Template talk:Christianity sidebar

This page has an Archive : Archive1

Expansion of template (Paul and Great Commission)

Why does ASDamick revert the addition of Paul of Tarsus and Great Commission to this template as vandalism? Surely this does not fit the wikipedia definition of vandalism and further aren't both of these highly significant to Christianity?64.169.2.96 01:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Some would go so far as to say that Paul founded Christianity. I would call him highly relevant. joshbuddy^talk 01:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't reverted as vandalism, but rather as an imbalance. ("rvv" is the usual designation for the reversion of vandalism, while "rv" is just a revert.) Why Paul and not Peter? Why not a list of every one of the Twelve? What about Moses? Or Mary? And why the Great Commission and not various other major moments? How about the Transfiguration? Nativity? Etc. The point is that these additions add an imbalance to the template that would require it to become highly bloated in order to include everything else of equal status. —Preost ^{talk contribs} 02:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a pretty good argument could be made that Paul is the most important figure in Christianity. His letters predate any gospel. Jesus has no writings. I understand the need more minimalism in a template like this, but in terms of setting the tone and doctrine of Christianity, Paul was certainly the most important figure. joshbuddy^talk 02:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Possibly such an argument could be made. Inclusion in the template, however, makes it appear as if the argument was over. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I would have said that its inclusion into the template would be an attempt to conform to NPOV. After all, from a non-christian pov, Paul is effectively its founder. To not list Paul would be to show a certain bias towards the traditional view of the formation of Christianity. Such a bias should not exist. Just my 2 cents. joshbuddy^talk 03:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's just take it as read that you actually said it instead of hypothetically. You seem to be equating "non-Christian POV" with NPOV, which is not valid. Non-Christians have agendas too, after all, some of them stridently so. Certainly some non-Christian scholars might see Paul's role as central. So do some Christians. Others do not. The question is not settled. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how agenda's relate here. Afaik, Paul's role in the development in Christianity is agreed upon by a majority of scholars as being a central role, certainly one more central than the 12 apostles. I'm curious what others think of this. We are, after all, talking about the person who is attributed with writing the majority of the Christian canon. joshbuddy^talk 04:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's really pretty straightforward. Obviously, Jesus is first, Paul of Tarsus is second, after all some 50% of the NT is his, most significantly because he is not one of the Twelve Apostles, which should be next. The Great Commission should be listed because that is where Jesus gives his command to the Eleven Apostles, which includes to follow his teachings, and his teachings are summarized in the Sermon on the Mount, which themselves reference the Ten Commandments. John 3:16 should also be listed, since that is what most people think of when they think of Christianity. The Trinity is already mentioned, that covers Christology. Likewise, Old Testament, New Testament, and Apocrypha, because those are the significant parts of the Christian Bible. Those are the minimum, to not include them is absurd. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.169.7.28 (talk • contribs) .

Paul was never accounted chief of the Apostles no matter how many letters he wrote. He should come after the Twelve if he is to be included. The writing of letters, valuable as they are, has little to do with Apostolic activity. Many of the others were just as active, they just happened not to be Scripturally documented. John 3:16 is indeed important, but its importance over other parts of the Gospel has been somewhat exaggerated because of certain prominent sign-wavers at sporting events. The "Great Commission" is no more and no less significant than the other places where Jesus exhorted his followers to do his commandments. The Trinity does not cover Christology, which is about the nature of the incarnated Logos; Triadology is a distinct branch of theology. Other than that, I agree with you.... TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Paul is commonly refered to as "The Apostle" among the Ante-Nicene Fathers, no doubt because of his significance to Marcion and Valentinius. It is Paul who can definitely be placed in Rome, Acts 28:14-end. The significance of the Great Commission is because that is where Jesus specifically commissions his (then 11) Apostles. Jesus is the original leader of "Christianity", however he was crucified, resurrected by God and then ascended to heaven - he specifically commissioned his apostles, before the ascension, in the Great Commission, to continue his mission on earth, until the time of the Second Coming.209.78.20.238 19:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Paul and the Great Commission may fit better on Template:Christian theology. —thames 15:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added it in there. I think its too bad that there is such a apostolic slant to the christian views. Pauline christianity seems rather significant to me. Not biggie I suppose. joshbuddy^talk 16:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

More on the significance of Paul: Much as the Great Commission places significance on the Eleven Apostles, and Luke 10 places significance on the Seventy Apostles, Paul receives his commission from Jesus on the Road to Damascus, specifically Acts 26 NRSV: "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But get up and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and testify to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you. I will rescue you from your people and from the Gentiles—to whom I am sending you to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.” ... "After that, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout the countryside of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God and do deeds consistent with repentance." ... "To this day I have had help from God, and so I stand here, testifying to both small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would take place: that the Messiah must suffer, and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles."

No one is arguing for the insignificance of Paul, but rather that his inclusion on the template is an imbalance. After all, while Paul's activity and epistles were quite influential, the Gospel of John has been far, far more important in the history of Christianity, and certainly John has a much more prominent role in the formation of the Church than Paul ever did. And if we're going to include NT figures that are prominent, Mary has been stressed in most churches even more than any of the Apostles. So she should be included, too. And so on. The point is that adding these individual figures is a pushing of a particular agenda (i.e. POV). The "it's really quite simple" language above demonstrates that. As Csernica said, a non-Christian POV does not equal NPOV.

And I remain unconvinced of the centrality of the Great Commission over and above all the other NT elements which have been the subject of MUCH more attention in the history of Christianity. How much ink has been spilled over the Crucifixion, for instance? Or the Resurrection? —Preost ^{talk contribs} 22:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

An alternative template

===>Hope this helps I took it upon myself to make a new template, using the suggestions here and comparing it to the kind of content found on similar ones (particularly Template:Judaism and Template:Bahá'í).
The pros of this alternative:

• Contains a much more robust view of the faith
• Covers almost all of the major topics and movements that one would expect to find in a brief summary

Cons:

• It is about 130% as wide
• It uses the <small> tag

In my defense:

• It is nowhere near as bloated as the huge Judaism template, but about as versatile (to be fair, it is also in the process of being merged with another template.) See also Template:Islam and Template:Bahá'í.
• As for the width, there are templates just as wide, and it still looks intelligible in 800x600 resolution. For that matter, many templates use <small>, so any criticism of its use is more a criticism of the tag itself than its application here.
• I'm still trying to figure out a good list for the "Practices" section.
• I replaced the Latin cross figure with an Icythus for two reasons: this figure is smaller and it also counteracts any perceived Western bias.

Feedback? -Justin (koavf), talk 06:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Problems:

• Under "History", there are many historical movements as significant as Evangelicalism and Pentecostalism; we may have to replace them for NPOV/accuracy.
• Under "People", there are many people more significant than Lewis, Graham, and John Paul (don't get me wrong...I'm a fan of all three); we may have to replace them for NPOV/accuracy.
• Under "The Church", anarchism is barely notable by comparison to the other groups listed; the section may have to be modified for NPOV/accuracy.

You'll need to get a great deal of consensus before replacing the current template, as there have been some heated exchanges here. I appreciate your work. KHM03 ^(talk) 11:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

===>Here's my thinking I went with a broad three-tiered approach: ancient, middle-age, and contemporary. So, for history, I chose three things most important in each large epoch. Regarding evangelicalism and particularly Pentecostalism, I would disagree. Within a century, 100 million people were converted to Pentecostal Christianity, primarily in Africa and South America; I can't think of many trends in Christian history that rival it. The same line of thinking was true for the Lewis-Graham-JP II line of people; they are the three Christians who I would anticipate people would be most interested in knowing about from the 20th century (with the possible exception of Mother Teresa?) One nice thing is, they are all from different faith traditions (Anglican, Protestant, Catholic) although all are Westerners. Thanks for your feedback, though. Regarding the Christian Anarchists, your point is well-taken; their inclusion reveals my personal biases (and the article is really well-written, so it's a shame to take it off.) Do you have any alternative people or historical trends that would replace the current ones? Anybody else have two cents? -Justin (koavf), talk 14:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm against the proposed template. I think we ought to leave the broad overviews to the articles themselves. Templates are templates for a reason: they provide quick links to the most essential articles on a given topic. Users shouldn't have to read templates, they should be reading the articles. To many links on a template dimishes its usability, and therefore its value as a navigational overview. The template as it stands links to the most important overview articles on Christianity, and I think that's the best course to follow.—thames 17:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ditto what Thames says here. The other major problem with expanding the template to this degree is that it calls out for "equal time" for a lot of things not listed. The "People" section is almost completely Western, for instance, entirely ignoring all the foundational theologians who formulated the Christian faith in the post-NT period. Surely Origen or Athanasius are more important than Billy Graham? —Preost ^{talk contribs} 19:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Opps

Gnosticism articles are using the Christianity template. Though some segments of the Gnostic circles have been influenced by Christianity, Gnosticism is not Christianity, nor is Christianity Gnosticism, so I thought I'd create a Gnosticism template. I was using this template as a template ( pardon the pun :D ), in the process I accidently edited this template by mistake. I quickly restored it. Sorry about that.

LinuxDude 19:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Placement of this template

Currently, about half of the Apostles have this template on their respective pages. I've always understood the "part of a series" templates should only appear on pages listed in the template itself. Is that use too narrow? -Acjelen 22:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

===>Go for it Feel free to put this on any article that makes sense, not just the ones actually listed in the template itself. -Justin (koavf), talk 13:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template is POV

• I see once again the template says Jesus was the son of God - this is POV insertion.
• I see once again the Crusades have been removed from the template - again this is POV deletion.
• Is see the template still says it is "part of a series" when actually there is no certainty that every article in which it appears is co-ordinated with other articles. Instead it is a means of stamping the POV of this template on every article on which it appears. Wikipedia ought to prohibit these "part of a series" expressions. --JimWae 02:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

===>POV Since the central teaching of Christianity is Christ's divinity, to not have it would be POV. You may not accept Christian doctrines yourself, but it's anticipated that in a series of articles on Christianity, the Christian point-of-view will be that Jesus was God's son (whatever that means.) Also, the "part of a series" line, while I also find goofy, is not particularly misleading; all of these articles are about overlapping topics. They may not follow a strict heirarchy or chronology, but they are linked by common themes. I don't see why it should be prohibited. If you want to reinsert the Crusades link, go for it. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 03:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Putting this template in the Jesus article makes the Jesus article POV because the template asserts Jesus is son of God, something the article takes pains to avoid. The Xian POV should not be asserted in any article - unless it's titled as the "Chrstian view of..." --JimWae 03:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

===>Not really The template is a kind of shorthand for the various articles and ideas assoicated with Christianity, the most important of which being Christ's divinity. By your argument, having the word "God" on the template is POV, since God's existence isn't accepted as fact by all persons everywhere. Or for that matter it's possible that not everyone believes in "sons" so having the word "son" there is somehow written from the pro-son POV. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 03:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• A template on Chaucer could have a link to Beowolf without asserting Beowulf existed. The template does not say God exists, it does assert Jesus is the son of God - if you click on "the Son" it takes you to Jesus. This is a problem for any article the template is stamped onto - but especially when it appears within the Jesus article. --JimWae 04:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

===>Granted I have to admit that your argument is more nuanced than I gave it credit, but I would still assert that this isn't problematic, as that is the Christian concept of Jesus. In other words, within Christianity, Jesus is the Son. Again, this is not to say that He actually is, but to say that in the worldview that is being presented, it is assumed that He is. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 04:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• I changed the link of "Christ the Son" from "Christ (title)" to "Christian views of Jesus". Since linking "Christ the Son" directly to Jesus is disputed here, I also dispute linking it to "Christ (title)", which is simply an article explaining the etymology of the title "Christ" that is given to Jesus, not the title of "Son of God". Unless any better links than "Christian views of Jesus" can be found, I think it's best to leave that link. I also moved the link to the Jesus article to directly after "Christ the Son" in brackets. It now reads "Christ the Son (Jesus)". — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 08:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think Divinity of Jesus, which redirects to Christology is perhaps a better choice than "Christian views of Jesus". Feel free to revert me and comment here with reasons. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 08:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Jim, what are you talking about? You're coming to a template about a religion and saying it shouldn't express the beliefs of the religion? —Aiden 16:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• NPOV means no article - and no template - ASSERTS the beliefs of any POV.
• You are not aware of any difference in meaning between "related to" and "part of a series"? There is no series on Xty or any other religion, and no article should become "part of" any limited subclass of wikipedia, particularly not when POV creeps into a template - affecting every article upon which the template is stamped. All wikipedia articles are part of wikipedia. --JimWae 01:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

They are clearly the beliefs of Christianity and not asserted as fact. —Aiden 02:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, all of the other religious templates had "Part of series" titles until you removed them. —Aiden 02:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• The implication of "a series" of articles is that the articles are co-ordinated by a group of people. Are you saying there really is some group of people that co-ordinates all the articles upon which this template is stamped?
• Note that none of the other religions have yet "jumped up" to restore the "part of a series" clause--JimWae 04:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Jim you're making little sense. It is just as if the WWII article references sub-articles for certain battles. Are they not all part of Wikipedia's WWII content? Maybe even though they were made by different people, could it be? We have many Christianity-related articles just as we have Islam related articles in Judaism related articles. If these weren't categorized as such we wouldn't have this template or any other template. Thus, those are all part of a series of articles on those subjects. I don't understand why you're making an issue of something that clearly isn't, nor do I see how this affects the NPOV of an article. —Aiden 22:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, what is this? —Aiden 22:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

And what is this [1]? You have addressed only the issue of relatedness, which was never questioned. Nobody has addressed the issue of the related articles being "part of a series" within wikipedia - other than snide comment that it was "magical". Is there a cabal or isn't there? These are navigational templates, not a co-ordinated series of articles --JimWae 05:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the "related articles" header instead. At least do it to all the other templates though. —Aiden 05:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Template is POV once again

I see once again the template says Jesus was God the Son - this is POV insertion. Only took about 5 weeks for it to happen again --JimWae 04:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"Part of a series"

Jim, how come you don't seem so bothered by this very same phrase on other religions' templates? —Aiden 06:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Only two active templates have it at present - plus one inactive one that YOU restored for some unimaginable reason, especially given that you said you were OK with the change here --JimWae 06:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Specifically with the Judaism template, I restored it because it was restored on other templates. In the least we should keep all the templates similair. —Aiden 06:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• yeh, after "telling" me to get them all changed, you make it impossible unless I get every one changed at the very same time, which they very nearly were. --JimWae 06:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• aren't you maintaining 2 wrongs make a right? --JimWae 06:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• "Part of a series" implies there is some co-ordination by some group of every article to which the template is stamped. Is there such a group? ...and if there were, do the rules of wikipedia allow such a group to control a subset of wikipedia articles? The template is intended as a navigational aid, not as a stamp of approval upon an article. Would not "Related articles on..." be a more appropriate lead-in? This became an issue AGAIN because the template was again proselytizing a POV - and thereby breaking NPOV on a great number of articles --JimWae 06:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have article "series". The wording is disingenuous and should be removed. "More articles on Christianity..." is at least not lying to our readers, if you feel like some sort of explanation is necessary. --Cyde Weys 06:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

See Template_talk:Islam#Part of a series?. Cuñado - Talk 07:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've commented there as well. Now I'm realizing that there's more templates that need to be fixed. --Cyde Weys 07:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Why are people reverting here, complaining about lack of consensus, when they have never (or not in a very long time) edited here? Would it not be more reasonable FIRST to see if the regular editors here are generally opposed or not? Aside from that, consensus does not trump NPOV nor accuracy --JimWae 07:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Are related articles that do not appear in the template, less a "part of the series"? Who decides what articles belong in "the series"? This "series" terminology is a POV powderkeg. --JimWae 07:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

