Talk:John Henry Newman/Archive 1

message: The content, largely from the 1911 encyclopedia, wants some editing.  In particular, the opening paragraph should briefly summarize Newman's life, accomplishments, and historical importance; we can keep the stuff about his parents and siblings, but move it further. --Jim Henry 00:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening 

message: Should this be a separate article, with links from both the Newman and Manning main articles? --Jim Henry 18:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newman and Manning 

message: :"In 1991 he was proclaimed venerable, but later the canonization process was stopped for political reasons."
Can anyone cite a source for the "political reasons"? --Jim Henry 20:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause for his canonization 

message: I found the image of what I presume to be Cardinal Newman's arms on Google image search. It had no context - the web page on which Google found it no longer existed. I am almost absolutely sure that the arms are his - the filename was NEWMAN2.GIF, the motto is his motto, and several sources on the web make mention of the use of hearts in his arms. If the image is his coat of arms, this is likely fair use. However, the image quality is poor. Does anyone here draw well? It would be nice to have a good, high resolution or vector image of his arms. It would be even more nice to have a concrete confirmation of the accuracy of this portrayal. I guess I'll askthe guy who drew Benedict's arms for the pope's page to do this. --Mm35173 16:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat of Arms 

message: There is a huge amount of material here but my head span slightly from the sentences, some of which seem quite strange to me. No offenced intended, apologies. Perhaps it is from copying and pasting from elsewhere? Does anyone think it could be a lot easier to read? 
Paulc1001 23:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  clearer english needed? 

message: I have deleted two insinuations that Newman was homosexual. The first was in a link to an external site after the note of where he is buried, which turned out to be a short piece by Peter Tatchell. Tatchell is a leader of the homosexual rights movement in the UK. He is not an authority on Newman. The second was at the end of the section on  character and is of the kind of "there is speculation that..." This claim was not sourced at all. Therefore I deleted them both.
There is absolutely no evidence that Newman ever had sexual relations with anyone  - man or woman - and we have his own claim (in the Apologia) that he always knew he was meant to be celibate and that he always was celibate. Newman had plenty of enemies in the Catholic Church and amongst the Anglicans. When the Birmingham Oratory was being built (see ) the story was put about - and seriously believed -  that Newman and the Oratorians had cells in the basement of their house the better to murder their helpless victims. Can we believe that any suggestion of sodomy would have escaped notice? Perhaps he was gay but celibate? Prove that the allegedly effeminate expressions of affection for his friends meant to Newman or his contemporaries what we would suppose them to mean if somebody of our own time wrote them.
This article has already reached the recommended maximum limit. There is no need to expand it further with unsourced allegations of homosexuality.
Stroika 22:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character 

message: The quotation strikes me as rather offensive. It adds practically nothing beyond being a brief exposition of Newman's belief about Church history. Can we delete it? Stroika 22:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No reply. Deleted it. Good riddance. Stroika 14:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation 

