Talk:George Coyne

José Gabriel Funes

Argentine José Gabriel Funes was named as new director according to Zenit--T. Anthony 04:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"(apparently in connection with his criticism of intelligent design)" This is speculated as the reason by the media, but I don't see much evidence that's the reason. It might be, but if it is the reason it sounds more like the offense was that he criticized a Cardinal's support of ID. I don't think criticizing Intelligent Design itself could be the problem or most of the staff at the Observatory would have to quit, but anything that looks like badmouthing of a Cardinal can get a priest in trouble.--T. Anthony 04:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Usage of the honorific "Fr."

Usage of the honorific "Fr." In actual fact, the relevant policy Honorific Prefixes doesn't address our specific issue explicitly, but we can see that styles (i.e. The Honourable) are not to be used generally, while titles (i.e. Sir) are. Father is a title, rather than a style, and thus should be used, particularly for the initial line. As for usage throughout the article, it is merely good style to use a little variation in how the subject is referred to, and I believe the current configuration is about right. Gabrielthursday 11:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Father is functionally the same as Doctor or Professor, so it does not belong. We already get the point by the SJ after his name, "is a Jesuit priest" in the intro, and the "Priesthood and theological study" section. •Jim62sch• 12:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Again using the analogy from Knights, they are referred to as Sir Adolphus Wigginbotham, KB, KCMG. The Sir is the title- the KB illustrates where it is derived from. So too with the SJ- I'd note, however, that for priests there are those who will have no initials, being secular priests. I'd agree that the "is a Jesuit priest" would be redundant if I thought most everyone was aware of the meaning of SJ, but I rather doubt it- and it would result in a problem with consistency if applied to, say, Norbertine priests. The headnote is a summary of the specifics, so I don't see any important redundancy with regard to the "priesthood" section. While the question of exactly why Father is different than Doctor or Professor may be complex, I'll nevertheless try and hint at it. One is not made a Doctor, but rather becomes one on account of having earned a Ph.D. On the other hand, one is made a Knight; one is ordained a priest. Such distinctions may seem nonsensical to you, but I suggest that that's the reason why they have come to have different usages- why Fr and Sir are "stickier" than Doctor. Gabrielthursday 12:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ordination carries no specific weight here, implying that it does is merely a statement of opinion based on one's belief system rather than on any objective criterion. Priests, too, go through an educational system akin to a PhD, and, like an MD or other medical doctor then accepts a oath (taking vows is the same as swearing an oath) having completed his schooling and any other requisite training. Thus, I fail to see any substantive difference between Dr., Professor, or Father. Additionally, precedence at Wiki has been to exclude "Rev" as a title before a non-Catholic minister's name, and as Rev and Father have no functional difference in terms of their responsibilities and/or priviledges within their own religion, Father, again, does not belong. •Jim62sch• 13:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I fear you misunderstood me. I wasn't arguing that ordination per se should carry weight here; rather, I was pointing out why the english language has developed to the point where Father and Sir are, for lack of a better word, stickier than Doctor or Professor. And this is manifestly the case. Compare news articles on Richard Dawkins and Father Coyne. Sure enough, Father is appended to Coyne's name almost all the time, while Professor or Doctor is rarely used with Richard Dawkins.

As I understand the Rev debate, the difficulty is that Reverend is commonly used both as a style (The Reverend Doctor Abernathy) and as a title (Reverend Jones, the nonconformist minister). Since the delineations between the two are complicated, Wikipedia has opted to take the easy way out, and ignore them entirely. Irrespective of whether WP's policy on Reverend is correct (I'm doubtful) , it's decidedly a different situation than the one we confront here.

Incidentally, the oath is not what makes the priest. Nor is formal training strictly necessary. The theological understanding is that the Sacrament of Holy Orders, administered by a bishop results in an ontological change which makes one a priest. Gabrielthursday 15:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Jim's right, see WP:MOS. — Dunc|☺ 13:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Odd, I though the priest had to swear to abide by the holy orders. Is this untrue?

In any case, I understand your linguistic point, although I disagree that is is a linguistic issue, it is more a function of societal pressures. In any case, we are not writing a newpaper so the MOS for a newspaper is not applicable here. •Jim62sch• 16:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

With respect to the vows a priest makes- they are part of the ceremony & I don't imagine any bishop would go through with it if the candidate didn't say them. However, if the priest-to-be has his fingers crossed behind his back, he will still be a priest.

I agree that the MOS of the media isn't directly applicable, but I think it's relevant, since we don't have definitive guidance from Wikipedia. My favoured solution would be to always have the Fr. in the text inline, and have the incidence of Fr. in the body of the articles dependent on the common usage. Fr. Teilhard de Chardin, for instance, is a bit of an oddity in that, in my experience, he's almost never referred to with the Fr. honorific- possibly because Catholics aren't too eager to claim him, and evolutionists think it rather an embarrasment. Gabrielthursday 17:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course if a doctor had his fingers crossed when accepting the Hippocratic Oath, you'd still owe him $65 for an office visit.  ;)

In any case, the media simply isn't used as a guideline on Wiki. Each newspaper has its own MOS, and we have our, and wherever the twain meat it is by coincidence, not by design. So no, Fr. doesn't belong.

