Talk:Church of Ireland/Archive 2

Catholics leaving Catholic Church for Church of Ireland
I removed the source supporting that statement, because the data did not support that conclusion. It had anecdotal evidence from selected parishes; it did not have data to back up the claim that the Church of Ireland was gaining on Roman Catholicism in Ireland, generally. mcornelius (talk) 09:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently people are re-adding unreliable sources to back up statements that may be true, but if you check the data from the |the 2002 and 2006 censuses, it seems statistically implausible. |The source for that statement is anecdotal, and while for someone in the Church of Ireland, may in absolute numbers seem significant to the Church of Ireland, the Church of Ireland grew by about 10,000 members between 2002 and 2006, so saying that this is a large shift is false.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcornelius (talk • contribs) 12:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I realise that this is a sensitive subject. A "received truth" (but not an accurate one) is that converts from the Roman Catholic Church to Protestantism are "very rare" and the Anglican Communion does not publicise this much in any event. I doubt if numbers are kept by the Church of Ireland. But there have been at least three high profile converts: the present Deans of Christ Church (Dublin), Waterford and Ferns Cathedrals. Poshseagull (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

More NPOV
I recently edited the page to remove the work 'apostacy' as reflecting a particular POV contrary to WP guidelines. It was quickly reinstated, with the comment "One man's 'changed adherance" is another man's "apostacised".'  I agree with the comment, which is precisely why the word must be removed. The same editor helpfully wikilinked the word to its definition page, where it states: 'Apostasy is generally not a self-definition: very few former believers call themselves apostates and they generally consider this term to be a pejorative. Many religious movements consider it a vice (sin).... Many religious groups and some states punish apostates.'

The context here is the historical failure of the protestant Church of Ireland to win converts among the Roman Catholic population, despite the political and economic advantages that could come from doing so. This is a historical fact, and can be stated as such, without using loaded POV language. See WP:NPOV.Finn Froding (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

all but two of the bishops of
Who were the bishops that signed up? Who were the two that did not? Where's the proof? What would have happened had a majority not signed up? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Two bishops, William Walsh of Meath and Thomas Leverous of Kildare, were deprived by Elizabeth for open resistance, according to the 1911 Enc. Brit. The others, while taking the oath of supremacy, were pretty much allowed to use the pre-Reformation rites and services until the accession of James.  Several current articles speak of a kind of opportunistic flexibility among 16c. clerics who tried to reconcile demands of Queen and Pope while obeying neither.  Under James, and Jesuit influence, this was no longer possible in the 17c.  See "Controversy and Religious Identity in Sixteenth-Century Ireland: Three Encounters" http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-927444-4.pdf and  Thomas G. Connors, "Surviving the Reformation in Ireland (1534-80): Christopher Bodkin, Archbishop of Tuam, and Roland Burke, Bishop of Clonfert, The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 32, No. 2 (Summer, 2001), pp. 335-355. Finn Froding (talk) 13:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the reason that Irish clerics did not vote against the proposed laws in the Irish parliament was because, thruogh their opposition, they were deprived of their votes? See "HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH From the Renaissance to the French Revolution", Rev. James MacCaffrey, S.J., 1914, VOLUME II, CHAPTER VIII.

