Talk:St Mary's Anglican Church, Busselton

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

St Mary's Church in 2015

• ... that St Mary's Anglican Church, Busselton, Australia (pictured), which was consecrated in 1848, has been a part of six dioceses, namely Canterbury, Calcutta, Sydney, Adelaide, Perth and Bunbury? Source: REGISTER OF HERITAGE PLACES ASSESSMENT DOCUMENTATION (page 4): "... it was consecrated by Bishop Short on 2 November 1848 ..."; (page 6): "The porch ... has four small stained glass windows that depict the dioceses to which the church has belonged; Canterbury, Calcutta, Sydney, Adelaide, Perth and Bunbury."
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/John Hoke III

Created by Bahnfrend (talk). Self-nominated at 15:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC).

• Article is new, long enough and neutral. (Note: The nomination date of 25 December is incorrect. It reached eligibility on 30 December.) It cites sources inline. "Earwig's Copyvio Detector " reports no significant text similarities, commenting "copyvio unlikely". The hook is well-formatted and interesting. Its length is within limit, and its fact is accurate with inline citation. Image is ©-free. QPQ is missing. Approval will be after the QPQ is done. CeeGee 09:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. I will do a QPQ in the next few days. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    • @CeeGee: QPQ now done. Bahnfrend (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
• Everything is fine now. Good to go. CeeGee 10:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@CeeGee and Bahnfrend: Just noting that 30 citations are referenced to one Heritage council document. I will be promoting, but my own opinion is that 30 citations referenced to one document is not ideal. Bruxton (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Bruxton and CeeGee: That's a fair comment. However, the Heritage Council document is itself referenced by footnotes to many other sources, at least half of which are offline secondary sources. I could add some or all of those other sources to the references to the article, but that would make the references section a great deal longer without adding any real value to the article as a whole, because the Heritage Council document, including all of its footnotes, is linked directly to the article. Bahnfrend (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Bruxton: Noted your advice. @Bahnfrend: Thank you for the clarification. CeeGee 16:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Alt0a ... that St Mary's Anglican Church, Busselton, Australia (pictured), which was consecrated in 1848, has belonged to six dioceses, namely Canterbury, Calcutta, Sydney, Adelaide, Perth and Bunbury? Suggested by TSventon in the article's talk page. CeeGee 09:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

• Article was copyedited inline with the discusson and the above mentioned ALT-hook. I approve the ALT-hook. Good to go. CeeGee 09:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Dioceses

Bruxton, Bahnfrend, CeeGee, The article and hook say that the church has been part of six dioceses, namely Canterbury, Calcutta, Sydney, Adelaide, Perth and Bunbury. Would it be more accurate to follow the source and say "belonged to"? For example, I don't think being subject to the Archbishop of Canterbury makes a church part of the Diocese of Canterbury. Also the Diocese of Calcutta (Church of North India) article doesn't currently mention Australia. TSventon (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I will wait to hear from the nominator and reviewer. Bruxton (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Bruxton, CeeGee, and TSventon: Good point. I think I used the words "part of" to avoid following the source too slavishly, and I agree that "belonged to" is probably more accurate. As for your other point, the article Anglican Archbishop of Sydney says that "From 1814 to 1836 the colony of New South Wales was part of the Diocese of Calcutta." Western Australia was established in 1829, and was never a part of the colony of New South Wales. That may explain why the Church of England (as it then was) in Western Australia initially "belonged to" Canterbury, and was later transferred to Calcutta, followed by Sydney, and then Adelaide, to which it belonged as of November 1848 when the church building the subject of this article was consecrated. But it's not clear. The source does not say when any of these transfers took place. The stained glass windows of the church include three windows each displaying the coat of arms of two of the six dioceses (there are photos of those three windows here). Although there are dates on those windows, the first three pairs of dates are not clear in the photos I have just linked (Adelaide seems to have been the diocese from 1847 to 1855, Perth from 1856 to 1904, and Bunbury since 1904). There's also the complication that the church building wasn't opened until 1845, which may have been / probably was after the first of the transfers. To be completely accurate, given that Europeans settled in the Busselton area in the 1830s and probably started worshipping there before the church was completed, it might be better to say that the worshipping community (or parish, if formally established) that now worships in that church building has "belonged to" the six dioceses, rather than the church building in which that community has worshipped since 1845. That is not precisely what the source says; it just uses the word "church". However, I suppose that the word "church" has sufficiently broad a meaning to refer to the worshipping community as well as to the building (as in the well known expression "broad church"), or maybe even the Busselton area as a whole (the 'church of Busselton', perhaps?), including before the area was colonised by Europeans (what happened if, eg, pre-settlement explorers wanted to worship at a place not (yet) colonised?). You might want to suggest a reworded hook that would accommodate these points more effectively than the present hook. (I'm thinking, given the problems to which I have alluded, that a suitable reword might be "St Mary's Anglican Church (pictured), consecrated in 1848, is in Busselton, Western Australia, which has belonged to six dioceses, namely Canterbury, Calcutta, Sydney, Adelaide, Perth and Bunbury?") Bahnfrend (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Bruxton, Bahnfrend, and TSventon: Sorry! The nuance between "part of" and "belongs to" goes beyong my grammatical and theological knowledge. I will be offering an ALT1 with the changed phrase if needed. CeeGee 16:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I am suggesting

• Alt0a ... that St Mary's Anglican Church, Busselton, Australia (pictured), which was consecrated in 1848, has belonged to six dioceses, namely Canterbury, Calcutta, Sydney, Adelaide, Perth and Bunbury?

I interpret the church as the location of the church's parish or of the current building. My reading of the dates is Canterbury 1770–1814, Calcutta 1814–1836, Sydney 1836–1847, Adelaide 1847–1856(?), Perth 1856–1904 and Bunbury 1904–. The windows are in the porch of 1924 so presumably date to 1924 or later. The source says what the windows depict, so there could be a NPOV problem in Wikipedia's reporting that as fact. As you note European settlement in the area and the building of the church happened after 1814 when the windows say Calcutta took over.

In addition to tweaking the hook, I was hoping that it would be possible to find reliable sources for mentioning the Calcutta - Australia connection elsewhere, e.g. in the Diocese of Calcutta (Church of North India) article. TSventon (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Pinging DBD as a major contributor to Diocese of Calcutta (Church of North India) for comment. TSventon (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks TSventon we just need CeeGee to approve the hook. I can then change it in the prep. Bruxton (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• TheALT-hook says now "belonged to". However, the phrase "part of" remains in the article. I am confused. I'd promptly approve if the article had the same wording. As I understand from the above discussion, only "belonged to"is correct. Does the article need a change in this way? CeeGee 06:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

CeeGee, I have updated the article. TSventon (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Bruxton, CeeGee, and TSventon: I agree with the suggested change to the hook and the change already made to the article. I too am not a theologian, but upon reflection I would think that, eg, the City of Canterbury is a part of and belongs to the UK, whereas Australia merely used to belong to the UK, and that a similar approach is therefore appropriate to what is said in the article and hook about the Busselton area's connection with the various dioceses. (The start date of 1770 is interesting - it may refer to the year when Captain Cook "discovered" and "claimed" Australia, but the part of Australia he then "claimed" did not include Western Australia, which was not similarly "claimed" until 1829. However, that does not mean that the Busselton area did not "belong" to the diocese of Canterbury from 1770 to 1814, as a piece of land would not have had to "belong" to the UK to "belong" to a diocese (eg much of continental Europe presently "belongs" to the Diocese of Europe, even though the UK has no control over most of it).) Bahnfrend (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)