Talk:Catholic Church in the United Kingdom

message: The link for the cathedral of the Catholic archdiocese of Cardiff goes to a page about the Anglican cathedral in St David's, on the other side of the country! What's going on? Marnanel 22:08, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Link

message: Very Good Page, however perhaps a bit long, is it worth breaking the page into three articles : Great Britain, England And Wales and Scotland.
--Timsj 13:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Break down the page into three

message: It is silly to insist on using the name of the royal house for the heading for each and every era. There is no reason to call the twentieth century "the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Windsor period" This term is not used widely to identify our era, unlike 'the Tudor era' or 'the Stuart era'. Furthermore, in those periods the identity and policies of the monarch were vital factors for the Catholic Church in England (how bad would the persecution be?); now the identity of the monarch no longer has that importance. Finally, insisting on using the heading "the Hanoverian era" to cover both the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries ignores the fact that despite the fact the same house was on the throne, these two centuries were completely different, as our own article states, for the Catholic Church in Britain; the 18C. was a moribund period, the 19C. was the era of the Catholic revival, mass Irish immigration and the wave of Oxford Movement conversions. It is necessary that seperate headings cover these two periods. Hence I will be altering these headings. IP Address, please don't change them back again without rebutting my arguments on this talk page. (User  129.78.64.105)
:You've already been warned twice for vandalism.  IP Address 07:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you not seen your own talk page?!  IP Address 04:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Headings

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was restored to original location since it was a unilateral move without discussion by a user who has a self-confessed agenda, "Defense of the Catholic Church in the use of her name". Guy 09:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinions with one sentence comments here, please
*Support as nom. Septentrionalis 17:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: --WikiCats 06:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Reasonable minimum of ambiguity' rules out 'Catholicism'.  That is the reason that all similar articles are already titled 'Roman Catholic Church...' or 'Roman Catholicisim...' except this one. Bastin 14:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
===Discussion===
There is a much broader discussion of CC and RCC formats for article naming. This is presently taking place at Talk:Roman Catholic Church.  As this discussion is now in progress some have asked that no moves related to the discussion take place.  Vaquero100 06:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In this case the article should be moved to be consistent with other articles in the category, an issue independent of the CC/RCC naming discussion. If the discussion is resolved one way or another, then all the articles in the category can be moved by a bot. Gimmetrow 15:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate that the RCC vs CC conflict is being dragged out onto subpages. I feel we need to establish a working policy for all pages, but seeing how some people have strong POVs regarding the name, that task may be easier said than done. It may be easier to simply have the exact same debate on every page, and then have inconsistent usages across wikipedia based on the number of editors who comment on particular votes. Maybe, after the name discussion is over at Talk:Roman  Catholic Church, we could establish a centralized discussion regarding a naming convention policy for catholic related topics? So instead of each articles name depending on a vote, we'd have each name established by a policy (but again, reaching a consensus policy is going to be the hard part, and voting on name changes and article moves may be easier in the long run, even if it yields inconsistent results).--Andrew c 20:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Vaquero, if you genuinely support no moves prior to the resolution of that discussion, why did you move this article? Guy 09:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a mess.  There are double and triple redirects resulting from previous moves, at least one of which was a copy-and-paste move which lost history (I have now restored this).  But before we go about fixing them there is a slight inconsistency remaining: we appear to have a naming convention, Roman Catholicism in foo, used for other regional RC churches - should we standardise on this?  I think that works well enough and is unambiguous; leaving aside a small band of people who are intent on Righting Great Wrongs there is no significant dissent from the view that Roman Catholic is unambiguous and not generally considered problematic by members of the said Church. Guy 09:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I fixed the worst of the multiple redirects.  Now I think we probably want to think about standardising. Guy 09:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. --Dijxtra 16:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move proposal

