Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglicanism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Collaborations of the Month

The March collaboration has been decided - it is William Wilberforce. Per the guidelines, the unsuccessful nominees will be automatically placed in renomination for April. This is what we should have been doing all along - my apologies. Fishhead64 17:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The April collaboration has been decided - it is Anglican views of homosexuality. There were no new nominations, so there are no unsuccessful articles to be renominated. Fishhead64 02:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There has only been one nominee for the May COTM, and no support for it beyond that of the nominator. I've therefore extended the nominations through May, which gives more time to work on Anglican views of homosexuality, as well as for editors to get involved in the nominating process. Surely there must be some articles out there which editors believe need some major work. fishhead64 15:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Still no awarding of the barnstar to anyone? I see Balin has one, and I know that Carolynparrishfan used to have one. Please, be bold and award this honour to deserving contributors to our noble project! Cheers! Fishhead64 02:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Templates

{{Anglicanism2}} is up for deletion. Please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 9#Template:Anglicanism2. —Angr 19:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

See also the new discussion at Template talk:Anglicanism. Fishhead64 22:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

For your information, an infobox has been created for use on biographical articles of clergy. It can be found at {{Infobox clergy}}. Pastordavid 15:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Anglicanism template

The Anglicanism template has been subject to much revision lately, most of it ill-advised, IMHO. Of course, we all consider certain aspects of Anglicanism definitive - an especially tricky subject when it comes to historical figures. I want to propose a discussion of what aspects of Anglicanism should be included on the template wo we can reach some consensus. Please indicate below any deletions or additions or alterations you would like to see to the template. Fishhead64 22:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been tracking that one - I have little interest in these templates. But I'll don the asbestos long johns and jump in anyway.

I'd remove Catholicism from the Background section. To be fair we'd also have to add a section on Reformed polity, and I don't think either of the two is crucial for a high-level view of Anglicanism.

I'd remove the entire People section. It's an invitation to random additions and POV-pushing.

The Primates' Meeting should go from the Instruments of Unity section. It may become one, but it's not currently one of the IofU.

Under Liturgy and Worship I'd remove {High,Broad,Low} Church, which are theological stances, and Oxford Movement (history). I think the Book of Homilies is of little enough current importance that we could drop that. Ministry and Sacraments fit well here, too.

I haven't decided what to do with Doctrine; maybe somebody else has an idea... -- BPMullins | Talk 01:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As I do more and more on this project, I don't like Cranmer's face on all the important pages, either. That picture is on his page TWICE. How about the Chair of St. Augustine or Canterbury Cathedral

SECisek 16:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Saint of the day

A proposal has been made on the talk page of the Portal:Saints for a possible daily update to at least some of the content of the portal. I think that this is a fine idea, but also think that I would want input from others as to which content to feature on which date. I have therefore set up a page for such discussion at Portal:Saints/Saint of the day for interested parties to nominate content related to individual saints they would like to see featured on the portal, and one which particular day, if one is preferred. I am here thinking particularly about possibly including individuals on the days of their feasts, if they have one. Any member of this project is more than welcome to make any nominations they see fit. Please feel free to make any specific suggestions there. John Carter 20:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship

I thought I'd bring this up before it became an issue; some people on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship have been saying that they would only support candidates who have the support of a content-driven WikiProject. I noticed that User:Fishhead64 is up now, at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fishhead64. I would like to propose that this WikiProject offer him its support. (Even though I'm not an official member I edit a lot of related articles and keep an eye on what y'all are up to) Mak (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Vote for Moses to become a featured article

Vote at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Moses so as too get Moses into a featured article Java7837 23:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Arbuthnot (bishop)

Could I ask people to take a look at this AfD discussion - we need further opinions as to whether former Church of Ireland bishops are notable by virtue of their office, even in overwhelmingly Catholic dioceses — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I've alredy cast my !vote. Despite the fact that the majority remained Roman Catholic, at the time in question, the Church of Ireland was still the established church, giving the bishops rather higher social standing and influence than might otherwise have been the case. although to an extent, number of adherents is a red-herring. The Anglican Communion is one of the major divisions of Christianity, albeit less well represented in some areas than other. David Underdown 08:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Photo Question

Hi all--

I am working up an article on Martyn Minns of CANA. I am nearly done with the starter, but am having trouble understanding the issues surrounding using an image of Minns found on the CANA website [1] (go to the bottom of the page). Users are invited to download the images, but no limitations on usage are stated.

I actually spoke with someone from the CANA office today, and he gave me verbal permission to scale and use the photo, but is verbal enough?

So, any advice on how I should proceed? Many thanks.

Bolman Deal 22:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As best I understand it everything being created now is copyright, unless explictly placed into the public domain, or it has fallen into the public domain by virtue of the expiry of the copyright. There are esentially no restriction son the usage of PD works. Copyright works may also be used under a variety of licences, such as the GFDL which is the model Wikipedia uses, or statements to the effect that non-commercial usage is permitted. It may also be possibly to make use of images under fair use/fair dealing provisions of applicable copyright legislation.