message: Anonymous user 24.74.140.20 systematically removed a number of links from this article, including a useful reference to an external site with the text of the Apologia. There might be an excessive number of links. I can't say for sure - certainly 24.74.140.20 removed the only reference to Pope which is a necessary link in an article on Newman. I would be gald to hear more on why all these lins should be removed.--Stroika 18:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: I think that we most certainly need a section on Newman's Legacy, that is, that almost every single college Catholic organization bears his name.  There is a somewhat complete list located here : http://www.catholiclinks.org/newmanunitedstates.htm.  Please note that this is not just in America, but around the world. Mets 05:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: Why the repeated deletion of the link to one of the Newman Societies?  Without explanation this simply looks like vandalism.  If nobody provides one, that's how I'll treat and report it. Countersubject 08:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might or might not be true; as things stand, it's not verifiable. Please will you provide more detail. Countersubject 11:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please give details of the judicial body and procedure.  If there's a legal battle between two societies claiming to be the OUNS, then that's worthy of record, subject to the rules of court. If there isn't, then you need to be careful not to give the impression of tiresomeness. Countersubject 20:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually there are two bodies which claim to be The Newman Society, which sometimes (although not always) is Oxford University Newman Society. The rules for Student Societies using the University's name can be found here: , at present one of the two societies is registered with the Proctors, and so is Oxford University Newman Society. The other does not claim to be. However it does say that it is 'The Newman Society'. I hope that the difference can be appreciated. Whether the current OUNS is the same society as existed prior to June 2004 is questionable.NewmanPresident 14:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response. Unfortunately, it dosn't shed much light for those of us unfamiliar with the issue.  You don't answer the question about you statement that "there are issues which are sub judice".  It would be helpful if you would do so.  Also, you say that "there are two bodies which claim to be The Newman Society ... at present one of the two societies is registered with the Proctors, and so is Oxford University Newman Society".  Are you saying that there are three Newman Societies at Oxford?  If so, please will you provide details and confirm the relationship of each of these societies to NewmanPresident, Westminsterboy and the societies for which they appear to speak on this page. Countersubject 11:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are, as far as I am aware, only two 'Newman Societies' in Oxford. One is registered with the Proctors, the other is not: but is none the less a Student Catholic Society - it just doesn't use the 'Oxford University' name. I am an officer of that Society. I cannot say what Westminsterboy's relationship is as I do not know. I am sorry that the issue has not too much light shed upon it, but as I hav said previously, the matter is sub judice: therefore not much more can be said.NewmanPresident 17:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way is it sub judice? Countersubject 19:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In what manner is one society 'recognised ... by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in England and Wales'?NewmanPresident 15:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The 'other' is not a Tridentinist Society. There are members in both societies who value the Classical Roman Rite. I would say that bringing the question of which of the two versions of the Roman Rite members like is aside to the main question.NewmanPresident 18:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (a) In what sense is the dispute sub judice? (b) Are there members of the 'other' society who value the new rite? Countersubject 19:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (a) The dispute is sub judice by having been appealed to a statutory body within the jurisdiction of England and Wales. I have been advised by legal counsel not to disclose anything further on this point.NewmanPresident 15:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing in English law that prevents you from giving the identity of court and case, and the nature of the dispute that takes you there.  Your reluctance to give these details is strange. Countersubject 19:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: (b) There are members of the so-called other Society who value the new rite.NewmanPresident 15:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: (c) There are members of the so-called Oxford University Newman Society who also value the old rite.NewmanPresident 15:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to add that in my own term as President of the Oxford University Newman Society that same society was recognised by Their Majesties the King and Queen of Spain who wrote to commend the work of the same society. I am currently aware of at least four Newman societies in Oxford, three of which claim to be the 'real' Newman society. The largest 'other' Newman society has already been discussed here. The two remaining societies are; 'Another Newman Society' which is a formal dining club established last year and another club which calls itself 'The Newman Society' exists for those former members now living outside of Oxford. Matthewafallen
I have a problem.  Part of me wants to say that you chaps should stop using this article as a tilting ground for your inter-society dispute, which fascinates me but is entirely irrelevant to the issue of what should or shouldn't be listed under External Links.  The 'other' society quacks and waddles like a Newman Society, so it's entirely proper for it to have a link.  However, that link is to a page that appears to be misleading - it claims the society is the historic OUNS, yet doesn't explain why that is so, when on the face of it the title belongs to the body recognised as such by the University and Hierarchy.  Requests for verifiable justification have been fruitless.  I therefore reluctantly agree with the removal of the link.  Of course, if NewmanPresident would like to come out from behind apparently spurious claims of sub judice to provide verifiable explanation and justification ... Countersubject 23:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to propose a way forward, which essentially involves moving this problem elsewhere .  A dispute appears to have arisen about the proceedings, membership and identity of the Oxford University Newman Society, and its relationship to the Catholic Chaplaincy.  I suggest we put something about the dispute on the Oxford University Newman Society page, and then refer to it in this article in explanation of links to two Oxford-based Newman societies.  That way, further discussion of the dispute is moved to an article where it more properly belongs.  This is, after all, an article about JHN.  As a practicality, I'd suggest that the section on the dispute be kept as short and neutral as possible - it should merely identify the dispute, and summarise its main points.  Ideally, it won't be written by anyone involved. Countersubject 17:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully, I don't think that's a terribly good idea! It'd be better just to let the link to the "alternative" Newman Society remain on the JHN page; have it clear on the JHN page that the OU Newman Society is recognised by the University; and, finally, leave the entry for Oxford University Newman Society for precisely that - the University society. NewmanSociety 02:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope that means that, as far as this article goes, the issue is dead.  I think you'd have a problem justifying exclusion of a reference to the dispute in the other article, because it's a matter of fact relating to its subject, but that's not my problem ... Countersubject 11:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As I understand it, the official status is precisely the subject of the dispute.  It's therefore inappropriate to use a term that implies a view on the matter, because it falls foul of the NPOV policy.  Also, it invites further edit wars, and endless rounds of increasingly acrimonious and irrelevant discussion on a page that's supposed to be about Newman.  I should explain (in case it's not apparent) that I have no interest in either society.  I strongly encourage those of you who do to take your actions and discussions to another, more appropriate article. Countersubject 15:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Countersubject 15:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem.Westminsterboy 15:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Newman Societies

