Template talk:Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.



I believe the current picture is not really representative and to me he does not look like Jesus. First, Christ was a Jew, so he had an olive skin, dark hair and maybe a crooked nose (like this). Secondly, this picture depicts an overly gentle person, but the former picture is more impressive and correct. Thirdly, the current picture is not at all "iconic", but just a stained glass picture of a modern Anglican church, while the other picture is from the well-known Basilica of Sant'Apollinare Nuovo build in the 6th century! The former discussion do not mention this picture as far as I can see, so I suggest to replace it with this picture. The picture is File:Christus Ravenna.jpg. Regards.--GoPTCN 17:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You should read the long, long discussion in the archives about this. Many of these issues had been discussed there - some people wanted a cross, not a picture, some wanted 3 crosses, some wanted a different image, some wanted a fish symbol, etc. So anyway, please read those. But one thing that is certain is that "to me he does not look like X" has about 100,000 different values for X, depending on who states that. The conclusion of that long discussion was that until there is "clear consensus" to change, the image should remain. History2007 (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Whatever -- you know very well that there is no "clear consensus" to keep the current image, and that many different people have objected to it on many separate occasions. By your standards of "lack of clear consensus", the current image should be nuked... AnonMoos (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
If you also read the archives, I did not add the current image. The way Wikipedia works, the lack of consensus means that nothing changes. History2007 (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
1. about reading long discussions in the archive, why is it that one cannot comment in the archive, but must comment here?
2. the picture is just plain wrong, it isn't Jesus. This is Jesus (acc 2 NT):
Cristo Redentor - Rio.jpg Cecco del Caravaggio Expulsión de los mercaderes del templo 1610 Staatliche museen Berlin.JPG 120px
The image currently perused doesn't in any proper way represent the literary Jesus – quite contrary it represents an unnatural contrafactual interpretation of peacefullness and pleasantness which is invented for small children in order to make the Jesus-story less provocative and disturbing in the Christian education. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 12:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Now Mr Rursus, how did you determine that "it isn't Jesus. This is Jesus..." Did you determine that by yourself? If so, please do enlighten us... Or do you have WP:RS sources for it? And regarding the "pleasantness which is invented for small children in order to make the Jesus-story less provocative and disturbing in the Christian education.", how did you determine that one? Did you come to these conclusions by yourself, or do you have WP:RS sources to support them? History2007 (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, in view of these never ending comments, the best way may be to use a composite of multiple biblical scenes probably. Perhaps better quality art than those Rursus suggested, but there are plenty out there. However, that change can not happen without consensus. If there is consensus we can do it, else will have to stay with what there is. And I do not mind that either. History2007 (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I would accept an image that reflected Isaiah 53:1-12 or Daniel 7:13-14. I do not think the current image is especially deficient. I think that the image should be of sufficient resolution that the details of Christ's features (even though they have never been recorded from firsthand observation) are apparent. I think that the thumbnail should be a closeup of Christ, preferably just the face, so that it is not overly confusing "who are all these people?" Per Isaiah I would also accept an image of Christ tortured and crucified. Per Daniel, an image of Christ Pantocrator would be fitting. Elizium23 (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • How can we know the current image "does not look like Jesus"? All we have is religious art from subsequent centuries; you can pick from Byzantine icons which make him look Byzantine, many great works of Renaissance art which make him look European, maybe for a bit of variety you can pick some Coptic art which gives him darker skin. We can choose from various artwork which showed jesus radiating Love, or Wisdom, or Power, or whatever else the artist wanted to portray in that commission. It's not as though we have any photos (although one could perhaps photograph something associated with him; reliquaries across Europe have enough splinters and nails from the True Cross to build a whole new ship). It would be silly to treat biblical texts as literal and accurate descriptions of his appearance. In that light, I'd prefer a composite image, which incorporates images from different religious contexts. bobrayner (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
One wonders whether this discussion will ever actually end. I see no objections whatsoever to the existing image. It is a stained glass image of Jesus, and, lets be honest, many Christians to some degree equate stained glass images with Christianity. But, yes, I could see any number of other images as acceptable as well. Maybe the best alternative might be to either change to one of the images of commons:category:Icons of Crucifixion or commons:category:Paintings of crucifixion. Yes, I know, there are groups within what is broadly thought to be "Christianity" who do not believe in the crucifixion, but there are groups within Christianity who would dispute pretty much any image. Maybe some sort of composite, with stained glass and crucifixion images would work too. I really neither know nor, actually, care much. The one point I really do believe is that this semi-regular discussion is among the least productive I can imagine, and it would be great if it could be resolved, finally, one way or another. John Carter (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. I don't really mind the current image.
