Talk:Global Anglican Future Conference

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lead

I think everyone would agree that a large part of the impetus in setting up the conference arose from the consecration of Gene Robinson, arguably that's an over-simplification but it can at least be seen as the straw which broke the camel's back. We have a third-party media source for that, based on an interview with Jensen (who was one of the prominent primates at the conference). As to who is heteredox, schismatic or whatever, that is where the problem of neutrality lies. One man's biblical orthodoxy is another man's fundamentalism (and as for interefering in the affairs of another province...). We need some explanation of why the split has arisen in the article, but we cannot simply swallow the party line (of either side) without question. David Underdown (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Note http://www.gafcon.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=42 though on the GAFCON website appears to be the Church of Uganda's view, rather than that of GAFCON as a whole. Archbishop Jensen is quoted as specifically opinting at the consecration of Robinson, so I don't think we can say taht GAFCOn have denied that that is the issue. David Underdown (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Interview

My priest recently conducted a very long interview with Bishop David Anderson concerning GAFCON. Perhaps it could be useful for this article somehow? Perhaps not, but I thought it was worth sharing and noting at least. GAFCON Interview PiccoloNamek (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

FCA

Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans currently redirects to this article. Now that the FCA has officially launched, some of the content on this page can now be migrated to a separate article in place of the current redirect. On the other hand, since the FCA was one of the key objectives of GAFCON, and since GAFCON was a one-off event, it might instead be a good idea to rename this article to Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (following admin deletion of the redirect), and make GAFCON a subsection of the renamed article. Some of the content here (e.g. the Queen's recent message of support) appears from the context to be about GAFCON, but is in fact about the FCA itself. Thoughts? Per Ardua (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


Nobody cared about them until now. IMHO the article fails NPOV by being sobland as to suggest that the conferees were more mainstream and credible than they really are in the mind of the educated people of the planet who have created both Anglicanism and Wikipedia. But now, you see, people from places like Kenya know better than we what our old religions and our new -pedia's shoudl be all about. Just wait, the vitriol is coming this way soon.184.191.158.27 (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Conference

The part of the entry concerning the conference in Jerusalem was confusing and I think incorrect. I improved that part with the help of the GAFCON 2008 official website but there is still work to do. I don't think it was ever planned that the conference wouldn't take place in Jerusalem. This is GAFCON 2008 programm and development according with their official website: .Mistico (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Provisional eidt pending RS establishing prior bias of the conference

This edit is a holding pattern as I think that the RS will show the intent of the conference to be more derogatory than I can substantiate at this time. This should do for now. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_Anglican_Future_Conference&type=revision&diff=700019241&oldid=700019026 No, I don't usually follow what ultra orthodox eggheads are up to. I will look into it further and when I have the RS edit accordinngly.184.191.158.27 (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Global Anglican Future Conference. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Global Anglican Future Conference. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Rewriting article

Given that GAFCON is now more associated with the grouping of conservative Anglicans than the conference that started it all, should this article be re-written so that the focus is on the group? Where the name GAFCON came from and the details of the conference(s) would then fall under a history heading. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Gaia Octavia Agrippa: Isn't GAFCON just the global meeting of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans that meets periodically? Wouldn't it make more sense to merge these two articles? Not sure which name would be best. The official website is under the GAFCON name, but some of the regional branches are under the FCA name (per this page on the official website. Ltwin (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
You're right. It seems that GAFCON started as a conference of the FCA, but now "GAFCON" seems to have become the chosen name in recent years. This isn't my area of expertise, but merging the two pages might be the way ahead. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 13:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Needed updates

Cross posted to Talk:Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans seems to have rebranded itself as GAFCON and the host of subsequent GAFCON provinces. I think it would be wise to restructure the FCA and GAFCON articles to reflect the current status and structure of these entities. https://www.gafcon.org/about/global-movement --Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Issues

