Talk:St Paul's Church, Auckland

Copyright history

Hi Willondon. Thanks for bringing to my attention that copying & pasting the history published on the St Paul's website breaks Wikipedia's rules. I assumed as a copyright holder of the history, written in a largely encyclopaedic manner by Kate Hannah, Research Development Manager, The University of Auckland, specifically for St Paul's, and published by St Paul's in 2009, that I was able to do this. If not, I'd be happy to rewrite it for this Wikipedia article. FYI, the paragraph deleted twice by 81.141.100.111 was done by the daughter of a recently deceased vicar who took personal offence to Kate's published history. Another person challenged this section a number of years ago. I asked for reliable source information that showed Kate's history was incorrect. They weren't able to provide anything. Out of respect, St Paul's have removed the paragraph from the website while it's being reviewed. Also, there are non-verbatim sections within your deletion that I'll reinstate if they make contextual sense. My first priority will be to get enough information back into the article for the deleted images to be reinstated so they don't become lost orphans. E James Bowman —Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

If you are the copyright holder of the history that was deleted, there is probably a way that you could put the text into the public domain, or some other copyright license that is acceptable to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I don't know any details on that. The rewritten version looks good, and I consider it an improvement to the version copied from the website. Thanks for your work. Willondon (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Willondon. I agree. E James Bowman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• If the copyright holder of the original so desires, he or she may release the material under a compatible license such as CC-BY-SA, by adding that license to the original material on the St. Paul's website. Please note: this will make the material available to anyone at all to use in any way they wish, as long as they attribute it to the original, but this is also true of any rewrite you might place on Wikipedia, anyway. -Arch dude (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Images

Hi Hl. I was going to wait until the above history was reinstated before talking to you about changing the photo of St Paul's building back to the logo, but I don't want the orphaned logo image to be deleted. Like all churches, a church is more than it's building. And unlike many historical churches, St Paul's has actually had three main buildings (plus offices, houses, halls etc). Many of St Paul's activities happen outside the confines of its buildings (eg Vector Arena, private homes, studios, the internet). So I think the image that depicts all of the above the best is the logo that was created to represent all of these locations, activities and history, the same as most other modern institutions. Universities for example. While the term "icon" you referred to presumably infers religious icons, the St Paul's logo is an icon by these definitions: A person or thing regarded as a representative symbol or as worthy of veneration., A symbol or graphic representation on a screen of a program, option, or window. E James Bowman —Preceding undated comment added 23:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Hl: and @Marchjuly: Re the above and discussions under 'Various issues' both a photo and the new logo have been added to the infobox. E James Bowman (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Various issues

After skimming through the article, looking at some recent major edits as well as posts here on this talk page, it appears that E James Bowman is connected to the church in some way. If that connection goes beyond a mere casual one, then Wikipedia would consider him to have a conflict of interest with respect to anything written about the church in any Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia does not expressly prohibit COI editing, but it is something highly discouraged for good reason and COI editors are expected to adhere to certain guidelines as explained in WP:PSCOI. Basically, a COI editor should refrain from directly editing the applicable adticle(s), except in the cases explained in WP:COIADVICE.

Another issue is the excessive amount of detail which has been added to some sections of the article. While I’m sure that the content which has been added is true, much of it doesn't seem to be encyclopedically relevant per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Information about church service times, etc., for example, is not needed per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Other stuff probably could be better summarized and written more in accordance with WP:NPOV.

This article is not the church's article and it's not written for the church as explained in WP:OWN; so, content and a style of writing which might seem fine for the church's website or informational materials is not really suited for Wikipedia. The fact that a church history written by a researcher on behalf of the church is being cited so many times for most of these (excessive) details probably means it should be treated as a primary source and not relied on so heavily. Also, the fact that a logo created by E James Bowman (also on behalf of the church?) in the main infobox and whose use is strongly being advocated for on this talk page by its creator might be seen as another example of the problems associated with COI editing. (FWIW, that logo is too simple for copyright protection per c:COM:TOO#United States and possibly even c:COM:TOO#New Zealand; so, it probably doesn't need to be licensed as non-free content).

