Template talk:Christianity/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Template's image proposals

Configurable image

Since the current image, according to some, is not representative of all Christianity, should the template provide the option to use a different image? I don't entirely support the idea, but thought I should bring it up for discussion. ...but what do you think? ~B Fizz (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Michelangelo Pieta Image Caption

The image is captioned as an "illustration by Michelangelo", could you change it to a "sculpture by Michelangelo". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Jesus' face instead of a cross?

Most Christians should find Jesus representative of their denomination. What do you think about using a head detail from The Temptation of Christ or Sermon on the Mount? I would be happy to crop and upload the image if we end up using one of these. ...but what do you think? ~B Fizz (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. the "Temptation of Christ" is too small to make a detail from, and I find the "Sermon on the Mount" face a bit dull. What do you think of any of these? Carlaude:Talk 08:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

StJohnsAshfield StainedGlass Shepherd Face.jpg Řezba-Steffan-Kristus.jpg Христос-Вседержитель-Голова.jpg

I personally find the sculpted head to be just a little strange, but the other two would be great. I think I have a mild preference for an image with his head turned, but any image will do, really. The only hesitation I have about the proposed images is the extra symbols or ornateness of the halo/glow around his head. I imagine the ideal image to use would have a plain halo, or none. But that's just me being picky. ...but what do you think? ~B Fizz (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I cropped these two images and removed the halo from the one on the right, but I like the one on the left better of the two. Carlaude:Talk 21:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I really like the stained glass one too. I was afraid it would look odd when cropped, but now that I see it, it looks really good. You may want to crop it just a little bit wider, so that it is a square image, though I would not complain one bit if we started using it as is. Now...should we use the bold, revert, discuss technique, or just wait for more responses? >:D ...but what do you think? ~B Fizz (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I have cropped it square now, but if it looks the same to you then you have to refresh the image. Traffic on this page is so low we might as well swap out the image, per WP:BRD. I will do that soon. Carlaude:Talk 07:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't see the last part of your comment until just now, "I will do it soon." I have already done it. It looks good, in my opinion. ...but what do you think? ~B Fizz (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Ashfield image shows Jesus with very pale skin and long hair, and since it's unlikely that he looked like that, can another image be used? Would it be possible to remove, or have an option to hide, the cross at the bottom next to the "Christianity Portal" link for Christian articles where the cross isn't proper, e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses#cite ref-133? -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-12-11t11:44z

I have added a 'no-cross' parameter to the template which replaces the cross image with an ichthys, and applied it on the Jehovah's Witnesses article. ...but what do you think? ~B Fizz (talk) 08:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the long hair is important for people to know who is represented by the image. It is even more unlikely that Peter carried around metal keys in his hand, but he is shown that way today (in part) to indicate who is represented, since we don't really know what any 1st-century figures really looked like. I will also point out that the Jesus' face image is replacing cross images that look even less like a real cross would have.
As for skin color, we can just darken the image we have with image effects. My main concern (other than how we can pick one skin-tone as a group) is/was that a stronger color contrast makes for a stronger more visable image.Carlaude:Talk 13:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I think you are going to have a hard time coming up with a single depiction of Jesus that all sects will agree on (especially with iconoclasm). Not only that, we may have issue with an image that a simple majority would agree on. We tackled this in the past, and decided a simple cross was nearly universal and didn't seem to favor one sect over another (natch JW). While maybe not as pretty and graphical as could be, I still would support a simple cross for its compatibility and universality. But I'm not going to oppose an image of Jesus yet (I'll wait and see if more objectors come out of the woodwork, or if a silent consensus builds). -Andrew c [talk] 16:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure if any group holds to iconoclasm today. Can you name any such group that is larger than the JWs? In the archives I could only find one person objecting to to Jesus' image ever, and that was also you (again on behalf or unnamed others it would seem). Feel free to point out others in the archives if there are any I missed.
Since there are lots of Christianity articles with Jesus as the lead image I don't really think we are pervented from doing the same here. Carlaude:Talk 22:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm also the guy in the archives that suggested Image:Bloch-SermonOnTheMount.jpg :P -Andrew c [talk] 00:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I support the Ashfield image because it is different enough to be interesting, but depicts Jesus' features in a very typical way that all(?) denominations could accept. I don't see skin color isn't much of an issue, since it's clearly an artistic rendition—I doubt he really had a glowing circle behind/radiating from his head. A generic cross is bland; a less generic cross, controversial. The cross is a symbol of Jesus's death; why not skip the symbol and show it's meaning, the founder and central figure of Christianity, the Christ? If we were to ask leaders of various Christian denominations, do you think they would deem the current image inappropriate for use on the template on their denomination's article? To me, the answers to these questions are obvious. ...but what do you think? ~B Fizz (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been mulling on it for a while, and I just don't like the use of an image. I think if you take a look at the history of depictions of Jesus, its very culturally sensitive. I'd rather use something historical, like maybe the Chi Rho--Tznkai (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
First and foremost, the purpose of any image on this template is to communicate visually that the template is about Christianity, hopefullt even before the words are read-- and not to correctly show what the real Jesus or even the real cross looked like. But since lots of people-- even many Christians-- do not know what the Chi Rho is, it would a bad idea to change to that. It would be better to have no image than a Chi Rho.
Please feel free to update you proposal-- and link to a partiular image.
If fact, if anyone really wants a cross, and you read carefully, the last change from this simple cross to this gold cross did not have WP:CON, so that would need to be revisitied.
If anyone, like me, likes the current image but think it could use a little darker skin, then feel free to post a color photo of anybody that you think has the prefered skin tone. Carlaude:Talk 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
A lot of people, even many Christians, are woefully ignorant as to most of the things on the template. There are worse things than a teachable moment.--Tznkai (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
As I said above, the image is to serve a different purpose than the links-- it isn't even a link to a page that discusses Christian symobols or the Chi Rho. The image is a visual cue as to the subject of the whole template, so until the template becomes all about symbols created made from Greek letters, it would be unsussesful. Carlaude:Talk 19:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
My thoughts precisely, Carlaude. I also think images should behave as nature intended but that's another issue entirely. Back to the topic at hand, I feel that fear of not being able to find a suitable picture of Jesus is not an acceptable reason to use a less interesting or less appropriate image. No one in history has been artistically depicted more than Jesus; surely there's an image out there somewhere that will satisfy everyone, if not the current image. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 19:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Problem with a religion about a personal savior, is that people tend get very personal.--Tznkai (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Jesus' face again

