Template talk:Christianity and gender

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.

No censorship but[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesus is King of Kings (talkcontribs) 01:37, 2 January 2014‎

You will not find consensus for that, I believe. Toddst1 (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Umm, the image is a Christian art portraying Adam and Eve, not pornography! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I think Jesus is King of Kings's comment demonstrates why the image is so appropriate for an article entitled Christianity and gender. Past that, WP:NOTCENSORED states "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content and Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 05:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Judaism and Islam prohibit the consumption of pork products. We have not erased Bacon because of this. The Amish faith (at least in some stripes) admonishes against use of electricity. We have not moved the servers on to an abacus. There is not any reason I can see to give one particular religion's admonition against one particular thing (nudity) special priority over all these and other religious tenets. If you do want to go and make Wikipedia compliant with every belief of every religion and every denomination thereof, please feel free to attempt that. This might be different if it depicted something that is unilaterally antithetical to Christianity itself, but the massive history of nudity in Christian art (such as the very image in question) demonstrates that opposing any depiction of nudity is even less paramount to Christianity than the aforementioned dogmas we have not acted upon. So this is not even about honoring the dogma of an entire religion, but of one particular group of people within it. I hope that explains sufficiently the ways in which this differs from, say, using an image of Hitler for pages about Judaism. - Vianello (Talk) 09:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


The list of notable people seems to consist almost entirely of English-speaking, contemporary, Reformed Protestants, even though they make up only a minority within Christianity (past and present). I'm going to see if there's anything I can do to rectify this apparent systemic bias. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Added two (1 Catholic and one Orthodox), but the list could use more. It's worth noting that Catholics and Orthodox, unlike Protestants, generally do not fit cleanly into any of the four basic perspectives (Feminism, Complementarianism, Egalitarianism and Patriarchy). Mathewes-Green for instance self-identifies as a feminist, and is one in a lot of ways, but unlike Protestant feminists she accepts (with all Orthodox) that ordination should be male-only, which would be considered a Complementarian position in the Protestant world. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)