Talk:Anglicanism/Archive 3

message: Please see Talk:Liturgy_of_the_hours#Requested_move for details. --Espoo 10:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Catholic bias in [[Liturgy_of_the_hours]] and renaming proposal 

message: I am involved in a discussion with another editor at the article on Talk:George Washington and religion and need someone who is familiar with Anglican theology and dogma (and especially that of the late 1700s) to comment.  Here is the discussion in brief... the article talks about the fact (well documented) that George Washington was not a communicant (ie was never seen to take communion) and would often leave devine services before communion.  Given the context of the article, it is implied that this indicates he was a Deist.  I question this implication ... I think that it might indicate that he was a "Low Church" Anglican.  I do understand that I can not add such information to the article - as my personal conclusions would constitute Original Research. But I would like confirmation of whether my thinking is on the right track or not. Unfortunately, I do not know enough about the Church of England at the time, especially the different attitudes of High and Low Church, to know one way or the other.
I tried an RFC, but that is being removed as there is not an actual dispute going on (I guess I am trying to find out if there IS something to dispute).  I hope someone here can help set me straight. Blueboar 19:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments needed 

message: It seems that the information I wrote relating to pacifism was deleted again, so it has been restored once more.  With respect to Revd McKenzie, for something that is "hardly a major issue", the fact that many of the most prominent Anglican intellectuals of the 1930s and onwards have been involved in the movement, not to mention the likes of Revd Dick Sheppard, the most famous churchman of his day, launching the secular Peace Pledge Union, shows that it is an issue of concern to may Anglicans.  Anyway, as the "Social Issues" subsection now contain discussions of other issues of importance, so it is a legitimate inclusion to balance this article. David Le Sage, 6 February, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.138.16.150 (talk) 06:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what other editors think, but to me three paragraphs on one aspect of Anglican social theology seems overboard - especially since there are only three other paragraphs which together cover all the rest of Anglican social concerns.  "Balance" is precisely the reason why the bulk of the material that was there was excised. I would like to hear the contributions of other editors, however, before going in with pruning shears once again. Fishhead64 06:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pacifism

message: This section is going to be never-ending, most of the most notable British figures in the last 300 years could be described as prominent Anglicans. If their Anglicanism had some direct relevance to their prominence I could understand listing them but some are red-linked which imply no prominence of any sort and others are not really notable for their Anglicanism, e.g. Kate Winslet. If we have to have a list like this, can't it be a separate List of prominent Anglicans? Dabbler 14:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These things tend to grow like topsy, unfortunately.  I'm for excising it entirely - there's already a Category:Anglicans, after all.  Instead of "Notable Anglicans," "Notable Anglican Theologians" might be more appropriate. Fishhead64 17:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Please add four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your comments so we know who is posting them. Thanks! Fishhead64 23:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well Williams, at least, is an important Anglican thinker.  I think he should be restored.  If Ramsey, Temple, and Wright are there, he should be there, too. Fishhead64 23:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prominent Anglicans?

message: I am wondering why this is such a concerted effort to ensure that the ordination of a gay bishop not be mentioned in a headline?  This is the crucial issue which has led to the current crisis in the AC.  The recent Communique only discussed three points with regard to the crisis:
1. Ordination of gay bishops
2. Same sex unions
3. provincial boundaries
So, one cannot avoid mention of gay bishops in the headline.129.74.165.42
:Anglicans like a bit of decorum. Tabloid headlines are best left to a certain class of argument. Lets all take a deep breath and speak nicely to each other. And - quite parenthetically 129.74.165.42 - you spelled embarrassing incorrectly. It is spelled with a double r and a double s: not (sic)"embarassing". Now, how embarrassing is that!   Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 14:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   And it's not even an issue of decorum.  The sensationalistic headline proposed by you, 129.74.165.42, seems to carry more of an agenda than any you accuse others of having.  It's a great head-turner, but belongs in the National Enquirer, not Wikipedia.  It's also overly simplisitic and misleading.  I would think that if you really are sincere about wanting to include an issue that, while embarrassing, is still relevant and worthy of inclusion, you would want to do it in a professional and accurate manner.  --Anietor 15:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, here's a response:  It has very little if nothing to do with Anglicanism, which is a movement within Christianity.  It merits discussion in the article Anglican Communion, and indeed it is discussed there. Focusing on it as a matter of such great import is an example of recentism: We do not live in exceptional times as Anglicans.  There have been schisms and extra-provincial meddlings since the seventeenth century, when the Puritans left the Church of England and Archbishop of Canterbury William Laud was meddling in the Scottish Episcopal Church. Fishhead64 17:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay bishop embarassing? 

