Category talk:Anabaptist denominations

Historical Denominations

(Continuing an earlier discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 14#Category:Anabaptist denominations established in the 20th century)

@Peterkingiron: I'm struggling with what to do with these Anabaptist organization categories. I have no objection to distinguishing denominations from organizations. However, as I look through the organizations in Anabaptist organizations by date, I believe all the organizations in the 18th and 19th centuries would be denominations by modern standards. I suggest that Category:Anabaptist organizations established in the 18th century be renamed Category:Anabaptist denominations established in the 18th century, and the 19th century similarly. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I also struggle somewhat. For one thing, Anabaptist (like Puritan) is what their enemies called them. The principle (at least usually) is that paedo-baptism is not valid, so that people should go through a ceremony of believers baptism. If previously baptised as a baby, this is ana- (re-)baptism. My preference would be to call them "Baptist". This is the English term, though Dutch, German, etc denominations use other names. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Peterkingiron: I am familiar with this history. However, the term Anabaptist has now been commonly used by historians and reappropriated by those who claim lineage from these historical groups (eg. modern Mennonites). "Baptist" is not generally understood in common parlance as a general category, but rather as a specific historical movement and theological tradition Anabaptists have not generally been involved with. Therefore, I would oppose labeling any early Anabaptist group as "baptist" in a generic sense of the term. In any case, this conversation is beside my earlier point, which was distinguishing organizations and denominations. Can you reply directly to my proposal? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)