Category talk:Anglicans by nationality

Protestant nationality categories
You're not changing all of the subcategories of Category:Anglicans by nationality. All you ever change is. If you're going to change them, then change them all in one go, but don't just change one or two. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am working on this, but it will never get done if you keep reverting them which you have done in two instances while the work is on-going. -- Secisek (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You have not changed a single one apart from the Indian one. If I saw you sequentially changing a bunch, of course they wouldn't be reverted since it would be clear you were "working" on it. Right now you are not. (There are over 50 of them. They should all be changed at once to avoid disruption to the category scheme.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Somebody reverted two other instances. I'll do it all at once if you won't be behind me reverting as I go. -- Secisek (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, if you do them all, then people will know you are serious about it. If you only do 1 or 2 or 3, they will be reverted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I was working my way through the Christianity Cat tree, rationalizing it to some extent. I just have not reached that full branch yet. --Secisek (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Since, as I mentioned somewhere-- outside of Wikimedia, worldwide-- Anglicans are categorized as Protestants, and hence that is were people will first look for Anglicans. Hence my objection to moving all the Category:Anglicans by nationality to Category:Protestants by nationality.
 * I do not really want to fight if we can avoid it. I will not object if you double-list-- and I think Wikimedia has some president for this compromise-- and add the various Category:Anglicans by nationality to Category:Christians by nationality and also leave them in Category:Protestants by nationality.
 * Of course if you go to Categories for discussion then whatever is done could be done by bot. May save you work. -- Carlaude (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

To call Anglicans "Protestant" is as incorrect as refering to the Copts as "Eastern Orthodox". They aren't. John Keble, Edward Bouverie Pusey, John Mason Neale and many other Anglicans are currently in a sub category of Protestants - which is ridiculous. There is almost no way some of these men could have been any less Protestant. The Traditional Anglican Communion is currently holding talks with Rome about a corporate reunion later this year which would create a uniate Anglican Church. Those Anglicans will then be categorized as Catholics and Protestants - which renders both terms meaningless. The current theological position is that Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Protestants are all distinct branches of Christianity. this is cited at Wikipedia and is consistent throughout, except I found here in the categories. I am in thee process of correcting this. The suggestion that we should perpetuate what is an outdated and largely Roman Catholic POV (that Anglicans are Protestants) because of ease of use is also wrong. By that logic the Assyrian Church of the East article should be moved to Nestorians since outside of Wikimedia, worldwide-- they are often incorrectly called that - that is were people will first look for them. Brittanica calls the Anglicans "Catholic and Reformed" but makes no mention of Protestant. Roman Catholics may look for Anglicans under "Protestants" but this isn't the Catholic Encyclopedia. Again, I am correcting this. -- Secisek (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * When an editor objects, Secisek, it's best not to make the change without getting some more input. I myself had questions as to whether removing the categories from the Protestant tree was the right move. So now you have two editors questioning whether it's a good idea. I think this might be something that should be brought up at WP:CFD for a broader discussion. As Carlaude suggests, a compromise might be in order. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You told me if I was to do it, I should do it all at once. Right above, you said if I did them all at once, the change would not be reverted. Again, this is needed as developments are likely to soon put hundreds of thousands of Anglicans in the Roman Catholic Church - There will be individuals cat-ed as Catholic AND Protestant at the same time. That aside, it is wrong as stated above. Not a single Anglican Church is in Category:Protestantism, yet by nationality the Anglican individuals were all in Protestant sub cats. I have now fixed this anomally. -- Secisek (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If I was the only one opposing it, I wasn't going to say anything about it and I was fine to let you proceed. But now that I see others have similar concerns as I, let's just say I'm more comfortable saying that I'm not comfortable with it. I don't usually try to enforce what I think is right when I seem to be the only one holding a certain view. But in general it's not a good idea to go ahead when a user explicitly states a reservation, as Carlaude did above. I think I'm clear about your position about what is right and what is wrong, but in WP we work by consensus, not by what is "right" in the view of a single editor. (Also, you seemed to have simply removed the by-nationality Protestant category from each one, which had the effect of simply knocking all the Anglicans out of the Category:Christians by nationality category scheme, which I'm sure is not what you wanted to do.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with what I think is "right" - it is about how consensus treats the Anglicans everywhere in Wikipedia except this one instance and what I can cite. After you told me to go ahead, you just reverted all of my work. I don't think one edit in 10 that I have made to the Christian categories has not been reverted. There are some serious ownership isssues here. Do you want a citation? Here you go. The same website includes the following:

