Template talk:Christianity sidebar/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Christianity sidebar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Once again: JWs and LDS

Once again, the Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter Day Saint movement are being removed from the template. These currently appear on the core topic list, so shouldn't they appear unless there is a clear consensus that they should not? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Only because the template, at that point, divides between Western and Eastern denominations. Non-trinitarians do not make sense there. Can you come up with a way to include them? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

They have been there for some time. I don't really care in what format it's done, but there should not be removed without consensus that they do not belong. Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter Day Saint movement would fit under Western tradition, so if they just need to be placed in that section, that's fine with me. There doesn't need to be a separate non-trinitarian section. But objecting to the non-trinitarian section seems to me to be a poor reason to remove them completely without any discussion or consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

In the past they have been listed as Restorationism or Christian new religious movements (which now redirects to Christian denominations), etc. The problem with this change is that there was no consensus reached before the change was made. --Trödel 23:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

consensus appears to have changed

They have been and based on the edits, the consensus appears to have changed. We should discuss this though rather than edit warring over its inclusion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I could be more confident that consensus had changed if I see more than one isolated editor repeatedly removing the material. The actions of one editor is an insufficient signal that consensus has changed, IMO, so it made sense to me to restore the template to previously established consensus until it was clear that consensus had indeed changed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The inverse, only one editor restoring, is obvious. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't follow you. Usually in disputes, the standard thing to do, pending discussion, is restore the content to the previously existing version that had consensus. You did the opposite here. That's fine with me, but I don't accept the principle that you suggested—that one editor making an edit that was undiscussed and reverted by another editor constitutes evidence of a change of consensus. (I don't know, but you may be suggesting that other users' silence to the edits can be taken as evidence of a change of consensus. This is possible, but I think in general it's better, especially when it comes to templates—which provide dense amounts information—if removals of entire sections are proposed and discussed. Anyway, we're doing that now, so things are working.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

A-- Yes, other users' silence to the edits as always been taken as evidence of a change of consensus.

B-- If you didn't before, you have now have two editors removing the material (with recent consensus) and only one adding the material (without consensus).

C-- There is not policy or precedent to treat template consensus differnt than other consensus, (but there is precedent to move this to the Topic list, so that we do not have to repeat all discussions at Template:Christianity again over at Template talk:Christianity footer ). tahc ^chat 16:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

A: It wasn't clear if this was what Walter Görlitz was referring to. I was trying to get clarification from him on his intended meaning, not on the theoretical point you address, which I already acknowledged above as a possibly. However, accepting silence in this context as evidence of a change in consensus is somewhat difficult to square with the fact that change was not made or discussed to the core topic combined with the statement at the head of the category: "Consensus has determined that article links should correspond to those on the core topic list." Hence my request for clarification. B: This assumes that the second editor was not simply trying to restore a status quo ante. It wasn't clear whether he was doing this or expressing a personal opinion on the merits. Again, I was trying to get a clarification from Walter Görlitz on this. It's not obvious on its face given that the template header explicitly states that C: I had not suggested that there was—I suggested what I felt was a "best practices" procedure in all cases, which applies even more so to templates because of their nature. You're free to disagree with that, but doing so can't negative my opinion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It requires more than just a few people to change consensus. The real issue is that it is easy to view the removal of the LDS Movement (which includes one of the largest Christian denominations in the United States) as a POV pushing effort to classify the church as not christian so it shouldn't be included. The immediate reversion of any proposed change to include subjects that had for years been listed on this template smells of WP:OWN. --Trödel 23:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

do we include non-trinitarians?

Western Christianity is Trinitarian, and otherwise follows the standard creeds. Just because something came out of Western Christianity doesn't mean it is part of it anymore, just as Buddhismism is no longer part of Hinduism. tahc ^chat 11:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, that's presumably why non-T was a separate section. My overall point is that I don't care where the major non-T movements are included in the template, but they should not simply be removed by one editor without discussion, which is what was happening. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

While this is being discussed, no changes should be made. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

do we discuss it here at all or at Core_topics?

Regarding Walter's comment that the consensus appears to have changed-- I do not object to dropping the LDS and JW's but think it would be better to discuss this at the Topic list here, so that the two different tempates (see Template:Christianity footer stay similar. tahc ^chat 15:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

do we include non-trinitarians?

