Talk:Recusancy

Factual errors

This article contains factual errors. The first acts against recusants were far earlier in Elizabeths reign. I suspect their to be other mistakes but I only know enough to be suspicious of it. Recusancy usually refers specifically to non attendance of Roman Catholics to the Church of England. Penalties were usually in the form of fines. If you wish to know something about this topic I suggest you go elsewhere. Most historical articles in Wikipedia either contain glaring errors or do not keep up with recent scolarship. This is largely culled from one article written 100 years ago, as are many other articles. Unsigned edit by User 80.1.72.245 on 22 March 2006

The upshot is, the article clearly cites it's single source as being a book which is in the public domain, which was published about 100 years ago. That at least, is more than a lot of religious works do. Not many of them even bother to cite that they are referencing a work which is a transcription of oral histories first written down over 2000 years ago, which has been shown to contain glaring historical errors by people who would be best served by showing that in fact the Bible is 100% accurate portrayal of fact. --Garrie 22:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

While the article notes the extent, indeed subsequently, that the term 'recusant' became applied to Catholics, it might help if it elucidated why this definition was narrowed. My memory's a little vague on the subject, but as I recall the dissenters were willing to attend Anglican services with the minimum necessary number of times - resulting in later laws against occasional attendance. While some Catholics also held minimal attendance, it was less frequent due to their theology that forcefully condemned attending Anglican services. Atheists had even less problems with nominal attendance, and the Jews were expulsed in Elizabeth's reign. Or something like that, I'm working from memory and not especially knowledagable about English history, but I do feel that this development should be discussed more in the article. Arrogant Papist 21:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I know this is late but I must add that the above is inaccurate and wholly unsourced. In re the Jews: they were not "expulsed" during Elizabeth I's reign. They had been expelled from England in the 13th century when England was still a Catholic country. They were allowed to return by Cromwell. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Recusancy in Colonial Nova Scotia

Hello all, I am wondering if anyone would be interested in adding some information to this article about the recusancy in Nova Scotia between 1713 and 1755. Particularly about the Acadian Deportation. For a paper I am doing in Atlantic History, I have come across some interesting information. In his book A great and Noble scheme: ( Farragher, John Mack. A great and noble scheme: The tragic story of the expulsion of the French Acadians from their American homeland. New York: WW Norton and Co., Inc., 2005.) Farragher claims that one of the justifications that Charles Lawrence made for deporting the Acadians was when he equated refusing to take an unconditional oath of allegiance with recusancy. Message me at jrcurley@upei.ca or on my talk page if anyone is interested. Rollo Bay 1758 (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

John Donne

I would greatly appreciate it if the editor who continually removes John Donne from this category would ceasing doing so without a valid explanation. Donne was born into a recusant family, as was Alexander Pope (I'll get around to that soon). I have added a valid reflink. If the material continues to be removed without a good reason I will have to assume this is simply censorship by someone who doesn't like the facts. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

But given that Donne eventually went on to become an Anglican priest, does it really make sense to list him in this category? He was only a recusant for a portion of his life. 98.209.116.7 (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare portrait is correct- the reference is not

The picture displayed for William Shakespere(correct spelling for the recusant)is actually that of Edward deVere, 17th Earl of Oxford. The pen name used by the the Earl of Oxenford, from extensive research by the author of "Shakespears by Another Name" - copyright 2005, Mark Anderson, is William Shakespeare/Shake-Speare. http://shakespearebyanothername.com/acclaim.html -elrod117@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.221.80 (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Problems with wording of article

I'm concerned about statements such as the following: "The term, which derives ultimately from the Latin recusare (to refuse or make an objection),[2] was first used to refer to those who remained within the Roman Catholic Church and did not attend services of the Church of England"

"His parents were raised in a time when Catholicism was the faith of England."