"Before the arrival of Browne in Ireland careful steps were taken by the deputy and the Earl of Ormond to ensure that only trustworthy men should be elected as “knights of the shire,” while the lawyers were hard at work both in England and Ireland drafting the laws that Parliament was expected to ratify. The assembly opened on Monday, 1st May, at Dublin, was adjourned (31 May) to Kilkenny, then to Cashel (28 July), then to Limerick (2 Aug.), from which place it returned once more to Dublin. The next session opened in September (1536), and after several short sessions and long adjournments it was prorogued finally in December 1537. As far as can be seen no representatives attended this parliament except from the Pale and from the territories under the influence of the Earl of Ormond and his adherents. It was in no sense an Irish Parliament, as not a single Irish layman took part in it, nor could it be described accurately even as a Parliament of Leinster...... a royal commission, consisting of Anthony St. Leger, George Poulet, Thomas Moyle, and William Berners, was dispatched to Ireland (July 1537) to deliver the following acts to be passed by Parliament, namely, acts depriving the spiritual proctors of their right to vote, and against the power of the Bishop of Rome, together with acts giving to the king the tax of one-twentieth on benefices, enforcing the use of the English language and dress, and prohibiting alliances with the “wild Irish.” At the same time Henry wrote to the Deputy and council warning them to obey the instructions of the commissioners, and to the House of Lords ordering them to ratify the bills to be submitted, and telling them that if any member be unwilling to do so, “we shall look upon him with our princely eye as his ingratitude therein shall be little to his comfort.” When Parliament met again in October the spiritual proctors were deprived of their votes, and it was only then that the Act against the Bishop of Rome could be carried. The threats of royal vengeance seem to have produced the same effects in the Dublin assembly as in the English Parliament. Probably, as happened in England, those who could not agree with the measures were content to absent themselves during the discussions.5 The truth is, therefore, that Archbishop Cromer was supported in his attitude by the bishops and the representatives of the clergy, and that the acts against the jurisdiction of the Pope were carried against the wishes of the spirituality." Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference no. 1
What is its purpose? What is it verifying? It directs to a place names database from the first line. Should it be deleted? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)]
 * Do you mean the reference against "Church of Ireland (Irish: Eaglais na hÉireann)" in the first sentence? That came from this edit, and was presumably intended to justify the Church's name in Irish. However, that edit was over years two years ago and perhaps the page referenced has changed in the meantime - or can anyone else see where Eaglais na hÉireann is on that site? If it's not there any more, then hopefully someone can come up with another source.--A bit iffy (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

List of prominent members of the Church of Ireland
This used to be in the article but now seems to have been deleted. Does anyone know why? Poshseagull (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Are members of the Church of Ireland called Anglicans?
I ask this because I have seen Bishop Berkeley called an Anglican Bishop. He might be "Anglo-Irish" but that's not relevant. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. The Church of Ireland is part of the Anglican Communion, and its members are called Anglicans. "Anglicans" is a universal name for members of churches recognised by the Anglican Consultative Council and Primates' Meeting, although in a small number of countries (notably America and Scotland) the term 'Episcopalian' is used as well, and somewhat more commonly.  Timothy Titus  Talk To TT  22:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * thank you - it was the American example that got me confused. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

==well, it used to be they were simply called protestants, or members of the "protestant reformed church by law established". 'anglican' only came into usage in the 19th, and really the 20th century, and was first used by anglo-catholics.

Province or provinces?
The article says that the church is an autonomous province of the Anglican Communion, and later goes on to say that it is divided into two (previously four) provinces. Is the word being used in two different senses? Clarification needed. --rossb (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes - 2 senses. The first really means "an autonomous church within the Anglican Communion". Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

'of' to 'in'
The official effect of the 1536 Act in theory wasn't to the Church of Ireland but on the Church in Ireland, as Henry was declared head of the existing church, though many in the existing church said no. The Church of Ireland as a separate church occurs separately. 213.233.149.12 (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "...Supreme Head of the Church on earth" - does the Act really say "earth"? Did the parliament grant him any other global assets? Oil & gas drilling rights? India? A monopoly on French cheese perhaps? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

C
Catholic or catholic? The noun with a lower class "c" means universal, of wide sympathies. "Catholic" with a capital "C" is a proper noun and is a title as in Roman Catholic. Osborne 20:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC) I'll read the whole file sometime.

Church founder
Is it really appropriate to list St. Patrick as the founder of the church? I don't think the nexus between the church and early Celtic Christianity is enough to warrant such a designation. Moonboy54 (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it's a claim that the COI makes of itself. It's how it self describes. It's backed up by sources. I suppose we could put in a lime from the Vatican denying this claim and indeed the validity or their orders. Would that be more balanced? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Church of Ireland does claim, and with quite a strong argument as well, that it is the direct successor—in terms of Apostolic succession—of the pre-Reformation church in Ireland. Obviously this is disputed by the Roman Catholic Church, however both churches in Ireland derive from the same origin. The Church of Ireland's constitution is also based on a secular version of that of St. Patrick's. Mabuska (talk) 10:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In regards to succession from the Celtic Church, the church in Ireland is a successor of it, having gone through various reforms just before the arrival of, and after the arrival of the Normans, which brought it in line to the Roman Catholic Church. Reformation reforms then occurred during the reign of Henry VIII making it a Protestant church. So yes the Church of Ireland's origin is ultimately from the Celtic Church, even if heavily reformed and modified since. Mabuska (talk) 10:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This of course depends on the excommunications by the Holy See being ignored. Or indeed all mutual anathemas. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For Protestants, by breaking from Rome, all excommunications issued by the Holy See would be naturally ignored by simple refutation of its primacy and authority. For Catholics obviously not, hence the at times heated discussions in 19th century Ireland between ministers of either side on the Apostolic succession issue and who held it. Mabuska (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In summary, in the case of both churches, it's a case of "Well he would say that, wouldn't he.". Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that it would be good, and might address Moonboy's issue, if some of the above discussion could be worked into the Overview. What do you think? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be good for the article, sourcing though is paramount. Mabuska (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