My objection isn't so much that it is POV as that it is inaccurate. "Series" implies order, and these articles don't have order. They're just an amorphous connected graph whose sole links are formed by "See also" and this nav template. --Cyde Weys 07:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• This edit warring is ridiculous. I do not see how "Part of the series on Christianity" is inaccurate and suddently "unacceptable" after being left unscathed for so long. JimWae and others have been in the presence of this template for months, if not years, and haven't complained about this until now. I think consensus is definitely necessary here, and I disagree with JimWae's assertion that the statement is "POV" and "inaccurate". "Part of the series on" is easily interpreted as "Part of the series (of articles) on" and is much more fitting than JimWae's substitution "Related articles on"—unless a better replacement can be found I happen to disagree with the removal of the original, long-left statement. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 07:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Your preferences should not be a factor in this discussion. Actually, there is no need for any lead-in at all. "Other topics in" would work too. Articles are not "part" of a "series" --JimWae 07:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Not that it matters, but I raised the issue when the template was first forced on the Jesus article by the cabal-that-does-not-exist. --JimWae 08:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with "Articles related to" or "Related articles on" —Aiden 21:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Writing "Part of a series [collection] of articles on Christianity", which is the long form for the originally implanted "Part of the series on", is just too spacious to insert into the template, hence the shortened version. I am not completely against replacing the sentence, but your (JimWae) current replacement is certainly not viable to be an alternative. Perhaps converting to the new template design proposed above would be an easy and satisfactory alternative?. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 08:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• When I read , "part of a series on.." I sooner think of the example of a standalone Book series (ie:Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew) where although every book forms part of the series there is no need to read them in any particular order for their stories to remain coherent. Like, "A whole series of articles on Islam.". Netscott 08:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Precisely. Due to this, there is no need to remove this perfectly fine and NPOV statement with any alternatives—though I do like the alternative template design proposed above and would agree to its usage; it would also eliminate this argument. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 00:21, 11 September 1999 (UTC)
• Book series are all written by the same person though. Bad analogy. What we have here is a bunch of articles on similar subjects written by lots of different people with no coherent organization in actually trying to fit stuff into a "series". Ergo, it is not a series. --Cyde Weys 01:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Cyde, you're talking out your ass. Follow the articles on Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew and you'll see that in fact multiple individuals (known as Ghost writers) wrote different books. SHOT DOWN, do you have another argument for me to shoot down? Netscott 02:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Seriously, don't be a dick. And you honestly can't see the difference between a published series of books all following the same brand and a collection of articles established by common linkage from a single navigational template? And by the way, I did read some of the Hardy Boys stuff when I was younger, and it was a series, in the true chronological sense of the word. It did refer back to events from prior books. And the books were published in a chronological order. --Cyde Weys 02:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:DICK? Hehe... nice, again you're arguing from OR. Let's follow your anology... Wikipedia is to the publishers (brand) as the article editors are to ghost writers. You follow? Netscott 02:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring authorship, I really don't see how you are comparing a continuous book series with a loosely related collection of encyclopedia articles. --Cyde Weys 02:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

All that I'm arguing is that in the utilization of the word series a given subject matter need not be sequential. And the coins and books anology demonstrates this. Netscott 02:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

What's with the pink? Netscott 02:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It's light red dammit!!! --Cyde Weys 03:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL!!! Not on my screen it ain't :-) . But seriously... are you following my logic? Netscott 03:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Currency has a series year because it is printed in specific runs each year (series in this context is actually a numismatic term). And I believe I've already shown why the book analogy is incorrect. Bottom line is series implies order, and these Christianity-related articles on Wikipedia don't have any order to them. --Cyde Weys 03:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I would recommend you head on over to Book series and edit this bit below:

Some works in a series can stand alone -- they can be read in any order, as each book makes few, if any reference to past events, and the characters seldom, if ever, change. Many of these series books may be published in a numbered series, but it doesn't matter if you are reading the third or the thirty-third book. Examples of such series are works like the Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, and Nick Carter.

and also maybe try to edit in your POV on the cited book series where it talks about Ghost writers. By the way your new nick color make me think of Pinko (lol). Netscott 03:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You keep bringing up book series but we aren't talking about book series, we're talking about article series. And actual article series are very clearly numbered along the lines of "Part 2 of a 5 part series on the AIDS epidemic". And my new nick color should be reminding you of Light redo --Cyde↔Weys 03:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break... articles are easily comparable to small books just like Wikipedia editors are easily comparable to ghost writers. By the way if you're really shooting for light red and not pink you might want to choose from these colors for your nick, good luck! Netscott

Nah, encyclopedia articles are quite clearly articles and not books (large, small, or otherwise). Series implies order, something Wikipedia articles don't have. --Cyde↔Weys 03:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You are correct there is an order in the series formed by these templates.. that order is that all of the characters remain the same across all of the articles... does that sound mildly familiar? User:Joturner may be right when he mentioned WP:LAME... I love WP:LAME .. great for a good laugh. Netscott 03:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Your first sentence didn't parse at all. You know what an in-order series actually is, and including the exact same text in a bunch of places doesn't make something in-order. It just makes it an amorphous web. --Cyde↔Weys 05:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm coming to this late and am barely interested, but this has been popping up in my watchlist more than anything else lately. I fail to see how the collective articles on Christianity form a "series" in any meaningful sense of the word. Surely there are more productive arguments everyone could be having. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• The Hardy Boys, while not all written by the same author, are co-ordinated by the publishing company. They also all have the same main characters. There is no analogy of the Hardy Boys with the articles collected by this NAVIGATIONAl template - unless there really is some cabal that oversees them all.
• I also object to the "part of" wording. I was working on an article when suddenly a group of people kept re-inserting this template into it. It was as if suddenly the article had become "part of" their project and it was now "their" article. The article subsequently deteriorated as blatant POV's were asserted as fact. The template itself has several times asserted Jesus to be the Son of God, as I am sure it will again as somebody thinks they "know better". As the template is presently used on about 200 articles, the POV is instantly inserted into 200 articles - bad enough, but even worse was the apparent "stamp of approval" the words "part of a series" designates. --JimWae 05:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Several alternatives have been proposed by Cyde, myself and others. However, some people insist of "part of a series". What is is about that phrase that some people feel so compelled to defend and to revert to so quickly & so often? --JimWae 05:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no idea. They think it "sounds better". And I'll admit, "Part of a series on" does sound better than "Related articles on". But guess what, we're an encyclopedia, not a euphonic poem anthology. Accuracy is much more important than euphony. My objection to "series" isn't that it is POV or anything but simply that it is inaccurate. This template is included on a hell of a lot of pages and the mere inclusion of a navigational template onto a page does not make it part of a series. --Cyde↔Weys 05:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

JimWae, I believe I'm beginning to better understand your view as it appears that you were personally affected by abusive editing related to this template. There is no excuse for that and if I found myself in your shoes I'm sure that I too would be very inclined to take action in some way as a result of such an experience. What's odd in this debate is that there doesn't appear to be any cabal working to keep the templates one way or another but moreso independent individuals who see the word series as being correct. Now onto your arguements:

• The Hardy Boys, the very structure of Wikipedia acts as a coordinating force particularly with the numerous policies that editors are obliged to abide by as they edit. In this regard Wikipedia is virtually identical to a publishing company. As far as the same main characters, who do you think "characters" like Jesus, Moses, Paul of Tarsus, etc. etc. are? As well the very listing of the articles in the template itself form's a kind of series. Most articles are grouped as well into categories and these categories work to form the articles that are found in them into a series. Netscott 06:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is the series. Netscott 06:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks more like a collection of related articles than a series to me. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• There ought not be any special co-ordinating for articles related to Xty than for any other articles --JimWae 06:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Where is the coordination? I've just said that there doesn't appear to be a cabal (special coordinating). Netscott 06:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Where is the co-ordination within wikipedia to produce a "series on Xty"? The only co-ordination applies to all articles - not to any subset --JimWae 06:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Let's say that Wikipedia is a kind of company and publishes a kind of book (or set of mini-books -each article-) then this Cambridge dictionary definition absolutely applies to articles that fall under the same subject matter. Netscott 06:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• wikipedia does not set aside any subset of articles as " a set" nor as "a series" --JimWae 07:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• JimWae, you know perfectly well that use of set is just a synonym for collection. Netscott 07:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• And you know perfectly well that a set is unordered and a series is ordered. At best this could be described as "the set of articles linked to by the navigational template". But it sure isn't a series. --Cyde↔Weys 07:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Cyde, you're wrong Cambridge says nothing about order only a common subject. Netscott 07:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• If a company produces 50 books and 3 (6%) of them deal with chemistry in some way, they have not thereby produced a series of books on chemistry --JimWae 07:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• JimWae, your argument is a non-sequitur because if that same company you're talking about produced 50,000 books (more akin to the number of Wikipedia articles) then 6% gets you 3,000 which is definitely a series as defined by Cambridge. Netscott 07:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• No it isn't. It's only a series if it's made from the very beginning to be a series. You can't just take a random collection of books and call it a series. Your dictionary-mongering isn't helping matters either. Isaac Asimov published several hundred books (most of them non-fiction) ... if we just separate out the fiction books are they all magically a series on science fiction? No! Yes, there are a few series, like the Robot series and the Foundation series, but only because they were expressly written to be series. These Christianity-related articles on Wikipedia aren't a series. They're just a bunch of articles on Christianity. --Cyde↔Weys 07:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, it's a pity that you have to resort to ad hominem attacks (ie: Dictionary mongering) in trying to make your case. The essential part is that the books (articles) published by a company all deal with the same subject to make a series. Netscott 07:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read that article you wikilinked. Characterizing someone's actions in a negative way is not ad hominem. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The ad hominem attack is through implication that I am a monger for dictionary mongering. QED Netscott 05:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

- you are saying then (using that definition) that all books on religion published by a company are part of a series on religion. Dictionaries are notoriously incomplete in defining certain words, as they must give short meanings and do not always avoid circularity --JimWae 07:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

JimWae, so now Cambridge is not a reliable source? Is that your new argument? Netscott 07:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

- not even all the books Doubleday produces on Xty are "part of a series" on Xty. Some internal consistency is needed to for "a series". Many dictionaries are filled with inadequate definitions - but in this case, they are using "set" in a special sense - an unordered collection of books - even if all on chemistry - is NOT called a set of books. --JimWae 07:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me JimWae, but I'm beginning to doubt your argumentation skills as nothing you've said here effectively refutes my own arguments. Netscott 07:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• So you maintain every book Doubleday publishes on Xty is part of a series on Xty? No wonder you cannot recognize a reasonable argument --JimWae 07:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A set of books is NOT, like a mathematical set, unordered and unorganized. A set of books, like a set of encyclopedia, have the same binding, and often are numbered. An encyclopedia set does not deal with the same subject, but with all subjects. A series of books is similar - same binding, same subject - but usually it is released over time in separate volumes. In both cases some group within the company is intentionally & officially sanctioned to oversee that particular project. Which of these apply to articles on Xty here?

• JimWae, your arguments aside but forgive my ignorance, why exactly are you using Xty? Is that supposed to be a time-saving abbreviation for typing Christianity or are you adverse to actually utilizing the proper term? I've never seen such a usage Xty by an individual. Netscott 09:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Unless, of course, there really are groups of editors that intend to control a number of related articles --JimWae 07:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Template linked category?

Perhaps this has been discussed previously but what about a category that lists all articles that actually have the template on them? Like this? Netscott 09:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the category as it serves no purpose. If you want to know what pages use this template, use what links here. Categorizing articles by template rather than by explicit category is highly frowned upon in article space. Additionally, almost all of these pages were already tagged with Category:Christianity or one of its sub-cats anyway, which allows for more specific and explicit categorization. --Cyde↔Weys 14:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cyde, the shared navigation guide doesn't really make sense. Cuñado - Talk 15:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Proof it's not an article series

Cunado just reverted to the article series thing again and linked to Wikipedia:Article series (which I didn't even know existed). But guess what, Christianity isn't even listed on there! Thus it's most definitely not an article series and this wording is inappropriate! --Cyde↔Weys 21:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You haven't come up with a better wording. And I've shown that series is not technically incorrect. Cuñado - Talk 21:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I found more pages, Wikipedia:Series templates, Wikipedia:List of article series, I found one template that uses "Topics related to". That seems agreeable to me, but I'll keep looking. Cuñado - Talk 21:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, the pages listed at List of article series actually ARE article series. Here's one example:

Notice how this is a chronological account of the history of Afghanistan. It is a series. The history of Afghanistan is too long to comfortably fit into one article so it's been broken out by period. It has a well-established order and it was put together explicitly to be a series. This is clearly a much different case than this Christianity template, which is just links to a bunch of related articles on Christianity which are not a coherent series. --Cyde↔Weys 22:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I can see that, and I've acknowledged that the word "series" has two meanings, and one of them is of an ordered list, and another is of a set of related topics. You have completely ignored the secondary meaning and are insisting that there is nothing other than your definition. So far looking through tons of navigational templates, I have found that almost every single religion template uses the word "part of the series..." (except for the ones that were changed in the last two days as a result of this discussion), and I have also found countless other templates that use the word "series" when they are not a historical, chronological order. See

Template:Fascism

Template:Nazism

Template:Dreyfusaffair

Template:Scandinavia

Template:Headgear

Template:Meals

Template:Politics of Poland

Template:Belizeruins

Template:History of Australia

I don't know what else to say. I could go gather definitions from several dictionaries also. Cuñado - Talk 22:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It's important not to overload terms. The current setup is confusing because it overloads the term "series", which is used for legitimate article series like History of Afghanistan, but is also (incorrectly) used for loosely related sets of articles like "Christianity". Overloading terms is bad. We shouldn't be calling it a series unless it actually is one. And those templates you linked to don't really prove anything ... I can link you to hundreds of navigational templates that don't call themselves article series. --Cyde↔Weys 22:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This has got to be the lamest edit war I've ever gotten into. I looked into several dictionaries and the primary definition of series is always a group of related topics, followed by a clause that they have some kind of order to them. They do have plenty of examples which might support a non-ordered series, but the best technical word would be "set". But "Part of the set" sounds stupid, so I don't have a solution besides to delete the phrase altogether, which makes the template look bad. If you really want to change the wording then find a good solution and I'll help you change all the hundreds of templates. But it should be short and meaningful, and sound good. Currently "part of the series" is the best option, and I'm not convinced that it's incorrect. Cuñado - Talk 23:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[2] The word means that the set is arranged in some kind of sequence. That's not the case here at all. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That's only one of the definitions, look in a big dictionary and you'll find 10 or more meanings. Cuñado - Talk 00:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. But it's not the primary meaning. There are other words for sets of related items that do not imply ordering in their primary senses. One would expect that to be preferred usage. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Calling a collection of wiki articles that are not specifically co-ordinated in any way a series is like calling a collection of articles in a newspaper that deal with the president written over several years a series of articles on the presidency. It's patent nonsense masking POV attempts to control articles. I have no time anymore to debate this with jackrabbits who seem more interested in reversions than meaningful discussion. Time to take it to arbitration. --JimWae 05:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

JimWae, "more interested in reversions than meaniful discussion"? Just what does all of this talk here on both this talk page and the talk page for the Islam template represent? Such a statement really shows a lack of good faith combined with the ad hominem utilization of the term jackrabbits. The defacto consensus on the series issue has been established for years and it is just now that you and Cyde are trying to make your changes without a consensus. Arbitration on this will be good so that a final policy can be determined for all Navigational templates once and for all. Netscott 05:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, a larger consensus is needed. But just warning, you're not supposed to jump straight to arbitration, first RFC, and request help from several administrators, then arbitration is a last resort. If you don't go through the steps right then the arbitrators will throw it back at you. Cuñado - Talk 18:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with you, but just for information patent nonsense has a very specific meaning in Wikipedia, and that's not it. - PhilipR 14:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Christian politics.