However, after looking at the template again, it struck me that this is a template for christianity, not jesus. If we're going to have a composite image then perhaps some of the other pics should be of other aspects of christianity rather than just a selection of portrayals of jesus - there are plenty of good images of notable texts, relics, cathedrals, &c. (Hey, maybe a pic of the Schloßkirche in Wittenberg would kill two birds with one stone) bobrayner (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I fully agree with John Carter's comments above in that we have a reasonable established consensus and are unlikely to improve substantially on it. I would add that the image serves as a logo for the portal so it should be stable over time. Given the centrality of Jesus for Christianity, I can see advantages in having related images as the logos for the two portals. Let's stop turning our individual idea of the best into the enemy of the good and adequate and get on with the voluminous task of editing which is needed to turn mediocre articles into good ones, and good ones into better ones.Jpacobb (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; sometimes "the best" is the enemy of "good enough". bobrayner (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Amen. And may this discussion end here and now. History2007 (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I really don't see how that is going to happen when the nature of the current image is such that many people who come across it will independently consider it somewhat objectionable in the context of the template (see my comment of 7:25, 22 March 2012 above). Furthermore, your rather arbitrary diktat that the amount of so-called "consensus"[sic] necessary to keep the image in place is much less than the amount of so-called "consensus"[sic] necessary to dislodge it might not survive contact with a noticeboard, or mediation process, etc. if someone chose to take the matter there... AnonMoos (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Did you say "arbitrary diktat"? Sorry, I have misplaced my dictator hat today, so I was not issuing a diktat. Did you find it? Buddy, I asked for comments on the Wikiproject, to see what people think. If you think that is a diktat, then you must look up the definition of diktat. But do not consider that an order.... History2007 (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The above comment seems to almost contain some form of threat. However, I would agree that, if the above editor is so concerned about the image that he thinks an RfC or other steps called for, that editor is free to do so. However, I do very much have to question how closely the above comments adhere to talk page guidelines. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The Wikipedia policies that concern making a change are not about the support to "change" vs. the support to "keep." The policies understand consensus to be something you do have (at a given time), or you don't have. We could very well have a situation where no particular idea has consensus right now. If there was a consensus in the past it is still going to be okay now. That system can be frustrating sometimes, but (1) it keeps out some changes that are not seen as valuable by any majority and (2) reduces some needless comments by allowing (perhaps many) people who support the current image to do nothing most of the time. Instead of forcing them post again and again "yes, we still like the current image" every month that this comes up, we can just wait until there is some particular image that may really gain consensus... and only then do they have to comment if they still feel the same way. tahc chat 02:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
WP:PRESERVE (which is a policy) does tilt the balance towards not rocking the boat. However, as John and others have commented this discussion has negligible encyclopedic value and does not add to content. And as Jpacobb commented it hinders improvements elsewhere.... I am glad I stopped worrying about these things. The encyclopedic depth is just mind boggling here... History2007 (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Current pic looks fine to me.– Lionel (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Current pic looks foul (more precisely: obnoxious) to me. Long live the non-preservationism! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 17:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Aaaaaagh enough of this Rursus. Are you trying to be funny or something? You go on a page about Christianity and use terms that are clearly offensive to some other users. Why are you doing this? Read WP:Forum, then go use a social network if you want to yap, else if you have policy on your side, quote it. Wikipedia:I just don't like it is not a policy. Understand? Either quote policy, or stop yapping sans policy. This is not a chit-chat forum. History2007 (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I know this point was briefly mentioned in the archives but the point got smothered in the great profusion of heated discussion about the picture of Jesus. So I want to bring this point up again. A picture of Jesus Christ is offensive to many Reformed Christians. In other words, the picture used in the Christianity portal is very offensive to me and many other Reformed Christians (and perhaps some other non-Reformed Christians also). We think it is wrong to use images of Christ because of the 2nd commandent. [1] We think it is wrong to create and use images of God and of Christ (who is God the Son) because that is using a man-mind image of God, who is divine. So whenever I see the portal, I am offended and feel uncomfortable as I read articles about Christianity which have the Christianity portal at top. It's not like I think it's a sin to look at a picture of Christ or anything but I just feel uncomfortable when I am forced to look at an image of Christ as it appears on Wikipedia articles because then the picture comes up in my head when I think about Christ, distorting my idea about who Christ really is, making it hard for me to think of Christ as the One the Bible testifies He is, not what a human artist thinks he is like. In my opinion, it would be much better if no picture at all or something like a plain cross or Christian fish symbol was used instead of a picture of Christ. Johosephatty (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Your concern is uncited, and is quite unlike anything in the Reformed faith article.
Besides, Wikipedia is not censored. tahc chat 21:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Whatever --it has nothing to do with "censorship"[sic], but rather with what type of image best works as a template thumbnail (since template thumbnails are subject to many additional considerations which would usually not apply to ordinary article images). AnonMoos (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of non-English[edit]