Eastern Christianity is certainly Trinitarian, and the non-trinitarian section certainly doesn't belong following it. All present-day non-trinitarian denominations evolved from Western Christianity, so if non-trinitarians need their own section, it should be a subsection, if possible, of Western Christianity. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't single out specific Anabaptists, Lutheran synods, etc. so I'm not sure why we need to single out LDSes, JWs and OPs.

Would it make sense to add "Nontrinitarian" under the History section or possibly under Theology? But then we open the door to other movements to be recognized rather than focus on them in the larger articles.

Perhaps we simply add a link under the Western section without singling out LDSes, JWs and OPs.

Alternately, we simply leave it out. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Anabaptists, Lutheranism, Catholic Church, Catholic Church, Eastern Christianity, all have cerain things in common, and share those things from a very old tradition. Nontrinitarianism does not share those things-- so much so that many do not even see Nontrinitarianism as part of Christianity at all. It is like (in some ways) Buddhismism coming from Hinduism-- or Christianity coming from first century Judaism.

If we add Nontrinitarianism back in at all, and want two sections then it would only make sense to have the sections be Trinitarianism and Nontrinitarianism. tahc ^chat 22:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Isn't one problem with leaving non-Trinitarianism out is that it would (in a way) take sides in the unresolvable debate and condone the view that non-T sects are not part of Christianity? If these groups self-identify as Christians, and most academic works include them as such, I would think that the largest movements at least should appear on the template, especially since in many areas of the world members of individual non-T sects outnumber members of many of the groups that are included in the template. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

If you put non-Trinitarian groups in, you are still taking sides in the debate, and thus condone the view that non-T sects are part of Christianity. tahc ^chat 02:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course, but note the rest of my comment above. The difference is you would be siding with what the sects self-identify as and with the predominant consensus in academic religious studies. Because of that (particularly the academic categorization these usually receive), I think it's less of a POV issue that eliminating it would be. (Frankly, the issue of whether non-T sects are "part" of Christianity or "real" Christians is an issue that is focused on heavily only by adherents of certain Christian sects themselves—as an academic question, it has largely reached the point of consensus.) Non-T sects are within the Category:Christianity tree of Wikipedia categorization, so it would also maintain some intra-Wikipedia consistency. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

As an academic question, whether non-T sects are "part" of Christianity has not reached consensus... it has largely been ignored, or at least purposely avoided in an effort to "not take sides". Wikipedia likewise wants to not take sides, but some things are unavoidable. tahc ^chat 20:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It has reached consensus implicitly, not explicitly, meaning that in that almost all academic sources (i.e., non-apologetic or faith-based), when categorizing non-Trinitarianism, include it within Christianity. They don't get into the weeds, because it's unresolvable as it depends wholly on one's a priori definitions. It is very difficult to find any academic sources that characterize non-Trinitarianism as non-Christian or which categorizes it outside of Christianity. The way the template treats the topic is the same sort of situation: implicit treatment of the matter rather than explicit. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus by silence is the weakest form of consensus. Consensus of opposition is just as strong. I'm trying to determine where it would best fit. In "Denominations * Groups" is clearly not the right location, but I'd be happy to hear where it would fit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The most logical grouping would be "other" - there is no reason to label the groups as non-trinitarian or otherwise. Frankly there should just be a group for those that don't follow the Eastern or Western traditions. --Trödel 23:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Implemented as a proposed compromise consensus. (Alternative section headings could be "Other groups" or "Other movements" or "Other large movements" --Trödel 23:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the worst idea yet. They are Nontrinitarian and it is silly to imply they aren't -- esp. since we should still provide a link to Nontrinitarianism somewhere on the template!!

Okay if we did have some Trinitarian groups that were outside the East/West... that would be one thing... but that we do not have. tahc ^chat 00:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's that bad of an idea, for this reason: not all sects in the Latter Day Saint movement are nontrinitarian. The Community of Christ, for instance, is trinitarian, but as part of the Latter Day Saint movement also they would fall into neither Western nor Eastern. I'm not saying Community of Christ should appear on the template (I don't think it should—a link to the larger movement is more appropriate), but to include Latter Day Saint movement under non-trinitarian is not completely accurate, because it's not monolithically non-trinitarian. (It's not just one sect either: see Category:Trinitarian sects in the Latter Day Saint movement.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Why does nontrinitarianism have to be somewhere on the template? There are a great many non-traditional theologies not represented. Where's open theism and Armenianism? I'm sure there are others missing. Perhaps we have to rework that whole section as

