Talk:Robert Newton Flew

Ecclesiologist
I recently added Category:Ecclesiologists to the article. One can see from the article itself that Flew is an ecclesiologist, given that it quotes D. Densil Morgan as having written, "it was as an ecclesiologist that Flew would exert widest influence on Protestant thought". The category was removed by with the edit summary "category duplication". Given that one can plainly see that Category:Ecclesiologists is not duplicative of any other categories that the article is in, I restored it. It was removed again with the edit summary "cats". As I could not see why the category would have been removed, I restored it again.

It was removed again and the category Category:Christian philosophers was added with the edit summary "Christian philosopher says it better. Ecclesiologist rarely used word. Few in category". This is all the more perplexing as Flew is a theologian, not a philosopher, and I can't find any reference to his being a philosopher. With respect to ecclesiologist being a rarely used word, that is certainly true, but this is because ecclesiology is a very specialized sub-discipline. Regardless, while the frequency of the word's use or the number of articles in the category may be a discussion for WP:CFD, it is not an argument for the category's removal from this article. Accordingly, I restored the category only to be reverted with the edit summary "Faffing about are we".

So in terms of moving the discussion forward, :
 * 1) Given that there was no category duplication (despite your claim to the contrary) and that the frequency of the term ecclesiologist use and the number of articles in the category is not a reason for exclusion of a category per WP:CAT, on what basis are you suggesting the category should be excluded?
 * 2) On what basis are you asserting that Flew is a philosopher?
 * 3) What do you mean by "Faffing about are we"?

142.161.81.20 (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It means, as you know well, that it's too small a point to waste time on. Sorry. Bmcln1 (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Given the unwillingness to discuss the matter, it would appear to be resolved, then. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)