In my opinion, the last two paragraphs of the lead need to go as does most of the 20th century and 21st century renewal sections: they are full of WP:PUFFERY and other WP:PROMOTIONAL content that's not really relevant to a Wikipedia article. — Marchjuly (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with every point Marchjuly made above. It is written more like a promotional brochure than an encyclopedic article.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly in the interested of transparency, I have been a congregant of St Paul's since 2005. I have done a lot of creative work at St Paul's starting in 2004, all unpaid, except for one project in 2009. In 2008, along with our vicar at the time Mike Norris, I asked Auckland University researcher, historian and writer Kate Hannah to research and write the history of St Paul's which was published on the St Paul's website in 2009. She was not paid for this work. In 2013 the St Paul's Wikipedia article briefly covered the architecture of the third and current St Paul's building, with a single source, and one other unsourced sentence. I used Kate Hannah's history as the basis of expanding the article, and have added 16 other reputable sources since.E James Bowman (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree with Marchjuly, the last two sections of the lead belong on the church's own website, not in an encyclopedia. Similarly for the bulk (if not all) of the content under the 20th and 21st century sections. Melcous (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

COI questions should be taken to the COI noticeboard, rather than talk pages. I note that some of the language used could be changed. I would remove for example the statement that the church "is of considerable importance." The other issue is the use of the church and its publications as sources. These should only be used for basic information. Why not suggest what information should be removed? I would remove the third and fourth paragraphs of the lead, except the first sentence referring to mention the numbers of staff and congregation. If readers want to attend the church, they can follow the link to its website. Similarly, most of the 21st century section could also be removed. TFD (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I have tweaked the first par of the into a little, and removed the image. If it was really the church logo then it would surely be on the church website, but isn't. Moriori (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

TFD and Moriori the Heritage NZ article referenced in the first para says "As the church of Auckland city's oldest parish St Paul's is of considerable historic importance." The logo is clearly visible on the lower right corner of the top banners of the St Paul's website homepage. It is used in monotone when it is against other backgrounds. You can see the coloured version is used on the sign outside the church in the photo in the Wikipedia article gallery. TFD Why would you remove most of the well-referenced 21st century section? Marchjuly as Kate Hannah's history is drawn from Primary Sources it is a Secondary Source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E James Bowman (talk • contribs) 06:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Marchjuly and TFD I've removed/reduced sentences in the front and back sections you mentioned. E James Bowman (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

According to your original post in this thread, you asked Hannah to write the history of the church which I'm assuming was done on behalf of the church. Did Hannah have this published by anyone other than the church itself? Perhaps as a book or as a magazine/journal article? Otherwise, I think it's basically going to be seen at best as a primary source, but even possibly as WP:OR. If this history was published somewhere by a reputable publishing house, etc., then it would be assumed to have been subject of some sort of neutral editorial control; on the other hand, if the only place this appears is on the church's official website, it's going to be assumed to have basically come from the church itself. I'm not trying to imply that Hannah did a bad job researching the church's history or that any of information found at stpauls.org.nz/welcoming/our_story/wherewevecomefrom1.aspx is not true, but only that WP:UGC, WP:SPS and WP:VNT seem to be applicable here.

Personally, I think a photo of the church would be best for the main infobox. I also do have concerns about you advocating for the use of a logo you created, which is kind of like a WP:SELFCITE for images. It would be much better to provide an official source which shows that the logo is the one used by the church for primary identification purposes since they are not using it on Facebook, YouTube, Localist, Soundcloud, Instagram, or Issuu. The logo is being used Twitter, but one out eight websites does not seem like it's being used for primary identification purposes. Moreover, this logo seems too simple to be protected by copyright per c:COM:TOO#New Zealand (trademark is different matter), so there' no real reason for it to be treated as non-free content. That's not an argument for using it or not using it, but the logo probably should be uploaded to Commons instead if the consensus turns out to be to use it.

As for the 20th and 21st century sections, I'm not sure if they all need to go, but the tone is rather promotional (at least it seems that way to me) and the amount of detail could be reduced and summarized more (in addition to the changes you just made). Same goes for the lead, in that the last two paragraphs seem superfulous. Per MOS:LEAD, the lead should summarize the main sourced content about the subject which comes later on in the article; it shouldn't really be the only place where certain information about the subject is mentioned. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Marchjuly Kate Hannah's history hasn't been published anywhere else. I have five of the books and a number of newspaper articles I understand she referenced and will add these references to the Wikipedia article. I also have the fully referenced 'A Plan for the Preservation of St Paul's Church Auckland' by Salmond Architects which I will add references from also.

Regarding the logo, I take your point that the current logo is being used less online. I can assure you it appears on every printed and emailed piece of comms every week, and it was on the FB cover yesterday. However, a new identity is being launched next month and when this is widely adopted and visible, I'll look at using it in the article. Meantime, I've taken and added a photo of the main church building (note the logo on both signs).