Adventist
Anabaptist
Anglican
Baptist
Lutheran
Methodist
Pentecostal

are coherent religious groups or denominations, while

Calvinist
Evangelical
Holiness
Protestant

are groups that loosely organized or theological systems in the West. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

And for the listing of the individual groups, we don't list the various Lutheran synods under Lutheran; the various Anglican conferences under Anglican; the various Anabaptist groups under Anabaptist, why would we list LDSes, JWs and OPs under non-trinitarian (if we can determine where to add it)? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It's worth discussing all these issues, but in the meantime the most basic answer at this stage as to why the edits should be reverted are (1) because there was no consensus to remove them and (2) because the topics that were removed still are on the core topic list, which the template header explcitly states should be mirrored by the template, and there was no proposal that these be removed from the list. So are we now going to ignore the previous consensus that the template should reflect the core list?

Why include "LDSers" but not Lutheran synods? The Latter Day Saint movement is not an individual group like a Lutheran synod—it is much more like a general grouping like "Lutheranism". (You may be confusing the Latter Day Saint movement with the LDS Church, which are not the same things.) And as I pointed out above, the Latter Day Saint movement is not really a subgroup of non-trinitarianism in any case.

Why not include open theism and Armenianism? For starters, neither is on the core list. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There was consensus to remove them.

But since you want a vote instead: Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the issue of whether or not there was consensus is where we disagree—that's a large part of my point. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

"Denominations * Groups" section formating

If the concern is that one part of the Latter Day Saint movement is now trinitarian, we can change the sub-section to "Nontrinitarian * Misc". tahc ^chat 18:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Straw poll on non-trinitarianism

Please include discussions above.

Non-trinitarianism should be kept in the Denominations * Groups section, with the three groups who are the most prominent, until a decision can be made where they belong.

Non-trinitarianism should be kept in the Denominations * Groups section, without the three groups who are the most prominent, until a decision can be made where they belong.

Non-trinitarianism should be removed from the Denominations * Groups section until a decision can be made where they belong.

Support Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It is rather unclear what you are "supporting" Walter. tahc ^chat 13:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry you don't understand. There are three choices here. Put your name and a number sign/pound/hash tag before the word Support and then sign your name. The number makes it easier to count. Don't change formatting by others on talk page. However, if you think the "polling options" need to be more clear, feel free to suggest improvements. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no need to suggest improvements to a faulty process.
I gather you want a straw poll what to do on an interim basis. A poll on an interim solution seems like an even more inefficient than what you have done up to this point. tahc ^chat 18:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Straw Poll is not needed

Let's just get this hashed out. These are fairly large and significant Christian denominations from both sheer number of adherents standpoint and from a theological doctrine standpoint, that should be included in the template. Personally I think a grouping that doesn't try to find similarities between the denominations from a theological standpoint is preferable than trying to group them as nontrinitarian (from my less than 10 min review of Oneness Pentecostal it sounds like a trinity belief and is very different than the LDS concept of Godhead - Three separate personages who are one in purpose, power, scope, influence, etc.)

The argument that they should not be included at all because they don't fit a good category that we can use as a heading is unpersuasive. These denominations in addition to having large numbers of adherents and theological differences have also had an influence on the other "mainstream" Christian religions. Additionally, there is significant academic research (especially from sociological rather than theological academic journals) that the LDS Church (at least, I know much less about the other two), is treated as Christian. Since they need to be included the only thing left to decide is what heading they should be listed under. I am open to lots of different terms, as mentioned above, Restorationists, new Christians, non-trinitarians, other Christian groups, non-Eastern/Western. Another option would be be Western Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Protestant, Non-protestant Christians - but that would be a much bigger change.

What we really need - MUCH more than a straw poll is more people involved in the discussion. I strongly believe in the wisdom of crowds and if we had enough people involved in this discussion a good decision on how to group these denominations would come out of the discussion. --Trödel 01:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You might think that people would see templates as more important that they do. Not many people watch-list templates.

I also find the argument that these non-trinitarian groups "need to be included" to be unpersuasive. That sociological research on the LDS Church takes the approach that they are "treated as Christian" is of no consequence.