second-largest Christian tradition
My preference for the lead is to say "second-largest Christian tradition on the on the island after the Catholic Church.". Editor wants it to read "is the second-largest on the island after the Catholic Church.". It is unclear what "second-largest" thing it is according to that view. It looks to me like a device to avoid saying that the Catholic Church is a Christian tradition or a denomination. If so, this is against common understanding of those terms. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * No, nothing like that, just trying to make the lead more concise. It's clear that "second-largest" refers to churches while keeping the piped link to Christianity in Ireland. Haldraper (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact, you make the lead just more confusing and unclear. The Banner talk 16:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Which "you" do you mean? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I replied to Haldraper. By the way, I have again reverted the same edit of Haldraper. The Banner talk 16:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Picture size
Another editor made a rather emotional plea to keep his picture sizes instead of the standard thumb sizes. To my opinion, the standard thumbsizes or the editor-set serve a purpose, especially for people with small screens. The contested edit is this one. I like to have more opinions about the subject please. The Banner talk 18:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * A disappointing response, from an experienced editor who professes not to like 'edit wars'. Its not about pictures; its about the freedom (within limits) to improve or expand articles without being subjected to subjective edits by anyone who fancies it.


 * The original blanket reversal reads All pictures back to standard thumbsize, as set by the users. If that's the case, I would like the setting for pictures selected by me (ie User) to be what I chose originally.


 * The editor now states it is a matter of my opinion. (a) 'Opinion' is not the same as an issue of fact (b) If its about the User experience, elsewhere I've made pictures bigger so they can more easily be seen (which is presumably why Wikipedia includes it as an option) and (c) I'd like to understand the protocol behind making changes. If there is a stated Wikipedia policy, please share it.


 * I've put a fair amount of work into rewriting and expanding this article, acknowledged by other editors, none of whom seems to have a problem with the pictures.


 * THAT IS NOT THE POINT (capitals so we're clear). Mr Banner has made seven edits to this page in the last few years; every single one has been to reverse someone else's edit. Not add anything; just regulate. Is there some sort of secret Wikipedia drive-by editor society I need to know about? And is it entitled to regulate on the basis of 'my opinion?'


 * Let me translate 'emotional' for anyone who's interested; yes, I'm annoyed because I think it is discourteous in the extreme to simply reverse edits just because you feel like doing so. And I have the right to expect better behaviour from an editor whose TP is full of reminders to others not to over-react, be polite etc.


 * I will resize my pictures to the ones I picked and since its 'a matter of opinion', I expect them to be left alone until I get answers to the questions above. There are too many people on Wikipedia who seem to think Wikipedia policy is a matter of how long they've been an editor.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And some people think that they own picture sizes and do not have any concern for people with smaller sized screens. And I have not changed anything in your normal edits, only changed the size of the pictures. But on my talk page you immediately started about emotions: I say this politely but I think you need to pull back on this. And I know from experience the first response will be emotional - so give yourself a couple of days. My response was matter of fact. And as a matter of fact, I have asked for the input of others in this dispute, not exactly an emotional response. The Banner  talk 19:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Please read Help:Preferences, so you can set your own preferences instead of those in the article. That means that you view pictures in the size you have defined. It is a personal setting with no influence on what others see. The Banner  talk 22:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I have selected picture sizes based on my edits so the flow makes sense and they fit in the right place, not because of some pre-existing prejudice on 'I own the size.' They are not arbitrary; they are part of the overall look and feel and in doing so, I have complied with Wikipedia guidelines. More to the point, I do not wander around Wikipedia imposing my view of 'correct' picture sizes on articles I have not even contributed to.


