Talk:Bath Abbey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Bath Abbey has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 27, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
June 27, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
September 27, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

The Abbey's theological tradition[edit]

For some time now, this article has erroneously stated that the Abbey is in the High Church tradition. As a member of the Abbey congregation myself, I know that this hat completely wrong, and that in fact the Abbey stands in a moderate open evangelical tradition. I previously made this revision myself unsigned, only to have it undone by someone; so this time, I've signed in, and also attached a link to the University of Bath Chaplaincy which agrees with me that the Abbey is indeed evangelical. Matthew Butler —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It was probably me that reverted it previously, as it was unsourced (though admittedly the previous statement was too). Thanks for finding that, the impression I got from the website seemed to have a strong liturgical sense, which isn't always associated with evangelicalism. David Underdown 10:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

An individual by the name of "Vox Humana" has undone my change to the Abbey's theological tradition, replacing my sourced statement with an unsourced, unsupported one. He claims that the reference, from the University of Bath Chaplaincy, is "self-contradictory and therefore unreliable". Would he care to explain how? I fail to see the contradiction. It is perfectly possible to be liturgical AND evangelical. Evangelicals do not oppose set prayers. I should know because I am an evangelical myself - and, what's more, I am a member of the Abbey congregation, as previously stated. I know for a fact that the Abbey is NOT high church because I go to Choral Matins and its 6.30 Evening Service every week. If the Abbey were high, the main service would be eucharistic, with incense, a sanctus bell, the clergy wearing chasubles, etc. This is not the case. For the main service at 11.00 there is no communion (except once a month); incense is not used; and the clergy wear choir vestments. Vox Humana states, bafflingly, that Choral Matins and Evensong are indicative of a high church tradition. This is simply false. They are in fact the quintessential forms of service of the low church tradition, putting less emphasis on the Eucharist in contradistinction to the high wing of the Church of England, which would, as I have said, prefer the Eucharist. The fact that the majority of evangelical churches have abandoned these formal, traditional Prayer Book services is neither here nor there; the Abbey maintains a diversity of worship styles, from the formal to the traditional, in order to cater for all tastes. (The 6.30 Evening Service, in contrast to Matins and Evensong, would be virtually indistinguishable from the happy-clappy services that are now found in most evangelical churches). Its theological tradition is most definitely evangelical. Kindly go to services at the Abbey yourself before you start making such unsupported, erroneous assertions. Matthew Butler

And by the way, I would refer you to the following articles: Low Church, which states the following: "In contemporary usage, 'low churches' place more emphasis on the Reformed nature of Anglicanism than broad or high churches, and are usually Evangelical in belief and practice. They tend to favour the Prayer Book services of Morning and Evening Prayer over the Eucharist, though the Diocese of Sydney has largely abandoned the Prayer Book altogether and uses free form evangelical services." In both cases this applies to the Abbey because it both has the Prayer Book services of Matins and Evensong AND has a free form service at 6.30pm. Also, Mattins, which states: "Morning Prayer (also Mattins or Matins), in the various editions of the Book of Common Prayer and other Anglican liturgical texts, was, until the last quarter of the twentieth century, the main Sunday morning service on most Sundays in all BUT (my emphasis) the most high church Anglican parishes..." The Abbey is a traditional LOW Anglican church. I hope this makes things clear. Matthew Butler

I have now added, as a second source to back the "evangelical" label up, a link to an article on the website of Fulcrum, an Anglican evangelical organisation, by its theological secretary listing Bath Abbey under the heading "open evangelical". Matthew Butler —Preceding comment was added at 14:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Their outreach work, in any case, is not what we are talking here - we are talking churchmanship. Services such as choral Eucharist, choral Evensong and choral Matins are all in the old tradition dating back to the days of the Reformation: evangelicalism in this sense is denying the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist and concentrating wholly on scripture and preaching thereon: ritualism such as the Abbey displays is called High Church.--Vox Humana 8' 21:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I could hardly believe my eyes when I looked at this entry and found that, yet again, it had been altered to replace my assertion that the Abbey is evangelical, which is backed up by no fewer than two sources and the long explanation above that references numerous other Wikipedia articles, with a completely unsourced one. The utter bone-headed obstinacy of this individual called Vox Humana (what is this fashion for stupid pseudonyms? Why can't you use your real name?) is simply staggering beyond belief. How can you have the overweening gall to declare that both my references are unreliable, and at the same time imply that a completely unsourced, unsupported statement is more so? How is it that you are so unshakeably convinced of your own rectitude that you totally ignore both the denizens of Bath University's Chaplaincy and the theological secretary of an evangelical Anglican organisation? And how many times must I remind you that I am a member of the Abbey congregation, and therefore are somewhat more qualified than you to make this judgement?