I will also try to sum up the Oneness Pentecostalism by pointing out that not only do Trinitarian groups consider Oneness Pentecostalism to be Nontrinitarian, but also Oneness Pentecostalism itself considers Oneness to be Nontrinitarian. tahc ^chat 01:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The straw poll was meant to be facetious. Sorry. WP:HUMOUR.

I would be pleased to re-work the groups section to make everyone happy. I may have some time over the next day or two. I'll use a sandbox to try, unless someone else would like a kick at the can. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The straw poll above was meant to be facetious? Really?—it looked pretty normal/serious to me. Are you withdrawing the poll, then? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the issue revolves around how does Wikipedia define the term Christianity (Thank you for referring to the core concepts working group)

"...Christians believe that Jesus has a "unique significance" in the world.[9] Most Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, fully divine and fully human, and the saviour of humanity whose coming was prophesied in the Old Testament. Consequently, Christians refer to Jesus as Christ or the Messiah."

Therefore, the removal of large movements that declare themselves Christian and meet the definition of Christians is a violation of the NPOV that should be reflected in the template.

I agree that not many people watch list templates; however, I disagree that is because they are not important, but rather that readers and editors generally view them as "settled". In my experience, there is quite a bit of activity on templates when they are created and they generally don't have much controversy after the initial consensus is achieved.

However, it is reasonable to consider other formulations of how to include these larger movements since there has been a claim that "Nontrinitarian" is WP:OR. --Trödel 16:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, you're not looking at it right at all.

My reason for removing the sub-groups of nontrinitarians had to do with WP:UNDUE not NPOV. Other groups (Arminians in particular, but possibly Molinists and those who adhere to Open Theology) are excluded and no one has discussed that. As you could see from my proposals, I am not opposed to including nontrinitarians although there are many nontrinitarians who are excluded from that list: Christadelphians being the first that come to mind. What I see is an attempt to promote three groups as being equal with other, larger, more established groups. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I would avoid the suggestion that any user is looking at things wrongly or "not right". There are different ways to approach these issues, and I don't think any of the views that have been presented so far are wrong. If there are concerns that including Latter Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses would somehow favour these groups at the expense of others, then along with the option of removing the two in question, I think it's an equally reasonable suggestion to simply include the others. Ultimately, what is included vs. what it excluded should reflect the core topic list. (Right now, Arminianism, Molinism, and Christadelphians do not appear on the core topic list, whereas Latter Day Saint movement and Jehovah's Witnesses are on the list. As a side point, both the Latter Day Saint movement and Jehovah's Witnesses have numbers of adherents that are several times in magnitude greater than the Christadelphians (15m/8m vs. 60k), so that may be a consideration in considering what is and what is not on the core list for those three at least.) It's also a reasonable suggestion to propose renaming the section from nontrinitarians to something else. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Please look at User:Walter Görlitz/sandbox. I have listed two options that include trinitarianism in both, but eliminated the sub-groups who identify with it. I also move Calvinism and add Arminianism. Feel free to make suggestions here or offer your own options. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

And a third option that pulls the "groups" out into their own "group" (to use the technical term). Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I oppose all three because they have all removed Latter Day Saint movement and Jehovah's Witnesses, and I don't believe there was consensus for this change in the first place. This seems to me to have been the crux of the debate in the sections above, so it seems a bit strange to me not to at least provide options in line with what two of the four (main) commenters have preferred. Both User:Trödel and I have stated that we are not as concerned with the exact format of the template as with the fact that certain links have been removed without consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You don't understand at all. They should not be present. Why should that group be singled out over specific Anabaptist groups such as Mennonites or Amish, over specic synods of Presbyterians or Lutherans. They do not belong at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I do understand your position—you want them removed from the template. What is also to be understood is that we disagree on this exact point, and it is the main issue of dispute. I disagree with equating the Latter Day Saint movement to a synod of Presbyterianism. The Latter Day Saint movement is a movement like Presbyterianism is a movement, not a specific church or subgroup of a movement like a synod. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand my position. No you don't understand that LDS movement is not the same as Anabapitism. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I do understand your baseline position, you just don't like that I disagree with it. You don't want those links on the template, as indicated by your suggested versions. I never said the Latter Day Saint movement is the same is Anabaptism. But there is no monolithic "Latter Day Saint movement Church" just as there is no monolithic "Presbyterian Church" or "Anabaptist Church". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you don't understand, but thanks for putting on a brave front and attempting to make my opposition seem petty. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

