Talk:Randall Davidson

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:AbpRandallDavidson.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Dear :
Sorry, the link in my edit summary has a misprint.  The correct link is: WP:OWN#Featured_articles.  
Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing Featured Articles 

message: ...and more specifically, why is it preferable to refer to him as that instead of as a bishop of as a cleric in general? Mangoe (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC.
:All Anglican bishops are priests.  "Cleric" has no specific meaning in Anglicanism: it is a word devised to distinguish priests from clerks: see the OED. Tim riley talk 19:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: All Anglican bishops are deacons too, but that's not a reason to refer to him primarily as a priest or as a deacon. Mangoe (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You're nearly but not quite right I'm afraid. A priest is anyone ordained to the priesthood, which like all other bishops Davidson was, and remained. As to deacons, see the OED: "In Episcopal Churches, a member of the third order of the ministry, ranking below bishops and priests, and having the functions of assisting the priest in divine service, esp. in the celebration of the eucharist, and of visiting the sick, etc."  Your suggestion that we might call Davidson a deacon is something of a reductio ad absurdum but you are of course entitled to your opinion, and if you can assemble a consensus for your proposed change, so be it. Until then the text approved by the reviewers at PR and FAC remains. Kind regards, Tim riley talk 19:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, one is ordained as a deacon in the Episcopal Church before one is ordained a priest; I expect this practice is retained from pre-Reformation days. This still is not an argument for specifically choosing priest over other identification. Mangoe (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we know about the order of ordination, but the facts remain as stated above. Anyway, if you wish to persist with this campaign you will need to assemble a consensus that you are right and everyone else who has reviewed the article is wrong. Over to you. Tim riley talk 20:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any consensus here; all I see is you laying on an irrelevant detail of Anglican orders. Present an explanation for preferring "priest" over other terms, which you are not bothering to do. Mangoe (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know how familiar you are with Wikipedia's review processes, but the article has been reviewed twice en route to FA. The agreed text represents a consensus. I have explained to you - clearly I thought - that a bishop or archbishop remains a priest, and that as this was what RD was from 1875 to 1930 it is the sensible default description of him. I take the liberty of guessing - forgive me if I am wrong - that you are not English or a member of the Church of England, but in strict legal terms RD was "a clerk in holy orders", but to use that, in my view, would make Wikipedia look remarkably silly. That said, I repeat, if you wish to persist with your campaign you will need to assemble a consensus that you are right and everyone else who has reviewed the article is wrong. Over, again, and for the last time I hope, to you. Tim riley talk 20:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I've been an Anglican for forty-five years; you aren't telling me anything about orders that I didn't know from the Episcopal boarding school I attended. You are going out of your way to avoid answering the question I've asked in every exchange here, which is why to prefer the term "priest". Saying that there is a consensus to do so is simply saying that you refuse to address the issue. Even if there is discussion of this in some archive, I was not a party to it, and your personal ownership of the article on its behalf is inappropriate. I also find a consensus across articles on English bishops for simply calling them "bishop"; so far only a limited selection of AoC articles have the "priest" eccentricity, which frankly I would have followed had I not suspected that there was some preference for the current, peculiar term. Mangoe (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read what you say. Your disobliging remark about "ownership" leaves a nasty taste in the mouth: I repeat, yet again, that the present text represents the consensus of reviewers. I keep explaining why RD is described as a priest, but you seem to miss it. I beg you to read the following carefully: if you wish to persist with your campaign you will need to assemble a consensus that you are right and everyone else who has reviewed the article is wrong. Tim riley talk 21:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Duh! The present text has been agreed in two reviews. Really, haven't you got anything better to do with your (and my!) time? Tim riley talk 21:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   Tim is right. I gave the article a pretty thorough vetting, and I didn't see an issue.   But here's the thing: as you know, today is this article's TFA.  WP:Lead fixation ensures that many people with a fleeting interest in the topic will drop by and have their say.   You seem like a person with a more lasting interest. Why don't you come by here in a few days and continue this discussion when the pressures have relented a little?  I mean this sincerely.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken this to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism given that this isn't the only article with this eccentricity. And Mr, Riley, it takes two to argue. Mangoe (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As to the latter, "who deniges of it, Betsey"? As to the former, over to you, for the fourth time of asking (though a first for me – the calling of the banns in church "for the third time of asking" being the norm in England). Tim riley talk 22:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Don't you think "was an Anglican bishop who was Archbishop..." would look a bit odd? Tim riley talk 12:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does the lead refer to him specifically as a priest? 

message: It seems strange not to include his peerage in the infobox. From what I've seen, British people who have received honours such as peerages and awards usually have them noted in the infobox. Векочел (talk) 12:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Dr Davidson was known for being Archbishop of Canterbury. The peerage given him after his retirement is not how he is primarily known. The same goes for other Archbishops who received peerages after their retirement. We cannot call them the Most Rev and Rt Hon and at the same time call them Lord So-and-So, because by the time they were the latter they had ceased to be the former, and the former is much the more important, not only in terms of encylopaedic interest but also in terms of official precedence: the Archbishop of Canterbury outranks the Lord Chancellor, the Prime Minister, and all the Lords Temporal. Tim riley talk 13:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several living archbishops of Canterbury and York who are peers. Perhaps they ought to be listed by the first and last names. Векочел (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Tim riley talk 17:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peerage