Category talk:Anglicans by nationality

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Corrected

message: Re: Category_talk:Anglicans_by_nationality#Corrected.
I'm sure as an experienced editor you are familiar with Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: From Secisek's talk page

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Not a personal crusade, consensus everywhere but here