So I just looked at about two dozen other languages on wikipedia, most of them use a simple cross, some have various images (fish etc), and only a small handful have the European Jesus picture on them. Obviously Jesus was not a European so it's kind of silly from a historical standpoint, but you can of course argue that it's just art. However the wiki problem comes with the context - if an alien being came to Earth to look at Wikipedia they might as well assume Jesus and Mary were from Norway or Denmark, not the Levant, judging by the overwhelming appearance of European depictions of these historical figures on the wiki pages. Now I may be mistaken but it seems like at some point you run up against Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy here. Even if you want to say it doesn't really matter what ethnic group Jesus is depicted as, well, then you at least need to have a variation represented - which Wiki is kind of failing at right now. It is interesting that the various non-english Wiki's have chosen different pictures for this box so maybe we could take a cue from just wandering around and looking at them. Decora (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree... AnonMoos (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Propose inclusion of all "core topics" and only "core topics" in the template[edit]

Honestly, one of the main reasons I can think of for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group is to determine which are the "core" topics, which, pretty much, is also the purpose of this template. On that basis, I tend to think that the articles included in the "core topics' list are the ones which should be in this article, and that should anyone propose any changes to this template, that perhaps they propose the changes to the "core topics" list first. Does that make sense to the rest of you? John Carter (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, certainly, per archived discussions, etc. tahc chat 02:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


Which of the following descriptions do you find the most appropriate for this heading:

  1. Denominations
  2. Groups
  3. Branches
  4. Sects Pass a Method talk 01:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I like "Denominations" but I think "Denominations and movements" is my next favorite. tahc chat 02:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Denominations, because thats the wikilink we link to. Pass a Method talk 11:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Sects is definitely out. Personally, I have to believe that none of the above are acceptable, and believe that there may well be a problem in that it perhaps other alternatives are not to be considered. Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions breaks religious groups into "families" of religions, and while I personally don't think that word would really be best here, I do think that some other term might be best. "Traditions", "Church families," or something similar would be my favored choice, as it would allow groups to be put together in accord with one or more of the early groups whose beliefs and practices they might largely continue, and/or indicate the specific group from which they broke off. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, however, I note that wikipedia policies and guidelines do not require that terms used in templates like this also be used in the articles themselves, particularly if the term is one which is rarely if ever used to describe a group individually. John Carter (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

LDS Church[edit]

The The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is only part (albeit a very big part) of the Latter Day Saint movement. The LDS Church link should be changed wither to point directly to the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the piped link name should be changed to better reflect aht the link is for the Latter Day Saint movement. -- (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Add a link: Saint?[edit]

I notice that Saint doesn't appear on the Topic list, even though the article is marked as being of "top-importance" in Christianity. "Saint" is an important concept in Christianity and saints and the "communion of saints" are mentioned in the historic creeds. Is there any reason why this article isn't linked in the template? -- Hazhk Talk to me 16:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This quote below is from the documentation of Template:Christianity.
Before changing or adding any links, please read the discussion here. Consensus has determined that links should be limited to those listed here.
I also see that Saint is listed there as top-importance for Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints, and for some other projects, but not top-importance for Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity. tahc chat 04:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).