Talk:Elizabeth Tyldesley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why Delete?[edit]

I can see that but do not understand why you have nominated it. Can you explain?--J3Mrs (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

There seems to be a point of view being used for this article which fails to take into account the understanding of non-British readers of British history and ignores the etiquette in use among Religous. That is not neutral. Daniel the Monk (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the perspective of Tyldesley from the non-British side that is not represented in the article? What issues of etiquette need to be presented that oppose those in the article? —C.Fred (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The etiquette among religious what? Some of your changes were simply wrong, such as changing "abbess" to "Abbess" and others redundant, like sticking "in England" after Dissolution of the Monasteries. This is an article about an English woman living in England; would you feel equally impelled to add "in America" after Civil War in an article about an American subject? Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, as regarding the capitalization of "abbess", I still disagree. In this context, the word is referring to a specific office, viz, the Abbess of the Poor Clare community in Gravelines. Do you write "mayor" of London? Is it not "Mayor" in that case? Also, the subject of the article spent the majority of her life outside of England. If I were writing of an American who had spent the majority of his life in Spain, I would indeed add America when referring to our Civil War.
Malleus, when you ask "religious what", it is clear that you are not familiar with Catholic vocabulary. That is fine, but it does show that you can miss the point of my argument due to this lack of familiarity. When the term is used of people, it denotes a member of a religious order. The subject of the article spent the bulk of her life in this milieu, so it seems to be only fair to write of her according to its practices. After a number of changes I had to make in the original text to correct religious terminology, one remaining example of this is the refusal to use the postnominal initials of two people in the article. This use is standard practice and refusal to honor it is puzzling to me, and slightly insulting. As with, e.g., "Jr.", we see this as a part of our names. An issue of excessive linkage has been brought up, but I don't see how it would not allow for this.
Fred, as regards the British slant, I meant that the article was written primarily due to the position of the subject in English national history, which is the original author's field. I am focusing on her on a religious leader in the Catholic Church. To dismiss my perspective strikes me as treating her value in history as to be primarily the nationalistic one. Both are valuable, but I am the only one bringing the religious one to it, and I find these disagreements to be precisely such a dismissal.
I would point out that the original article contained a number of factual errors which I corrected. Now one minor point of disagreement the original author has with my editing is the spelling of one word, "accommodations", which he or she keeps putting back into the singular. I have double-checked the dictionary and the plural I am using is correct for this context. I find it frustrating to have to deal with this level of editing. Daniel the Monk (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having been brought up a Catholic myself I am quite familiar with the Catholic vocabulary, but using the term "a religious" is a general Christian term, not specific to Catholocism. But once again you mistakenly capitalised it, when it is not a proper noun. And let me refresh your memory on the "abbess" point: the sentence you changed was "Five years later, she was elected abbess of the community". If "Abbess of the Community" were a proper noun like your example of "Mayor of London" then "Community" would also have to be capitalised. But what you wrote was "Abbess of the community", for which there can be no plausible explanation. If you would try to take the time to read what you're being told you might actually learn something one day, hopefully, which would be preferable to you continuing to pontificate here about things you only half understand, if that. Malleus Fatuorum 16:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to ignore your last comment, which is a personal attack, and thus has no place in Wiki, much less anywhere else.
It does not matter how you were brought up, you clearly are not familiar with, or chose to ignore, the traditional usage of the word in Catholic terminology, which is the context of this article. The term "a religious" specifically for a member of a religious Order is one of long-standing in the Catholic tradition and is based on canon law. It is not used in this way in general Christianity, as you state (incidentally, can you give documentary evidence for that comment?).
In line with this, your issue with the capitalization is curious. Can you explain why the British usually write the phrase "the Queen" in reference to Elizabeth Mountbatten, with capitalization and no further indication of her realm? What would be the difference between hers and any other office, such as Abbess? Or are you saying that everyone who wrote in that manner in the Wiki article was wrong? I wonder if your whole line of reasoning could be labeled as fatuous (pun intended).
Furthermore, the original author of the article, J3Mrs, who is the one who has been removing all my editing, has yet to add one word to this discussion. How does he or she justify their actions? I'd like to know. Daniel the Monk (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stating the evident truth is not a personal attack. I'm British, and I never write "the Queen". Check any decent dictionary for "religious" as a noun; who knows, you may learn something. But let me remind you once again, you didn't write "religious", you wrote "Religious". Is your caps key sticking? Malleus Fatuorum 20:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you stop trying to add your own viewpoint to this or any other article. It is an article for everyone not just those professing to be religious. I might have made mistakes but I am genuinely attempting to write from a neutral viewpoint which you obviously aren't.

