Template talk:Christian denominations

On Adding Oneness Pentecostalism

Hello! Well some of you might have noticed that I added the Oneness Pentecostal movement into the template. I know that under the Pentecostal page this may be somewhat informed of but I do not believe it is fair. The Pentecostal page is more directed to inform of Trinitarian Pentecostalism (which is fine and all) but it does not cover Oneness Pentecostalism to the same level. These two movements are very different if you have read and taken notice both of doctrine and practices. Furthermore Oneness Pentecostalism is not just one denomination there are various denominations who adhere to this theology and are part of it, and that have millions of adherents all throughout the world. I know some of you may not wish to label us 'Orthodox' or even 'Christian' but we do rely on the Bible, solely, for our doctrines. I'll be happy to respond and give reasons, and I'm open to dialogue, but do take in notice that there are movements in the Template that are much smaller than us and much more 'contreversial' LOL.

Cheers!

Restorationism, Nontrinitarism, Protestantism

(1) Restorationism is a movement that arose in the early 1800s, called by some a protest against Protestantism, but it never left Protestantism—only sought to take it further and gave rise to particular groups – and none of these groups are in the Restorationism Section.

(2) What was in that section was groups that rejected the Nicene and other Ecumenical creeds. If they have a section to there own they should be not label by a movement to which they were not those primary referenced by such a name. They just adopted it much tter.

(3) No matter what you call them — they do arise from Western Christianity and should be there or as I have done under Protestantism

(4) A whole lot of Protestant groups have been added so I am creating Protestant Christianity --Carlaude (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Protestants and other Western Christians

Who is one and who decides? Most Anglicans do not see themselves as protesants but rather as a Via Media between Roman Catholicism and Protestants. The term protestant is offensive to many Anglo Catholic Anglicans. As for the origin and classification of the Baptists, you are going to end up in a huge mess if you try to force that label on them. I have seen it happen here at WP before. These are just two examples. Why is the current header unacceptable to you? -- SECisek (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SECisek's concerns here. Tb (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No one likes being "other."

The tag "Protestants and other Western Christians" is too long.

I have never met a baptist who objected to being call Protestants and I have attended baptist church for 16 years.

I know some of (the more centralized) Anglicans object, but even the Anglicans church admits on its US web site that:

• Other Christians consider them Protestants.
• Even the Anglican church is "ambivalent" on being called Protestant.

Please leave as protestant or propose a compromise. --Carlaude (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you go read Baptist#Viewpoint: Baptist perpetuity. You will find that there are many vocal Baptists here at Wikipedia who do not "know" that they are protestant and cannot be made to believe that they are. -- SECisek (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the idea of Baptist perpetuity-- and someone must think it is notable-- I have just never meet anyone to express that opinion to me. Not everything that is in Wikipedia is really notable.--Carlaude (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have heard certainly heard it expressed. Tb (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Western Christianity link needs to be there to compliment the Eastern Christianity link above it. You cited your personal knowledge of Baptists. As for being "Other", I'll cite a personal example. Whenever I am faced with a form that asks if I am Roman Catholic or Protestant, I check other everytime. As an Anglican I am neither of those things and my Church is seldom listed inspite of the fact there are over 73 million of us.

As for a compromise, this IS the compromise that has been fleshed out in battle after battle here at wikipedia:

• Eastern Christian (Church of the East, Oriental, and Eastern Orthodox)
• Roman Catholic (Latin & Eastern)
• Protestant
• Anglican
• Anabaptist
• Restorationist-- SECisek (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• This is too long for the purpose. The template until about a week ago only had half this many.
• By the way scholars do not even categorize Baptists as among the Anabaptist groups, so it seems you are going from one label for them to worse label.
• I have not seen this system exact system anywhere so it seems problematic to characterize it as "fleshed out in battle after battle"--Carlaude (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

