Talk:Diarmaid MacCulloch

Prologue

This article previously included the inaccurate statement that Professor MacCulloch was never ordained. He most certainly was ordained a deacon in the Church of England. He has never been ordained priest. I have never seen him in clerical dress and as far as I am aware he is not usually styled "reverend", although he is entitled to use the prefix should he wish to. It is important to mention his ordination and his reasons for not going ahead with ordination to the priesthood. I believe this is discussed in the foreword to Henry VIII and the English Reformation (Basingstoke 1993); otherwise in another work from that period.Deacons can use the title 'Deacon,' but not Reverand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishdancer17 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not true that deacons in the Church of England are called 'Deacon' but not styled 'the Reverend'. That is the case in the Catholic Church, where permanent deacons are called 'Deacon John Smith'. In the Church of England, however, deacons are called 'the Reverend John Smith'.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

In the audio book is called "History of christinaity" he claims he no longer a christian, but a friend of christians. So i feel this should be added. (monkish1978)

Accolade

Although Professor MacCulloch does not practise as a clergyman, he is nonetheless still an ordained clerk-in-Holy-Orders within the Church of England (unless he has renounced Holy Orders). He should not, therefore, receive the accolade, and ought not to be accorded the title "Sir Diarmaid". However, I wonder whether The Queen has agreed to dispense him from this general rule on account of his having distanced himself from ordained ministry over such a long period of time. It is my understanding that there is no distinction between a deacon and a priest in this regard.--90.206.67.185 (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The Queen has styled Professor MacCulloch 'Reverend Diarmaid MacCulloch, Knight' as it is not possible for a clergyman to take the honorific 'Sir'. Consequently he should not be addressed as 'Sir Diarmaid.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.156.170 (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am removing "Sir" again on the basis of this newspaper article which appears to reflect MacCulloch's own comments on the matter. Anglicanus (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I should point out that ordained clergymen who cannot take the accolade are never appointed Knights Bachelor, but are appointed KBE or to another Order of Knighthood in order for them to take postnominals (which are not granted to a Knight Bachelor). This suggests that it is perfectly acceptable and correct for him to be referred to as "Sir Diarmaid", whether he encourages it himself or not. He is a deacon, not a priest, which may make a difference here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Although you may be right I have removed "Sir" again pending further discussion and evidence. I very much doubt that being a deacon and not a priest makes any difference. Also, his own comments are relevant, even if not definitive, as he should be reasonably expected to know the correct situation on the matter. It is sensible to err on the side of leaving "Sir" out until some more definitive evidence can be sourced. Afterwriting (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Normally, I'd applaud his not standing, Kingsleyish as the Telegraph observes, on strict observance of his feudalism-themed honour, but as 'modesty' goes, this seems pretty darn arch. Firstly, if there's a 'solecism' here, it would be to say 'Revd Sir Diarmaid' -- which is entirely besides the point, as no one had ever mooted such a possibility. As far as I can tell, people rather assumed he'd stopped being a 'Reverend' quite a while ago, given the whole 'no longer a Christian' business. (Perhaps the old joke about the Queen being an integral part of the CoE, and god an optional extra, applies here.) Indeed, I imagine if someone had informed the Palace of this purported state of affairs, they might have given him a KBE instead, for the reasons mentioned above. Or else not bothered honouring at all, if he was going to be so sniffy about it.

I notice that Debretts goes with 'Prof Sir', and aside from the Telegraph, that's the only 'reliable' source I can find. Non-usable but sensible-sounding occurrences are also split. I think this should probably be mentioned in the body of the article, given the conflict in the sources. As for the lede, if we were going to go with his own preference, seemingly we'd skip mention of it even as a post-nom, but I imagine that's not going to fly in style-crazed Wikipedia. Mentioning both possibilities in the opening clause would be exceptionally clumsy, so I suspect the current opening sentence is as good as it can get. 84.203.39.33 (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Correction, another RS here. However, It's just DMcC saying much the same as he'd said to the Telegraph, at greater length. Personally, I don't think it remotely adds up, since I fail to see how the style "Revd" precludes "Sir", if you don't in any case include the "Revd". (He says that "Prof. Diarmaid MacCulloch, Knight" is correct; for my money, it'd either be "Revd Prof, Knight", or "Prof Sir", take your pick.) 84.203.39.33 (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Commas after names and before abbreviations of honours etc

