User talk:Carolynparrishfan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Archive

Contents

[edit] Anglican Coalition in Canada.

I've removed some contested and unsourced info from there, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability (and Help:Edit summary). Hopefully the article can be unstubbed again. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-02t15:09z

[edit] Protestant PMs

Just for future reference, Lester Pearson was a Methodist and I think Kim Campbell was an Anglican. Don't worry about it, though, we all make mistakes. Habsfan|t 18:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book of Alternative Services

You said, "...and one [service of the Eucharist] more in line with the language of the 1962 Prayer Book. The latter text is sometimes known as the "Toronto Rite" and is a bone of contention amongst Prayer Book Anglicans." Could you elaborate? This is an interesting point. I wonder what the nature of their objection is. It could go into the article to clarify the observation. Thanks. Masalai 16:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed interesting, and the Prayer Book Society, who sometimes come across as rather eccentric old fuddy duddies even to those who are not out of sympathy with them, so have a point about the contemporary language eucharist in the BAS. I think the article could do with actually briefly stating what their objections are, rather than merely referring to that paper, which could well disappear from the Net in due course. Do you agree? I'm happy to provide a couple of sentences if you would rather not. My compliments, incidentally, on your contributions generally: I've long been an admirer of your work. Masalai 03:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michaëlle Jean

Hey, I noticed you are a regular contributor to many Canadian articles. It also seems that you are the sort of "type" that would know this :-) How is Michaëlle Jean pronounced? If you know, could you please add it to her vanity page. Thanks ! - Abscissa 01:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland

I've added a response to your question at Talk:Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland --PeterR 18:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diocese of Niagara

I deleted the same-sex unions discussion topics because I didn't think it defined the Diocese of Niagara, nor did it flow with the article (in terms of being placed in the history section). I'm not trying to deny it happened; in fact I think it speaks volumes about the diocese, but didn't think it fit within the current layout of the article. Mouswj 02:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


I would suggested expanding the article to include a fuller history; and section pertainting to newsworthy items relating to the Diocese (there have been several).

[edit] Anglican sacraments

Regarding your addition to the definition of Holy Matrimony, the definition I provided is that currently accepted by the Anglican Communion. In other words, it is describes what Holy Matrimony is, not what it could be. While I fervently pray that the definition will be expanded to a more inclusive one, there is at the moment no question that Holy Matrimony in every diocese of the Anglican Communion is defined as the union between a man and a woman. I think that a useful discussion might be included in Christian views on marriage, but I want to seek your agreement to revert your edit on the grounds that the article should describe what the sacraments are, not what they theoretically could or should be. You thoughts? Cheers, Fishhead64 21:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Months later, and we still disagree!

Hi, CFP. I hope all is well with you. We haven't been involved in editing the same articles for a while now — but I note that as soon as we do, we disagree! Hope you can accept "disputed". I'm trying for a wording that doesn't imply that one Church (even if it's mine!) is "right" and that the other is "wrong". By the way, I want to thank you for a thoughtful post that you left on my talk page a few months ago, and to apologize for not having responded. I meant to, but I suddenly got caught up in other things, and eventually archived your post. Maybe sometime I still might respond, as I have it in one of my talk page archives. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 20:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglican Eucharistic theology

I've finally gotten around to expanding and editing this. If you have a moment several hours, look it over and let me know how I did. Cheers, Fishhead64 21:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 21:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shifted Sydney Anglicans