In fact, what I do understand is that nontrinitarianism does not belong in the section where they are and you are offering no constructive suggestions for a better location and shoot down any suggestion for change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, I understand your baseline position. I never said your position was petty, though, and I'm not sure why you think I have that opinion. We disagree on a particular issue about what should appear on the template—and apparently some of the characterisations that underlie such a position. That's fine—there's not necessarily a right or a wrong and just because I disagree doesn't mean I don't understand. I have stated that I would support any format of the template—any format!—so long as Latter Day Saint movement and Jehovah's Witnesses are not removed without reaching consensus first. That's a pretty flexible position, and it is a constructive position that gives you a tremendous amount of leeway to find common ground. (I've pretty much moved on from the idea that I would prefer the header to be "nontrinitarianism" at all, given that there are trinitarian sects within the Latter Day Saint movement, so preserving the non-T link in its current location just isn't important to me. I think it's fine where you've moved it in your various suggestions.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, you don't. Offer a better option than the fecal matter that is currently on the templates and you'll understand, until then, you clearly don't understand. It's not your opposition to what you perceive to be my position that's the problem, it's the lack of constructive improvement that is the problem. The fact that you have made an assumption that is not what I believe is the problem is neither here nor there but is a separate and distinct misunderstanding.

The fact that you continue to direct link to the articles is a clear sign that you don't even know how to edit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

(Super mature responses, bud.) I don't come at this issue with a strong desire to rebuild or reorder the template. If other users would like to do that, that's certainly fine with me, but I'm more interesting in seeing that its content conforms with the list of core topics and that no topics are removed from the template without consensus for such actions. But to me, that difference doesn't mean that those adopting either approach lack understanding about the topic or are being unconstructive, nonproductive, or being difficult. Different views, I guess. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I tried to discuss with you, but you're intransigent and refuse to be mature yourself. You don't come at this with anything that approaches an understanding that there are problems in the template, but there clearly are.

You have decided to give WP:UNDUE representation to some fringe groups, while leaving core topics out. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I have not advocated for leaving any core topics out. As I have said, I am quite flexible with the format and what else is included and how. If consensus is to remove Latter Day Saint movement and Jehovah's Witnesses off the core topics list and thus the template because they are "fringe", I would be fine with that. But I haven't seen that consensus here, and no one has attempted to propose such an edit to the core topic list on its talk page. I've also avoided referring to any present content as "fecal matter", nor have I suggested that you "don't even know how to edit", so I'm confident that the maturity of my comments has been at least on a somewhat higher plane than that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

tahc ^chat 03:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do that. I'm done. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose changes - This has been decided over and over again.(see here and here). Nothing I have read hear changes what has always been the censuses, that the Latter Day Saint movement and Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian sects. Therefore, the Latter Day Saint movement and Jehovah's Witnesses should say on this template. Additionally I find the fact that this discussion has been opened on a template page, hidden from most editor, instead of on Christianity proper, highly suspicious. It seems to me to be an attempt to ignore the already decided censuses without proper discussion.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 21:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion was only started here because there were some disputed edits to the template. I don't think there was any intent by anyone to hide anything or do anything surreptitious. But you're right that templates don't get watched a whole lot, so it's not a great forum for getting lots of participation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If that is the case then I apologies for not assuming Good Faith. However, I stand by my believe that, if the Latter Day Saint movement and Jehovah's Witnesses are going to be removed from being "Christian", then this isn't the place for that discussion to take place as most people don't follow template talk pages. Such a significant change involving hundreds of pages should include more editors. The discussion should take place at Talk:Christianity or on both Talk:Latter Day Saint movement and Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses, with notification on the pages that isn't being used.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 22:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't my intention, but rather brevity. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I also still oppose changes, just to be clear.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 22:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

A new template

An editor created template:Christian culture and has been replacing this template on several articles. Feel free to inspect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Only in three articles i replaced this template, two of them are not even listed in this template for example the article Christian philosophy is not listed in this template. and in the Christian music article i undid revision my edit.Jobas (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of Evangelical & Holiness