  • Yorkshirian, your view alone does not make your view the consensus-- and since it has already been disputed before, you should not revert things based on your own view-- but seek consensus for your view (if even that-- you are late to the discussion for someone concerned with it).
  • Your image is not "obviously remarkable" because, for starters, it is not even obvious what or where the image is of or from.
  • Even if it was clear what the image is from, images-- at least images for templates-- are chosen not for their contection to history, but for there ablitity to communivate on there subject. (Please read above.) "The image is a visual cue as to the subject of the whole template..."
  • As a symbol, Jesus jace is also just as good or better that an image of a cross.
  • Further, it is basiclly a two color image, which could work except that one might hope for more from a photograph-- and that the two colors are not much assocated with Christianity.
  • The image of Christ is remarkable for its ablity to comunitate the general subject of the template, and for its contrast and general attractive photo quality. Carlaude:Talk 12:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
For reference, Yorkshirian's edit summary was "Rvt--random stanied glass window unremarkable. A cross at the scene of Calvary where Christ was Crucified obviously remarkable." To reiterate what has already been said, I feel that the image of a cross is NOT directly relevant to all of the content in the template, while an image of Jesus' face is. The history and importance of the particular cross image that Yorkshirian proposes cannot be understood by simply looking at it. It requires explanation, extra text that doesn't belong on the template but rather on particular articles such as Crucifixion of Jesus. The history and importance of the particular stained glass depiction is not why we are using it. We're using it because most people, Christian or nonchristian, of any given denomination, can probably recognize that it is an image of Jesus. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 07:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
See, WP:BRD. The image initiated into the article by Carlaude is not representative of Christianity in general. It is an unremarkable image from a Protestant church in Australia (the image itself is also not of very high quality, as it looks like Christ is winking). As for the other image, of the Cross at Calvary, where Christ was crucified. Its not "obvious" that the Cross is the symbol of Christianity? The place where it is located in the photo, also is of unparrelled importance to Christianity. I'm not sure what colours of a Protestant Flag from the USA has to do with wider symbolism of Christianity, though. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Wow, I've just come across this template and recognized my own photo. Not something I was expecting, but I'm glad to see that some of you like it. I'm not going to enter into the discussion of which image best represents the whole of Christianity. That's too big for me :). However, I would like to say that this was actually my first attempt at stained glass photography, and I have since learned a few things. As Yorkshirian mentions, this is not of the highest quality as it is a cutout of a frontlit shot of the entire window. Therefore, I can offer a higher quality version of this same face. Give me a week or so before you try to change skin colour etc. As a taster for where I'm going with this, have a look at a backlit version of the same entire window [1]. 99of9 (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
That looks absolutely beautiful, 99of9. Whether we end up using the image or not, I'm sure that I'm not alone in saying thank you. We very much appreciate that you've made your work available under a creative commons license. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 06:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
You're very welcome, it's been quite an interesting project for me, and it's nice to think that it provides an (almost-indefinite?) backup of these artworks. --99of9 (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, here's the two images side by side. I think the right one is better because of backlighting and quality, but once again, I'll leave it to the community. --99of9 (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, here's the two images side by side. I think the right one is better because of backlighting and quality, but once again, I'll leave it to the community. --99of9 (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I have added a 3rd version, with the skin made darker to look more realistic.
I like it, but I also note, (1) the back lit version is already is darker than the front lit (and better otherwise) and (2) that the darker version is even less noticeably different at the small 100px size.
What do you think? Carlaude:Talk 06:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I feel that any of the three would work quite well. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 07:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Unless someone is actually arguing that not-brown-enough skin offends their sensibilities, I would tend to stick with the real artwork. You are right that it looks darker when backlit. 99of9 (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
About two months ago, Jeandre argued that "The Ashfield image shows Jesus with very pale skin and long hair, and since it's unlikely that he looked like that, can another image be used?" It appears that no one else has brought up a specific complaint. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 17:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Face of Jesus or Cross?

Why is the image a face of Jesus taken by User:Carlaude instead of a simple cross that truly represents Christianity? Gryffindor (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Some "Christian" groups do not use the cross. There is also disagreement on which cross to use. Carlaude:Talk 11:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
A plain unadorned basic Latin Cross is kind of the lowest common denominator of Christian symbolism over the last 1600 years or so. Not all groups actively make use of it in any prominent way, but probably only a few relatively small groups, which tend to be far removed from the predominant prevailing traditional mainstream quasi-consensus of "orthodox" Christianity, would actively take exception to it... AnonMoos (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, doing a bit of research on this, Jehovah's Witnesses neither use the cross image, nor images of Jesus in their worship or decoration. Mormon's don't use the cross, but they do have tons of images of Christ. If we use a Latin cross image (which I, in the past, felt seemed universal), we are excluding at least JW and Mormons. If we use an image of Jesus, we are excluding JW, and various small Protestant groups like Anabaptist (i.e. Amish), random churches like this and this, and possible others. Neither scenario is a win-win situation. I guess we need to decide who we are willing to possible offend and what would transmit clearest to our readers, or consider a 3rd option. -Andrew c [talk] 16:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The JW's are precisely what I meant by "relatively small groups, which tend to be far removed from the predominant prevailing traditional mainstream quasi-consensus of orthodox Christianity". We can recognize that JW's are something of an outlier with respect to "mainstream" Christianity (either as traditionally-defined, or as defined by number of adherents) without taking any position whatsoever on whether JW doctrines are theologically true or false (something which we're strictly forbidden to do, of course). We aren't actively marginalizing JW's in any way by doing so -- rather we're tacitly recognizing the pre-existing fact that JW's are already somewhat marginal (with respect to both traditional theological orthodoxy and number of adherents). Distilling a whole belief system (or set of belief systems), and more than 1900 years of history on several continents, down to a simple iconic image which can be quickly and easily understood even at a relatively low pixel resolution is something which demands selectivity and making choices -- and placing, for example, the Roman Catholic church and the JW's on exactly the same level when deciding on an icon image is a recipe for complete paralysis (not to mention political correctness run rampant, since in terms of historical weight or current number of adherents, the two groups are simply not equal).
Meanwhile, using an artistic depiction of Jesus raises a whole lot of issues with respect to artistic styles, non-representativeness with respect to mainstream Christianity as a whole, historical and racial inaccuracy, etc. etc. which would mostly be avoided by using an abstract cross symbol... AnonMoos (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If you want a symbol which was somewhat predominant in the earliest days of Christianity, you could use the Chi Rho (though many people wouldn't understand it...). AnonMoos (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The ichthys is a more familiar symbol, but still unknown to too many people. What religious groups would disagree to the artistic depiction that we currently have? Most anyone that looks at it could tell you that it is a depiction of Jesus, whether or not they agree with how his hair or skin is depicted. The image doesn't seem to adhere to any particular branch of Christianity.
As for the concern that using an image would exclude some churches that do not use his image for adoration...I don't see what the concern is. By using it in the template, we are not suggesting that it is used for worship, we're merely illustrating the main figure of all articles in the template. The template is not used exclusively to list Christian churches, but also includes Christian doctrine, some of which is not related to the cross, but all of which is related to Jesus.
It has been said that "We aren't actively marginalizing JW's in any way by [using the image of a cross]". Are we "actively marginalizing" anyone by using the Ashfield image? Let's keep in mind that this isn't a dichotomy, there may be other images that we could agree upon, or we may consider using none at all. But I support the Ashfield one, for the reasons I've stated here and previously. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 06:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't have the strong objections to Image:StJohnsAshfield_StainedGlass_Shepherd_Face.jpg which I had to a previously-used image (as can be seen in the archives), but some people might still consider that it's a semi-pre-Raphaelite picture of a European dude which is not necessarily authentic to the first-century A.D. historical middle-eastern Jesus, or which represents only a single strand of the whole complex history of Christianity over many centuries and many cultures. Using a plain simple abstract unadorned generic geometric symbol shape gets around most of these objections, so far as it's possible do so... AnonMoos (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Someone above called it the "dull Puritanical cross", but in the case of an icon picture displayed at a low pixel resolution, dullness can be actually be an advantage, as long as it's combined with instant recognizability. The purpose of an icon picture is actually not to call attention to itself and its own artistic beauty, but rather to instantly convey an idea to the user of what the subject area is, even when displayed at a low pixel resolution. AnonMoos (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Just an alternative suggestion for an image - the ceiling of the sistine chapel. I have no opinion either way. It just popped into my mind as a potential alternative. Distinctly Christian because it has the Father, Son, and holy Spirit in it, but no cross as some reject. And while an image of people, which some denominations don't like to use, it is at least very recognizable art, so would be less contended against by those who don't like images.Farsight001 (talk) 04:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be thinking of something else. The Sistine Chapel ceiling is of nine scenes, rather, from the early chapters of the Book of Genesis. Carlaude:Talk 07:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

B Fizz, AnonMoos, and others: I suggest dropping the (lovely) Jesus image, because an image of Jesus for the Christianity template fails to represent major streams of historic Christianity that rejected images of Jesus, from the first-century church (many early Christians were called atheists because of their lack of images) to the centuries of Eastern controversies over iconoclasm to the Protestant Reformation to Anabaptist churches. This argument behind dropping the image is not – I repeat, not – about placating upset groups, but about fidelity to significant and successive groups in Christianity's history which the template image should take into account and represent. A picture of Jesus is, by its nature, a poor representative of broad swaths of historic Christianity, and the template pic can and ought do better.
  • The Christian cross, by contrast, is more appropriate than an image of Jesus for representing Christianity. First, the cross as representation of Christianity is much more widely used, past and present, than a pale, pasty picture of Jesus (however lovely). Even amidst the historic iconoclastic controversies, even as some disposed of crucifixes, no Christian group thought to do away with the plain cross (as far as I know); indeed, the cross become even more widely used because it was the common denominator. The only Christian groups opposed to the cross (e.g., LDS, JW) are not representative of this historic Christianity: they are largely disconnected from historic Christianity even in the most basic doctrines and are called non-Christian by everyone from conservative Catholics to Evangelicals to liberal Protestants.
  • Second, any portrait of Jesus shows ethnic and cultural bias. Especially since Christianity historically perceives itself as for all humanity, and at the beginning of the 21st century a majority of Christians are non-white and non-Western, any attempt to represent Jesus as a single ethnicity as a representation of the global faith (as opposed to a mere individual of history) seems self-contradictory. The cross, however, transcends the cultural barriers implied in a necessarily ethnically bound portrait and thus best represents Christianity as it is: a global religion, not merely a Western (or any other culture's) religion.
  • I prefer the Ichthys fish because, unlike images of Jesus or even the cross, it Ichthus was used even in the first century. If you want a widely used symbol, the cross seems the best option, because it is much more ubiquitous as the Christian symbol than one parochial imagining of Jesus. If you want a more educational image (like the gorgeous Allah-eser image in the Islam template, which is less common than the ubiquitous star-and-crescent shorthand for the religion), I'd go for the ichthys fish and do what Wikipedia is designed to do: inform.
  • In sum, whether you decide on the ichthys, cross or something else, I strongly object to the picture of Jesus as the representation of Christianity, because it simply fails to represent much of Christianity.Wikibojopayne (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The ichthys might well be the least potentially problematic image, but which ichthys image? Wikimedia Commons has several images of the ichthys in verious forms here. John Carter (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Ideally, I'd prefer the letters plainly listed with their meanings in English given, like here; but I've tried to put pics on Wikipedia before without success, so won't try now. (While not a candidate for the template pic, I love this fun explanation of ichthys auf Deutsche.)
But if I had to chose one ichthys of those offered, I'd take the one putting the letters into the form of the cross:
It suggests the familiar cross shape without using that exact image, thus avoiding its controversies; it suggests the faith's ancient Greek texts and uses one of its earliest symbols, pleasing all sincerely primitivist churches; it fairly represents every major Christian tradition; it does not unduly confuse anyone unfamiliar with the fish image; the color and contrast is just right; it is pretty enough for the Pope, plain enough for the Puritan, and perfectly proportioned for a square template picture - once it gets cropped. While not my ideal, it's definitely growing on me; I hope the cross-shaped ichthys will do nicely for a compromise. Peace, Wikibojopayne (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I know I'm making too many comments, but I had to say this: the Protestant Reformed tradition, whose adherents number in the dozens of millions and hold to the Westminster Catechism, is officially against icons of Jesus, says Robert Letham: "The Westminster Larger Catechism, question 109, opposes icons of the Trinity and — by extension — of Christ, since Christ is the eternal Son incarnate." I think that alone settles the question of whether there are enough Christian out there today who oppose icons to make the Jesus picture offensive. Peace, Wikibojopayne (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you'll find that their main objection to icons is if they are venerated. I don't think they get offended by seeing Christ represent Christianity. As it happens, the theology church that this image is from is Calvinist in the English tradition. It's not like we are offended by the pictures we've put on our own windows. Of course we would have a few words if someone tried to worship or venerate them. --99of9 (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikibojopayne -- I fully agree that a simple well-known abstract symbol which is distinctive and recognizable at a small pixel resolution would be superior to any kind of artistic depiction of Jesus, but I was outnumbered in the past. However, File:Bavnehøj-alterforhæng.jpg is kind of complex, and probably not very recognizable at a smallish thumbnail size. If you want a simple and instantly-recognizable symbol, it's hard to improve on a basic Latin cross (File:Christian_cross.svg). If you want something more "artistic" with an Ichthys, how about File:Christianity_symbols.svg? -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Christianity symbols Cross Ichthys.svg
P.S. I've now made an alternative version of the "artistic" Cross-Ichthys image, which may be more suitable for the current purpose... AnonMoos (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks AnonMoos for the suggested images (and for cutting down my image to thumb-size; I'm still learning the ropes here!). When it comes down to complexity and simplicity, I think the Islam template pic is the gold standard. I find File:Bavnehøj-alterforhæng.jpg to be even more readable than File:Allah-eser-green.png, even if it isn't perfectly symmetrical. That said, I'd be more than happy with File:Christianity_symbols.svg, which captures two of the key Christian symbols throughout history, putting the more recognizable cross in front of the less well known fish. The only objection I can think of (that really holds water) is that the colors red and blue are too suggestive of certain nation-states' flags today (I know it sounds silly, but it's a serious issue, especially in light of the explicitly nationalistic Christian_flag). That said, fish do swim in bluish water and Jesus bled on a cross, so the colors could be explained naturally rather than nationalistically.
Ichthys Cross.svg
Colors could be modified. I've made a version of the Ichthys Cross that would display better as an icon, but I'm still not sure that this would be widely and quickly recognizable as a small icon... AnonMoos (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The new Ichthys format idea is excellent, if a tad bare-looking. Three ideas to improve on it: first, the font/color could easily be improved, and I can suggest a few fonts for that purpose. Second, a thin border around the letters to reinforce the cross shape would aid recognition of pic as Christian symbol. Third, color could be added - but that's really a finishing touch bit. Again, thanks for making the new Ichtys; really great work there! Peace, Wikibojopayne (talk) 04:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I added a simple "drop shadow", but I don't know that I feel like remaking the image from scratch using different fonts at this time. The font I used was the one, among all fonts already installed on my system, that had sans-serif Greek characters which were very simple, but with a slight degree of character or aesthetics (i.e. not Arial). P.S. not sure that File:Allah-eser-green.png is really too great as an icon -- it contains a lot of small detail that blurs unless viewed at full resolution... AnonMoos (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the image is not to be the lowest common denominator image, prettiest, or least offensive image for Christianity-- it is to be most iconic and most reconizable image of Christianity. I am fairly certain there isn't any sizeble Christian group that uses the #5 "Ichthys Cross," for example.
That said, choice is #4 is a good choice, the "File:Christianity symbols Cross Ichthys.svg", and I would be fine if we changed it to that. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 14:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I prefer the current image, but #3 or #4 would be OK. 1 and 5 don't seem quite recognizable enough, and 2 is very, very plain. While the image may not adequately represent hardcore iconoclasts, I would imagine that 99% of Christian denominations can easily and comfortably identify with the current image. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Also note that, if an image with a cross is used, and it becomes an issue with LDS or JW articles, we could extend the functionality of the "no-cross" parameter in the template to change the image for those cases. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
That last suggestion might be somewhat problematic, as there is a very serious question which articles qualify as LDS or JW articles - barring those which specifically deal with beliefs and practices which are directly not relevant to the LDS or JWs, every other article probably is relevant, to at least some degree, to them. John Carter (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I really don't see any need for that, and in any case it seems like more articles have {{portal|Christianity}} than this template nowadays anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I would also prefer the current image (File:StJohnsAshfield StainedGlass GoodShepherd Face.jpg) the most. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 22:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course I'm biased as the author of the current picture, so read this with that in mind. I don't think any of the alternatives have anywhere near the visual impact of the current image. The computer generated gradient ones look a little tacky to be honest. At least #1 has texture to it, but it's not particularly broadly recognizeable as far as representatives go. I think Christianity is fairly represented by any of Christ, the cross, or a fish. Any groups that object to one of these will already acknowledge that they differ from the mainstream of Christian imagery. The argument from Wikibojopayne led to the conclusion that millions who oppose icons would find a representation of Jesus offensive, but I think that opposition to icons is usually an opposition to the way they are used for veneration. Certainly within his millions category Protestant Reformed tradition there are plenty of churches with stained glass windows depicting Jesus, including most of the churches I know from the Presbyterian Church of Australia which holds to the Westminster Confession of Faith as its standard. I accept his argument that historically this has fluctuated, but I don't think that compels us to find an image which encompasses every possible opinion held by a person who called themselves Christians. 99of9 (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you 99of9 for your clarifying insights about the Reformed Tradition's (lack of) clear objection to images of Jesus per se. I'm still researching Reformed views on icons, and would certainly not presume to know what all Calvinists believe, only what is stated in their catechisms. I likewise agree that the image need not make everyone happy, and for that very reason I have above suggested that the cross is perfectly acceptable to represent Christianity.
I also fully agree with şṗøʀĸ that the image's chief priority is to be recognizable as representing Christianity. And it is precisely for this reason that an image of Christ is not the best option for the template pic: First, because it does not represent Christianity as well as a template pic should; Second, because it is not the most recognizable image of Christianity as such.
  • First, it offends much of the Christian tradition, very significant groups recurring throughout its history from its birth to the present, and thus leads one to question whether is really represents Christianity as a whole, or certain groups only. Indeed, many Christians prefer another image or no image at all when contemplating their Object of faith. As a pic must be chosen, better a more abstract, simple image such as a cross or ichthys.
  • Second, other symbols are just as if not more recognizable representatives of the subject as such. An image of Jesus' face (if indeed the African/Asian/Latin majority of Christians do or will continue to accept the pale image as such in the coming century) evokes Jesus, not necessarily the religion. An image that denotes the faith more than the man is fitting, and better an abstract image that allows more room for the faith of the believer than a tightly defined one that proscribes how one ought to imagine the chief Object of one's faith. A cross and ichthys better represent the faith as such than the Jesus image, although it is, again, a beautiful picture.
I love the ichthys cross (#1 and #5) and deeply appreciate AnonMoos's work on those images, but for the sake of compromise and consensus, I vote #4.Wikibojopayne (talk) 05:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
99of9 -- Not sure that "texture" is a strong priority (as compared with distinctiveness and recognizability at a small pixel size). AnonMoos (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The template is not exactly "small" in the same way that the portal image is. When I say texture, it's just one part of what makes a visually impacting image. Since it seems everyone loves the islam image so much, that's a good example of how the texture helps make a medium-sized icon visually appealing and interesting (as it also does in our current image). The 2-d black cross does not achieve this, and the shadowed gradient ones veer in the direction of tackiness too much IMO. If consensus was for a cross, I think the ideal would be a well lit, chunky weathered wooden cross on the peak of a fairly barren mountain, with a clear blue sky. That would render fine at the current resolution. --99of9 (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
If we could have both good texture and recognizability, we'd have the best of all possible worlds. I think a weathered wooden cross with strong contrast as 99of9 suggests could be at once simply recognizable at even a small resolution, historically and reverentially evocative, and artistically pleasing all at once. I'd love to see a picture like that; do we have one or can we get one? Peace, Wikibojopayne (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think that kind of advanced artistic aesthetics is of distinctly secondary importance in an image to be used as a relatively small icon (and see above for my thoughts on "Allah-eser-green.png"). AnonMoos (talk) 10:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
P.S. If you have any specific concrete ideas about how to "detackify" File:Christianity symbols Cross Ichthys.svg without attempting to introduce photorealistic detail (something which would probably be hard to do, and go against the basic nature of the image), feel free to offer suggestions. AnonMoos (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the best are 0., 7., 9., 16., and 17. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 04:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