This suggests that a new version of Christianity was invented in England which was competing with the older Roman Catholicism, which is not entirely correct. It's more accurate to say that the entire apparatus of the organized practice of Christianity was separated from the control of the Vatican, including buildings and priests. Count Truthstein (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what the distinction is there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.123.220 (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled by this sentence: "The recusancy in Scandinavia did not survive until freedom of religion was re-established." Did recusancy actually exist, even though it was dead? It was there, and yet it wasn't. Maybe I'm wrong. English is not my first language. /Bcarlssonswe (talk) 09:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Ferrer

Isn't Ferrer a Spanish, albeit not Castilian, surname? Quis separabit? 21:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Beaufort/de Beaufort family

They must fit in somewhere. Quis separabit? 22:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

translations of the Bible

I don't see the pertinence of this whole paragraph.PhilomenaO'M (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Modern immigrants/converts

This is not an article about Catholics in England, it's about the notion of recusancy which is historical. I think that information on modern converts or modern immigration of Catholics is irrelevant.PhilomenaO'M (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@PhilomenaO'M: Actually it is somewhat about Roman Catholics in Great Britain (not UK) since the Reformation, so I see no problem including background or complementary info unless you are averring that something is false or incorrect. Yours, Quis separabit? 22:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

CONSENSUS SOUGHT REGARDING REMOVAL OF NAMES OF FAMILIES FROM LISTS AS ARTICLE IS CURRENTLY CONSTITUTED

• Oppose: @Nyttend believes the volume threatens to overwhelm the article and are unsourced. I believe the first objection is an aesthetic and hence subjective issue, and the second is not entirely accurate. Many of the family surnames have their own articles which talk about the history of recusancy. The rest can be sourced, I am sure, if it is needed. Quis separabit? 17:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Database of names in article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This RfC is for determining what to do if anything with the extensive database of family names contained in the article. Namely the two paragraphs of family names in the sections "Recusant families" and "Convert families" (should be evident they are long blocks of names in prose format).

Options are:

1. Do nothing keep as-is
2. Delete anything that isn't sourced per WP:V
3. Delete them all except perhaps a short list of notable names
4. Another solution

The RfC will poll responses in the survey section and discussions in the discussion section. -- GreenC 20:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Support #3 Choose 10 or so representative notable well-known family names, preferably sourced and keep the list paired down. This is an encyclopedia not a database or genealogical history. Per WP:NOTDIR #2 (policy) "Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." -- GreenC 20:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 The lengthy list of family names detracts from the value of the article. In addition to being overly-long, the list is poorly framed and almost completely undocumented. Every Arden, Arrowsmith, Arundell, Brownhill, Bunting, Burke, Butler, Calderbank, etc. in England was a recusant? Says who? Should be limited to a handful of specific names along with explanation of who they were and why their recusancy was notable.Glendoremus (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 Totally unreadable as is. Split the difference and clean up. Suggest one or two paragraphs concerning no more than a dozen of the more notable and what effect it may have had, (more like Individuals section) followed by a column list of specific individuals, but only those with a sourced citation. Maybe. Manannan67 (talk) 07:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Manannan67 I guess if we can't get consensus for one of the options it defaults to the current state ie. do nothing. Would you still support #3 in a "I could live with it" scenario? -- GreenC 12:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, anything's better than what's there now. Manannan67 (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Option 2 - Option 3. This is Wikipedia:Listcruft, and worse, it is un sourced at present. So at the least - remove anything without an inline citation. I'm possibly OK with a medium to short list - so this is a tweener vote between 2 and 3. It doesn't have to be a terribly short list - but it should be better formatted, shorter, and with stuff passing V. Icewhiz (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4-convert extensive name list to an efn style note so it does not detract from the flow of the article, if this is not acceptable for some reason, I prefer Option 1 for the same reasons given by another user earlier on this talk page in 2016.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 - This material has been challenged and should be removed. It should be returned only with inline citations in this article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Finnusertop, could you also live with option 3? If we can't get consensus on one of the options it defaults to "No Consensus", in effect do nothing (ie. option 1) and right now option three has some momentum. Of course the details are in the implementation and normal editing rules apply. -- GreenC 20:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@GreenC: my preference would be the long list, sourced and – preferably though not necessarily – bulleted (so option 1). We can talk about splitting the list and leaving an option 3-ish list in this article later. But really, everything will need to be sourced. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs)

No, it cannot default to Option 1 if the material is unsourced. That much at least is clear, from policy. Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Options 2 and 3 – whatever remains must first be verifiably sourced; even then, if it's a non-encyclopedic list of trivia, reduce it to what's significant. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 per GreenC, which best reflects the standard approach in cases like this, I think. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 16:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 - This long list needs to be firstly supported by sources, and secondly be reduced in number. A family name is carried by more than 1 person. And situations changed over time. Specific cases need more clarification which is not possible with an embedded list like this. I think it should only include the most notable specific examples. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.