Wikipedia is currently taking quite a hardline on the use of fair use images within articles, particularly where the picture is of a subject where there is a reasonable chance of getting an appropriate "free" image to replace it. I imagine Martyn Minns falls within this context - he's fairly high profile within CANA, it wouldn't be impossible for someone to take a photo themselves at a church event and upload it to Wikipedia. In order to use this particular photo we need to have written evidence releasing it under GFDL - see Wikipedia:Example requests for permission for suggested wording and what to do with it so Wikipedia can record the issuing of the permission. David Underdown 14:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Supreme Governor of the Church of England needs your help

Supreme Governor of the Church of England has been tagged "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards" since November 2005. "The oldest cleanup requests are the highest priority, to prevent embarrassing problems from going unfixed for an indefinite length of time" [2]. Anybody interested in taking a look at this article? Thanks. ----- (Folks, I have to tell you that I find the organization of your WikiProject Anglicanism Talk page here extremely confusing and visitor-unfriendly. If this note should have been posted somewhere else, please move it as appropriate.) -- Writtenonsand 06:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not wild about it either, but I was too polite to say so. Fishhead64 02:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Did some work on this, enough to take the tag down. More work neeed. Check it out: Supreme Governor of the Church of England

SECisek 10:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

New Articles & Stubs

Help me with them:

Trinity Chapel

Hugh Whitehead

Supreme Head‎

SECisek 12:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

English dissenters

Any improvements that could be made to English dissenters would be much appreciated. It seems that most of the articles I am working on link to it and several FAs that I have created. The article is currently abysmal. The history of dissent in England is currently very hard to piece together on wikipedia. Thanks. Awadewit ^Talk 09:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this needs serious work.

SECisek 23:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Anglican doctrine

I have made extensive changes and additions to Anglican doctrine - an article I think will be vital in the ongoing covenant/realignmnent focus. Please look it over and see what you think. Fishhead64 06:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reassessed this article with an "A" rating and have nominated it for FA status. Please look it over and take time to vote. Thanks! Fishhead64 21:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to ahve got off to a very good start - might be better to pull it at this stage, and send it for a peer review instead. David Underdown 08:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding the [[:Category:Anglican saints]

I notice that the Calendar of saints (Episcopal Church in the United States of America) includes the name of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a notably atheistic individual. This creates the rather strange situation in which an atheist is now categorized as a saint, specifically as an Category:Anglican saints. Would the members of this project favor the creation of another category, possibly Category:Anglican heroes, for use for those individuals recognized in the calendars of the churches of the Anglican Communion who do not specifically get referred to regularly as "Saints"? John Carter 20:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about Stanton's religious beliefs, but the 1979 calendar does create a few problems. To the best of my knowledge the only "Saint" to be declared as such after the Reformation was St. Charles, king and martyr. Although being commemorated on the calendar does not make one a "Saint", they are often refered to as such. Maybe one of our priests on the project could weigh in? -- SECisek 22:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I would note that there are several of the calendars which specifically refer to individuals like Saint Peter, Paul of Tarsus, and others from the first or second generation of Christianity as "saints", and that those individuals could easily still be included in the Category:Anglican saints. But that title does seem to be only used in the calendars to describe individuals from very early Christianity. John Carter 22:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This seems to have been discussed before: Talk:Calendar of saints (Church of England)#Proposed rename of article to in accordance with the 1958 Lambeth Conference resolution -- SECisek 14:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

National Churches

I'm wondering if anyone has any ideas about how to structure articles relating to the various Provinces and Churches of the communion. There's a range of different styles, for example, the Church of England is structured thus:

1. Theology and sociology
2. Governing and administration
3. Appointments
4. History
5. Related churches
6. Financial situation

Then looking at the Anglican Church of Canada, there is:

1. Official Names of the Anglican Church of Canada
2. History
   1. Origins of the Anglican Church in British North America
   2. Colonial period
   3. Autonomy
   4. Expansion and division
   5. The twentieth century
3. Structure
4. Ecumenical relations
5. Liturgy and service books
6. Social issues and theological division
7. Cathedrals and notable parishes of the Anglican Church of Canada

I was thinking it would probably be worth having a common style for the articles, as they should probably all be high or top priorities for the project. Perhaps sections on History, Theology/Liturgy, Structure (i.e. (arch)bishops, dioceses etc), Issues/Divisions? Need to thresh this out a wee bit! — PMJ 15:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi PMJ - first, I hope you don't mind that I reformatted your list concerning the ACC, since "Origins" through "Twentieth Century" are actually subsections of "History."

Second, thanks for flagging this issue. I would also add the following

ECUSA:

1. Overview
2. Beliefs and practices
   1. Worship styles
   2. Book of Common Prayer
   3. Liberal and conservative
   4. Theology
   5. Social teaching
3. Polity
4. Saints
5. History

Personally, I think any article on a Province of the Communion should begin with a short description: Its name, location, size, and a few other brief words about its important characteristics. Then the following structure:

1. History
2. Membership (demographics, size, etc.)
3. Structure (or Organization)
4. Doctrine and practice (kind of interchangeable in Anglicanism!)
   1. Social issues
   2. Ecumenical relations
5. Worship and liturgy

Thoughts? Fishhead64 16:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Fishhead64! That's what you get for cutting and pasting... I generally agree with your structure suggestion - definitely the brief introduction as you say. Doctrine and practice would be a useful heading, as there would be several subheadings that could go beneath here (which may or may not be relevent, based on the particular province). I'm not sure where I would place Worship and liturgy. I might be inclined to put it above Doctrine and practice, although when you have churches with a wide variety of traditions, like the C of E, then it makes sense to have it below... — PMJ 18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

On consideration, I think "Worship and liturgy" above "Doctrine and practice," actually, since the latter flows from the former. Lets get some more input here, and if people are okay with it, we can at least the subheadings in the national church articles, which will hopefully encourage fleshing-out. I'll post a note about this discussion on the national church articles. Fishhead64 18:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

The proposal is to have a standard format for all articles on the Communion. An article on a Province of the Communion would begin with a short description: Its name, location, size, and a few other brief words about its important characteristics. Then the following structure:

1. History
2. Membership (demographics, size, etc.)
3. Structure (or Organization)
4. Worship and liturgy
5. Doctrine and practice (kind of interchangeable in Anglicanism!)
   1. Social issues
   2. Ecumenical relations
   3. (Other subheadings)
6. References
7. See also
8. External links

Please indicate whether you support or oppose use of this template. If you do oppose it in its present form, please suggest amendments or alternatives. We can then insert the template headings in relevant articles as a way of standardizing the format and encouraging article development. Fishhead64 18:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Support

• This looks good to me. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, we may want to call these articles Provinces instead of National Churches. Several of the provinces in the Communion cross national boundaries - Ireland, Jerusalem and the Middle East, and Melanesia occur off the top of my head. -- Bpmullins | Talk 00:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Bear in mind that many national churches contain two or more "provinces", e.g. York and Canterbury in the CofE. Carolynparrishfan 04:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'd support this too. In reply to Wassupwestcoast, I think most of the names section would come under History or the introduction. I'd also say the Prayer book section would come under the Liturgy section. — PMJ 15:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• This looks good. I'll also add an example to back up Carolyn's caution: the church in Australia is divided into provinces which roughly correspond to states. Claudine C. (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• I dug out an old ECUSA Red Book and counted. Then, there were five national churches with multiple provinces: Australia, Canada, England, Ireland, and the US. There were nine that crossed national borders: Central Africa, Southern Cone, East Asia, Indian Ocean, Jerusalem and the Middle East, Melanesia, Southern Africa, West Africa, and West Indies. IMO we should err on the side of sensitivity to the 'rest of the world'. -- BPMullins | Talk 01:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue is the difference between a province of the Communion (as they are described by the Anglican Communion website), which may or may not cross national boundaries, and ecclesiastical provinces, which are contained within them. They're two different beasts, but both properly called provinces. The Anglican Church of Canada is a province of the Anglican Communion, containing four ecclesiastical provinces, one of which is the Ecclesiastical Province of Canada. Confusing, no? Fishhead64 22:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• I generally support the idea of a common format, as long as it wouldn't mean individual exceptions were forbidden. If the ACC article has a section stuck in somewhere near the beginning about "Names" in which the French names (not an issue for many other Anglican churches, though a few others might have such situations) were discussed, it certainly isn't the end of the world. Wassupwestcoast is certainly right to mention that there should be a Prayer Book section as well. While this might come under Worship and Liturgy, it also might come under History. The CofE article could mention the 1549 Prayerbook, the 1662 edition, various attempts to revise the book and the hurdles that has faced in Parliament, etc. The political-parliamentary aspects might not fit so well under "worship", but would certainly enhance one's understanding of the C of E. The TEC/ECUSA article also should mention the 1890 and 1928 prayerbooks, and particularly the reluctance of the right wing of the church (or the schismatic elements, as some are no longer in the church) to switch to 1979, etc.--Bhuck 10:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• I don't know if this was ever decided, but there are still some pages to set up and I support the above conventions. -- SECisek 04:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose. I oppose but only on two technicalities: first, that the "Names" should have its own section. A number of churches in the communion have either official indigenous non-English names or a plethora of old and discarded official names. For examples, see the Scottish Episcopal Church and - as already mentioned - the ACC. Such a section would be too long for the introduction. Second, a "Prayer Book" section should be added. Oxford University Press has recently published The Oxford Guide to The Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey": the 640 page book examines the versions, variations and alternative prayer books in the communion. It isn't just the 1662 Book of Common Prayer anymore. So, a "Prayer Book" section could expand on local variants. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Anglicanism template on Scottish Episcopal Church

Mais oui! has now twice removed the {{anglicanism}} template from this article, lately saying that it's misleading and the church is Episcopal and not Anglican (I paraphrase, apologies if that's not entirely accurate). Maybe I'm mising something, but there doesn't seem to be anything in the template that would be particularly objectionable (and I note that it's on the ECUSA article with no issues), although perhaps something could actually be added to the template to better reflect the somewhat separate history of the SEC. David Underdown 12:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Primates of the Anglican Communion

This category is up for merger with Category:Anglican primates. The 'smaller' category currently has only primates in the AC, so I don't have a problem with the merge. If you differ you might like to comment in the discussion. -- BPMullins | Talk 01:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Anglican dioceses

I'm confused about List of Anglican dioceses - since it's actually a list of archbishops and bishops rather than dioceses! — PMJ 00:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and personally I find it more useful to have a main article about a diocese, and list bishops and archbishops within the diocese article except for significant archbishops eg Canterbury. Claudine C. (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Contradictions in articles

Please see my comments at Talk:Episcopal Diocese of El Camino Real and Talk:Episcopal Diocese of California. Corvus cornix 20:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Response at Talk:Episcopal Diocese of California. -- BPMullins | Talk 22:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nun

The article Nun has exactly one paragraph on Anglican religious orders, and it reads as follows:

Some churches that are directly descended from the Reformation, such as the Anglicans, and Lutherans, and even Calvinists continue to have small monastic communities, though these generally play a much smaller role in religious practice than in Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches. Outside the churches belonging to the Anglican Communion, most Protestant monastic communities are not organized into formal orders. In some Anglican orders, there are nuns who have been ordained as priests [citation needed].

I thought this was in need of attention because:

• It claims that the Anglican Communion is "directly descended from the Reformation", which is POV.
• Similarly, it calls the Anglican Communion "Protestant", which is POV.
• It's very short.
• It could do with citations (not just for the part about nuns who are priests).