 * In three posts, you've provided three justifications but I'll do my best to comply. (a) Reset to sizing selected by User; I have reset only the pictures I selected; (b) In my Opinion; I'm sure you're not suggesting your opinion is inherently more important than mine and mine is different (c) these are guidelines; if Users provide feedback saying it needs changing, then I'll do so.


 * If you change it again without agreement, I will take this to arbitration because this kind of behaviour by long-term editors who should know better is an ongoing problem. Let me quote (from a Wikipedia article); ...administrators and longtime editors have developed a fortress mentality in which they see new editors as dangerous intruders who will wreck their beautiful encyclopedia...


 * As I suggested previously, give yourself a couple of days and then let me know.

Robinvp11 (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Instead of becoming emotional, you can become reasonable. I have stated that your pictures sizes give trouble for people with small sized screens: IGNORED. I gave you advice about how to change your own settings:IGNORED. And the layout is very much dependent on the size of someone's screen. So, what looks good at your screen, not necessarily looks good on another screen. In fact, the only argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT without any real arguments. The Banner  talk 12:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have requested other peoples input in this discussion. The Banner  talk</i> 13:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT Absolutely, at last we've found a point we agree on; it would be lovely if both of us followed it.


 * Thank you very much for the 'advice'; I realise how busy you are and I appreciate the time. However, unless there's a very specific Wikipedia definition, when I last checked 'advice' is a suggestion, not an instruction.


 * I've responded to three different justifications for making arbitrary changes without consultation and I'm not violating any Wikipedia guidelines. Apart from just doing what you want me to do, what do you consider 'reasonable'?

Robinvp11 (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop your emotional response. You refuse every argument to the point that you now started vandalising the article to make your point. But I agree with the removal. Better no pictures than pictures that are too big. So thank you. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I've asked you several times to explain the grounds for your edits. You haven't provided an argument apart from saying Do it. So yes, i'm frustrated - largely because when the last of my children left Primary school, I didn't think i'd have to do this anymore.


 * I’ve been editing for four years and run into a number of idiosyncratic views. While you’re the first to decide sizing is an issue, ‘too many pictures from the same period’ or ‘not by a well-known artist’ have also been cited as grounds for deletion. Friends of yours I assume.


 * I don’t really care about picture sizing. As I’ve said several times in this increasingly pointless thread, I care about the behaviour and mindset behind it.


 * Wikipedia is a great resource and the damage caused by a tiny minority of self-appointed regulators is well documented. I’m not going to apologise for challenging pointless nit-picking and arbitrary enforcement of what you yourself admit is a matter of opinion. TBH, you should be ashamed of yourself; you've added NOTHING to this article - you've made it worse. Why?

Robinvp11 (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for describing your own behaviour. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 15:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Just came in here to check something else, but, as I'm here, and other opinions were sought...I don't think "better no pictures than pictures that are too big" is a very creditable attitude for any user, particularly a supposedly experienced one and particularly when no actual policy has been cited to back it up.

Comments like "thank you for describing your own behaviour" above are juvenile, sorry. You need to think about how you are coming across.

I'm using a small screen myself, most of the time, and appreciated Robinvp11's efforts to produce a readably formatted article.Svejk74 (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am just human and can get annoyed by a user using emotions and WP:IDONTLIKETHAT as only reasoning. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 17:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You are using that argument yourself, though. I can't see evidence of a formal policy on picture size, and Wikipedia does allow editors to set picture sizes to assist formatting, so your concern about users with small screens seems to be a matter of a personal opinion. Speaking as a user with an (often) small screen.Svejk74 (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * See this: User_talk:The_Banner. After that I sought the input of others. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * To conclude, we've established there is no basis for the original edits, other than personal opinion (that's not disputed, ie To my opinion....). My opinion is different and even though I don't need to. I've explained why. Since I'm not violating any Wikipedia guidelines, I'm not obliged to comply.


 * As requested, we've received input that confirms the argument about small screen sizes is not sustained.


 * I will reinstate the original picture sizes, employing User-set parameters only for the ones I added, which were specifically selected to fit the flow.

Robinvp11 (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You have a special opinion that you call "as agreed on TP". I see no agreement. I see somebody who wants to do his thingy, regardless of other opinions. With no valid arguments. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 15:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)