Both seem to be included among Western denominations/groups. Evangelicalism and Holiness movement aren't denominations in the understanding of this template. The former is a transdenominational movement within Protestantism, the latter is a movement within Methodism. Both aren't denominations as in the case of Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Methodism, etc.Ernio48 (talk) 11:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

They are a group and a movement, which is why they are in that section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Holiness movement can be considered a part of Methodism. It shouldn't be in this template.Ernio48 (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed insertion of small portal links in the templates

I inserted small portal links on this templates. Do you think this was a good idea? Do you support its inclusion in the templates? Please answer.--Broter (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I oppose the small portal links on these two templates; see Template talk:Christianity footer#Proposed insertion of small portal links in the templates for details why. tahc ^chat 17:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see what they did. Perhaps they cannot be used. I am neither in favour nor opposed to their inclusion until I can see the effect that they have. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Image in infobox reviewed

This has come up before. The cross is much more of a universal symbol of Christianity. In the past, ornate crosses have been used and discussion has been opposed to using the. Recently File:Christian cross.svg was added by ServB1 (talk · contribs) and tacitly approved by Tahc (talk · contribs) to replace File:StJohnsAshfield StainedGlass GoodShepherd Portrait.jpg the stained glass good shepherd image. In the past it has been argued that this is not a universal image. I would argue that the plain cross is a better symbol. What are the arguments against it and in favour of the stained glass good shepherd image or vice versa? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Both ServB1 and Walter Görlitz support it. I think the new simple cross is fine. tahc ^chat 15:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Tradition: insertion of Saint Joseph (father of Jesus Christ God), St. John the Baptist and Forerunner, St. John the Apostle and Evangelist

Good evening, as concerned in the title of this topic about the section titled "tradition", near the wikilink of the Blessed Virgin Mary, it may be hopefully linked the article of ]]Saint Joseph]], which was traditionally subject of a type of worship called protoduly to distinguish by the one reserved to his Virgin spouse (known as hiperduly).

Even if John the Baptist wasn't an Apostle, in Luke 7 verse 28 he was defined by Jesus Christ God as the grestest prophet ever born by woman^[1] and therefore has to be taken in the same consideration. Lastly, John the Evangelist and the Apostle is the one to whom the Lord entrusted His mother before dying on the cross (in Ecce homo) and as the author of the Letters to Seven Churches and the Apocalypse of John, in the Early Christianity he took a role equivalent ot Saint Peter and Saint Paul.

Despite the "proceedings" of scholars, all the Churches of Christianity that accept the veneration of saints, identify John the Apostle, John the Evangelist, and John the Presbyter with the same unique person. In a sidebar named "tradition", this element has to be valued with the opportune selection of articles. Among them, the article concerning John the Apostle seems to have the main meaning due to fact it relies directly with the entrustment of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, as Orthodox Church does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.38.238.30 (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The addition of Joseph was discussed and rejected a while ago.

John the Baptizer (as Mark prefers to call him) isn't a good addition either.

I don't think that adding one apostle over others is advisable.

I have reverted your additions of these entries until WP:CONSENSUS is reached to add one or more of them in. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, all of your additions are worthy of being on this template. But there are guardians at these gates, and they ~~will~~ revert your edits. Maybe it's time for another full discussion, as each of your entries do this template justice and add to its relevance and its value to readers. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It would be good to note that the topics are actually discussed and listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This seems as good a place as any to discuss any of these topics, unless an RfC or something is asked for. The "core topics" page and list has been a subject of contention and questioning, and the exclusion of the topics added and then removed being discussed here are probably major points of that contention. Joseph, John the Baptist? These two topics, at least, are certainly well worthy of being on this and the footer template. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have written, "usually" rather than "actually". And not "any" place will do for a discussion like this. For instance, we wouldn't expect the discussion to reach consensus on your talk page, or at ANI, but since the topic is more general than just this sidebar, the location I pointed to would be the best place to discuss it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Jesus, Mary and...who's that other guy?, I didn't mean that any random page would do as good as any other to talk about the lack of obvious additions to this template. I meant, and maybe I didn't explain it clearly, my apologies, is that this template talk page is about topics on this template. By as "good as any" I meant the page you suggested or on the talk page of the footer template. I number myself as a member of the "Joseph and John the Baptist supporters" (maybe we can do a user category) who would like to see those two articles added to the two templates per notability and common sense. Discussing template topics on that templates talk page is, rather than unusual, the practice of every other template, and every article, that I can remember. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

References

^ "1611 King James Bible, Luke 7:28".

