Talk:List of archbishops of Canterbury/Archive 1

message: This is a good list - is there anything that needs to be done before it is nominated at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done it now :) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now made it to featured status! jguk 11:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FLC]]

message: How is the last name of Arthur Michael Ramsey spelled? After googling both versions it would seem that RAMSEY is correct based on the list of places using that spelling (leaving out the Wikipedia and mirrors entries) but there are severl sites that have RAMSAY. CambridgeBayWeather 07:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the official website thinks it is "Arthur Michael Ramsey". -- ALoan (Talk) 09:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Duh! That'll teach me to play late at night when I should be sleeeping. CambridgeBayWeather 13:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ramsey vs Ramsay

message: "Anglican" has rightly become a less-favored catch-all with no clear descriptive value. E.g., it lumps Laud w/ Grindal and Parker, etc., whereas Cranmer is "Roman Catholic." "Anglican" clearly cannot refer to even a broad consensus on theology and church policy. Why isn't there a break or special table for the period after Henry VIII's break with Rome, then the Marian era, and then everything after? Warham, Cranmer and Pole present the main problematic area. Might also mention when England was under interdict in the middle ages--when was that---under King John? Dan Knauss 00:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Anglican" Terminology & Reformation

message: I don't think the division into "Roman Catholic" and then "Anglican" archbishops is useful. Prior to the great schism in  about 1050 "Roman Catholicism" didn't exist anyway per sae and between 1533 and 1570 it is misleading and includes prominent protestants as Roman Catholic. It is also not NPOV, since from an Anglican perspective prior to the schism they were still Anglican archbishops, just ones which happened to be in communion with Rome. When Perhaps "Pre-Schism" Archbishops is a better term?  --BozMo talk 11:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Catholic" and "Protestant" seems to get the job done. - Nunh-huh 22:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Nonsense. The first attested use of the term "Roman Catholic" in English is 1581 - the term came into being as a term of disapprobation, being used as the designation employed in the legislative enactments of Protestant England. Before that time, no one had thought of such a term. The Archbishops of Canterbury before that period were Catholic, not "Roman Catholic". Using the term for the Church during that period is anachronistic and ahistorical - that is, it takes the Anglican POV and imposes it on a time before there were Anglicans and Roman Catholics. - Nunh-huh 03:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: For further perspective from the Catholic point of view, see  - Nunh-huh 03:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, of course a list of Archbishops of Canterbury is about history! And we must use the terms correctly, rather than misleadingly.- Nunh-huh 22:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks proper to me, Doops: exactly how the wiki process is supposed to work!
SECisek 05:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Both Anglicans and Roman Catholics can agree that the Archbishops prior to the split were Catholic.  But to say that the difference is "communion with Rome" is to deliberately understate the fact that they were of different sects. In fact, if one adopted the language of the English legislation which established Anglicanism as the state church, the difference is between Catholics and Protestants. Since Anglicans nowadays would object to the designation, there's no harm in calling them "Anglicans" or even "Church of England", but to call Catholics "Roman Catholics" before the split is to put the cart before the horse. - Nunh-huh 22:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You are the one continuing to make your changes despite the fact you have been informed they are contentious. I'm content to place an NPOV tag; perhaps you will become interested in discussing alternatives to your preferred version rather than imposing it by dint of repeated reversions. - Nunh-huh 23:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I thought "in communion with Rome" avoided the contentiousness nicely. I totally see why "Roman Catholic" is less-than-ideal, historically-speaking, and I totally see why "Catholic" is less-than-ideal since it seems by implication to say that modern Archbishops AREN'T Catholic, something they might dispute. Hence my proposal. Doops |  talk 00:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right that what is suggested is part of the problem, but "in communion with Rome" suggests that that is the only difference between the two, which isn't the case. And it's not parallel, unless you propose "In communion with Rome" vs. "In communion with Canterbury"... :) I think what is needed is simply to name the two sects by their preferred, historical names, as the article did until about two days ago. - Nunh-huh 01:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's see. You want to "defuse a little" but you also want to accuse me of "grinding an ax". Got it.  In any case, the question is not what the Vatican calls itself today, but what the Archbishops of Canterbury were at the time they were such. The single list you propose would clearly endorse -- inappropriately -- the Anglican view that the Archbishops were in continuity over the Catholic view that they were not.  If you think clarity would be enhanced by a tripartite division (Catholic, transitional, and Anglican), I think that is worth consideration.  - Nunh-huh 02:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Including the Catholic point of view is not "advancing" it: it's a simple requirement of our NPOV standards. Systematically excluding it is a violation of those same standards. - Nunh-huh 02:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The history of the authorship of the article, playing gotcha, and misrepresenting prior edits aren't really to the point, are they? Edits are made to featured articles, they're not written in stone - as you probably realized when you recently made your changes to this one. As to continuity: Do you really not understand that the Anglican church views Rowan Williams as a successor of St. Augustine, and the Catholic church doesn't? The Catholic Encyclopedia clearly states their view, which is that the death of Cardinal Pole "brought to a close the line of Catholic archbishops."  In fact, Catholics and Anglicans differ on an even more fundamental point, which is whether Rowan Williams is a priest! :)  - Nunh-huh 03:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, the issue is not settled; and even if it were, issues are not closed. Whether you like it or not, a list is not immune from NPOV requirements. I do not think your analogy about recognition of a head of state (by foreign powers) vs occupants of an ecclesiastical position (by the church in which that position purports to be)  informative or pertinent. - Nunh-huh 05:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: How about less reading my mind? I'm not "upset", and I don't want "the list reworked to a Roman POV". I want the Catholic view included; you want it excluded. The easiest way to do that is to remove your addition of "Roman". - Nunh-huh 21:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This box is in use in Wiki.  How about three divisions along these historic lines:
SECisek 06:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current break confusing : NPOV? 

