Talk:Global Anglican Future Conference

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)