Category talk:United Methodist clergy

This category was nominated for deletion on 16 January 2014. The result of the discussion was keep.

	Christianity portal This category 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
	This category is supported by Methodism work group.

Biography

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

UM Bishops

I have picked this page because it was relevant, empty and not at risk of deletion or renaming (although one can never be entirely sure).

There has been a lot of discussion re UM bishops and their categorisation. This is just a categorisation problem; we have a lot of Xs with various properties and wish to categorise them. Another issue is how to categorise a given X, ie a UM bishop in this case.

Firstly, are these bishops all notable? Secondly, how to categorise them? Thirdly, how to write the perfect article on a UM bishop? roundhouse 11:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Does a UM bishop pass the notability test? I would say - yes. A line has to be drawn somewhere and bishops are above it. I am not familiar with the precise set-up in the States, but I would be surprised if any Bishop of Derby (typical Anglican) were thought non-notable; ditto any UK Catholic bishop. (I have no personal knowledge of any UK Church - I'm not sure whether we have methodist bishops.) roundhouse 11:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

definitely notable. Only the most notable (U.M., M.E., etc.) clergy are/were elected to the episcopacy. In some cases, not notable because of what they do/did, perhaps (some just occupied the office), but notable because of the respect and esteem in which they are/were held by their colleagues who elected them! Much of their life's work before election is what helped them get elected (the notability of that life). Pastorwayne 12:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation of Bishops

There seems to be a consensus that subdividing by Jurisdictions/Conferences would be welcome. United Methodist Church claims - "The United States is divided into five jurisdictions: Northeastern, Southeastern, North Central, South Central and Western. Outside the United States the church is divided into seven central conferences: Africa, Congo, West Africa, Central & Southern Europe, Germany, Northern Europe and Philippines."

We have Category:United Methodist bishops by Jurisdiction, with 2 subcats Category:Methodist bishops of the Central Jurisdiction (a historical anomaly - might be better as a list) and Category:United Methodist bishops of the Southeastern Jurisdiction.

I propose that that the names Category:United Methodist bishops of X Jurisdiction be adopted for jurisdictions, and the missing 4 categories be created and all populated. I propose further that thought be given to naming and creating categories for each the 7 conferences outside the US (each of which might have jurisdictions), and an article written on them. (I am not volunteering to do any of this.) roundhouse 11:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While you have correctly quoted the current situation, over history (even recent) there were many more Central Conferences, and the Central Jurisdiction was an important hybrid in Methodist history, correctly categorized "by Jurisdiction." Moreover, the Jurisdiction system exists only since 1939. The Episcopal Area scheme goes back further, in some respects to the late 1800's. Plus the E.U.B. Church did it differently again, with much larger geographical areas under each Bishop. Pastorwayne 12:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I take the point re the Central one, which is relatively straightforward (I've now looked at the page). They are different creatures. I've revised the proposal. Maybe the pre-1939 situation would be better handled via the list (which we already have)? roundhouse 12:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The perfect article on a UM bishop

The indefatigable Pastor Wayne continues to produce material at a formidable rate, amongst the latest being Matthew Simpson, created 8 Jan 2007 and already well above average Wikipedia standard.

Let us try to bring this up to some standard or other (eg good article) in a co-operative fashion and consider its categorisation (as a template for further articles on bishops, to which I look forward). (This chap is notable on several levels, is already in 24 categories + some stubs - is this a stub? - and could be put in a host more, etc. He is clearly in Category:Irish-Americans for instance, unless I am making some historical blunder.)

Eg just to start off, should he be Matthew Simpson (bishop) with a disamb page (there must be dozens of Matthew Simpsons, his uncle to name but one). roundhouse 11:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category name: clergy rather than ministers

The biographies in this category seem to use clergy(wo)man, minister and pastor in equal measure; some use none of these but say "was ordained" or "member of ... Conference". From the article United Methodist Church I gather that"clergy" would include local pastors but not Certified Lay Ministers. I think it would be best to exclude lay ministers from the category, ~~therefore I am not nominating it for renaming.~~ – Fayenatic London 22:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, all other Methodist clergy categories now use the word Minister, and the above is not a reason for this one to stand out as different. – Fayenatic London 09:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]