offices, so they can and do verify information from other sources. That team is even routinely informed of each year's ordinations, for instance. That is how it works today. I can't speak for how it has worked in the past (and especially before Church House absorbed Crockford). Some of the details clerks provide to Crockford are unlikely to be verified — such as birth years (Sentamu's was notably revised at one point). In the end, I believe that Crockford is almost as reliable as Who's Who, which is also filled (at least partially) based on information subjects provide.

You may have seen that I've changed phrasing around the ordination dates, aiming for the bio to come down neutrally on this particular matter. DBD 13:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@DBD: Thank you for clarifying that for me. If Crockfords does ultimately rely on self-reporting (particularly, I suspect for those ordained abroad), then it must somewhat qualify what I said on 5 June. Throughout Wikipedia Crockfords seems to be treated as authoritative, but I would agree that, in these circumstances, a simple citation to it might not be viewed as NPOV. What you have said seems to state the position objectively and is fair.Ntmr (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ntmr: That's about the size of it. DBD 17:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

How reliable do we consider Gavin Ashenden? Because that made shocking reading, Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 17:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I find the Para 6. of the "No confidence motion and retirement announcement" section (which begins "On 28 June, Gavin Ashenden, a retired Honorary Chaplain to the Queen, published a fierce analysis of how Dakin had come to be appointed as a bishop with no formal training for the priesthood and no experience as a parish priest."), could potentially be in breach of Wikipedia's published guidelines on libelous materials. The author of the referenced article provides no sources within his article to any of his claims, which therefore must be considered contentious and therefore "removed immediately". Finally, even though the author seems to be have experience in affairs of religion, the fact that this is a self-published article without sources means it is in violation of the following Wikipedia guideline: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.". I would therefore suggest the entirity of this Para (6) is removed. Rmonty01 (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I find Para 1 & 2 of the "No confidence motion and retirement announcement" could potentially be in breach of Wikipedia's published guidelines on libelous materials. Furthermore, as no sources are used, the excerpt attributed to Angela Tilby should be considered conjecture and representing one paticular point of view that cannot be verified. It should therefore be removed. Rmonty01 (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I find Para 4 of the "No confidence motion and retirement announcement" could potentially be in breach of Wikipedia's published guidelines on libelous materials. The reference for this paragraph links to a webpage with no verifiable claims and also contains a discussion between un-verifiable sources (who do not provide verifiable information). This paragraph should therefore be removed. Rmonty01 (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Furthermore, besides being unverified, the details are irrelevant now that Dakin has retired and the fuss is over. I've deleted the paragraphs mentioned above. Angusta (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

"Stepping back"

@Timothy Titus: What does the expression "on commentary upon them" actually mean? Can you clarify it - or are you quoting from a Press Release? Ntmr (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It is a typographical error, which I have now corrected. It should say "or commentary upon them", as outlined in the press article cited at the end of that sentence. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 22:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)