Talk:Ordination of women in the Anglican Communion

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Lyles, Jean Caffey (1976). "Episcopalians: Wounded Healers". The Christian Century. Vol. 93, no. 30. Chicago. pp. 803–804. ISSN 0009-5281.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Anglicanism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Mid-importance). Women's History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Religion High‑importance This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I have once again removed comments about the position of the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. This has no established historical or theoretical relevance to this issue. To claim that it does is completely unsubstantiated and is purely personal opinion and speculation. Please don't add such comments back unless you can provide neutral, verifiable and reliable references to support such claims that there is a direct connection with the ordination of women in the Church of England. Anglicanus (talk) 10:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That the Governor of the Church is a woman is objectively and patently relevant. Please stop letting your personal biases affect the piece or I will flag this to the Wikipedia governors. Sempre. Randal Oulton (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, don't falsely accuse others editors of vandalism. You obviously have no idea of what this means on Wikipedia. False accusations of this kind are an abuse, so if anyone should be reported to the "governors" it is you. Secondly, I have already invited you above to provide any neutral, verifiable and reliable references to support your highly dubious claim that the fact of the current monarch being a woman is in any way relevant to this issue. It is not "objectively and patently relevant" at all and so far you have completely failed to provide anything that comes even remotely close to support this. Thirdly, don't make hypocitical accusations of "personal biases" - if anyone's personal bias is on show here it isn't mine. Anglicanus (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let us just stick to what is patently relevant! Peace of the Lord be with you always, and cheers! many thanks.

The only thing that is patent here is that you don't know how to edit properly or responsibility and prefer to make false accusations of vandalism when an editor correctly removes irrelevant information. Anglicanus (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to disagree with you Anglicanus. Many people do feel it has relevance, and I don't accept your position that it doesn't. I think that your self-identified position as a priest clouds your objectivity. Consequently, I have slapped a "disputed" on this page. There's no sense in you and me just doing edit wars. We'll wait and let others come in and weigh in on the issue. In the meantime, please desist from the vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randal Oulton (talk • contribs) 23:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can "disagree" all that you like but you have still completely failed to provide any evidence that there is any relevance - let alone that "many people feel it has relevance" - and just continue in your gratuitous comments about my "objectivity" and false accusations of vandalism. If you think you are going to achieve anything by being so offensive then you need to think again. You also need to study Wikipedia policies in order to gain some sense of what is acceptable in articles. Anglicanus (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angnlicus, you don't actually happen to own wikipedia, in case you haven't noticed. Please stop acting as though you do.

The issue of it possible for a woman to achieve the ultimate worldly authority position in the Church of England is extremely relevant to women achieving authority in lower positions.

It is so patently obviously relevant that I only feel the need to ask you to desist from bullying edit wars and vandalism.

And for someone who professes to be a priest, your style of bullying and personal pride leaves something to be wanted.

You Anglicanus noted: "Removed POV tag - the dispute is about content, not neutrality. These are not the same thing at all.)"

It is very much about neutrality. You are a self-professed priest, and so are very far from being neutral in this matter. You have a vested personal and professional interest in the matters being discussed. You need to absent yourself from them. Randal Oulton (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ho hum! You obviously know next to nothing about Wikipedia's policies if you think that your edits to this article are acceptable. As for your personally offensive comments above, I suggest that you take a long and hard look in the mirror. Anglicanus (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fear I am disturbing a hornets' nest, but the term two-thirds majority' is a commonly used one for this sort of voting. See [1]. I know two-thirds vote is used too, but British newspapers I think tend to use the former. Majority does not only mean simple majority (i.e. just over 50%). Myrvin (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added in country names to the Ordination of priests section to match the Ordination of bishops section. It gives more scope for people to add in some country background like the Ordination of bishops section already has, and I moved some background about ordination of women priests in Aus up to that section from the bishops section. I have left the chronological order of ordination of priests as it is, just added subheadings of countries. However I did not look up the province names like the Ordination of bishops section has and I would appreciate it if anyone wants to change the names of countries to the names of provinces. Also if anyone is more skilled than I am at re-formatting templates and infoboxes- I think the big white gap is quite jarring just before the table overview and under the lead section, because of the infobox on the right. It may lead readers to think that the white gap is the end of the article. I would also appreciate it if another editor were able to retain all the text and boxes/templates but re-format the page so there's no large gap. LPascal (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]