I've also taken your point as to where info belongs, and moved current congregation & attendance info (that isn't on the website) and staff info (both suggested for inclusion by TFD) to the end. E James Bowman (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gaia Octavia Agrippa, as I've seen some constructive edits you've made to articles on other Anglican churches I'm familiar with, and you're a member of WikiProject Anglicanism, I'm wondering if you'd like to help with this article? After a couple of attempted deletions last year (mentioned above) a number of editors raised concerns about the article. After working with them, the article was improved and I believe all concerns were addressed here. Due to conflict of interest concerns, Melcous doesn't want me to remove issues templates added by Marchjuly, and only wants me to make suggestions on the talk page. Six months on, virtually no one has touched this article nor commented on the 'Strengthening and refreshing project' I added below. Melcous also removed info I had added to the article about St Paul's 'Climate change action' below, so I've reworded it and provided an alternate source to answer further concerns. Also below is a 'List of vicars' that other church articles contain, I hope can be added. And some 'Parish roll statistics' that support some of the info in the article. I've included the most recent church membership number to the article in the past, but it has been removed by Melcous as 'unencyclopedic'. I've since found this is standard info in TemplateInfobox church so I'm about to add that to the article. Thanks. E James Bowman (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me E James Bowman. I'll try to cast a "independent" eye over the article. I do, however, agree with a lot of what has been said above. Wikipedia articles about churches have to strike a difficult Ballance between being historical monuments and as past/present congregations. However, I would say the history written by Kate Hannah is a secondary source: it is a history of the church, not a collection of first-hand accounts, even if it was commissioned by the church itself. As said above, it can't be copy and pasted into this article as its copyrighted. The agree that the 20th/21st century sections should be merged and reduced: WP:recentism is an issue. You have to remember that this isn't the church's website: its an encyclopedic article about the church. I'm currently very busy, but I'll edit the article when I have time. Hope my comments are helpful, Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 16:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gaia Octavia Agrippa. I also agree with much of what has been written previously, and have attempted to address all points. I'm sure your objective viewpoint and experience will strengthen the article more, especially in regard to recentism. That goes for the other sources below as well. I'm glad you agree Kate Hannah's history is a secondary source. I rewrote any previously cut and pasted sections from it, as soon as I learned it was copyright. E James Bowman (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm a bit doubtful about this idea that E James Bowman has a significant conflict of interest here. It seems to me that the WP:COI, if you want to call it that, is on par with saying that Boy Scouts have a COI for scouting organizations. So far as I know, nobody goes around adding COI templates or leaving peremptory notes at Talk:Boy Scouts of America, even though it's always been the case that the Wikipedia article was largely written by and maintained by current and former members of that organization. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. Given the recent comments by Gaia Octavia Agrippa and WhatamIdoing, plus the rest of the talk above, the edits that have been made to the article, and that according to Help:Maintenance template removal "Maintenance templates are not meant to be in articles permanently", do you agree the COI issue has been adequately addressed and template you added can now be removed? E James Bowman (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

A maintenance template isn't intended to be a black mark permantly affixed to an article; it can be removed once the problem specified in the template has been addressed. Ideally, when it concerns conflict of interest, the person who has the COI (or is suspected of having a COI) shouldn't be the one doing the removing, but any other editor can do so if they feel the concerns have been sufficiently addressed. As for whether you personally have a COI, as long as you edit the article in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines you should be fine. Just remember to try and resolve any disagreements over article content here on this talk page and to not try and exert some kind of special editoral control over the article because of your connection/relationship to the church. WP:APPARENTCOI will only become an issue with others if you start to veer too far outside of relevant policies and guidelines and starting moving in the direction of blantant promotion. This doesn't seem to really be high traffic article with lots of editors watching it, which means you might not get a lot of immediate feedback about your edits (unless you do something really wrong that triggers some kind of red flag); so, you can probably assume WP:SILENCE until someone does say something. If, however, you do desire feedback, particulary from people familiar with the this type of article, try the talk pages of the WikiProject listed at the top of this talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Marchjuly. Agreed. E James Bowman (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Strengthening and refreshing project

