Talk:St. Audoen's Church, Dublin (Church of Ireland)

The Troubles

"This troublesome period lasted until the beginning of the 19th century". Three points:

Weasel words "troublesome period". More accurate would be "oppression of the majority by the minority by force of arms". Or less inflamatory, "period of agitation for the return of their ancestoral assets". Or even less inflammatory, "unrest at being evicted from their parish church of time immemorial and having to meet in secret".
"Lasted until". This implies it ended. When did it end? How did it end? With who's agreement did it end? What settlement was made for restitution or compensation?
Like the words "Anglo-Irish aristocracy", which were so distasteful that they had to be excised from the article, should this unfortunate phrase also suffer the same fate? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know what you're getting at here. I'll change "troublesome" to "troubled", which is what it should have been in the first place. Otherwise, this article is about the church and parish, not about the Reformation, aftermath and Penal Laws, which have their own articles. In the many edits I've made to articles on Dublin churches I've tried to keep a balance by mentioning how both major religions were affected by changes around and after the Reformation (which is something that is often ignored or misrepresented in the sources - for example John Crawford's 50-page booklet on St. Audoen's (1986) does not have a single mention of the fate of the Catholics of the parish). Hohenloh⁺ 23:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose my concern would be that the phrase, even in its altered form of "This troubled period for Catholics lasted until the beginning of the 19th century", conveys the suggestion that "there was an unfortunate falling of friends but the misunderstanding has been cleared up and everybody is happy again. Apologies have been made and forgiveness given. Restitution was in the amount of £x". We both know that none of this happened. To suggest that it did is misleading. Or do you have a different reading of the phrase? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we to take it that's Hohenloh's recent contributions about the St. Anne Guild is in response to the above? To put it charitably, is it an attempt at redressing a perceived imbalance? So one guild of rapacious Catholics offsets a couple of centuries of rapacious Anglicans. Is that the general idea? If so, I'd remind Hohenloh that two wrongs don't make a right and that a direct response to the discussion above would be more helpful in an attempt at conflict resolution than crude re-balancing acts. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I really do not know what your problem is. I have already explained that this article is not about the Reformation or its after-effects or the Penal Laws. I have always tried to be completely objective in describing events in dozens of articles I have created dealing with Dublin history and in hundreds of edits made concerning same, and have provided verifiable sources for every event and stuck closely to these sources, and for every article have provided numerous sources, many online, that can be checked by anybody, which many people have thanked me for, and I have never once had a complaint about any of this until now from you. Hohenloh⁺ 01:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LL--Allow me to give you some helpful advice. I do not intend to single out any editor of WP, rather I wish to point out that there are different types of people out there, and why you may find yourself in similar difficulties in the future. There are deniers. No matter how many facts you can present, some people will insist that the holocaust (or the great famine) ever happened. To try to refute them is futile. There are marginilisers. They will tell you that there should be no mention of the Irish Civil War in an article about Michael Collins, because the article is about the man, not Republicanism or its after-effects. Some editors may look impressive on paper, but when you look closely, you find that their contributions consist mostly of reverts to enforce article ownership, or new articles created on non-notable topics. Some editors will feign shock and ignorance when you disagree on a point, saying they have never had a problem with anyone before, but yet they have had to ask an admin to protect their user pages. And lastly, there are those editors that patrol pages looking for their pet peeves; for some it is the misspelling of "its", for others, it is NPOV that is not skewed enough to their version of N. By the way, at least the Germans paid reparations.173.164.42.237 (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the anonymous editor above may have been a little personal in his comments, nevertheless the comments should remain. Discussion pages are not for censorship. Complaints about personal attacks have their legitimate outlet; the deletion of Discussion page paragraphs is not that outlet. Perhaps if the offended editor could could address the substantive issues above, that might be more helpful and may indeed rebutt some assertions above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence on the Talk Page Guidelines (WP:TALK) reads: "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." I think that's pretty clear. Hohenloh⁺ 02:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To return to the substantive issue: is "The Troubles" an attempt to deny the effects of the English Reformation on the Catholic people of the parish? Are you, in short, a denier, as the anonymous editor has suggested? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to discuss the suggestions or use the terminology of this anonymous IP, which I find inaccurate and insulting, and which have no place on an article's talk page, and there's no need to repeat what I have already written above. That's all I've got to say right now. Hohenloh⁺ 02:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thay's what I would expect an "English-Reformation-Impact-on-the-Catholic-adherants-of-Ireland" denier to say. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civil parish or Denominational Church?

This article needs to make up its mind; it's either about a civil parish or it's about a particular piece of bricks and mortar currently controlled by a particular denomination. If the former, then it needs to contain information about the civil parish, barony and county. The name should also reflect that purpose e.g. "St. X (civil parish)" or "Civil parish of St. X". On the other hand, if the article's purpose is closer to the latter, then why does it have a category of civil parish? If the article deals exclusively with the bricks and mortar apect, then it's other legal function is no more than a co-incidence. Eith way, i would have thought that the problem would be one for discussion on this page and not one for wholesale deletion with a line of "makes no sense". Had the question been raised here, in its proper forum, I would have been happy to have supplied an explanation that made sense. The undebated deletion was, at the very least, discourteous and not best practice for Wikipedians. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been here for almost a month with no input from the main editor. There is a discussion on the WikiIreland talk page where that editor has made contributions. These have been found to be generally lacking in merit. Another editor has given notice that he intends to take action on the inappropriate categirisation. This is to give notice that I intend to remove the civil parishe category in 2 days time. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The church article should be seperated from the parish articles. The parish article can contain the information on both the ecclesiastical parish and the civil parish seeing as the civil parish are based on and generally named after CoI ecclesiastical parishes.