Hey! I noticed you shifted the Sydney Anglicans article. I was wondering why? There was an existing discussion on the talk page regarding the article name. Journeyman 07:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You're right, articles should have consistent names. I would take exception though at your comment that "Sydney is largely Anglican in-name-only". We are not anglican in-name only, we are anglicans by history and theology - we stand in the reformed origin of the church of England... Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, Hooper, Foxe, Ryle, the Clapham Sect, etc. We hold strongly to the theology of the BCP and 39 articles, particularly the inspiration and authority of scripture.
Given my knee-jerk reply above, oops :) I should definitely join WP:Anglicans. Cheers! Journeyman 23:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
re: your comment on my talk page that "classical Anglicanism is both Reformed 'and' Catholic". In my limited understanding catholicism (popery? ;) ) only came back into Anglicanism under the influence of the Tractarians in the nineteenth century. Anglicanism was consistuted around a return to the biblical, apostolic faith and a rejection of salvation by works, the real presence and the other 'pernicious' doctrines of Rome (sola fidei, sola scripture, soli deo gloria, etc.). Thus by returning to Rome, anglo-catholicism is a rejection of the biblical apostolic faith. Journeyman 05:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Harper's church

For one, where is your citation, and for second, he was raised in a presbyterian church, not the United Church of Canada. SFrank85 00:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it came right from his mouth, but he is not a member of the UCC. SFrank85 01:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Priesthood of all believers

Regardless of how "Evangelical" this concept may be, it simply doesn't work in a diocese in which women are not permitted to preach and teach. Believe me, in Sydney the notion of the "priesthood of all believers" is not something that is broadly subscribed to.

I have listened to many long and tiresome sermons from a Sydney Evangelical who constantly hammered the notion of the "Apostolic Succession" and the special role of the ordained priest. The only reason why this lay presidency thing is a possibility is because of the relative lack of importance in Sydney of the Eucharist.

I don't know where you are living, but judging by your list of contributions, it is not Sydney but Canada. Please don't imagine that Sydney Evangelicals are like people from other places that call themselves Evangelicals. Dean Phillip Jensen would be quick to tell you that everyone wants to hop on the band-waggon and call themselves Evangelicals. But few of them actually ARE. At least, they're not true proper Evangelicals, whatever they might think! (Yes I read the interview in which he said something like this, I think it's at the Anglican Church League website.)

So, whatever Evangelicalism is like in Canada, then it is NOT like that here! The notion of the term "Priesthood of all believers" being associated in any way with the Anglican Diocese of Sydney is to me, as a female Sydney Anglican, really offensive. And there are about 150 of my friends and associates who would be equally offended. --Amandajm 12:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


Carolyn, I understand and subscribe to the notion of "a priesthood of all believers" but if the term is used in relation to Sydney, then I am just going to keep removing it. Believe me, I live in the diocese. It is not an appropriate term to include when you are talking about SYDNEY Evangelicalism. Please don't put it back. --Amandajm 22:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Carolynparrishfan! Just looked down your ID list. Another Aspie..... so am I. Maybe most people who write for Wiki fall into that boat. Please take seriously what I am saying about Sydney being different. Can I suggest that if you have not yet done so, you look up all the media references that are cited in the article? It makes inetersting reading. Have a little explore on the various websites, look for quotes from the Dean, for example.

--Amandajm 23:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've written something to the effect of Carolynparrishfan's comment on the Sydney Diocese talk page. It's a difference in the greek between presbyter and priest. Presbyters are ordained by the church, priests are not. Journeyman 06:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglican Diocese of Saint David's

Hi there! Was there a reason why you moved Diocese of Saint David's to Anglican Diocese of Saint David's? The former is now just a redirect to the latter. All the other dioceses of the Church in Wales are simply called Diocese of X. If there's no particular reason, can I move it back? Thanks. — Gareth Hughes 22:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I understand that it is important that when two or more churches call their diocese or bishop by the same title that it is importan to disambiguate between them fairly. The historical situation in England and Wales, however, is that only four of each of the Anglican and Roman Catholic dioceses have the same name. In Liverpool, the simple solution is that we have the Archdiocese of Liverpool, which is Catholic, and the Diocese of Liverpool, which is Anglican (we have the same situation with the Archdiocese of Southwark/Diocese of Southwark and Archdiocese of Birmingham/Diocese of Birmingham). Things break down with the Diocese of Portsmouth, which is the name of the article on Anglican diocese, whereas the older, Catholic diocese is at Catholic diocese of Portsmouth — I thing this is a clear case for disambiguation. I noticed that all Church in Wales dioceses were under Diocese of X except the Anglican Diocese of Saint David's.I found this strange because no Catholic diocese has the same name as an English one in Wales — the Diocese of Menevia is the Catholic diocese nearest to St David's. Perhaps we should take this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglicanism for a wider consensus. — Gareth Hughes 11:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saskatchewan Party

