Talk:Diocese of Connor (Church of Ireland)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Anglicanism (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Diocese of Connor (Church of Ireland) 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Northern Ireland (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Ireland (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


St Anne's[edit]

St Anne's Cathedral is highlighted but does it not link? Any ideas why?82.29.255.162 (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't see why but two other links exist so link has been removed.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Biased "Overview and history" section?[edit]

I feel that the "Overview and history" section, which is repeated in the other current Church of Ireland diocese articles, goes on too much about how the "majority of the population remained faithful to the Latin Rite of Roman Catholicism" and "were obliged to find alternative premises and to conduct their services in secret". Yes, the Church of Ireland took control of the cathedrals, churches, etc., and the population majority were penalised by the then Government for not conforming, but does it have to be written from a biased Roman Catholic POV? In fact, does it have to be mentioned at all? It comes across to me as Catholics having a go at Protestants for what happened hundreds of years ago. Obviously who wrote that hasn't heard of Christian forgiveness. The section needs to be rewritten from an impartial, neutral point of view. Until then the tag should remain. Scrivener-uki (talk) 11:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The facts in the overview are stated only once, they are not repeated elsewhere in the body of the article so I don't see how they could be characterised as "too much". To say that the Church of Ireland "took control" smacks of weasel words. It implies that they happended upon a grerenfield site with perfectly formed cathedrals, churches etc and no obvious owners in sight. Everybody knows that no such thing happened. The appropriation - for that is what it was - involved dispossession, exile, expulsion and penal punishments. All historians will acknowlege these facts. None of these gory details are mentioned in the article to protect the delicate sensibilites of the members of the Established Church. It suffices to simply state, in as neutral a way as possible, "were obliged to find alternative premises and to conduct their services in secret". Personally, I think that it is a masterpiece of understatement, but if others can find a better way of conveying facts in the the overview while lessening any embarrassment to members of the Established Church, then I'm all ears. As for Christian forgiveness, all Christians know that there are 3 steps in this process: an acknowedgement of sin on the part of the sinner, asking for forgiveness from the partty sinned against, a solemn commitment not to sin in that way (or any way) again. I'm not aware of the CoI undertaking any of these steps. And being possessed to this day of the fruits of their sinfulness, is it reasonable to expect such forgiveness? If I burgle my neighbour's house in the night, buy a diamond ring with the proceeds, can I then turn up tearful at my neighbours house begging for forgiveness while the brilliance of the diamond blinds my neighbour's eye? It's not the purpose of Wiki to arrange reconcilliations. It's sufficient to state the facts in as neutral away as possible while not allowing squeamishness to blind us to distasteful facts. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I take offence when you said I used "weasel words". How else can I say that the Church of Ireland took over control of the cathedrals, churches, etc. during the Reformation? Let me know what wording should have said instead? I didn't realise that the talk page guidelines had to be so precise. Scrivener-uki (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)