See Image:ChristianityBranches.svg. The fight that went in to the design of that image was fierce and left no one satisfied. That said, let us not reopen the battle. This is not a paper encyclopedia and the claim that the title is "too long" doesn't cut it here. What is the objection to the compromises that exist? -- SECisek (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that Image:ChristianityBranches.svg is poorly done. Let's not follow it. The point is it is a navigational box, not an article. It is to be short even if this is not a paper encyclopedia. --Carlaude (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm an Anglican, and I'm not a Protestant. I do think that there should be some label which fits me. I'm ok with "Other Western Christians" but not with just "Protestant". Tb (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This just begs the question. What makes you "not a Protestant"? Note: "Protestantism encompasses the forms of Christian faith and practice that originated with the doctrines of the Reformation."--Carlaude (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a Protestant because I disagree with most of the doctrines which characterize the Protestant reformation. What seems to be a problem here is that you are assuming that you can re-order other people's self-understanding to comport with your expectations, thus running roughshod over both Baptists and Anglicans who, for nearly opposite reasons, object to the label "Protestant" to describe their own beliefs and practices. The world is a complex place, religious categorization and labelling particularly, and Wikipedia has often managed to find stable compromises which you seem to want to disturb here out of a desire simply to make things match your preconceptions better. Indeed, the link from the website of TEC which you already posted, if you would have read it carefully, would express exactly the point: many Anglicans do not wish to be labelled Protestant, and it's really not up to you to tell them you understand their religion better than they do. Tb (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Carlaude, go and remove the section Baptist#Viewpoint: Baptist perpetuity from the Baptist article with the edit summary "Not a notable opinion"...count to ten and get ready to duck. I completely agree that they are protestants, but I have stopped trying to convince anyone here that they are. They can say they are muslims and - if they can find a real citation to back the claim - there isn't much we can do about it other than try to allow for it in the most reasonable way possible. What was pointed out by Tb is correct. It is not our place to tell them they are protestants any more than it is your place to ask me how, as an Anglican, I am not one.

I agree that the full system in the graphic above is too large for the template, hence Eastern, Roman, and Western. I would be fine with putting the Restorationists in with other Western which you seem to have been fine with, judging from the discussions above. The compromise WAS fleshed out in "battle after battle" and some of it is here and some more is here, but it can be painful reading. The second link shows some of the fight that went into this very template, as well. You still have not made a good case against the template as is. -- SECisek (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

A: How about:

• Eastern Christian
• Western Liturgical
• Nonliturgical--Carlaude (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

B: How about all major groups under the same collapsible field.--Carlaude (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This is worse than all! Where will you put the Presbyterians and the Lutherans? Just as you cannot call all Anglicans Protestant, so you have to deal with the reality that some Presbyterians are liturgical (or call themselves that) and some Lutherans, even more surprising perhaps, reject the term "liturgical." I can't figure out what you object to with the page exactly as it is now. It's a footer template, so size is really not a concern. I'm not all that sure I understand why we need such a footer in the first place, but I don't object to it. Certainly however, the rule here as always should apply: it is no excuse for incorrect information in wikipedia that it's too much trouble or space to have the correct information.

However, I would most prefer the layout in List of Christian denominations, which is the most substantial attempt to address this problem, and which has a rough consensus now (finally!) for its shape. But I'm ok with this template exactly as it is now. Tb (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Tb above. -- SECisek (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of this template