Hello,

Could you please add Saskatchewan Party to your watchlist (and revert the current version, if someone hasn't already done so). Two SP partisans seem to have a very limited grasp of NPOV. CJCurrie 23:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Catholic Church

Dear Carolynparrishfan,

I was saddened to read your note on my talk page. With sincerity I am saddened by your personal experience in the Church that has made you feel forced out. Even without knowlegde of your situation, I believe I can still say that anyone is welcome as a member of the Church and to practice the faith according to their situation. I would hope that if you had a pastoral relationship with someone in the Church's ministry, you would be accepted as a person and treated with compassion.

As I have indicated on the Anglicanism talk page, I regret the harsh things I have said on WP about Anglicans and others. I allowed months of frustration to build up and vented it in a poor fashion. For that I am sorry.

As you know we disagree on the naming of the Catholic Church on WP. As an encyclopedia, WP should be committed to facts that are verifiable. The fact is that the Catholic Church has a name which is verifiable. "Roman" is what many others would like the Church's name to be for a variety of arguably good reasons.

What the Church means by Catholic Church: historical continuity with the early church based on apostolicity in general and Petrine apostolicity in particular.

What the Church does not mean by Catholic Church: an exclusive right to "Catholicity." This is verifiable. The Church recognizes the the Old Catholic Church and others. The Church in Lumen Gentium and Ut Unum Sint and other documents has recognized the means of salvation in other Christian churches and has said that we share a real though imperfect "communion." The Church takes those words seriously and continues to refer to them and draw from them in its relationship with other churches.

Neither the Church nor I see the name of the Catholic Church as a denial of anyone else's Catholicity. It simply is the name of the institution. Anglicans and others have chosen to infer from the name that it is somehow a denial of their nature. For the Catholic Church, there are problems with Anglican history, but it's name is not a reflection of those problems. The Church's name has nothing to do with Anglicans or anyone else,

The Orthodox Churches do not have an exclusive right to "orthodoxy," nor do the Baptists have an exlusive right to Baptism. Historically, the Church could have adopted the name "Apostolic Church" or any of another of names. If it had, we would likely be arguing about those terms instead of over "Catholic."

As for my solipsism. It is the Anglicans and now others who are obsessed with changing the name of the Catholic Church. This change has not come from Rome. This change has not been made and will not be. But, again, this has nothing to do with other churches. It is not a matter of defiance or anything else. It is simply verifiable historical fact.

On another personal note. As I reflect on it, where I went wrong in letting my emotions get out of hand on WP was to associate all my personal experiences of maltreatment at the hands of Episcopalians with my frustrations over what is essentially an intellectual argument (or at least should be).

You might also know that I have been as angry with your reverts and article moves as I have been with yours.

I hope we can find a way to peace and a way to report the facts in question in a way that is fair to accuracy and satisfactory to all of us.

Vaquero100 23:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


Carolynparrishfan. I should also remind you that you were the first person to make an illegal move on the Catholic spirituality article. [1] You did so without prior discussion. Vaquero100 23:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

I'm sorry for not responding to your earlier request for assistance. Could you show me where the discussions between you and Vaquero over content and naming have taken place so that I can try to understand the basis of the dispuite between the two of you? Thanks. Ground Zero | t 23:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There is obviously a lot of history here. I am trying to catch up on it before I intervene. I'll do what I can, but this is not an easy issue. There are two questions: (1) which should Wikipedia use, "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic", and (2) has Vaquero's behaviour contravened Wikiepdia policies and guidelines. Ground Zero | t 12:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