Unfortunately what this episode has demonstrated is the lamentable unreliability of Wikipedia itself, which is constantly contributed to by individuals who have at best a shaky knowledge of their subject, at worst an egregious ignorance. But I will persist with changing this page because I know FOR A FACT that the Abbey is evangelical and NOT high church.

Yes, Matins and Evensong date back to the Reformation, when Matins was instituted as the main morning service, IN ALL BUT THE MOST HIGH CHURCHES. Even the most rock-bottom evangelical churches would have celebrated Matins as their principal morning service until a few decades ago. The Abbey is merely continuing this tradition, and, what's more, providing a diversity of styles, including its 6.30 Evening Service which is centred around preaching. This is the standard-type evangelical service nowadays, and it is one that the Abbey celebrates. I am tired of telling you that the Abbey provides a variety of services, some more formal than others. Ritualism is not the issue here; levels of formality is. Evangelicals do not concentrate WHOLLY on scripture and preaching; otherwise, a standard service in an evangelical church would contain nothing but those two: no worship songs, no confession and no blessing! And what's more, the clergy at the Abbey most definitely DO deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

I am sick and tired of people automatically assuming that because people prefer a more formal, structured service, they therefore by definition are thoroughgoing Popists, repudiating the 39 articles, stinking of incense and aping Rome. It is NOT true, and it is for this reason that I will not give up in asserting what I know to be the truth: that the Abbey's theological tradition is evangelical. (Matthew Butler 13:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC))
Matthew Butler (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Vox Humana 8' 16:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a couple of years ago I spoke to the Dean himself about this issue: he himself said that the true presence of Christ in the Sacraments (which is, in case you hadn't noticed, the line Canterbury takes) IS acknowledged at Bath. The generally accepted nature of evangelical churchmanship is, as I say, completely unritualistic. No confession, no blessing, etc. I do have experience of a number of so-called Evangelical Anglican churches. Furthermore, I find your comments about Catholicism highly offensive: I thought such anti-Catholicism had disappeared in the 19th Century. Please remember that the Catholic Church was here a lot further back than your incompetent, disorganised bunch of heretics, and, with the number of Catholics worldwide continuing to grow and the Anglican church breaking into ever-smaller sub-sections, each with declining congregation numbers, it looks as though the Catholic Church will still be a reality of life long after Anglicanism has been consigned to the history books. Please have a read of WP:CIVIL here. Anyway, I shall put in a request for page protection if you revert again to using irrelevant and self-contradictory references to back up your doubtful claim.--Vox Humana 8' 16:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, please also see WP:NPA and Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable - calling people 'boneheaded' is not a way to make friends or influence people. As regards using a made-up username, why not? I am allowed to. Some people do so to stay anonymous (sometimes with very good reason: User:H dropped his anonymity and the next thing had death threats made against him and his family by someone who was able to trace his home): others do so simply because they want to. I fall into the latter category.--Vox Humana 8' 16:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
use of liturgy does not automatically make somewhere High Church. I'm perfectly happy to accept Matthew's references. David Underdown 16:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Which Dean - in any case it's not a reliable source? Your edits seem to be WP:OR if we're going to start throwing alphabet soup around. It would appear to me that Matthew was not attacking (Roman) Catholicism at all, possibly some aspects of Anglo-Catholicism. I see nothing inherently contradictory in either of the references. There are degrees of Evangelicism, the references refer to Bath Abbey, as Open Evangelical, which is fairly moderate and liberal in fact. As pointed out above, I reverted Matthew's original unsourced change, largely on grounds similar to the ones you are sticking to. However, in light of the references I have happily changed my position. Bath is essentially unique its position as a former cathedral, and maintains its choral tradition on that scale. It is perfectly possible to mix evangelical preaching and so on with more formal liturgy. However, despite all CofE cathedrals maintaining choral services and so on and having the Eucharist as a principle Sunday service, there are differences in churchmanship between them. Coventry also has some evangelical leanings, Birmingham's pretty low too in my experience (and I normally sing in half-a-dozen or so different cathedrals each year). The only reall way to settle this would be to obtain the parish profile, which is used when new clergy are sought, but bath and Wells doesn't seem to make these as widely available as some other Diocese do. David Underdown 09:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that speaking to the Dean is WP:OR. However, it is far from clear here as to where the Abbey stands (with perhaps more evangelical outreach work and preaching, but a somewhat more High Church approach to the liturgies themselves): would compromising by describing the Abbey's tradition as Broad Church be suitable, do you think?--Vox Humana 8' 15:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, here I go again. I have now put in a request for unprotection of this page, and as soon as it is unprotected, I shall change it back again. Many thanks to David Underdown for his sensible contributions to this talk page: it is a refreshing dose of common sense and experience. Unfortunately, Vox Humana has merely shown yet more lamentable ignorance. He asserts that he has spoken to "the Dean". What dean would that be? (This is a question that he has not answered, even though David Underdown has posed the same question.) There is no dean at Bath Abbey: instead, there is a Rector and two associate vicars. So not only is this attempt to back up what he has said unsourced and therefore unreliable, it cannot possibly be true, because you are quoting a person who does not exist. It's like saying you've spoken to the Archbishop of Ashby-de-la-Zouch.