message: Surely calling methodism an "Anglo-American" movement is inaccurate. It was established in Britain long before it crossed that Atlantic and the article implies that Wesley personally took it there.Further the American revolution may have prompted a break away for American methodists, but hardly for the whole movement. Epeeist smudge 11:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglo-American Methodism? 

message: The Anglicanism Collaboration of the Month for April was late in being designated, due to my Lenten and Paschal wikibreak.  It is Anglican views of homosexuality, always a favourite topic.  Please consider reviewing the article, and helping in its assessment and improvement.  Thanks! Fishhead64 02:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anglicanism COTM

message: The article lays down the official "letter of the law". But I have known various Roman Catholics take communion in Anglican churches, and to the best of my knowledge they have not been censured as a result. On three occasions, as an Anglican, I have asked an RC priest if I could receive communion at the service where he was the celebrant, and on each occasion the answer was yes. Millbanks 22:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most, if not all, Anglican churches are happy to let any baptised Christian (sorry Salvation Army) take communion and so your Roman Catholic friends would not have been censured if the priest knew. As for your experiences in a Roman Catholic church, that was against their doctrine unless you were in extremis or there was no Anglican alternative available. Sometimes for pastoral reasons a priest may go against the letter of the law however. I have never asked for nor received communion in a RC church when I have attended as I had no wish to put the priest in a position of deciding to turn me away or break his rules. Dabbler 00:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some Catholic priests operate a policy of official ignorance: they won't refuse you communion even if they happen to know that you are an Anglican, but if you formally ask, they might feel that formally they have to say no. There are also circumstances in which a priest may have discretion, e.g. when hosting an ecumenical event within a restricted context such as a University chaplaincy. My policy as a non-Catholic is to go for communion unless (a) the exclusivity of communion has been specifically announced by the priest (which happened at the last Catholic funeral I went to), or (b) there are Catholic laypeople present who know I am not a Catholic and would be offended by my action. I'd be surprised if there aren't some strict Catholic priests who would censure members of their flock for taking Anglican communion, but lay Catholics who are prepared to take Anglican communion probably either go to a church with a more relaxed attitude, or just keep it quiet. Myopic Bookworm 10:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intercommunion with Roman Catholic Church

message: Could not the bibliography be expanded to include the works mentioned in the footnotes? As it stands the bibliography is fairly bland .  Frederick Jones
:They probably ought to be integrated one way or the other.  We probably don't actually need the Bibliography section at all if full information is given for each reference, and all references should use the various "cite" templates or none at all.  If the books in the Bibliography are not actually being used to support specific points, why are they listed at all (as oppsoed to any others that could be chosen)?  David Underdown 07:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography

message: Dear Mr Underdown, Thank you for your latest note, but I fear that I am not very efficient and find your style of refernce rather odd. I will try. Incidentally Fr Nichols talks of Uniate Churches of which some people have heard, not particular churches.I think if you asked the TAC they would say they aspired to uniate status. Frederick Jones  ps The reference you require for the footnote is  www.anglicanuse.org/Anglican_Uniatism.pdf
:The referencing may seem odd, but it does mean that everything gets formatted the same and makes for a more consistent look to things.  It seems even odder to have a mixture of styles.  On the use of Uniate or not, see Eastern Catholic Churches#The term "Uniate", it seems that it is now a usage deprecated within the Roman Catholic Church (in its broadest sense), in favour of the usage "Particular Churches".  Thanks for the updated link, David Underdown 16:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I am a little puzzled as to when the 'real concern to make the institution as hospitable as possible to people of different theologial inclinations'was shown.  Was it during the time of Elizabeth, when the Puritans, no less Anglican than Parker, were given such a hard time? Was it during the time of Archbishop Laud? Was it in 1662 ? or during the time of Wesley? Was it when the Bishops pronounced on Tract 90?  It seems to me a rather questionable contention and I would welcome some supporting evidence from English history.  I can see it as coming about by accident because the C of E is a state church, but I am puzzled about the 'real concern'. FJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick jones (talk • contribs) 10:01, 16 July 2007
:Latitudinarianism apparently dates back to the seventeenth century.  But it wasn't always the dominant trend.  john k 04:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholic and Reformed?