With respect to şṗøʀĸ, too much of past template image debate has been fruitless because is it merely personal opinion without discussion of basic shared criteria for a "good" template image. Saying "I think the best are" without reference to criteria is nice (insofar as we know your opinion), but not (in itself) valuable for deciding a template image. Much better: "I think the best are... because...". But if you don't share your reasoning, we don't know if or how your comment in any way addresses the appropriateness of the image for a Wikipedia template.
To take my own advice: The picture should respect the faith from its founding through its history to its present, recognizably represent a sufficiently universal Christian symbol, and be artistically pleasing as possible even in a reduced size. I like #7 because it alludes to the historical event of the crucifixion of Jesus (with three crosses, since he was crucified with two criminals, one on each side); emphasizes the faith of all believers by the heavens filling the rest of the picture; and is simple enough to show well smaller yet artistically detailed (though the left cross seems a bit crooked). On purely artistic criteria, #9 best observes the rule of thirds, while 12, 13 and 15 also do better than average on that principle.
My point: while everyone need not write out their reasons in a thesis, we should at least be speaking the same language, and providing even in our artistic evaluations reasons that are somewhat objective, and not merely self-created and self-verified. Peace, Wikibojopayne (talk) 05:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

For the reasons mentioned immediately above (end of October 2010 subsection), #7 is the most suitable template pic of those mentioned. There are more reasons to favor 7.

7, 10 and 17 are the most universal of the cross pics, for they show only the cross(es) and the sky; any picture that shows a mountaintop or other terrain ties the faith to a specific geography, but since the faith is global in nature, that would be inappropriate. 7 is preferable to 10 and 17 (and 4 and 6) because 7 shows three crosses, and so suggests greater connection to the historical event of Jesus' crucifixion; 7 also better follows the rule of thirds than 10 or 17.
7 also best answers objections of those who find the cross offensive for three reasons: one, it emphasizes the indisputable historical event that defined the faith (vs. a speculative pictorial representation); two, it emphasizes Jesus suffering and dying alongside others rather than Jesus alone suffering and dying (the latter focus being the root of many critiques of the cross, notably feminist critiques); three, the sky seems to swallow up the crosses, strongly suggesting (though not explicitly representing) the nearly universal Christian belief in the resurrection of the dead - and not just Jesus' resurrection merely, but others too, since all three crosses are enveloped in the sky. The third point particularly shows that one can emphasize life over death in the very same pic that represents Christianity with the oh-so-recognizable cross - and 7 does that.

