This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Christianity:AnglicanismLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofChristianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported byWikiProject Anglicanism (assessed asLow-importance). YorkshireLow‑importance Community of the Resurrection is within the scope ofWikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide toYorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit theproject page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project'stalk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale.

I have replaced and cited the Felkin information. I would like to suggest that instead of deleting things when they are not cited you instead insert a citation required tag. By your rationale everything on this page should be deleted as none of it is cited! There was one book listed in references but it is not actually referenced so it is not clear what exactly this book is the reference for. Consequently I have moved this book from the references section to the further reading section. Also the fact that a person does not have a page on wikipedia yet is also no reason to delete info. Wikipedia is a work in progress. I am presently engaged in writing a page about Felkin but I cannot give a fixed estimate for when this page will be finished. In short please ask before just deleting stuff.

Morgan Leigh00:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the reasons for the removal of the Felkin info are not clear it does seem a bit incidental to the main article; does it need to be in there?

Perhaps once the Felkin article is complete it would be sensible to include a paragraph relating to is information to?Morgan Leigh00:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Felkin - I'm afraid that before this I'd never heard of the chap, and to say that a person who before now hadn't had his own page should take up a relativly good sized chunk of the page about a religious order, simply because he visited and considered joining seems odd. Enjoy expanding his page. Dominus VobiscumAnthropax13:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropax, I am interested to note that theRobert Felkin page was only created yesterday by yourself. This casts aspersions on your earlier remarks to the effect that I had created a page for Felkin and that you had moved info there. Nevertheless, I have edited that page as you simply put the paragraph from here in verbatim and consequentially it doesn't make sense as a stand alone paragraph. I note that you have removed all info on Felkin from this article (again). I have reinserted some info on him. Perhaps we can agree on this compromise.

Your remarks as to Felkin not having a page previously bring me to a couple of my wikipedia bugbears. Simply because a person has not had a page on wikipedia thus far does not mean they are not of note. wikipedia is good, but it is not that good. Additionally, if an article is short and then someone comes along with more information about a person relevant to that page, why does it make sense to reduce the information on that person simply because the rest of the article is short? If each person can contribute the best, most complete information they can on their particular field of expertise then, eventually, the article will get rounded out.

Morgan Leigh01:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced that Felkin needs to be mentioned in this article. If the Community of the Resurrection had a substantial impact on him, the proper place for that to be mentioned is in his own article. His involvement in the CR is hardly a noteworthy fact from the perspective of this article. He doesn't seem to have been anyone of any general importance anyway.

The Angel of Islington 20.50, 1 March 2007 (NZT)

Not related to Felkin, but as a former member of CR could I point out that the late Fr David Lane, while for many years connected with the Community and its College, was not a member. He was an oblate, one of a group of men, mainly priests, who associate themselves with the Community's life and work, but do not take the vows constituting membership. There is an obituary of him in the online journal of Syriac studies, Hugoye, I believe for January 2005, as he was a well respected Syriac scholar.Patrick Souter 3 Jan 2007

I have read WP:Trivia and WP:ROC and after consideration of them have removed the paragraph on Felkin. His involvement with the CR is quite incidental to the CR and its history. The importance of the CR on Felkin's own spiritual development is of no relevance to an article about the CR. It is therefore in the interests of brevity that a fact like this, even when properly referenced, should be excluded.The Angel of Islington (talk)04:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The former article was poor, not updated and contained in some cases incorrect information. In agreement with the Community of the Resurrection, I have made a totally revision of this article. Br Daniel CR/Edlef (talk •contribs) 10:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC) An extended version of the history is now added. Br Daniel CR— Precedingunsigned comment added byEdlef (talk •contribs)14:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the reimprovement note, because I have improved the article with many new citations. Br Daniel CR/User: Edlef. 28 July 2012— Precedingunsigned comment added byEdlef (talk •contribs)14:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in some pictures, and I am editing the chapter about influence. Br Daniel CR— Precedingunsigned comment added byDanielCRMirfield (talk •contribs)15:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The content ofHouse of the Resurrection wasmerged intoCommunity of the Resurrection. The former page'shistory now serves toprovide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see itstalk page.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link onCommunity of the Resurrection. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added{{dead link}} tag tohttp://www.monastery-stay.org.uk/
• Added archivehttps://archive.is/20130223151643/http://www.wakefield.anglican.org/support/page/learning_and_training tohttp://www.wakefield.anglican.org/support/page/learning_and_training

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 byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC 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 withthis tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)14:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"in its broad nature" isn't English. What is intended by this expression. CR is definitely niche, not mainstream.— Precedingunsigned comment added by2A02:C7D:5988:EC00:8998:C99D:4524:6531 (talk)12:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• C-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• C-Class Anglicanism articles
• Low-importance Anglicanism articles
• WikiProject Anglicanism articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• C-Class Yorkshire articles
• Low-importance Yorkshire articles
• WikiProject Yorkshire articles

• Wikipedia pages using copied template
• Wikipedia pages using merged-from template without oldid