message: There is a much broader discussion of CC and RCC formats for article naming. This is presently taking place at Talk:Roman Catholic Church.  As this discussion is now in progress some have asked that no moves related to the discussion take place.  Vaquero100 06:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case the article should be moved to be consistent with other articles in the category, an issue independent of the CC/RCC naming discussion. If the discussion is resolved one way or another, then all the articles in the category can be moved by a bot. Gimmetrow 15:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate that the RCC vs CC conflict is being dragged out onto subpages. I feel we need to establish a working policy for all pages, but seeing how some people have strong POVs regarding the name, that task may be easier said than done. It may be easier to simply have the exact same debate on every page, and then have inconsistent usages across wikipedia based on the number of editors who comment on particular votes. Maybe, after the name discussion is over at Talk:Roman  Catholic Church, we could establish a centralized discussion regarding a naming convention policy for catholic related topics? So instead of each articles name depending on a vote, we'd have each name established by a policy (but again, reaching a consensus policy is going to be the hard part, and voting on name changes and article moves may be easier in the long run, even if it yields inconsistent results).--Andrew c 20:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Vaquero, if you genuinely support no moves prior to the resolution of that discussion, why did you move this article? Guy 09:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Why is the article on Catholicism in Great Britain and the Talk page on Talk:Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain?  What is going on here? --WikiCats 06:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a mess.  There are double and triple redirects resulting from previous moves, at least one of which was a copy-and-paste move which lost history (I have now restored this).  But before we go about fixing them there is a slight inconsistency remaining: we appear to have a naming convention, Roman Catholicism in foo, used for other regional RC churches - should we standardise on this?  I think that works well enough and is unambiguous; leaving aside a small band of people who are intent on Righting Great Wrongs there is no significant dissent from the view that Roman Catholic is unambiguous and not generally considered problematic by members of the said Church. Guy 09:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I fixed the worst of the multiple redirects.  Now I think we probably want to think about standardising. Guy 09:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. --Dijxtra 16:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This Talk page

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
* Support move of "Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain" to "Roman Catholicism in Great Britain". Gimmetrow 12:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: There was a move proposal to move Catholicism in Great Britain to Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain.
The result of the survey was 8 oppose and 6 Support. Now that would be no consensus, the article stays.
But that was not how the survey was closed. Admin.JzG moved the article.
Administrator Code of Conduct: Consensus says "Wikipedia works by consensus. One of the tasks of an admin is to implement that consensus. As such, if a discussion has led to consensus for a certain version or action, an admin should not ignore that to revert to another version or perform the opposite action, if they prefer that for whatever reason."
Clearly admin. JzG has ignored decision of the group and reverted to another version and performed the opposite action. --WikiCats 13:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The part of the Code of Conduct that you just quoted clearly states that the admin is only compelled not to revert on condition that the 'discussion has led to consensus'.  Since this discussion has led (by your own admission) to no consensus, it doesn't apply.  Thus, the reversion was the correct action, as the initial move was the only action that contravened the principle of establishing consensus. Bastin 18:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the Administrator Code of Conduct you cite is an inactive proposal, having been rejected by the community as a policy or even a guideline. Batmanand | Talk 19:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Very strange behavior

message: This is a good article, very informative. Looks like a lot of work has been done here. Thank you for that. Mountolive 05:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Congrats