I am not enough of a scholar of these matters to do the work myself, but I thought I'd raise the matter here. The Wednesday Island 16:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Got this started w/material from Anglican Religious Orders - SECisek 06:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Aldersgate Street

Can I request that someone with a knowledge of the early history of Methodism take a look at the Aldersgate Street section of the currently-under-construction A1 road (London) article and edit/correct/expand it as appropriate. As (obviously) the location is of key importance in John Wesley's life, I feel it needs a lengthy mention, but as I'm not a Methodist I'm concerned I may have misunderstood exactly what took place, and also that "epiphany" may be an inappropriate term to use in this context — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

New project proposal

There is a new WikiProject task force proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Inter-religious content that is being proposed to deal specifically with articles whose content relates to several religious traditions. Any editors interested in joining such a group would be more than welcome to indicate their interest there. John Carter 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger: "Christian Church" and "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church"

I recently merged these two articles. There was an objection that was raised and a request was made to seek feedback here. Please offer commentary on the talk page, for or against.

--Mcorazao 03:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC) pp Johnbod 01:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sign of the Cross

The article Sign of the cross (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) underwent a complete rewrite over the last few weeks that left it quite heavily biased. I have tried to merge older material back into it, but it now needs to be put back together. If anyone on this project has the time, could they, please, take a look at the article and improve it. — Gareth Hughes 15:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What "stories" of the Bible merit separate articles?

There has recently been some discussion regarding which "stories" or portions of the Bible merit having their own articles. For the purposes of centralized discussion, please make any comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#What should have separate articles?. Thank you. John Carter 13:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Category pages

Most categories related to the project have begun to have the Category talk pages tagged - it is important to any project that categories that fall under its ambit are 'caught' by a project tag with class=NA - it can help specially when outsiders (ie non project members) come in and see underpopulated categories that are suitable candidates for either merging or Cfd issues - otherwise project members might never know they have lost categories unless they are tagged. It can be a serious issue if a vexatious CFD enthusiast decides to take issue with categories with low numbers or other issues. It would be well worth a member of this project creating a sub page with a category tree in it to see what has been caught or not. I am sure I have not caught the lot by a long mile. SatuSuro 02:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A brief visit to [[Category:Non-article Anglicanism pages]] should be sufficient to show the categories caught to date SatuSuro 03:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Anglo-Catholic POV

Whenever I look at material relating to Anglicanism on wikipedia, I notice a pretty strong Anglo-Catholic POV. This really ought to be carefully watched, especially in articles talking about the period prior to the Oxford Movement. I've made some comments at Talk:Anglicanism and Talk:Thirty-Nine Articles which are perhaps combative, but I'd be interested in input. To briefly state my view on this as a non-believer of any kind, without any kind of Anglican background, but having studied a fair amount of early modern English religious history, I think it's deeply ahistorical to try to apply Anglo-Catholic theory about what Anglicanism is to any period before the early-to-mid-nineteenth century. The claim that the Thirty-Nine Articles represents "Reformed Catholicism," for instance, seems entirely nonsensical to me, and completely out of keeping with the way people thought about these issues in the sixteenth century. Beyond that, the discussion about how Anglicanism is "Catholic", and the desire to avoid calling it "protestant," seems to be based on very idiosyncratic readings of the meaning of both of these terms, which are, so far as I can gather, only employed by Anglo-Catholics. We should remember that this is an encyclopedia which is written for general readers, and which should not present one particular partisan POV as though it is the truth. john k 08:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the desire to avoid calling Anglicanism "Protestant" stems from the desire to maintain a neutral POV, not an Anglo-Catholic one. Wikipedia cannot come out and call Anglicanism either "Protestant" or "not Protestant", because neither is NPOV. Sometimes it makes editing very difficult - you can't say either "Differences between Anglicans and Protestants" or "Differences between Anglicans and other Protestants", because each of these wordings is non-neutral. —Angr 10:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV means we give different POVs due weight. On the one hand is the Anglo-Catholic POV. On the other hand is the POV of everybody else - not just Low Church Anglicans, but other protestants, Catholics, and pretty much everyone not directly involved. In certain contexts it's best to avoid use of "protestant," but, at the very least, "protestant" can and should be used for historical discussions prior to the existence of the Oxford movement, where the scholarly consensus is certainly that the system was basically a protestant one. Beyond that, as I said before, the whole distinction appears to be based not on actual differences about what Anglicanism is, so much as on an idiosyncratic definition of protestant. The fact that even Anglo-Catholics refer to the CoE as "reformed" is more or less admitting to being "protestant" by the normal meaning of t he world. American Heritage gives as its definition of protestant, "A member of a Western Christian church whose faith and practice are founded on the principles of the Reformation, especially in the acceptance of the Bible as the sole source of revelation, in justification by faith alone, and in the universal priesthood of all the believers." The first two are pretty clearly held by the Thirty-Nine Articles, but m ore broadly, the faith and practice of Anglicanism are certainly founded on the principles of the Reformation. This is, presumably, what Anglo-Catholics mean when they call Anglicanism "reformed." OED is probably even clearer on this:

A member or adherent of any of the Christian churches or bodies which repudiated the papal authority, and separated or were severed from the Roman communion in the Reformation of the sixteenth century, and generally of any of the bodies of Christians descended from them; hence in general language applied to any Western Christian or member of a Christian church outside the Roman communion. Opposed to Papist, Roman Catholic, or Catholic in the restricted sense.

This, I think, is the main usage of Protestant in the English language. Protestants are members of western Churches that are not Roman Catholic (or, as we non-Anglo-Catholics says, "western churches that are not Catholic"). Exception might be made for the Mormons, who clearly descend from Protestantism, but whose beliefs are quite distinct, and perhaps for a few other similar cases like Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the like, OED also gives some further discussion about Anglicanism specifically:

In reference to the Church of England the use has varied with time and circumstances. In the 17th c., Protestant was generally accepted and used by members of the Established Church, and was even so applied to the exclusion of Presbyterians, Quakers, and Separatists, as was usual at least until the early 20th c. in parts of England and Ireland. In more recent times the name has been disfavoured or disowned by many Anglicans. Also, a Low Church member of the Church of England.

This is certainly true, but I don't think it mandates strict neutrality so that we can neither say "Anglicans and protestants" or "Anglicans and other protestants." There's actually a lot of groups that are normally considered "protestant" by the previous definition which would not call themselves Protestant. Like Anglo-Catholics, they generally dislike the term "Protestant" without actually actually repudiating any of the ideas that are the basis of what "protestant" means to most people. In such cases, we ought to be careful. On the one hand, it is important to be clear about the self-designation of people. But on the other hand, we oughtn't let the often idiosyncratic self-identification of groups interfere with the clarity of our explication of them. And, in particular, we shouldn't let fairly recent concepts interfere with our discussion of history. Anglicanism was universally considered "protestant" well into the 19th century, and this was probably still the consensus position into the 20th, even if Newman objected to the term. The OED goes into some detail:

In reference to the Church of England the use has varied with time and circumstances. In the 17th c., Protestant was generally accepted and used by members of the Established Church, and was even so applied to the exclusion of Presbyterians, Quakers, and Separatists, as was usual at least until the early 20th c. in parts of England and Ireland. In more recent times the name has been disfavoured or disowned by many Anglicans. Also, a Low Church member of the Church of England. In the 17th c., ‘protestant’ was primarily opposed to ‘papist’, and thus accepted by English Churchmen generally; in more recent times, being generally opposed to ‘Roman Catholic’, or (after common Continental and R.C. use) to ‘Catholic’ (see CATHOLIC A. 7, B. 2, 3), it is viewed with disfavour by those who lay stress on the claim of the Anglican Church to be equally Catholic with the Roman. (see also sense c below).

CHAPMAN, etc. Eastward Hoe V. i, I have had of all sorts of men..under my Keyes; and almost of all religions i' the land, as Papist, Protestant, Puritane, Brownist, Anabaptist,..etc. 1608 D. T[UVIL] Ess. Pol. & Mor. 64 Betweene the Catholick and the Protestant, the Protestant and the Puritan, the Puritan and others. 1642 MRS. EURE in Verney Mem. (1892) II. v. 96 Neither papist, nor puritan, aye nor protestant, but will be the loosers by it. 1661 JER. TAYLOR Serm. at Opening Parl. Irel. 8 May {page}11, I hope the presbyterian will join with the protestant, and say, that the papist, and the Socinian, and the independent, and the anabaptist, and the quaker, are guilty of rebellion and disobedience. 1820 tr. Cosmo's Trav. 425 The Puritans..sworn enemies of the Catholics, as also of the Protestants. [Cf. p. 412 Protestants or those of the Established Religion.] 1830-3 W. CARLETON Traits & Stories Irish Peasantry (1860) I. 185 The population of the Catholics on the one side, and of Protestants and Dissenters on the other. 1834 J. H. NEWMAN Let. 30 July (1891) II. 59 The word Protestant does not, as far as I know, occur in our formularies. It is an uncomfortable, perplexing word, intended to connect us..with the Protestants abroad. We are a ‘Reformed’ Church, not a ‘Protestant’. 1874 J. H. BLUNT Dict. Sects 447/2 High Churchmen of modern times..have..objected to the designation of Protestant as being (1) one of too negative a character to express at all justly the principle of Catholic resistance to the uncatholic pretensions and practices of Rome: and (2) as being a name which is used by so many sects as to be inclusive even of heresy. 1890 HEALY Insula Sanctorum, etc. 291 His memory is cherished not only by Catholics but by Protestants and even by Presbyterians also. 1900 C. B. MOUNT Let. to Editor, Forty years back in Dorset, I frequently heard the word ‘Protestant’ used as distinctive name for members of the Established Church of England, in distinction from ‘Dissenters’, ‘Chapel-goers’, and the like. 1913 C. MACKENZIE Sinister St. I. II. vi. 239 ‘Finding out for yourself,’ echoed Chator with a look of alarm. ‘I say, you're an absolute Protestant.’ ‘Oh, no I'm not,’ contradicted Michael. ‘I'm a Catholic.’ 1933 G. FABER Oxf. Apostles iii. 73 They [sc. the Tractarians] were hostile to Roman pretensions..but they claimed the same title of Catholic..and they loathed the title of Protestant only less than that of Dissenter. 1960 Daily Tel. 15 Nov. 12/8 Surely Canon Lionel Lydekker is mistaken when he writes that the original meaning of Protestant was ‘protesting against any tampering with the Holy Catholic Faith’. Ibid., Canon Lydekker's definition of ‘Protestant’ is in line with 18th-century usage when, in this country, it meant Anglican, as distinct from Nonconformist, just as on the Continent it still means Lutheran as distinct from Calvinist (or ‘reformed’).