Failing that then all of these articles would need renamed to accomodate the fact they don't deal specifically with a church - but that'd lead to naming problems. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mention of older church

this article mentions an older church on the same site. what evidence is there for this? Blue Luger (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

From what I've found so far there was a church dedicated to St. Columcille contained in lists of churches up to 1190, and from 1190 there was no mention of this church but St. Audoen's was included in the list. I'll get round to this later when I check the references. Hohenloh⁺ 20:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like original research. Just because one church goes missing from the records around 1190 whilst a new one appears at 1190 doesn't mean that one was replaced with the other. Even if one was replaced by the other what proof that it was built on the same site and not somewhere else? Mabuska ^(talk) 23:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly not original research - this is mentioned in a number of sources and is also on the church notice board at the main entrance to the church. Hohenloh⁺ 02:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well provide the reliable and verifiable sources for the claim and thats the issue sorted. As a side-note, all these church articles will need gone through to amend the many minor-problems littered throughtout them. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced "Audoen" with "Audeon"

I've done this tentatively, since I'm not entirely sure of it, but as a Dubliner I've never heard of "Audoen" in the English language, and Internet searches also suggest the spelling "Audeon". If someone has a compelling reason for calling it "Audoen" then please undo what I've done, but otherwise I think my changes should stand.

If anyone can change the title itself, please do so, I've tried and failed.

Salomoh 17:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The chap may have a point. The sources are contradictory. In the historic 6 inch map of the OSI, it is spelled "Audoen" but in the Placenames Database, the civil parish is spelled "Audeon". Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that before you start making changes of this kind to an article, you read the article fully and take a look at the sources and references? The church has been called St. Audoen's from the earliest times, and is called St. Audoen's today. Yes, there have been variants of the spelling, because the English language itself had not stabilized up until the 17th century or so, and even educated people varied their spelling from day to day. The latest book about St. Audoen's (that I know of) is (note the spelling):

McMahon, Mary (2006). St. Audoen's Church, Cornmarket, Dublin: Archaeology and Architecture. Dublin: The Stationary Office. ISBN 0-7557-7615-2 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum|0-7557-7615-2

The following histories all use the spelling "St. Audoen's" (I don't know of any that don't):

G. N. Wright (last modified 2005). "An Historical Guide to the City of Dublin".
Gilbert, John (1854). A History of the City of Dublin. Oxford: Oxford University.
Leeper, Alexander (1873). History of St. Audoen's (by the rector). Dublin.
Dublin: Catholic Truth Society, 1911: Bishop of Canea: Short Histories of Dublin Parishes
Donovan, Alex E. (1930). Dublin's Oldest Building. Dublin: St. Audoen's (pamphlet).
Crawford, John (1986). Within the Walls: The Story of St. Audoen's Church. Dublin: Select Vestry of the St. Patrick's Cathedral Group of Parishes.
Curtis, Joe (1992). Times, Chimes and Charms of Dublin. Dublin: Verge Books.
F H A Aalen and Kevin Whelan (editors): Dublin City and County, from Prehistory to Present. Geography Publications, Dublin, 1992. ISBN 0-906602-19-X.

Hohenloh⁺ 20:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A list of books about the historical name of the church surely has little relevance to an article about an extant church?

And indeed, some histories use "Audeon". In the 18th century (1717) Nicholas Forster writes about a "Sermon preached in the Parish-Church of St Audeon, Dublin"; in 1906 Frederick Falkiner KC's "The Foundation of the Hospital and Free School of King Charles II" uses "Audeon"; and in 1913 the Parish Register Society of Dublin published a record of marriage entries from the parish registers of "St Andrew, St Anne, St Audeon and St Bride". As to the Bishop of Canea's Histories, I think he uses "Audeon", contrary to what you have said. Further, the church is known among Dubliners as "Audeon's".

I'm not going to insist on the use of "Audeon" in the place of "Audoen", but I think it would be worth while at least noting at the start of the article that the alternative usage exists.

Apologies for breaching a norm of behaviour - I am not a regular contributor, and I assumed that an edit accompanied by an invitation to undo it would be satisfactorily polite.

Salomoh 02:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No probs. Wikipedia Editing Policy provides information on editing and adding information to Wikipedia articles. Note that all information on Wikipedia must be verifiable, based on reliable sources. Any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation, which should fully identify the source, and the location within the source (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate) where the material is to be found. See Citing sources for details of how to do this. There is also a Help desk for assistance on using and editing Wikipedia. If I can be of assistance please don't hesitate to get in touch (on my Talk page). Hohenloh⁺ 08:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I do as I suggested, then, and insert a "(historically and colloquially known as "St Audeon's Church")"?

User:Salomoh 19:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]