Added nontrinitarian groups

I apologize for not reaching consensus on the talk page beforehand, I went straight to editing from an article and didn't see the warning until after publishing.

I added Iglesia ni Cristo, Christadelphians, La Luz Del Mundo, and The New Church (Swedenborgian) to the nontrinitarian section of Denominations / Groups. If these are unnecessary, feel free to undo my addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribose carb (talk • contribs) 19:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Consensus on Wikipedia on groupings of Christian denominations

I opened a discussion on groupings in Christianity, of which there currently seems to lack a consensus on Wikipedia. The discussion might be of interest for followers of this talk page. Please see: Talk:Christianity#Denominations [Archived to: Talk:Christianity/Archive_58#Denominations. Peacedance (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)]. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

color/image changes

Please discuss the color/image changes instead of just flipping it back and forth, per WP:BRD, etc. tahc ^chat 16:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Cross proportions

I think that there are better proportions for cross. Example (that's first result from Google search now).
At this photo (seen here too), assuming someone "official" created that cross (because it was inside of church's yard), proportions are as if plus (+) is made with two element widths below (three "points" make upper "line", left line and right line; five "points" make line below).

Also, it should be more thin.

File:Latin Cross.svg or File:Cruz Latina.jpg are better representations for me to use in this template and elsewhere.

--5.43.72.55 (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hiding the cross icon

Is there a good justification for enabling the cross icon (the one alongside to the portal link) to be replaced with the ichthys, given that there is now a larger cross at the top? My understanding is the intention of hiding the cross icon was to make this sidebar more appropriate for article about those Christian groups which do not use the cross as a symbol. I think the larger cross would present more of an issue than the portal icon. --Hazhk (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

If one checks {{Christianity by country}}, {{Catholic Church sidebar}}, {{Eastern Christianity sidebar}}, {{Eastern Orthodox Church sidebar}} and {{Oriental Orthodox sidebar}} (also {{Bible sidebar}} by some aspects), none of these sidebars contain cross but other image (with one template, {{Catholic Church sidebar}}, containing one cross but within image and not visible by first glance i.e. without clicking on photo to enlarge it). That is just one reason (non-primary) to keep cross image in this template. --5.43.72.55 (talk) 04:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC) [e]

I saw it immediately so this could just be your issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Your comment is unclear. --5.43.72.55 (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Crusades and Crusading

Apologies, added Crusading to the side bar before I noticed the instructions. This is subject to a long tortuous discussion on both pages talk pages around scope, geographic spread and historical periods. It seems to be developing that the subject needs more than just the Crusades article which is predominantly about Crusades in the Holy Land with very slight summaries of other periods and geographies. Any feedback and comment on that is welcome, there are some very set positions and consensus would be assisted by a wider range of views.

Hopefully, there are no real objections to the change of the side bar, let me know if there are any major issues and perhaps there is another solution to linking to both articles. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The ongoing RfC and sporadic references at Talk pages ([1], [2]) show that most editors say that the Crusades article should be kept as the main article of the general topic "Crusades" instead of transforming it into an article about the Levantine Crusades or the Crusades in the Holy Land. Before the RfC is closed, there is no point in starting new and new discussions. Borsoka (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

"Books of the bible"

For reference, I have removed the link to Books of the Bible. That article topic was with Biblical canon in August 2020. There obviously is no need for two links to the same article. It might be desirable to link "Books of the Bible" to a subsection of the article? --Hazhk (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Crusades and/or Crusading movement

Personally, I think both have a place in the side bar. Crusades is largely (but not completely) MILHIST, predominately (but again not completely) focussed on wars in the Middle-East against Muslims for the Holy Land during the 11th/12th/13th centuries. Crusading movement is about the instituition of Crusade, focussed on the ideology of the papacy and runs until the dawn of the 19th century. In true WP fashion, all opinions are welcome. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree, seems that it should be one of the entries under history and traditions. The "core 100" should be expanded a bit as obviously relevant pages show up (the consensus history at the start of the 100 limit is scarce or just decided on by one or a couple editors). Earlier I added Ministry of Jesus as 'Ministry' to bridge the gap between Jesus' Nativity and Crucifixion, and seems to me another obvious addition to an expanded-100. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey Randy Kryn—you've confused me now :-). Are you agreeing Crusading movement should be on the sidebar after all? I wouldn't object to both but if it came to a choice I think it fits better than Crusades which contains a lot of fighting with only tenuous links to Christianity, although possibly caused by religious intolerance. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

