Talk:Anglican devotions/Archive 1

Archive 1

Too anglo-catholic?

The article should try to incorporate broad and low church devotions. Would bible study be considered a 'devotion'? I must admit that I associate 'devotions' with anglo-catholic practice - they are synonomous to me. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 04:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the article title to "Anglo-Catholic devotions" as that is what the article focuses on. Calling it "Anglican devotions" is a misnomer, as it does not represent a wholistic Anglican viewpoint at all. JRG 12:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Article state as of November 2007

This article is honestly dreadful- it's one of the worst articles I have ever seen on Wikipedia. It's completely unsourced, subjective, too colloquial, and written from a one-sided viewpoint from an Anglo-Catholic perspective with no recognition of high church or low church Anglicanism and those churches' practices (although the last point can be somewhat easily fixed by changing the article title as I have done). I was very tempted to nominate this for deletion but I'll refrain due to its status as Anglican Collaboration of the Month and the fact that editors are prepared to work on it. If it doesn't change though, I'm going to take it to an AfD discussion. Can someone please clean this article up and bring in some sources? I've also changed the importance rating above - it's definitely not top importance- Anglicanism and main articles like that should be top importance, not the subsidiary articles on Anglo-Catholic practice. JRG 12:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Undiscussed move

See above, we know the article is dreadful - that is why it is the COTM! The month is not half over and you move the page - boldness has it's limits. There needs to be a "top priority" page on Anglican devotions. If you agree with us that this article is not doing the job yet, help us get it there. I have noticed of the 6000+ edits you have made since 2005, this may well be the first time you ever touched an Anglican-related article. If you are intrested, join our project and help even out the POV of this article. If it hasn't improved by the end of the month, maybe a rename and redirect would be called for. However, I must have missed the discussion about the move today, which is strange since I was just here 6 hours ago. Fix it, don't kill it. Best. -- SECisek 19:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Finally, some talk at this page. I completely agree with JRG (talk · contribs). The page should be renamed Anglo-catholic devotions. Both Charismatic-evangelicalism and Anglo- catholicism are definitely part of the Anglican family but they are two standard deviations away from the mean. Of course, it is debatable how long either wing will remain in the Anglican fold. The Anglo-catholic wing was badly chipped away by the ordination of women debate, and now the charismatic-evangelical wing is being chipped away by the homosexual debate. But, are either wings 'top' level Anglican topics? Richard Hooker would look down his high church nose at both of them. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 20:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's see what the article looks like at the end of the month. Yes, the project's low church editors haven't been seen as of late, but five minutes of Fredrick Jones and you will think Calvin wrote the article. Again, give it to the end of the month to take on a new shape. C'mon agree with me, aren't you supposed to be my sockpuppet?  :-D -- SECisek 20:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

ROTFL, especially the Calvin remark. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 20:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond to the above - this isn't the first Anglican-related topic I've come across - I have edited some articles beforehand. Can I ask, though, why this page has to be about "Anglican devotions"? Why are any devotions in any way supposed to be specific to one particular denomination? Why can't this just be merged into the main devotions article? JRG 23:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There is NO main devotions article. Devotion (Christian) is just a dab page. So this article is going to have be improved enough to stand on it's own. -- SECisek 04:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

COTM

Where we at with this? The article saw improvement in November, but issues still remain. Rename, merge, leave it alone? What is our next move? -- SECisek 11:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is to re-name it Anglo-catholic devotions. It'll need a bit of revision but mostly of the deletion kind. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 14:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If nobody else comments in a day or so, be BOLD. King James Version is the new COTM, see you there. -- SECisek 14:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Quiet time wikilink added

Since the article name is still Anglican devotions rather than Anglo-Catholic devotions I've added a link to Quiet time which is the more common name for devotions in the bit of the Anglican church I'm part of. If people decide to re-name the article it probably needs to be removed. 163.1.181.208 (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Major revision, and why

This article as written had far too great an Anglo-Catholic slant; someone unfamiliar with mainstream Anglican practice, coming from another denomination or religion, would easily get the idea that all Anglicans subscribe to these practices. But on the contrary, anyone at all familiar with the Anglican Communion knows there is a wide latitude of belief and practice among individuals and parishes.

Therefore, I have overhauled this article to present a more balanced view, usually replacing the words "many" and "most" with "some," and taking care to point out that many of these practices are high-church or Anglo-Catholic. I have no particular personal objection to any of these things, which I know are quite important to some devout folks; but I think the article was rather misleading as written.

I've also, as a practical matter, simplified some phrases, eliminating POV and peacock words, and excised some irrelevant material.

Somewhat contradictorily, I realize, I have also tagged the article with {unreferenced} for lack of citations to back up all these points. I do think, though, that my revision presents a much more balanced, accurate, and NPOV discussion of the subject. If anyone wants to revise it further, go right ahead, but please substantiate claims of popularity with appropriate citations.Textorus (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1