message: I want to throw this out as a discussion item.  I can see arguements, each way, to making this change and to NOT making it.
I think this section should be edited (strawman arguement) to read something like this (I've used italics to show the significant differences):
Anglicanism varies from the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches in the following ways:
Clergy are allowed to marry.[15] This could be seen as a reversion to early church practices prior to the 10th century that allowed priests to marry.
Ordination of women in some dioceses. 
In some provinces the Eucharist is open to all baptized Christians. 
The collegiate structure of the church in contrast with Roman Catholic centralization. This could also be interpreted as a return to ancient traditions dating from the first and second century.
The loose structure of the Anglican Communion. Unlike the pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury has no authority outside his province but is regarded as "first among equals" among bishops in the Anglican Communion. This again could be intrepreted as a return to the early church structure as well, particularly as the church existed prior to the Council of Nicea.
Ok, the strawman arguement is that the practices listed here that differentiate the Anglican church from the Roman Catholic church were not theological differences, but were differences in the actual running of the church (sorry, I'm not expressing that right).  The early Church supported most of the same practices (even allowing Eucharist to all baptized Christians was part of the absolute earliest days of the church) except for Ordination of Women.  While there are a number of other issues, none of these are theological dogma.
Of course, the contrary arguement starts with "But that's potentially POV" and then proceeds to "Never-the-less, they are still differences in how the churchs operate TODAY."  
Comments?  Bill Ward 01:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to note that according to Wikipedia policy a good article is broad in its coverage, focused without going into unnecessary details - see Wikipedia:What is a good article. I think in this case, keeping it simple means keeping it descriptive and avoiding the "why". One problem might be finding acceptable sources as to the "why" of these differences, especially when these statements are partially unsourced in their present form. There must be a contemporary and reliable text book we could use as a general source for the "Distinctions" sections. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 03:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then would a valid NEW article be worthwhile that details some of the early Church practices that have gone out of favor, or practices that happened since (for example, the practice of being able to buy indulgences is no longer practiced in the Roman Catholic church, but was one of the points of contention during the earliest part of the Protestant Reformation)?  The links could be made to MANY different churches and church practices.... although suddenly, that seems to be a huge article.  Might help some of the more narrowly focused folks realize just how closely related many of these precepts are, though.... Bill Ward 22:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As for the original point, the word "Strawman" was always there... I'm asking if it's something that should be considered, not necessarily promoting that it should be in the article, per se.  As for the rest.... I agree that many of the differences between groups can be found here or there in other groups.  That's what I'm asking about with the strawman.  However, in a bigger way, the question could also be "Should we mention the REAL differences between these groups (the Theological ones)?  Bill Ward 19:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinctions from the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches 

message: I am quick-failing this article because it lacks the appropriate inline citations. See WP:RS, WP:V and WP:CITE. See WP:GA? for the GA criteria. Awadewit | talk 18:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for taking the time to GA review Anglicanism. The point you made will help when I and others work on it. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 18:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will correct this ASAP to the best of my ability. More over the article is quite LONG and probably need more sub articles.  Renom at month's end! -- SECisek 10:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA quick fail

message: Created and moved text to Anglican communion and ecumenism that was appropriate there. This was under the sub-headings "Ecumenical relations" at Anglican Communion and "Ecumenism" at Anglicanism. Some of it was an exact duplicate. Some of it was oddly contradictory. Best to have all the info at one page to make best use of time and effort. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 12:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added back a stub.  We should have SOMETHING here. -- SECisek 06:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. I meant to do write a bit of introductory text. Your text is good. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 12:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Anglican communion and ecumenism]]