So we can note that, until the twentieth century, "Protestant" was actually normally used in England to mean "member of the Established Church," as distinct from "Dissenters". But beyond that, the basic objection seems to be that Anglo-Catholics don't like the term "Protestant," not that they reject the normally understood meaning of that term. Newman in using "Reformed" is using a substitute term whose denotation, so far as I can tell, is practically identical with that of "Protestant." Again, this dispute is not one between Anglo-Catholics and Low Church people. It's between Anglo-Catholics and everybody else in the world. Due weight means that, at the very least, when it is absolutely awkward to not choose between the two POVs, we must choose against Anglo-Catholic usage. If we have to say either "Anglicans and Protestants" or "Anglicans and other protestants," we should say the latter. The specific issues that many (but not all!) Anglicans have with the term "protestant" need to be discussed, but for very broad discussions it seems like it should be perfectly appropriate to treat Anglicanism as "Protestant" in the sense indicated above. My main concern, at any rate, is with history. At the very least, we shouldn't pretend that this recent Anglo-Catholic aversion to the term "Protestant," which dates back only to Newman, actually applies to earlier periods. john k 15:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You wrote, "Protestants are members of western Churches that are not Roman Catholic (or, as we non-Anglo-Catholics says, 'western churches that are not Catholic')." First, if you look at what Catholicism says, Anglican Churches are definitely Catholic in the broad sense; even the lowest, most evangelical Anglicans don't deny Apostolic Succession, do they? Second, defining Protestants as "members of western Churches that are not Roman Catholic" is overly simplistic (no matter how many dictionaries do so); the Old Catholics, for example, are not Roman Catholics, but they certainly aren't Protestants. (I'm not sure to what extent Sedevacantists and the like can be called Roman Catholics, but they're also definitely not Protestants.) You also wrote, "the faith and practice of Anglicanism are certainly founded on the principles of the Reformation" -- well, that's the issue, isn't it? I'm not sure that 100% of Anglicans are convinced that's true; after all, as you mentioned, one principle of the Reformation is the priesthood of all believers, which is why Protestants don't call their clergymen "priests" -- but most Anglicans do use that term, even if they aren't Anglo-Catholic. John and Charles Wesley, long before the Oxford Movement, clearly didn't consider the Anglican Church sufficiently reformed, or else they wouldn't have founded Methodism. So for Wikipedia to define Anglicans (even pre-Oxford Movement) as unambiguously Protestant would fail to maintain encyclopedic neutrality. —Angr 16:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Old Catholics, Sedevacantists, and the like, who have broken with the Catholic Church since the 19th century, are obviously a special case. Beyond that, Catholic "in the broad sense" is meaningless, and a particular meaning which emphasizes the apostolic succession would seem to be a meaning of "Catholic" only used by Anglo-Catholics. Beyond that, of course many people didn't consider the Church of England to be reformed enough (or "protestant enough"). But that's a different question from whether it's protestant at all. Any historian of religion will tell you that the Elizabeth settlement was protestant, and heavily influenced by Calvinism. The question of whether it was founded on the principles of the Reformation is a question of historical fact, not opinion. Whether it adheres to those principles now is certainly disputable, but there's no question that Parker and Cranmer and the like were closely connected to continental churches and that their doctrine was in many ways quite close to that of continental protestantism. The fact that Anglo-Catholics have devised a fantasy history of the Church of England which strives to pretend that it was always viewed as a "middle way" between Protestantism and Catholicism is immaterial, because they are simply wrong. Pre-Oxford Anglicanism was clearly unambiguously protestant, and, as noted, the word "Protestant" was generally used to mean "adherents of the established Church" as distinct from both Catholics and dissenters. To try to deny this is partisan rewriting of history to suit the needs of the present. For instance, here's the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography on Matthew Parker:

Archbishop Parker has all too often been misrepresented as a man whose passionate early concern for reform fizzled out somewhere along the road, leaving behind a weary determination to find a via media between the extremes of Catholicism and some form of protestantism. In fact he retained impeccable reformist credentials. Though he did not go into exile under Mary and return ‘radicalized’, as many did, he was well informed about continental religious developments, as might have been expected of a friend of Martin Bucer, and in any case there is good evidence that he co-operated with former exiles in the period 1559–63 in planning further reformation. For him, as for his colleagues, the Elizabethan church settlement represented a starting point, not a terminus, and informed contemporaries knew well that what was being restored from 1559 was a protestant church, indeed a church of Reformed protestantism, for Lutheranism had been effectively discarded under Edward VI. The Edwardian regime provided two alternative models to be followed. One, personified by Cranmer and Nicholas Ridley, stood for gradual protestant reform, willing to make concessions initially to conservative opinion. The other, represented by John Hooper, stood for rapid and decisive change, without concessions to popery. The difference between the two positions was not over the desirability of continued reformation, but between a willingness to recycle the usable elements of England's Catholic heritage for the sake of stability, and a desire to make a clean break, with all its attendant risks to stability.

My basic perspective on this is that when there's room to elaborate, we should be careful and try not to say that Anglicanism is unambiguously protestant. I'll even give you that this is arguably true for the pre-Tractarian period. Hooker and Laud and so forth certainly represent a strain within the established Church which was, at best, somewhat uncomfortable with continental protestantism, and quite distinct from it even if it's not really accurate to make them proto-Anglo-Catholics. But when speaking loosely, it's ridiculous to avoid the term. Do we have to stop talking about the "Protestant succession" and talk instead about the, er, "non-papist succession?" Is it wrong to describe Prussia and Britain as Europe's two protestant great powers in the 18th/19th centuries? Should we refuse to call the Church of Ireland the largest protestant church in Ireland? Does the term WASP exclude Episcopalians? Unless we are specifically dealing with the issue of self-identification, the normal meaning of the word "protestant" is perfectly acceptable to apply to the Church of England, the Church of Ireland, the Episcopal Church in Scotland, the ECUSA, and the rest. It's ridiculous that Anglicanism articles repeatedly refer to these churches as "Catholic," when this is pretty incredibly misleading, since what Anglicans mean by "Catholic" is not what anybody else means by it, but we can't call them "Protestant". Obviously Anglicanism has some differences with other protestant groups, and Anglo-Catholics like to emphasize these differences and insist that they're Catholic. But when such usage is confusing and contrary to the general usage of the rest of the world, it ought to be avoided. For most of t he w orld, "Catholic" means "in communion with Rome + maybe some of those groups which split from Rome as a result of Vatican I and Vatican II." "Protestant" means "all western churches which arise out of the split with Rome in the 16th century." Anglo-Catholic language is idiosyncratic and misleading to those who don't already understand it. john k 17:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

john k wrote:

"For most of the world, "Catholic" means "in communion with Rome + maybe some of those groups which split from Rome as a result of Vatican I and Vatican II."