Also, yet more inexplicably, he states: "The generally accepted nature of evangelical churchmanship is, as I say, completely unritualistic. No confession, no blessing, etc". He also claims to have had some experience of Anglican evangelical churches. I don't know what kind of "experience" that was, but it certainly doesn't reflect reality. I grew up going to an extremely low, conservative evangelical church: St John's in Wimborne, Dorset. You cannot get any more evangelical than that in the Church of England: they're so low that they don't even allow women priests, not for High Church reasons, but because they believe the line of male headship in the Church is mandated in the Bible. Although their services are generally very free-form, they most certainly DO have a confession and a blessing in every service. And they celebrate communion at least once a month. Your understanding of low Anglicanism is unequivocally false.

Moreover, you assert that the Eucharist is the main Sunday morning service at the Abbey. This is factually incorrect. The main service, as I explained above at length to illustrate my point that, because of the Abbey's evangelicalism, the Eucharist is seen as less important, is Choral Matins. The 9.15 Communion service has only been going for a few years. The 11.00 is the one with the largest congregation, and the one which, whenever there are special occasions (such as the Bath Music Festival) is used to celebrate it. Choral Matins is replaced every month by Sung Eucharist, but normally it is the main morning service.

By the way, apologies if my comments above sounded anti-Catholic: they were not meant to be. I have a great deal of respect for the Catholic Church, and many of my friends are Catholic. I just wanted to illustrate that desiring a more formal, structured kind of service DOES NOT automatically mean you have to sign up to Catholic doctrine, and that it is perfectly possible to mix evangelicalism with traditional services, as David Underdown has so helpfully explained.

But having interpreted it as an attack on his church, it is interesting how Vox Humana appears to have opened fire on my branch of the church. It might be helpful to remember that it is actually evangelicals who are growing faster than any other denomination, because they evangelise and try to adopt a variety of approaches to worship to satisfy all tastes. This is why, as I am tired of telling you, the formality of the service has nothing to do with High or Low church: you can be impeccably evangelical in your theology, while being formal and liturgical in your worship.