message: The very start of the article seems to have been the subject of a curious edit. I quote..."encapsulate those Christian's (sic) whose doctrine.....(etc.) have their origins in the English Reformation". The misused apostrophe (now deleted) seems to indicate a fairly unscholarly hand, as is also evidenced by the subsequent wording. Anglican beliefs, doctrines, etc. were influenced by the Reformation, but do not "originate" from there. They go back to St Augustine, indeed further back, to the early Church and Christ and the Apostles. Would someone more learned than me be able to correct this? If not, I'll have a go. Millbanks 13:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please have a go!...yes, you have detected a fairly unscholarly hand. The whole lead needs to be written in  way that will satisfy Wikipedia:Lead section so that we have a hope of passing the Good Article Criteria. Thanks for helping. As you can see I've added some place holder text for things that should be in the article but I'm not really able to go much further. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 13:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. A fresh start on the lead is the best approach. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 12:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins and Edit

message: The celtic cross dwarfed the text it was supposed to illustrate, I swaped a smaller pic.  Also, can we find a Jesus picture that looks a little more, well, Anglican? A Van Dyck or something? -- SECisek 06:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your photo editing is good. Your selection for the cross and Jesus pictures are more sensible. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 12:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: ...but not really important here:
However her active persecution of ordinary folk as heretics, and her marriage to Philip II made her unpopular and damaged the reputation of Roman Catholicism in England, especially retrospectively.In her reign of under 4 years, 283 people had been burned for heresy]], nearly five times the number in the previous 100 years — see e.g. . Under Queen Elizabeth I the English church reestablished Protestant theology, indeed throughout Europe it was regarded as yet another Protestant Church, although no longer in the vanguard as it had been in 1552.   Elizabeth followed her sister's policy of religious persecution and executed a number of Roman Catholics during her reign.http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Edward_Mary_and_Elizabeth.htm They were 185 in total, of whom 125 were priests, 1 an unordained friar, and 59 lay people, 3 of them women. Rather than being burned to death, the priests were usually tortured, hanged, disembollowed, and quartered.
The numbers and all just aren't important to this subject. -- SECisek 01:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: For the history page

message: I'm not deleting any of the links but trying to make the "See Also" section conform to WP policy: see  Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#The "See also". The relevant bits of text are:
The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article or link to pages that do not exist. Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links.
and
There may be a "See also" section which can include:
* Terms which can be confused with Title, for example New Market and Newmarket
* Likely misspellings of Title, for example Belmont,  Belmonte and Bellmont
From my understanding, the "See Also" section should have links that can not possibly be fit into the text of the article but that may cause a reader confusion. So all the links that have been added to the See Also I've made certain that they appeared in the text before deleting. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 03:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have my support, be bold. -- SECisek 06:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See Also

message: This is useful: Wikipedia:As of. Another explanation can be found here:Another option. 
 If you suspect that a fact in an article will become significantly out of date in years to come and want to ensure that people will update it, include a link of the form
: As of yyyy or As of Mmmmm yyyy
with the year of validity in place of yyyy and the month (first letter capitalized) in place of Mmmmm.
and
"As of" links make it easy to find such articles in the future by using the "what links here" feature.
Granted, it is a bit clumsy. I've put an "As of" near the Rowan Williams. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 03:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: As of

message: I am a little worried that we are adding a lot of facts to this arcticle with out citations.  If we want this to have a shot at GA at the end of the month, we are going to have to start citing the existing material, and making citations when we make additions.  The article looks considerably better then it did a week ago, just start thinking about how we are going to cite this all. -- SECisek 23:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should add the cites nearer the end of the month because of the inconvient ref tagging system Wiki uses. It is really difficult to do standard editing and proof reading / copy editing with the extraneous tag text. I find it is a real time killer. Best to settle on the text first, then litter it with cites. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This brings up the "over citation" that seems to be plaquing Wikipedia. In the Real World, one normally does not cite common knowledge - in the broad sense - and only those points that are surprising, contentious or novel would be sourced. But, I'm growing to suspect that the statment "The sun rises in the east and sets in the west" would now have to be sourced. In the Angicanism article, a great deal of it would not be sourced in the Real World - for example the publication date of the King James Bible or the death date of Charles I - but I think we will have to go that route. I suggest that we use a good recent popular text (printed) for all the trivial cites - ay Oxford Encyclopedia of Christianity  - or something like it. Probably would actually need three such sources because of some FA and GA reviewers obsession over one or two sources being used extensively. Anyway, much of the text is not surprising, contentious or novel and could be cited from a standard text book. We should also avoid "statistics" because that brings out the quibblers. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll be working on this over the next few days. Hopefully it will be constructive work. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 12:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: One worry