It seems that the primary point of this template is to be embedded in Template:Christianity which is itself likely to get phased out soon, to be replace with the portal link at the top of pages, and Template:Christianityfooter at the bottom of pages. The current strategy for this template, to use collapsible tables and embed within Template:Christianity is unlikely to ever produce attractive results. [User:Tb|Tb]] (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe you can't figure out what you object to with the page exactly as it is now because the page is not a footer. Why did you even edit it if you did not read the output message?
• We would not want to phase out this template which is better than any footer or portal link could be. Certainly this is not the time to kill the whole template. What in the world is attractive about it other than the tag "Protestants and other Western Christians"?
• So why ignore "B: All major groups under the same collapsible field"?--Carlaude (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Collapsible tables just insert this white space, and mess up the clean lines already present in Template:Christianity. It seems to me that there are several appropriate strategies. [User:Tb|Tb]] (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Where? How? Do you looked at Template:Christian denominations within Template:Christianity? Do all navigational boxes do this on your browser or just this one? --Carlaude (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete this Template:Christianity and Template:Christian denominations finally, and put the portal and footer on all the articles currently using Template:Christianity, or
• Fix Template:Christianity to have an attractive way of dealing with denominations, or
• Not put links to denominations at all in Template:Christianity. [User:Tb|Tb]] (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying any of these will work for you? What would be "an attractive way of dealing with denominations" --Carlaude (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The first of this is (IMO) a good idea, but it's a long-term project, and the same questions will come up in Template:Christianityfooter anyhow. [User:Tb|Tb]] (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Now if these are in a footer then you will have lots of white space.--Carlaude (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The second does have some possibilities. I understand the interest in using collapsible tables here, but I think the result is currently quite ugly. If someone expert in wikipedia typesetting made something pretty, it would be a different story. That leaves the third. There is already a link to Christian denomination in Template:Christianity. Why exactly is that not sufficient? Tb (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Because denominations are a major topic that people want to navigate to! Why exactly is "B: All major groups under the same collapsible field" not not sufficient?--Carlaude (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed that the template IS in fact being phased out in favor of the footer. See here. This process began last fall and continues. Will it be phased out completely? Maybe not, but we have been reducing the number of articles for months due to the redundant nature of the box since the creation of the tidy, neat footer. -- SECisek (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oneness Pentecostalism...again...

Hello!

I was the first user to ever add OP as Apostolic in an earlier version of this template. Then when the template was changed the OP was taken off from the template without any reason given. I have again inserted Apostolic into this template, but other users have been quick to revert my changes by labeling my changes as "not conforming to NPOV" and to promoting my church or "preaching". I do not understand these accusations as all OP's mostly refer to themselves as Apostolic...OP is a more technical name if you will and most often is the POV inspired way of Trinitarians to label Apostolics. Furthermore OP really does belong under Western Christianity since we are an offshoot of Pentecostalism. We did not just come out of the blue or under a rock, we are the product of a faction in the early Pentecostal movement, it's only fair. Our doctrine shares many similarities to Western Christianity and it's development is much more linked to W. Christianity (Sola Scriptura, Arminianism, Pre-Tribulation Rapture, etc.) As such I move that the changes be reverted back to the original way I had it. Before I put OP under W. Christianity, and it was never removed, why remove it now? ApostolicMOP (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, all the groups listed in the template use the names that they denominate themselves with. We denominate primarily with "Apostolic". You go to countries like Mexico, and they'll look at you weird if you call Apostolics there "OP's", I don't even know what OP translates into Spanish...they will automatically recognize the label "Apostolic" though. ApostolicMOP (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is that this is a template, which needs to be clear right away. "Apostolic", without any further qualifications, is confusing, especially to most readers. Moreover, moving just this one unitarian group makes no sense; the consensus has been to list unitarians separately, and if you want to change that consensus, it needs to be explained in terms of clarity over all. This template is really just a very compressed version of List of Christian denominations. Tb (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As one friend of mine told me...Oneness Pentecostalism sounds like some weird Eastern mystic religion. Methodism, Lutheranism, and all the other Christian groups could also be confusing...that's why you click on the link to find out what all the fuss is about. Furthermore we are not Unitarians...Unitarians say that Jesus is not God, OP's believe that Jesus is God. Here's the problem with us being classified as Nontrinitarians:

1. LDS - Believes Jesus became a God 2. JW's - Believe that Jesus wasn't God 3. Unitarians - Same as above 4. Christadelphians - Same as above

OP's believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are God just like all Christians, they just reject that these are three distinct persons. Some of the early OP pioneers even described God's "threeness" "trinity" "triunity". 71.129.32.117 (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

1. of, JW's believe Jesus is a God-- not that Jesus wasn't God

2. All these groups are all very different in theology. Puting them together (or leaving out some un-notible ones) are the only good options.

3. Oneness Pentecostals are Nontrinitarians -- and they will tell you so.

4. If your view is that they are "not that different" then they do not need a separate listing at all-- they can be found by following the Pentecostalism link.--Carlaude (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The Oneness folks are non-trinitarian; that's not in dispute, and that's why this is the label used in the template. Tb (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Old Catholic not part of Independent Catholic

Quote: "Independent Catholic Churches are Christian denominations ... but are not a part of the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Old Catholic Churches under the Archbishop of Utrecht or the Anglican Communion." --Carlaude (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Anglicanism

Once again--sorry--I object to the inclusion of "Anglican" under "Protestant". The Eastern/Western division made good sense to me, but if that's replaced with a Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox distinction, then we should follow the usage of List of Christian denominations which has achieved broad consensus. Tb (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I don't object to listing "Anglican" under both here (though I would object over on List of Christian denominations because it would lead to chaos there). But I didn't want to make such a controversial change. Tb (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think listing it one place or the other here is best.--Carlaude (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And I object to Anglicanism being included under Catholicism because, the Anglo-Catholic movement notwithstanding, it is not a Catholic church and has (in contrast to the Old Catholic Church) never been one. And yes, the Anglican Church placed itself within the large field of Protestantism. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And I object to Anglicanism NOT being included under Catholicism because it has always identified itself as Catholic and Reformed. ROMAN Catholics may not agree, but putting Anglicanism solely under Protestantism is POV. Bill Ward (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Protestant Denominations

Please note that "Calvinism" is not referred to as a denomination anywhere as a denomination, or even a family of denominations. In fact, it encompasses some aspect or sub-group of nearly all of the other denominations under Protestantism. However, both "Reformed churches" and "Presbyterianism" are major denominations, and should be listed in this template. Ἀλήθεια 20:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the more general and better topic, Calvinism, is a top-importance article, but the others aren't we can look at renaming this section something that does include whatever you would call Calvinism-- like Template:Christian denominational families, Template:Christian movements, etc. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 00:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let's please remove the term "denomination" with all due haste. Also, why piped? If the top-importance article is "Calvinism" and not "Reformed", then it's senseless to have "Reformed" in the template. "Evangelicalism" falls into a similar category as not primarily a denomination.

I have moved the two non-denominations to a more appropriate place in the main template. Now I can go back and suggest that all the top-level protestant denominations be recognized as such. Ἀλήθεια 14:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you don't have any WP:CON yet on your many ideas there you can't add them yet.

Since you don't seem to have a preference with the idea we adree to I have changed the section to "Movements" and reverted your disruptive edits, again. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding new article links, only Top-importance Christianity articles

As listed on the main template talk page 4 months ago-- to add a new Christianity article to this template-- 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 Dec 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).^{Carlaude:Talk} 00:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Just as others don't own the John Calvin article, you don't own this template. It is assinine to have Calvinism but not Arminianism. Same goes for the list you pointed me to here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity/Core_topics_work_group/Topic_list#Movements.2Ftraditions. Add Arminianism to that list too. TuckerResearch (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to fix the "Protestant" section of this template box

Here is the main problem with the Template:Christian denominations. This is listed under "Protestant": "Lutheran · Calvinist · Anabaptist · Baptist · Methodist · Adventist · Evangelical · Holiness · Pentecostal." The problem here is that Calvinism isn't a denomination (nor is Evangelical, for that matter). Calvinism is a theological system, not a denomination. You go to "Lutheran church" or "Baptist church," nobody goes to "Calvinist church." I may go to a Baptist church that is Calvinistic in theology (say, for instance, Reformed Baptists, just as a may go to a Baptist church that is Arminian in theology (say, for instance, Free Will Baptists). I suppose the best way to dispense with this is get rid of Calvinism (and Arminianism and Evangelical for that matter) from this list and replace it with Presbyterian and Reformed churches. These are denominations. Calvinism is not. If you insist on keeping "Calvinism" as a denomination, I can only say that it's soteriological counter, "Arminianism" must be retained as well.

This, I think is the best solution, to fix the Protestant section of Template:Christian denominations:

1. Remove Calvinist, Arminian, and Evangelical
2. Add Presbyterian and Reformed churches to get the main denominations that are Calvinistic (excepting Calvinistic Baptists, who are included under the rubric "Baptist")

Lastly, just because Presbyterian (or Arminianism, or anything else) might not be on some list of supposedly important articles, and Calvinism is, doesn't mean that we should continue listing Calvinism (or Arminianism, for that matter) as a denomination, when it most certainly is not a denomination . This is merely perpetrates a falsehood to call a theological/soteriological system a denomination.