The template has sections on "Christian theology", "Christian Church", etc. but couldn't we add a section to the template about Christian politics? Such as a link to the Christian right and the Christian left and other articles about different Christian political movements? Beno1000 18:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not directly related to the religion as are the other sections. —Aiden 19:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Books of the Bible

Would it make sense to put a link to Books of the Bible in this template? Or would that not work since that page also includes the Jewish canon? /blahedo (t) 22:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Subtemplates / Early church history

First an observation: seems to me that many of the POV issues discussed above could be best solved by having subtemplates. After all, Christianity is a sufficiently broad topic that Christian theology or History of Christianity or Christian music could easily support their own navigational templates. Maybe some of these exist, I haven't looked that hard, but it seems like a lot of the additions proposed above (e.g. books of the Bible, Paul and other major historical figures) could best be accomodated by a heirarchy of Templs.

Now, that said, I was surprised not to find a navigational template on Nicene Creed. I think there's merit to one on Early church history, which itself could be part of one on History of Christianity. (Of course "History of Xty" is within the scope of this one, but I think there could easily be a similarly-sized template just for it.) Anyone else have opinions on the merits of such a template? - PhilipR 14:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

LXX

"Not widely known" is the flimsiest reason I've ever heard of for removing content, even if it was correct. The Septuagint is the most widely-quoted OT translation in the NT, and remains the official OT of the Eastern Churches, or over 300 million Christians. I'm therefore putting it back where it belongs.

We already have a link to the main OT article; there is no need then to link to a specific translation. —Aiden 14:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If it were merely a translation I'd agree with you, but it represents a variant textual tradition from that found in the modern Hebrew that differs several major respects. (Hebrew examples that agree with it have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, so these are not just artifacts of translation.) Also, it is a singlularly prominent text in Christian history, for several centuries being the only OT text in regular use. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Christian views on birth control

Would the article Christian views on contraception be relevant to include in this template? Lyrl 21:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No. —Aiden 03:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

===>Hardly It's far too obscure. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 03:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Christianity

I've again removed Category:Christianity. Christianity is far too broad to have a single category for all related articles. Such a category simply isn't useful; it makes it difficult to browse articles related to Christianity as a whole as opposed to those pertaining to some particular branch or practice and there are dozens of subcategories available for subject-oriented grouping. -choster 13:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

son of god link

There have been NPOV objections to the template claiming (as if it were a fact) that Jesus is the son of God. One problem is, the Jesus article is neutral as to whether Jesus is the son of God or not. I think another problem is an inconsistency in this template. The "God the Father" does not link to an article on the Christian God, it links to an article on "God the father" that discusses various beliefs of God as father. Indeed, we also already have a similar article on views of the son of God. I fixed the link so that "Son of God" in this template links to that article. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please explain to me how stating Christian belief as Christian belief is a violation of NPOV. This is clearly the "Christianity template" and in Christian faith, "God the Son" is clearly Jesus, not the "study of Christ" nor an article about references to 'Son of God' in the Bible. —Aiden 14:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

POV issues

I, personally, have some problems with the template, as it gives not a single Non-Trinitarian view. Unitarianism, Binitarianism, Arianism, Modalism, Ebionism, many forms of Messianic Judaism and Mormonism are all arguably valid expressions of Christianity and should be given at least some mention. Therefore, I propose that "The Trinity" be replaced with "Trinitarianism" and "Nontrinitarianism," as to have "The Trinity" in big bold letters depicts it as the sole, one-and-only option. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 15:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, I don't completely appreciate the reversion of my changes to the Christianity Template, but I understand your concerns. However, I am a bit hurt that you merely reverted my edit, rather than discuss it on the talk page as outlined in WP:DR: According to policy we must not simply revert changes in a dispute. Before I made that edit, I created this talk page section to discuss things. Nontrinitarianism is not some small minority. Mormonism is quickly becoming one of the largest Christian denominations in existance, and their views are far from Trinitarian. I would appreciate your reasoning behind the reversion, as well as your input so that we may reach a compromise. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 01:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In the same respect, you should discuss your changes (especially volatile ones such as removing the Trinity from a Christianity template) before making them. No one even had the chance to voice their opinion before you made the change. Nonetheless, as I said in my edit summary, according to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight we can and should mention the Trinity. Oh, and I seriously doubt Mormonism is becoming "one of the largest Christian denominations". Catholicism, Orthodoxism, and Protestantism all profess Trinitarian views. —Aiden 01:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, I believe that we have a misunderstanding. If you take a look at the last edit in the edit history that I wrote, you will see that I moved Trinitarianism down to "Doctrine" where it appears most appropriate, where Nontrinitarianism was listed directly under it (those are the two main viewpoints in Christian theology in terms of the Godhead, yes?), where I gave an entire section to the "main figure of Christianity" (i.e. Jesus, as discussed on Talk:Jesus). I respectfully request that we come to come compromise on this issue, and where I would be more willing to discuss this at length now, my wife is requesting my presence in bed to get some sleep. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 01:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Without further comment I am soon going to restore my edits, keeping the Trinity intact as it was before. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 12:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? The issue has been resolved with Jim's compromise version. It works much better than linking simply to Trinitarianism rather than to fundamental concepts such as God. —Aiden 15:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Other editors elsewhere have voiced their opinions favorably about removing the controversial links altogether and giving Jesus a section all to his own. The Trinity is a doctrine, and not a universally accepted on within Christianity as discussed earlier, and there is a section already in the template dedicated to doctrines that it would fit more appropriately under. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 16:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

So keep the Template as it is and add a link to nontrintarianism at the bottom. —Aiden 20:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

not a series - more an unorganized set

A series is an organized collection. A set is a collection which may be organized or may not be. Set more accurately describes the collection of articles in the template - and the collection of articles in the <<category:Christianity>>. Right now we include Yoga and several even more unrelated things in the "series" of articles on Xty. --JimWae 07:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

First, are we not scholarly here JimWae? In that light woud you kindly refrain from using the non-standard abbreviation Xty for Christianity? Second, you are dragging up old coals. There's nothing new here in your arguments that wasn't already previously discussed and argued ad nauseum... do you have something new to bring to the table? Netscott 07:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Third, this template is not on the Yoga article, what was the point your were trying to make? Netscott 07:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point about Yoga if anything change the template wording to "related to Christianity". Netscott 07:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the wording to "related to"... not sure if it will stick... but I do see your point in that regard. Netscott 07:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• I will respond to the only things worth responding to in your reply:--JimWae 07:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In talk pages I use short forms, like most people do. In articles I use formal English. I would appreciate your not telling me I cannot use informal talk on talk pages
  • Series in the template links to Yoga
    • No need to be combative as in fact I did not tell you how to communicate but kindly requested. Netscott 07:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Also part of a series on Xty? Ishmael Michael Harper Peleg Fremitus Mahalalel --JimWae 08:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "Related" to Christianity? Absolutely. Netscott 08:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • If the subject matter found in those articles do not have a warranted relation to Christiantiy then they are miscategorized, and whose fault would that be? Netscott 08:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

A series of aricles, the definition

From Cambridge Online Dictionary:

Series (set of books) noun [C] plural series

:

a set of books published by the same company which deal with the same subject.

Wikipedia the publisher (company) has a set of articles which deal with the same subject... ergo they have a series of articles. Netscott 07:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• A definition that I may take time someday to argue is incomplete. At best, its use in the template trades on ambiguity --JimWae 08:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• That definition uses "set" as in a "set of encyclopedia" - which is hardly unordered. They are not giving an intensional definition in which all uses of "set" and "series" can be used synonymously & interchangeably. They are noting an idiomatic usage (dictionaries, besides giving definitions, also observe the "usage" words are given - a lexical definition) where a "set of books" (and "series of books") means ONLY an organized collection (rather than the more common meaning of "set" which could be an unorganized collection) --JimWae 08:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

JimWae, if a set is ordered alphabetically it thereby constitutes a series does it not? Netscott 08:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

apple cat hamburger octopus --JimWae 01:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent revision

I like it While I prefer the additions to the template (if for no other reason than the fact that they are apparently based on my earlier proposal), I imagine that they're going to get reverted. Does anyone want to talk about leaving in any of these additions first? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus

Is Jews for Jesus a valid part of this series? Justforasecond 04:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It is such a small group that it should remain linked from the 'denominations' article. —Aiden 05:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Should the Jews for Jesus article have this template? I've removed it but someone keeps putting it back. Justforasecond 15:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me Sure? Why not? Why is the other user removing it? I suggest posting to his talk. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a straw poll over this now concerning this article, if anyone wants to weigh in. Many of the arguments seem to be leaning towareds "If an organization is arguably Christian, it should have this template", and i'm fairly certain that is a substantial change in usage which would require quite a deal of work by someone to stamp probably hundreds of articles with this template. Homestarmy 02:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Note also that the arguments for inclusion of the template given by the person setting up the straw poll are less than accurate. He ignores what has been explained to him (that the link to series on the template goes to the general christianity cat and that the template already is on a number of articles not on the template). JoshuaZ 13:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood the question. I thought you were asking whether there should be a link to Jews for Jesus in the Christianity template. Concerning the issue as to whether or not the template should be in the Jews for Jesus article, I am not sure. —Aiden 15:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The "This box" section at the bottom

How do I add that to another template? I already accidentally messed up this template up once while trying to find what line added that in. I narrowed it down to the second to last paragraph, but I couldn't get beyond that. It looks like my edit stood for about a minute before I managed to revert it, so I could easily have bothered quite a few people. I don't think I'm going to continue trying that, seeing as this template goes out to easily a hundred, possibly two hundred or more articles, and each minute probably creates problems for dozens of people. -NorsemanII 22:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes (non-trinitariainsm and chronological order)

NPOV Non-trinitarianism is obscure, and it does not deserve to be on a template of the >two dozen most crucial articles on Christianity. What about ditheism? Or Christian monism? Or some other obscure, semi-Christian movement? As for chronological order of Christian denominational families, it is impossible to do that without being POV; we must choose which church was the true one after the East-West Schism of 1054 (Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox.) The only way to be neutral about it is to list them by alphabetical order, as I've done. I'll also list the Assyrians, as they are not included otherwise. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well done. Including the obscure "Nontrinitarian" point of view violates Wiki policy on maintaining NPOV. Further it specifically violates Undue weight policies by giving overrepresentation to such a POV. You are right, if this were included, then anything else would have to be added ad nauseam…

How are millions of people worldwide "obscure"? On the scale of 2 billion individuals I can see how someone -may- claim that, but millions is no size to sneeze at. To not include Nontrinitarianism along with the Trinity is like not bothering to mention Nader in the last election, or not mentioning that Christianity exists in Iraq; in essence, this presents Trinitarianism as the -only- option within Christianity, which is far from the case. Undue weight is designed to protect this, not remove it. Right now, the Trinity is given all of the weight. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 17:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Be vigilant and watch this page!65.138.33.239 00:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we get into murky water concerning NPOV when we decide which denominations will 'make the cut'. Thus, I think it is best to simply list the three main branches of Christianity (according to Christianity) in order of number of followers. Thus, we would list Roman Catholicism, followed by Protestantism, followed by Orthodox Christianity. Within those three articles a reader can find links to all the various Christian denominations. —Aiden 01:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough It's still not ideal to me, but I see what you're saying. This is a good, if not perfect, solution. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted though, based on a number of objections. First: the plural is correct for the header. Singular implies that all listed below are somehow one church; this is by no means a majority view and positively heretical to many, perhaps most. Second: Anglicanism may or may not be Protestant depending on who you talk to. Certainly there are Protestant streams within Anglicanism, but taken as a whole the communion cannot be clearly categorized that way. Third: Neither the Assyrian church nor the Oriental Orthodox churches are branches of any other church. They may not be very numerous, but they're both ancient and of great historical import. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

1) The article being linked to in the header is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church as written in the Nicene Creed, representing the communal body of all Christianity. In this sense, there is only Church one as the name implies, with all denominations included. 2) I am not attempting to classify denominations as belonging to one branch or another, I am simply saying that so long as the reader can find links to specific denominations in the articles for these three main branches, there is no need to directly link them here. Further, there is already a link to Christian denominations at the bottom of the template for 'grey areas'. 3) The Orthodox Christianity article is not specific to any one church. It simply discusses the traditional 'Eastern' form of Christianity which many denominations fall under, including the Assyrian and Oriental Orthodox churches, both of which fall under this branch of Christianity and both of which are linked from the Orthodox Christianity article. —Aiden 05:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

1) Yes, that's what the article is titled, but the question is which of these bodies is that One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? Several of them are rather clear that the rest aren't. And in any event, using the plural for local churches is a custom from antiquity. 2) These three are not "main branches" as I explained. The other three are equally "main branches". There are links to almost any other group from almost any other group's page, so by your argument why list any of them? 3) That may be what the article says, but "Orthodox Christianity" in that sense isn't a "branch" of Christianity, but merely a convenient, Western-POV label. These churches are not in communion with each other. I hadn't really been cognizant of that article's existence, but not that I am I see it's dead wrong in several major respects. But why link to an "index page" for what is being labeled here "Orthodox Christianity", when Catholicism gets its own link? TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I Think that Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses aren't even related to Christianity since they don't have much common ground and they should be taken off the Christianity list. Just a suggestion... 81Transam 8:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Judaism Template

There has been a lot of debate as of late over the NPOVness of the Christianity template. The Judaism template does a very nice job of keeping -very- NPOV by including many links in a more compact fashion. The Christianity template could do with some extra compacting, so I move that we see how small we can make it, and then possibly take some pointers from them. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 03:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There's an awful lot there. Some might argue that they cram too much in. It's an aesthetic choice, really. Personally I prefer to be inclusive of content, but that doesn't appear to be the consensus. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Template:Christian theology

Both these templates appear at Christianity. Mostly duplicated content. Thanks. --Quiddity 00:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I spent all day making this template ... here is my proposal for the merge. It includes most, if not all, of the links of the Christianity and Christian Theology templates, and most of what is on the alternative template above on this talk page. I have taken great pains to be NPOV and even-handed, as well as comprehensive. I have also added some new content. I think this is an excellent template to replace the Christianity and Christian Theology templates.