This definition is not the only defintion allowed in wikipedia. I wikififed the word Catholic above. Click on it and see where it takes you. Your definition comes really close to launching the unending RCC versus CC debate.

What is more, some groups defined as not "Protestant" in your definition, e.g., the Old Catholics, would completely disagree with the assertion that Anglicans are not Catholics, too. At the death of Henry VIII, the Church was Catholic in every way minus the Religious Orders and the Pope. Attempts to "Protestant-ize" the Church resulted in the Civil Wars which saw the defeat and near destruction of the Catholics in Britian and the eventual Catholic triumph at the Restoration. Can Protestant be used to describe Anglicans? In some historical sense perhaps. In a religious sense, almost never. Care should be used to avoid the term Protestant to mean Anglican, particularly without proper context. I could go on, but the RCC versus CC debate, which this is a version of, is growing very thin at this point. -- SECisek 21:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Catholic triumph at the restoration"? You are using an idiosyncratic, esoteric language that is only understood by Anglo-Catholics. The fact that Anglo-Catholics have taken over wikipedia's Catholicism article as well simply provides further evidence of the undue weight given to the Anglo-Catholic POV throughout wikipedia. As I noted before, until about 1850, "Protestant" when referring to England generally meant Anglicans as opposed to dissenters. Your historical analysis is deeply suspect. In the first place, you jump straight from Henry VIII to the Civil War, which ignores the key issue of the Elizabethan settlement, which was distinctly protestant, and even Calvinist, in terms of doctrine (but not in terms of organization, of course, and to a considerably lesser extent in terms of ritual). The religious component of the Civil War was actually mostly inspired by Laud's attempt to re-ceremonialize the Church, and to introduce Arminianism. This weakened the rough consensus of the Elizabethan settlement, and gave strength to the more extreme anti-episcopal types, who were able to get more support than they had previously had by associating episcopacy with Laud's unpopular policies. To refer to Laudianism as a "Catholic" movement is ridiculous and confusing, and to refer to the Restoration, which only saw a qualified victory for Laudianism, as a "Catholic triumph" is ridiculous. The Anglo-Catholic usage of "Catholic" is simply confusing. For most of the world, "Catholic" implies what you would probably call "Papist," if you could, but, failing that, call "Roman Catholic." Obviously this isn't the only possible meaning, but using the term in any other way without any context, as you do above, leads to content which is actively misleading to readers who aren't familiar with the way Anglo-Catholics talk about these things. To most people, if you call Laud a "Catholic," the implication is that he is a Roman Catholic. Given the extent to which Puritan polemic labelled Laud a crypto-Papist, we should try to avoid misleading people into believing this is true. At any rate, I don't object to taking the Anglo-Catholic view into account. What I object to is the fact that seemingly every article on subjects of interest to Anglo-Catholics seems to be written from an Anglo-Catholic POV, to the point where the articles are confusing to anyone who isn't familiar with the way Anglo-Catholics talk, and possibly actively misleading even so. john k 06:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Largely posted elsewhere and brought here... You wrote: "The fact that Anglo-Catholics have taken over wikipedia's Catholicism article as well simply provides further evidence of the undue weight given to the Anglo-Catholic POV throughout wikipedia."

From the looks of it, Anglo-Catholics have taken over the Oxford English Dictionary, too. The O.E.D. defines Catholic as follows:

~Church, (originally) whole body of Christians; ~, belonging to or in accord with (a) this, (b) the church before separation into Greek or Eastern and Latin or Western, (c) the Latin Church after that separation, (d) the part of the Latin Church that remained under the Roman obedience after the Reformation, (e) any church (as the Anglican) claiming continuity with (b)." -The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 7th edition (1982)

This usage is accepted at Wikipedia. Further more the presence of in text hyperlinks provide additional context in every article for anybody who needs or wants it. Wiki is a wonderful thing. -- SECisek 14:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is denying that Catholic can be used in this way, and is so used by Anglo-Catholics. The problem is that this is a subsidiary meaning, and using it without context is misleading, because most people don't know that meaning. B (for the period prior to 1054), C (for 1054-1517), and D (since 1517) are the main meanings used. Calling Laud a "Catholic" without explanation would be confusing to most readers. john k 16:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As for "undue weight", there are a number of Low Church POV editors who actively balance any Anglo-Catholic POV, such as User:Frederick jones and a number of editors, Roman, Protestant, and none of the above, who actively work the Anglicanism project, some do so with such dogged insistance over minor points that I suspect some may be in fact sock puppets for legit users. -- SECisek 14:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this is relevant. Having looked around some more, I find that some of the articles are good - Anglo-Catholicism is actually quite good john k 16:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I jumped from Henry VIII to the Civil War. Again, this fight is over old ground. I don't feel like fighting about John Whitgift or Elizabeth's hatred of the Puritians, or "No Bishop, no King", or the match of Charles I with Henrietta Maria. I just spent the better of the last month trying to get somebody to acknowledge that Cardinal Pole wasn't the last Archbishop of Canterbury and I am a little burnt on this. Again Catholic means something here at Wikipedia. This was determined by lengthy debate, compromise, and consenseus. People will be unhappy with the definition, but that is how it is - somebody will always be unhappy when there is controversy. -- SECisek 14:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As you know, I fully agree with you that it's silly to call Cardinal Pole the last Archbishop of Canterbury. As to "Catholic", I am happy to accept that the Anglo-Catholic usage is one of many. My point here is that usage of this meaning, other than in contexts where it's crystal clear that this is what is meant, is confusing, and should not be done. john k 16:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If the use of Catholic is what is confusing, I point you to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Controversial_names. Please note the quote: "However, rather than debating controversial names, please consider other ways to improve Wikipedia." -- SECisek 14:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That is what I hope to continue doing. -- SECisek 14:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not merely an issue of names. The way the names are used influences the story that is being told, and I think that, more broadly, there's a lot of problems with these articles. The Thirty-Nine Articles article seems to be drawn from Tract 90, for instance. This isn't just a matter of names. john k 16:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to be suggesting that we should be tacking the word Protestant on every page or removing the word Catholic when it is used properly. I would rather see editors like yourself act boldly when you see what you think is bias and we can discuss changes as they are disputed. I would like to see some offending examples, I suspect I would be in agreement with many of the changes you might propose.

