Template talk:Anglicanism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Anglicanism (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism.
 

Restored section on Anglican Life to template, per consensus. This is an essential element for understanding what Anglicanism is, and there is no reason it should be missing. I have placed at the top since it makes an effective transition from the generic Background to particularities. Castanea dentata (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No you didn't. You just reverted to an earlier version of the template. Since January 17th - over two months - this version has been the consensus version, as further attempts after that date to acquire feed back dissolved into conversations with myself. I am open to restarting such a discussion. What do you feel should be on here and why? What should be removed? This template mirrors the "Top" priority category for the wikiproject, so changes here will be reflected there as well. -- Secisek (talk) 07:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Secisek as well. Please don't make changes to the template without discussion, because it affects many other things at the same time. Instead, explain what should be here and why, and what should be removed, and then we can discuss it. Tb (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that there was a lively discussion, but it was removed. Wyeson 17:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Restored essential Anglican topics[edit]

There are two versions going on here, an older version and a newer. Unfortunately, the Talk record has been removed.

As I and many others have stated in the past, the problem with Secisek's newer version is that it is not really very Anglican. Distinctly Anglican features have been removed and random Christian ones put up in their place.

I have restored the older template, which holds the following essential Anglican topics that had been removed without any explanation:

In the alternate version, the above Anglican topics were replaced with the following random non-Anglican topics that might be pertinent on the Christianity template:

Wyeson 17:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit war?[edit]

There is no need for an edit war here. Let's look at these proposals:

Add?

Remove?

The discussion was not lively, nor was it "removed" - it was archived when nobody made a comment for almost two months. I have identified priorites above. Now, pick your battles and let's come to consensus. -- Secisek (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the substance of Secisek's outline. I think that Paul should be dropped, and I do think Donne and Jewel should be added. I think the Rood Screen and Stained Glass are way too specific, but a case could be made for Anglican Chant. Wycliffe, Tyndale, and that lot, should not be here. Tb (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the majority of the points, but perhaps the main article should be the general Anglicanism article, rahter than Anglican Communion (or we should rename the template Anglican Communion), as otherwise the template could be seen as expressing the point of view that only the Anglican Communion is truly Anglican (and whatever we as individuals think, I'm not sure that really squares with WP:NPOV). For the same reason, we probabl ought to have Continuing Anglican movemnet on there too. David Underdown (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

{{Anglican Communion}} is the footer version of this template. Both {{Continuing Anglican}} and {{Anglican realignment}} already are in use as similar, but seperate nav boxes. The question of who is an Anglican - and who gets to decide - is being debated in the real-world right now and I think until there is real-world consensus, the seperate nav-boxes are the way to go. -- Secisek (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The awkwardness here is the complex political reality on the ground, indeed. If this were a case of groups which mutually acknowledged each other's participation in the same general world, there wouldn't be a problem. But the very existence of the Continuing Anglican movement was its opposition to the Anglican Communion, and its view that the Anglican Communion (or the relevant local portion of it) was no longer a faithful church. I used to waggishly remark that "continuing anglican" used "continuing" to mean "in schism", and "anglican" to mean "not connected with the Church of England". The "continuing anglicans" have a serious problem with self-definition, and I don't know that we can clean up the problem here; it's only our job to document it. The very notion of an "Anglicanism" which is broader than the actual Anglican Communion is a little, well, offensive to me, though it is a plausible compromise for Wikipedia. I'm not at all content to see the overwhelming vast majority of the world's Anglicans (who are part of the Anglican Communion) forced to define ourselves in terms of some generic "Anglicanism". This would misrepresent the origins and character of the Anglicanism which the Anglican Communion shares--its emphasis on a common episcopate, and relationships of full communion. Anglicans are not organized the way Presbyterians or Lutherans are; we (at least, the majority in the Anglican Communion) identify Anglicanism as being virtually identical with the Anglican Communion. I completely understand that this is merely the POV of the Anglican Communion majority, and it's not acceptable to impose this POV on the continuing anglicans who disagree with it. Yet, it is also not ok with me to push the alternate POV that there is some generic Anglicanism of which both the Anglican Communion and the continuing anglicans are parts. Tb (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Whilst I tend to agree that the Communion is the most important thing, I think that in practice since we'd still have all the links under the organisation heading, more weight would still be given to that. I think it's much harder to make the case under Wikipedia policies not to mention them at all. David Underdown (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

One week on, I wonder if the whole thing was nothing more than a hit and run. The only user really pushing hard for restoring an older version of the template had made 17 edits in article space since 2 June 2007 prior to last week. On 2 April he restored a version of this template from last January, commented here, and then made 16 edits in quick succession to distribute "his version" of the template. He has not been heard from since. Give it another week or so, but I think we can add Jewel and maybe Donne, drop St Paul and move on. -- Secisek (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The one thing I'm NOT seeing in the template is the thing that I would have thought was one of the first links: Anglican Communion itself. Shouldn't that be part? I know, seems common sense, but.... Bill Ward (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It is on there. It is the very first link at the top of the box. -- Secisek (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
To quote Homer Simpson "DOH!" I just totally missed it, even if it is the most prominent link there, because it's "Above the Fold", i.e., the picture, and it's seperated off into the title. In that case, never mind my complaints... I agree pretty much with everything else that was said, except that a more general "Important Figures in Anglicanism" page might be more appropriate than many individual names directly in the Template; that would require a sub page with links to those figures, but it would do away with a great deal of the discussion on "Is this divine worthy to be on the template? How about this one?" Just a thought. Bill Ward (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"Anglican" navbox?[edit]