Vox Humana, please do go and visit an Anglican evangelical church sometime soon and find out what it's really like, rather than relying on hearsay. And possibly even visit the Abbey too while you're about it, and speak to the clergy to see if they agree with you (and not the phantom Dean, either). And please also accept that you are not in the best position to judge for yourself when (a) you have shown you don't know what Anglican evangelicalism is like, whereas I do, having been brought up in it; (b) you don't go to the Abbey, whereas I do; (c) and you don't support your assertions with references to any sources, whereas I do. My case is rested. Matthew Butler 14:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for incorrectly using the term 'Dean' - I had meant to say 'Rector'. Furthermore, I do not rely on hearsay: I have relied on my own experience. I remain unconvinced that, in the modern use of the term, 'evangelical' is the correct description for Bath Abbey: I suggested above the use of the term 'Broad Church', but if the current regime at Bath places greater importance on Matins than on the Eucharist (and please don't use that term for the once-a-month commemorative communal meal kind of thing: Eucharist refers to the presence of Christ in the Sacraments), then I would suggest that Low church would be more appropriate: I would also argue, given the Abbey's conservative musical tradition, it is more appropriate than Evangelical.--Vox Humana 8' 18:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I have now requested unprotection: hopefully now the dispute is over.--Vox Humana 8' 19:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, very well - I'll accept "Low Church", and have now changed it to read such. There is no reason why you should not be evangelical and have a conservative musical tradition at the same time, but since "Low Church" and "evangelical" are virtually synonymous, I'll settle for that. Thanks for agreeing to this; now perhaps we can go in peace to love and serve the Lord... Matthew Butler 11:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely: arguments like this very rarely end up improving the encyclopedia we're trying to build: I accept that I was wrong. Do you think it might be possible for you to take some photos of the Abbey organ?--Vox Humana 8' 14:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done - and I've added one of the fan vaulting in the quire as well. Matthew Butler 23:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Incidentally, according to the (often unreliable) info that Wikipedia has put on one of your images, it says you took them with a Nikon Coolpix 3100 - is this so? My images say that they were taken on a Fujifilm SP-2000, which is bollocks - I'm using a late-80s Olympus SLR!--Vox Humana 8' 13:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I note that User: has recently added a "citation needed" tag for the "Low Church" claim. In the light of the discussion above is this needed - or possible?— Rod talk 10:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Information on the Organ[edit]

I've sung at Bath Abbey many times and have come to love the Organ (well, both of them if you include the chamber organ as well). Does anyone have any information regarding it that can be posted on here? Sithemadmonkey 22:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

 Done - although I suspect you're after a cup of water, but it's going to be like standing under a waterfall.--Vox Humana 8' 15:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Definite article in section headings[edit]

As suggested in the peer review I removed "The" from the section headings. I notice this has been replaced on the grounds that they are proper nouns. The wikipedia article Middle ages doesn't include "The" so I'm now unsure which is correct.— Rod talk 09:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

GA notes[edit]

I see you have requested a GA review, but have been waiting a while. I have had a read through your article and can see a few areas which might be improved, so have taken the liberty of making a note of them here. Consider these merely as suggestions of things which may aid your way through the GA process. The notes are not exhaustive, and your reviewer might have different concerns. Please note that this is not the GA review: another editor has indicated a desire to perform the review.