For reference, here's that gallery again.Wikibojopayne (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

icon gallery
Since there haven't been any folks commenting much less objecting for about a while besides me, I'm putting in the new pic. I'm all ears for comments. Peace, Wikibojopayne (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I think there were pleanty of people above-- if you go back-- that did not want a cross at all; but instead wanted the current "StJohnsAshfield StainedGlass GoodShepherd Face.jpg". You are the only one that prefered "Three crosses.jpg" and in fact no cross image had more than-- say-- two people wanting it (if even any were choosen by that many!) It does not matter than people have not revoiced their view since I made and posted the gallery with suitable cross images. Thus there is only Consensus to keep "StJohnsAshfield StainedGlass GoodShepherd Face.jpg". See also WP:BRD.
Do you want to revert it or shall I? şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 20:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, Carlaude aka şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ:.
1) I took a look at WP:BRD and Consensus and found that under WP:BRD, an edit is a valid way of promoting discussion where there is no consensus; your statement to the contrary notwithstanding, I would argue there is no clear consensus on the "GoodShepherd Face" (see pt 2). Indeed, you yourself (with support from B Fizz) posted the "GoodShepherd Face" in a way comparable to my posting of the Three Crosses pic, and productive discussion has been stimulated in both cases. Following precedent and the above wiki rules, I think it is justifiable to put up a new pic to stimulate discussion here.
2) There is no clear consensus for the "GoodShepherd Face", nor is it entirely accurate that "pleanty of people... did not want a cross at all". you and B Fizz first and repeatedly advocated the "GoodShepherd Face" against a cross, while Tznkai, Yorkshirian, and Gryffindor in particular strongly opposed the "GoodShepherd Face" in favor of the cross, AnonMoos was clearly for a cross of some sort, and Andrew_c noted that the Jesus face was at least as offensive as the cross. A few others supported the Jesus face (such as 99of9, the author of the pic), but never said they did not want a cross. You, B Fizz, and 99of9, while valuable contributers, do not constitute consensus for an image against such strong opposition, and there never was a consensus against a cross.
3) I'm not claiming that the Three Crosses pic is the current consensus, but my intent is chiefly to encourage discussion over a possible image which could well be a consensus pic, not to force one image on everyone out of nowhere. I'm perfectly willing for another pic to be a consensus pic, but I think the Three crosses pic (for the many reasons given in above posts) is far, far more suitable. Some sort of cross is acceptable to the clear majority on the talk page. I have nothing against 99of9's pic - I find it very beautiful - but just agree with many users on this talk page that a cross of some sort better represents Christianity than the "GoodShepherd Face". Is Three Crosses my favorite pic to represent Christianity? No, but I think it will bring forth some good, fruitful discussion that could result in something resembling consensus.
If you disagree with my view here, could we talk it out for a while instead of resorting to reverting right away? I think that course of action best follows the intent of WP:BRD. Peace, Wikibojopayne (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I've talked with Gryffindor and he's in favor of the cross image or the cross with the fish (4 in the gallery). Peace, Wikibojopayne (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Template image

There is simply no evidence of how Jesus looks like yet across over a hundred articles, readers are being subjected to this blatantly racist and stereotypical depiction of Jesus as a bearded white man with long hair. The main article on Jesus states clearly that "no undisputed record of what Jesus looked like is known to exist" so how does the imposition of any disputed depiction of Jesus on this template seen across over a hundred articles not contravene Wikipedia's own policy of NPOV? With its typical position on the upper right corner of articles, it comes across as some kind of officially endorsed image. The template for Jesus does not use any image for Christ and neither should this template because there is clearly no need to use any such image. Please get rid of the image and your own narrow-minded self-projection of the Christ. -- (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "racist" as such, but for previous discussions about why depictions of Jesus are unlikely to be useful as a template thumbnail, see Template_talk:Christianity/Archive2#Recent_image_change_problematic (and of course the section immediately above). AnonMoos (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
By the way, the beard is the one part that's likely to be historically authentic -- among Jews in 1st century A.D. Judea, growing a beard was pretty much a sign of being a mature responsible adult man who identified with the Jewish community (as opposed to a callow immature youth or someone who was heavily influenced by Roman culture). AnonMoos (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
AnonMoos, with respect, you may not consider it racist, but many Christian scholars do, notably James Cone and liberation theologians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibojopayne (talkcontribs) 20:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I've really been shocked by the lack of consideration in the talk pages about the template image that a Jesus image does not represent huge groups of the historic Christian faith well at all. It seems to me there is a pervasive ignorance - or lack of concern - that significant streams in Christian tradition, from the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire to the altar-stripping Protestants to modern-day Peace Churches (Mennonites, etc.) reject of images of the divine (including, they say, Jesus). Today, millions of Christians still find any picture of Jesus highly offensive (I'm good friends with some of them), and millions more find many types of pics of Jesus offensive, from crucifixes to ethnically biased expressions. Seriously, can we at least try to care about major streams of historic Christianity when considering which picture to use? PeaceWikibojopayne (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Lets look at this then.
Are you saying that there are Eastern/Byzantine Christians today that reject of images of the divine (no), or that at one time some leaders of the Church-- mostly in the East-- rejected images of the divine (yes).
While Mennonites do reject such images today-- they also reject many other things too. For example, many Mennonites do not have the personal computers that are used to read Wikipedia. I also don't see many of them use a cross much-- as far as I see them at all-- and a cross the only other realistic option for this template. What I do know-- as has been pointed out some before-- is that a couple groups, larger groups, do object to use of the cross. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 21:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm saying Christianity is 1) more than just people alive today, and 2) more than people who read Wikipedia. As I note above, the LDS and JW are hardly sufficient grounds to say if something is a good representative of Christianity as a whole, being regarded by almost every other major Christian group as non-Christian and widely at variance with historic Christianity as well, restorationist claims aside. While LDS and JW are in the broader Christian category, those who have opposed and do oppose images of Jesus, particularly the image chosen for the template now, are a far greater and more representative group of Christianity than the LDS and JW. To make much of views of the LDS while mocking the relevance of Peace Churches strikes me as pick-and-choose, which goes against the whole point of representing all of Christianity, past and present, with a view towards a holistically representative picture. You also ignored the observations that the earliest Christians did not have pictures of Jesus, nor did many of the Protestant Reformers; there's a lot more to it than just the iconoclasm controversy in the Eastern Roman Empire, although that is a hugely significant controversy of itself.
I also object to the idea that a cross is "the only other realistic option for this template." I've looked through the archives, and many want the fish symbol, but the only objections I saw were these two: some restorationist churches might not like them (i.e., the LDS and the like, a critique which falls by the same analysis given above), and it's not well-known as a Christian symbol (but the Islam template uses a fancy Arabic script that practically only Arabic readers understand, and even most Muslims can't read Arabic, so what's the big deal?). The whole point of a template pic, as I understand it, is to represent the subject. If some people don't know that the Ichthys has represented Christianity before the cross or pictures of Christ did, what's wrong with letting Wikipedia teach them something new? It really should be more common knowledge, if it isn't already. If the ichthys is controversial in some other way, I'd be happy to hear about it.
  • The Chi-Rho is also an ancient Christian symbol, though later (dating to the 4th century). I don't see what's wrong with that one, other than that not enough people know what it means; again, an opportunity to share knowledge rather than feed people what they already know. Peace, Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I've suggested a compromise ichthys image above. It takes the familiar form of a Christian cross (meeting your proposed viability criterion) without having the cross's pitfalls. It uses the earliest known Christian symbol, placating sincere Restorationists. It alludes to the ancient Greek Scriptures so critical to the development of the faith. It does justice to all the Christian traditions. It's aesthetically pleasing. It's a huge image and needs to be scaled down to size, but it's in the ideal square shape. It's growing on me, and I hope it grows on others, too. Peace, Wikibojopayne (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 6 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Correct Definition of christian: christlike; footstep follower of christ; disciple or student of jesus christ (Leave the opinions out of the definition.Your thoughts are not relevant to the correct definition and is misleading.) (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: This request doesn't seem to pertain to the template. Could you describe the exact change in a 'plesae change X to Y' level of detail? And please provide reliable sources for any factual changes. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Drowentyler, 11 April 2010