message: It has come to my attention that some of the information in The Tudor Era is slightly biased towards a Protestant view.  I have tried editing the article to reflect both prominent views of the issue, but it is hard to do without making the article clumsy.  This particular section is easy to only give parts of facts to sway the view of it in one direction or the other, for example:
'One fact for which she has for ever been reproached is the persecution that was unleashed in her reign on Protestants, with burnings at the stake.'
The above is true, however, it is shown that the majority of these Protestants were also criminals, and leaves out the fact that Mary also executed many Catholic criminals along with them.  It also fails to mention any of Elizabeth's cruel actions, many of them also for religious dissent.
Instead the article chooses to call the people Elizabeth tortured and executed "Catholic Martyrs" as if they have no affiliation with her:
'Significant numbers of English Catholic martyrs died at this time, including St Edmund Campion.'
Then, about a week after adding a non-biased statement, the article was edited and this line was added:
'probably because Mary's executions were unrelated to any Protestant revolt and were purely for religious dissent'
 Elizabeth's executions were not all from revolts, in fact the Catholics she executed for the revolts were the main leaders and coordinators of the revolts composing of a very small portion of her executions.  Elizabeth's other executions came from priests and families trying to practice their faith in secret, and, like Mary, other criminals who happened to claim affiliation with the Protestant or Catholic side.  It is because of this that I removed this line.  There were more frequent Protestant uprisings in this time period than Catholic ones; however this is often overlooked because of "the glorious revolution" which was a large Catholic uprising in the north.
It should be shown that both sides have been equally brutal in this time period of England's history.
Megastealer 04:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EDIT: by Megastealer 02:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, this will not do. The contention on Elizabethan executions is not only unsourced (and implausible), but irrelevant and misleading. Elizabeth executed for treason, not for heresy, and she did reign nine times as long as her sister. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Elizabeth did count "practicing the catholic faith" as treason during her rule.  Sounds like a heresy execution to me.  Also, I don't know where we'd put the reigning bit.  If you see where to put it in there, you could go ahead, but at the time that was because (and still is) Protestantism is more popular than Catholocism in Great Britan.  Megastealer 00:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After many revisions, I believe that this is no longer biased and removed the POV-section tag. Megastealer 18:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some Biased Coverage of The Tudor Era

message: Bishop Richard Williamson, correctly listed as a convert to Roman Catholicism, has now been excommunicated from the RC Church.
In addition quite a few Roman Catholics have joined the Church of England. The process is not just one way. But they are not as high profile, the Church of England is not as active in proselytising as the RC Church, and its  public relations are not as good. Millbanks (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Converts

message: I have proposed a taskforce relating to this topic in the hopes of improving Wikipedia articles on them, this is set to be related to the main WikiProject on Catholicism. If anybody is interested in contributing please follow the link and leave your username. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Taskforce Roman Catholicism in Great Britain

message: I thought this article should be split into 'England and Wales' and 'Scotland'.. as I started I realised that I was going about it the wrong way - so reverted everything I did! Sorry for the trouble!!! (I still think there should be two separate articles, however.) Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorry - I was 'bold'...then had second thoughts!

message: I see there is some discussion of this above, but I'm at a loss to see where that ended. As a Catholic, and English, I must say that I find it a little offensive to speak of 'Roman Catholicism in the United Kingdom'. I'm not a 'Roman' Catholic. True, there is a formal government label of 'Roman Catholic', but that is a name imposed from outside, and which many find offensive. Wikipedia wouldn't permit this sort of lanuage anywhere else (Yankees living in Mexico? Yids in New York?), so why here? The Church is quite clearly Catholic, though I think the formal title would probably be the 'Church of Christ'. I'm happy to state that there are other 'catholics' in the UK, or even other 'Catholics' if you like. But if this article is about adherents to the Catholic Church, then it needs to be called 'Catholicism in the UK'. 90.193.97.18 (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that is that other people use the term 'Roman Catholic' to differentiate between your sort of Catholics and other sorts of Catholics.  Yes, 'Catholic' will usually mean Roman Catholic, even in the UK, where there is obviously a large Anglo-Catholic presence, but it does not unambiguously mean that.  During the Cold War, whilst some West Germans might have found it offensive that some people called it 'West Germany', giving (by extension) equal legitimacy to 'East Germany', it was done to differentiate the two in a way that made it unequivocal about what the term meant, and without deliberately offending Germans.  So it is done here: clearly designating who is intended, in a logically consistent manner, without deliberately offending any party. Bastin 22:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

text: A good point though I notice that all country articles seem to use the phrase "Roman Catholicism in..." Being English, you may also wish to raise it on the talk page of Roman Catholicism in England and Wales as well. Bye 86.160.242.213 (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change