  • Infobox: bearing in mind this page is predominately about the architecture and history of the abbey, you might prefer to use Template:Infobox Historic building. Since there is nothing within the article dealing with the current worship and administration within the church, some might argue that the current infobox is superfluous. Note, for example, that Westminster Abbey, Canterbury Cathedral use World Heritage infoboxes; St Paul's Cathedral and York Minster have none.
  • Lead: The lead section should be longer, and provide a summary of the article's contents. See WP:LEAD
  • Citations: some paragraphs contain no inline citations at all. See WP:CITE, which suggests that anything likely to be challenged should be cited. Moreover, verifiabiility is required to demonstrate that the article contains no original research. Statements such as "Oliver King...was shocked to find this famous church in ruins" and "That was not merely a fanciful aesthetic addition, but a completion of the original design" are but two examples of statements which should be cited. There are many more.
  • Many of the sections (throughout) are quite short. If they cannot be expanded, then perhaps merging into another section might be appropriate.
  • The distinction between "history" and "architecture" sections is not clear: for example, you discussed fan vaulting under history and the architecture section repeats some of the history, without adding more. (eg "The church again fell into neglect following the Reformation, but was restored and completed with the addition of the fan-vaulting in the nave in the 1860s.")
  • The history is extremely brief considering the abbey was established in 675! Consider the social as well as architectural history: How did it operate as an abbey? Did the rule remain the same? What influence did it have on local affairs? Where did it draw it monks and clergy from? Source of money? Did it own lands and farms? Did it have lay brothers?
  • Architecture: again brief. What about the other buildings within the complex? Cloisters and chapter rooms? Monks dormitories and refrectories? Do they still exist?
  • Music: lots of red links; are they all needed? Are they likely to be created? Note that there is more about the organ than the building. Is this an appropriate ratio, representing importance, or is this undue weight? The rest of the music section is disproportionately brief: one sentence for the choir, for example. If there is no more to say, then merge it with the other short music sections.
Comment from non-involved editor: Red links are how we get new articles. They should not be discouraged. They certainly should not be a reason to deny GA status. --Michael Johnson (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
To clarify: I was not suggesting GA status was affected by the presence of red links. But so many red links in a short space merely flagged possible issues: is this a case of overlinking to non-notable topics, or are they notable, but not yet created? For example, will there ever be a need for an article on both Norman & Beard and Hill, Norman and Beard? Also, are they red because the link is broken: does the topic exist on WP under another name? Could Werkprinzip be helpfully linked elsewhere (eg the explanation at pipe organ) until article is written? Links are generally present to aid the reader; can these red links be made more useful? Those are the sorts of questions I wanted to raise. The answer might be "They're all valid", in which case, fine. But it's always worth asking the questions. Gwinva (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Gallery: too large and repetitive. Select the best. You can already have a link to the rest in commons.

Hope these suggestions are helpful. Feel free to chase up any of these comments with me. Gwinva (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold[edit]

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of May 15, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Some copyediting would be good; once expanded I'm willing to do that myself
2. Factually accurate?: A little more citation of some paras, as Gwinva suggests
3. Broad in coverage?: A lot more expansion of the history section, please. It is outweighed by the organ section.
4. Neutral point of view?: No problem
5. Article stability? No problem
6. Images?: Enough

I strongly second the comments above.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Relata refero (disp.) 11:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I didn't nominate this article I've combined the history and architecture sections which I hope meets some of the concerns above & added some more references. Other editors have also kindly copy edited the article. I don't have information on the social aspects, monks, money etc or Cloisters and chapter rooms, Monks dormitories and refrectories but believe these would have gone in the 1500 redevelopment - but I don't have sources to back this up. Can anyone else help to meet these concerns?— Rod talk 13:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
What strikes me about the abbey (as an occasional visitor for over 60 years) is its impressive architecture. I think it's a pity there is not a separate Architecture section, although I can see why it was merged with History. Would it be possible to include the history of the architecture within the History section and then have a separate section on the architecture as it is today, with much more detail? This seems to work OK for Chester Cathedral (I know this article is being re-edited to a degree at present but that does not detract from my basic argument). Also I would recommend the use of Template:Infobox religious building which gives much more info about the architecture and history, while still allowing some info on the religious side. Good luck with the work being done: a fantastic building which merits a GA, or above. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(<-) Is this article ready to pass GA? Majoreditor (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Accusation of vandalism[edit]

I have just been accused of vandalism by Vox Humana because I disagree with him over two of the section titles. Specifically whether Middle Ages and Reformation ... should or should not be preceded by the word "The". Vox is adamant that they should, and I believe that they should not, as per the manual of style here.

Rather than continue with this silly toing-and-froing, I'm hoping that we can come to a consensus here on what the correct section headings ought to be. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