message: Please note that large sections of the early biographic material in this Wikipedia article on John Henry Newman were lifted word for word from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. Please see--
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/John_Henry_Newman
In this case, the controversy may have been settled over whether Wikipedia or EB are the more accurate, since they are substantially one and the same in this instance.   I suggest that either the 1911 EB should be cited as a block quote, or substantial portions of this article should be rewritten. Ajschorschiii 05:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unattributed source: 1911 EB

message: Never mind, I just saw the attribution of 1911 EB on the bottom of this article, which I had not seen during an earlier view a few months ago.  Perhaps, however, the word for word borrowings from EB could be more clearly noted.Ajschorschiii 05:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Never mind

message: Why is his name given as John Henry Cardinal Newman, JHCN.? I don't see the reason for the initials after his name. 86.149.0.139 03:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  JHCN? 

message: Quote: "In July 2008 The Vatican ordered that Newman’s body be exhumed and re-interred in a marble sarcophagus, where it could be more easily venerated [17]. This has angered some gay-rights campaigners, who see it as an attempt to separate Newman from St John, with whom he is buried."
In this enlightened day and age not even the Vatican can 'order' human remains to be moved as it requires due legal process from the local council and the Ministry of Justice! More of the actual story concerning the fencing of the graveyard and the dispute over planning permission for it has been added to a previous paragraph; whether the new fence can remain around this Catholic graveyard is another matter altogether as it is situated in the 'green belt' and not even a local state school (in Rubery) has been allowed to install a security fence because of this. It looks like this is not so much a 'gay-rights' issue as a clash over whether the Roman Catholic Church will willingly accept the legal right of a local council to say 'No' [retrospectively] to a new fence having been installed - but without planning permission - in a designated 'green belt' area?
Quote: "The Vatican has decided to move his remains from The Lickey Hills, near Rednal, Worcestershire to the Oratory in Birmingham city centre anticipation of his being made a saint in due course; the move requires permission from both Birmingham City Countil and the Ministry of Justice.
The recent decision to install a security fence around the small graveyard lead to a planning permission dispute with the local Birmingham City Council as it is in a designated green belt area; the immediate area is one of outstanding natural beauty, being a large country park."
[]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.149.65 (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: MOVING HIS MORTAL REMAINS FROM NEAR REDNAL TO BIRMINGHAM CITY CENTRE

message: Should this really be part of his name? I don't know what the exact rule on WP is, but we don't put "the most holy..." before someone's name just because the church does. Why should we use "Venerable" in the  first sentence? Malick78 (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Venerable?

message: There seems to be a problem with the gallery
The files do exist on commons
they do not appear  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BernhardFischbein (talk • contribs) 10:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery 

message: Is there any collective appetite to create a separate article on the canonisation/ beatification of Newman and then link this page across? Otherwise my concern is that the section we have is slowly growing bit by bit and is beginning to distort the biographical aspect of the article. Canonisation will be of interest to Catholic readers (as well as no doubt many others) but perhaps has little directly to do with Newman the man. At some stage we will slip into WP:UNDUE I fear. If he were already a saint then the article would just say "Newman is recognised as a saint in the Catholic Church" and include little about the canonisation process unless it was particularly controversial or noteworthy. We're ending up with a running commentary on this page otherwise. Any thoughts? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canonisation 

message: This section should just be cut, I think. It is discursive editorial. Such facts as link Newman and Manning should take their places in the rest of the narrative. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Newman and Manning

message: Large parts of this article seem to be copied directly from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography  article on Newman without attribution. ODNB articles are not in the public domain. I shall have a look at the history and try to revert back to a version without copyright infringement.
Kirstente (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Issue 

message: There's a recent biog of Newman here - might be useful to anyone doing a re-write. And another one - better to use these more recent sources where possible. PiCo (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography 

message: "Newman directed that he be buried in the same grave as St John[2], "the greatest love of his life." "I wish, with all my heart, to be buried in Fr Ambrose St John's grave — and I give this as my last, my imperative will"[19]"
The phrase "the greatest love of his life" comes from the highly editorialized Daily Mail reporter who is referenced, while the following quote is Newman's own.  Yet the text as it stands implies that Newman called St. John "the greatest love of his life", when he did not.  This is highly misleading, it would be better to omit the Daily Mail's words entirely and let Newman speak for himself. --194.98.58.121 (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome to make edits like that without discussion - just give the reason in your edit summary. If someone reverts, then you can bring it to Talk. PiCo (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

text: This edit is fine. I was less happy about the rest. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highly misleading "quote" 

message: The details seem to have got lost. He went up (at a young age) to Trinity College, Oxford. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Undergraduate education

