Jump to content

Talk:Francis Macnab

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

Request from St. Michael's executive

[edit]

Cut and pasted from User talk:Blarneytherinosaur

[edit]

Hi BTR,

The Executive of St Michaels had one of its regular meetings last night and have asked if I can convey the following request:

That the picture and text regarding Scot's Church that is on the St Michaels and Francis Macnab entries be removed by you and we will remove the FM/ST M's material on the Scot's entry.

I have explained that Wiki is public domain and the entry is not owned by the particular entity referred to....

If this is not possible as an alternative could we have reference to the address of 5th October and the new 10 commandments first on the ST M and FM sites and then the response of Scot's session after it?

cheers Sdmc13 (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sdmc13,
Just as St. Michael's doesn't own it's article, neither do I own any of them. I think the best place to discuss this would be the talk page of the article about Francis Macnab. I'll copy your comments there and reply to them, seeking input from other editors too. User:Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 06:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

[edit]

I've been wondering how much coverage we should have about the 10 Commandments issue. Yesterday I raised the question of how much should be at Scots' Church, Melbourne. Now we are asked to consider how much should remain here and at St Michael's Uniting Church, Melbourne.

I suggest that:

  1. Most, if not all, of the information should remain on this page. I'm willing to see the text of the Scots' statement removed as long as the preceeding paragraph remains. I'd prefer to see the photo stay and a picture of the original St Michael's posters could be included, if it doesn't break copyright.
  2. The response from Scots' should be noted at St Michael's Uniting Church by leaving the first paragraph there but the text of the criticism may be removed (it is noted on the photo page for those who wish to look there)
  3. The information about the response of Scots' Church should remain on that page, but those sections not about the crux of the original statement from Dr Macnab could be cut, including the "new commandments".(Replaced with proposal for the Scots' article to have a 1 or 2 sentence paragraph about the announcement by Dr Macnab and Scots' reply, with 1 sentence on his response)

Should time permit, I intend to make mock-ups of how I propose that the articles would appear and post links here for comment.

I further note that if these changes should be made, it should not be seen as an indication that the subjects of articles are able to control the content of Wikipedia articles. Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 07:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested in viewing or editing my mockups, there are here:

Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 07:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)(Blarneytherinosaur copyied his mockups to the articles)[reply]

No, that still has far too much about StM's on the Scots' page. Under "theology of Scots'", you're still proposing four paragraphs concerning MacNab. That's far too much.
Remember, the one of the foundational principles of Wikipedia is the idea of linking. The Scots' commandments only need to be on one page, though I'm happy for the photo to be on the StM/MacNab pages as well. StAnselm (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that this morning. How about the Scots' article has a 1 or 2 sentence paragraph about the announcement by Dr Macnab and Scots' reply, with 1 sentence on his response? I'll update my sandbox for Scots' to show what I mean. Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 23:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut quite a bit [1] but happy to hear more suggestions. Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 23:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I'd say a clear defence of the 10 Commandments and their application says a lot about the theology of Scots'. Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 05:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to a request for input at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board...

  • I agree that there is too much on Scots' response, because (a) it's had no media coverage which I can find (so it is in effect a self-published response, albeit one of some note because it's a major church across the street); (b) some of it (e.g. "respect for family and especially parents") does not directly address Macnab's theology (i.e. some of it is off-topic), and (c) it's a pretty standard Protestant statement of belief whose general content can be found elsewhere. I think 1-2 paragraphs on Scots' response is adequate (with of course a link to the statement on their website).
  • However I think the photo of the Scots' sign should stay - it indicates the controversy generated, and on-topic photos are generally nice to have.
  • But the duplication - no triplication - is horrendous. The same text is in Francis Macnab, St Michael's Uniting Church, Melbourne and Scots' Church, Melbourne. It should all be in one article, with the other two linking to the appropriate section.

Perception of COI disclaimer - I'm much closer in theology to Scots' than St. Michael's. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, stupid me. I've just noticed that Scots' 10 points are an interpretation/affirmation of The Ten Commandments. That I think is more reason not to reproduce the entire text. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a suggestion as to which article the bulk of it should be in? Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 03:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut quite a bit from the actual Scots' article. Not sure whether to leave the text of the sign in the article or not. Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 03:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also cut the St Michael's article quite a lot, including the new commandments in a reference, and doing the same with the Scots' response (though the text of latter could be removed from the refrerence). Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 04:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've done a revision of this article. It is significantly shorter, but covers all of the material included originally but in 454 words (with his new 10 Commandments in the notes) instead of 1177 words.

The St Michael's article has 5 paragraphs: 1 stating the original statement, 1 on the published responses from within the UC, 1 of the motion moved by the Synod of Vic & Tas about removing the ads, 1 on the Scots' response (since it is across the road and typical of most criticism), and the summary of Dr Macnab's response with his new commandments in the notes (though they could be in the text if we decide to do so). 352 words in place of the original 1177.

The Scots' article only notes the original statement from Dr Macnab, Scots' response, and the summary of the 5 October statement remains. 344 words in place of the original 901.

Are there further suggestions for changes? Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 05:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further I will be refraining from editing this and related pages over the next 3 days. I probably wouldn't have anything more to contribute anyway, but it allows for others to have a go. Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 05:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to have Dr Macnab's new commandments in the text on the ST M and FM articles as blarney suggests and but am happy to keep the Scots version in the reference or as a link. Sdmc13 (talk) 05:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either list of "10 commandments" should be in the article or footnotes. See Wikipedia:Do not include copies of primary sources.
As for which article it should be in (Francis Macnab or St Michael's Uniting Church, Melbourne) - I really can't decide, so I don't care. But I reiterate that I believe it should be in one place only. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a photo of the banner re the 10 Commandments for comment. I will photoshop it in the next day or 2

For those interested in viewing my mockup:

A suggestion if detailed mention in one article is preferred, why not a new article "The New Faith" which FM. ST M and Scots could refer to as a link or in the footnotes.

Then the pictures and references of each others Churches could be removed from each article. Sdmc13 (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6 months on, I say let's go for a separate article for the New Faith. I'll make a start some time this week. Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 04:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Francis Macnab. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 11:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Francis Macnab. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Francis Macnab. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Francis_Macnab&oldid=1208673516"