I would like to hear why this new Template:Anglican template was added, which seems to be a duplication of this one here. The editor who created it then proceeded to replace the long-standing templates with his new one. Such a change requires some explanation. Tb (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There's also Template:Anglocommunion duplicating this, and Template:Angloportal which duplicates Template:Anglican Portal. Tb (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

All forks to avoid discussion here. A reminder of policy: "Templates should not be split into multiple templates just so each can advocate a different stance on the subject." -- Secisek (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that they are content forks, but I'd prefer not to guess at the motives behind their creation. Tb (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I alerted an admin and they were all speedy deleted. Setting up "competing" templates to get around consensus is not acceptable at Wikipedia. -- Secisek (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Little image on portal link[edit]

The little image on the portal link was altered by an editor recently; it had been a small compassrose, and was changed to an image of the gate of Canterbury Cathedral. The edit comment said "This link is to Anglicanism, not the Anglican Communion". Of course, the first article on the Anglicanism portal is the Anglican Communion, but leaving that aside, it is certainly not a link to the Church of England, the Province of Canterbury, the Diocese of Canterbury, or Christ Cathedral in Canterbury. The compassrose is likely the most worldwide symbol for Anglicanism; it's certainly more worldwide than the gate of one Cathedral. (Tho I do agree that it is clever to use a gate as a link to the portal...) Still, that doesn't mean the compassrose is the best image. I've reverted the change (since the explanation in the edit history doesn't match the reality as I understand it). Still, more comments would be useful! Tb (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It obvously is not a worldwide symbol for Anglicanism since all of Continuing Anglicanism left the "Anglican Communion" on purpose and not but accident. The image should be a reference to historic Anglicanism. (Threre is no need to seek out the logo of any one group.) In my opinion, for that matter, the whole of this Template should be about Anglicanism and not just the so-called Anglican Communion— but this is about a link to location, a location that is not about just the "Anglican Communion". --Carlaude (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The "continuing" "Anglicans" are not in communion with the Church of England or Canterbury Cathedral any more than they are part of the Anglican Communion. The gate of the Cathedral may be an attractive symbol, but it is the gate of a Cathedral which is the primatial seat of the leader of the Anglican Communion, and equally nonsensical for "continuing" "Anglicans". As you say, they left on purpose, not on accident, and they left not just the Anglican Communion, but the See of Canterbury too. (Actually, they say that the Anglican Communion left them, but whatever.) If you want a symbol that doesn't seem to exclude continuing Anglicans, you'll have to avoid Canterbury Cathedral too. Tb (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course Continuing Anglicans are not in communion with the Church of England now, but the Canterbury Cathedral is still a suitable image for historic Anglicanism from which all Anglicanism arises. The Anglican Communion flag is not historic. But I also like this Cramer image more for Anglicanism.
Another way to put it. You suggest this is about a link to location, a location that is not about just the "Anglican Communion". Yes, and Canterbury Cathedral is not bigger than the Anglican Communion, it is smaller; it is more parochial, not less. Tb (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a silly argument. Canterbury is of course the first and hence the "mother" church of England, and thus the mother church of Anglicanism.
By the was, please see further discussion (and discuss) at Template_talk:Anglican_Portal and its archive. I hope the image will chage there also; currently it is a different but unclear image of Canterbury. --Carlaude (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
If you mean that Continuing Anglicans descend from Canterbury in some sense, I suppose that's true--except that they do also descend from the Anglican communion, and more recently. Tb (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
As you pointed out above— they Anglican Communion left them only to the Anglican Communion— to Continuing Anglicans, it is Anglican Communion that left. You might as well say that the Eastern Orthodox Church left the Roman Catholic Church and (since it is bigger) the Pope is a suitable image for the Christianity portal.--Carlaude (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm saying you that if the pope's face were currently the image, you don't improve matters by substituting the Vatican Flag. As for who left who, I don't much care about that issue in this context; the point is that the Church of England, the Diocese of Canterbury, the Cathedral, the Anglican Communion--the whole ball of wax--is separated from the "continuing" Anglicans. In their view the communion left--and so did the Church of England. My point is that Canterbury Cathedral is equally inappropriate or more so because it is more specific, and more directly tied with the Church of England. It has all the problems you find in the compassrose, and more. Whatever connections the continuing Anglicans have with Canterbury Cathedral, they also have with the compassrose. Tb (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Anglicanism is more than the Anglican Communion[edit]

The compass rose is a completely ununited symbol for Anglicanism. Not only is it the chosen and created symbol of Anglican Communion, it is a recent symbol for the Anglican Communion and can only serve to represent the Anglican Communion of today. Many other things and people-- such as the Canterbury Cathedral and Thomas Cranmer-- are part of Anglicanism's history or origin, and thus serve as a symbol of all of Anglicanism. Carlaude:Talk 12:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)