I invite your comments. I would like to get some amount of consensus, and go ahead and replace the existing templates, within a reasonable amount of time.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 03:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, in the past I have endorsed the abbreviated nature of the current Christianity template, but I now think that was just foolishness.  :-)    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 03:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The model given here, with merged templates, is problematic for me for a couple of reasons. Aesthetically, it simply doesn't appeal to me, and I don't particularly care for the open book (probably a Bible?); I would prefer something more condensed (especially after the series of line breaks) and that uses a logo or more iconic imagery (cf. the icythus above.) Outside of my petty concerns, I have serious misgivings about the histories and traditions section: why are Syriacs their own category in the East? Where are the Assyrians? How did you choose the Western groups that are represented? I would also like to see more Easterners in the important figures section, but that's neither here nor there. This is a good start, though... -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I revised the template taking into account what you said. I replaced the Bible pic with a pic of Jesus (Sermon on the Mount). Christianity is about Jesus ... everybody agrees on that. I don't think symbolism is nearly as communicative or compelling as either the Bible or Jesus pics. The Jesus pic looks really good, and communicates that it is about Jesus ... and it shows His authority. I squeezed one line out of the template, beyond the tradition section lines (your area of criticism). The traditions section comes largely from what was the theology template. In that template, we hashed things out a while back. Syriac Christianity INCLUDES the Assyrian Church (and these traditions are not about particular churches, but thought traditions), but in the interest of getting along I included both. I included all the traditions from the Eastern Christianity template. The Western groups were hashed out previously. Yes, there are more Protestant traditions, but that is just the way history has worked out. We had a hard time before getting Eastern figures. The only one recommended prior as a major pivotal figure among post-Schism eastern was Palamas (of course, pre-Schism figures are also eastern, as well as western). If you have other candidates, please bring them forward for discussion. The last row are just figures from the past century. In the sweep of time Barth, Graham, and JP2 may fall off the mantle, but I thought it would be good to have a couple modern figures. I made a few other changes, for example, I added New Covenant - Supercessionism and Apostles - Church - Gospel to the Foundations list (and removed from other parts of list - the other church link is a different article). I thought these were good adds. The only one you might wonder about is Supercessionism, but though it's not always talked about, Christianity doesn't exist without supercessionism, and it has been believed implicitly by the whole Church from the beginning. If the New Covenant and the new Mediator do not supercede the previous order, then the Gospel message is made vacuous. I think it is worth the link.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 03:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going ahead with the merger.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 07:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Christian Church Link

Hey, why is this link here at all? What is it's purpose? And why is it linked to the "One Holy, ... church"? Why not link it to "Christian Church"? If you want to link it to "One Holy, ... church", then why not write that as the text for the link? I understand the difference between the adjective catholic and the Roman Catholic church. Rob 04:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not write the link text in full? Because it's long and the template is narrow. One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is how the united Christian Church understood itself in the earliest centuries, and is still that which most churches (with one or two notable exceptions) must consider themselves a part of, in some sense, in order to be a Christian church. Looking at both articles they should probably be merged, but the one with the longer title is more comprehensive. (And I spotted one inaccuracy right off in Christian Church: The term "catholic" long predates the Nicene Creed.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of Lutherans and Anglicans

As a Lutheran I am flattered that we get our own link on this template... But why is Lutheranism singled out on this template and not so many other major Protestant denominations? I can somewhat understand the inclusion of Anglicanism, since it seeks to strike a balance between Protestantism and Catholicism. But even Anglicanism is listed on the Protestantism page. I feel that in the interest of keeping the template concise, both denominations should be removed. Fishal 21:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents of New Template - Traditions

I just removed User:KitHutch's addition of Methodism, in favor of a discussion first. It may be a good add, but the reason I didn't include it before is because there are already links to Evangelicalism, Arminianism, and Anglicanism; all of which can lead one to Methodism, especially the first two. I tried to include all major movements (or schools of thought) that weren't already covered by a greater movement, and had a unique contribution that is significantly different than the other movements. Is that really true of Methodism? What significantly different contribution is covered in Methodism that is not covered by Evangelicalism and Arminianism? As an example, on the chart Restorationism is supposed to cover the Cambellite movement, Mormonism, and other movements (instead of having a link to each one). Now, it may be that some already there should be removed. We can discuss that.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 19:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

as a worldwide movement, Methodism is very significant -- certainly significant enough to be included. Mormonism is not, strictly speaking, a Christian faith. It is its own. Cambellite movement is not significant enough. So that is not a fair comparison. Methodism is so much more important than Anglicanism -- that's why it came about, because Anglicanism had become so dead. Definitely include Methodism in the template! Pastorwayne 02:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As a worldwide movement, Methodism has more followers than Anglicanism and Lutheranism, which are included on this template. In fact, only Roman Catholicism and the Baptist movement have more members in Western Christianity. KitHutch 05:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I added Methodism back to the template. KitHutch 21:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Intro phrase

Netscott changed the intro phrase to "Part of a series of articles on" saying in the edit note "(every article that has this template is a part of this alphabetically listed series of articles either related to or on the subject of Christianity.)". I originally had "This article refers to some aspect of". I thought it was an good intro phrase, and it would avoid the major controversy earlier on this discussion page. What do you all think?    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 01:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That is the odd part, the "controversy" has been dead and over for a long time... so why did you change the wording then? (→Netscott) 01:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was good wording.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 01:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, have you had a chance to see Template:Judaism, Template:Islam, Template:Buddhism, Template:Lutheranism, Template:Arminianism, etc? (→Netscott) 01:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I already knew that was the typical wording. I just wanted to avoid some extended debate as has already happened (and I thought it was good wording). To be honest ... this is a trivial matter, and I really don't care either way.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 01:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough... thanks for having taken the time to discuss it. (→Netscott) 01:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent image change problematic

What was wrong with the plain Latin Cross? This is not really the place for what many will view as a kitsch European Jesus image -- whose details won't be very visible at the size reduction necessary to be incorporated into a template, in any case... AnonMoos 02:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert ... the sermon on the mount image is a hundred times more aesthetically pleasing, and is more communicative of some important ideas about Christianity: authority of Jesus, etc.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 02:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The cross is probably the single most recognizable symbol associated with Christianity as of today. As such it make sense that it figure into this template. Perhaps a compromise could be reached a la Template:Jew style? (→Netscott) 02:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

For Template:Jew, the thing is that the most widely-known current symbol (the hexagram) is not actually an old authentic symbol of Judaism -- the hexagram has been used for a long time by both Jews and non-Jews, but it wasn't a symbol of collective Jewish identity until the Renaissance in central Europe, and ca. 1800 in Western Europe. There aren't really similar problems with the cross... AnonMoos 02:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My thinking centered around the idea of two images... but this template has had a simple cross for ages which is sensible. Still I do like Guðsþegn's movement towards esthetical directions. (→Netscott) 02:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote towards the aesthetically pleasing.  :-)    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 03:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Dude, your image represents a kind of nineteenth-century Western and Northern European popular or semi-popular devotional art tradition, which does not represent the global scope and long history of Christianity -- not to mention which, this tradition is considered somewhat hokey by many today (or outright mocked as the "Aryan Jesus"). In addition, I had no idea by looking at the image that it was supposed to be the Sermon on the Mount, so it's not as "communicative" as all that... I'm afraid that template boxes are subject to highly restrictive constraints and requirements, which means that the full artistic glory and specificity of meaning which you would find ideal may not be able to be included. AnonMoos 02:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Jesus is Lord.

Dude, do we have to be so politically correct? Any piece of art can be pinned down to a certain time, place, and culture. So what? If the goal is picking a symbol that everyone can recognize, throughout Christian history, then the cross is it. But why is that the goal? The picture I picked is (1) simply looks much better, (2) communicates that this real man who walked among us, Jesus, had great authority (i.e. He was Lord). This is shown by the fact that he is sitting talking to the people, he is visually above all the others, and his hand is raised in a prophetic way. "Jesus is Lord." -- what this picture communicates -- is the oldest Christian creed. Christians throughout history would recognize it. It meets that test.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 03:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You may admire it, but others openly deride and jeer at that particular artistic style (the "Disney Christ" or "Aryan Jesus" or "Socialist realism with Jesus in place of Stalin/Mao" etc. etc.), and there could well be hundreds of millions of Christians across the globe who would probably feel that that image does not adequately represent "their" Christianity. Furthermore, whatever the picture's artistic merits or demerits, they are not particularly well-displayed in the template format, where the image has to be reduced to a tiny blurry thumbnail. AnonMoos 11:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

To be very clear about something relative to the idea that "Jesus is lord"... that is merely one view of many. A big part of editing on Wikipedia is reliant upon the principle of neutral point of view, to be editing in accord primarily with the idea that "Jesus is Lord" falls afoul of this principle. A cross most certainly is a much more neutral image (even that though for certain religious groups who refer to themselves as Christians it isn't a neutral symbol, ie: Mormons). For athiests Jesus was nothing more than a charismatic man (or worse according to some points of view). (→Netscott) 12:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I have been searching, and have yet to find these "highly restrictive contraints and requirements" you refer to. Could you provide a link to navigational template regulations? It's not at the navigational templates page.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 03:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that they're listed anywhere, and I don't much care whether they are or not, because they come from basic common sense, namely: 1) The image has to display clearly when reduced to the tiny thumbnail size necessary for use within a template box. 2) Template boxes are not the place for images which give rise to controversy over only representing a partial or selective view of the subject-matter in question.

It all comes down to a single principle, really -- in a template box, the image SHOULD NOT ITSELF BE THE MAIN ISSUE. The ideal template box thumbnail should adequately and unobtrusively identify the subject matter at hand at a glance, without drawing unnecessary attention to itself. The focus should be on the template box contents, not on the image. If people spend more time thinking about the image (or squinting at the image trying to pick out tiny details) than they do considering the actual links in the template box, then the image is not properly doing its job... AnonMoos 11:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My friend, it's only the "main issue" because YOU are making it the main issue. If you stopped talking about it, there would be no controversy.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 23:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Charlie, some things work beter than others, and you changed something that was working reasonably well into something which had a fair number of problems... AnonMoos 02:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the fish symbol, but that's also reflective of my denomination. --Scottandrewhutchins 05:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Get the unnecessary vertical spacing out

There are some vertical spacing gaps which are a very undesirable feature in the case of a template like this, where every additional pixel of vertical height increases the probability that there will be negative interactions between the template and the layout of images or tables further down the page, in various articles that include the template... AnonMoos 02:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Your attempt to reduce height isn't working because you had to add a line "Other:", and it is leass aesthetically pleasing.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 02:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but sometimes aesthetic formatting has to give way to functionality; the vertical height of this box needs to be minimized at all costs in any way reasonable, and I'm doing the best I can without discarding any links. AnonMoos 02:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind dumping the TempNav stuff, but your "solution" of replacing the lines with nothing and "Other:" simply doesn't succeed at reducing the height.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 02:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It sure does on my brower; the horizontal rules chew up a lot of vertical space as displayed on my system... AnonMoos 02:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What kind of system are you using? .. because it really doesn't help on mine. I use Firefox. ... and frankly I just don't like the "Other" bit. It's just not elegant.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 03:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm using MSIE, and however much you may hate or despise MSIE, there are plenty of other millions of people who are out there using it too. On my display, every horizontal line is causing a relatively wide vertical space both before and after it -- which is very inappropriate for this template, since the vertical pixel dimensions of the template box need to be reduced by any means possible. AnonMoos 12:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like someone elses input on the Lines v. "Other" vertical challenge controversy. Lines are better looking and just as short on my machine.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 03:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It is quite big. We need to make sure we are not linking to articles which are breakout articles of another article. In other words, there is no reason to link to numerous individual Christian denominations when you can link to the main 3 branches or simply to the Christian denominations article. This conserves space without sacrificing accessibility. —Aiden 03:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It is smaller than the Jewish template. BTW, it is not attempting to link to individual denominations, but rather movements and schools of thought. Sometimes, as in the case of Roman Catholicism it means a link to a particular church, but that is unavoidable even in your 3 branches idea. That said, I will take another look at paring it down a little.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 03:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I just gave my attempt at shortening without reducing content .... (1) two lines instead of three in traditions section (2) reduced spacing between major titles (3) nuked new "Other" line.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 04:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I tested it. It is shorter than the previous AnonMoos version.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 04:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

---

View image at right to see how your "04:30, 31 October 2006" version of the template displays in my browser; you've made the vertical spacing problems worse... I wasn't able to get a screenshot of the whole template, since I couldn't get it all on-screen at the same time (it's too tall). AnonMoos 12:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Look at how great my "04:30, 31 October 2006" version of the template displays on a web browser that doesn't suck, like yours does. Picture is not a problem, lines are great, spacing got better (better vertical spacing than your version). Dude, please get Firefox ... it's really better.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 23:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- I'm not in general an enthusiastic advocate of Microsoft software and products, but it's a simple fact that there are many millions of people out there viewing Wikipedia with MSIE, and we can't format Wikipedia solely according to what looks good in your browser, without regard to what other people are using (especially since this template box urgently needs to reduce vertical pixel dimensions by any means necessary on as wide a range of software viewing configurations as possible). AnonMoos 02:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Poll: Appearance of Previous Version

Microsoft Internet Explorer users, please take a look at this previous version of this template. Tell us if it looks distorted, like the screenshot AnonMoos posted above; or if it looks clean, like the screenshot I posted above (or to the right). I get the same look from MSIE and Firefox (like my screenshot). I'm curious to know if the distorted version is unique to AnonMoos, or not. Thanks.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 05:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

MSIE 6.0 and Firefox 2.0 both look exactly the same on my computer. Rob 06:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

IE 6 has the wide spacing for me; Firefox 1.5 does not. I haven't installed Firefox 2.0 yet. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It could depend on the choice of Wikipedia "skin" used, as well as the browser... AnonMoos 07:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I use the default skin. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As am I. Rob 18:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Using the Cologne Blue skin, the top and bottom of the bar get cut off, but the picture quality is still fine. Enough of the bottom gets cut off so that the bottom half of the words "Liturgy Calendar Symbols Art" are gone. Rob 15:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This template sucks (Cunado19)

I just wandered across this template, and I just have to say: it sucks. It is too wide, too crowded, unorganized, and has waaayy too many links. I don't want to work on it, nor will I watch this page or read responses. I just want to say... it sucks. Cuñado - Talk 19:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice civil way to foster goodwill there Cuñado. Could anyone ever assume good faith on your part relative to such commentary? Such commentary is a good way to set Wikipedia to be a battleground though... well done in that regard. (→Netscott) 20:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think it looks great (unlike your attitude).  :-)    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 23:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Cuñado - if you say it sucks, say why. Jake95 17:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Unity Church

I reverted the Unity Church and Charles Fillmore additions. If we include every little movement in the traditions section, then the template will stop being useful. If Unity stays, I can think of a hundred more similar links. Some are already complaining it is too much. The traditions section is for major traditions or schools of thought, not for particular and comparitively small churches. One can get to Unitarianism via the Liberalism link.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 18:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Unitarianism and Unity are closely allied, but not the same church. There's nothing about Unity at the Liberalism link. Which denominational founders belong and which don't? Hmmm...--Scottandrewhutchins 21:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The list of important figures is not a list of denominational founders. It should be a list of people who have had the greatest impact on Christendom, across denominational lines. I don't believe that Fillmore is such a person. Do you have evidence that he is? Also, given that this is not a list of churches or denominations, but major traditions, wouldn't it be better to put a link to Unity Church on appropriate pages that link to this template, rather than this template itself?    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 15:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd never heard of Carey or Barth before I got to this site, and Graham seems a flash in the pan compared to the others. I'm not sure that John Paul II belongs there. Why him and no other pope? Is he of greater historical significance than all previous popes? --Scottandrewhutchins 07:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that to keep it concise, there should be no contemporary or recent figures at all. There are simply too many figures who could claim the title of "greatest impact on Christianity today." For example, Barth was an influential theologian, but so were Francis Schaeffer, and John Dominic Crossan, and C.S. Lewis. John Paul II was influential, but what about Popes John XXIII and Paul VI, who revolutionized Catholocism via Vatican II? What about Christian figures from the developing world? We simply do not have the perspective to go making a short list of Christians that includes anyone from the last century. Fishal 00:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The Lord