Regarding commas after names, it is neither correct or incorrect to have a comma after a person's name before the abbreviations of honours etc. It is, however, increasingly becoming the standard practice in contemporary British English not to have commas between names and abbreviations. This is not worth an edit war over but to argue that my removal of the comma was incorrect is, in fact, incorrect. Afterwriting (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I do not myself commonly use commas between names and honours or between honours and other honours. However, if there are commas between the honours there should also be a comma between the name and the first honour. You either use one system (no commas) or the other (all commas), adhering to our standard practice of retaining whichever was used by the first author. Mixing the two is certainly not standard practice (I have never seen it used and would like to see a link to an example where it is used by a reliable source), looks thoroughly odd and illogical and is clearly incorrect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Photograph

Please someone change this to a picture that is not blurry. Surely one can be found?

A free image not so easily, unless somebody contacts mr MacCulloch directly. Ceoil (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Irish Catholic ancestry?

I'm taking a wild guess that someone with a name like Diarmaid MacCulloch has recent Irish Catholic ancestry. In an Irish context, the choice of the Gaelic spelling 'Diarmaid' rather than the anglicised 'Dermot' or 'Dermod' would usually signify an Irish nationalist background. Ordinarily this would not be of great relevance, but in view of MacCulloch's Anglican affiliations and place in the British/English establishment it becomes potentially more interesting. So I wonder if there is any reliably-sourced information on any Irish connection?86.171.218.76 (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. Feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 06:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Diarmaid MacCulloch. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608160559/http://press.princeton.edu/about_pup/european_advisory_board.html to http://press.princeton.edu/about_pup/european_advisory_board.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120418152518/http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/arts_at_oxford/120501.html to http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/arts_at_oxford/120501.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060129122300/http://lgbtran.org/Profile.asp?A=M&ID=60 to http://www.lgbtran.org/Profile.asp?A=M&ID=60

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Appearance on In Our Time

This article could mention how this man has appeared on Melvyn Bragg's programme "In Our Time" talking about the Siege of Malta. Vorbee (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC) This programme was about the Great Siege of Malta of 1565. Vorbee (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC) He also appeared on "In Our Time" in March 2019, talking about William Cecil. Vorbee (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: I am wondering why my recent change to the article's lead, describing the subject as an English ecclesiastical historian, was reverted. It seems odd that there would be issue with describing an English-born scholar of specifically English ecclesiastical history and the history of English cultural identity as English. (Never mind the fact that he is a clergyperson of the Church of England and that his article is already in multiple specifically English categories.) 142.161.81.20 (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

You were reverted because you changed article content with absolutely no explanation of why your change should be considered an improvement. Edits are often reverted under such circumstances. I have no idea why you would think it important that MacCulloch could be considered "English born" when by the same token he could also be considered "British born." The fact that he writes about "English ecclesiastical history" has no relevance whatsoever to his nationality. French, or Chinese, or Israeli writers can write about "English ecclesiastical history" too but that does not make them English. That MacCulloch is a "clergyperson of the Church of England" is also entirely irrelevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is "important" because one's own identity (for better or for worse) cannot be completely separate from one's research – especially for a scholar who specializes in not just dealing with matters relating to their nationality but specifically their own national identity.

Is there a particular reason to use another term in place of English? I'm genuinely open to hearing other perspectives on it. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 08:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. One's nationality is completely separate from one's research, as I just explained. It makes little sense to give someone's nationality as English considering that England is not an independent country. The bottom line is that you have provided no convincing rationale for your change. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)