Talk:John Henry Newman: Difference between revisions
Contaldo80 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
Good point. I think we should use the article on Bede as a guide. The article is entitled 'Bede' but the first line of text states that he's also known as 'Venerable Bede'. [[User:Contaldo80|Contaldo80]] ([[User talk:Contaldo80|talk]]) 16:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC) |
Good point. I think we should use the article on Bede as a guide. The article is entitled 'Bede' but the first line of text states that he's also known as 'Venerable Bede'. [[User:Contaldo80|Contaldo80]] ([[User talk:Contaldo80|talk]]) 16:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
I agree. I think we don't need the parts in bracket where it says "also Venerable..." Can we take it out? [[User:Bolinda|Bolinda]] ([[User talk:Bolinda|talk]]) 05:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:01, 20 September 2008
![]() | Philosophy: Philosophers Unassessed Low‑importance | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most of the vandalism on this page has been done by anonymous users. Should the page be closed to such? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC).
Vandalism
I agree with this. Random acts of vandalism seem to be happening by individuals that are not properly signed in. There are removing sections that they do not agree with even though those sections might have correct citation and references. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Still this is continuing - particularly with the text dealing with sexuality. I'd gladly accept this as a forum for debate but am concerned at those who remove large sections of text without justifying it (perhaps for reasons unbeknown to the rest of us). Contaldo80 (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Nothing proves that John Henry Newman was gay. He seemed to have been asexual most of his life. Even his male friendships show that. He certainly comdemned homossexual relashionships and acts. This doesn't prove what was his sexual orientation. but since it can't be proved I don´t think he should be included in any LGBT category.85.244.49.140 (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Please don't remove the category. Having this doesn't mean we have concluded he was 'gay', but rather that the article is likely to be of interest to those looking at LGBT issues on wikipedia. Incidentally celibate is not the same as asexual. Nor am I sure there is any active evidence that he did condemn such relationships (certainly not from the pulpit) - but to give you the benefit of the doubt I guess you mean that as a cardinal he would have signed up in principle to Catholic doctrine of the time. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep him in the cat. Most independent (ie. non-Church) sources are happy to associate him with these issues. Malick78 (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
MOVING HIS MORTAL REMAINS FROM NEAR REDNAL TO BIRMINGHAM CITY CENTRE
Quote: "In July 2008 The Vatican ordered that Newman’s body be exhumed and re-interred in a marble sarcophagus, where it could be more easily venerated [17]. This has angered some gay-rights campaigners, who see it as an attempt to separate Newman from St John, with whom he is buried."
In this enlightened day and age not even the Vatican can 'order' human remains to be moved as it requires due legal process from the local council and the Ministry of Justice! More of the actual story concerning the fencing of the graveyard and the dispute over planning permission for it has been added to a previous paragraph; whether the new fence can remain around this Catholic graveyard is another matter altogether as it is situated in the 'green belt' and not even a local state school (in Rubery) has been allowed to install a security fence because of this. It looks like this is not so much a 'gay-rights' issue as a clash over whether the Roman Catholic Church will willingly accept the legal right of a local council to say 'No' [retrospectively] to a new fence having been installed - but without planning permission - in a designated 'green belt' area?
Quote: "The Vatican has decided to move his remains from The Lickey Hills, near Rednal, Worcestershire to the Oratory in Birmingham city centre anticipation of his being made a saint in due course; the move requires permission from both Birmingham City Countil and the Ministry of Justice.
The recent decision to install a security fence around the small graveyard lead to a planning permission dispute with the local Birmingham City Council as it is in a designated green belt area; the immediate area is one of outstanding natural beauty, being a large country park."
[[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.149.65 (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
"IHS"
That's helpful information - many thanks for helping clear the debate. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Although I am NOT of the Roman Catholic persuasion, I have lived in the immediate area almost all of my life and with some time to spare this afternoon, went looking for the Oratory country house and the graveyard - while I was most impressed by a 'new' walk into the Lickey Hills (I had never realised existed!), I was also amazed by the sheer length of new fencing which now surrounds what must have previously been wide-open land. I cannot blame the RC Church for the planned move for the other reasons cited - but somehow doubt that legally the new fencing can stay in place - without formal planning permission - in what is "green belt" land. Kind regards. "IHS" ps I will try to keep this page updated as the planned move of his remains into 'Brum' progresses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.209.65 (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
update 0608-2008
[[2]]
Oratory planning issue resolved
Nitramrekcap (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Exhumation etc agreed
Nitramrekcap (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Venerable?
Should this really be part of his name? I don't know what the exact rule on WP is, but we don't put "the most holy..." before someone's name just because the church does. Why should we use "Venerable" in the first sentence? Malick78 (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Good point. I think we should use the article on Bede as a guide. The article is entitled 'Bede' but the first line of text states that he's also known as 'Venerable Bede'. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I think we don't need the parts in bracket where it says "also Venerable..." Can we take it out? Bolinda (talk) 05:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)