Jump to content

Talk:Anglican Diocese of Brisbane/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Page should be deleted, not notable. 124.184.131.250 14:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anglican Diocese of Brisbane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit war

Can we please stop this edit war and have some discussion here as per WP:3RR and WP:BRD. I have no interest one way or the other in the theology of the diocese but I can see that there appears to have been a lot of recent editing devoted to critising the theology and those in the diocese who presumably endorse that theology, much of which appears to come from the head of a theological college in Sydney and a former priest of the diocese rather that from within the diocese. Can I remind people that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and is supposed to present a neutral point view with appropriate balance and appropriate weight to criticism. Could we start with a statement of the diocese's theology (without making criticisms of it or the people supporting it) suitably cited, as this is a Wikipedia article about the diocese and not about the critics of the diocese, and then have a short section on criticisms which focus on the theology itself rather than the people and does so without the long quotes. Also, can we be careful not to make claims in the article that are not supported by the citations. The section on Theology commences with a claim that the diocese supports Progressive Christianity and that they have produced the book The Once and Future Scriptures without citation (and neither of which appears on the diocese's website); do we have citation for this or is this just someone's opinion? Digging around I find this which describes it as collection of essays by members of the diocese, but I don't see it being elevated to an official position of the diocese here. Is the criticism about the book, people's blog posts or about the actual theological position of the diocese. And some of the citations I checked don't say what the article claims, eg. , the citation [22] does not say Jenks is a Progressive Christian although it does support that he held the role stated in the college. I would not say that [23] is a denial of virgin birth, as it says after a consideration of a number of parts of the Bible, "For the record, I think Jesus was probably born in Nazareth as a result of normal sexual relations between his parents" (my emphasis), although I think it would be fair to say that he questions Jesus's virgin birth. But I am not sure why Jenk's personal views are that important; I think the official statements of the diocese and the bishop matter more than what Jenks thinks. Kerry (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the edit war but you raise good points. I have just addressed a few of them. I have found a citation where Jenks self-identifies as a Progressive Christian and I changed the virgin birth part to note he questions it rather than denies it. I also chopped out a bit of the critical reaction section including the personal attacks so it is about the theology/book rather than about people. I think it is okay that these are lengthy sections though - theology is a nuanced subject.
With regard to the Diocese's theology, I think the inference is that there are a lot of links to the Westar Institute through Jenks and Leaves and Greaves and Aspinall's relationship with the Americans Borg and Spong. Borg, in particular, was influential in formulating Progressive Christianity. That, and the fact that the Diocese runs the Living the Questions course and the people wrote the book indicates it is apparently a de facto position or at least an accepted one. The section does need to be clearer on this, though.Archangelbris (talk) 11:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Original research. Wikipedia doesn't draw inferences or indications - unless somebody else is making them, it's not appropriate to add them here. Much of the current text serves as a personal soapbox - with statements such as "For the most part the diocese's parishes exhibit the "rather self-conscious Anglo-Catholic congregationalism of the capital cities, often tinged with radical Socialism" in Wikipedia voice, which is completely inappropriate. It may be appropriate to cite whoever made that claim as having that opinion (if significant), but it cannot be used in such a way as to advocate that opinion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, I didn't write this. I have mostly done grammar and edit fixes on this page. I think overall it is clearer now as it is clearer as to which source is saying what. I will go and chop that quote out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archangelbris (talk • contribs) 20:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your help in addressing the issues, Drover's Wife.Archangelbris (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Substantive changes to this article are needed

I am proposing making substantive changes to this article and am flagging the following items as needing editing. Before I do so, I invite discussion on any of the following edits. My main criticism of this article is that it violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY, WP:RELIABLE, WP:CITE, WP:DISPUTED, WP:PERSONAL,

The publication of Once and Future Scriptures has no association to the diocese even though *some* of the contributions were from diocesan priests. It should be talked about in an article devoted to it not on the Brisbane diocese page which has no obvious institutional connection.

The 'Living the Questions' course is similarly not published or controlled by the diocese or subject to diocesan decision making, and in this case none of the contributions are by diocesan priests. All comments about it should be removed from this article. Some parishes used it but not even a majority would have been involved, and the parishes themselves are *not* the subject of this article, the diocese.

The motion about St Francis college at the 2011 synod failed to be passed, so why is its failure being presented as proof of anything about the college? It should be amended to point out that the motion failed or deleted altogether.

Graduates from Moore college are most certainly not banned from preaching in Brisbane diocese, with many current and former rectors of major parishes being themselves graduates of that school. The reference [40] does not back up this claim and it should be removed in the entirety.

The claim that ministers who are graduates of the Brisbane School of Theology cannot become ministers is incorrect. It is true that they cannot use BST graduation to complete the Archbishop’s requirements for ordination however BST graduation does not preclude a person from becoming a minister as claimed.

Claims about the cathedral being called “Aspinall’s Folly” are only backed up by a comment on a blog post, on a site which is a known and vocal partisan voice. It should be deleted.

The list of priests who publicly support same sex marriage is vastly short of the full number. Many, many, many more names need to be added to this list in particular the priests who were most vocal in their support of marriage equality during the public survey. It should either be more comprehensive and properly cited or removed.

We're going to need to cull a lot of the stuff about Dean Peter Catt because he really deserves his own page as a notable person and much of it has only a weak link to the diocese and is more about the activities of a single diocesan priest.

Unproved legal claims made in the 'culture' section should be removed.

CapHammer (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

You'll get no disagreement here that there's been a lot of rubbish added by one user - I pruned it yesterday but I don't necessarily have the background knowledge to know what is crud and what is legit. Feel free to go and further prune as thoroughly as need be - I doubt you'll get any dispute here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, go ahead and make any changes you like to make the page more accurate. Just make sure you provide evidence if you add the names of more priests who support same sex marriage. Also, feel free to go ahead and make your own pages about Catt and the Once and Future Scriptures book. Archangelbris (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking also at making edits regarding the location and mission of the Anglican Church in Brisbane. CapHammer (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Go for it! As I indicated above, this article suffers from a number of problems, although I think the worst of it is the theology. Kerry (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Great idea. Please go ahead with the edits. Skittles, who doesnt love em? (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

See also list

There's an unusually long list of "See also". The guidelines MOS:SEEALSO advise not to include links in the body of the article, and that links should have some explanation as to their relevance to this article, where that it is not obvious. I find most of the links are "not obvious" to me, e.g. Panentheism might be relevant to a broader topic like Christianity or Anglicanism but to the Diocese of Brisbane? It looks to me that a lot of these links are the remnants of the misuse of this article to carry on an argument about the theological differences within the diocese and could be omitted. As an article about a specific diocese, it says remarkably little about the diocese. Does it have any parishes? Does it operate schools (other than ones mentioned in the context of sexual abuse)? Hospitals? Religious orders? Missionaries? Missions? The article could benefit from some "bread and butter" facts about the *diocese* rather than Anglicism more broadly. Kerry (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Assistant Bishop Appleby, 2005

I have a 2005 mention of this person in connection with the closing of St George's Anglican Church in Eumundi.[1] Can someone who knows more about them add them to this page? Thanks Kerry (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ Anglican Church of Southern Queensland. "Closed Churches". Archived from the original on 3 April 2019. Retrieved 3 April 2019.

Venerable G. F. Harch, Archdeacon of the West, 2003

Another person mentioned but not in this article. Kerry (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anglican_Diocese_of_Brisbane/Archive_1&oldid=972095363"