This recent, independent source from the Auckland University Heritage Society contains information that may be worth adding to this article. E James Bowman (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I suggest the following be added towards the end of the article: Heritage & conservation architects, structural & seismic engineers and St Paul's Restoration/Projects leader Esther Grant are working together to strengthen, refresh and complete the church building. Seismic strengthening is needed to reach building standards changed after the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Damaged and deteriorated roofing, masonry and stained glass will be repaired and replaced. Internal access, safety and circulation will all be improved. The originally-planned choir gallery may be completed for capacity, heritage and strengthening purposes. The planning also extends to building out to the car park, and completing the interior kauri panelling, exterior stone facing and steeple. E James Bowman (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Climate change action

In 2013 Revd Mathew Newton of St Paul’s asked the Anglican Diocese of Auckland synod to divest from fossil fuels industry due to the threat of climate change. It agreed and became the first New Zealand institutional body to do so. E James Bowman (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

List of vicars

List of vicars

• Reverend John Frederick Churton 1841–1853 Emily Place
• Archdeacon John Fredrick Lloyd 1853–1870 Emily Place
• Canon Charles Mosely Nelson 1870–1908 Emily Place, Eden Terrace & Symonds Street
• Reverend Cecil Alexander Burns Watson 1908–1942 Symonds Street
• Canon Samuel Bertram Roberts Corbin 1942–1953 Symonds Street
• Father Kenneth Prebble 1954–1974 Symonds Street
• Father David Balfour 1975–1984 Symonds Street
• Reverend William Heald 1984–1993 Symonds Street
• Reverend Nicholas James Schoombee 1994–2001 Symonds Street
• Reverend Harvey Jackson Smith 2003–2005 Symonds Street
• Reverend Michael Charles Latham Norris 2005–2013 Symonds Street
• Reverend Jonathan Stephen Grant 2015– Symonds Street

E James Bowman (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Parish roll statistics

Records are only available from 1993. Membership restricted to people over 18 years old.

List of parish roll statistics

Year	Members
1993	157
1994	176
1995	210
1996	no information
1997	120
1998	120
1999	120
2000	80
2001	64
2002	46
2003	84
2004	191
2005	369
2006	not supplied
2007	946
2008	1018
2009	1335
2010	1611
2011	1056
2012	1216
2013	1297
2014	1305
2015	1398
2016	1301
2017	1269
2020	801
2021	808
2022	765
2023	785

E James Bowman (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Second building

The temporary wooden church (under 'Changing locations' in the article) was moved in 1898 to become the Sunday School and social hall for Church of the Holy Sepulchre on Khyber Pass, and later became Tatai Hono Marae meaning 'this place where all meet as one' in Māori. E James Bowman (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• SP Logo Wide UV Infinity RGB.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

GLOW photo

10,000 Aucklanders celebrated Christmas waving glow sticks at the 2011 GLOW carol event at Vector Arena, created and produced by St Paul's.

Explanation of issue: This photo was was added to the article Gallery in August 2013, and was deleted by Melcous in October 2018 stating: "remove photos which have limited encyclopaedic value and would be better in a promotional catalogue". I reinstated it to "increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter" "by directly depicting activities described in the article" [quoting Wikipedia:Image use policy]. 10,000 glow sticks in an arena is a unique visual spectacle best communicated in a documentary photo." Melcous has just deleted it again stating "this doesn't add anything of encyclopaedic value about the church itself". St Paul's church created the GLOW event as explained in the Wikipedia article and the referenced sources. The producers, promoters, creatives, hosts and most performers were St Paul's congregants. The event's full name was St Paul's GLOW Carols by Glowstick. For all these reasons, it should be included in the article. References supporting change: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpky_bPTr5o E James Bowman (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion here E James Bowman rather than just complaining about me to another editor. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and the goal is to work with other editors to reach consensus if you disagree. Please also note again that editors with a conflict of interest are strongly discouraged from editing relevant articles directly, but requested to propose edits on the article's talk page instead. As has been said to you previously, this is an encyclopaedia article not the church's website. I would argue that this kind of content belongs on the latter rather than here, and that the main purpose of the photo appears to be promotional. (FWIW, I also think the change to say it is the "oldest church community" is not an improvement because that is not what the source (which is WP:PRIMARY) says; and either way that kind of statement should be verified by reference to a reliable, independent secondary source). Melcous (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