As I commented above ("Definite article in section headings" back in Sept 07) I do not think "The" should be included so I'm in agreement with Malleus, but I'm not confident enough of my English skills (or MOS knowledge) to revert the latest change. I definately do not think it is vandalism.— Rod talk 20:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean to hit my revert (vandalism) button, just my rollback button, which is right next to it... sorry for that one! I think, though, whatever MOS says, "Middle Ages" is meaningless and "Reformation" is an improper noun and a very general term, whereas I thought "The Middle Ages" referred specifically to the period of 1066-1547, but this seems untrue (apparently the Middle Ages began around the 5th Century) and so I have changed the title to "From the Norman Conquest to the Dissolution" - is that OK with everyone? If not, feel free to change it to something similar but differently worded... - but "The Reformation" does refer specifically to the reforms pursued by the likes of Henry VIII, Martin Luther, John Calvin, etc., whereas "Reformation" could mean anything in which anything is 'formed anew'... the same goes for "The Dissolution", were anyone to substitute that for "The Reformation"... "Dissolution" could refer to a company ceasing trading and going into bankruptcy... therefore I feel that the retention of the definite article there is imperative. Please don't get me wrong, I think this debate is important and I agree that we need to establish some sort of consensus... perhaps we could even establish a little 'case law' along the way! --Vox Humana 8' 13:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the wikipedia naming convention is very clearly against The Reformation, and in favour of Reformation as the section header: "If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text [my emphasis], then include it at the beginning of the page name. Otherwise, do not include it at the beginning of the page name." [1] The argument presented that Reformation or Dissolution are potentially ambiguous could equally be applied to Earth, which could refer to either the planet or to soil, but which is specifically included in the reference given above as an example of where the definite article should not be used. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
In the context of an article on an Abbey, there doesn't really seem to be any ambiguity in the use of the terms. David Underdown (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Neither is there any merit in the proper/improper noun discussion IMO. Proper nouns refer to specific instances of things, like "John Smith" as opposed to "person". The person, OK, but not The John Smith. The test is, in "running text" would you write "... the Reformation", or "... The Reformation"? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Malleus, I would always write "The Reformation", with a capitalised T - but then I would say that, wouldn't I?! - and I think it is important that we recognise the difference between reformation and The Reformation...--Vox Humana 8' 21:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
What's important is that we recognise the difference between the reformation and the Reformation. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the argument by Malleus about the use of the definite article in running text settles it. Vox may write "The Reformation" but does anyone else? I write "the Reformation" and "the Middle Ages" and I guess the majority of editors do likewise. If so, that is the consensus and the end of the argument. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Window panes[edit]

I visited the Abbey this week, and found that the windows on the opposite side of the organ had references to some of the erstwhile British colonies. Canada, South Africa and India, among others. Would someone know when this was done? I know the coat of arms in the South Africa pane wasn't used till 1960, so it has to be a recent addition.Maggiedj (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete lists of sub & assistant organists etc[edit]

This article includes "incomplete lists" of Assistant Directors of Music (1 entry current), Sub Organists (1 entry current) & Assistant organists (entries since 1935). As these individuals do not have articles about them (and they may not meet the notability requirements) would anyone object if I remove them from the article as not being significant enough for inclusion?— Rod talk 09:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I have now moved these into a new article List of organists and assistant organists of Bath Abbey.— Rod talk 15:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

List of abbots etc...[edit]

I feel if we have a list of organists and assistant organists, we should at least have a list of abbots etc.. There is a list here. Note that first there are abbesses for the convant, then abbots for the monastry, and then priors for the priory, and then rectors for the abbey. Not sure what section title we should give this, their "Leaders of the Abbey Communities" seems a bit vague. Also not sure where in the article it should go.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

A related list of abbots etc seems reasonable. The link above doesn't work for me, but I did look at the google cached page. Some of the key ones could be linked in the relevant history section & then add a links into the see also section.— Rod talk 16:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Architecture section, lead & what else for GA?[edit]