I award you this barnstar for great and tireless work on Anglican articles, in particular Canadian Anglo-Catholicism. Good job sir! Anthropax 17:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The Richard Hooker Memorial Barnstar for hard work and diligence on the Anglicanism WikiProject
The Richard Hooker Memorial Barnstar for hard work and diligence on the Anglicanism WikiProject

[edit] Morning Prayer

Notice you've been doing a bit of editting on this recently. i started having a go at it in my user space a while back user:David Underdown/Morning Prayer, but haven't really had the time to progress it much, take a look and see what you think. David Underdown 10:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disparaging comments not helpful

It is not relevant to share the insults one church makes of another. There is no reason why, for example, I should share the names thrown at the ELCA by LCMS people on their page. It provides no light, raises blood pressures and does not lead towards understanding on anyone's part. So it does not belong in the article anymore than unsourced negative comments belong in an article on a living person.

Can you explain why the insults one group makes of another has any place in an encyclopedia? If an ELCA person were to say something similar about me, it would be considered a personal attack in Wikipedia.

Now, if you want to explain the official position of the ELCA towards Close(d) communiion practices and theology, please feel free to do so and cite it. If you even want to express the views of some ELCA folk (I personally know a fair number of ELCA members, some of whom actually agree with the LCMS at this point), please do so and cite it. But please put it in the section where the doctrine is discussed and not in a place where it could be construed as an attempt to defame the LCMS. --CTSWyneken(talk) 02:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe such has a place at all in articles about a religious organization and I seriously question its place on wikipedia at all. It only inflames passions, encourages antagonisms and makes it very difficult to keep civil dialog going. I do not see how it adds anything at all to a casual reader's understanding of the LCMS. This is the kind of thing most people think of as vandalism.

At the very least, the same care should be taken here as in articles on living people. People die for their religions, and, while I would not expect that level of response here, you invite vitriol when you take them on. --CTSWyneken(talk) 14:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


I appreciate your willingness to bend on this one. FYI, having surveyed the other articles you've cited, I don't think the comments belong there either. --CTSWyneken(talk) 17:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

AfD is all about dialogue if you ask me. It's true that I don't think you did a particularly great job of WP:AGF in your comment, and I mentioned it. We got to the point where you were chanting connotation, so I chanted AGF. It was meant to be humorous but to also suggest that it would be best not to jump to the negative meaning if there is another option. I offer my comments as food for thought. Call that an argument if you wish, but I have no hard feelings. Erechtheus 18:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Welcoming Congregation" restructuring

Please see my comment on reorganization of the "Welcoming Congregation" topic (replying there). Thanks! --Haruo 06:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] l'Église Episcopale du Canada

A propos of your insertion of the detail that the ACC initially adopted this French form of its name and later changed it to "l'Église anglicane du Canada," do you have any documented references to the discussions that led to this change? Certainly I know from personal conversation during the '80s that francophone Canadians were extremely puzzled by the "episcopale" name and when it was explained, would exclaim, "Ah! Anglicane!" But obviously that won't do as an encyclopædia explanation for the change.Masalai 11:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ACC article

Hi CPF. The ACC article is lacking any discussion of the doctrine of the denomination: obviously, it goes without saying,

(a) the ACC generally falls into line with the more liberal constituency of the world-wide Anglican Communion (and has historically had a considerably more influential voice in its councils than the ACC’s smallish numbers might have indicated) and this is somewhat implied in the article overall and

(b) there is ample discussion in other Wikipedia articles of Anglican doctrine in a general.