Fr. Gene Britton, an Episcopal Priest:

'I do have one suggestion for honoring denominational sensitivities...I am a priest in the Episcopal Church, and since priesthood vested in an individual is antithetical to Protestantism, there are no Protestant priests.

At present the cat Anglicanism is a sub of cat Catholics not in communion with Rome AND cat Protestantism. Which is it because it can't be both? I am correcting this again WITH a citation. Wikipedia is clear throughout that Anglicans are not Protestant and Encyclopedia Britannica agrees on this point. -- Secisek (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To answer that last question: yes, it can be both (and my view is the cat system should reflect that). The notorious conflict at the base of the Anglican Church, which has resulted in its dual nature, is responsible for that. See below for more, including on what the cat system actually is. Dahn (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Formal discussion begun: see Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_15 Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Corrected
I have corrected and added the reference to each of the pages. This was very frustrating, as it could have been done much easier if I had co-operation rather than obstruction. All were readded to the Category:Xs Christians cat as well. I hope this is the end of this. -- Secisek (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should wait for others to express their opinions before you make changes. That's my primary point. You seem intent on not caring about what others think. As a compromise I'll be placing them in the Protestant categories and the Christian categories. Perhaps you would like to start a discussion on the matter rather than just enforcing your own views. You've also inexplicably removed the proper category sorting, which I will need to add back in again. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * One corrects something when that something is wrong, and I for one don't see that wrong. For the love of me, I don't understand what this is all about. Granted, the Anglican Church had its own rocky evolution, but they are Protestants in the generic sense, more so than, say, Hussites, who are often classed as such. The pet peeve of this personal crusade (borderline to POV-pushing) seems to revolve around the notion that only Lutherans and other direct products of the reformation are Protestant - even when the article Protestant itself refers to Anglicans (albeit they are a special case, and no one is denying that). Furthermore, the Anglicans and affiliate churches share doctrines with the Reformed churches, and in many cases have borrowed them from the Lutherans or the Calvinists. The Anglican churches in the US, to my knowledge, are explicitly Protestant and have been so for ages. A cursory google book search, to name just one possibility, has a gazillion references to the concepts of "Anglican Protestantism", "Anglican Protestants", etc. etc. What's more, it's a misinterpretation of the category system to assume that any exact relationship between concepts will be addressed by a specific connection within the category tree, and that one included in the other means "absolute inclusion" - no, it rather and most often means "close relationship" (in this case, it means that, among Christians in general, Anglicans are closest to [other] Protestants). I find the glaring disclaimer recently placed randomly on pages, with its claim to address the question no one asked, terribly out of place - if anything, such issues should be discussed in the respective articles, not developed as contradictions in the darker corners of categories. Also, the source (cited rather whimsically) does not appear to exclude the notion that Anglicans are a kind of Protestants. Yes, it makes them into a group separate from both catholic and Protestant, but this may be because other Protestants (themselves organized into churches) are hard(er) to separate from one another then all of them together are to Anglicans. Since the text there says that the table does not include all Christians, we don't know, for example, if other Protestants are excluded. Dahn (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Britannica calls them "Catholic and reformed" abut makes no mention of Protestant. I suppose other Protestants could be excluded, but the silence is telling. Ditto the citation which clearly describes Conservative Protestants, Liberal Protestants, and Anglicans and then states, "Anglicans are clearly distinct from Liberal Protestants in history, polity and liturgy."


