Talk:St Pancras Church, Ipswich

JASpencer's edits

Can I suggest that you stop right there and get your brain around what you are writing!

You have added the words "it is claimed" in not one but two inappropriate places.

When the words "it is claimed" are used, they carry the implication that what is being said or written may not be true. It is merely "what is claimed". It suggests that this is an urban myth. If you don't understand this, then read the sentences three times each, and think about the implication.

You have made it much worse, the second time that you use the expression: "It is claimed by local Catholics that the church was constructed as the chancel of what was intended to be a much larger Catholic cathedral for Eastern England, a Cathedral that was not built on that site..."

What you have done here is narrow down the people who did the "claiming" to a very, very specific group.

You have used two words to make that group specific.

1. they are "Catholic"
2. they are "local"

"Local, Catholic people CLAIM...... that the church was intended for a cathedral."

None of your sources use the words "local Catholic claim......." as if it was merely an urban myth. They all make it perfectly clear that the building was intended as a cathedral. Amandajm (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Amanda, you are an experienced editor so it is puzzling why you think that your editing behaviour on this article is at all acceptable. For example your edit summary "Reverting some extraordinarily stupid and thoughtless editting, until the writer has time to THINK" is clearly unacceptable as is your blanket reversion of a number of edits to which you have not raised any objection to. Your admission that you thought that I was a new editor makes your rudeness and aggression even less explicable. As I am involved, and as you make a big point about being an experienced editor I may be missing something and so wish to take this to dispute resolution unless you can come up with some rational explanation for your behaviour. I cannot find it acceptable that you act in such an incivil manner to other people, particularly new editors. JASpencer (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

When an editor is new, one expects that they will be inexperienced with formatting, with referencing, with knowing those things contained in the Manual of Style. One expects that they will state some personal opinions without backing them with references. One anticipates that the new editor may use the sort of descriptive terms and adjectives that are discouraged in Wikipedia, e.g. John Bloggs was a famous poet, instead of John Bloggs was a poet.

However, one does not anticipate that a wikipedia editor, regardless of how new, will construct sentences that imply that a referenced fact is nothing more than hearsay.

The sentence "Local Catholics claim ..... that the church was intended for a cathedral...." is that sort of a sentence.

"it is believed....." is not offensive. It is just pointless.

State facts as FACTS.

The FACT is not "It is claimed...." or "It is believed......"

What is the fact?...

The fact is, "St Pancras church was designed to be a cathedral........" There is no question about this fact. There is no question of whether someone claims it, or whether someone believes it.

It is a completely straightforward fact.

Let me stress again, the moment that you use the expression "It is claimed...." (in any context) then you raise doubts as to the truth of the claim.

(What you are telling us in this case is that local Catholics claim it but it's not necessarily true. Your implication has the potential to be offensive to every Catholic person in the vicinity of Ipswich.)

This is not about being a new Wikipedia editor. This is about ordinary modes of spoken or written expression, in letters, in emails, and in everyday speech.

If your error of expression had been directly related to Wikipedia usage, then I would not have addressed you so rudely. But when I say "Get your brain around what you are writing, then I mean in whatever context you write or speak.

Amandajm (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is a copy and paste directly from the first of the cited sources:

• St Pancras was intended to be the start of a great cathedral

Read:

• "St Pancras was intended to be the start of a great cathedral"

Note that there is no question about this matter.

The article doesn't say that anybody "thinks" it, or "claims" it, or "proposes a theory". It doesn't say that anyone "believes" it, which implies they may be wrong.

There is no question about it.

Amandajm (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Problem fixed.
• The sentence "The cathedral wasn't built on the site" was inaccurate. Let me stress, the cathedral was partly built on the site. We are not talking about two different buildings or two different designs or even two different purposes.

1. A cathedral was planned ad designed
2. The cathedral building was partly built, starting at the eastern end
3. Construction was halted after the chancel was complete
4. The chancel was consecrated and used as a church.

These facts are quite clear from the written sources. I don't understand how they have got so muddled in expressing them.

Amandajm (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Push pin map

They are of very little value.

• As soon as your viewer clicks the map for more information all the information disappears.
• Clicking the co-ordinates brings up a choice of a dozen good maps.
• Clicking Ipswich tells your reader all about where the town is, and since Ipswich is linked at its own article, it doesn't also need to be linked on every individual building article.
• The map takes up right-hand space in the article, which is generally useful for pictures, and will also be useful here for pics, if you write some more about the architecture, as suggested.

Amandajm (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Essentially you're saying that valid information should be removed from an article in order to make the article prettier. I disagree, which is why I've reinstated the map. JASpencer (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Cathedral

How do we put in the multiple references to it once being intended as a Cathedral. The local library has not been much help so you have three sources two of which (the parish website and Suffolk Churches) are reasonably good but clearly distrusted by a number of editors. Should it be mentioned at all? If so should it be qualified and how?

JASpencer (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Refered to Reliable Sources Noticeboard. JASpencer (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the way the article refers to the Cathedral claim in line with the Reliable Sources noticeboard. JASpencer (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)