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.
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.
A NPOV banner has appeared in the article. No explanation or grounds have been given for the insertion of the banner. The particular section contains a list of historical facts. No historian of Irish history would doubt the veracity of the facts. If anything, the facts underplay the seriousness of the state actions. They amounted to state approved discrimination by reason of creed. Such actions would now be condewmned by various sectins of the UN Charter of Huiman Rights. While such a chater was not in existance at the time, nevertheless, they entailed suffering to the majority of the population. Such suffering has been described in the most mild of terms. I should like to see what a more NPOV article would lok like. I suspect that it would involve no more than an attempted whitewash by adherants of the CoI. There are many members Protestant faiths who are also, unfortunately, deniers-of-suffering-by-the-majority-during-the-English-~Reformation.Replacing one alleged non neutral POV with an actually biased POV does not restore neutrality. I propose the Removal of the NPOV banner. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
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) 11:33, 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 happened upon a greenfield 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, expulsion and penal punishments and unjust fines. 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) 14:24, 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) 16:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
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:
There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
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) 10:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)