But the article could profit by some discussion of the wider background of Anglican doctrine and the particular ethos of the ACC, I think. Do you agree? Care to take a stab at a first draft of such a section for the article? You always have a uniquely insightful take on such things and it would be interesting to see what you might have to propose in this regard. Masalai 09:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] image deletion

Hi Carolyn. It was deleted under I3 of the speedy criteria, basically because it had no tags indicating copyright. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 18:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, images uploaded without tags get auto-tagged as I3, and get put in the speedy delete queue. --Fang Aili talk 18:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evangelical Church of the Deaf

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Evangelical Church of the Deaf, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Evangelical Church of the Deaf. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Ioannes Pragensis 20:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Or rather, in my own words, I am unsure whether it is notable or not. Please, add some links to important media, if possible. Merry Christmas!--Ioannes Pragensis 20:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglicanism COTM

The Anglicanism Collaboration of the Month has been reactivated! Please consider going to the page to either vote for one of the nominated articles, or nominate one yourself. Thanks! Fishhead64 02:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to WikiProject LGBT studies!

Hi, Carolynparrishfan, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies!

We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles of interest to the LGBT community. Some points that may be helpful:

  • Our main aim is to help improve LGBT-related articles, so if someone asks for help with an article, please try your hardest to help them if you are able.
  • Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
  • The project has several ongoing and developing activities, such as article quality assessment, peer review and a project-wide article collaboration, all of which you are welcome to take part in. We also have a unique program to improve our lower quality articles, Jumpaclass, so please consider signing up there.
  • If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to our translation section, to help us improve our foreign LGBT topics.
  • If you're planning to stay, have a square in our quilt! You can put anything you want in it.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

And once again - Welcome!

-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter!
Issue III - February 1, 2007

Announcement: If someone requests help or feedback on an article, please try your hardest to help them out if you are able. Thank you.

Project News
  • The LGBT Portal has once again been revamped and a work rota started. Efforts towards Featured Portal status are slowly coming together.
  • The assessment system has been a great success, we have tagged over 4000 articles! Please tag any LGBT related articles you come across by adding {{LGBTProject | class=}} to the talkpage. Please see the Assessment Department for how to assess an article according to the grading system.
  • The Translation department has changed its focus, to LGBT articles about non-English topics and people on which there may be more information on the relevant foreign Wikipedia. Please add your name if you are fluent in any language other than English.
  • Jumpaclass is picking up slowly, with nine people having entered. With over 2000 stubs we need to improve our article quality. Please sign up and get it going! Challenge another user to see how far you can jump a stub!
  • There is an ongoing discussion about the current LGBT categorisation system here, here, and a little bit here. A special page has now been set up here to deal with this.
  • A Watchlist has been set up to monitor controversial and/or highly vandalised articles. It can also be used for article disputes, just add a note explaining the nature of the dispute.
  • With the influx of so many active members, there is now enough support for a LGBT studies peer review, which may be found here. It's in the beta phase at the moment, so bear with us if we make any mistakes. Feel free to peer review any articles you have been working on.
  • It was agreed this month to start reducing the uses of the Notice board, as many members felt that it was not effective. An open tasks template has been created, bringing together important announcements, FAC/FARs, Peer reviews, XfDs, the COTM, and requested articles. You may desire to watchlist it. A Deletion sorting subpage is also now working to bring together XfDs - this should be bot-driven, but we have not currently tagged enough articles to make this fully automated, so please update the list with any LGBT-related XfDs you come across.
Article news
Member News

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please drop me a line.
If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.

[edit] Black Narcissus

Rumer Godden specifically didn't mention any Church in the book, and neither did Powell & Pressburger in the film. The intention was not to associate them with any Church so that no Church could claim to be misrepresented. They both just referred to them as being of an Anglican order. They could have been associated with a Free Church or any other group that describes itself as Anglican but remains outside the Church of England. -- SteveCrook 23:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:LGBT Coordinator Election Notice

This is just a quick, automated note to let you know that there is an election being conducted over the next 7 days for the position of "Coordinator" for the LGBT WikiProject. Your participation is requested. -- SatyrTN (talk • contribs) |}

[edit] LGBT WikiProject newsletter

[edit] LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

[edit] LGBT WikiProject newsletter

SatyrBot 05:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/r/User_talk%7ECarolynparrishfan_2c75.html"