message: The definition of an Anglican is not for the benefit of Anglicans or insiders. Wikipedia is meant for every one. A definition must state the obvious even if it is unremarkable to an Anglican, it isn't to everyone. Please read Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles. For example:
Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and worldviews. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to fully explain the subject.</br>
Avoid using jargon whenever possible.
Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 12:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is however already a link to Christian Church at the start of the section, so I didn't think User:Anglicanus's edit was so bad.  The idea of the via media is so ingrained it's better to mention the term up front, even if introducing it a little more gently.  David Underdown 12:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On further thinking, much of that section should probably be simply moved to the lead, which at the moment is a one-liner, which is no where near matching up to WP:LEAD.  David Underdown 12:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The re-wording is much better. I see what you mean by the link in the details tag ... and yet why would we not include Christian in an explicit manner in the definition of Anglican? Wikipedia articles are supposed to provide an overview of a topic and avoid unnecessary detail. Surely the most sweeping bird's-eye-view of Anglicanism is that it is Christian. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 12:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree completely with your thinking on the Lead. A compact version of it could appear there. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 12:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, Anglicanus, I agree but the only people writing this article is us. That is, Wikipedia editors like you and me. Yes it needs vast improvement. Yes, it needs sources. Please be bold - be very bold. Although compared to much of the other articles on Anglicanism ... I disagree in that it is no worse but ought to be much better. It is why I took the initiative and made the article the Anglican Collaboration for the Month of August. There is still a day to go! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 19:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen to both of you. -- SECisek 19:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anglican defined

message: Somebody suggested that Whitby was a submission of the Church in England to Roman authority.  Not so: the Synod of Whitby was simply one of many councils held concerning the proper calculation of Easter throughout Latin Christendom in the Early Middle Ages. (see C. W. Jones introductory text to his edition of Bedae Opera de Temproibus (Cambridge, Mass., 1946) pp. 55-104.)  It addressed only the issue of Easter calculation and the proper monastic tonsure, (Patrick Wormald, ‘Bede and the ‘Church of the English’, in The Times of Bede, p. 210.) and concerned only the part of the English Church that answered to the See of Lindisfarne (Patrick Wormald, ‘Bede and the ‘Church of the English’, in The Times of Bede, p. 210.) – that is, it was a Northumbrian affair. (Mayr-Harting, The Coming of Christianity to Anglo-Saxon England, p. 108.) -- SECisek 00:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Synod of Whitby

message: The worship section has become a dump for a wide range of overt or covert critiques of the Anglican Church (not just worship) from a Catholic or Protestant POV. If I get the time I'll try and sort some of it out. For instance, this is hardly the place to discuss infant baptism. The section is also awkward in trying to look at Anglican worship separately from a Protestant POV (for which high church services are strange, but not low church ones) and then from a Roman Catholic POV (for which the opposite broadly applies). I suggest that Anglican worship should be described neutrally as it is, not primarily in terms of how it might or might not look to someone of another Church. Myopic Bookworm 13:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was never comfortable with this additional section. Please be bold. -- SECisek 05:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worship section 

message: "The first Anglican church in the Americas was built at Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607"
As a person who lives in that area of Virginia, has participated in the 400th Anniversary service for that event, and who is a BIG fan of Jamestown as a whole, I'd love for this statement to be true; it's not, though.
The first Anglican church in the Americas was built at Manteo, in North Carolina (which was at the time still called Virginia), in 1587.  Historically, it's called The Lost Colony because it literally disappeared during the years when England was preoccupied by the Spanish Armada, sometime between 1587 and 1590.  For folks in Great Britain, this would be Sir Walter Raleigh's colony.  Jamestown was the first permanent SUCCESSFUL colony, and led directly to the eventual formation of the United States (the folks who talk about the pilgrims, the Mayflower, Plymouth Rock, etc., need not apply; that was all twenty years later, and the Pilgrims were originally supposed to be sailing to Jamestown).  I'll grant that the church in Jamestown is the oldest Anglican church still used, in whole or part, though, but even that wouldn't be the 1607 church, but would be the 1613 brick church (the 1639 church was built on top of the 1613 church after it was damaged).  Bill Ward 13:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done my best to add this info to Episcopal Church in the United States of America#The English Church in British North America (1497-1775). All who have a better grasp of North American church history than me will find my text replete with gaffs.  Please improve it :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 05:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Nitpick?