message: Are Newman's views on slavery in any way remarkable? Was he involved with or againsts the abolitionist movement in any way? In short, is there any reason why his vague views on the subject are included in this article? Rwflammang (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To the extent that he was disagreeing with Thomas William Allies, also a Catholic convert from the Oxford Movement, his views might be included to show the lack of homogeneity of belief in that group. This applies also to his differences from Manning. In other words, controversies in which he took part may properly be included in the article. The criterion there should be "salience". Charles Matthews (talk) 07:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Views on slavery

message: What discussion there is in the article of Newman's theology is not really adequate, and is not fully representative of modern views of him (as far as I can see). What I detect in reading around it that Newman occupies a somewhat paradoxical position as a consistent opponent of liberal theology but at least a precursor of modernism (Roman Catholicism), Further at the time of Vatican I he occupied a rather fretful conciliarist position, and he is now in some ways identified with the approach of Vatican II. All this is my entirely non-expert opinion. I'd be grateful if we could turn to discussion of some meaningful way of including Newman's views as a Catholic theological writer in the article, in more coherent form. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Theology and views

message: Surely according to Wikipedia rules - WP:NCCL - neither 'Blessed' nor 'Cardinal' should precede his name's first appearance in the lead? Eg Paul of Tarsus, Thomas More. Like More, he's at least as notable for other things - his poetry, autobiography, Tracts and other writings, and his part in religious controversies, as his recent beatification.Straw Cat (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand the rule, which (I quote) "contains guidance on how to title articles" (boldface mine).  The article title should not have Cardinal or Blessed, but both should redirect to "John Henry Newman".  There is absolutely no reason not to state his full title at the beginning of the article (but not throughout, which would make it sound like a devotional tract instead of an encyclopaedia article).  --194.98.58.121 (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately it's not quite so simple! MOS:HONORIFIC, which specifically refers to inline references, states: "Styles and honorifics related to clergy and royalty, including but not limited to His Holiness and Her Majesty, should not be included in the text inline but may be discussed in the article proper. Clergy should be named as described in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy)." But really we have to use common sense and the main issue seems to me conforming to NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Starting off an article about one of the leaders of the Oxford Movement with "Blessed John H Newman" certainly doesn't.Straw Cat (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the present version of the lede with the bold title from a redirect in the second line is satisfactory.--Charles (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blessed etc 

message: The section heading ("Interpretations") needs to be changed - anyone looking at the ToC would have no idea what it's about; and in any case it's far too long - a paragraph or so would be quite enough. PiCo (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretations 

message: According to Ann Widdecombe, in the BBC2 programme "Newman: Saint or Sinner" broadcast on 18 September 2010 , it seems that Newman had left "precise instructions" that he should be buried with a "special soil" which would aid the decompositon of his body. (See iplayer from time 57:20 )Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: From the West Midlands news article now given: "Prof Hunter said he chose to investigate out of curiosity and was only able to obtain a sample from ground near to the cemetery, not from the grave itself.  He said there were three options: either the soil environment of the grave was different to the sample tested, bones were missed when the grave was exhumed or the body was never there in the first place." The BBC programme would seem to support Hunter's first option, but with new evidence about the "precise instructions". So maybe this should be added? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I will do that. It would probably have to magic soil though to make a body totally dissapear in a century, teeth, hair and all. In Romsey Abbey a fine head of woman's hair from a Saxon grave is displayed, everything else having dissolved away, but that happened over a millenium and the hair stayed in perfect condition. I wonder if Newman still had hair and teeth when he died?--Charles (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and of course we have Lindow Man etc etc. Just because "precise instructions" were left, that does not mean these were necessarily followed. And what better way to stay undisturbed, if one wished to be secretly buried elsewhere, than to throw up a posthoumous smokescreen of "special soil". I'm not sure what the limit of forensic archeological science is these days. But it seems Newman genuinely wished for anonymity, even beyond, or perhaps especially, beyond his death. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite so. I removed Widdecombe's opinion because it does not carry due weight for inclusion. She has no scientific background and her pronouncements on Newman appear to be nothing more than personal opinions based on her religious beliefs. (She is a climate change denier on the basis that people can look out of their window to see that the climate is not changing). The contemporary source descibes the soil in the grave as lighter, not "special". Any further interpretation of that is just spin.--Charles (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Global warming aside, where does Widdecombe’s opinion end and BBC WP:RS begin? I would have thought a statement like that ought to have been thoroughly researched by the programme maker? Perhaps, as a notable recent Catholic convert, Widdecombe’s opinion is given more weight. Not sure whether that means it's spin. Am happy to leave out any mention for now. But I was wondering if the special soil itself might not also have been neutralised over the course of 120 years?  And who is to say that the coffin had any handles – or was even made of wood? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Reference 45 says the wooden coffin was completely decayed and details what was found including a brass plate, brass handles and pieces of textile, but nothing of two corpses that were expected to be in the grave. The BBC is only as reliable as the people they give a platform to.--Charles (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying that. I’m still unsure if the presence of metal handles and plate proves there should have been bones. I think the BBC owes some responsibility to the script of what purports to be a semi-documentary. Maybe more will come to light. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he was assumed into Heaven - after all, he was a saint. Should that go in the article?PiCo (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you are being facetious. Not a saint until the vatican finds a second supposed miracle and I am sure they are working hard on that. Perhaps they will claim the vanishing body as that. I looked at Widdecombe's programme again and in spite of having nearly an hour to fill she never even mentions the possibility that he may simply have been buried elsewhere.--Charles (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm sure it's what he would have wanted. An assumption, that is, not a beatification (nor any discussion here) But discovery of the body - now that would be a miracle (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No body in grave 

