Talk:Old Catholic Ministry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Merge?

Does anyone else think this should be merged into Old Catholic Church? Seth Bresnett • (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The page "Old Catholic Ministry' should be seperate as it not necessarily the same as the "Old Catholic Church". The Old Catholic Church regrettably contains many organisations that are internet ministries only. Real Old Catholic denominations have real ministries and have developed these ministries in the face of prejudice and active discrimination from larger denominations with resources. Wikipedia must recognise that there is a place for a active ministry outside of and different to Anglicans, Roman Catholcis and 'internet' Old Catholics.\\\\--82.138.204.49 17:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)\\\\

[edit] Removed link

This item removed as it seems to be a link about ordination and not about ministry *[http://www.oldcatholic.co.uk/old_catholic_ordination.htm Information about ordination in the Old Catholic Church of Great Britain||||--Father Stuart1 17:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)||||

[edit] Merge or not?

This SHOULD be merged. -- SECisek 16:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The article appears to have something to say that is outside of the usual ministry pattern seen in the Anglican and Roman Catholic tradition.
I'm persuaded that this article reflects a new way of seeing community and 'Church' that is possibly a return to the early Church of the 1st Century rather than 'big Church'. My feeling is that this article needs to be fleshed out a little with other examples of Old Catholic Ministry being added to give depth. However, to simply merge this with an article 'Old Catholicism' which is poorly organised and in need of a re-write, seems to loose sight of the need for diversity in thought and perception. Spiorad (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed images

The changes made have been 'undone'. I regret having to make this change as the undo function is normally used to clear up vandalism and I make no charge of actual vandalism. However, the comment and changes to the original text appear to have been made with little/no explanation and seem to have been made for reasons that are unclear. If changes are being made to a text by someone with a clear religious committment such committments or affiliations should be made clear as it may be that such links mean that the contributor is not giving a NPOV. If the person who made such radical changes (and comments) without evidence or a rationale wishes to discuss this reversion I am happy to do so on this page although I will expect a NPOV to be maintained and an explanation to be given of their wish for changes. An assertion that a change is required is not enough in and of itself and evidence should be given before making radical amendments without consultation. Spiorad (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The pictures were removed.
2. They have no relation to the Old Catholic Church, let alone Old Catholic Ministry.
3. My personal religious commitment is unrelated to my editing, but if you must know, I belong to a Church in full communion with the Old Catholics and I want to see broader and more accurate coverage of Old Catholicism on WP. My edit was restored to move this mess of an article in the direction of GA. -- best SECisek (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the rapid response. You are clearly dedicated to viewing and reviewing this particular article and such single minded dedication is to be admired. However, to say this is a 'mess of an article' needing correction does not entirely correspond with your actions. If you have the intention of correcting an article it would be more appropriate to discuss this with interested people in a cooperative, reflective, inclusive and participative manner rather than the methods you currently employ.

Perhaps as a way forward and in maintaining a NPOV we can agree to replace the pictures as a return to the 'status quo ante' and then work on the article together? If not, perhaps we could agree to some sort of arbitration as to your manner of correcting articles? I'm happy for our corresponence to be viewed by dispassionate viewers and for them to make up their mind as to the best way forward. Participation seems to be called for, do you agree to cooperate?Spiorad (talk) 11:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Spiorad (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the above threat aimed at me? I have made exactly two edits to the article - one of which was reverted without discussion by you. I am well aware of the three revert rule but as we don't have anything close to an edit war here...yet.
You mention my "single minded dedication" to this article. Of my last 9,500+ edits to Wikipedia, exactly two were made to this article. 2 edits out of almost 10,000 hardly demonstrates "single minded dedication"
Now, all threats and suggestions of bad faith aside, what is your logic for connecting those two picture to this article? Insisting on their presence will prevent the article from ever passing a GA review. Those photos just are not related to this article, which if it is not merged should be renamed Old Catholic Ministry in the United Kingdom as it is exclusive in its coverage to that geographic area. I will attempt to improve the article some more if I can. -- SECisek (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
As it is, I agree with your edit and it looks good although the picture of Arnold Harris Mathew is probably overused and we could look to finding something else with appropriate licenses. I think a change in the title of the article is also good. Although I agree with the edit, so far, you still haven't entered into a real debate and you have, again, begun this edit without cooperation and participation before making changes and this feels against the spirit of WP.The whole point of WP is that anyone can take part without the 'little guy' being forced to stand and watch the experienced 'super users'.
As we are now consulting, after a fashion, I hope that you'll enter into a partnership with this article and allow me to take part without reverting everything that I do. (No, I won't add the old photo's).Spiorad (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Real debate"? What do we disagree about? I have never contested a single thing about this article other then the unrelated pictures. As for the current picture being over used, it appears in only two articles in english Wikipedia, including this one:

If we had a serious contention, I would be happy to debate you, but the spirit of Wikipedia involves being bold. I say have at it, edit away. Again, I have not removed any previous work short of those pictures.

Be bold, friend, be bold. -- SECisek (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)