  • The sources I have used use "convent" rather than "monastery" which you unilaterally changed with no consultation. Most Book sources refer to Convent and I suggest you change it back.
  • Recusant is a perfectly valid term used in the article, it is linked for explanation.
  • Disolution of the Monasteries is not what my sources said. They referred to the Restoration and to exchange it is far too simplistic.
  • "They are an enclosed religious order" is grammatically incorrect, order is singular.
  • I refer you to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy).
  • It is not courteous to report editors to the ANI noticeboard without informing them.

You have much to learn including what constitutes a personal attack.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, the question really is what is obvious to whom. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but your refusal to capitalize "queen" in any circumstance is not the style followed by others here in Wiki. I have looked on the article on Elizabeth Mountbatten, and the word is regularly capitalized there, even without reference to the U.K. My question was, and remains, what is the difference between "Queen" and "Abbess"? Incidentally, this is the main word which provoked the issue of capitalization, not "religious". Could you clarify what stylistic rule you are following?
J3Mrs, I appreciate your effort to stay neutral, but there seems to be space between Wiki style and respecting the religious tradition of the subject, when there is no conflict. Not to do so is not neutrality, but can be seen as bigotry.
  • Regarding Reformation vs. Dissolution (I assume you meant this when you wrote "Restoration"), it was the Act of Suppression enacted by the Tudor king which most directly effected the choices of the women in these articles, not the Reformation in general, which is far too broad a topic. The linked article even points out how simplistic it is to credit the Dissolution directly to the Reformation. So reference directly to the Dissolution is the most pertinent to the article. Furthermore, since it is linked, per your own stylistic logic that should be enough to provide an explanation of its background. Continuing with your standard, then, your current phrasing is roundabout and over-linked.
    • IReformation what my souce said, not your personal choice--J3Mrs (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the matter of monastery versus convent, the Order of St. Clare rejects the use of "convent" for their houses, which they term worldwide as "monasteries". Who are we to ignore their self-identification? In line with this, their Rule is a specific document, and therefore should merit capitalization, as is done for other monastic Rules in this site.
    • Convent was the term used at the time in the reference, it's verifiable.--J3Mrs (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, "recusant" might be a valid historical term, and it is linked to provide an explanation. So could be "heretic" or "heresy" if used regarding the Church of England at the time, when that body used this term for Roman Catholics. In short, I do not consider it to be neutral.
    • Used in sources not what you want--J3Mrs (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As to the issue of grammar, if you read my original text, the reference of the pronoun "they" was back to "Poor Clares", not "Order", which made your repeated changes to the singular grammatically incorrect. You did your revisions so piecemeal that I must have missed how you eventually changed the whole text. The same applies to the term "accommodations" which you changed repeatedly to the singular in the article on the Monastery in question. My dictionary shows the proper usage of the word to be in the plural for the meaning it has in the article. What is your reasoning?
    • Don't see your problem, your grammar was wrong--J3Mrs (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now I have a question for you. What were these book sources that you trusted and used, and which allowed you to get the information about the foundation of the monastery so wrong that you stated that Mary Ward, the foundress, had received the habit with Elizabeth in 1609? I apparently am the one who did the research that explained the correct historical sequence of its foundation. In consequence, I find your tone of superiority in this matter to be somewhat unwarranted.
    • OK I made a mistake, only you making a big deal out of one little thing. Try a google book search for Convent at Gravelines--J3Mrs (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, if you had responded to my comments when I made them on here, I might not have had to resort to reporting the situation. Daniel the Monk (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't be expected to hang aroung here waiting for your comments, don't be so ridiculous--J3Mrs (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You obviously have a conflict of interest in this, perhaps you should avoid religious topics, as to bigotry, that's not a nice accusation. By the way, Wikipedia doesn't have to be "true" just verifiable so perhaps the term convent, used at the time is more pertinent.--J3Mrs (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it in the user's contributions.--J3Mrs (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, here. Administrator Malleus eh? I quite like that, has a nice solid ring to it. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 16:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiable, huh? Interesting. That's what I have asked you to do for the various errors you and your henchman, Malleus, made in your text before I started looking at this. You still have not shown how you could get the founding date of the community so wrong, as one glaring example. As regards conflict of interest, that's funny. Is ignorance of a topic neutrality? Daniel the Monk (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to warn you just once to cease and desist making such personal comments". Malleus Fatuorum 17:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elizabeth Tyldesley. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_Tyldesley&oldid=1205300260"