I removed the link to "the lord" because it pointed to yahweh. That article is off topic here, and it seems like in inaccurate prefix for Jesus, no? (just click the link and read the article). Hope this wasn't controversial, but I am coming here in case there are concerns.--Andrew c 23:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Not inaccurate (see Phil 2:9) but probably too POV. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I restored the link. Actually, YHVH is translated Kurios in Greek NT (and LXX), and both are translated "Lord" in English. It is this assertion, that "Jesus is Lord", that has been the basic creed, the core belief, of Christianity from the beginning. It means that Jesus is the YHVH of the Bible. It is not POV for a descriptive encyclopedia. It is an early and core belief of Christianity ... all Christianity. As a hypothetical example, would it be POV for an Islam template to have a link to "prophet"? No, it's descriptive of their belief.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 03:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the POV issues. They are twofold (at least as far as I can see). Wikipedia cannot say "Jesus is The Lord", it can only say "Christians believe Jesus is the Lord". While it may be implied in this template that it is talking about Christian belief, I do not see how adding "the lord" helps encyclopedicly. The second POV issues, is that do all Christians accept Jesus as Yahweh? The Jesus article only mentione Yahweh once, and it is in regards to a minority view, the LDS ( They believe Jesus (not the Father) is the same as Jehovah or Yahweh of the Old Testament.). Furthermore, it is extremely odd to pipe the words "The Lord" to the article Yahweh. As noted above, read the article. Someone wants to find out more about Christianity, and they see the Christianity template. They see the words "the lord" and click on it, and look what article it takes them to. Where does it talk about "The Lord"? Where does it talk about "Jesus"? Where does it talk about "Christianity"? Despite the POV issues and the piping issues, I stand by my assertion that the article in question is NOT part of a series on Christianity, and shouldn't be next to Jesus. I strongly support removing it again.--Andrew c 13:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

A side note, I think the phrasing "God the Trinity" is ackward. It isn't nearly as common as "The Holy Trinity" or simply "The Trinity".--Andrew c 13:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with "Andrew c" -- YHWH (i.e. the Tetragrammaton) is a Jewish name for monotheistic God, but has little to do with Christian-specific concepts of divinity (once you've said that "YHWH=God", you've said about all that there is to say on the matter). AnonMoos 13:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

paring down traditions (or trimming inherently subjective individual links)

Instead of adding traditions, like Methodism and Unity (as discussed above), we should clarify here. There are never ending calls to reduce this template ... let's not forget that. It is better to remove Lutheranism, Baptist, Conservatism (not a movement distinguishable from either Evangelicalism or Fundamentalism), and Assyrian Church; rather than add new ones. What is, and should be, left are movements that are not only significant in themselves, but cannot be comprehended in another. I'm even nuking my own position here: Baptist. For example, Baptist can be comprehended within either Calvinism, Arminianism, Evangelicalism, or in some cases Restorationism. Likewise, Methodism can be comprehended in Anglicanism, Arminianism, or Evangelicalism. What is listed here are major, umbrella traditions; not denominations, and not church traditions. I'm reverting the previous revert of my paring down. Please discuss here if you disagree.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, Methodism can be found via Wesley, and Baptist via Carey.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you should start paring down the individuals first -- they seem to be somewhat arbitrarily chosen. I mean, is William Carey really one of the ten most important people in the history of the Christianity after the 1st century A.D.? How do you judge such a claim in an "NPOV" manner? It will be a lot easier to be less arbitrary in selecting major denominations than it will be to be less arbitrary in selecting major individuals. AnonMoos 23:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the only one anyone is questioning is William Carey, but I will argue that he is deserving of the company. He is arguably the most important Christian figure in the last 200 years. He truly is the "father of modern missions". Asian Christianity practically owes its existence to him. He is at least as important as Palamas (I think much more).

Early Church: Apostle Paul · Church Fathers

Pre-Schism: Constantine · Athanasius · Augustine

Medieval: Anselm · Aquinas · Palamas · Wycliffe

Reformation to today: Luther · Calvin · Wesley · Carey

Not all are ordained; not all are theologians. Constantine may or may not even be a Christian. He is on the list because of his impact on Christendom. European Christianity has been most affected by Constantine. Asian Christianity has been most affected by Carey. Modern missions (especially in the Protestant world) owes its character and form to William Carey.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 02:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A very Western-centric list, even with the inclusion of Palamas. What of the Cappadocian Fathers? John Chrysostom, the Scriptural exegete par excellence for Eastern Orthodoxy? John of Damascus? Peter Mogila? The Desert Fathers? (For that matter, any monastic figures at all? (Anthony the Great, John Climacus, John Cassian, etc? Monasticism has been hugely influential in Christianity.) And were there no post-Reformation Roman Catholic figures of comparable importance? I believe there were.

Protestant Christianity in Asia may owe its existence to Carey -- of whom I have never heard, and who in any event influenced far fewer people than Palamas -- but didn't anyone else from any other of the Christian traditions ever preach in Asia? (They did, both Catholic and Orthodox.)

Constantine became a Christian on his deathbed and is venerated as a saint in Eastern Orthodoxy. He had a towering effect on Christianity as a whole, since at the time it was largely (not entirely, but largely) confined to the Roman Empire. Becoming legal in that polity was a revolutionary event.

Church Fathers is too inclusive for the Early Church since people in this category span a very wide range of time, including the present day in some traditions. Perhaps you mean Apostolic Fathers. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

---

I wasn't picking on Carey's importance individually (he was just he one that I'd never heard of before who didn't have a Greek or Roman-sounding name). I think that the whole premise of the section is somewhat misconceived, and that Constantine should certainly be taken off, and most probably others as well -- and that it's better to have a link to Methodism than to Wesley, better to have a link to Baptists than to Carey, etc. AnonMoos 03:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This was the point I was dancing around. It's impossible to come up with such a brief list of influential figures without someone being left out; and for whose inclusion a case could be made equally strong as for those that are there. We're better off without the section, IMO. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Methodism cannot be "comprehended" through "Anglicanism, Arminianism, or Evangelicalism." Methodism may have began as part of Anglicanism, but it evloved beyond that and is a unique movement in itself. Methodism does have arminianian theology, but there is more to it than that. Also, not all Methodists are Evangelical. I know that I wasn't when I was Methodist. Methodist should be on this template. It is one of the largest Protestant movements in the world. Likewise, Luthereanism should be on this template. The whole Protestant Reformation began because of Lutheranism! Baptist is also a significant movement worldwide. I believe that it is the largest Protestant movement in the world and has features that distinguish it from Calvinism, Arminianism, or Evangelicalism. I demand that these be put back on the template!KitHutch 13:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

VOTING on aspects of this template

This template is not just the province of four Wikipedians (especially when there is no consensus). We need more voices, especially others who have proven interest or expertise. Please vote in these two categories, traditions and figures: include an asterisk to make the bullet and embolden a short phrase at the beginning of your brief comments that summarizes your position, and sign your entry with four tildes.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 15:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Traditions Section

Should it be shorter with just three main branches, should it stay as is with just umbrella traditions or schools of thought (not a list of denominations), should the list be expanded to include any group with numbers regardless of level of distinction, or something else. Let us know. Currently it looks like this:

Eastern Christianity

Eastern Orthodoxy · Oriental Orthodoxy

Syriac Christianity · Eastern Catholicism

Western Christianity

Roman Catholicism · Protestantism

Thomism · Anabaptism · Anglicanism

Evangelicalism · Calvinism · Arminianism

Restorationism · Liberalism

Fundamentalism · Pentecostalism

• Keep as is with just umbrella traditions.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 15:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• More traditions should be added. Baptists are one of the biggest traditions in Western Christianity. Lutheranism started the Protestant Reformation. Methodism is more than just a subset of Anglicanism. KitHutch 18:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • But both are subsets of Protestantism, which is on the list. Fishal 17:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• A limited number of the more important traditions should be added. AnonMoos 17:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Anglicanism is also a subset of Protestantism (at least by most definitions) & it is on the template. The MAJOR traditions/movements of Western Christianity should be listed and these include not only Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism, which are already listed, but Lutheranism, Baptists, & Methodism. KitHutch 01:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• While Anglicanism is listed on the template, it has the smallest worldwide membership of the mainline denominations listed on the template. There are about 73 million Anglicans. However, of the traditions that I have suggested adding, there are 90 million Baptists, 82 million Lutherans, and 75 million Methodists in the world. KitHutch 23:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Important Figures Section

Should the list be expanded to include many significant figures for every tradition, should it stay as it is, be eliminated altogether because it's impossible to be objective, or something else? Currently it looks like this (without the titles):

Early Church: Apostle Paul · Church Fathers

Pre-Schism: Constantine · Athanasius · Augustine

Medieval: Anselm · Aquinas · Palamas · Wycliffe

Reformation to today: Luther · Calvin · Wesley · Carey

• Keep as is with these major figures of each major epoch of Church history.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 15:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Impossible to reach consensus regarding who belongs. Besides Paul and perhaps Augustine, it sounds like all these figures are in dispute. Most of them can eventually be reached by following one of the History links. Fishal 17:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove: Agree with Fishal -- The "Church Fathers" link should be kept, and probably a way should be found to accomodate one or two of the most important figures in the list (such as Paul and perhaps Augustine), but otherwise the section should be removed. In particular, links to individuals should not be made to stand in for links to major denominational traditions or groupings. AnonMoos 17:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per AnonMoos, although if figures like Athanasius are not to be included then Augustine certainly should not be either IMO. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I would remove Palams and Carey to be sure. Should these figure be "important" for doctrinal contributions to the church or for other reasons too? I agree that a consensus will be hard to reach either way. Srnec 20:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the article criticism of Christianity should be included

I will argue for using the same standards for templates of Islam, Mormonism etc. Andries 16:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In the subject of inclusion of other links, I think there should be a link to the Pope. Jake95 17:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I would support inclusion of both. The Pope, obviously under "Important Figures", and Criticism under "Topics in Christianity". I'll try it out and see how it fairs.-Andrew c 21:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If you'll pardon the expression but I'll act as the "Devil's advocate" and ask why do you think there should be a link to the criticism article? (→Netscott) 21:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Balance. The same reason there is a criticism section on the main Christianity page.-Andrew c 23:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

A centralized discussion on this general topic can be found at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Criticism link on religion navigational boxes. -Andrew c 03:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not include a section on Restorationist organizations and include LDS Church, Community of Christ, Seventh-day Adventist Church and Jehovah's Witness? They all fall under the umbrella as Christians, regardless of what traditionalists claim, and regardless of their criticisms. Bytebear 00:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

On a template of this size, I'm going to have to say adding 4 more links may not be as helpful as a single link that covers all four. However, the best way to settle this is to find a reliable source that gives population statistics for denominations, and if a group is under a certain size, we could say including it in the template is giving them undue weight. I personally don't mind including groups that consider themselves Christian, however it may be fairly controversial to try and add these groups. What do others thinks?-Andrew c 02:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a link to restorationism on the template already, so someone somewhere has already included these groups if not overtly. Your best reference to statistics is www.adherents.com. I will post some stats in a little bit. Bytebear 06:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Statistics from Adherents.com

For statistical purposes: Groups which self-identify as part of Christianity include (but are not limited to): African Independent Churches (AICs), the Aglipayan Church, Amish, Anglicans, Armenian Apostolic, Assemblies of God; Baptists, Calvary Chapel, Catholics, Christadelphians, Christian Science, the Community of Christ, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("Mormons"), Coptic Christians, Eastern Orthodox churches, Ethiopian Orthodox, Evangelicals, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Local Church, Lutherans, Methodists, Monophysites, Nestorians, the New Apostolic Church, Pentecostals, Plymouth Brethren, Presbyterians, the Salvation Army, Seventh-Day Adventists, Shakers, Stone-Campbell churches (Disciples of Christ; Churches of Christ; the "Christian Church and Churches of Christ"; the International Church of Christ); Uniate churches, United Church of Christ/Congregationalists, the Unity Church, Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, Vineyard churches and others. These groups exhibit varying degrees of similarity, cooporation, communion, etc. with other groups. None are known to consider all other Chrisian sub-groups to be equally valid. David Barrett, an Evangelical Christian who is the compiler of religion statistics for the Encyclopedia Britannica and the World Christian Encyclopedia, includes all of the groups listed above in the worldwide statistics for Christianity.

Contemporary sociolgists and religious leaders generally consider pan-denominational classifications based not on historical denominational divisions but on current theological positions, organizational alignments, etc. to be more relevant. Such groupings include: Evangelicals, Pentecostals, 'Great Commission Christians', 'C. S. Lewis Christians', Liberal Protestants, Conservative Protestants, Fundamentalists, etc.

---

Most Ubiquitous Religious Bodies: The religious bodies on this list which are most likely to have a church, mosque, or congregation near you (in most countries in the world) are:

• Catholic Church
• Sunni Islam
• Baha'i Faith
• Jehovah's Witnesses
• Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Seventh-day Adventists

---

Christian Family Tree

The website United Religions Initiative has defined the Christian family tree as follows:

• Western Liturgical Family
  • Eastern Orthodox tradition
  • non-Chalcedonies Orthodox tradition
  • Western Catholic tradition
  • Anglican tradition
• Eastern Liturgical Family
  • Nestorians
  • Armenians
  • Syrian Churches
  • Coptic Churches of Egypt and Ethiopia
• Lutheran Family
• Reformed-Presbyterian Family
• Pietist-Methodist Family
• Holiness Family
• Penticostal Family
• European Free-Church Family
• Baptist Family
• Independent Fundamentalist Family
• Adventist Family
• Jehovah's Witnesses
• The Liberal Family
• Latter Day Saint Family
• Communal Family
• Christian Science-Metaphysical Family
• Unity School of Christianity

Bytebear 06:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

---

We aren't going to include links to all those, or even slightly close to all those, but if we can get around "User:Guðsþegn"'s crochet of trying to substitute links to alleged "Important Figures" (who in some cases are in fact not particularly broadly-known) in place of corresponding links to denominations or traditions, then we could include more. But there's still going to be a somewhat unavoidable bias in favor of listing groups that split off early in history (and have maintained a separate existence to the present day), as opposed to groups that have formed a separate identity only in the last two centuries or so. AnonMoos 08:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The restorationism story says "Restorationist organizations include Disciples of Christ, Churches of Christ, Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others." This seems like a good start. I will include it and see how it goes over. Bytebear 05:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted, for two reasons --

1) The Christianity template is already approaching the limits of appropriate height (some would say that it's already too tall), so that adding a large number of new links will probably have to be balanced by deleting some previously-included links.

