Talk:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Glasgow

December 2009

Added more to the history section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benkenobi18 (talk • contribs) (01:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC).

Map images

I've removed the map image File:ArchdioceseGlasgow.png. It gives the impression that parts of the Diocese of Galloway and Archdiocese of St Andrews and Edinburgh are part of the Archdiocese of Glasgow which is incorrect. There is a correct map showing all the Roman Catholic dioceses/archdiocese here on the Bishop's Conference of Scotland website. Dioceses 1 to 5 are part of the Province of St Andrews and Edinburgh. Dioceses 6 to 8 are part of the Province of Glasgow. I've also removed Image:Bishoprics.Scotland.reign.of.David.I.jpg since that actual image is not there. Scrivener-uki (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Not proper nouns

"metropolis", "ecclesiastical province", and "archdiocese" are not proper nouns in this context, and per MOS:CAPS, should not be capitalised. Elizium23 (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

They are. Please see my talk page for details.

The user has only succeeded in making the intro look biased in Glasgow's favour.

I maintain the editing out of Glasgow being second in a qualifiably caveat given order of precedence is against Scottish Catholic Church custom. A custom is a custom. It's not written down. It has it's roots in biblical teaching about respect for authority: hence Rome. I removed it because you are being belligerent. NoelveNoelve (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

NoelveNoelve, if you are going to be uncivil and allow petty personal resentment to get in the way of making the best article, then perhaps you don't belong on Wikipedia. Think about it. Elizium23 (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The Order of precedence in the Catholic Church article even has something about custom, and I contrasted the state of affairs with formal relations elsewhere. NoelveNoelve (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Order of Precedence

As per a user's concerns, unreasonable as I think they are, opening discussion on the order of precedence of Glasgow compared with Edinburgh and St. Andrews.

My only point is that in terms of jurisdiction Glasgow is regarded as second in the order of precedence because secular authority resides elsewhere (and did not mention previous pre-reformation custom of elevating St. Andrews ). But I regard the article cited above on proper names discussion as near definitively setting out how complex order of precedence is.

I cited formal definitions such as England and Wales, contrasted it with custom, by contrast, in Scotland. And I added something on consecration.

See the proper names/nouns discussion and my talk page for context. NoelveNoelve (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

NoelveNoelve, do you have any sources at all? Elizium23 (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

All the sources in Order of precedence in the Catholic Church article that I linked in the paragraph.

A brief mention of jurisdiction for an opening paragraph citing all the available sources in that article is disproportionate.

I mentioned England and Wales in contrasting formal vs. custom. Again sourced material is in that wikipedia article.

And I linked an outside source on order of precedence according to consecration.

But this is an article on Glasgow. The jurisdiction sources are too many. Including acceptance of unwritten custom.

If you want to go back to citing the bible and respect for authority determining episcopal seats such as Rome it is rewriting a written book. NoelveNoelve (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

NoelveNoelve, this article is about an archdiocese, which is an ecclesiastical territory. The "Order of precedence" article that you cite is about the hierarchy of the Church, which comprises men who are clergy. As you might surmise, these are two distinct things. So I do not see how an "order of precedence" referring to "cardinal over archbishop", for example, has anything to do with an alleged precedence of one archdiocese over another. Furthermore I do not see any evidence in the article you cite of specific dioceses or bishops, so I do not see how we can leap from the generalized to the specific here in this article. Elizium23 (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

It isn't the generalised. It's the principles. These are the sourced foundations for decison making.

You are arguing comparatively against mathematics for empirical physics. Your personal preference stands in the way of how it is done. Or again that infallibility means every pope is individually infallible instead of each of them all at once in a specific context.

Each bishop is consecrated to a diocese. Archbishops have order of preference over bishops. How do you determine that? Where they are consecrated.

What happens when two are consecrated of equal archdiocese standing at the same time? Jurisdiction.

It's all there. I do not know why you are being unreasonable. NoelveNoelve (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

First of all I note the user has ignored this discussion and pushed on elsewhere. NoelveNoelve (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Source needed for patron saints

Hi, we do need a reliable secondary source to support the assertion that there are three patron saints of this archdiocese. Please see our verifiability policy for more information. Elizium23 (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I asked you to let me post and now you've stopped my post from going through by editing this page before it could take in your rushed addition. Please be patient. NoelveNoelve (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully, this comment posts. Taking this step by step, avoiding argument, please see the link provided. NoelveNoelve (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

[1] NoelveNoelve (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I see nothing at that link about Glasgow, Kentigern, Ogilvie or Teneu. DrKay (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, step by step. Because via discusing the link it's WP:CHALLENGE. It is not likely to be challenged because St. Kentigern is the founder of the city of Glasgow itself. St. Teneu is the mother of St. Kentigern. The Archdiocese Cathedral is adjacent St. Enochs. That is a local corruption of St. Teneu. Citizens of Glasgow see the image of Kentigern each day as he is on the coat of arms of the city, and council authority. St. Enochs is the largest shopping centre in the centre of the city. I could source this literally in the blink of an eye on both coats of arms of the city and archdiocese. NoelveNoelve (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, all content must be explicitly supported by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You need a reliable secondary source that states explicitly that these three individuals are patron saints of the archdiocese; not the city, not individual churches, the archdiocese itself. DrKay (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not likely to be challanged. You are not informed of the absolute basics, so basic they have an inline citation in the images of the coats of arms, and are stipulating that basics should be sourced in each article. That is not feasible. NoelveNoelve (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