BTW, the Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is done in the proper way -- not because of the views of Catholics or evolutionists, but because it follows the MOS. •Jim62sch• 18:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Jim, if there's an actual guideline on this point in the MOS, by all means point it out, but I'm reasonably sure this specific issue isn't addressed. Why else do you think I've been arguing all this while? By the bye, I note the MOS titles policy cites the Guardian MOS. Going back a post or two, I'm not sure what you mean by "I disagree that this is a linguistic issue, it is more a function of societal pressures." Am I right in thinking you're attributing the stickiness of Sir and Fr. to societal pressures? If so- Sure, but the language we use is shaped by our culture, etc. We're not reinventing the English language here, but rather trying to figure out how best to apply it to this project. Gabrielthursday 20:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Garbiel, ya forgot to sign.  ;) Anyway, MOS does not address every possible contingency. The point is, precedence and convention on Wiki is that Father, Reverend, Minister, Pastor etc., are not used. Sorry, but it really is that simple.

BTW, linguistics and socio-linguistics are two different things. Words themselves (see linguistics) are generally not shaped by culture, their usage (socio-linguistics) however often is. In other words, we sort of agree on the issue of stickiness, but we're stating it differently.

Did you check this section out? "Subsequent uses of names"[1]•Jim62sch• 19:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I must say this distinction made between "linguistics" and "socio-linguistics" sounds artificial to me. Almost everything the human being does is at least partially shaped by culture. Words are no exception. If words were not affected by culture we would have only one language learned and shared by all humanity… no? --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 20:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that there were countless proto-languages, that arose well after the human migration out of Africa, how could there be one language for all humanity? For example, the reason PIE *ok^w became eye in English, aksam in Sanskrit, oculus in Latin, osse and ops in Greek, ojo in Spanish, auge in German, olho in Portuguese, glaz in Russian, is because of phonemic changes outside of culture or society.

You might want to do some reading on linguistics, especially the creation and development of languages. Also, you might find these of use, [2], [3]. •Jim62sch• 21:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, "Minister" and "Pastor" are only ever used as honorifics coloquially, so I don't think they're relevant to the question at hand. That leaves "Reverend", the complications of which I've mentioned before, and "Father". I think we can check to see the uses of similar titles like "Saint" and "Bishop" aw well. The truth, as far as I can see, is that there's a complete lack of consistency about usage. We have Saint Peter but Paul of Tarsus; Avery Cardinal Dulles but Hans Kung; Dom Gregory Dix but Alexander Schmemann(though there's a use of "Fr. Schmemann" in the article itself). Of course there's Pope Benedict XVI, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I and Patriarch Alexius II, but The Most Reverend and Right Honourable Rowan Williams is completely messed up, using styles and not using the title "Archbishop". There is Rev. Marie C. Jerge and Bishop Wendelin Bruskewitz but Nicholas Thomas "Tom" Wright. Ronald Knox is "Ronald Arbuthnott Knox", but has two usages of "Monsignor Knox"; Andrew Greeley is just plain wrong, as the "The Rev. Dr. Andrew Greeley", while John A. Hardon, SJ gets to be "Father Hardon" in the body of the article. There are Saints Cosmas and Damian, but Athanasius of Alexandria and Polycarp of Smyrna; Paul Tillich is consistently so but Dr. John Zizioulas is another example of an incorrect use.

Frankly, that's all over the place- examples from each camp, plenty of inconsistent ones, and a number which are wrong under the existing MOS policy. I don't think precedent is much help.

I did know about that MOS section. As I argue that Father is akin to Sir (and you agree with me about stickiness), it rather supports my position. I'd emphasize, of course, that merely because it's permissable to use "Fr. Coyne" in the body of the article doesn't mean it is the only form that should be used. A variety ought to be used for stylistic reasons. Another argument I'll offer, which didn't occur to me until now, is that the use of Ecclesiastical titles appears somewhat consistent in the upper reaches, and I find it difficult to imagine Avery Cardinal Dulles becoming "Avery Dulles", we ought to try for consistency lower down the ladder.

Back to you. Gabrielthursday 21:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

I'm not sure that it's strictly accurate to refer to the Discovery Institute as a "Christian think-tank". They describe themselves [4] as a "non-partisan policy and research organization", and one of the most prominent DI members, Jonathan Wells, is a member of the Unification Church. I would suggest - "... was pressurized by the Discovery Institute, the primary advocates of intelligent design, to publish..." Tevildo 16:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

George Tyrrell

Does Coyne qualify as a religious modernist ? Anyways, he has many things in common with another famous jesuit of the same given name, George Tyrrell, who was condemned in the 1907 encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis by Pius X. Both are very hostile to creationism and both demanded "the right of each age to adjust the historico-philosophical expression of Christianity to contemporary certainties" and thus to "put an end to this utterly needless conflict between faith and science which is a mere theological bogey". That last sentence could have been attributed to either Coyne or Tyrrell, the latter having unfortunately been deprived of sacraments after Pascendi was published. ADM (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

External links content to be put into article prose?

• Interviews with Fr. George Coyne, S.J.
• Honoring Web Site at the University of Arizona
• Science Does Not Need God, or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution
• Vatican astronomer rips Intelligent Design theory
• Articles in The Tablet written by or related to Coyne

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on George Coyne. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/archive_db.cgi/tablet-01063

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)