2) The way in which you added a new section made it seem like "Restorationism" is a coequal branch of Christianity, comparable to "Eastern Orthodoxy", "Western Christianity", "Protestantism" etc., but that's not really the case with respect to the numbers of adherents or degree of historical influence. And while Eastern Orthodox groups have common features in distinction to Western Christianity, and different Protestant groups share a number of differences from Catholicism, the different Restorationist groups really have basically nothing in common other than the fact of each separately rejecting traditional Christian "orthodoxy" in various different ways. And some might say that some of the Restorationist groups you added are parochial to the English-speaking world, with little influence elsewhere. AnonMoos 06:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If you look at the Most Ubiquitous Religious Bodies statistics, three of those listed are restorationsist groups. The only other Christian group is Catholicism. If you can help define them in a way that fits better. but it is a compromise from including every religion, and these groups are clearly not protestant, and most do not base their doctrine of the creeds of Eastern or Western Christianity, which does not in and of itself exclude them from Christianity. So where do they fit? Bytebear 07:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you prefer Nontrinitarianism? How do we include Christian movements that don't fall neatly into Eastern or Western traditions? Bytebear 07:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection whatsoever to including general overall links to Nontrinitarianism and Restorationism or Great Apostasy on the template, and in fact I was under the impression that these or similar links were present on a previous version of this template. If those links were not there on the template as you found it, then that was something which should have been fixed. However, that's quite a different matter from adding a whole new big section of links without deleting any previous links (and so undesirably increasing the vertical height of the template), and also the disproportion which is created by giving groups such as Disciples of Christ a link when there is no separate link to groups such as Nestorians or Coptic-Ethiopian Christians. I'm sure that the Disciples of Christ include many fine people, but Nestorians and Coptic-Ethiopian Christians have had far more importance in the history of world Christianity over the last 1900+ years -- and it would be grotesque to try to pretend otherwise. AnonMoos 17:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Addition of non-Traditional Christian groups

I added (or rather expanded) a section for Restorationism listing about 5 groups. In doing so, I have had my changes reverted twice. We are coming close to the 3RR rule and I need additional feedback. I am getting some on my talk page, but little discussion here. AnonMoos wrote the following:

I already explained on Template_talk:Christianity at ":23, 21 February 2007" why there is going to be a certain unavoidable bias towards groups with significant early influence and/or long continuous institutional histories. These groups do not all fall within the traditional "orthodox" mainstream of Christianity -- the groups of "Oriental Orthodoxy" or "Syrian Christianity" are Monophysite, or rather non-Chalcedonian, etc. Meanwhile:

1) Many might find it somewhat grotesque if the "Disciples of Christ" were mentioned on the template, but the Armenian church or the Nestorians (which have far more significance in the overall history of Christianity) were not mentioned on the template (for example).

2) The template needs to be continuously monitored so that it does not get too tall, and there needs to be some discussion and agreement about what is to be deleted before a whole new big section of links is added. AnonMoos

I have a few issues with this. The term 'unavoidable bias towards groups' : reflects a POV that I am not comfortable with. Bytebear 19:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was evaluating groups according to their influence and relative importance in the overall history of WORLD Christianity over the last 1900+ years. It might be said that taking a global view of the history of world Christianity over two thousand years is much less "POV" than focusing on the English-speaking world of the last 200 years (as you seem to do). AnonMoos 17:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Same with 'somewhat grotesque'. Is this what this template is about? avoiding the inclusion of various groups because you find them grotesque? Bytebear 19:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- please don't attribute to me things which I clearly did not say. What I observed is that, though I'm sure many individual members of the Disciples of Christ are ernestly pious individuals who strive to do right, it would be ludicrous to claim that, collectively as a group, the Disciples of Christ have remotely the same importance in the overall history of WORLD Christianity over the last 1900+ years that say Nestorians or Coptic Christians have had. By the way, neither Nestorian nor Coptic Christianity is "orthodox" in the traditional Catholic / Eastern Orthodox / conservative Protestant sense. AnonMoos 17:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the most POV thing I have heard on Wikipedia, and I have heard a lot. I have given ample evidence that these "grotesque" groups identify themselves as Christian and as such they should be included. If you want to make a new template called "traditional Christianity" or "trinitarianism", then you can exclude groups you find offensive. Until them, I am going to once again, include my changes. Why risk a 3RR violation? because if I do not show these changes, no one is going to see them and make comment here. Bytebear 19:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Giving an irrelevant ranting tirade based largely on a wilful misinterpretation of my remarks all the reply it deserves -- none. AnonMoos 17:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

As to the "length" of the template. I believe this argument to be a red herring and an effort to excuse such blatant POV. If you feel that the inclusion of about 6 lines of text is too much, I would look at other sections for removal. For example, many of the topics under the Bible section are more about doctrine (i.e. Virgin Birth) than the bible itself. Also something like the 10 commandments has a broader scope than just Christianity. Bytebear 18:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Another point: Template:Judaism has been used as an example of a well defined, NPOV template, and it is about 1/3 longer than this template, so length clearly isn't an issue. Bytebear 19:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever -- all I know is how it affects the articles using the template which I most frequently edit. In some, such as Shield of the Trinity, it comes close to displacing the first in-line article image, and so creating an unsightly visual vertical gap in the article as it is commonly displayed in browsers (or in some Wikimedia "skins", and with some choices of browser font sizes, it already creates such an ugly gap). Therefore the vertical visual height of the template must be kept as small as possible. AnonMoos 17:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that to make the Shield of the Trinity article correct, we need to change this template? Bytebear 20:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude, it could affect ANY Christianity page with a centered or right-thumbed image in the first five or six paragraphs of text (depending on table-of-contents placement, Wikimedia "skin" chosen, browser font-size, and a number of other factors which an editor of an individual Wikipedia article has very little control over). The first principle is "do no harm" -- if we can prevent problems by preventing the template from growing too tall, then by all means, let's do so. AnonMoos 21:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems easier to change a single page, than a template that may affect dozens of pages. I decided to go ahead and adjust the page in question. It looks quite acceptable now, and there is no height issue with this template. Problem solved. Bytebear 20:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Saying it doesn't make it so. AnonMoos 21:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

---

By the way, if you look at the discussions above on this page, you can see that I'm not just using template height as a stick to beat you with -- I had extensive previous discussions with User:Guðsþegn over the issue of excessive verticality of the template. In fact, I'm going to delete the "v - e - d" section right now, since that's something inessential to the main function of the template which contributes to the display height of the template box. AnonMoos 17:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You have two main issues 1) height of the infobox, which I have proven is much shorter than well defined, good quality infoboxes, so that simply is not a valid issue. There are going to be dozens if not hundreds of articles using this template, and it isn't our responsibility to make this fit all of them, but rather they should be adjusted to fit this. I just don't see layout being an issue. Other articles have adjusted with other templates, and so they will with this template. and 2) you claim that some of these groups are not historically significant. You choose to ignore the data on adherents.com which places several of these groups in the top 10 list of world religions and US religions, so they are not insignificant.

I also noticed you reverted "holy trinity", clearly a POV term that I changed to "trinity". I moved Trinity to Theology and reinserted Godhead which is less POV. Bytebear 19:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me reemphasize: Layout is secondary to NPOV. Any POV changes will be immediately reverted. Discuss POV issues, not layout issues. Bytebear 20:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't single out any particular one of your edits -- I reverted all your edits, since you added a whole new big section of links, which significantly added to the height of this template, without listening to anybody's concerns about disproportionality (please tell me again why the Disciples of Christ deserve a separate mention, while the Nestorians don't????), and without having gained agreement on significant compensating deletion of links elsewhere (to prevent the template from growing in height indefinitely). Furthermore, "Godhead" is not a "more NPOV term" -- prior to the late 19th century or so, it was just a (now slightly archaic) translation of Latin Divinitas or Greek Theotês. However, during the last 100 years or so, it has been increasingly replaced in mainstream theological usage by less archaic translations, just as "Holy Ghost" has been replaced by "Holy Spirit". Retaining the English word "Godhead" in current regular use, and giving it special meaning, is now a marker of certain specific groups -- so it's not really neutral language or "NPOV". 22:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Stepping in here where a wiser man might fear to tread, I have done a partial revert. I agree with the inclusion of the expanded Restorationism section, since this is a not insignificant movement at least as important as Fundamentalism. However, it's certainly not NPOV to treat mainstream Christian dogma as if it were marginal -- i.e. as if the Restorationist opinion were objectively true. When representing the teaching of any religion, the NPOV approach is to take the mainstream, usually, but not always exhibited by the majority, as normative, and variations from that mainstream as subsidiary subjects. In the case of Christianity, such an overwhelming majority of them are Trinitarians that to treat the Trinity as if it were a subtle point of mere academic theological interest is rather to promote the POV of non-Trinitarians. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"Holy Trinity" is POV and it should be "Trinity" and it should be listed in Doctrine section. "Godhead" is a more universal term, and it explains some historicity of the term, which I think fits better in the head section. Bytebear 02:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree for the reasons I gave above. Since you present no reasons aside from your personal opinion, I feel no qualms about putting it back. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

My opinion? Sorry, I gave verifiable and definitive references to what groups define Christianity. Give me (NPOV) references that exclude them, and we can discuss. Until then, they belong in this template. Bytebear 03:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"Godhead" is not a "more universal term" -- prior to the late 19th century or so, it was just a (now slightly archaic) translation of Latin Divinitas or Greek Theotês. However, during the last 100 years or so, it has been increasingly replaced in mainstream theological usage by less archaic translations, just as "Holy Ghost" has been replaced by "Holy Spirit". Retaining the English word "Godhead" in current regular use, and giving it special meaning, is now a marker of certain specific groups -- so it's not really neutral language. AnonMoos 12:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't edit the "Shield of the Trinity" article to make a WP:POINT

Squeezing text in between an image on the left and an image on the right (or between an image on the left and a tall template on the right) only works reliably across a broad range of browsers / window sizes / Wikimedia "skins" etc. when the images involved are significantly smaller than the first three images on the "Shield of the Trinity" article. Furthermore, as a general matter of overall approach, the templates are here to serve the articles, not the articles to serve the templates. AnonMoos 22:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Statistics on Chrstian groups and leaders

I am going to hilight the organizations you want to omit from this list, because you think they are not significant. All data is from Adherents.com:

Religious Body Number of Adherents Catholic Church** 1,100,000,000 Sunni Islam* 1,000,000,000 Eastern Orthodox Church* 225,000,000 Jinja Honcho* 83,000,000 Anglican Communion* 77,000,000 Assemblies of God* 50,000,000 Ethiopian Orthodox Church 35,000,000 Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland (EKD)* 27,400,000 Iglesia ni Cristo (based in the Philippines) 27,000,000 Sikhism 23,000,000 Juche (North Korea) 19,000,000 Seventh-day Adventist Church 16,811,519 Southern Baptist Convention* 16,000,000 Jehovah's Witnesses** 15,597,746 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 12,275,822 United Methodist Church* 11,708,887 Soka Gakkai 11,000,000 New Apostolic Church 10,260,000 Ahmadiyya * 10,000,000 Veerashaivas (Lingayats) 10,000,000 Coptic Orthodox 10,000,000 Sathya Sai Baba 10,000,000 Church of Uganda 8,000,000 Choge Buddhism 8,000,000 Church of Sweden 7,143,292 Church of God in Christ 6,500,000 Kimbanguist Church 6,500,000 Bahai World Faith 6,000,000 Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (Igreja Universal do Reino de Deus) 6,000,000 Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 5,500,000

Top 10 Largest Highly International Religious Bodies These are religious bodies in which at least 30% of their world membership live outside the "core country" (country with the largest number of members). Religious Body Number of Adherents Catholic Church 1,100,000,000 Sunni Islam 875,000,000 Eastern Orthodox Church 225,000,000 Anglican Communion* 77,000,000 Assemblies of God 50,000,000 Seventh-day Adventists 16,811,519 Jehovah's Witnesses 15,597,746 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 12,275,822 New Apostolic Church 10,260,000 Ahmadiyya 10,000,000 Bahai World Faith 6,000,000

Greatest Historical Religious Figures (Steven A. DeVore and Richard Linford, InteliQuest Learning Systems; URL: http://www.4iq.com/people1.htm#list) (Listed chronologically)

• Abraham
• Moses
• Lao-tzu
• Buddha
• Confucius
• Jesus Christ
• Apostle Paul
• Saint Augustine
• Muhammad
• Thomas Aquinas
• Martin Luther
• John Calvin
• Joseph Smith
• Gandhi

Henry and Dana Thomas Great Religious Leaders List Jesus Christianity Moses Jewish prophet Isaiah Jewish prophet Zoroaster founder of Zoroastrianism Buddha founder of Buddhism Confucius founder of Confucianism John the Baptist prophet and contemporary of Jesus Christ St. Paul Christianity Mohammed Prophet of Islam St. Francis of Assisi early Christian theologian John Huss Bohemian Christian reformer; founder of Czech Hussites Martin Luther primary founder of Protestantism Loyola theologian and founder of Jesuits Calvin founder of Calvinist branch of Protestantism George Fox founder of Quakers John Wesley founder of Methodist movement Swedenborg founder of Swedenborgianism Brigham Young 2nd prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Mary Baker Eddy founder of Christian Science Gandhi Hindu reformer and Indian political leader; mother was a Jain

Greg Bear's List of History's Major Prophets

• Zarathustra (Zoroaster)
• Jesus
• Mohammed
• Shabbetai Tzevi
• Al Mahdi
• Joseph Smith
• Brigham Young

Time Magazine's Person of the Century Poll Elvis Presley 624,574 Yitzhak Rabin 599,557 Adolf Hitler 516,408 Billy Graham 470,477 Albert Einstein 443,630 Martin Luther King Jr. 381,462 Pope John Paul II 372,015 Gordon B. Hinckley* 255,026 Mohandas Gandhi 163,940 Ronald Reagan 81,262

• Hinckley is president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Famous Contemporary Religious Leaders

• Pope Benedict XVI - Catholic Church. Webpage.
• Dalai Lama - Tibetan Buddhism. Official site.
• Billy Graham - Protestant. Billy Graham Center Archives
• Jerry Falwell - Evangelical. Article in Christianity Today; official site; opposing views.
• Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew - Eastern Orthodox Church. An official biography.
• President Gordon B. Hinckley - Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Intro by Mike Wallace.
• Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams - Anglican. Homepage.
• Imam W. Deen Mohammed - Muslim American Society. Official site.
• Louis Farrakhan - Nation of Islam. Biography at official site.
• Master Li Hongzhi - Falun Dafa. Official site.

Special "Millennium Month" Christmas Eve and New Years Eve Guests On the Larry King Show (CNN), December 1999

• Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa
• Dalai Lama, leader of Tibetan Buddhism
• Rev. Billy Graham, world-famous evangelist
• Pres. Gordon B. Hinckley of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Rev. Schuller of the Crystal Cathedral and the television program "Hour of Power"

GO Network's "Famous Religious Leaders and Figures" Leaders listed on the GO Network web portal's Religious Leaders and Figures directory page (as of 21 March 2000; URL: http://www.go.com/WebDir/People/Famous_people/Religious_leaders_and_figures):

• Dalai Lama
• Louis Farrakhan
• Pope John Paul II
• Mary Baker Eddy *
• Billy Graham
• Jerry Falwell
• Mother Teresa *

The only two lists that don't include Smith, Young, Eddy or Hinkley are polls done by Christian pastors or ministers:

Some Major American Protestant Leaders (Bynum) As listed by Pastor E. L. Bynum, Tabernacle Baptist Church, Lubbock, Texas.