I've made a start on an architecture section as has been previously requested (see above). Please add to it or edit as you see fit. I know the lead still needs to be expanded and I'm happy to tackle that, but is there anything else people feel is needed before this article will be ready for another GA nomination?— Rod talk 19:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The article could be more structurely balanced - that does not comply per the GA criteria. For example the Music sections has no reference(s), the Choir section could be expanded a little (or that could be a difference on a large monitor I am viewing on!) and the Heritage Vaults Museum only has one ref, I think that the article could overall do with more. I would be happy to look at the article if needed and I would give a pre-GA review but I am busy with Year 11. If there are any questions please let me know. Jaguar (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I've expanded the choir a bit, add more references re Vaults Museum & removed the one line music para as well as expanding the lead.— Rod talk 08:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
"The first... organ in Bath Abbey was built... on a new gallery installed in place of the medieval rood screen, which had been removed earlier, with similarly disastrous results to those seen at Durham Cathedral." This is in the section on organs- although it appears that the "disastrous results" refer to the removal of the rood screen, this maybe isn't clear- also it leaves hanging the question of what the results were- structural? liturgical? Ning-ning (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Just checked the Durham Cathedral article- it just mentions a "stone screen" pulled down in the 16th century- no mention of "disastrous results". Ning-ning (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I've removed that sentence which was unclear and uncited and I could find no evidence for.— Rod talk 08:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I notice the article has been put up for GA review. I must point out that the image captions do not comply per the criteria. Per WP:CAPTIONS, the reviewer may point out that the images do not explain their content fully. It's just that I've been this in a GA review I had last year. Hope this little bit helps. Jaguar (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment and edit - which captions do you think don't describe the picture shown (or are we talking about ALT tags which are not (yet) required)?
The images itself are of high quality, so the reviewer wouldn't like to point out that. But the captions - for example Bingham memorial are a bit on the short side and they do not explain the details of the image. Like what is Bingham memorial? And the organ caption could be extended since there is a whole section about the organ. Jaguar (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
OK I've had a go at expanding them could you take another look?— Rod talk 20:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
That's perfect; with the images out of the way the future GA review would not have to worry about that part. The rest of the images are fine (including its captions). I was amazed with the Jacob's ladder image by the way. If there's anything such as copy editing to do, I'll be happy to take a look soon. Jaguar (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Any other contributions, copy editing or anything else always welcome.— Rod talk 21:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"Monasticism in England had lapsed by that time, ...."[edit]

That is, the 10th century. No it hadn't, though it had declined duriung the Viking period. Johnbod (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it to "reduced" but there might be a better wording.— Rod talk 07:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Better, & I'm sure there is, but I can't think of it either. Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
How about "decreased" or "lessened"? Jaguar (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


It should be "Bath Abbey" but "the abbey was built in XXXX". We only capitalize proper nouns like names, and the beginnings of sentences. --John (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy for you to change them where appropriate. I did this after advice from Melleous who did a lot of the copyedit ( see User talk:Malleus Fatuorum#Bath Abbey) and I'm happy to admit my poor grammar.— Rod talk 15:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I went for all lower case, except where part of a proper noun. --John (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
That's my preference as well. I merely drew attention to the inconsistency. Malleus Fatuorum 03:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bath Abbey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jamietw (talk · contribs · count) 15:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. Written well with spelling correct in British English.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Good use of headings.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. All sources referenced.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. Good use of inline citations.
2c. it contains no original research. No Original Research found in article.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. This artice expresses all the main points about the history, architecture and uses of the abbey.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). This article explains about the abbey in an informative and comprehensive way without going off topic.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. This article is not biased towards any aspect of the Abbey.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No edit wars, at least not in recent history.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. Images are all tagged with their copyright status.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. All images are on-topic and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. This article is a well balenced article with a good use of references and images and is well-formatted and written clearly and neutrally. I see no reason why I cannot pass it as a Good Article. To improve try reducing the amount of red links especially in the Organ Section. Jamietw (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

New Image For Infobox[edit]

The image in the infobox has two people posing for the shot. I know its very difficult to get a daylight picture without people and obviously a lot of visitors to the abbey will submit their snaps to this site.

I would like to replace the infobox image for one without people. I had a look through the category and found nothing contemporary that didn't have people in. However there is a nice (circa) 1900 print that is available from the US Library of Congress and because of the quality of the image I'm going to directly display it here for you to view:

Bath Abbey c1900

Due to this being an article about an abbey and with the contemplative quality of the image above I think that it would be a good idea to bring the two together. This is an encyclopedia and holiday photos should be avoided if possible. Also there are plenty of contemporary images already in the article. I'll swap the image out now and if you object or find a better image then feel free to revert my edit.


Sluffs (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

1750 image of Bath Abbey[edit]

I've just added fifteen images to Wiki Commons from a 1906 Oxford publication of The Works of Richard Sheridan and there was an image of Bath Abbey from 1750. I've added it to the category and here's a link to it:

Bath Abbey 1750

Just in case anyone is interested. The Sheridan article also needs a bit of work but alas its not my field of interest on this site.


Sluffs (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bath Abbey/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs in-line citations for GA. -- SECisek 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)