This photo was provided by its Author (who took many photos of the GLOW events) as an encyclopaedic documentation of what it looked like. It isn’t used in St Paul's promotions as this is an historic event that ended five years ago. (Regarding the source you refer to, Gaia Octavia Agrippa agrees with me under 'Various issues' that it is a secondary source). E James Bowman (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Melcous. The photo is of an event held at the Spark Arena. MOS:IMAGES states: "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. Poor-quality images—dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on—should not be used." It matters not that the congregation attended the event. The fact that it occurred at another venue is misleading if it were to appear in this article, which is about the physical church first and foremost. Furthermore, the church's article is WP:NOTAGALLERY for event photos, least of all events which take place at satellite locations. Regards,  Spintendo  08:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Thanks Spintendo. As with any church that is both historic and current, this article is about both the St Paul's Church (building) and Church (congregation). While the main building is the centre of church activities, many administrative functions, community & special-interest activities and events happen outside the main building. GLOW was such a significant event, it couldn't fit inside the building. Also, the congregation didn't just "attend the event". The church created, owned and ran the event. Re your note, there is another photo in the gallery that shows part of the congregation in the church building. This photo is to illustrate this unique event. What made it unique from other church Christmas celebrations was the thousands of people outside of the church in a darkened arena with glow sticks. E James Bowman (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I dont see the congregation in this photo. All I see are glowsticks separated by blobs of blackspace. MOS:IMAGES states "Poor-quality images—dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on—should not be used." Surely you can see how a photograph of glowsticks separated by blobs of blackspace might appear as ambiguous to readers of the article. The other photograph is highly relevant because it shows the congregation in its element within the church (and during the day, I might add). I would ask, would a photograph of the members of the congregation sitting aboard a bus that they own while driving through Auckland traffic be a relevant photograph to include in the article? I don't think that would be relevant to the article. The best pictures of the congregation are ones showing them within their own church, and there must be many more of those which can be shown here rather than this one which is very dark and highly ambiguous. Regards,  Spintendo  18:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Thanks Spintendo. The image isn’t poor quality (not "dark": meaning under exposed, nor "blurry": meaning out of focus). I’ve changed the caption to help with any ambiguity. In answer to your bus question, I think if the photo was there to "increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter" "by directly depicting activities described in the article" as the GLOW photo does, then it would be relevant. GLOW was a noteworthy event, covered in our national newspaper, illustrated with a similar photo: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10854489 E James Bowman (talk) 08:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's what I've found thus far from a search of the archives. One of the earliest is this talk page thread from 7+1⁄2 years ago where the question of a photo being WP:PERTINENT was asked. The editors in that discussion had wondered whether photos of a congregation at different locations was acceptable. One editor expressed her opinion that pictures were pertinent no matter which church location they were taken at:

Any picture of any of the thousands of church buildings meets this guideline's standard for being pertinent. You WP:Use common sense and your best editorial judgment to select which pictures to include. In this instance, that probably means picking one or two images of buildings. — WhatamIdoing (talk) 6:03 pm, 11 November 2011, Friday (7 years, 6 months, 20 days ago) (UTC−8)

Another editor expressed their opinion that pictures of a congregation at non-church locations were not WP:PERTINENT, linking that guideline with WP:UNDUE:

This coupled with WP:UNDUE's requirement to ”not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject” tells me any photo of a building should not be chosen for an article about an organization or group of people simply because the building is where one of thousands of affliated congregations meet or met. —Novaseminary (talk) 7:17 am, 14 October 2011, Friday (7 years, 7 months, 19 days ago) (UTC−7)

My search for more discussions is ongoing. Regards,  Spintendo  08:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Both of those editors are still currently editing, so I'd like to ping @WhatamIdoing and Novaseminary: to this discussion to ensure that I'm not quoting them out of context.  Spintendo  08:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I think the most interesting context from that old discussion is that a collection of photos showing "diversity" is desirable. In this case, that means leaning towards inclusion of the photo, specifically on the grounds that the photo is not just another photo of the building's exterior. We only need one or two modern photos of the building's exterior. We need lots of photos of everything else.

