This article is within the scope of WikiProject Calvinism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Calvinism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose. Moving the article to "Reformed Presbyterianism" would have one of two results. Option 1: we'd keep the current contents; this would basically say "Other denominations using the name really aren't Reformed Presbyterians", and that wouldn't be in line with WP:NPOV. Option 2: we rework this article to cover all churches using the name, which would mean that we'd have no specific coverage of this group of churches. The churches in this group all officially recognise each other as being the same denomination, and they all consider other churches with the name "Reformed Presbyterian" to be different; it's not just a group of churches sharing the same name. Nyttend (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Whether or not the move happens, option 1 is what we're doing. The article uses "Reformed Presbyterian" throughout to describe adherents of RPism. Please tell me what you mean by these churches officially recognizing one another as part of the same denomination. They recognize one another as being descended from the Covenanters and part of a distinct group called RPism, but there is no international institution called the "Reformed Presbyterian Church." Are there any RSes using "Reformed Presbyterian Church" the way we are? --JFH (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The denomination is small enough that it doesn't get much coverage in sources written from a secular perspective. I could find you plenty from church-affiliated sources to prove that the RPCNA sees the others as the same denomination, that the RPCI sees the others as the same denomination, etc. (do you want examples?), and publications from other denominations (primarily other conservative Presbyterians, including some other denominations named "Reformed Presbyterian") will discuss what we're calling the "denominational group", but they don't consistently use the same unique title for this group. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, my knowledge here is limited and I'm willing to be proven wrong; I was just dubious that they claim to be part of something called the "Reformed Presbyterian Church," and mean an international body. I understand they consider themselves to be uniquely Reformed Presbyterian, but Presbyterians usually use "Church" (capitalized) to mean an institution with courts and powers and such, and no such international RP Church exists. --JFH (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Weak oppose. The suggested "-ism" makes it sound like an article on a religion or philosophy, but the artical is about an organisation. The article does not resemble Presbyterianism in structure. "Weak", because it may be intended to alter the article to focus on the particular beliefs/practices. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
No, the article is not about a single Reformed Presbyterian Church. There are several churches with "Reformed Presbyterian Church" in the name which are part of a movement called Reformed Presbyterianism, as the Google books search I linked demonstrates. Having an article called "Reformed Presbyterian Church," but not on any single institution but an unofficial group of churches is confusing. --JFH (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
SupportReformed Presbyterian churches as a good, descriptive title. I think I'd support the original proposal more, however. I believe SmokeyJoe is mistaken—the article is about a group of organizations sharing a common ideology, not an organization itself. It makes sense for us to describe this denomination as such. --BDD (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I may have been confused about "organization" vs "organizations", that was not my line of thought. The article does seem to be about the organizations first, and the theology, well is covered summarily and not in context or contrast with others. This may change with editing, but as it stands I oppose "Reformed Presbyterianism". Just noting now that such an article is currently lacking independent secondary source references. Reformed Presbyterian churches seems fine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually the longest section is on beliefs. The government section is about Presbyterian church government, which is a feature of Presbyterian belief. This section could probably be eliminated because it does not describe anything peculiar to RPism as distinct from Presbyism. The Covenanters section describes the history of a movement rather than an official organization. "Member Denominations" is misleading because there is no organization which these denominations are a member of to make them part of this "denominational group." "Present" talks about the beliefs and practices of Reformed Presbyterians today, rather than the organizations they are a part of. So actually, the only part of the article focused on organizations is the list of organizations which we are defining to be Reformed Presbyterian. As I've mentioned above, Reformed Presbyterianism is a real term used in literature on this movement. --JFH (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you show me a draft of what the new lede would be, defining "Reformed Presbyterianism"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Reformed Presbyterianism is a movement following..." would be sufficient for the purpose of this proposal, though the lead could be considerably improved in other ways. --JFH (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.