Mormonism should not be grouped under Christianity because it violates the core teaching of the 4th century Nicene Creed (http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm) by which the early Christians defined "Christianity" and it is their definition that should be used for the category of "Christian" rather than a Webster's Dictionary definition which does not take into account history or the importance of creeds as used to define religious identity. The Nicene Creed was the foundational creed that united and defined all Christians and still does today (there is a reason Arianism was targeted by the writing of this creed, a heresy that shares the same core belief about Jesus' deity as do Mormons). The Nicene Creed states that Jesus Christ is "of the same substance" as God, rather than being a separate being. Mormonism teaches that Jesus is a created being and that Jesus and Satan are "spirit brothers," believing that "only begotten," does not mean "of the same substance," although this is how the Nicene writers understood it. Mormons also reject the Trinity as being one God, another key teaching of the Nicene Creed (Cooper Adams, "Mormons are not Biblical Christians," http://www.seafox.com/mormons.html). These core points about Jesus, and his part in the Trinity, separate Mormonism from all other Christian expressions including Catholicism, Orthodox, Protestantism, and thousands more and make Mormonism a new and separate religion.

Drowentyler (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Avicennasis @ 01:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

easter to orthodox

{{editsemiprotected}} could someone change the term 'eastern' to 'orthodox' please, since this is the most commonly used term. thanks.Jigglyfidders (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I have never heard about an 'eastern' branch of christianity but we have all heard about 'orthodox christianity' though. could somebody help us out here to make this change please? thanks

Not done: It refers to Eastern Christianity, which contains Assyrian Church of the East, which is not an Orthodox Church. --JokerXtreme (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Adventism - Protestant or NonTrinitarian

Seventh-Day Adventists don't believe in the Trinity. Also I heard Anglicans were Protestants.-Angel David (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

At Seventh-day Adventist theology#Shared Protestant doctrine it says, among other things: şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 06:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Protestants Adventists are descended from American Protestant groups and are generally orthodox Christians (sometimes e.g. Mormons are included as Adventists.) Anglicans are both Protestant and Catholic, see via media. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 06:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Point of information: "Adventism" refers to the movement, and all groups that descended from the Millerism, but especially the Seventh-day Adventist church.
"Adventists" however is used even more often than that-- as the adjective for members of the Seventh-day Adventist church, in other words, it is used to mean Seventh-day Adventists. Thus it can be necessary to indicate to which one is asking (or answering) about. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 17:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Christianity, and such...

I noticed that when scrolling my arrow across the picture representing Jesus, a brief statement popped up, reading: "Jesus is the central figure in Christianity". Non trinitarians (like Christadelphians) shouldn't be lumped in the Christianity category, then; believing that God, and *not* Jesus, is the central "figure" in our worship: the only "figure" we worship.

Please, change that little blurb, or relocate Christadelphians, COGAF, and the many, many others groups to a more appropriate portal. (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)David Aug, 25th, 201068.171.231.17 (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it says "Jesus Christ is the central figure of Christianity". It doesn't say he's the central figure of worship, it just says central figure. Classification of religions is typically determined by theology, not solely on whom is worshiped. Simply based on the name, I would venture to guess that the Christadelphians, or "brothers of Christ", consider Jesus to be a "central figure" of their religion. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Calvinist, Arminian, and Unitarian denominations?

Should Calvinist, Arminian, and Unitarian be listed as Protestant and Nontrinitarian denominations? Aren't they just theological ideas and not denominations? (And yes I know there is a denomination called Unitarian Universalism, but the article listed here is about the theology called Unitarianism.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed before, and so these links are not listed as "denominations" but as "movements." şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 05:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding new article links, only Top-importance Christianity articles

The previous link to Salvation was to one which refers to the concept in general from all religions. It does not focus on Christian Salvation or Personal salvation. Collective salvation is the antithesis of individual or personal salvation. Thus the link was changed to focus on the general Christian view point. Jrcrin001 (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As referenced above-- to add a new Christianity article to this Template:Christianity, or the Template:Christianityfooter-- it ought to be a top-importance Christianity article. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list for the list of Top-importance Christianity articles. As of 1 April 2009, there are just 80 articles on the list. If you would like to remove one or add one, start a discussion on that talk page first (the list is designed to be smaller than 100 articles). şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 18:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Imorthodox23 talk/discuss

I claim that this template has only two disadvantages and these are: The page is semi-protected and the Mariology article leads to Mary, mother of Jesus, I could correct it, but it is semi-protected, why not removing the semi-protection first, so I can correct that mistake and you can make it semi-protected again, whoever semi-protected it. Imorthodox23 (talk) 6:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding including the Mariology link to the template, which is a different article than the Mary (mother of Jesus) article, I have began a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity#Mariology top importance? on whether Mariology is a top-importance article. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
That is fine-- but per WP:BRD, do not add Mariology here until there is consensus to do so. Thank you. --şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 05:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

expand-catholic etc

I've modified the "expand" parameters to match the categories listed. This introduced the parameters "expand-catholic" and "expand-protestant", removed "expand-western", and changed the behavior of "expand-eastern" to that which should be expected. Just a heads up to everyone; I don't imagine this is controversial in the least. ...comments? ~BFizz 15:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that I've updated most articles that use this template to also use the relevant parameter. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Please keep the current image discusion consolidated

icon gallery

Image is Calvary or Leaning Tower of Pisa?