Some Major Christian Leaders and Writers (MisterPoll) List of individuals from the "Christianity Poll," done by Mister Poll (http://www.misterpoll.com/3611932490.html):

Most Ubiquitous Religious Bodies: The religious bodies on this list which are most likely to have a church, mosque, or congregation near you (in most countries in the world) are:

• Catholic Church
• Sunni Islam
• Baha'i Faith
• Jehovah's Witnesses
• Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Seventh-day Adventists

Clearly these groups are significant, as are their leaders. Your omitting them is POV, plain and simple. Bytebear 02:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What the rankings don't tell you, if you look just at the rank numbers, is how sharply the numbers of adherents drop off after the first few on the list. We go from one billion, to a quarter billion, to the tens of millions, a loss of an order of magnitude. We also go from groups that have been around for almost 2 millennia to those that have been here for less than 200 years. These are not comparable in significance. As far as your "greatest figures" lists go, I have no idea who these people are or why I should value their obviously subjective opinions. Most of them are heavily slanted to modern figures well-known to Americans. That does not decide what is significant in history or in worldwide Christianity. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then I guess Christianity is owned exclusively by the Catholic Church since they are by far the oldest and largest group. The point is that Wikipedia is based on verifiability, and your (and my) opinion means nothing, but I gave verifiable sources that say these groups are important and significant. If you have statistics that counter my point, I am happy to look at them. Bytebear 03:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You cited Larry King, for crying out loud! I'm sorry, but he's simply not a reliable source on religious subjects. He's an interviewer -- and from what I've seen of his interviews he often has a very shaky grasp of the subjects he discusses. And Greg Bear? He's a good SF writer, one of the better ones when it comes to presentation of actual science, but why should I take his word about anything related to real world religions? A Time magazine poll? Not even remotely scientific, and since they polled Americans exclusively it's inherently biased. (I can't imagine under what other circumstances Hinckley would even register in such a survey. They must have polled heavily in Utah.) I don't know who your other sources are, but if they're of the same quality as those I do know about, then these sources are worth precisely nothing. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I asked for alternatives. Do you have any? And the statistics on numbers don't lie. These groups have significant numbers and are growing. Are you saying the statistics are wrong? Or is it because their theology doesn't fit with Apostolic tradition? If it is the latter (which is suspect it is) then you need to change the template to "Apostolic Christianity". As it stands, these groups are Christian and significant. Bytebear 04:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to reply to both your recent posts and your recent reversion down here.

Alternatives to what? These are not reliable sources. They "don't count." There's nothing to provide an alternative to. But I'm not saying they shouldn't be included in the template. I thought they should be included, remember? I'm saying the arguments and sources you've presented here are unconvincing. You'll have to do better if you're going to change anyone's mind. Considering that the inclusion of some of these groups in Christianity at all is highly controversial -- for example, the only ones who think Mormons are Christians are Mormons themselves and certain ecumenists, as can be easily demonstrated -- you should expect this kind of reaction and be prepared for it.

Besides, you've missed AnonMoos' point completely. If we are to include some of these recent, America-centered groups like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, then there are other groups far more important to the history and doctrinal development of Christianity that are not now included but which ought to be. Yet I don't see you arguing for their inclusion, which leads one to suspect that you are in fact simply pushing your own POV and not really interested in neutrality at all.

The fact is -- and you have not even attempted to controvert it -- that whether we include these newcomers in Christianity or not, their ideas are not what Christians have overwhelmingly believed throughout history, arguably from the very beginning, to the present day. It is those beliefs of Christianity that ought to be represented as normative in order to be truly neutral. See WP:Undue weight. Marginalizing them, as you have been trying to do, is in fact to push a POV, not the other way around. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I never said other groups should not be included. I think they should be included. And many of my points were not specifically directed to your comments. Statistics are not POV, and Larry King does show that Mormons are at least on the national if not world stage. Clearly they are well know. Enough to cause offense.

I was looking at this image:

This image is all over articles about Christian denomimations, but the articles themselves don't hold to this structure. Perhaps we should simplify the whole structure to this:

• Restorationism
• Protestantism
• Anglicanism
• Roman Catholicism
  • Western Rites
  • Eastern Rites
• Eastern Orthodoxy
• Oriental Orthodoxy (Miaphysites)
• Nestorians (including Assyrian Church)

As to whether you (or anyone) think Mormons or JWs are Christian or not, is irrelevant. Just as the LDS Church thinks FLDS or Community of Christ are not really Mormons. All groups still stem from Joseph Smith. Mormons and JW also claim to stem from Jesus Christ, which makes them Christian, regardless of what other Christians think. Bytebear 07:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A variation on the image: Template:Christian_denomination_tree which includes Pentecostalism. It is uglier but has links. Bytebear 08:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"Actually, I never said other groups should not be included. I think they should be included." Really? You hadn't said so until I pointed out that not arguing for their inclusion was inconsistent. The reason they weren't included earlier was to keep the size of the template more manageable. So fine. Include them if this is to be a monster of a template.

And care to address my last paragraph? That was about your insistence on the position of the Trinity article. (By the way, if I hadn't lost my connection after posting above I'd have reported you at the time for your WP:3RR violation. Partial reversions count; in this case your repeated reversions to your preferred placement of that article.) It is of central, fundamental importance to, as I said, the overwhelming majority of Christians both past and present. Of the groups you listed in your first set of statistics, the groups you highlighted, all Restorationists who reject Nicene Christianity, have less than 3% of the numbers of those with a traditional view of the Trinity. (I presume any not listed on both sides are smaller than those included here, which means they'd not affect the relative proportions in any significant way.) So yes. Statistics are not POV. Here they show that these are indeed fringe groups. To allow their views to dictate the layout of the template is therefore undue weight, as above. TCC (talk) (contribs) 11:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems I am being attacked on several fronts. I will try to address each in turn.

Placement of Trinity: The concept of the trinity is a doctrine, and therefore should be placed in the doctrine section of the template. It is not a foundation. It was established well after the original church and the term and concept was defined through the creeds of the 2nd century.

As to the 3RR accusation. One of those Rs stands for Revert. I never reverted anything. I modified and altered. You were the one who actually reverted to the version prior to my changes, so you are in fact the guilty party.

I have been assuming good faith, and have tried to compromise when applicable. Compromise 1: I placed the Restorationist gruops under Western Christianity as they are stemmed from Western thought, although do not consider themselves reformationists. Compromise 2: I gave you the chart of branches, and suggested limiting the list to just those groups, which would include Nestorians, which you AnonMoos have been pushing for. But you and he seem to still want a more extensive list. I personally think if the chart is wrong, it should be updated.

As for the significance of a group? History is only one part of the equation. Influence on modern society is another. Potential for the future is a third. Clearly Joseph Smith will be a name that will resonate forever, and the LDS Church will continue to grow. Some say it is the most prosperous church in the world.[3], others say that it will be the most prominent religion in the world in just a few decades [4] [5]. JW and Adventists are also growing at high rates. All three groups are in the list of ubiquitous groups, meaning they are the most common religions worldwide overall. Sure there are more baptists, but they are mostly in the US. There are more Mormons outside the US than in it. Soon more Mormons will speak Spanish than English. Regardless of it's size or age, it is a world religion.

It has been pointed out that Restorationism is not a true branch of Christianity, but rather a classification on groups under a common term. Comparatively these groups have little in common. This gives 'more credence to their being listed individually, IMHO.

Lastly, I never mentioned the Nestorians because I don't know much about them, and they fall under the Eastern branch, so they were never part of my argument. That doesn't mean I wanted their exclusion. I was pushing for inclusion, remember? I personally don't know why they aren't on the template already, since they are on the chart. I will add them gladly, if you like.

I am glad that you are not debating the validity of the claim of Chritianity, and your points have been clear and understandable. I thank you for the debate. I hope we can come to a reasonable solution. Bytebear 19:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I also want to point out that I am including the groups in the broadest sense: Adventists vs Seventh Day Adventists, Latter Day Saint movement vs LDS Church, and, well Jehovah's Witnesses have no sub-groups that I am aware of. Bytebear

Starting new subsection

I don't know that I have an inalterable opposition to including Seventh-day Adventists and/or Jehovah's Witnesses and/or Mormons on the template, but before they could be added, plausible arguments would have made for their importance or influence in the overall global history of world Christianity in the last two thousand years (something which is very different than counting present-day number of adherents) -- and that means that they would in fact be directly competing against some groups which may have very few modern adherents, but have a strong importance in the history of Christianity (such as Nestorians).

However, the question of adding these three groups individually is a very different matter from adding them under a restorationist "branch" of Christianity, when in fact no such "branch" exists (since these three groups, and other restorationist groups, have almost no distinctive positive theological tenets shared in common). The diagram Image:ChristianityBranches.svg is moderately informative in packing a fair amount of detail into a compact area, but if it gives the impression that there is a restorationist "branch" of Christianity, then it is quite misleading in this respect. And furthermore, the way that Bytebear has included groups of lesser importance under the alleged restorationist "branch" is not helpful -- in a competition for overall historical importance between the Nestorians and the Disciples of Christ, the Disciples of Christ clearly lose. AnonMoos 13:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the groups to the Western Branch, which does fit more with their history, although not necessarily their theology. I think Nestorians should be included, particularly when it is on the chart of branches. The fact that these groups are not a true branch or restorationism, but rather the term is a classification, in my opinion, gives more strength to the argument that they should be listed individually. As to proof that these groups are "important" is plentiful, from Time Magazine cover stories, to hundreds of books written by non-adherents critiquing their influence both theologically as well as sociologically. Bytebear 19:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to follow the dialogue here as best I can but for the life of me, I still don't understand why Mormons, non-Trinitarians and JW's are included in the section about Protestantism. The definition given for Protestantism on the Wiki Protestant page, is that their ideas arose out of the Protestant Reformation. This page mentions some of the main points of what makes Protestants, Protestants.

However, these other groups did not originate from the Reformation. Their groups, which are viewed as heretical to the rest of Christianity (not just my opinion but the opinion of every other Christian denomination and sect), didn't come about until the late 19th Century. In fact, these groups themselves don't consider themselves Protestants but the sole representative of God on earth.

Besides, it's not numbers or influence that matter - it's what are they? The Jesus they represent is not even the same Jesus that the rest of Protestant Christianity embraces. JWs and Mormons don't believe that Jesus is the one true God. In other words, they may call themselves Christian but it doesn't make them a Christian and this definitely doesn't make them Protestant.

There should be a section that discusses fairly and accurately what these groups believe and explains their place in the religious community. However, to call them Protestant is blatantly untrue and they need to be removed from the Protestant wiki page. Canbuhay 20:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Canbuhay

First of all, you do not know enough about these groups to make such judgements. Mormons for example do believe Jesus Christ is the one true God. Second, Roman Catholics see protestants as heretical, so that is a moot point. The definitions are not based on theology, but on history, and Restorationism is born from reformationism. And both groups are Christian, regardless of your personal beliefs on the matter. Bytebear 03:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot believe this Bytebear person is considered an expert on Christian doctrine when clearly he doesn't understand the dynamics of what he is saying. Mormons don't believe Jesus is the one true God - they believe their Jesus was the son of the one true god of this planet. And just as this god had children and populated a planet, good Mormons can one day become god of their own planet. Just look up wiki's page on Mormonism and notice how it says Mormons believe that God is the one true God of this earth - they believe there are other planets that are inhabited and governed by their own gods. On the other hand, Protestants at the Reformation never rejected the idea that Jesus is a member of the trinity who is one God over all space and time. These are clearly different views of Jesus.

BTW, Catholics don't view Protestants as "heretical" in the same way Protestants AND Catholics view JWs and Mormons as heretical http://www.religioustolerance.org/rcc_othe.htm

Look, we can debate whether or not a mouse in a cookie jar is a cookie, but my position on whether or not JW's and Mormons are Christians are besides the point. The fact of the matter is, they do not see themselves as Protestants and Protestants don't view them as one of their own. Historically, their ties may have come from a rejection of Protestant theology but clearly today, what they believe is different from the main tenants of the Reformation. To say that they should be grouped together with Protestants is like saying the US should still be grouped together with the British Commonwealth countries. Clearly something happened to change their identity (again look up the wiki page for the British Commonwealth as an example of how to better deal with historical ties vs modern day definitions).

At the same time, the definition of Protestantism, as it currently stands on wiki, is contradictory. It states that "Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses, reject Protestantism" and yet are grouped as "churches most commonly associated with Protestantism" . If these groups reject Protestantism, how can they still be considered Protestant?

And Bytebear, judgment is spelled with only one "e".

Canbuhay 08:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Canbuhay

If you look up Judgement, and read the spelling note, you will find that this is a US/UK difference, and thus acceptable on Wikipedia.

Also, I suspect Bytebear's position is based on "What do the groups describe themselves as?" On a page like "Christianity", presumably one would write that eg. Mormons call themselves Christian, but many other Christian groups do not agree that they are (this is acceptable within NPOV). But in a box like this one, we don't have room for extended opinions. Whose opinion prevails. I've been told that NPOV requires that we link the groups that call themselves Christian. I don't like the idea myself, but that's the argument as I understand it -- based on Wikipedia policy, not theology.

-- TimNelson 09:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tim - in journalism school here in Canada, "judgement" is spelled wrong.

I think you need to understand the context I'm coming to this page. I'm not commenting on whether or not Mormons/JWs are Christians. I'm commenting on whether they are Protestants and clearly from the wiki definition of Protestants, they don't qualify. In fact, they themselves don't consider themselves Protestants, so according to this policy, they shouldn't be listed here! We can definitely include them under Christian, simply because that's what they call themselves, but it makes no sense to include them on the Protestant page and at the same time write They "reject Protestantism".

Canbuhay 03:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Canbuhay

Heart2.jpg

I do not understand why the Sacred Heart would be chosen as the most representative image of "Christianity". Is it Wikipedia's intention to depict a relatively recent Roman Catholic devotional art tradition as the most correct? the most representative? or what? Is Christianity about pictures, and if so, why this picture? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The template has a cross, a fairly universal symbol for Christianity. I would prefer a picture of Christ, but as a symbol, the cross is universally recognizable, if not universally accepted. Where do you see the Heart? Bytebear 02:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

See the bottom of the template, Bytebear. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

oh, it's so tiny, I didn't even see it. Any suggestion for an alternative? I was thinking a cropped face from a famous painting. Bytebear 03:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Does there need to be an alternative? As you say, it's so tiny that it can't even be seen. Furthermore, although it comes out of Roman Catholicism, is it somehow eminently representative of that tradition of Christian religious art? If Eastern Orthodoxy or Protestantism matter in what is chosen, this picture doesn't even attempt the consensus of tradition, much less of taste. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am ok with no icon next to the Christianity Portal link. Bytebear 04:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from Stevertigo or others who apparently favor the use of this image, to learn why it keeps showing up especially in connection with the Portal. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

With no response, I guess I'll remove it and see what happens. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That is my biggest complaint about Wikipedia. Unless you are bold and reap the repercussions, the process is very slow. Bytebear 23:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that process. It's just that I've been removing this image from all but specifically Catholic pages for months, and I would like to know the thoughts behind it showing up in general Christian contexts. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Christianity

I noticed this morning that one of the pages I was working on was picking up Category:WikiProject Christianity from this template. After reviewing the 3 references to categories being imported by this template above, I've gone ahead and moved that category within the <noinclude> block. If this was done intentionally, can someone please explain why? Most Wikiproject cats are not used on articles intentionally, and so I'd be interested to hear why that project has gone a different way. --Ahc 02:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It allows for the articles with this WikiProjects template to be included in the WikiProject category and thus visible to the editors of the WikiProject making it easier to find articles related to the project. It also makes people reading the article aware that it is part of the WikiProject even though a notice has not been put on the talk page. Many articles that would be missed by the WikiProject are included by use of the template. It is already common for banners with rating systems such as Template:WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth to do this so I am readding the category.--JEF 19:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The Dallas-Form Worth example is the banner template that goes on the talk pages; THAT is typical. Adding to a navigation template like this one causes the category to get added to the article itself, which is NOT, in my experience, typical. There are nice tools that the project already uses that use categories on the project banners, but I must say I find it annoying and sloppy on the navigation template. --Ahc 14:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Anthropology

I suggest that we add the Christian anthropology link to the template. Anthropology is a major part of Christian anthropology theology. Perhaps it could be piped as "Doctrine of Man" or something, which may be a more common phrase if not less accurate and possibly less politically correct, i.e. for using "Man" for humans. Your comments please. Colin MacLaurin 09:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume you meant "Anthropology is a major part of Christian theology." Indeed it is, but if it's to be piped to anything it ought to be plain "anthropology". It's as much the proper name for this branch of theology as "Christology" is for that related to Christ. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Collapsible template?