That is better then filling up screen after screen on the talk pages about POV being slanted in some vague "Anglo-Catholic" sense.

You are correct, for usage of "Catholic", context is everything. I would never write that Laud "was a Catholic". I would argue his attitudes were Catholic (please click on it) in that sense of the word, and I would make what I meant quite clear. I would never suggest that any Anglican living or dead was a Roman Catholic who didn't know it (Well, Newman & Manning - ha.) - but it would be incorrect to suggest that Anglicans weren't or aren't Catholic. In THE CHRISTIAN FAITH: AN INTRODUCTION TO DOGMATIC THEOLOGY By C. B. Moss, D.D., it is indeed stated that Catholicism is SINE QUA NON to being Anglican:

The Anglican Communion has always claimed that its doctrine is that of the undivided Church, and that its ministry is derived from the undivided Church. The defence of these claims is part of the defence of the Anglican Communion. There is no doubt that before the Reformation the ordinations of the English and Irish churches were the same as those of the rest of the Catholic Church. During the Reformation the succession of bishops was carefully preserved. The preface to the ordination services which dates from the first English Prayer Book of 1549 (it has been slightly altered since then but not in any essential respect) declares that from the apostles, time there have been these orders of ministers in Christ's Church, bishops, priests, and deacons, and that to the intent they may be continued in the Church of England, no man shall be accounted a lawful bishop, priest, or deacon or suffered to execute any of their functions without being ordained in the prescribed manner, unless he has already been ordained or consecrated by a bishop. Accordingly it has always been the rule of the Anglican Communion that clerics of the Roman Communion and other communions possessing the ancient ministry are received without ordination, but ministers of the various reformed communions who have not been ordained by a bishop must be ordained if they are to serve in the Anglican ministry.

SECisek - you are right that perhaps I haven't gone about this in the most productive way. I got a bit heated, and I apologize. You're right that it's better to go about individual articles. I notice that my changes to Thirty-Nine Articles were reverted. I'll try to focus on my specific problems with that article, rather than general rants about terminology. In terms of whether Anglicans are "Catholic," that is something which depends on the meaning of "Catholic" you are using. I think my basic problem is that the usage of "Catholic" preferred by Anglo-Catholics is probably the least well-known meaning of the word, but for some reason seems to have become the preferred usage of the term on wikipedia. Most people use 'Catholic' as synonymous with 'Roman Catholic'. As such, it is misleading to use the Anglo-Catholic meaning in any context other than when one is quoting Anglicans describing their own faith. "Laud held many Catholic beliefs," or whatever, is a statement which is extremely liable to being misinterpreted. I know that you would not want to imply that Laud was a crypto-Roman Catholic, but using misleading phrasing like t hat would imply exactly that. The article about Anglicanism, and the one about Anglo-Catholicism (the latter is actually, I think, quite good), should discuss this meaning of "Catholic," but stringing it through other articles is problematic, and should be avoided. This is especially true when discussing the pre-Oxford movement Church. Hooker and Laud may have talked about being "Catholic," but what they were talking about is not the same thing as what Anglo-Catholics talk about. We need to be careful, as I've said before, about applying these

In terms of the term "Protestantism," my position is that the Church of England (and related churches) were pretty universally considered to have been "Protestant" up to the Oxford Movement, even by the more High Church end of things. What was meant by "Protestant" at the time is probably different from what Anglo-Catholics mean when they say "protestant," but that's neither here nor there. The Oxford Movement was actually a major departure in an understanding of Anglicanism, and although it obviously did not arise out of thin air, it was also not a simple following up on the ideas of Hooker and Laud. Newman's conception of the via media was, in particular, entirely different from the dominant earlier conception - recall that in A Tale of a Tub the representative of the Anglican view is named Martin. The original idea of the via media was that the Church of England was a middle way between Roman Catholicism, on the one hand, and Calvinist Presbyterianism, on the other. By the eighteenth century, it was between Catholicism and Dissent. It is only with Newman that "protestantism" becomes associated with the continental churches and dissenters exclusively, and becomes the thing on the other side of Anglicanism from Rome. That Anglo-Catholics do not consider themselves Protestant, and that they are a major part of the Anglican communion today, is not in dispute. But historically, the Church of England was a protestant church, and denying that is, as I've said before, to shoot the concerns of the Oxford Movement back to an earlier time when they don't apply. I guess my main problem here is a historical one. Having read over a lot more articles, I'm going to concede that many of them are actually very good about avoiding anachronism, and so forth. But others aren't. In future I'll try to go into specific problems with specific articles, rather than initiate further general debate. john k 18:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I was just returning to post that I think we understand one another and...wow...I think we do. I have my highly respected Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church in hand and will try to correct and cite 39 articles a bit. -- SECisek 18:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC).

Request for Peer review

I am seeking peer review of a recently created article. Please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Calendar of saints (Anglican Church of Southern Africa)/archive1. Thank you. John Carter 15:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)