I just noticed the three cross image number 7 on a page and almost cringed at how bad it looked. In fact, the crosses look like the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Or is it a ne wimage, Leaning cross of Calvary? And it has crosses that are not even straight, and looks like a modern day lost church. For Heaven's sake add a nice image, like an old icon of Jesus, etc. or a decent cross from an old painting or something. I object to this new Andy Warhol-like rendition of the three leaning crosses of Calvary. The image must convey "Old time" Christian values. So there are many on Wikimedia, why use this terrible image? History2007 (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Not withstanding the claim that User:Gryffindor likes "the cross image or the cross with the fish" there is still no consensus for "Three crosses.jpg"; even if we were to agree that the greater support for "StJohnsAshfield StainedGlass GoodShepherd Face.jpg" was not full consensus, the defalt is to keep the template as it is, which means we still keep the JohnsAshfield GoodShepherd image.
While you, Wikibojopaye, indicate you do not want your non-consensus edit reverted right away, this is none the less the way WP:BRD works on Wikipedia. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 00:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually I had made no edit Carl, just complained. The edit was by someone else. But I agree with your WP:BRD argument and reinstatement of the old image. At least the old image communicates some visual feel for Christianity, unlike that leaning cross item. History2007 (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, sorry for any confusion; I made my comments here in order to conslodate the discussion. 03:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree the leaning cross was not ideal, but History2007, you're going completely overboard about how "terrible" the three crosses pic is. And the main point isn't about looking perfect, it's about representing Christianity, and as far as I can see, there seem to be some pretty crooked crosses in the church. Seriously though, any half-decent cross pic is preferable to a ethnocentric Jesus face, because it better meets the very criteria Carl proposed: it's more recognizable as a symbol of the faith, period. Personal aesthetics are secondary to this primary concern.
I wonder, at what point does it become acceptable to change the default pic without clear consensus? Differently put, why was the GoodShepherd pic put up in the first place without consensus for it? Doesn't that violate the spirit of "don't change the pic without consensus"? or am I missing something? From my look at the discussion, concerns about a particular picture of Jesus being much less representative of Christianity than a cross were just bypassed and drowned out by quantity of ink than quantity of supporters. And that doesn't seem like consensus to me. Does that sound like a fair assessment? (and good job on starting this new section, whoever did that) Peace, Wikibojopayne (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
PS - Carl, it's no big deal going back to the GoodShepherd pic as long as the conversation moves somewhere. Do you get why I'm making such a big deal about Jesus face vs. cross? Because it's a hugely important issue that I don't think a lot of people get around Wikipedia. We're so used to Jesus pics that we think of the pic as equivalent to the faith, but it's not, it's really not. I mean, stained glass windows didn't depict Jesus until well into the Medieval period, many centuries into the faith. But the cross was always there, from Jesus' death. And it's the Christian symbol - lots of non-Christians like Jesus pictures, but only Christians bear the cross - not all self-IDed Christian groups, but it's the distinctive about Christianity. And it really stirs me up to see other folks here not gettin' this. Christianity is the cross, and everybody knows it. You see what I'm saying?
And Carl, I really like #17 - thanks for bringing out the color contrast in the pic. I'd love to see that be the Christianity pic, but I'm sure someone would get offended because there's a rainbow in it and somehow that signifies a nefarious plot on Wikipedia to push a gay agenda. *sigh* Wikibojopayne (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
But, this long discussion over an image maybe a waste of resources, given that there are so many articles which have errors, lack references etc. So I will not bother to type a 3 pages in response, except that I do not agree with your comments. History2007 (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
While I agree, Wikibojopayne, that theologically Christianity is the cross, I see many people wearing a cross around their neck that means little or nothing to them. I don't see the same so much with the face of Jesus. For such reasons, I do not see the one as inherently better than the other. I am as willing to discuss as long as it is really called for-- as long as there is something really needed to discuss-- but, per History2007, not to discuss this endlessly or even when issues are moot.
PS-- Are you really sure that other people will see the rainbow something with a gay agenda? şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 14:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
LOL! Yes, I'm sure someone will see a gay agenda in a rainbow.
People often see an issue as moot and a waste of time to talk about when they have the status quo on their side; but to your point. You seem to be conflating personal meaning with representation of the faith. We can talk all day about which picture makes people feel more strongly, but there's no doubt that the central depiction of Christianity as such is the cross - it's an objective, not subjective, standard. Also, many non-Christians also feel very strongly about Jesus pictures, but that doesn't make them Christian - only the cross is distinctive. Further, the cross represents universal Christianity; an ethnocentric picture of Jesus doesn't. Any other reasons why you think a Jesus pic is better than a cross? Peace, Wikibojopayne (talk) 06:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The way Wikipedia works see you need consensus for a particular image of the cross to change it, not just the idea of a cross.
I see some merit to that idea, but consensus isn't here. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 07:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
In spite of my fear or prolonging endless debate, may I address a few of Wikibojopayne's comments?
  • there's no doubt that the central depiction of Christianity as such is the cross - it's an objective, not subjective, standard. ... only the cross is distinctive. - Says who?
  • the cross represents universal Christianity; an ethnocentric picture of Jesus doesn't - What about the current image is 'ethnocentric'? Isn't it a fairly good (albeit artistic) representation of Jesus' historical ethnicity (Jewish)?
Our "Christianity" template has sections not only for Movements, but for Jesus Christ, Foundations, Bible, Theology, History and Traditions, and General Topics. The icon that ties all of these concepts together is not the cross, it is Jesus. Were it a template solely representing the denominations or the history of Christianity, a cross might be more appropriate. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree, and may I point out that Christian soteriology has just 6 references and needs serious help, instead of this image discussion... History2007 (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Carl, thanks for your openness on the issue. For the sake of making the discussion more image-specific instead of just cross vs. Jesus, I vote #17. The rainbow was a Judeo-Christian symbol of God's covenant with all living creatures (Genesis 9:12-17) long before it was a gay pride symbol, so I don't see any legitimate grounds for going against it. Besides, it's a beautiful pic.
  • B Fizz, to your first question, on cross as central depiction of Christianity: as Carl wrote above, "theologically Christianity is the cross". For Christians, the cross is uniquely spiritually significant - in traditional/orthodox understanding, it is where God incarnate bore the sins of the world and defeated sin, death, hell and the power of the devil. Most people look at the cross and say, "I don't get it." But for Christianity, the cross is theologically very significant, even central. Also, the simple cross is far more widely recognized as the symbol of Christianity across denominational lines than a picture of Jesus, which meets the prime criterion for a template pic.
  • The ethnocentric critique comes from James Cone, but since the pic could well represent what Jesus historically looked like, I'll drop it.
  • The cross represents the whole faith just as well as Jesus, for the cross is intimately tied to Jesus' life, teachings (to love, sacrifice for, and serve others), death, alleged resurrection, and other theological significances given above. However, a picture (and this picture in particular) of Jesus doesn't convey this quite as well. Peace, Wikibojopayne (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
No, as above. History2007 (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Which is to say, you will vote no without giving any reasons why. Which adds nothing to the conversation. Peace, Wikibojopayne (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 22 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The item you have under 'Resurection' sub heading 'Church or Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' is wrong. It is false doctrine. Spirit prison is not a place where unrightious are sent but all spirits go there prior to final judgement. (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

if you are speaking of Resurrection, there is nothing that changing this template will do about the content in said article. Please discuss it on the talk page there instead. Thank you. sonia 05:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

hide feature

suggest: hide feature should hide top image as well(takes up too much of my tiny screen too!)--The soft voice of Judaism (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good suggestion. Does anybody oppose this? If not, I'll make the change. COGDEN 19:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
No, Template:Buddhism etc. all have depictions and images go a long way in attracting the user to actually click the box open. As a whole Christianity has relied on depictions since the days of the images on the walls of the Catacomb of Priscilla in the 2nd century, and images have been a key identifying element of the Christian tradition, while in Islam they are eschewed. So the image has multiple support factors. History2007 (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't disagree. I'm just thinking that if an article uses the template in its collapsed form, that almost always means that the infobox is not the article's primary infobox. When the Christianity infobox is the second or third infobox on a page, I think it's better to make it as small as possible. The collapsed version of the infobox might get used more often if it can be used unobtrusively.
Alternatively, we can make use of the "terse" parameter in the template, which right now does absolutely nothing. When the "terse" parameter is set, the template can collapse the image too. COGDEN 21:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The collapsed form is a postage stamp sized item, right? So how much smaller can it get? Do you have a sample? In any case, let us wait and see what others think. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


Hello I was viewing the Anabaptists page and there is an error on the page. Anabaptists did not come from Protestant. I know this for a fact because I took an Independent Baptist History class at my church. The Anabaptists and Protestants were individual people at the same time during the same era. The Anabaptists were from the "true church" and the Protestants were a group of people who protested from the Catholic church.