It was added less than 10 days ago, and it's been challenged twice since then. If they are patron saints of the archdiocese, it would be easy to find sources. The fact that we cannot do so indicates that the claim is not true. DrKay (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I can. But if you are rejecting the coterminus of the geographic location with the archdiocese. It's pedantry. NoelveNoelve (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Does Glasgow need an inline citation on the St. Kentigern page? How come it isn't? Nor on any other Saint's wikipedia page with similar patronage that I happen to know? NoelveNoelve (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

That claim is not challenged, as far as I know. DrKay (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Why aren't you challenging it and all the others? You've wasted my time. You have no justifiable cause. You blocked me for no good reason. You ignored the talk page discussion on a WP:CHALLENGE nobody else challenges on. Focus the challenge and move on. NoelveNoelve (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't find that claim dubious. You were not unblocked because you failed to understand that the block was for a good reason. I did not ignore any talk page discussion, as is easily proved by me posting to the talk page[2] less than a minute after making my first edit ever to the page[3]. DrKay (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

So no inline citations on any of these pages. If I post a challenge now you'll accuse me of spurious challenges. But if someone who is an admin does then you'd say they are not spurious. The citation template offers two routes out, including talk page, I could source this in 2 seconds in a search engine, it is a basic understanding. You know it is WP:CHALLENGE because the admin who asked for the source disagreed with your conduct and did not push for a revert, as the length of time between my edit and yours and their challenging you on your talk page. You are belligerent pedant creating an argument because it I properly sourced what you said was unsourced on another page. You undermined another admin who has their full wits and capabilities about them for selfish petty reasons. NoelveNoelve (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

All of this and you don't even have the consensus of another admin (who posted before you) for your changes, never mind an ordinary user. NoelveNoelve (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Country parameter in the infobox

The country in the infobox was recently changed to include United Kingdom and Holy See[4]. Should the "country" in the infobox be Scotland, United Kingdom, Holy See, a subset of the three, or all three? 13:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Scotland. The infobox "country" parameter should be "Scotland", which is consistent with all other articles on Scottish dioceses. Infoboxes should be simple and succinct; it is unnecessary to list both Scotland and the United Kingdom. Comparing "Scotland" and "United Kingdom", "Scotland" is more accurate (because the diocese existed before the creation of the United Kingdom) and more precise (because it is a smaller, more defined area). The Holy See is 2,500 km away in Italy. Glasgow is not in the country called the Holy See, and it should therefore not be listed as the location. DrKay (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  See below. NoelveNoelve (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Scotland and United Kingdom. It is consensus to omit the Holy See from this field. Elizium23 (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• Scotland. Listing the UK (which nobody is in any doubt as to whether or not Scotland is part of the UK) is unnecessary, and it serves to push a mindset that Scotland (or England, Wales) aren't really countries. Yet the people of those countries in their united kingdom all agreed that they would each retain their individual "country" statuses. One significance of that is that they can be referred to in international communications (not diplomatic or between governments, but everyone else) using just the country name alone. The Holy See should not be listed...the Holy See should not be listed..anywhere other than at Vatican City, or the UN general assembly or such. Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• Either Scotland or United Kingdom, but not both. Holy See, being coterminous with the Vatican City in Rome, is just plain wrong. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not concerned about this page. Admin can't even agree on how to reach consensus amongst themselves. NoelveNoelve (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  If you're not concerned about this page, why are you posting comments about it? Also, please respect talk page guidelines regarding indenting your replies. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Either Scotland or United Kingdom, but not both. (Summoned by bot) I can only guees that the editor wants to add Holy See because ecclesiastically speaking all RC 'territory' is in the Pope's 'domain'. Whether I am right or wrong on that guess, it hardly needs saying that we don't do 'ecclesiastical geography', therefore Glasgow is not in the Holy See which therefore should not be in the infobox! Pincrete (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
• Either Scotland or United Kingdom, but not both. It can't be both and Holy sea which is in a far away location should not be part of the location listed. Sea Ane (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
• Scotland and United Kingdom - remove Holy See - I would have both - country refers to the geographic aspect, rather than eclesiastical locations. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
• United Kingdom, being the appropriate national-level unit. Both Scotland and the Holy See would be inappropriate in this location, the former as it is a sub-national unit, and the later as it is not the relevant national unit - it would be like claiming that a Russian Military Base in Armenia is in Russia, rather than controlled by Russia. BilledMammal (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Location (as per my referencing talk page)

The location of Glasgow is complex, but this is WP:CHALLENGE for the opposite reason than patron saints and the same reason, likely and not likely to be challenged. Neither Glasgow, nor Scotland, are in a United Kingdom Roman Catholic hierarchy. Geographically it is. Location is a vague concept. Inclusion of all the major elements of location does not accept or reject any legitimate common word usage of location. NoelveNoelve (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I can only reference other infoboxes, and the fact that the location is more complex yet the same basic construction as those infoboxes. NoelveNoelve (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Diocese_of_Glasgow_and_Galloway - this article has the term "ecclesiastical province" in the infobox, as an extra item in the location field - is that any use? This unsigned comment left by Deathlibrarian