The only hesitation I might feel is whether people will understand the image. I think it needs a clearer caption – less about "Here's the official name of the event/venue/sponsor" and more about "People played with glowsticks at Christmas time". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Spintendo and WhatamIdoing. I've edited the photo caption to include feedback from you both. 'Diversity' certainly makes sense to me. I've previously included a film still and album art from St Paul's productions, within Wikipedia guidelines, "directly depicting activities described in the article". They were all removed sometime after 15 August 2018. Music and film production are both globally-significant and unique features of St Paul's, as explained and referenced in the article. You can see two of the images that were removed on the top and bottom right here: https://stpaulschurch.smugmug.com/SPAM/n-GmBLKc/St-Pauls-History-2009/i-sKkHJ2G/A The film was created mostly by the kids and congregants of St Paul's, this album was written and performed by St Paul's including the singing of around 800 congregants. E James Bowman (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, if those were the ones removed in this edit, then User:Vanamonde93 can probably tell you more about it, but it sounds like it was due to copyright concerns, which is a pretty complicated problem for most average volunteers to solve (i.e., might require the organization's lawyers). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Since I was pinged; I deleted the file after the WP:PROD tag expired. The tag was placed because we can usually justify using album covers, which are copyrighted, to illustrate articles about those albums; but writing a compelling NFUR for any other page is difficult. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks WhatamIdoing and Vanamonde93. I assume the same goes for the copyrighted still from the film that was also deleted. As an alternative to the GLOW image, I could see if the author of this image is prepared to upload it: https://stpaulschurch.smugmug.com/Alt-Carols-2017/i-7BDBkBK/A The arial artist is a St Paul's congregant and has given permission for it to be used. She performed at the 2017 St Paul's Alt Carols event held in the main church building. The event is included in the article, demonstrates the creative culture of the church and I think is unique enough to warrant inclusion. E James Bowman (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for their input. In summary, it appears that while the photo in question was thought relevant, another editor thought there may be NFUR issues complicating its use. An image of the Alt Carols event was mentioned by the COI editor as a possibility for use, but that image has not been uploaded to Wikipedia or the Commons, which would need to occur before it could be added to this article. The COI editor is urged to upload the file with the appropriate use license and to open a new {{edit request}} once this is completed. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  01:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Spintendo. The NFUR issues mentioned weren’t in relation to the GLOW photo. E James Bowman (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

My mistake. And while Whatamidoing supported inclusion, I believe that their hesitation over whether "people will understand the image" should go beyond the caption, as misunderstandings of what a photograph is depicting hardly arise from captions alone. The photograph of the congregation shown in the article during the daytime could have a caption that read "shopping at Costco" and I believe that readers would still correctly identify that the church was being shown, while any discontinuity felt would correctly be ascribed to an incorrect caption. The same can't be said of the glow photo, which relies only on the caption for its relevance to be communicated. My reading of the issue thus far is the following:

• Inclusion: Whatamidoing, E James Bowman
• Exclusion: Melcous, Spintendo

There needs to be more editor input for a consensus to be shown here. I would suggest making enquiries at any of the Wikiprojects which this article is of interest to, shown at the top of the talk page, in order to receive more input.

Regards,  Spintendo  23:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Spintendo, I think you might have over-thought that. Sure, it might not be entirely clear what the image shows when it's by itself. But that's a problem that caption are supposed to solve. That's the primary purpose of a caption – to tell you "Hey, this head shot is specifically this guy, not just some random dude" or "This X-ray shows this thing" or whatever. When you put a picture of glowing stuff at night next to a paragraph about an event that involved glowing stuff at night, with a caption that says it's a picture of the event involving glowing stuff at night, then people should actually be able to figure out why that picture is there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 29 April 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

---

St Paul's Church, Auckland → St Paul's Church, Symonds Street – Sources refer to the church with Symonds Street as the location rather than Auckland Traumnovelle (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

'St. Paul’s Church on Symonds Street' 'St Paul's, Symonds Street' 'For some years Saint Paul’s Anglican Church in Symonds Street' 'of St Paul's Symonds St, in the middle of Auckland' 'The provider? St Paul's Anglican Church on Symonds St.'

In my experience the church is usually referred to with Symonds Street as the locator rather than Auckland and a quick skim of sources supports this idea.

References

Comment are there other St Paul's Churches in Auckland notable enough for their own article? Turnagra (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

There is a St Paul's Church in Flat Bush [1], a St Paul's Church in Remuera [2], and a St Paul's Church in Devonport (category B with Auckland Council). There is also St Paul's, Buckland.

I don't think this an issue of primacy however. I think simply that Symonds Street is used more often to refer to the church than Auckland and is thus a more appropriate title as being more common and precise. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. St Paul’s Church, Auckland could potentially refer to more than one church with that name in Auckland, but based on usage and long-term significance this church has primacy. Guidelines define a primary topic with respect to usage as the one that is "highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.” A quick Google or look at WP articles show this. And with respect to long-term significance "if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.” The notability of St Paul's is well covered by this article and its sources.