Hi all. I think this template is too big, but I agree it's difficult to shorten it. Also, I think it's too small :).

Hopefully one (or more) of the following ideas can help. -- TimNelson 00:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Collapsible template

Anyway, that brings me to my suggestion -- a collapsible template. For example, imagine the Western Christianity section (of which I am a part) were collapsible. There could be a "show" tag next to it that would allow it to expand, and every page that wants it expanded by default could include it with the text {{Christianity|Western_Christianity=expanded}}.

In addition, it would probably be useful to allow multiple collapsible sections attached to the same name. For example, if "Calvinism=expanded" were specified, there would probably be items that would be useful in the Theology section.

Multiple templates

I was thinking that any of the following might make good separate templates (with links from the main template of course). I was thinking they'd be good as the sort of templates that run all the way across the bottom of the page, rather than being side-boxes. They could be used in addition to the main template.

• Christian Denominations: If we had a "Christian Denominations" template, that included all the text from the Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity, that would reduce the size somewhat.
• Bible: If we had a Bible template, that could also reduce the size

Discussion

You could make the whole template collapsible, which could be less confusing. I also suggest the creation of a tmplate for Christian theology. Colin MacLaurin 04:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. And this would differ from the "Core topics" section of the current template how? -- TimNelson 05:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to start by making Template:Christian denominations. -- TimNelson 01:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've done this, with the expandable sections; it can be used as part of the main template, but maybe also separately. If this doesn't provoke any debate, I'll do more. -- TimNelson 03:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"Church" link

Question on the "Church" link: Why the link to One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church instead of Christian Church? Granted there is overlap in meaning but

• The content of the latter is slightly more relevant.
• Regardless, simply by the naming the correct linkage should go to "Christian Church". If someone doesn't like the content of "Christian Church" then change it.

I saw that there was some discussion earlier on this although the arguments against didn't make much sense to me.

On a related note, do the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and Christian Church need to be separate articles? Frankly "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" is more of an expression to be defined than a "topic". It seems that the content should be merged into Christian Church and Nicene Creed (there is some good content in that article that is missing from Christian Church).

Comments?

--Mcorazao 15:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've completed the basic merge although a little cleanup is still warranted.

--Mcorazao 04:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Archbishop of Canterbury

Csh1066 recently added the Archbishop of Canterbury as an important figure. Although obviously the position is important I question whether this rises to the level of the few figures listed on this template. From the perspective of modern times the Anglican communion is about the same size as the Eastern Orthodox communion so why is no one there listed. From a historical perspective the Anglican Church is not one of the oldest and I'm not aware that the Archbishop's role, important as it is, has been seen to have been one of the most defining roles in Christianity.

I'm not trying to slight anybody's faith but unless we list every leader of every denomination the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Am I missing a perspective here? --Mcorazao 22:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody's jumping to object I have removed this. Please comment if you disagree.

--Mcorazao 19:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your removal of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Anglican Church was founded in 597 by St Augustine of Canterbury, so is over 1400 years old - that's still quite old. As Anglicanism is the largest Protestant denomination in the world, it is fitting that its spiritual leader is listed among contemporary spiritual leaders in other churches such as the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Archbishop of Canterbury is recognised by convention as the Primus Inter Pares of all Anglican Archbishops, he is the Convenor of the Lambeth Conference, Chair of the Meeting of Anglican Primates and President of the Anglican Consultative Council. I agree with the comments about the Eastern Orthodox Church - there should be a figure listed from there. However, the Patriarch of Constantinople is their spiritual leader, that very figure and the reference to him was not removed.

I have therefore added the Archbishop of Canterbury again and look for further argument about why the Archbishop of Canterbury is NOT significant enough to be listed here if someone is going to remove him in the future. With all respect, I question how he can be removed from the template just because someone "question[s] whether [the Archbishop of Canterbury's] importance rises to the level" of the other figures. What is the real objective justification? The fact that Mcorazao states "obviously the position is important" is testimony to the fact that it should be included, not removed.

Let us remember the point of the template is to enable enquiring minds explore themes in greater depth. If "obviously the position is important" then why not let others decide which is the most important (out of the Pope, Archbishop of Canterubry, Patriarch of Constantinople etc) by being provided with links to each at this template. --Csh1066

Is there some reason you didn't discuss this when invited to by Mcorazao almost two weeks ago, but decided to complain about it afterward instead? I realize it allows you to adopt a belligerent stance not available to you if you entered into the discussion beforehand, and that indeed has its charms, but it really is the preferred approach to conduct an eirenic discussion beforehand when the opportunity arises.

Although the Church of England is quite old, the Anglican Communion as such is of far more recent origin, and this is plainly what Mcorazao was talking about here. It's only as the senior bishop of the entire communion that the Archbishop of Canterbury is worth including in the template, frankly. If he had no other significance outside of England, we'd have no more reason to include him than we do for other primates of national churches.

Mcroazao was incorrect as to numbers. Adherents.com lists Orthodoxy as 3 times the size of Anglicanism. [6]. One could easily decide that the Patriarch of Constantinople (who is not the "spiritual leader" of Orthodoxy, regardless of what his press releases say) ought to be included and not the Archbishop of Canterbury without being inconsistent in the least. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll defer to my suggestion below. I think listing specific offices is contentious. For what it's worth

1. I typo'd above. I meant to say that Oriental Orthodoxy is roughly the same size as the Anglican Communion, not Eastern Orthodoxy.
2. My inclusion of the Patriarch of Constantinople is because of the historical significance of the position, not the modern significance.

Anyway, as I say, I think the specific offices are too contentious. See below.

--Mcorazao 03:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup Important Figures

I'd like to suggest that the list of important figures needs to be cleaned up and rethought. I'd propose the following.

• General Groups: Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church, Three Holy Hierarchs, Patriarchs
• Early Church: Paul, Marcion, Ignatius, Tertullian
• Establishing Orthodoxy: Constantine, Eusebius, Athanasius, Arius, Chrysostom
• Early Middle Ages: Augustine, Severus, Cyril, Maximus
• High Middle Ages: Anselm, Aquinas, Palamas
• Reformation/Modern: Luther, Calvin, Erasmus, Mogila

I believe this is a little more coherent and balanced.

Comments?

--Mcorazao 06:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems to me a good approach in general, but I'd quibble with your categories. To be inclusive makes it difficult to characterize eras by major movement -- Peter Mogila was not a Reformer! It might be better, after the Early Church, to describe the eras more generally. It's hard to justify putting Augustine and John Chrysostom in different categories for instance; they were contemporaries. Distinguishing between Orthodoxy and Western Christianity is anachronistic at that point anyway. I'd suggest a division Early Church/Late Antiquity/Early Middle Ages/High Middle Ages/Renaissance/Early Modern. I'm not so sure about including anyone later than that, since their historical importance has yet to be established, and any selection we make must necessarily exclude someone whose absence will offend someone. --Csernica

Thanks! So to respond:

• Regarding the groupings I did not mean to imply that those grouping names should be included but only meant to give an indication of where the names lie in history and how/why I recommend they be ordered this way. So I do think it is valuable to group them by time period/significance but not to try to get into a contentious debate about what the groupings should be called.
• Regarding Mogila, I did not say Mogila was a reformer. The grouping was called "Reformation/Modern". Mogila's time certainly is classified historiographically as falling within the modern age.
• Augustine/Chrysostom: I guess that's true.
• Orthodoxy/Western Christianity: Huh? I think you're confused. "Orthodoxy" is a theological/historiographical term. The establishment of orthodoxy is most commonly thought of as being a phenomenon of the 4th century which is what this refers to. It was the time when there a formal effort made to establish what Christianity really is and the beginning of the major persecution of those who did not agree with this "vision". The colloquial use of "Orthodoxy" to refer to the "Catholic" communion of Constantinople, Greece, Russia, etc. is a different thing. The Church of Rome considers itself to be Orthodox in the spirit of the 4th century councils as much as the eastern communions do.
• Regarding your categorization scheme I'm not too hung up on the specific categories. If you want to suggest grouping of names in each of your categories please do. I suggested the specific distinctions based on the following perspective on Church history:

• Early Church - The period before the Church was legitimized (lots of important writings and activity)
• The Battle over Orthodoxy - There were, of course, many important writings during the 4th century as Orthodoxy was being established. Although this is a brief time period it is critical in terms of how the Church developed.
• Late Antiquity/Early Middle Ages - IMHO the Early Middle Ages were not particularly significant in terms of great leaders coming out of the Church. Also many scholars call "Late Antiquity" part of the "Early Middle Ages". In the context of Church history I think of these as one period.

• High Middle Ages - There was some significant activity as a result of the Byzantine Renaissance before the turn of the millennium and the rise of the Carolingian Empire . This era has some distinction.
• Renaissance/Modern - Many historians consider the Western European Renaissance to be the beginning of the modern age. The Western Renaissance was a regional phenomenon. In a global sense the Renaissance period and the early modern period were kind of the same era. For example, many people consider Luther and Mogila to be from completely different eras but, in reality, there lifetimes were not that far apart. The difference between them has more to do with being in different geopolitical realms. In reality, though, Mogila's influence was a reaction to the Reformation and so was part of the same era.

Sorry if I'm overly verbose.

--Mcorazao 04:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all. Verbose is good when it results in clarity.

You used "Orthodoxy", and not "orthodoxy" and listed only Eastern fathers, which made me think you meant only Eastern Christianity. I meant the same thing you describe here when I said that a distinction between Orthodoxy and the West is anachronistic at that point. Surely Fathers such as Pope Leo I are worth mentioning. He was a key figure at Chalcedon even though not physically present, and ought to be included to show the West was involved in these struggles as well, which extended well beyond the 4th century.

Well, I capitalized all those group names. That's why I capitalized "Orthodoxy". Anyway, regarding the fathers during the period of Orthodoxy, I wouldn't really regard the ones I listed as figures of "Eastern Christianity" since, as you point out, this distinction was not so significant at the time. As far as Pope Leo, errr, well, first he was not a 4th century figure during the heart of the original orthodoxy debate (not that there weren't important debates after that but this time was very key to the Church). Chalcedon was a later council. As far as Leo's general significance, certainly he is a major figure but does he rise to the same level as the others? The Roman Catholic Church, of course, regards him as important because he was one of the first to assert papal primacy. But, at the time, this was not really taken particularly seriously in the rest of the Church. In other words, although he arguably was the first to "polish" this doctrine, the influence of this doctrine at the time was very limited in the Church as a whole.

Please, though, elaborate on your thinking.--Mcorazao 19:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether we're talking about late Antiquity or early Middle Ages depends on where we are, perhaps. But shouldn't we strive for some consistency across Wikipedia? The articles on European history distinguish the two, and that's primarily why I did so here.

As I say, I wasn't suggesting including these period "names" on the template so this should be a non-issue. As a general comment, though, I'm not sure that there is any one convention being applied in Wikipedia in naming these periods. I do think there should be a convention. How do we make that happen???--Mcorazao 19:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In any event, I have to disagree that there were no significant Church leaders in the early Middle Ages as defined in that article, at least in the east. That's when, for example, the 5th-7th Ecumenical Councils occurred (to that extent it overlaps the "orthodoxy" era); we had figures such as Maximus the Confessor writing, Sts. Cyril and Methodius converted the Slavs, and the Photian Schism occurred. In the west there was Pope Gregory I if no one else, and I'd be surprised if there was no one else.

Errr, well regarding Maximus and Cyril I included those two. Gregory perhaps merits inclusion. Honestly have not read a lot about him. --Mcorazao 19:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I really think you overstate the influence of the Reformation on Mogila. Western Scholasticism was at least as important, and of course he was deeply guided by the Eastern tradition. To place him under "Reformation" is to imply he was part of that movement, when he most certainly was not. (Cyril Lukaris was, perhaps. But he's a major figure mostly for the reaction to him, not for himself.) You knew what you meant here, but I think it's easily misinterpreted.

? Not sure I understand your logic. The point was not that Mogila is closely tied to the Reformation. The point is that he is a key figure in Christianity during the same era as the Reformation. He was influenced by it albeit, as you say, there were others that were more influenced by it but that's not really the main point. --Mcorazao 19:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the modern era can't be said to begin in earnest before Enlightenment philosophy comes to the fore, and again it's a matter of place as much as the Renaissance was. All these philosophical currents reached the East rather later than they happened in the West. Even to say Mogila was modern says that he was involved in a way of thinking that wasn't a strong influence on him.

The question here is not when and whether the Reformation reached the East. Even if it didn't reach the East it is POV to suggest that anything that happened outside of the Reformation during this period is unimportant. The point was to list the figures that were influential during this time regardless of what their viewpoint or source of inspiration was. --Mcorazao 19:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit scatterbrained at the moment, so I'll stop before I get tangled in my rhetorical underwear, but I think you see my gist. I'm not insistent on having my way here, but I think we may have to sacrifice some historiographical for the sake of clarity, and to be cautious about the implications of where we place some figures. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. As I say, I don't think we should include those historiographical period "names" precisely because they are debatable and don't add anything to the template. My suggestion was only to try to generally order these figures by general periods of history and to make sure all the general periods are reasonably represented by key figures of history in general rather than figures that are key primarily to one sliver of the Christian world.

Thanks --Mcorazao 19:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Lest someone mistake the above for a serious disagreement, the core of what I was saying is that the proposal seems sensible to me. The discussion on what the headings should be were just some impressions, and I'm not wedded to my suggestions. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Same here. --Mcorazao 04:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the important figures section is a bit of a mess and currently includes some offices that aren't even persons per se--those have to go. As with what you have here, I think it's good and relatively thorough without being overly so. I would note that the Modern section is missing any restorationist figures. Perhaps add Alexander Campbell? He seems a bit more important, from what I've read, than Barton Stone. Or perhaps it hasn't been long enough to know whether Campbell has had a major impact. Also, I can't imagine how you can have important figures in the early church without Simon/Peter --Velvet elvis81 00:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bloated template

Over time the template seems to have grown and grown and grown. Usually this can be prevented by keeping the links in the template directed towards main articles. This allows the reader to start with the general article and move on to the more detailed sub-article if he or she so wishes. However, as is especially the case with the links to various divisions of Christianity, it seems that the template has become more of a list of articles. After taking a look at some other templates, I found the Islam template to be a very good example of using main articles, not to mention a clean and simple layout. I took the liberty of adapting that template, along with various suggestions that have been posted here, into a new template. Please let me know what you think.

User:Aiden/Template:Christianity —Aiden 10:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Not bad; I'd swap Second coming and Salvation, though.
• My original intent with the collapsable sections was to allow other sub-templates to hopefully be integrated back in to the main one (eg. Calvinism back into Christianity). This may not be possible, but with the one you have, it's certainly not possible. I'm not particularly attached to the idea (of integrating the templates back in), but someone one time said it was a better idea than having lots of templates on the one article. I'll leave it up to others to advocate the idea.

-- TimNelson 10:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

(I added Salvation to the Beliefs section.) IMHO, articles specifically related to (for example) Calvinism, such as the five points, should use the Calvinism template, while general articles should use the Christianity template. I think a general template with links to general article should be our goal. For more specific articles within one field of study, there should be a more specific template directing the reader to other articles related to that field. All in all, that's pretty much how it is at the moment and I also am not too keen on the idea of trying to make one 'super template'. —Aiden 11:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested to know why you think that Second coming is an important belief. I would've rated it as important, but no more so than, say, Sin or Creation. Incidentally, it might also help you to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list, to get an idea of what else other people thoguht was important.

-- TimNelson 06:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)