message: quote:  
"Geoffrey Faber, whose own account of Newman in Oxford Apostles was far from hagiographic, found Strachey's portrait a distasteful caricature, bearing scant likeness to the Newman of history and designed solely "to tickle the self-conceit of a cynical and beliefless generation".[92]
Strachey was only ten when Newman died and never met him. In contrast to Strachey's caricature, James Anthony Froude, Hurrell Froude's brother, who knew Newman at Oxford, saw him as a Carlylean hero."
Come on! This is POV with a vengeance! Which could be more of a caricature, Strachey (who, while grinding an axe, did show the complexity of the man) or the one who called him a "Carlylean hero"? Strachey did not present a "distasteful caricature" of Newmann, he protrayed him with empathy. Strachey´s caricature (unless the man was really as evil as Stracheay made out) was Manning. But maybe the authors of this article feel it necessary at all costs to discredit Strachey ...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.13.206.170 (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: By no means, any more than you are attempting to discredit Faber. Rwflammang (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: An elegant rejoinder, Rwflammang, but I am sure you know yourself that I was not meaning to discredit Faber, whom I of course have not read. He is a source. I was pointing out that your encyclopaedic article removed the inverted commas from the second mention of "caricature", transforming POV into fact, with finesse.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.13.206.170 (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV ! 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:John Henry Newman by Sir John Everett Millais, 1st Bt.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 28, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-11-28. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:John Henry Newman by Sir John Everett Millais, 1st Bt.jpg]] to appear as POTD 

message: Most of the vandalism on this page has been done by anonymous users. Should the page be closed to such? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this. Random acts of vandalism seem to be happening by individuals that are not properly signed in. There are removing sections that they do not agree with even though those sections might have correct citation and references. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on John Henry Newman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150706114911/http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2009_09_01_archive.html to http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2009_09_01_archive.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081208205736/http://www.birminghampost.net:80/news/west-midlands-news/2008/11/05/professor-probes-mystery-over-missing-bones-of-cardinal-newman-65233-22185056/ to http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-news/2008/11/05/professor-probes-mystery-over-missing-bones-of-cardinal-newman-65233-22185056/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150507030519/http://www.templeton-cambridge.org/fellows/showarticle.php?article=417 to http://www.templeton-cambridge.org/fellows/showarticle.php?article=417
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is there nothing in any Reliable Source about any group within the Anglican Church that was calling for him to be burned at the stake for his heresy?  Granted they may have been a minority, but if such a responsible move ever took place, the article should note it. 98.67.188.124 (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  calls for execution? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on John Henry Newman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120508200136/http://www.amazon.com:80/Apologia-pro-Vita-Sua-ebook/dp/B002RKTIM2? to http://www.amazon.com/Apologia-pro-Vita-Sua-ebook/dp/B002RKTIM2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 20:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Someone may wish to read the text at s:Eminent Victorians/Cardinal Manning#104 and try to incorporate that view point. It seems to more indicate that Manning was trying to do nothing about progressing a cardinalate for Newman from the English end. That he did do things when pushed by Leo (at the instigation of the Duke of Norfolk), though also tried to stymie the process by other means. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cardinalate and "citation needed" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on John Henry Newman. 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/20090603015024/http://www.deddington.org.uk/history/people/jhnewman to http://www.deddington.org.uk/history/people/jhnewman
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100918210727/http://spectator.org/archives/2010/09/15/a-saintly-conscience to http://spectator.org/archives/2010/09/15/a-saintly-conscience
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101102153909/http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=558 to http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=558
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) 23:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified