Talk:Bath Abbey

message: For some time now, this article has erroneously stated that the Abbey is in the High Church tradition. As a member of the Abbey congregation myself, I know that this hat completely wrong, and that in fact the Abbey stands in a moderate open evangelical tradition. I previously made this revision myself unsigned, only to have it undone by someone; so this time, I've signed in, and also attached a link to the University of Bath Chaplaincy which agrees with me that the Abbey is indeed evangelical. Matthew Butler   —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was probably me that reverted it previously, as it was unsourced (though admittedly the previous statement was too).  Thanks for finding that, the impression I got from the website seemed to have a strong liturgical sense, which isn't always associated with evangelicalism.  David Underdown 10:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Their outreach work, in any case, is not what we are talking here - we are talking churchmanship. Services such as choral Eucharist, choral Evensong and choral Matins are all in the old tradition dating back to the days of the Reformation: evangelicalism in this sense is denying the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist and concentrating wholly on scripture and preaching thereon: ritualism such as the Abbey displays is called High Church.--Vox Humana 8' 21:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, a couple of years ago I spoke to the Dean himself about this issue: he himself said that the true presence of Christ in the Sacraments (which is, in case you hadn't noticed, the line Canterbury takes) IS acknowledged at Bath. The generally accepted nature of evangelical churchmanship is, as I say, completely unritualistic. No confession, no blessing, etc. I do have experience of a number of so-called Evangelical Anglican churches. Furthermore, I find your comments about Catholicism highly offensive: I thought such anti-Catholicism had disappeared in the 19th Century. Please remember that the Catholic Church was here a lot further back than your incompetent, disorganised bunch of heretics, and, with the number of Catholics worldwide continuing to grow and the Anglican church breaking into ever-smaller sub-sections, each with declining congregation numbers, it looks as though the Catholic Church will still be a reality of life long after Anglicanism has been consigned to the history books. Please have a read of WP:CIVIL here. Anyway, I shall put in a request for page protection if you revert again to using irrelevant and self-contradictory references to back up your doubtful claim.--Vox Humana 8' 16:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, by the way, please also see WP:NPA and Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable - calling people 'boneheaded' is not a way to make friends or influence people. As regards using a made-up username, why not? I am allowed to. Some people do so to stay anonymous (sometimes with very good reason: User:H dropped his anonymity and the next thing had death threats made against him and his family by someone who was able to trace his home): others do so simply because they want to. I fall into the latter category.--Vox Humana 8' 16:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: use of liturgy does not automatically make somewhere High Church.  I'm perfectly happy to accept Matthew's references.  David Underdown 16:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which Dean - in any case it's not a reliable source?  Your edits seem to be WP:OR if we're going to start throwing alphabet soup around.  It would appear to me that Matthew was not attacking (Roman) Catholicism at all, possibly some aspects of Anglo-Catholicism.  I see nothing inherently contradictory in either of the references.  There are degrees of Evangelicism, the references refer to Bath Abbey, as Open Evangelical, which is fairly moderate and liberal in fact.  As pointed out above, I reverted Matthew's original unsourced change, largely on grounds similar to the ones you are sticking to. However, in light of the references I have happily changed my position.  Bath is essentially unique its position as a former cathedral, and maintains its choral tradition on that scale.  It is perfectly possible to mix evangelical preaching and so on with more formal liturgy.  However, despite all CofE cathedrals maintaining choral services and so on and having the Eucharist as a principle Sunday service, there are differences in churchmanship between them.  Coventry also has some evangelical leanings, Birmingham's pretty low too in my experience (and I normally sing in half-a-dozen or so different cathedrals each year). The only reall way to settle this would be to obtain the parish profile, which is used when new clergy are sought, but bath and Wells doesn't seem to make these as widely available as some other Diocese do.  David Underdown 09:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that speaking to the Dean is WP:OR. However, it is far from clear here as to where the Abbey stands (with perhaps more evangelical outreach work and preaching, but a somewhat more High Church approach to the liturgies themselves): would compromising by describing the Abbey's tradition as Broad Church be suitable, do you think?--Vox Humana 8' 15:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: My apologies for incorrectly using the term 'Dean' - I had meant to say 'Rector'. Furthermore, I do not rely on hearsay: I have relied on my own experience. I remain unconvinced that, in the modern use of the term, 'evangelical' is the correct description for Bath Abbey: I suggested above the use of the term 'Broad Church', but if the current regime at Bath places greater importance on Matins than on the Eucharist (and please don't use that term for the once-a-month commemorative communal meal kind of thing: Eucharist refers to the presence of Christ in the Sacraments), then I would suggest that Low church would be more appropriate: I would also argue, given the Abbey's conservative musical tradition, it is more appropriate than Evangelical.--Vox Humana 8' 18:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now requested unprotection: hopefully now the dispute is over.--Vox Humana 8' 19:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely: arguments like this very rarely end up improving the encyclopedia we're trying to build: I accept that I was wrong. Do you think it might be possible for you to take some photos of the Abbey organ?--Vox Humana 8' 14:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks very much. Incidentally, according to the (often unreliable) info that Wikipedia has put on one of your images, it says you took them with a Nikon Coolpix 3100 - is this so? My images say that they were taken on a Fujifilm SP-2000, which is bollocks - I'm using a late-80s Olympus SLR!--Vox Humana 8' 13:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Abbey's theological tradition

message: I've sung at Bath Abbey many times and have come to love the Organ (well, both of them if you include the chamber organ as well). Does anyone have any information regarding it that can be posted on here? Sithemadmonkey 22:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: - although I suspect you're after a cup of water, but it's going to be like standing under a waterfall.--Vox Humana 8' 15:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Information on the Organ

message: As suggested in the peer review I removed "The" from the section headings. I notice this has been replaced on the grounds that they are proper nouns. The wikipedia article Middle ages doesn't include "The" so I'm now unsure which is correct.— Rod talk 09:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definite article in section headings 

message: I see you have requested a GA review, but have been waiting a while.  I have had a read through your article and can see a few areas which might be improved, so have taken the liberty of making a note of them here. Consider these merely as suggestions of things which may aid your way through the GA process.  The notes are not exhaustive, and your reviewer might have different concerns.   Please note that this is not the GA review: another editor has indicated a desire to perform the review.   
*Infobox: bearing in mind this page is predominately about the architecture and history of the abbey,  you might  prefer to use  Template:Infobox Historic building. Since there is nothing within the article dealing with the current worship and administration within the church, some might argue that the current infobox is superfluous.  Note, for example, that Westminster Abbey, Canterbury Cathedral use World Heritage infoboxes; St Paul's Cathedral and York Minster have none. 
*Lead: The lead section should be longer, and provide a summary of the article's contents.  See WP:LEAD
*Citations: some paragraphs contain no inline citations at all.  See WP:CITE, which suggests that anything likely to be challenged should be cited.  Moreover, verifiabiility is required to demonstrate that the article contains no original research.  Statements such as "Oliver King...was shocked to find this famous church in ruins" and "That was not merely a fanciful aesthetic addition, but a completion of the original design" are but two examples of statements which should be cited.  There are many more.
*Many of the sections (throughout) are quite short.  If they cannot be expanded, then perhaps merging into another section might be appropriate.
*The distinction between "history" and "architecture" sections is not clear: for example, you discussed fan vaulting under history and the architecture section repeats some of the history, without adding more. (eg "The church again fell into neglect following the Reformation, but was restored and completed with the addition of the fan-vaulting in the nave in the 1860s.")
*The history is extremely brief considering the abbey was established in 675! Consider the social as well as architectural history: How did it operate as an abbey?  Did the rule remain the same? What influence did it have on local affairs?  Where did it draw it monks and clergy from?  Source of money?  Did it own lands and farms?  Did it have lay brothers?
*Architecture: again brief.  What about the other buildings within the complex? Cloisters and chapter rooms?  Monks dormitories and refrectories? Do they still exist?  
*Music: lots of red links; are they all needed?  Are they likely to be created? Note that there is more about the organ than the building.  Is this an appropriate ratio, representing importance, or is this undue weight?  The rest of the music section is disproportionately brief: one sentence for the choir, for example.  If there is no more to say, then merge it with the other short music sections.
::Comment from non-involved editor: Red links are how we get new articles. They should not be discouraged. They certainly should not be a reason to deny GA status. --Michael Johnson (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify: I was not suggesting GA status was affected by the presence of red links.  But so many red links in a short space merely  flagged possible issues: is this a case of overlinking to non-notable topics, or are they notable, but not yet created?  For example, will there ever be a need for an article on both Norman & Beard and Hill, Norman and Beard?  Also, are they red because the link is broken: does the topic exist on WP under another name?  Could Werkprinzip be helpfully linked elsewhere (eg the explanation at pipe organ) until article is written? Links are generally present to aid the reader; can these red links be made more useful?  Those are the sorts of questions I wanted to raise.  The answer might be "They're all valid", in which case, fine. But it's always worth asking the questions. Gwinva (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA notes 

message: This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write.  This is how the article, as of May 15, 2008, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: Some copyediting would be good; once expanded I'm willing to do that myself
:2. Factually accurate?: A little more citation of some paras, as Gwinva suggests
:3. Broad in coverage?: A lot more expansion of the history section, please. It is outweighed by the organ section.
:4. Neutral point of view?: No problem
:5. Article stability? No problem
:6. Images?: Enough
I strongly second the comments above.
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved.  After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again.  If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice.  Thank you for your work so far. Relata refero (disp.) 11:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I didn't nominate this article I've combined the history and architecture sections which I hope meets some of the concerns above & added some more references. Other editors have also kindly copy edited the article. I don't have information on the social aspects, monks, money etc or Cloisters and chapter rooms, Monks dormitories and refrectories but believe these would have gone in the 1500 redevelopment - but I don't have sources to back this up. Can anyone else help to meet these concerns?— Rod talk 13:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What strikes me about the abbey (as an occasional visitor for over 60 years) is its impressive architecture.  I think it's a pity there is not a separate Architecture section, although I can see why it was merged with History.  Would it be possible to include the history of the architecture within the History section and then have a separate section on the architecture as it is today, with much more detail?  This seems to work OK for Chester Cathedral (I know this article is being re-edited to a degree at present but that does not detract from my basic argument). Also I would recommend the use of Template:Infobox religious building which gives much more info about the architecture and history, while still allowing some info on the religious side.  Good luck with the work being done: a fantastic building which merits a GA, or above. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article nomination on hold

message: I have just been accused of vandalism by Vox Humana because I disagree with him over two of the section titles. Specifically whether Middle Ages and Reformation ... should or should not be preceded by the word "The". Vox is adamant that they should, and I believe that they should not, as per the manual of style here.
Rather than continue with this silly toing-and-froing, I'm hoping that we can come to a consensus here on what the correct section headings ought to be. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I commented above ("Definite article in section headings" back in Sept 07) I do not think "The" should be included so I'm in agreement with Malleus, but I'm not confident enough of my English skills (or MOS knowledge) to revert the latest change. I definately do not think it is vandalism.— Rod talk 20:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean to hit my revert (vandalism) button, just my rollback button, which is right next to it... sorry for that one! I think, though, whatever MOS says, "Middle Ages" is meaningless and "Reformation" is an improper noun and a very general term, whereas I thought "The Middle Ages" referred specifically to the period of 1066-1547, but this seems untrue (apparently the Middle Ages began around the 5th Century) and so I have changed the title to "From the Norman Conquest to the Dissolution" - is that OK with everyone? If not, feel free to change it to something similar but differently worded... - but "The Reformation" does refer specifically to the reforms pursued by the likes of Henry VIII, Martin Luther, John Calvin, etc., whereas "Reformation" could mean anything in which anything is 'formed anew'... the same goes for "The Dissolution", were anyone to substitute that for "The Reformation"... "Dissolution" could refer to a company ceasing trading and going into bankruptcy... therefore I feel that the retention of the definite article there is imperative. Please don't get me wrong, I think this debate is important and I agree that we need to establish some sort of consensus... perhaps we could even establish a little 'case law' along the way! --Vox Humana 8' 13:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the wikipedia naming convention is very clearly against The Reformation, and in favour of Reformation as the section header: "If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text [my emphasis], then include it at the beginning of the page name. Otherwise, do not include it at the beginning of the page name."  The argument presented that Reformation or Dissolution are potentially ambiguous could equally be applied to Earth, which could refer to either the planet or to soil, but which is specifically included in the reference given above as an example of where the definite article should not be used. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the context of an article on an Abbey, there doesn't really seem to be any ambiguity in the use of the terms.  David Underdown (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither is there any merit in the proper/improper noun discussion IMO. Proper nouns refer to specific instances of things, like "John Smith" as opposed to "person". The person, OK, but not The John Smith. The test is, in "running text" would you write "... the Reformation", or "... The Reformation"? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Malleus, I would always write "The Reformation", with a capitalised T - but then I would say that, wouldn't I?! - and I think it is important that we recognise the difference between reformation and The Reformation...--Vox Humana 8' 21:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's important is that we recognise the difference between the reformation and the Reformation. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the argument by Malleus about the use of the definite article in running text settles it.  Vox may write "The Reformation" but does anyone else?  I write "the Reformation" and "the Middle Ages" and I guess the majority of editors do likewise.  If so, that is the consensus and the end of the argument. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusation of vandalism 

message: I visited the Abbey this week, and found that the windows on the opposite side of the organ had references to some of the erstwhile British colonies. Canada, South Africa and India, among others. Would someone know when this was done? I know the coat of arms in the South Africa pane wasn't used till 1960, so it has to be a recent addition.Maggiedj (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Window panes

message: This article includes "incomplete lists" of Assistant Directors of Music (1 entry current), Sub Organists (1 entry current) & Assistant organists (entries since 1935). As these individuals do not have articles about them (and they may not meet the notability requirements) would anyone object if I remove them from the article as not being significant enough for inclusion?— Rod talk 09:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now moved these into a new article List of organists and assistant organists of Bath Abbey.— Rod talk 15:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete lists of sub & assistant organists etc 

message: I feel if we have a list of organists and assistant organists, we should at least have a list of abbots etc.. There is a list here. Note that first there are abbesses for the convant, then abbots for the monastry, and then priors for the priory, and then rectors for the abbey. Not sure what section title we should give this, their "Leaders of the Abbey Communities" seems a bit vague. Also not sure where in the article it should go.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A related list of abbots etc seems reasonable. The link above doesn't work for me, but I did look at the google cached page. Some of the key ones could be linked in the relevant history section & then add a links into the see also section.— Rod talk 16:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: List of abbots etc...

message: That is, the 10th century. No it hadn't, though it had declined duriung the Viking period. Johnbod (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it to "reduced" but there might be a better wording.— Rod talk 07:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Better, & I'm sure there is, but I can't think of it either. Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "decreased" or "lessened"? Jaguar (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Monasticism in England had lapsed by that time, ...."

message: It should be "Bath Abbey" but "the abbey was built in XXXX". We only capitalize proper nouns like names, and the beginnings of sentences. --John (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy for you to change them where appropriate. I did this after advice from Melleous who did a lot of the copyedit ( see User talk:Malleus Fatuorum#Bath Abbey) and I'm happy to admit my poor grammar.— Rod talk 15:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I went for all lower case, except where part of a proper noun. --John (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my preference as well. I merely drew attention to the inconsistency. Malleus Fatuorum 03:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: The image in the infobox has two people posing for the shot. I know its very difficult to get a daylight picture without people and obviously a lot of visitors to the abbey will submit their snaps to this site. 
I would like to replace the infobox image for one without people. I had a look through the category and found nothing contemporary that didn't have people in. However there is a nice (circa) 1900 print that is available from the US Library of Congress and because of the quality of the image I'm going to directly display it here for you to view:
Due to this being an article about an abbey and with the contemplative quality of the image above I think that it would be a good idea to bring the two together. This is an encyclopedia and holiday photos should be avoided if possible. Also there are plenty of contemporary images already in the article. I'll swap the image out now and if you object or find a better image then feel free to revert my edit.
Thanks
Sluffs (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Image For Infobox  

message: I've just added fifteen images to Wiki Commons from a 1906 Oxford publication of The Works of Richard Sheridan and there was an image of Bath Abbey from 1750. I've added it to the category and here's a link to it:
Just in case anyone is interested. The Sheridan article also needs a bit of work but alas its not my field of interest on this site.
Thanks
Sluffs (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  1750 image of Bath Abbey 

message: Substituted at 09:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture :File:Bath Abbey Eastern Stained Glass, Somerset, UK - Diliff.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for February 28, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-02-28. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Bath Abbey Eastern Stained Glass, Somerset, UK - Diliff.jpg]] scheduled for POTD 

message: I've added a failed-verification template to the number of stairs to access the tower - the source does not give a figure, either in the archived form or the current page.  The text is also a bit unclear.  There are four staircases which give access to the roof of the nave and quire, each of 120 steps (though only one of them is regularly used and at least one is currently inaccessible as it has had amplification equipment installed in it).  The tower is then accessible from the roof, through doors on either side.  There is then another staircase in the south-western corner of the tower, giving access to the intermediate chamber, bellfry and tower roof.  I can't remember how many steps are in this staircase but 92 would be plausible, giving a total of 212.  I don't have a source for any of this - it's all from my own having climbed the stairs many times to ring the bells.  45.130.58.54 (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tower staircase