My revert rests on both the earlier discussion above and this thing about "100 core topics and no others" which some of us question, so thought that others should comment. I'd personally list the two as one entry and one subsection: Crusading movement (crusades). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group appears to be inactive, so I suspect we are the only two talking about this. On that basis I'll take your preference and be WP:BOLD. Should anyone wish to question this we can debate then. It would be interesting to know what people think about the topic in any case. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

How do we choose what subheadings, and what articles should be included in the sidebar? There are 70,000 articles in WikiProject Christianity so we obviously can't include everything. Rather than have the sidebar evolve idiosyncratically, based on whatever the last person to drop by felt like adding to it based on their own interests, let's have a discussion about inclusion criteria—namely, some guidance to editors about what kinds of things belong here, and which do not.List articles have a guideline about how to define WP:LISTCRITERIA for what should be in the list, and maybe we could do something analogous here.

Let's brainstorm some ideas about inclusion criteria, so that the sidebar is as useful and helpful to readers as possible on the articles on which it appears. See the five numbered bullet items at WP:SIDEBAR for starters. If we can achieve some consensus on this, it would give editors at the Template more confidence going forward that their additions or changes are on the right track. Mathglot (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I have restored this version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Christianity_sidebar&oldid=1050685195 by Mathglot. As the content and format of this template is now up for debate it would be good manners to discuss before editing Softwarestatistik. I make no comment on the validity of the edits. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

So, I'm starting to think about how to kick-start this conversation. I think the introductory point is the one made above about size and scope; that is, some topics are so huge, that we are going to have to pick and choose only the most important points to cover. Clearly, "Christianity" is such a topic. So the question becomes, "how do we decide what belongs?" The point I wanted to raise in this discussion, is while we could, I suppose, argue whether individual articles merit being in the template, I think that would become a time sink or devolve into useless bickering that would never end; there's always one other article to argue about. Rather than do that, we should try and come up with some broad-brush guidelines of what ought to be there, and then if and when questions come up about some individual article, we can base the discussion on those guidelines.

If there's agreement on that much, then the question becomes, "how" do we decide what's "important" enough? In starting to examine this, I've come up with some ideas. Since there are various approaches, to keep the topic from getting too long or splintering, I'll try to define some subsections here to address the topic.

Top-level sectioning approaches

The first broad-brush decision to make, is what should the top-level sections be? Currently, we have the following six top-level sections in the sidebar:

Jesus • Christ, Bible • Foundations, Theology, History • Tradition, Denominations • Groups, Related topics

We could look at how well this breakdown works for the "Christianity" topic, or we could look at how Wikipedia handles top-level sections in sidebars of other religions. The latter is easier:

Christianity (6) – Jesus • Christ, Bible • Foundations, Theology, History • Tradition, Denominations • Groups, Related topics
Buddhism (7) – History, Dharma • Concepts, Buddhist texts, Practices, Nirvana, Traditions, Buddhism by country
Catholicism (10) – Background, Organisation, Theologies • Doctrine, Texts, Philosophy, Worship, Rites, Miscellaneous, Societal issues, Links and resources.
Hinduism (9) – Origins, Traditions, Deities, Concepts, Practices, Philosophical schools, Gurus • saints • philosophers, Texts, Society
Islam (6) – Beliefs, Practices, Texts • Foundations, History, Culture and Society, Related topics
Judaism (13) – Movements, Philosophy, Texts, Law, Holy cities/places, Important figures, Religious roles, Culture and education, Ritual objects, Prayers, Major holidays, Other religions, Related topics

My first-glance thoughts are that six major headers isn't enough for such a huge topic as Christianity, and I'd like to see it grow. Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Disclaimer first, I have rocked up here via an interest in the Crusading movement and there is enough argument to be had there to test even the most patient editor. That said it would be sensible if this sidebar reflected a top level article on the subject. Unfortunately having looked at Christianity, it is a bit of a car wreck B/C level former FA, former GA. However, Outline of Christianity does seem well structured and a good place to start Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)