message: Not every list is a potential Template for an Infobox. Look how clumsy a complete list of archbishops of Canterbury becomes when it is pointlessly repeated on each individual's page. A 'See also: List of Archbishops of Canterbury would serve just the same purpose. --Wetman 19:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. When this template was added, the succession box was removed, which leaves the strange situation where there can be boxes for all other offices such as Archbishop of York, but nothing for Canterbury. My preference would be to remove this infobox and replace with a standard succession box. JRawle (Talk) 21:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clumsy Infobox 

message: Comment moved from article:
Archbishop Michael Ramsey passed away several years ago. 
The Rev. Canon Rick E Hatfield, Nashotah House Episcopal Theological Seminary, Class of 1980 canonrick (talk) 2006-06-01 01:53:01
:Yes.  Archbishop Cosmo Lang is also deceased.  I don't think this list notes deaths unless the archbishop died in office.  Do you think it should?  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Until Randall Thomas Davidson, they always stayed in office until they died. The list isn't intended to give dates they died, it doesn't gives dates of birth either, it's just that for most of the archbishops the former is the same as the date they left office. So we can see how people might be confused. "Retired" could be taken as meaning "he is now retired", whereas it actually means "left office through retirement".  Perhaps it wouldn't hurt to make it: "Translated from York; retired; died 1988" JRawle (Talk) 14:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Retired'' 

message: I don't agree that there is a serious dispute about the neutrality of this List. SECisek has made several good points that have lead to a balanced article. This article is a List and not a critique. The ABC is today the head of the Anglican Communion and follows a long line of ABCs from the dark ages through the Reformaion to the present. The present Roman Catholic Church recognizes the ABC. ABCs did not just end at the Reformation...full stop...and another sort of ABC came out of the Reformation. The Anglican Communion asserts the apostolic succession of its bishops and the Roman Catholic Church since Vatican II is not completely blind to the existence of Anglican bishops or Anglican orders but recognizes them in name and sees some meaning in them. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV dispute 

message: Hi. In an effort to figure something out we can all live with, I'm going to try presenting a menu of possible options here, so we can all comment on them. Doops |  talk 03:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with option 2. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 04:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible names for list divisions