St Paul’s Symonds Street is the official current name of the parish, so that name is used by the likes of the Auckland Diocese. But St Paul's Church or St Paul’s Auckland is much more commonly used. Much of the article and sources are about St Paul’s when it was originally located on Britomart Point / Emily Place. So, sometimes 'Symonds Street' is added to differentiate the current from the original building, as can be seen in the list of vicars in the article.

If people search for "St Paul’s Symonds Street" on WP, this article is top of the list. E James Bowman (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment. Referring to Traumnovelle's sources above, the title of Heritage NZ article is "St Paul's Church (Anglican)" and the title of the NZ History article is "St Paul's Church memorials, Auckland" which both exclude "Symonds Street". When I clicked to the Digital NZ photo titled "St Paul’s, Symonds Street" I saw three related St Paul's photos none of which had Symonds Street in the tiles. I don't believe these are sources used in the article, and are not representative of common naming of this church. I don't think this article is a source of the article either, but Salmond Reed heritage architects have been working on the church for over 20 years, and they title their article “St Paul’s Anglican Church”, name the location “Auckland” and their client “St Paul’s Church”. E James Bowman (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

> But St Paul's Church or St Paul’s Auckland is much more commonly used.

But most sources use Symonds Street to identify the church and people do in common parlance, this is commonly done for other churches in dense urban areas e.g. St Bride's Church is referred to as St Bride's, Fleet Street rather than simply 'London'.

>the title of Heritage NZ article is "St Paul's Church (Anglican)"

That is how they title all reports on listed churches, but the actual wording of their report uses Symonds Street as the identifier/locator.

> but Salmond Reed heritage architects have been working on the church for over 20 years, and they title their article “St Paul’s Anglican Church”, name the location “Auckland” and their client “St Paul’s Church”.

So they don't provide a locator/identifier in their article. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

You say "most sources use Symonds Street to identify the church". Most of the article's older sources simply say St Paul's (as it wasn't yet located on Symonds Street), later sources qualify whether the church was in its Emily Place, Eden Terrace or Symonds Street building. Most of the article's contemporary sources from news media and St Paul's itself seldom mention Symonds Street. E James Bowman (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

>Most of the article's older sources simply say St Paul's

We use more recent sources.

>Most of the article's contemporary sources from news media

Such as what? Most I've found do mention it [3] [4] [5]

Yes the original church was not located on Symonds Street but when referring to the modern church Symonds Street is used to refer to it. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think those news stories you've found are sources for the article. These are: [6] [7] [8] E James Bowman (talk) 07:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Since when are sources limited to what is within the article? I wouldn't even classify [9] as an actual RS, its just a caption to a video. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

This church appears to have been on three different streets at different points in time (Emily Place, Eden Terrace, and finally Symonds Street) in the same city. I don't think it makes sense to name it after just one of the three streets.

There appear to be no other St Paul's Churches in Auckland itself (the ones named above are all in nearby but separate cities). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

There are 3 other St Paul's churches in Auckland, the ones I mentioned (without articles) are part of the Auckland urban area. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conflict of interest tag

Traumnovelle added a Conflict of interest tag to this article on 29 April 2025, stating "There is material sourced solely to the church that can hardly be considered due e.g. 'In 2015 St Paul's published a hard cover book of personal testimonies and photos of 128 children, youth and adults from the church called Stories.' see talk page for connection, it is admitted but it is clearly been problematic and article will need reworking”. The tag says "“A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view” presumably referring to me.

I disclosed and discussed my connection to St Paul’s after a similar tag was added in September 2019 here. This was worked through at the time and based on consensus, the COI tag was removed. WhatamIdoing wrote at the time "I'm a bit doubtful about this idea that E James Bowman has a significant conflict of interest here. It seems to me that the WP:COI, if you want to call it that, is on par with saying that Boy Scouts have a COI for scouting organizations. So far as I know, nobody goes around adding COI templates or leaving peremptory notes at Talk:Boy Scouts of America, even though it's always been the case that the Wikipedia article was largely written by and maintained by current and former members of that organization."

I stand behind all edits I have made since to this article since then, and am happy to discuss them here. As Traumnovelle is concerned the St Paul’s Stories book is sourced solely to St Paul’s. I’ve added the book itself as a source for the info in the article. It is a self-published book, but the only thing that is being sourced from the book is the facts about the book itself. Again, I’m happy to discuss that.

E James Bowman (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

You stated you held copyright over material published on St Paul's website, that suggests a level of managerial responsibility that would constitute a COI.Just being a parishoner isn't a COI, I agree with that. A large amount of material is sourced only to the church and there is content completely unrelated to the church included. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Traumnovelle, to save me the trouble of looking at the article, could you please give two or three examples of "content completely unrelated to the church"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

As stated previously, in 2008, along with our vicar at the time Mike Norris, I asked Auckland University researcher, historian and writer Kate Hannah to research and write the history of St Paul's which was published on the St Paul's website in 2009. St Paul's is the copyright holder of that history, and I am a parishioner of St Paul's. The main body of the article is from noteworthy secondary sources. Lists like the discography and infobox are often sourced from published, verifiable church material, supported by secondary sources where possible. E James Bowman (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Being a parishioner wouldn't make you the copyright holder. Was that comment incorrect? Traumnovelle (talk) 06:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I had assumed that all St Paul’s parishioners were copyright holders to a certain degree, and as I provided Kate with source info I’d researched, I also assumed a degree of co-authorship. But, as explained, that became moot when I learned everything on Wikipedia needed to be largely rewritten. So I reworked the parts of the article from Kate’s history, based on the original secondary sources. E James Bowman (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

'By 1859, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, who had given two further land tuku (strategic gifts) of 13,200 acres (5,342 hectares) to the Crown, had lost most of their remaining land through speculators. The 700-acre Ōrākei block was all that remained. Within a century, this too was compulsorily acquired by the Crown (apart from a cemetery).'

The article needs a rework to remove the puffery and focus on material relevant to the subject at hand. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

This is presented as part of an explanation about why the local people were upset with the religious organization, which is not "completely" unrelated. Additionally, the church was built on some of this land (though it's not obvious to me whether it's this 700-acre block or a different place, and that it could be both, since it seems to have changed locations over the years). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

What source connects the two? Should every article on something built upon that very densely built up block contain that information? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Before asking whether the history of that plot of land is relevant to the subject of this article, did you read the cited sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

It is a Waitangi Tribunal report that doesn't mention St Paul's. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. And the other source? (Neither of the links work for me.)

To expand on what I said earlier about the relationship between the church and the local people: The article at this point is providing background information. There is a series of events:

• Selwyn (bishop of this church) appointed Lloyd as a minister of this church. Selwyn and Lloyd both had pro-Māori views.
• A local Māori group lost all their land. The Crown took a lot of it, and speculators took the rest.
• The bishop and minister of this church "were often critics of the unjust and reckless land acquisition practices that led to the New Zealand Wars" ...such as the processes by which that same local Māori group lost all their land.

If the church has never been located on any parts of that local Māori group's land (something that might be possible to determine with a map), then the details may be a bit much for this article, but I suggest that it's not "completely" unrelated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

As stated in the first paragraph here, "All three St Paul's buildings would be built on this land." That is, the original 3,500 acres of land that was gifted. The hapū / sub-tribe's last remaining 700 acres was compulsorily acquired (and was the site of a major land protest). As you say, this helps explain why local Māori who had been so generous and had been a major part of the church initially, were upset at the church. This also links to the sixth para here. E James Bowman (talk) 07:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

If it were pertinent it'd be mentioned by one of the many secondary sources that talk about the church. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like we have agreed that it's not "completely unrelated", but you don't think it's "related enough" to spend a sentence or two of the article on it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

No, I did not agree. If it were related it'd be mentioned by a secondary source. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a WP guideline that says sources for articles must mention the topic of the article. E James Bowman (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

St Paul's published the info in the para in 2020. I've added this source from the article to the para in question. This is a secondary source for that info. E James Bowman (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The church is not an RS for historical matters Traumnovelle (talk) 09:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Why don't you think an organization is reliable for its own history? We use autobiographies to describe BLPs' personal histories. We use memoirs to describe corporations' histories. We use government documents to describe governments' histories.

Why would this this organization be actually unreliable for statements about what that organization did in the past? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

This [10] is no way a reliable source Traumnovelle (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

It is a third source of the historical info from the two other sources, to show the church considers this history is pertinent, to address your concern. E James Bowman (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

It is what independent reliable secondary sources believe to be pertinent, not the church. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Any source can be reliable for something. We accept sources like Donald Trump's tweets and corporate marketing materials as reliable, even though they're self-published, non-independent, primary sources. We even accept social media posts saying "I deny murdering my wife". Why would we not accept something from this organization as a reliable source, if we're willing to accept all these others? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

As we've reached a consensus that as a parishioner of St Paul's I don't have a COI, can you please remove the tag from the article Traumnovelle? E James Bowman (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)