 * Formal discussion begun: see Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_15 Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

From Secisek's talk page
Re: Category_talk:Anglicans_by_nationality. I'm sure as an experienced editor you are familiar with Consensus. The way to reach a consensus is not to keep ignoring the concerns of others and enforcing your own opinions. I'm not trying to enforce one approach or the other here, but I am trying to facilitate the process of finding consensus on this. I'd be happy with either approach so long as I can see a consensus supporting it. For the time being, I think a good solution is to have both "Christians" and "Protestants" as a parent category until consensus can determine to eliminate one or the other. If no consensus can be reached, then both should probably remain as a compromise position. There are ways to solicit input on the issue in order to hear from others if you are interested in doing so. Lets's respect what others say on the issue and not just assume our own approaches are necessarily the correct ones. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The correction is cited - Anglicans are considered "Protestants" in only the most sloppy of works. Consensus for this IS far reaching in every other area of Wikipedia. There was a lone mistake in the cats that I corrected, it should be uncontroversial. One editor has an "opinion" - I have a citation. I know how it works and so do you. The edits should stand unless someone can produce a RS that says Anglicans are Protestants. -- Secisek (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that your interpretation of what is a "sloppy" work might be considered to be a WP:RS by another editor. Anyway, why don't we invite discussion and see what others think should be done? Would you like to do that or would you prefer if I did? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a personal crusade, consensus everywhere but here
Note the location of Anglicans here: Template:Christianity here: List of Christian denominations here: List of Christian denominations by number of members and many other places, too. This was the result of a long discussed consensus over a the course of a number of articles and a number years. I am not ignoring consesnus - it is you that is insisting on a "comproimise" that ignores consensus and WP:RS, because of the "feelings" of a single other editor. -- Secisek (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm trying to find out what the consensus is. I'm not trying to enforce anything, but I've implemented a "compromise" position pending discussion. I haven't reverted your changes—they remain. Why are you hostile towards further discussion on the category structure? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not controversial! One editor "feels" the cats should not reflect every other use in Wikipedia, Britannica and the oft cited adherents.com. What do I have to do to prove this is correct? The real question is why do I have to prove it? If this was in article-space we would not be having this discusion. I see there are keepers of the Cats who arbit what changes stay and go. I am uncovinced and I am going to correct it again unless you can show me that I am editing against established consensus or there is another POV supported by a WP:RS to match Brittanica or adherents.com. There isn't because we have been over this before in a number of articles and consensus has always sided with the position I am advancing. Why are you resisting correction? -- Secisek (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You can look here, too:Catholicism. -- Secisek (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem intent on "proving" this to me, which is kind of missing the point. I'm focused on consensus decision-making here, not on truth. To my knowledge, this particular issue has never been discussed re: the classification of categories. I don't think you have the ability to read other editors' minds and "know" that it is or is not controversial. I certainly don't claim to have that ability. The fact that I and another editor have in fact raised the issue and disagreed partially with you should be the best indication, however, that it may well be. Since you seem unopen to initiating a discussion on this, I will start one. (Incidentally, I warn you against editing the categories while a formal discussion is ongoing—that would not be appropriate and will be considered editing in bad faith.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You reintroduced an error without discussion or citation - that is editing in bad faith. This process has been filled with bad faith since you reverted my first correction of it. You then told me to go ahead and fix them all. Which I did only to find you reverted them. Bad faith. I have produce RS - not good enough for you. Bad faith. I have demonstarted that consensus supports my position in numerous articles: our own article on Protestantism does not mention a single Anglican and states: "Anglicans, although historically influenced by the Protestant Reformation in what is called the English Reformation, differs from many Reformation principles and understands itself to be a middle path—a via media—between Roman Catholic and Protestant doctrines." You don't care. Bad faith. Why are you ignoring consensus - because one editor who "does not want fight about it" "feels" that Anglicans might be mistaken for Protestants more often than not? THAT is editing in bad faith. --Secisek (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm maintaining a status quo compromise between the two positions until a consensus discussion can be made, which is a standard approach that need not be confused with bad faith. I've started the nomination process for these categories. I'll provide the link to you shortly. Again, I advise you against changing the parent categories while a discussion is ongoing. There's no deadline, so you can sit back and relax while we undergo the decision-making process via consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Formal discussion begun: see Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_15 Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)