Talk:Tom Butler (bishop)

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

Wikified, added reference to December 2006 incident[edit]

I'm about to make a couple of changes to this article. For a start, the present tone, and particularly the repeated usage of "Bishop Tom", is far too chummy. It sounds suspiciously like it's been written by a C of E apparatchik. Secondly, I'm adding a reference to the incident on December 5th 2006.Bedesboy 15:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if I'm not mistaken, Bishops are referred to by their Christian name not surname. So, for example, it would be Bishop George not Bishop Bush. Bishop Butler is not accurate. Bishop Tom is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.42.83 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His official profile, where this article seems to have been cut'n'pasted from, [1], uses Bishop Tom. I'm happy with Dr. Butler as has been used in the article. AJD 13:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the use of Christian names for bishops, but it sounds plausible. My objection would be that "Bishop Tom" sounds just a bit too NPOV. In which case "Bishop Thomas" would make more sense, but as everyone seems to call him Tom that might be confusing. So I'm right behind AJD on the use of "Dr. Butler". From what I can see, the whole issue has completely died off in the UK news because of Christmas and the horrible business in Ipswich.Bedesboy 10:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interview with John Humphreys[edit]

Thanks to the anon contributor for this. I've edited some typos. I've also read that he's a disciplinarian, though I can't recall where - we could really use a source for that one. Plus I removed "The Bishop's justifications to Mr Humphreys were not entirely convincing and some people thought that they came across as self-serving and not a little sanctimonious" - unless we can get a concrete record of named individuals in published media calling his explanation these things we can't really include that sentence. I heard the interview too and I thought it was self-serving and sanctimonious - but that's just my POV.Bedesboy 20:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

I have removed what are obviously not neutral statements. Phrases such as ...in a somewhat tortuous explanation... do not adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV rule. Also we need to avoid weasel phrases such as "he is known in the church as..."; It needs either a citation or removing completely. Finally, the use of irony does not set the correct tone for appears to be such a "controversial" subject. Please see Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles for more information. --Jp-hickson 14:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The title was also NPOV and intentionally ironic. Unnecessary. --Knulclunk 14:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drunkeness[edit]

I've just come across this article for the first time and it does strike me as being very unbalanced. While the drunkeness is important to mention, I think it's been given far too much prominence. Little else is said about his work as Bishop of Southwark; but plenty about what happened when he was drunk! Cover it by all means but let's get it into perspective. Can we do some tidying up and trimming back here please? Contaldo80 (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective would be achieved by adding in other information, not 'trimming back' the information present, the inclusion of which is perfectly justified. Hadrian89 (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For example, someone might like to mention his vocal support for Jeffrey John, Canon Chancellor at Southwark at the time, when the controversy arose over John's nomination as bishop of Reading.Sjwells53 (talk) 10:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: moved to Tom Butler (bishop). Favonian (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Butler (bishop) → Tom Butler (bishop) – It's perfectly obvious the man's common name is Tom Butler. DBD 22:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tom Butler (bishop). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 22:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Butler_(bishop)&oldid=1195730095"