Good idea? (This is also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list.) TuckerResearch (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

First, your change would need to happen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list, and not allow disscussed here.

Second, the article links are not labled or called "denominations " but "movements" at Template:Christianity-- the only place it is used.-- but if you want to rename the hidden name of this template to Template:Christian movements, that is fine with me. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 08:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that a template that clearly is used for navigation between major denominational families has been arbitrarily limited to only those topics deemed of "highest" importance. This is an artificial dependency. The template should include all the major denominational families, which are pretty clearly laid out in multiple other articles. In addition, since they are major denominational families, even though they may not be as important as some other top-level Christianity articles, they should be promoted to whatever level they need to be to put them in the proper category for inclusion. Ἀλήθεια 13:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid maintaining parallel discussions in different locations. Thanks. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 22:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Latter-day Saint

Latter-day Saints are a people, not an organization. The correct short for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at WP is LDS Church, per wp:NCLDS & wp:MOSLDS. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That is nice and all but the link is purposely not to the article about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

It is to the article about the whole Latter Day Saint movement.

That is also why the pipe says "Latter Day" and not "Latter-day".^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 19:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Latter Day Saints are also groups of people, not a denomination or a group of denominations (i.e. a movement). Removing the unnecessary piping and exposing the whole Latter Day Saint movement text would fix this. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see your point.

You seem to be claiming that the "Latter Day Saint movement" is not a "movement". ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 17:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Latter Day Saints are people; the Latter Day Saint movement is a group of denominations (i.e. a movement). The link on the template should be unpiped to just say [[Latter Day Saint movement]] not [[Latter Day Saint movement|Latter Day Saint]]. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

On the new template since April 2020: Extent, sortering

@Tahc: I gather your recent edits comprised two main actions: 1) deleting Protestantism as denominationaly family (c.f. Category:Christian denominational families), and 2) including significantly more denominations. What is your reason for #1? About #2, I did quite some efforts to go through List of Christian denominations by number of members to include the major ones. Is it really motivated to include as much denominations as you did? Doesn't it risk making the template too large? Would some entries in your level of detail may be more suited in forked templates on actual denominational families? PPEMES (talk) 09:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

1- All I did was remove the marker for Protestantism since it wastes so much space and because navboxes are primarily to aide navigation and not ridgely teach categories. Please note that even more space is wasted as more Protestant groups are added. I considered color coding all the showing all the Protestant boxes the same, but did not find out how.

2- Since you added even very small groups in the non-Protestant categories, and you were apt to want to keep them all, I thought the most neutral system would be to add any Protestant groups of moderate size. I have tried to only add groups that have 50,000 adherents or more, but some times the numbers are unclear.

For various reasons, the list of Christian denominations by number of members does not evenly list all the Protestant denominational of any type. It lists some denominations (unevenly) and mostly lists Protestant denominational families using various types of data sources.

If you think the cut-off should be at a different number of adherents, and want to help making the template consistent with that, we can certainly consider it. tahc ^chat 18:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Please let me object. You instead replaced Protestantism with the gigantic column saying "Major branches (By country)", information which could instead be appropriately confined to the "above" variable. It hardly hurts providing a little basic taxonomy in the denominational family of Protestantism. PPEMES (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I concur with @PPEMES:. This should be reverted back toward its previous design. --TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The gigantic column saying "Major branches (By country)" was already there.

If add back the box for Protestantism, it will make the whole template ever taller. tahc ^chat 17:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@TheTexasNationalist99: @Tahc: It seems after all like Protestantism should be reintroduced as a major branch (irrespective of how deep a possible subbranch tree of that major branch grouping). PPEMES (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Protestant groups typically have less in common with each other than the non-Protestant groups have with each other. Just because there is a word for "Protestantism" (but no word for not Protestant groups) does not mean it will make Wikipedia any better to waste such space on such a label. tahc ^chat 13:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

List of Christian denominations#Protestantism, Protestantism as well as Category:Protestantism exist for a reason. Until you convince us that these contents should be unpacked, emptied and deleted from Wikipedia, I'm not sure what to make of your comment that Protestantism should not be indicated in the template. PPEMES (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)