Talk:Anglicanism
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anglicanism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
 | Anglicanism was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Former good article nominee | |||||||||||||
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Religious
editWhat is real region I want to know please help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.64.0.24 (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- Open up a geography book. Dimadick (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
"Christian - Anglican" listed at Redirects for discussion
edit
The redirect Christian - Anglican has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 22 § Christian - Anglican until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
"Christian - Epsicopalian" listed at Redirects for discussion
edit
The redirect Christian - Epsicopalian has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 22 § Christian - Epsicopalian until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
"Anglican cemetery" listed at Redirects for discussion
edit
The redirect Anglican cemetery has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 22 § Anglican cemetery until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Anglicanism/Alt Emerging Church has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 22 § Anglicanism/Alt Emerging Church until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Membership - world total?
editThe CofE wiki article says 46 million people baptised in England & Wales, is this number included in 110 million total? Which would mean 64 million outside the UK... Lawrence18uk (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Recent reverts by User:Yahboo
editI just noticed that User:Yahboo removed sourced information from this article in two recent edits. User:Yahboo's edits seem to remove historical information about 16th century Anglicanism (such as the importance of the Thirty-nine Articles and The Books of Homilies) to present Anglicanism from a purely Tractarian perspective. I have restored the previous version and have undone previous edits by the same user, such as this one. I am pinging User:John K and User:Indyguy to the discussion. I should note that User:Yahboo left the following, which does seem to suggest ownership: "I will check all subsequent edits and add back those which are improvements". Thanks, AnupamTalk 01:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- You apparently did not notice that the recent POV edits (which should have been reverted or modified at the time) which I removed were blatantly intended to present Anglicanism from a purely Reformed perspective. Removing those problematic edits was intended to restore a NPOV to the article and you should have realised this. I made it clear that I would add back anything which was an improvement. In future you need to try to recognise the good intentions of other editors instead of making false accusations such as you have been doing. It is offensive. 02:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yahboo saying they would do a broad reversion then restore collateral damage is not inherently ownership–its an unfortunate limitation of simple rollbacks through mechanisms like Twinkle. However, they absolutely do engage in ownership on this article–consider their rather explosive response to a reasonable change I made and their response just now. I favor Anupam's diff latest. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Unlike some other editors, I definitely do not "engage in ownership on this article". If you consider attempting to keep the article as NPOV as possible by reverting or modifying POV or biased editing as "ownership" then you apparently have a very distorted understanding of what actual ownership is. As for your accusation of my "rather explosive response" to your "reasonable change" you are again distorting things. That comment, which you made reactionary claims about at the time, was made after you had made a number of largely unjustified criticisms of me. I would very much like to be able to always engage with you in a constructive and civil manner, but you continue to make this very difficult with the ways in which you unconstructively engage with other editors at times, such as now for example. Yahboo (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- I do not appreciate the accusations of ownership. They are false and offensive. I do not edit articles in an ownership manner. And nothing in my edits was intended to "present Anglicanism from a Tractarian perspective". That is a completely untrue and ridiculous comment. My intentions were completely concerned with the article being as NPOV as possible. Yahboo (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- If you wish to engage in
a constructive and civil manner
and avoid accusations of ownership, do not baselessly accuse editors of pushing an agenda when they alter a text to reflect MOS standards. Additionally, providing a relevant consensus to substantiate your claims is generally appreciated. It also helps to avoid suggesting that sweeping changes need to be made to an article when multiple other editors feel you are engaging in ownership behavior. I would highly discourage you from making any substantial changes without achieving consensus first. If you wish to suggest those changes with more concrete detail, the section you started below seems an apt place. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- If you wish to engage in
- I do not appreciate the accusations of ownership. They are false and offensive. I do not edit articles in an ownership manner. And nothing in my edits was intended to "present Anglicanism from a Tractarian perspective". That is a completely untrue and ridiculous comment. My intentions were completely concerned with the article being as NPOV as possible. Yahboo (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Unlike some other editors, I definitely do not "engage in ownership on this article". If you consider attempting to keep the article as NPOV as possible by reverting or modifying POV or biased editing as "ownership" then you apparently have a very distorted understanding of what actual ownership is. As for your accusation of my "rather explosive response" to your "reasonable change" you are again distorting things. That comment, which you made reactionary claims about at the time, was made after you had made a number of largely unjustified criticisms of me. I would very much like to be able to always engage with you in a constructive and civil manner, but you continue to make this very difficult with the ways in which you unconstructively engage with other editors at times, such as now for example. Yahboo (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
The state of this article
editAs I have been falsely accused by another editor of attempting ownership of this article (nothing could be further from the truth) for rolling it back to a very recent version before numerous factually questionable POV changes and some stylistic mistakes were introduced (which should have been reverted at the time), I will repeat here my concerns that this article has become a real mess in many respects, including: 1. It is far too long. 2. It is far too verbose. 3. It is far too repetitive. 4. It sometimes contradicts itself regarding facts. 5. It contains far too much historical information about the development of Christianity in the British Isles and Anglicanism elsewhere which isn't needed. 6. It has been the target by some POV editors who want to push their own views of the nature of Anglicanism. I strongly suggest, therefore, that the article requires considerable reduction regarding all of these problems. I would prefer that this can be done co-operatively rather than boldly and risk further false accusations of attempting ownership. Thank you, Yahboo (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)