Future heart surgeon 2017 (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

There are spurious "histories" of Baptists that seek to show how they preserved some sort of Apostolic-like succession independent of Catholics or Lutherans that traces back all the way to the time of the Apostles. These histories fall under WP:Fringe. I'm not sure what kind of history you were taught. Anabaptists broke from the Roman Catholic Church somewhat after the Lutherans were excommunicated. Anabaptists were not formally part of the Protestation against the Second Diet of Speyer, but if you excluded all who were not protesting against the Diet at the time from the term "Protestant", you would be limiting the term "Protestant" to only Lutherans. Today, "Protestant" refers to all who were "excommunicated" by the Edict of Worms in 1521 & outlawed by the Second Diet of Speyer (that is, all of Western Christianity that is not Roman Catholic or Old Catholic). Baptists as we now know them originated from Anabaptists, but evolved somewhat, particularly in immigrant communities that settled in England. It is this Anglicized & Arminianized version that today's American Baptists trace their tradition back to. However, there are still Anabaptists around today who trace their tradition from continental Anabaptism. These include the Amish, Mennonites, and Hutterites.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Template is not necessary on a page about the term Creed

A template about 'Christianity' is not required on a page about 'Creed'. the template informs people about Christianity and its place should be on the Christianity page. if Christianity is used as example, a simple link to the Wikipedia page on Christianity will be sufficient.

If a Christian Template is required, should a template for other religions be added to this Wikipedia page?

also may i request someone to inform the talk page, of the purpose of a template of Christianity on the creed wiki page? Greataussiepie (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 2 February 2011

Historically inaccurate pictures of Jesus (whether stained glass or otherwise) provide no value in this page. Perhaps these pictures could be replaced by pictures of the Christian Flag, pictures of symbols in Christianity (the Cross, the Ichthus, Noah's Ark, etc.). (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This was discussed above, and it now seems clear to me that there are over 2 billion Christians in the world with at least 1 billion ideas on what image represents Christianity, and I am not sure how many think Noah's Ark is that... History2007 (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Apparently at least 8000 people per month find it valuable enough to click through to. --99of9 (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I am actually in favor of the current image. Noah's Ark is out at sea on this I think. History2007 (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
It is not shown how the image is "historically inaccurate"-- but this picture of Jesus, like others, is also symbolic of Christianity, and a far side more common one than the Ichthus, Noah's Ark. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 01:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
As can be seen from the archived discussions regarding this topic, I am in favor of the current image. I strongly disagree with the accusation that it "provides no value"; it is visually appealing and it represents the template as a whole. The skin color and hair color/length are at a middle ground that I believe 99% of Christians can immediately recognize as Jesus without major complaints. I'm open to be proven wrong, though. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Let us hope no one tries to prove you wrong, so we don't have to prolong this debate. And again, the image used now seems like a good "general representation" as you said, yet the image does not affect the content of the articles, obviously. History2007 (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The "Christian Flag" was first brought up by a man in the 1900s who needed a topic for a speech. It is generic, but is not universally used. It is most common among American Evangelical Protestants.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Holy Spirit to point to Holy Spirit (Christianity)

Can anyone replace in the tag {[Holy Spirit]} by {[Holy Spirit (Christianity)|Holy Spirit]} ? (delimited by "[" "]" of course) I'm accessing as an IP so I cannot do it myself, and don't use my user in wikipedia since years ago. (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, will do. History2007 (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Armenian Apostolic Church

Why is Assyrian Church mentioned, when world's first national church, the Armenian, isn't mentioned? Наполеон Бонапарт (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

See above under "Adding new article links, only Top-importance Christianity articles"; links are limited to a list of top-importance Christianity articles. Just because the Armenian Church was the first national church doesn't make it a top-importance Christianity article.
To me, it would make sense to instead remove the Assyrian Church. -- şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 12:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 22 July 2010


The false painting of Jesus Christ on this page should be removed because it is not of Jesus Christ nor should any picture represent Him and lastly it is offensive. (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done per WP:NOTCENSORED. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 11:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, since the prohibition of image worship *is* a key precept of Christianity (see Exodus 20:4 of the Christian Bible), and since the image in question *is* a depiction of an object [sic] of worship (namely the Son of God), its inclusion on the page ("Template: Christianity") is akin to, say, the inclusion of an image depicting an alter boy performing fallacio on the "Catholic Church" page. Both would be a misrepresentation of the fundamental precepts of their respective religions. I agree that the image should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Mariology again

Mariology is not rated as "top importance" at WikiProject Christianity. It therefore does not belong on this template. It is insulting that User:Imorthodox23 inserted it yet again, with absolutely no discussion. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries my friend, just read the user page for the editor in question... and look at the edit history too. I reverted him today, elsewhere. But that is Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 17 July 2011

I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses & I am respectfully requesting that you take the Christianity template out because it goes against what we believe(concerning other religions). (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If that gets applied to all pages, then much of Wikipedia has to disappear. Everyone disagrees with something here, please see WP:NPOV. So, unfortunately, the way Wikipedia works, if no one is totally happy, then there is middle of the road content. Sorry. History2007 (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Pretty up format

Take a look at the Islam sidebar. It is entirely green (the background colour) with different coloured fonts. It is not just the image that makes it look good. The colour combinations and way they have formatted it makes it look very distinctive and much better looking than ours. Please do have a look. Maybe someone with the expertise would be able to do something similar with the formatting here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I've had a go at altering the colour scheme by picking up colours from the image: User:99of9/ChristianityTemplate edit. Feel free to edit ruthlessly to suit your tastes, and let's see if we can improve the style to match. --99of9 (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Another fantastic one to look at is the islamic culture sidebar. both sidebars are shown in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_II_Mosque (keep scrolling down). Unfortunately I do not have the faintest idea how to do this kind of thing (no good with technology). If no one else wants to I will during a holiday or something like that find out how it is done. However our sidebars just look boring and plain with a cartoonish cross down the bottom and a piss-poor image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talkcontribs) 04:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Anglicanism - Protestant or Catholic?

I find it somewhat strange to see Anglicanism listed under Catholicism here. In most books I've read, it is described as a Protestant church, and that was definitely what we were taught in school as well. While an argument could be made for almost whichever church belonging to whichever denomination, this would appear to be very much a minority view. I suggest we move Anglicanism to the Protestant denomination.Jeppiz (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

...which is also wrong. Anglican is Anglican. The Union of Utrecht (Old Catholic), which is in full communion with the Anglicans, is most definitely a "catholic" church.
There are catholic and evangelic currents in the Anglican church, and it has characteristics of both; however, it is sort of a missing link between catholicism and protestantism.
One could very well argue to make it its own cathegory.-- (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)