Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mike Selinker (talk | contribs) at 18:46, 22 December 2012 (toponyms by language: close). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

November 26

toponyms by language

Category:Reformed Christians

Nominator's rationale: According to Category:Calvinism, Reformed is synonymous with of Calvinism, so Reformed Christians is synonymous with Calvinists, which already exists as a category. JFHutson (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gad, what a mess. Right now, Category:Calvinists is a subcategory of Category:Reformed Christians. If the category were deleted, would all the subcategories become subcategories of Category:Calvinists? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Calvinism and cleanup as needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yikes, what a mess! As someone who is a "Reformed Christian", I was rather shocked to find that my church is totally absent from this category tree (I have since added a couple). I think that the problem here, and with an awful lot of Christianity (and wider religion-based) cats, is that an awful lot of categories (and articles) have been created, edited and populated by people with a very sketchy knowledge and a confused, odd, and often POV, attitude towards the topic in question. As an example (one hardly knows whether to laugh or cry), I note that Reformed Christianity is, since 2 days ago a redirect to Calvinism. I think I need to lie down after this discovery, and that is really only the tip of an horrific iceberg. Wikipedia never ceases to astound me. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As far as I'm aware, "Reformed" is used exclusively to refer to Calvinists, in spite of the fact that Anglicans, Lutherans, and radical/Anabaptist Christians all belong to some reformation movement. One thing is for sure is that Wikipedia isn't served by having two conflicting names for the same thing. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I oppose all of Hutson's efforts to equate Reformed Christianity and Calvinism. While all reformed churches are Calvinist, not all Calvinist churches are "Reformed" pbp 17:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is why the current category name is probably wrong. If we can justify a category for the general reformed Christians, it would need to be by something more than a shared name. Is that the case here and is it possible? Otherwise, the name is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question I don't understand... Can you give an example of a Calvinist church which isn't Reformed? —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Vegas, if there is some broader "general Reformed tradition" that includes Reformed Christians who are not Calvinists, we have a much larger problem than this category. We have Portal:Calvinism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Calvinism which include everything from Barth to Beza to Reformed Baptists, and we have a large number of articles (including Calvinism) using the terms synonymously because that's how they are commonly used. --JFHutson (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Quoting from a dictionary, Reformed - of or relating to the body of Protestant Christianity arising during the Reformation; used of some Protestant churches especially Calvinist as distinct from Lutheran; "Dutch Reformed theology". This clearly states that Calvinism may not be the only church that uses reformed making the name slightly ambiguous. I think the discussion below is raising multiple issues with the tree in this area. The upmerge was suggested as a way to address any needed cleanup and to remove a category that is likely ambiguous. In reading this discussion, it is not clear to me what the best solution is at this time. This could require a two part discussion. Maybe agreeing on some cleanup as the first step, and then renomination to decide after that cleanup if any additional action is needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Calvinism is not a church, and no church I know of uses "Calvinist" in the name, so I'm not sure what you mean. If you're suggesting that the Dutch Reformed Church would not have self-identified as Calvinist, I don't know what to say. I can't find a good resource to point you to, but I'm pretty sure they would. --JFHutson (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, there are the Calvinistic Methodists. For some reason I have not yet figured out, the Waldensians are a subcat of that. Thus right now Peter Waldo is categorized as a Calvanist, what next will Paul of Tarsus be categorized as a Lutheran?John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears the Waldensians may be a reformed Church that may or may not be Calvinistic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the Waldensians comment, think of this as a continuum with Catholicism at one end and Calvinism at the other. You've got Lutheranism and Methodism/Wesleyism in the middle. You've got Anglicanism between Catholicism and Methodism. You've got Waldensianism between Methodism and Calvinism pbp 00:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The terms are commonly used synonymously, and when they're not they're used in different ways by different people, which is why the Calvinism page has Reformed faith as a synonym in the lead, and has for some time. Sometimes people mean something more precise by Calvinist (like double-predestination), and sometimes Reformed means something more precise (as in continental Reformed as opposed to Presbyterian), but common usage is Reformed = Calvinist, and trying to evaluate everyone in the tradition as Reformed and/or Calvinist is just not going to happen with any degree of accuracy. --JFHutson (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the proposer is clearly pushing a POV, and the clearly OR statement "Reformed Christians is synonymous with Calvinists" would require an awful lot of verification which is just not supplied. WP:VERIFY is official policy for a reason. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added some cites to Category:Calvinism and Calvinism. I really don't know what alternate definition would be more neutral for each term, since as I've mentioned these terms are used in so many conflicting ways. As for pushing a POV, the usage at Calvinism is pretty much as I found it, and I did not write "Reformed is synonymous with of Calvinism" at Category:Calvinism, it was inserted in 2009. I would actually prefer "Reformed tradition" as the title for the Calvinism article and "Reformed Christians" for the cat, but I didn't think I'd get support for that because "Calvinism" is so common (there's a Portal:Calvinism). --JFHutson (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- I regard "Reformed" as a synonym for "Protestant". It is perhaps a stream that originated from Calvin, rather than directly Luther. Calvinism is a theological position. It is not necessarily the case that all churches from the Reformed tradition hold strictly to the views of Calvin on this subject, any more than all Methodist (Wesleyans) hold strictly to the view of John Wesley. Life is too complicated for it to be possible to make such simple equations. Reinstate article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Reformed = Protestant, that's another reason to delete this category, as there is already a Protestant cat. I'm not suggesting either that those in the cat need to strictly follow Calvin, only that they be in the tradition which is commonly referred to as Calvinist or Reformed. If you think Calvinism is a theological position (I'm assuming you mean unconditional election and/or double predestination), you should read Calvinism, where it is defined much more broadly and has been for years, while recognizing the colloquial usage you mention. Just because those are well-known distinctives of the tradition does not mean one equals the other or that everyone in the tradition agrees with them. --JFHutson (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did some digging and found that this discussion has been had before a few times. Here is a starting place which links to some discussions where it was decided Calvinism = Reformed for WP purposes. --JFHutson (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Point of information: there is no such thing as a definition "decided... for WP purposes". Wikipedia is based on reliable external sources. In other words: we cannot just make things up here, within Wikipedia. --Mais oui! (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was poorly worded. By for Wikipedia purposes, I mean common usage in reliable sources, which is what the discussions mention. It is common in reliable sources in the field to use the terms interchangeably, despite several different colloquial usages. --JFHutson (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gu of Seoul

Category:Media by country

Category:Society by country