message: "Over the 19th and 20th centuries, a number of prominent individuals converted to Catholicism including John Henry Newman, Augustus Pugin, Gerard Manley Hopkins, G. K. Chesterton, Ronald Knox, Evelyn Waugh, Graham Greene, and J.R.R. Tolkien."
There's nothing about this sentence that isn't literally true, but Tolkien is a odd example to cite in support of the (correct) assertion that a number of British artists and intellectuals in the 19th and 20th centuries were attracted to Catholicism.  Tolkien's conversion took place when he was eight years old when his mother joined the Church.  I strongly suggest that Tolkien should be dropped from this list, as his inclusion calls the basic assertion into doubt.
Pnh (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tolkien

message: This article used to cover the period after 1707 - as is common for most articles about the United Kingdom - and I think it should return to such an approach, with appropriate recognition of the significances of 1707 and 1801. I tried to do that earlier and my changes wer undone without any explanation. I will assume the nature of the objection and try to reword in a way that will achieve consensus. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, Fishiehelper2. Of course, we have dealt with the general point on other pages and indeed found some common ground. The United Kingdom began in 1801, not 1707, so the proper scope of the article is from 1801. As with other subjects, there is no real objection to the 18th century being covered in the form of background. We need to avoid anything which states the scope of the article as being from some earlier date, such as 1603 or 1707. I imagine we can do that. Moonraker (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

text: On a point of detail, the present version of the lead says "..refers to the practice of Roman Catholicism in Great Britain and Ireland since the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707...", but nothing could better highlight the problem created by artificially extending the UK back before 1801: Ireland plainly was not part of the UK from 1707. Moonraker (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of this article 

message: In the following paragraph it is ambiguous whether the "they" in "Their numbers rose..." refers to the number of Catholics in England as a whole, or to the sub-group the Irish immigrants. In the previous paragraph "they" is established to refer to the first, but it's not clearly re-established in the following paragraph. Two people here read it and interpreted it different ways. This could be easily clarified by re-establishing what "they" refers to.
"The second large group comprised very poor Irish immigrants escaping the Great Irish Famine. Their numbers rose from 224,000 in 1841 to 419,000 in 1851, concentrated in ports and industrial districts as well as industrial districts in Scotland"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.178.99 (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor text quibbles 

message: In 1707 we had the UNION of the Crowns when Great Britain became ONE KINGDOM..Kingdom of England (with Wales) joined with Scotland.The FIRST UK came about in 1801.Although in 1707 it was a Union it was not a United Kingdom as such.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.12.29 (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The United Kingdom was NOT created in 1707.. 

message: This article seems to be locked in some way. I would suggest for it to be unlocked. Chicbyaccident (Please notify with  (Talk) 10:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlock article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Catholic Church in the United Kingdom. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206111318/http://www.vatican.va// to http://www.vatican.va/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "In 2011 there were roughly 5.7 million Catholics in the United Kingdom; 4,155,100 in England and Wales (7.4%),[9] 841,053 in Scotland (15.9%),[10][11] and 738,033 in Northern Ireland (40.76%)."
2011 isn't current anymore. Can somebody find statistics that aren't half a decade outdated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BornInMarch (talk • contribs) 22:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Statistics 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Catholic Church in the United Kingdom. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140420034328/http://www.prct.org.uk/downloads/research/18-table-1-2011-2012-statistics-of-rc-population-fourth-draft-1/file to http://www.prct.org.uk/downloads/research/18-table-1-2011-2012-statistics-of-rc-population-fourth-draft-1/file
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060904111029/http://www.bpsconfscot.com/CatholicScotland/tabid/440/Default.aspx to http://www.bpsconfscot.com/CatholicScotland/tabid/440/Default.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is currently an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Catholic Church)#RfC: should this page be made a naming convention that may be of interest. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic Church naming conventions RfC