Some of the text reads like a promotion of GAFCON. For example, the unsourced claim that GAFCON claims it represents 85% of Anglicans. No source is given for this claim. SeminarianJohn (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The source is at the end of the sentence. natemup (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
No. The citation is the source that GAFCON makes that claim. It is not stylistically encyclopedic to include every claim that someone makes. The cited source doesn’t provide the source for gafcon’s claim. Where does the number 85% come from? What data are used? What secondary reliable sources substantiate that claim? Thanks. 2600:1013:B005:51F8:F975:CF82:823F:E1D1 (talk) 06:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, citations are sources. You seem to be using a journalistic definition of "source" to mean the actual individual or entity from whom a claim originates (i.e., a primary source, which generally is not preferred on Wikipedia). A reliable source doesn't need to name a primary source. Moreover, the claim that GAFCON represents 75-85% of Anglicans is referenced in various reliable sources, which I'm sure you're aware of. You can add more of them to the article if you'd like. natemup (talk) 09:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
I rather think it's incumbent on you to produce those sources. I am not personally aware of any reliable independent sources claiming more than 50% of Anglicans are represented by GAFCON. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Exactly, GenevieveDEon. These issues are ongoing with "Anglican realignment," "GAFCON," and this page. For example, in other sections the articles say that the Anglican realignment is reclaiming Anglicanism. These are clearly subjective claims; those claims can be included as beliefs (i.e. Christians believe XYZ), but there seems to be a pattern of editors censoring the responses from the other parties involved in the Anglican realignment such as the North American, European, and Southern African responses. SeminarianJohn (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
The entire point of the Anglican realignment page is to catalog subjective claims surrounding the Anglican movement away from the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. I haven't read the whole page, but it probably includes some information about responses. You could make a whole section about responses. I don't personally see the point, and I don't see it as a neutrality issue, but have at it. I don't think anyone is actually stopping you. (Moreover, if those "parties" are responding to the realignment movement—i.e., they reject it— then they are not "involved in" the realignment movement.) natemup (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
GAFCON claims to represent 75 to 85% of practicing Anglicans. There are two sources cited immediately after that claim in the article. There is no source for that being a fact because it is a claim. Wikipedia catalogs facts and claims. natemup (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
My apologies. There was one source cited and I've added more. natemup (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for adding them. As for the realignment, here are some key questions. What does realignment mean? From whom or what are they realigning? Realignment inherently signifies that there was a previous alignment. Where is this realignment taking place? This realignment did not come into existence ex nihilo. The realignment is Anglican, both within and outside the Anglican Communion as is stated in the lede of the article. The majority of the article, particularly the lede and history, detail and explain the interactions between differing member churches of the Anglican Communion in addition to some outside the Communion. The Anglican realignment article would be quite short if it never referenced the actions of the CoE, TEC, ACoC, SEC, CiW, ACSA etc. to which GAFCON and the GSFA object to. An example of the bias here is the sentence when it says, not as a claim but as a fact, that the Anglican realignment in Singapore were the first to reclaim the term Anglican. Reclaim from whom? Who doesn't have the term anymore? That isn't factual; it's a claim. I have no interest in going through every sentence of the article by myself. Starting the discussion on the talk page is an invitation for other editors to weigh in. This isn't about "nothing stopping [me]." It's about working together. Thanks SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Since you cited only one example, I will just note that it was a quote of the source, authored by Philip Jenkins. I don't know what he meant by it. natemup (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Percentage of Anglicans represented by GAFCON

Hello editors! I've reviewed the article. Although GAFCON's own sources say it represents 85% of Anglicans (and we should maintain this information as the organization's own statement), censuses, independent surveys, etc., are listed in Anglican Communion#Organisation#Provinces that include the numbers of practicing, self-declared, and baptized Anglicans, according to various independent sources and the churches themselves. The 10 provinces of the Anglican Communion (previous structure, linked to the See of Canterbury) , now at GAFCON, together represent 55.6% of the active members of the Anglican Communion churches and 46.5% of all self-declared Anglicans, as well as 46.7% of baptized Anglicans. We could transfer the dozens of sources from there to here, but I think it would be complicated. However, this information can be verified by anyone who transfers the data to an Excel spreadsheet, selects the data from the 10 GAFCON provinces that represent a percentage of the previous Anglican Communion, and divides the sum by the total number of Anglicans in each definition (active, self-declared, and baptized). Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

As I stated to another editor here, that is the definition of original research/synthesis, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Moreover, the article already cites a study with peer-reviewed data that answers the 85% claim and comes to numbers similar to but not exactly the same as what you have noted here. natemup (talk) 03:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI