Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Possible suggestions

I tend to agree that core topics might work best as the topics of greatest importance to Christianity as a whole. This however would include several articles relating to specific churches, as most of Protestantism arose from the Roman Catholic Church, so both pages are presumably comparatively important to the other. Having said that, I think most of the articles on the {{Christianity}} should be included, including the following:

John Carter 21:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Salvation -- TimNelson 09:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what are we doing without something Creation-related? Probably either Creation according to Genesis or Creation (theology)-- TimNelson 09:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'll all find it instructive to look at Category:Top-importance Christianity articles. Please note that I'm not saying it's synonymous with what we want, but it certainly has some ideas.
-- TimNelson 10:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm proposing the following list of additional topics; I'll add them if no-one complains
I'm also proposing the following as possibilities:
-- TimNelson 13:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Difference in goals

The difference in goals between my original statement of the idea and the scope of the project as it exists is that I would've excluded the People, and the Movements/Traditions section. Can we make these a separate section on the main page from the rest of the stuff?

-- TimNelson 09:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed additions to the list

I would suggest, particularly given the subject's prominence in the world today, Christmas or some other article relating directly to that time of year be added to the list. An alternate article might include The Twelve Days of Christmas or something similar. I acknowledge the holiday was less well observed in the past, but it is extremely important today. And, while I'm at it, a few others which I think might, emphasis might, deserve inclusion:

  • Damnation - flip side of "Salvation"
  • Satan - not my favorite person, really, but kind of important in a negative way
  • Heaven
  • Hell
  • Christian eschatology
  • Christian architecture - as differentiated from the related "Christian art"
  • Practical theology - because I think preaching and the like have to be held as being extremely significant
  • Christianity and Judaism - because of the large partciular relevance these two group have had with each other, and the number of ways they have interacted
  • Saint Thomas Christians - a significant group of Christian groups which long had a semi-independent existence
  • And, as John Chrysostom is already listed, maybe
    • Basil the Great - single party most involved in the recognition of the Holy Spirit as divine, and, in effect, of the Holy Trinity as well
    • Saint Augustine - hugely influential philosopher/theologian
    • Thomas Aquinas - most easily arguable of the three, but has had a huge influence on half of Christianity and I think at least a recognizable one on much of the other half.
  • Probably overdid things a bit here, and I myself am not certain that they all deserve to be included, but they are a few ideas. John Carter (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good Suggestions, John. I would say definately yes to eschatology, Satan, heaven, and hell. Damnation, Practical theology, and architecture are maybe for me. Christianity & Judaism are not of core importance as I read most modern Christian traditions, and the influence of the Mar Thoma on other Christian groups is fairly insignificant. Just my thoughts. As far as people, it is a difficult call. I would say, for now, yes to Augustine and no to the other two. Christmas I would say of course, lets include it.
On the flip side, I could see taking out Christian apologetics, Biblical apocrypha, and Christian views of Jesus (which should be covered in Christology). Just my 2 cents. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to suggesting adding the Restoration Movement to the list of "Movements/traditions." Groups with roots in that movement have, in total, something over 5 million adherents worldwide, and are significant part of the history of Christianity in the U.S. EastTN (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Thomas Christians and new proposed changes

I 'll second John's suggestion for Saint Thomas Christians or Nasranis.
Nasranis or Saint Thomas Christians are the ancient Christians found in India. They were converted to Christianity by St. Thomas the apostle in AD 52. I think Jewish Nasrani history is definitely an important part of Christian history. It will be useful and highly informative to add Nasrani. Most of the Western world have either forgotten or is unaware of this history. It is one of the ancient Christian groups of the world and presently constitutes a major part of Indian Christians.
'Nasrani' truly is a topic of top importance. User:Rahuljohnson4u (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saint Thomas Christians and Nasrani are just a redirects to Syrian Malabar Nasrani, so that is really that article we would consider.
From what I can tell, the Saint Thomas Christian tradition article is on the Christian faith of these people (and thus a better canidate for a top-importance Christianity article), where as Syrian Malabar Nasrani seems to be an article on the people as an ethnic-socal group, or maybe as both an ethnic-socal and faith group. Carlaude:Talk 22:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

new proposed changes

  • I am not sure if we need Christian eschatology as a top-importance Christianity article (and thus added to {{Christianity}} and to {{Christianityfooter}}) but it is a better choice than any of John Carter's other non-people Christianity articles proposed to add above.
  • I propose we remove John Chrysostom from the list. If I had to guess I would think it gets less traffic that many other Christianity articles and I can't think of any reason to keep it (except that he is very impotant to Othodoxy.
  • I also propose, like John Carter, we add Augustine of Hippo (not Augustine of Canterbury). He made a hugh impact on Catholic and Protestant theology and history.
  • Thomas Aquinas has made huge influence on the Catholic church but not near so much on the Protestant faith. I am not sure we need him but he is more impotant than any others proposes by John. Carlaude:Talk 22:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also propose removing Ecumenical Councils in favor of adding First seven Ecumenical Councils. Carlaude:Talk 04:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with John Carter that Christian Eschatology is worthy of a place on the core topics list, especially now that the article is more complete. It provides the larger context for lots of more specific articles, such as the Second Coming, the Antichrist, etc. It is an important branch to both the Theology and the Biblical Studies areas of Christian studies. Also, there is considerable interest in the topic among Christians and non-Christians alike. --gdm (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above was posted out of order, and not my myself as it was made to look.
BTW, last I checked John Carter seems to no longer have an option on his above proposals. I however, will now support adding Christian eschatology to the Core topics list. Please consider commenting on my other ideas above-- including removals. Carlaude:Talk 04:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protestant Denominations

Per this chart File:Protestantbranches.svg, it should be acknowledged that the following denominational families all should be top-level importance articles, and included in the {{Christianity}} template (additions in bold):

Additional consideration could probably be made for Puritanism/Separatism, and Pietism as major historical threads. In addition, it might be helpful to promote mainline (Protestant), fundamentalist Christianity, and emerging church to top-level importance for the sake of inclusion in the template. Ἀλήθεια 14:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. All lists of denominational families (what these really are, also known sometimes as movements) are incomplete, unless they are not space limited-- and this topic list, all Wikipedia charts, and all Wikipedia templates are space-limited; they cannot be unlimited in size and serve there purpose. It would be silly to change one size-limited list just to match another size-limited list. We could just as well propose the chart be changed to match the template.
Not well, Ἀλήθεια has also failed to list exactly which articles he want would added. There are "maybes," synonyms, items already included, and Congregationalism doesn't even link to a Christian movement by that name. Carlaude:Talk 05:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the link to Congregational church. I suggest that I have not failed to list exactly which articles to include. There is a pretty specific list there. I have gone back and emboldened the proposed additions, in case you weren't able to compare the two lists easily. Ἀλήθεια 15:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note we have Calvinist on the list already, and all three proposed additions are related to Calvinist. (And people are more likely to look for Calvinist than, say, Reformed churches.) Furthermore we might just as well say the File:Protestantbranches.svg should be changed to match this list. In truth, there is no need to have them match each other or match your idea other most important groups. Carlaude:Talk 04:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arminianism must be added

Arminianism must be added. It is just as important as Calvinism or any other movement listed on this page. TuckerResearch (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that?
It seems to be mostly a part of Methodism and movements that already have their own page. While I am sure Arminianism is important to you, most Christians I know that are Arminian in belief, don't know what Arminianism is-- nor is it of great importance to them, compared to Calvinists and Calvinism.
Why is it no one ever comes here to the list and asks to remove articles from it? şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 05:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arminianism is the root of Methodism, not "a part of Methodism." It is the theological basis for many Baptist and Evangelical churches as well. Even the very five tenets of Calvinism, TULIP, was created in response to the Arminian five articles of remonstrance. Pentecostals, Charismatics, and Restorationists hold to many Arminian tenets. Who cares that "most Christians [you] know that are Arminian in belief, don't know what Arminianism is"? Many of my friends who attend Presbyterian Churches can't tell me word one about Calvinism. That is not an argument. In non-Lutheran, non-Anglican Protestantism, the primary focus of Christian soteriology centers on the Calvinist–Arminian debate. This fact is plain and irrefutable. Notable enough to have its own page: History of Calvinist–Arminian debate! TuckerResearch (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to fix Template:Christian denominations

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? I've added this to to Template talk:Christian denominations. TuckerResearch (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, Arminianism is not the root of Methodism-- 1. Some Methodists are Calvinist. 2. The root of Methodism was a society of students at Oxford who met together between 1729 and 1735, focused on Bible study and a methodical approach to scriptures and Christian living.
  • Second, the article links at Template:Christianity are not labled or called "denominations " but "movements".
  • Third, don't forum shop by tring to start the same discussion elsewhere and here.
  • While Arminianism is important to Christianity, and very important to Christian theology and Salvation (already part of the list) is just not of top-importance to Christianity. There are a number of other articles more imporant. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 08:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Howdy all,
  1. The theology of most Methodist churches today is Wesleyan Arminian; true, some early Methodists were Calvinist, e.g. George Whitefield. But this makes my point, the list in Template:Christian denominations should either be denominations or theological systems, not some of each.
  2. The template is indeed named Template:Christian denominations, not movements. It is already hard enough to define a denomination, a movement is harder to define.
  3. I merely followed your precept, from on high, that discussion be made here as well, thus a note at that page and one here. This is not forum shopping; I clearly noted that discussions were at both places.
  4. It makes no sense to say that Arminianism is "important to Christianity" but not of "top importance" because it is only "very important to Christian theology and Salvation." By that argument Calvinism is only "very important to Christian theology and Salvation" and should be removed from the list!
I think my solution is the better one, and denominations should be listed here, not "movements."
TuckerResearch (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ἀλήθεια, How is limiting navigation templates only to the topics of top (or highest) importance arbitrary. It is exactly the top importance articles that should be linked to for navigation.
    Or did you mean that choosing the top importance articles is arbitrary-- well I agree it is somewhat arbitrary. But it would be at least as arbitrary to choose which are all the "major" denominational families and even more arbitrary to say that Template:Christianity and Template:Christianityfoot needs all major "denominational families" as opposed to all major "areas of theology," all major "Christian figures," all major "events in Christian history," all major "areas of theology," all major "areas of ecclesiology," all major "sacraments," etc.
  • All the major denominational families are not clearly laid out in other articles-- but I guess you can name what you thing the major denominational families. When does a denominational families become major? How big/old/different/Christian does it have to be?
  • Tuckerresearch, a movement is the same thing as a denominational family-- they only tend to be called one or the other depending on how long they have been around. A denomination (e.g. United Methodist Church) is different than a denominational family (e.g. Methodism) and I assume you really mean denominational family. So how do we tell the difference between a movement/denominational family and theological systems. Which is Pentecostalism?
  • As pointed out above, the purpose of the template(s) is navigation. The template does not define or need to define movements.
  • You need to have a discussion in one place and direct people to it from any other. Please do so. E.g., what people seem to develop a different consensus at each location? They there would be no consensus at all and the discussion would all be a waste. If you want to consider different questions at different locations that can be fine.
  • "Top importance" is different that "important." Likewise, X being "important to Christian theology," does not mean X is "important to "Christianity." That would only be guaranteed if "Christian theology" were equal to "Christianity". Most poeple can follow this, but if this is somehow unclear just ask for more clarification. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 22:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you are making my argument for me. Methodism is a "denominational family," if you want to use that phrase. Calvinism is not a "denominational family." Thus Calvinism (and Arminianism and Evangelical) should be removed. Same goes for your "top importance" argument, which is just nonsensical and entirely subjective. (And I do not appreciate the implication I am just stupid for not agreeing with your illogically subjective line of reasoning). Despite your perorations, you have offered no reason to keep Calvinism as a denomination or "denominational family" in this template. My initial proposal still stands:

  1. Remove Calvinist, Arminian, and Evangelical (because they aren't "denominational families")
  2. Add Presbyterian and Reformed churches to get the main denominations that are Calvinistic

This will make the template coherently logical. If you want to make the template about "movements" you'll need to keep Arminian and Calvinist. TuckerResearch (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are not making any arguments; you are just proposaling outcomes and stating illogical premises. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 03:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making an argument? Are you serious? You can't be serious!? Here, I'll try again.

  1. The template is a muddled mess, as it has theological systems, like Calvinism, and denominations like Methodism.
  2. Since the template is labeled "denominations," we can assume we should have denominations here, not theological systems.
  3. Since Calvinism is not a denomination, it should be removed.

Is that an argument? I think so. If you think Calvinism is important to Christian thought and/or Protestantism, and I do too, it needs to go somewhere else in the overall Christianity template. Furthermore, if Calvinism is included, Arminianism must be as well. I think these arguments are plain. TuckerResearch (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal salvation verses Salvation

The link Salvation in the Template:Christianity refers to the concept of salvation in general from all religions and beliefs. It does not focus on Christian Salvation or Personal salvation. For example: Collective salvation is the antithesis of individual or Personal salvation. If the Template is Christian focused then why redirect it away from Christian concepts? It is illogical to do so. The link should be changed to focus on the Christian focus of salvation. Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While this idea has some merit-- the Personal salvation article needs great imporvment before being linked to from every Chrisitiany page. Futhermore-- if we want a page on Christian salvation, we should not name it "Personal salvation." It is not the type of page name one would think of for "Christian salvation"-- and for all we know another religion may well come along and tell us that their religion is also all about "personal salvation."
Barring a good reason not too, I would support changing the top importance status from Salvation to Christian soteriology. If we later get a good article on Christian salvation, we can consider changing it to that at that time. We might also do better just to merge Personal salvation into Christian soteriology şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 02:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having a page entitled Christian salvation (or the less common and less known Christian soteriology) and focused on Christianity is a lot better than some general article on salvation. While Personal salvation is a start article, it should not be thrown in or merged with the generic article on Salvation. Remember, it is the personal acceptance of Christ that makes Christian salvation possible. Personal Salvation or accepting Jesus Christ as ones personal Savior is the key to Christian salvation. So if is to be merged, then it should be section under Christian salvation article. In the mean time it should stand alone and be improved.
Again, if there is a Template focusing on Christianity, then it should refer to Christian focused articles.
Personal salvation is the antithesis of Collective salvation. One focuses on the salvation by Jesus Christ for the individual and the other some group collective salvation with many paths acceptable from many religions to some social nirvana or salvation.
B-T-W I seriously doubt that the template on Islam refers to Salvation. Jrcrin001 (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

add

Add State church of the Roman Empire to section on history. 75.15.192.55 (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no; that article should not even be a "high" importance article, much less "top".şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 20:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. While it was important for a time, that time is now over. The subject is included in the History of Christianity and that article (or subarticles) can discuss the subject to the degree required. John Carter (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template addition and change

I was planned to change Template:Christianityfooter, apparently I need to get that agreed here. I was surprised not to see Christian heresy linked to in the History section, as so-called heresies and the idea of heresies were very important to the evolution of Christianity. It is already noted as being of Top-importance to the Theology work group, I think that applies to the project as a whole. Another change I would suggest it to replace Chrysostom (who?) with Church Fathers, a much more recognisable and general article. Fences&Windows 19:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to replacing John Chrysostom with Church Fathers.
I am not so sure Christian heresy is really a core Christianity article. Maybe if you propose deleting something in its place, it will look like a better idea to me. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 14:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With no dissent, replacing John Chrysostom with Church Fathers has WP:Consensus. I am making the changes.

add: Christian mysticism

The article itself has been gutted and needs to be rebuilt, but the topic has been fairly important, at least to Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox traditions. There's also some interest in mysticism amongst various Protestant groups--I count Underhill in this tradition, but more recently, Richard Foster and his Renovaré crew have been pushing some of the major mystics as being good for Protestants as well (maybe that's because the Quakers have always had their own mystical tradition). Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Name Movement should be on list

The SNM is the only movement within Christianity itself that attempts to conform it to the original form of worship. I know its a small movement and quite divided, but its notability comes from the fact that it exists and has done for the 1930's. (SNMovement) 17:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are way too many small movements in (or related to) Christianity to include them all in a list of this size. Since the 1930s is a short time for Christianity, and SNM has not had a large-- or even notible-- impact on the rest of Christianity. I am removing it and updating the list numbers unless or until there is any real WP:CON otherwise here.şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 00:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it should not be on the list (for reasons previously discussed at Talk:Tetragrammaton)... AnonMoos (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most strongly agree that it should not be on the list. It's of lowest importance: even many educated Christians are unfamiliar with it, it has no importance for Christianity as a whole (less than something like "Aramaic primacy" or "Griesbach hypothesis" or "Markan priority" - even "Sacred Name Bible" is more notable!), the entire thing is POV (it should be on the list because "it's the original form of worship"? I know about a thousand scholars who would disagree - the faculty at any seminary or the religious faculty of any college, and likely any scholar of the classics who acknowledges the fact that from about 45AD, Christians were largely Gentile, and, again POV and non-notable, it's being proposed by User:Sacred Name Movement. St John Chrysostom view/my bias 17:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The core topics are supposed to be those which are of the greatest broad-based importance to an encyclopedia dealing with the subject of Christianity. Also, in practice, the articles selected are those which, to some degree or other, are relevant to the greatest number of traditions within Christianity. The Sacred Name Movement, while an important recent movement, is not the only one which claims to be the original Christianity (I believe the Catholic, Orthodox, and Iglesia ni Cristo do as well. While it might be reasonable to create a work group to deal with the SNM, if there were enough interest, the impact of the movement on Christianity in general and on the bulk of the encyclopedic content relevant to Christianity does not, I believe, necessarily make it something that must be included in the top 100 articles. John Carter (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is God top importance to Christianity?

Is God in Christianity top importance? If God is not top importance in Christianity then what is?... Saint Peter seems to be top importance, but I think he might have had a feeling that God was more important than himself... History2007 (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot think of a good readson to dissagree.
Would you agree to eliminate any of these? tahc chat 16:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess those 3 were comments by Tahc...
I agree, but this is not my main focus really. I would eliminate those and add God in Christianity for sure. But please do pose this on the Wikiproject Christianity to get further opinions. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the designated place to discuss such changes, but if you want to post a notice there also, that is fine.
It seems I also want to hold off on adding God in Christianity a bit, until it is in better shape.tahc chat 16:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how much traffic this page gets. As for the shape of God in Christianity, after the great improvements pjacobb did there, it is in much better shape than many articles on that template. Let us see what John Carter who seems active here thinks about its importance. He knows the project better than myself. History2007 (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the God in Christianity page is more balenced now, I will change these four as having WP:CON. tahc chat 15:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Christianity noticeboard would seem to me to be something which should be notified as well. Having said that, honestly, it does seem more than a bit strange for the sole God of a religion centered around that god to not be of core importance to that faith, so I can see no reason for that article not to be included. John Carter (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, it is done now. Bu if we could get God to say what he thinks of this compared to this that would be interesting... It is 4 to 1 now... History2007 (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding inclusion of Christadelphians

I see that they are as per Adventism considered a subgrouping of that larger group, which is already included in the list. While I have no particular objections to its inclusion, I wonder whether it is more important than, say, the branches of the Holiness Movement, not yet included, like for instance the Salvation Army, which probably has had a larger impact on "Christianity" as a whole, or any other groups. Also, I tend to think, honestly, that the Template:Christianity should be specifically limited to the articles in this list. Would that make sense to the rest of you? John Carter (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christadelphians are pretty small, and most Christians don't even know who they are. History2007 (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also think we should remove Christadelphians. tahc chat 21:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done deal. History2007 (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What should be in the Core Topics work list?

We have an active list of the articles included in the "Core topics" field at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list. Some editors have recently suggested changes to it. So, opening it up for discussion. Which articles should be included and why? Also, are there any articles some of you think might be "core" that don't yet exist? I think that the Christianity related articles included in the list at User:John Carter/Religion articles are probably a good place to start, although, admittedly, it is certainly possible that some articles were assigned for inclusion in the relevant reference but not completed by deadline, for whatever reason. John Carter (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the Christianity section of article names from the Encyclopedia of Religion and it has a big focus on the history of Christianity, as opposed to, say the the theology. For starters, the articles are more than 70% on people.
That said, these articles are not in the Encyclopedia of Religion, but I hope we can all agree to keep them in the the core topics list: Christianity; Christian Church; Biblical canon; Books of the Bible; Christ; Crucifixion of Jesus; New Covenant; Old Testament; Resurrection of Jesus; Church Fathers; History of Christianity; Christology; God the Father; Holy Spirit (Christianity); Jesus in Christianity; Salvation; Christian liturgy; Christian music; Liturgical year; Calvinism; Christian movements; Eastern Orthodox Church; Evangelicalism; Oriental Orthodoxy; Pentecostalism; Christianity and other religions; Criticism of Christianity
These are also not in the Encyclopedia of Religion, but I think these are ones we can consider dropping from the core topics list: Biblical apocrypha; Kingdom of God; Virgin birth of Jesus; Crusades; Early Christianity; East–West Schism; Christian apologetics; Christian prayer; History of Christian theology; Nontrinitarianism; Son of God; Christian art; Christian symbolism; Sermon; Mission (Christian); Catholicism; Christian tradition; Ecumenism; Independent Catholic Churches; Old Catholic Church; Oneness Pentecostalism I don't necessarily want to remove all of these, but some people might.
IMHO, these articles from the Encyclopedia of Religion are the best to consider adding (at least at my first look): Atonement in Christianity; Council of Trent; Second Vatican Council; Puritan; Mennonite; Presbyterianism; Quakers; Augustine of Hippo; Thomas Aquinas; Martin Luther; Attributes of God in Christianity; Christian ethics; Christian worship; Ecclesiastical polity; Eucharist tahc chat 05:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that any single book, including the EoR, is going to be less than perfect, which is why I more or less indicated it as a place to start, not to necessarily finish. And I very much thank you for getting the ball rolling, as it were. I agree that some of the articles you are considering, particularly some of the "drops" and additions, are quite relevant. I think Augustine of Hippo is probably more important than most other articles, and possibly the single most important "theology" topic out there. And I personally myself definitely question the inclusion of both Independent Catholic Churches and Old Catholic Church, particularly given the rather problematic definition of "Independent Catholic Churches". Biblical apocrypha seems to me to be a bit questionable as well, as I'm not sure exactly how important that particular overview topic is, although perhaps some of the individual works included in that grouping might be maybe particularly important. Any other opinions out there? John Carter (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with a lot of what Tahc suggested above... In particular, I think Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, and Martin Luther are good candidates to add. I'll be the first to admit I'm not an expert here, but is it useful to have both Christian liturgy and Liturgical year? New Covenant and Kingdom of God also seem a bit redundant, I think. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at what there is already agreement with, I propose (barring any objections thereto) we:
Add-- Augustine of Hippo; Thomas Aquinas; Martin Luther; and
Drop-- Independent Catholic Churches; Old Catholic Church; Kingdom of God; Liturgical year; Biblical apocrypha. tahc chat 20:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have made these changes per WP:CON. tahc chat 22:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to proceed

As a personal view, at least, I think the biggest problem we might have here, other than the fact that the page isn't watched much (itself more than somewhat significant), is that the discussion isn't that easy to respond to. Maybe, and this is just a "maybe", the best way to proceed might to be to at least early on start a new discussion in a way which can be more easily and directly responded to. Considering we do have a current list as a starting point, maybe the best way to go would be to make specific individual proposals, maybe in subsections of some sort, of specific articles to consider for addition and why. Then, if and when we get to the point of the list getting too big, we can propose which of the articles included in the then-maybe-expanded list could be dropped. And, FWIW, I think that we might actually get some good out of this. I am at least starting to type up the various articles from the old Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics for inclusion in WikiSource. Although a lot of those articles are much longer than our own guidelines permit, and some of them will clearly contain dated information, that source is still regarded as one of the best reference works on religion ever written, and some say it is still the best, and that information might well help develop our own articles. John Carter (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christian movements

I see that "Christian movements" has been moved at some point to List of Christian movements, and has never been a needed page here. It is utterly unverified with no citations; it is basically original research. It focuses on minor movements that are mostly idea-type movements, rather a movement that causes anyone to realy move (say, move to form a new church, ministry , or other organisation). We should remove it from the core topics list. Even List of Christian denominations would be better than List of Christian movements, but I would prefer to have either Christian denomination or List of Christian denominations. tahc chat 22:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no objections, I have made this change. tahc chat 21:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Gospel

The article "Gospel"/"Gospels" (currently under discussion for a move) long ago stopped being about both the the Gospel and the gospels as particular written documents. Since Good News (Christianity) has been moved to the gospel, and the the Gospel is the message of Christianity, it is all the obvious replacement for Gospel on the list of Core Topics. tahc chat 02:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no objections, I have made this change. tahc chat 21:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Science

Should the Christian Science movement, founded by Mary Baker Eddy, be among the core topics work group?

Jean Po (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it is too little movement to be listed here. Propositum (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eucharist and Divine Mercy

i

It is a shock that such crucial for Christianity topic as Eucharist is not listed here. I understand that for some Protestants it may be not so, but for the majority of Christians it is absolutely central. According to them, it is God himself, as well as his sacrifice.

The other highly important topic is the devotion to Divine Mercy, which is the core of contemporary Catholicism. It also should be certainly listed here.

On the contrary, many topics actually listed here are much less relevant, e.g. the New Covenant. Propositum (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the lead of its article, Divine Mercy a Roman Catholic (only) devotion, and isn't even the most important Roman Catholic page absent from the list. Even Roman Catholic devotions seems like a better canidate, but it points out such are not even part of the "official liturgy of the Catholic Church"... so I don't see how ether would make the cut.
Of course the New Covenant is the core of Christianity itself.
Adding a link here to Eucharist. tahc chat 20:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The Catholic Church is the mainstream and majority of the Christianity.
  2. Divine Mercy is the heart of Catholic Church and Christianity. As a devotion and an idea. As God himself.
  3. New Covenant is only a secondary notion. Its elements are already included in other articles. Propositum (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you are not gaining any friends or listeners by claiming that the Catholic Church is "the mainstream... of the Christianity." tahc chat 02:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fact, not a claim. All churches have split from Catholicism, which is in the middle between Orthodoxy and Protestantism. And still the majority is the mainstream. Propositum (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a "fact" to all Roman Catholics, it is not, however, a fact. Roman Catholicism is not in the middle between Eastern traditions and Protestantism, not even close. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ii

I propose (again) we add: Atonement in Christianity; Council of Trent; Second Vatican Council; Puritan; Mennonite; Presbyterianism; Quakers; Attributes of God in Christianity; Christian ethics; Christian worship; Ecclesiastical polity; Eucharist
I also propose we drop: Virgin birth of Jesus; Crusades; Early Christianity; East–West Schism; Christian apologetics; Christian prayer; History of Christian theology; Nontrinitarianism; Son of God; Christian art; Christian symbolism; Sermon; Mission (Christian); Catholicism; Christian tradition; Ecumenism; Oneness Pentecostalism
Can you agree to any (or all) of these, Propositum? tahc chat 02:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Faith, Hope and Love

It is also recommended that the key concept of Christian life - three theological virtues would be listed as well. Propositum (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a links here to Faith in Christianity, Hope (virtue), and Charity (virtue).
The fact that you do not link to or even name these articles makes it seem like a you have not read them. tahc chat 20:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I notice now that I look that the list currently excludes Christian ethics. That should be added to the topic list. Theological virtues and cardinal virtues also ought to be discussed in that article. They currently do not seem to be yet, but Christian ethics otherwise seems in good shape.
Faith is very important to Christianity and discussed not just as a virtue. I think that may also be a good addition to the topic list.
I do not think charity is as important as Christian ethics, and it will not be needed in addition to Christian ethics. Even if we did include Charity (virtue) as "Charity" I think people will of think of it as a link to Charity (practice).
Even if we did include Faith and Love, I do not think we need Hope (virtue) just because it is listed with the others in 1 Corinthians 13:13. Calling them "the" theological virtues is largely a Roman Catholic thing. tahc chat 21:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would think the long (2+ pages) articles and subarticles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Encyclopedic articles would be a good starting point for article selection. John Carter (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Faith is stressed only by Protestants. In the Bible it is not more frequent word than hope (both occur over 150 times). The concept of three theological virtues is deeply rooted in Christian tradition. And Paul appeals to it also in 1 Thessalonians 1:3. Although we may discuss on our own about the number of supranatural virtues (e.g. dividing charity into love and mercy or joining faith and hope into trust), the fixed and strong tradition tells about the three. Propositum (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere does Paul say that the theological virtues are "deeply rooted" in anything, nor does he tell us which are "theological", nor even does he say that there are three of them. There are many lists of various virtues both in and outside of Paul's writings and nowhere does Paul say that this or that list is the most important list. Paul does say, however, in Galatians 5:6b that "The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." tahc chat 19:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I meant that the concept of those three theological virtues is very strongly present in the Christian tradition. We can't base only literally on the Bible, but we must refer to the christianity as the whole, with its own theology. This list is certainly the most important in this religion, and Paul himself points it out it in a very important place: the conclusion of the Hymn to charity. Best regards, Propositum (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"LDS Church (Mormon)" instead of "LDS movement"

Template:Christianity and Template:Christianity footer both link to "LDS movement", an uncommonly used term. "Mormonism" is much more common, and 99.8% of the 'LDS movement' belongs to the LDS Church. I propose the following link change: LDS movement --> LDS Church (Mormon). I believe this is a superior rendering since (1) it provides direct link to the article on the 'LDS Church', which is the fourth largest Christian denomination in the United States, and (2) it provides a link to the colloquial term of 'Mormonism'. —Eustress 01:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should certainly not add both LDS Church and Mormonism to the core topics list. We don't do anything similar for any other religious tradition.
As for the changing to from one to another, it is typical better to include the broadest topics in the template. Likewise if we change to LDS Church we may start getting people changing it to the long official name for the group... which is also not used a whole lot and would take up a great deal of space in the templates.
So do you consider the "Mormonism" article about the religious tradition of LDS Church or of the Latter Day Saint movement? tahc chat 06:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I echo some of the sentiment previously expressed at Template talk:Christianity#LDS Church: "The LDS Church link should be changed [e]ither to point directly to the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the piped link name should be changed to better reflect [that] the link is for the [whole] Latter Day Saint movement." The Latter Day Saint movement includes Mormonism, the Community of Christ, The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite), and various other offshoots of the original Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints), most of which came about during or after the Succession crisis (Latter Day Saints). Mormonism includes The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and Mormon fundamentalism (which also can be broken down to various groups; see List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement for a full listing). In short, Latter Day Saint movement > Mormonism > LDS Church. —Asterisk*Splat→ 22:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AsteriskStarSplat for your input.
The link to the Latter Day Saint movement on that Template has already been relabled to "LDS movement" as you propose. tahc chat 22:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LDS movement <> Latter Day Saint movement. The "LDS" abbreviation is used exclusively for the LDS Church and it's members (Latter-day Saints); using this abbreviation is effectively the same as saying "LDS Church" or Latter-day Saint. Latter-day Saint (abbr as LDS) < Mormon < Latter Day Saint. —Asterisk*Splat→ 22:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While "LDS" is normally used to mean Latter-day Saints, I think it pretty obvious "LDS movement" means something broader. tahc chat 15:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the nuances of the naming conventions used in Mormon studies are not necessarily obvious at all:
Instead, in all of this we have looked to scholars working in Mormon studies (and in particular Jan Shipps) to help define the proper usage. The term Latter Day Saints movement is what is used in the professional scholarly literature, but never with a short form of LDS movement; using LDS movement in place of Latter Day Saints movement is most definitely inventing a (confused & confusing) neologism that is intentionally not in use academically. —Asterisk*Splat→ 16:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think excluding the Community of Christ and the fundamentalists too an extent would make a lot of sense since "LDS movement" is a bizarre enwp term. These high-level templates are supposed to represent common Christian denominations in order to aid enwp readers. If the "LDS Church (Mormon)" solution is too much, I think "Mormonism" should be used then -- it is definitely a mainstream term, and there are wikilinks to the excluded congregations (CofC and fundamentalists) in the body of the article. —Eustress 23:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Latter Day Saint movement" is not a "bizarre enwp term". It is not a neologism invented on Wikipedia. You may not be familiar with it outside of WP, but it is quite commonly used in academic literature, and it's very common to link the Community of Christ, LDS Church, and Mormon fundamentalists into a larger group because of the similarities in origins and beliefs. I see no good reason to limit the link to either Mormonism or the LDS Church. It makes sense to me to link to the larger group, which in the article then sets out the various specific denominations. This is how the template approaches other religious groupings—for instance, it links to Adventism, not the Seventh-day Adventist Church, even though the SDAC is the largest denomination in the Adventist movement. Mormonism excludes the Community of Christ and several other Latter Day Saint denominations, so I would oppose limiting the template link in that way. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The link being discussed is under denominations - Therefore it should link to a denomination LDS Church(it is misleading not to do so given the size of the LDS church in comparison to the other denominations in the same group. A link should be added to the Theology section for LDS movement this would keep in the spirit of the sidebar - since the LDS movement is more a difference in basic theology than a group of related denominations. The same is true for the footer - and the awkward term movements can be removed and be more clear. --Trödel 16:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the case.
The link being discussed is under "Denominations - Groups" and only two of the many links are particular denominations-- they are nearly all denominational families. tahc chat 23:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't understand why users think it's misleading to link to a denominational family that a denomination resides within. No matter how dominant the individual denomination is within the family, the denominational family will always be ever so slightly larger. Latter Day Saint movement clearly states that the LDS Church is the largest denomination in the movement. So how is linking to the family "misleading" in any way? Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine the templates provided only one link for all of Catholicism (and went as far as to call it the "Catholic movement")... —Eustress 13:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Catholicism-- at least the topic of the article on Catholicism-- is not a movement. It is an important idea (to various degrees) in the great majority of Christianity. N.b. it is not under movements or denominational families. You thus don't seem to be making any useful comparison. tahc chat 22:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And it's not us that are making up the terms that are used. We use the terms and language that are used in reliable sources. The underlying concern seems to be about the very term "Latter Day Saint movement". But we can't banish the link from a template just because you have a some sort of subjective personal issue with the name, Eustress. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we list Mormonism under the Theology section of the templates then? —Eustress 23:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That does not really make any sense. Mormonism is too distinctive of one grouping; Mormonism is distinctive of Mormonism. It is also a "religious tradition" as it says clearly in the article lead. For both of these reasons we would put it under "Denominations - Groups" not "Theology", if we change it at all. tahc chat 02:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the solution is to remove Catholicism from the Topic list. tahc chat 15:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two different terms

Because the term "God the Son" relates directly to the doctrine of the Trinity while the term "the Son of God" does not, I propose the link change: Son of God → God the Son in the Theology section. The link Son of God could be included in the first section. Greenknight dv (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We already link to Trinity. Son of God is also a much more extensive article than God the Son. For both of these two reasons I think keeping Son of God is better. tahc chat 08:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The parentheses seem to want to refer to the three persons of the Trinity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. It is never expressed as the phrase: "God the Father, the Son of God [sic], and God the Holy Spirit". Sorry if my English is not clear! Greenknight dv (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't look at grammer or other such things when designing Wikipedia templates. We pick article links based of which topics/articles are most important and highest quality. tahc chat 21:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oneness Pentecostalism

Oneness Pentecostalism is or could be covered in the Pentecostalism article. I think Oneness Pentecostalism is not very large, very distinct, or very old comareded to other things we could, but do not include, such as Quakers. Lets drop Oneness Pentecostalism from the list. tahc chat 13:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed additions to the list

I would suggest, to add this article here the topic which is: Role of the Christian Church in civilization, Christianity has played a prominent role in the shaping of Western civilization and Civilization in genereal.[1][2][3][4][5] And i think this topic is important to be added here since it's important in the Christian and world history and since Until the Age of Enlightenment,[6] Christian culture guided the course of philosophy, literature, art, music and science in the western world. --Jobas (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article still is still very biased toward the role of the Roman Catholic Church. It says very little about Eastern Orthodoxy or Protestantism. tahc chat 04:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's an issue, i think i can improve the topic and adding more about Eastern Orthodoxy or Protestantism influnce in Civilization. And i will began very soon. Anyway i think the topic is important in Christian and Western history. As i mention befor Christianity has played a prominent role in the shaping of Western civilization and Civilization in genereal, And if there been issue in the topic as you said it says very little about Eastern Orthodoxy or Protestantism it can be solved inside the topic.--Jobas (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Religions in Global Society – Page 146, Peter Beyer – 2006
  2. ^ Cambridge University Historical Series, An Essay on Western Civilization in Its Economic Aspects, p.40: Hebraism, like Hellenism, has been an all-important factor in the development of Western Civilization; Judaism, as the precursor of Christianity, has indirectly had had much to do with shaping the ideals and morality of western nations since the christian era.
  3. ^ Caltron J.H Hayas, Christianity and Western Civilization (1953),Stanford University Press, p.2: That certain distinctive features of our Western civilization — the civilization of western Europe and of America— have been shaped chiefly by Judaeo – Graeco – Christianity, Catholic and Protestant.
  4. ^ Horst Hutter‏, University of New York, Shaping the Future: Nietzsche's New Regime of the Soul And Its Ascetic Practices (2004), p.111:three mighty founders of Western culture, namely Socrates, Jesus, and Plato.
  5. ^ Fred Reinhard Dallmayr‏, Dialogue Among Civilizations: Some Exemplary Voices (2004), p.22: Western civilization is also sometimes described as "Christian" or "Judaeo- Christian" civilization.
  6. ^ Koch, Carl (1994). The Catholic Church: Journey, Wisdom, and Mission. The Age of Enlightenment: St. Mary's Press. ISBN 978-0-88489-298-4.

Proposed major changes

I went through the Brill/Eerdmans Encyclopedia of Christianity to see what the longest articles and subarticles in that source are. It is, probably, the best and/or most highly-regarded reference work out there on the broad field of Christianity, and I thought a useful indicator of what might be the most important articles to us would be the list of the longest articles there.

What follows below is, although I didn't intend it this way, a list of the 100 longest articles in that source. That's just the way it turned out. Personally, I am not going to say anything further myself here, except in response to others of course, other than that this list looks a lot different from our own, but, in some cases, I can definitely see how substitution in some cases is reasonable, like Thomism for Thomas Aquinas, and in some other cases replacement might be called for, like adding Schleiermacher's theology.

These are the 100 articles by number of columns of article length, with subarticles included with the name of the main article first, followed by a hyphen and the subarticle name

  • 103 - Theology in the 19th and 20th centuries;
  • 58.5 - Theology in the 19th and 20th centuries – Protestant theology;
  • 50.5 - Church;
  • 49.5 - Worship;
  • 44.5 - Reformation;
  • 41.5 - Social ethics;
  • 38 - Ethics; Theology of revival;
  • 36 - Spirituality;
  • 34.5 - Religious orders and congregations;
  • 34 - God;
  • 33.5 - Christology;
  • 33 - Modern church history;
  • 31.5 - Eucharist; European theology (modern period); Reformation – Course;
  • 29 - Israel;
  • 28.5 - Ecumenism or Ecumenical movement;
  • 28 - Russian Orthodox Church;
  • 27 - Latin America and the Caribbean;
  • 26.5 - Middle Ages;
  • 26 - Mission; Salvation;
  • 25.5 - Faith;
  • 25 - European theology (modern period) – Survey; Sin;
  • 24.5 - Christian art;
  • 24 - European theology (modern period) – Survey – Historical and regional developments; Religious liberty (Modern period);
  • 23.5 - Latin American theology; Trinity;
  • 23 - Language and theology; Literature, Biblical and early Christian or Biblical and early Christian literature;
  • 22.5 - Romanticism; War;
  • 22 - Economic ethics; Eschatology; United Kingdom;
  • 21.5 - Third World;
  • 21 - Family; Holiness movement; Pope or Papacy; Pseudepigrapha; Religious orders and congregations – Roman Catholic; Schleiermacher's theology; Systematic theology;
  • 20.5 - Roman Catholic Church;
  • 20 - Germany; Lutheran churches; Ordination;
  • 19.5 - Jewish-Christian dialogue; Justification; Marriage and divorce; Netherlands; Passion, accounts of the; Vatican I and Vatican II;
  • 19 - Black churches; Church – Theological aspects; Creation; Grace; Theology in the 19th and 20th centuries – Roman Catholic theology;
  • 18.5 - Europe; Mysticism;
  • 18 - Hymnody; Postmodernism; Spain;
  • 17.5 - Faith – Systematic theology; Islam; Marxism; Northern America; Polity, ecclesiastical; Sweden;
  • 17 - Anthropology; Biblical theology; Ecumenism or Ecumenical movement – History; Evolution; Hermeneutics; Pseudepigrapha – Old Testament pseudepigrapha; Righteousness or Justice; Sacrament;
  • 16.5 - Congregation; Holiness movement – History; North American theology; Philosophy of religion; Preaching;
  • 16 - Apocalypticism; Baptism; Germany – The Churches; Law; Liberal theology; Modern church history – Europe; Orthodoxy; Prayer; Prophet and Prophecy; Reformed tradition; Religious liberty (Foundations); Russia; Social ethics – Africa; Thomism;
Your basic premise is faulty, because the Encyclopedia of Christianity has a very different purpose than (even the Christianity part of) Wikipedia. Let me give an obvious example-- there is no Jesus article on the list. This is clearly a very important article to Christianity and to the Christianity WikiProject, but for whatever reason the Encyclopedia of Christianity has no (long) article on Jesus. I don't see any biography articles on the list, so it looks like there may be no article on Jesus at all (or other biography articles). This book will also have its own POV based on the particular publisher (in this case, Oxford University Press) and the particular editor(s).
Having said this, it could still have some insights-- but it may give more insight on which articles to create/improve. If I get a chance I will look at which of these are suitable for the list at hand-- the Core Topic list. tahc chat 01:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your point about the Jesus article is a reasonable one, but having looked through the whole list there are a number of articles relating to the accounts of Jesus in the gospels, the story of the passion narrative, etc., etc., which could be seen, reasonably, as "subarticles" of the Jesus article. It's Jesus article is itself over two pages, and taking into account all the other articles which it includes on that topic it almost certainly counts as one of the most important topics, just spread out over several articles. There is a significant article on accounts of the passion, another one on the gospel narratives, etc. The full list of articles from that source, can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Encyclopedic articles#The Encyclopedia of Christianity, and "Jesus" is one of several articles which run to over two pages which we might include as subsections of the Jesus article here. The total list of articles of 2 pages (4 columns) or longer is a lot longer than 100, as can be seen there. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, as before, :I have read the Christianity section of article names from the Encyclopedia of Religion.
These are items not in the Encyclopedia of Religion list that I think we can consider cutting from the list: Adventism; Apostle (Christian); Assyrian Church of the East; Catholicism; Christian apologetics; Christian liturgy; Christian symbolism; Christian tradition; Church Fathers; Creed; Crusades; Early Christianity; Eastern Orthodox Church; God the Father; Jehovah's Witnesses; Latter Day Saint movement; Nontrinitarianism; Oneness Pentecostalism; Oriental Orthodoxy; Saint Peter; Thomas Aquinas; Virgin birth of Jesus.
These are items in the Encyclopedia of Religion list that I think we can consider adding to the list: Christian ethics; Christian worship; Faith in Christianity; Glossary of Christianity; Sacrament; Christian views on poverty and wealth; Christian views on sin; Eucharist; Grace (Christianity); Passion (Christianity). tahc chat 17:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Assyrian Church of the East and Nestorian Church are both pretty much the same thing, and the article in the EoR about the latter is one of its "major" articles running over two pages long. I haven't checked on all the others. One of the reservations I have about using the EoR for any specific faith tradition however is the fact that I am not sure that it includes all of its articles on multi-traditional topics in the list for each tradition. This might be particularly true in cases where there is a major "overview" on a topic followed by a number of, sometimes shorter, individual articles on that topic in Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

refs

Proposal to add an article to the list

I propose adding Sacred tradition to this list. I know it's only a start-class article, but it's very important, and the top-importance Christian tradition is only start-class itself. In the Catholic Church (and in the Orthodox Church, according to the article; I don't know first-hand), the sacred tradition is as fundamental, if not more so, to the Christian faith than the Scriptures/Bible. It would best be added in the "Bible/Foundations" section. According to Catholic theology (and from the article, Orthodox theology, too), it is backwards to conceive of the Bible as the basic "foundation" of the faith, or worse, to exclude it from the "foundations". Obviously this doesn't apply to every denomination's theology, particularly sola scriptura Protestantism, but considering that Catholics and Orthodox together constitute a supermajority of Christians globally (about 1.5 billion of 2.2 billion, or about 70%), it deserves inclusion. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 09:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody?? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 01:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing of sacred tradition speaks to it being "Top" importance term nor article to Christianity. Even to the Catholicism (currently listed as only "High" importance to in that WikiProject), magisterium seems like a (diffferent but) more used term. tahc chat 14:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is that so? It's more fundamental than the Bible in the traditions I've mentioned. If it's only listed as high importance in the Catholicism project, then that's a mistake. You're right that the Magisterium is different and probably more frequently talked about, but it is less fundamental than both tradition and scripture. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 15:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Tahc. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 18:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tradition is important mainly for the traditionalists who constitute much less than 1% of Christians. Propositum (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to replace an article

I propose replacing Son of God with the new Son of God (Christianity). The former now only includes a summary of the latter. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 09:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. In fact when this sort of thing has happened before ([x] to [x (Christianity)], I might have even made the change without a discussion. tahc chat 16:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on Wikipedia on groupings of Christian denominations

I opened a discussion on groupings in Christianity, of which there currently seems to lack a consensus on Wikipedia. The discussion might be of interest for followers of this talk page. Please see: Talk:Christianity#Denominations. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Talk:Christianity page is to discuss improvement to just one article: Christianity. It is not the place to discuss changes for any other page. Different list of denominations have different purposes, so if you want to change the "denominations" of the templates, then you have to talk about it here. tahc chat 18:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list

Please don't make changes to Template:Christianity or Template:Christianity footer. If you think changes are called for then bring them up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list. tahc chat 17:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the above post from User talk:Chicbyaccident. As a reply: if you think this edit was so controversial, then I really wonder why? Because Eastern Christianity is linked. Thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus and Christ

Both Jesus and Christ are currently on the list, but both of them point to the same article: Jesus. Shall we remove Christ, or replace it with Christ (title)?

We should change it to Christ (title), since the Christ pages seems to have been moved to that new name. tahc chat 18:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

new topic

(N.B. I've retargetted other redirected links directly to their targets to prevent people from copying redirect links to templates per WP:BRINT. There is also some inconsistencies in naming conventions: cf. Apostle (Christian), Son of God (Christianity) with the various "N in Christianity" titles.) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Trinitarian groups are not Christian

Non-Trinitarian groups are not Christian because they deny the Trinity, which is a huge part of Christianity. These people are intentionally misleading people or they are ignorant or naïve to the truth. Seth Red Star (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC) Seth Red Star[reply]

Articles: Non-Trinitarianism and anything under that branch

Seth seems to be asking for these four to be dropped: Nontrinitarianism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter Day Saint movement, Oneness Pentecostalism. I will agree to this, barring good reasons otherwise. tahc chat 21:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question is, would those groups describes themselves as otherwise? The very reason the Trinitarian label has come to exist is to differentiate between the two opinions. It is possible to be a "Christian" without being a Trinitarian – but according to who, is the real gist of the issue. According to St. Arius, and many others prior to the Nicene Creed, they would say they are Christians. Multiple Roman emperors have also adhered to Arian strain whilst considering themselves Christian. Scholars and devotees can have varying opinions, and that is a issue of WP:DUEWEIGHT. DA1 (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to assume that Arianism is non-Trinitarian. Is Arianism a form non-orthodox Trinitarianism or is it a of non-Trinitarianism? I think this is open to debate. tahc chat 23:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not omniscient, but according to Nontrinitarianism#Beliefs, Nontrinitarianism#Early_Christianity and Arianism#Beliefs; seem to state as such. If I'm mistaken in my assertion, I would hope the aforementioned articles be edited as well. Doesn't even mentions this debate, just straight up calls them non-trinitarian. DA1 (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arianism

I'm proposing the addition of Arianism in the {Template:Christianity footer} under the parameter "Nontrinitarianism." Although not a contemporary church, it is possibly the single most prominent ideology related to Nontrinitarianism, setting off a major debate within the Christian community ultimately culminating in the ecumenical First Council of Nicaea and the Nicean Creed which put in writing the Trinitarian vs the heterodox, and set off the chain of latter councils which shaped the major Christian churches. It is also a great starting point (or accompaniment) for all of the aforementioned topics. -DA1 (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TimNelson, Ἀλήθεια, Tahc, John Carter, AsteriskStarSplat; Any thoughts or comments?
I think adding new Christian groups is a mistake. We have too many now (see also the section above). Also-- even if we did add a new group-- the Quakers (for one) would be a better choice.
As an aspect Christian history, there are also other topics more important than Arianism. I do see it is on Template:History of Christianity. tahc chat 23:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you're contemplating to delete the entire "Nontrinitarian" parameter all on your own, i dont think that's fair. If we are to WP:CONSENSUS, then take this as a vote from me that I oppose the above section's proposal of removing it. In my opinion, the footer is not overly large, only some parameters are: Nontrinitarianism not being one of them, with only 3 selections so far. Adding "Arianism" won't hurt—in my opinion at least. DA1 (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Tahc, the sect-tation of Christian groups goes on, and many come and go in time. If more are to be added to the section then I also agree that Quakers would be a good addition to the list. Beyond 'Quakers' the field gets crowded, and the 100-topic list seems a good way to judge entry (except for very prominent topics not yet on the list). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changes?

@Tahc: Since you pretty much seem to claim ownership to this article - which affects a lot of other articles - how do we go about to make updates to it, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't own this page (a project list, but not an article). I have just failed in efforts to get any others to discuss things here. How many of the old discussions (up above) did you look through and contribute to? If you came here only because you want to discuss a change that you yourself thought of before reading this page then you are like large majority of the posters here. If you can think of a way to bring more folks here then I am all for it.
Of course changes on the topic list is based on reaching WP:consensus on this page. I like the templates being small enough that people can easily use them, and I often find posters here want to add articles that give undue weight (for such a small template) or they want to add articles on topics of only medium-high importance (and not top-importance). If you want a change, but we do not gain any consensus on the change, you can always try to bring in a third opinion here to this page. tahc chat 23:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work on the list and connecting pages and templates. Agreed that this template should stay semi-small, as there are many pages of mid- or low importance which use this topic. The 100-article concept is worth the upkeep, and that only 75 (or 76) pages have made that bar leaves room for future discussion of others. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, it seems as though the two templates that are affected - which I added in the bottom of the article for convenience and transparacy - don't really follow the core list. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Western Christianity

There seemed to be a good link to Western Christianity as a subsection-header link to 'Western' on the {{Christianity footer}} template, at least the article itself seems to cover the topic of 'Western'. 'Eastern' is already linked. The {{Christianity}} side-template has the same situation - 'Eastern' is linked to Eastern Christianity, while 'Western' is unlinked although the page 'Western Christianity' exists and seems in fairly good shape. So if this needs to be nominated for this list in order to use the article as a link, I'll do that, as it seems a logical link to that section sub-head. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, any objections? Randy Kryn (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My former attempt to accomplish that was undone by Tahc (talk · contribs), but I still support the proposed improvement. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably reverted because it wasn't on the list, which is a valid reason and keeps the integrity and concept of the list intact (which reminds me of one that snuck over the line and should probably be formally nominated). So this 'formal' nomination probably will/has passed. The article does need expansion and work to be a full encyclopedic page, but it seems good enough for an introduction as of now. This neck of Wikipedia seems a bit scant of editors, hopefully more good ones will show up. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disposition of major denomination list(s)

What about determining - thus harmonising - the presentation/listing of denominations also in List of Christian denominations by number of members, and List of Christian denominations with this core list along with denominations sections of the affected 2 templates? Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think adding one or the other would be fine, but not both. List of Christian denominations seems to be the better choice to me. tahc chat 23:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
List of Christian denominations for sure, listed on the templates as 'Christian denominations'. As for the other, one option could be adding the 'number of members' article as a subsection of 'Christian denominations' on both the list and the templates. I'm neutral on that one, and it seems more like bookkeeping than being relevant to inclusion as a core-topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal of List of Christian denominations by number of members into List of Christian denominations

For details, please see Talk:List of Christian_denominations#Proposal to let List of Christian denominations by number of members merge with this list. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formal nomination: Joseph

The following is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made at a current or new discussion.
The result of the discussion was: Refer to RFC

Would like to formally nominate Saint Joseph as 'Joseph' for the list. The page had been put on templates quite awhile ago, and received no complaints or reverts. But, as said above, to keep the integrity and concept of the list intact it's a good idea to open up a nomination and discussion. Mostifnotall likely know the subject, and the importance of Joseph in the life of his family including keeping his wife and the kid that he named alive, healthy, and out of harms way. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I am sceptical of this rigid form that this list works under. I advocate you simply add it. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep list unchanged. Joseph is not even a major Biblical figure. There are thus several figures that would be better to add first. tahc chat 23:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please mention the several figures that would be better to add first, then add Joseph to those, and let's put them all on the templates. Seriously, Joseph not a core topic biblical figure relating to Christianity? Arguing this is going to be really interesting. He, guided by dreams, married the expectant mother, protected her during her pregnancy, named the baby 'Jesus', and then was either given further dreams by whatever entity gives dreams or his brain chemicals were able to take his life experiences, his innate feelings for the social conditions of the time period, his intuition and carpenter-honed precision-minded point-of-view, to quickly pack up Mary and Jesus and get them all out of harms way right after hearing that a madman had ordered the killing of male children under two years old in the land areas that he controlled. When safe to come back, they came back, and Joseph spent an undetermined amount of years, but at least 12, caring for and shaping his son's development as a boy and young man. By the time Jesus was ready to go out on his own, Joseph likely had put some good values in the boy, to say the least. If Mary is allowed to be on the templates for her role in raising her son, Joseph surely should remain, as he did in life, beside her. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I name any other figures that would be better to add first?
I am not claiming that we need to add other figures even more, and to add them before adding Joseph. I am saying that Joseph is not a core Christianity article-- and even among the (narrow topic of) Biblical figures, there are a number that are more important than him (but those other more important Biblical figures also do not need to be added).
I am not denying God did amazing things thru him, but this is template was never a list of Biblical figures whom God did amazing things thru. tahc chat 19:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
God [citation needed]? Not relevant to this discussion. What is relevant is the biblical position of Jesus' father or stepfather in raising him, keeping the family protected in dire circumstances, and having a series of dreams which were later promoted as coming from an angel but were likely the subconscious mind of a principled person who took on the responsibility of raising another man's or deity's child. The proactive parents of the central figure in such a large and sustained religion should be on such a core list, and Mary already is. If Mary is seen as a key concept in the religion, what is the difference between her and her husband when considering inclusion? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because Mary is much more central to Christianity than Joseph, there are a number of way we can tell. 1. Mary is discussed more often, and in more detail, and by more authors in the Bible than Joseph. 2. Likewise, books on general Christian history and general Christian theology discuss Mary more than Joseph, even when it has a Protestant publisher. 3. Even though Mary and Mariology is split among 9 or 10 pages, the lead page (Mary, mother of Jesus) still has about twice the number of page views in the past 30 days than Saint Joseph has had (70,299 vs. 36,303). tahc chat 19:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Josephology and quite a few other pages and topics also cover Joseph, and among the leaders of the Catholic branch of Christianity his importance has been growing and become more noticable. Looks like we're close to the point of agreeing to disagree, and this topic is likely important enough to put to an RfC at some point soon. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Although Joseph's page isn't yet on the list, a point in its favor is that it actually falls outside of two larger groups on the list, the apostles and the church fathers. There are around 50 of them, but no room at the inn for Joseph, to coin a phrase. So since he falls uniquely outside of those two groupings he arguably qualifies as a direct link due to his role as teacher, role-model, caretaker, principal protector, friend, and probably boss of the founder of Christianity ("Grab me that sawhorse, Jesus, and make it snappy"). His role as the original and literal church father should be enough for his page to join Mary's on the core list and templates. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no consensus

As you can see there above-- and as we discussed at Template talk:Christianity footer#Joseph-- there is no consensus to add Joseph. Please stop claiming elsewhere that there is a new consensus here.
As you can read at Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining consensus, "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. Consensus is not a vote. Your "arguments" at Formal nomination: Joseph were generally pitiful and if allowed to be the basis for core topics would result in an endless supply of "core topics". tahc chat 14:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you, as the only objector (with weak or no arguments by the way other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT), declare "No consensus". There are two editors, one with very good reasoning (myself, pats on back), and no one else has weighed in, so that seems to be a consensus and I'm just hesitating to add the name to the overall list because that may further upset your ownership stance on this list. And now you have [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Randy Kryn reported by User:Tahc|taken me to some courtroom page?]] Please add it onto the list, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seem to have missed it, you can read this edit to notice my numerous arguments (against) and based on outside sources. tahc chat 17:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd read it. Your main point seems to be that Mary's main page has twice the views of Joseph's. Comparing Mary's views with Joseph's will always be a losing proposition, she probably has twice as many fans. And good PR and street cred. Please read Josephology if you haven't for many good reasons why he's list worthy (and what about John the Baptist down below, he seems to be knocking at the door). Randy Kryn (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you have now noticed one (or part of one) of my various arguments, and there is no need to claim I made none. Please use this section to discuss if the Joseph link had or has consensus.
If you (instead) want to engage in a discussion of the Joseph link itself so-as-to gain consensus, then please use the other subsection above. tahc chat 22:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You actually make no argument except that Mary's article is viewed more by people than Joseph's. You may remember making other arguments, but please read the above discussion to see what you actually wrote. On the other hand, I made legitimate points, so among the editors who have commented (3) I read it that consensus has been achieved to add Joseph to the list, and it should have been added long ago. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Objection to the application of this topic list

Although I sympathise with the idea of collecting a possibly broad distribution of discussions into one place, I am not sure this very location and its curent "Core topics work group" form inside of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity is optimal, considering the extent of its percussions. What about morphing the objects of this work group into either Category:Wikipedia naming conventions, Wikipedia:Manual of Style, or an Wikipedia:Essays for convenience, availability, and usability? Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination, John the Baptist

Nominating John the Baptist for the list. John and Joseph seem like obvious choices, and both are now formally nominated. John falls outside of being an Apostle or Church Father (both groups are in the core list), and, like Joseph, should be covered by individual inclusion. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Argument for: John literally created Christianity. As with Joseph, John's page doesn't get linked in either of the two large-group articles listed on the templates, the apostles and the church fathers (a total close to 50). So his page would have to be entered on the template as a direct link, hence the nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think most literate people would consider John the Baptist to have neither literally created Christianity nor figuratively created Christianity. While John's page doesn't get linked in those two articles his is linked in others in the template, such as Jesus, Early Christianity, and Baptism. tahc chat 17:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he announced Jesus as the chosen one, etc., and then retired, his job being done. John is arguably the first Christian, and when he asked other people to pay attention to and follow Jesus he put together the religion's first followers. John called Jesus' coming-role and historical importance spot on (at least in many viewpoints). Those few minutes in the water and on its shore could arguably be called the very beginning of Christianity - the kickstarting of a religion - and because of that his page should be on the Christianity core list, wouldn't you think? Randy Kryn (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear what John relationship with to Jesus was vis-a-vis if John became what we normally mean by a follower of Jesus. That fact that some of John's followers in Acts 18:24-19:6 still didn't know about Jesus makes the issue seem much more complicated. At the very least your view is OR. tahc chat 16:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your good faith post is mistaken. John didn't follow Jesus, and pretty much began to retire after saying that Jesus was the Messiah (a core Christian belief first proclaimed by John, i.e. John created the founding principal of Christianity). The biblical texts you point out say that the people were baptized by John, not that any of them were John's followers. Those texts go on to say that when Paul questioned them, and found out who baptized them, he then told them about John's comments on Jesus' role and that set their journey into Christianity into motion. Original research? No, John's major and formative role in the religious proclamations and traditions which founded Christianity is clearly outlined in the gospels. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. For the record, as pointed out earlier here, the infreqence of other bypassers of this core list page shows why this core list system is flawed, by effectively leaning towards WP:OWN. This system should be dismantled, and the state of affairs normalised in relevant articles and templates. The normal quality and WP:Consistency rules, as applied by WP:Consensus, for editing that other content follow should be enough also for content tied to this core list system. Break it free now, please. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does make sense. I at first thought the 100 core list was a good idea, but going through the Joseph discussion, with the major editor of the list arguing to exclude Joseph because he's not as popular as Mary, ah, maybe you're right. How would you suggest going about doing it? Nominate individual pages one by one still seems the best way, but to extend the 100 limit and then to really make sure the pages going on make sense. More eyes would be good, I'm surprised by the lack of participation on such interesting questions and discussions. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose John's importance to Christianity is primarily for the baptism of Jesus and his asking Jesus if he is the predicted Messiah in the gospel. The article on the Baptism of Jesus probably covers that specific topic more directly, and Messengers from John the Baptist covers the second more directly. As both are covered elsewhere and somewhat peripheral to the biography and history of the person John the Baptist, the main subject of the article being considered for nomination, I'm not sure I see what I think to be enough to make me want to include that article. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The last of the prophets of the old covenant (he did not live to see the inauguration of the new covenant, but he did see glimpses of it). Otherwise not significant. Who's next? Shall we add Simeon? Anna the prophetess? The Magi? Nicodemus? There are a lot of minor characters in the New testament who are "important" (look at the length of the article on the Magi) but don't really figure prominently. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Joseph

No consensus to add Saint Joseph to the core topics list, and thus to {{Christianity footer}} and {{Christianity sidebar}}. This close explicitly does not address whether the core topics list and templates should be handled separately. That question is being discussed in an independent RFC.

A majority supported adding Saint Joseph. However the potential for creeping expansion is cause for some caution, and I found two responses noteworthy for the finding of 'no consensus'. I consider Markbassett's mixed response to be effectively subject to different RFC. I also considered John Carter's response noteworthy, as it was the only one to back up personal opinion with evidence of how much weight Reliable Sources give Saint Joseph in relation to other topics. Evidence adds weight, and it credibly questions the position for add.

The other RFC may potentially lead to addition of Saint Joseph in one or more of the locations, and in any case this no-consensus can always be reconsidered after a few months. However at the moment there is no clear consensus to alter the status quo. Alsee (talk) 11:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is there consensus to add "Saint Joseph" core topics list, and thus to Template:Christianity footer and Template:Christianity sidebar? tahc chat 04:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let me rephrase-- since we never had consensus, or at least no clear consensus, we have been asked to use a RfC.
  • Do not feel free to read the (so-called) old discussion above (or not)-- but do not add to it. Since new editors are hoped to take part we will not assume any other sections are read. Please discuss here with clear reasons for if Saint Joseph needs to be added. Discuss based only on the discussion here. If any one can think of reason to add Saint Joseph than state them here.
  • I was told to ask the issue in a neutral way-- as I have-- but that makes a Support or Oppose vote vague. Please summarize your POV only as Add or Do not add. tahc chat 16:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the discussion that has already taken place is three sections above this one at Formal nomination: Joseph (The nominator says "Do not feel free to read the so-called old discussion.." Huh? Ownership much?). Also please weigh in as well, if editors have time, on the nomination of John the Baptist, just above this one. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not discuss John the Baptist here. tahc chat 16:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As long as editors are coming here to discuss this I was pointing out the core topic nomination of John the Baptist, which only has the two of us batting the ball back and forth. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Add. Relence per part of the holy family, as argued. And please dismantle this second level meta-hang up core list of article content and templates. It effectively borders WP:OWN by means of us few users who intervene here. Please see RfC below. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chicbyaccident, Please restate your POV as Add or Don't add. Thank you.
    • Chicbyaccident, if you want to discuss a larger issue such as what ever the "second level meta-hang up core list of article content" please discuss in a different section or different RCF. tahc chat 16:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Chicbyaccident has a very valid point, and can phrase the comments any way they'd like. Your answer here, and above when you moved my comment and asked people not to read the discussion which has already taken place, really borders on if not overruns-the-land of WP:OWN. Please let editors say what they want on this important topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If Chicbyaccident has a point of view he should want to his view to be clear and not thrown out as a non-vote. tahc chat 18:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not add. Joseph is less important, in every important respect, that any biblical figure already there. tahc chat 17:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The apostles are all on the list. Every one of them is more important, in every important respect, than Jesus' father, who raised him, protected him, and guided his values, training, and life experiences? Personally, I can't even name all 12 apostles. But there they are. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Tahc, since you are only one of two editors opposed to this addition (the other is counting pages of an off-Wikipedia encyclopedia), and you are saying that Joseph is less important than every Apostle (including James, son of Alphaeus, who biblically did nothing, and whose name is only mentioned in lists), please give actual reasons why Joseph is not important in, your words, "every important respect", and not just a version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the "survey" section. Please discuss under the "threaded discussion" section. While you are there, you can also read what I actually said regarding the apostles. Thanks. tahc chat 18:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support, for many reasons, which I'll get into again, but allow me to point out, as inclusionary evidence, Wikipedia's entry on the Holy Family. This Holy Family deal comes as a unit, there're three of them. The article refers to the history and the veneration of the Holy Family, and what they, as a unit, mean to Christianity. It does not refer to the Holy Family as two out of three. Please read it. There are three of them, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. Two out of make the list, but the third is, according to the nominator, not as popular as Mary. Mary is a Superstar, Joseph got it done. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While Joseph is less important than many biblical figures, there are grounds for inclusion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’’Add’’’ to list and footer, but not sidebar template. The template seems too small for it all. Markbassett (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not add Wikipedia: WikiProject Christianity/Prospectus lists the articles in the various encyclopedias it lists by article length. The Brill/Eerdmans The Encyclopedia of Christianity is probably the most broadly useful. It lists several articles in that work that are two pages or longer in it, and I think those topics would reasonably be among the "core topics" here. Joseph is not one of them. John Carter (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand how your oppose would apply to determining consensus. That Joseph's article somewhere isn't two pages long doesn't seem like a reasoned argument. If you are using that article to ask the closer to deny this request, what does the article actually say? Can you link the article? And how close is it to two pages, does it miss by a mile or edge up to the line? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not at all sure how the above question is useful either, but I guess I will rephrase it saying that having reviewed other reference sources, they do not to my eyes seem to include this topic in what they seem to consider the top 100 articles related to Christianity. John Carter (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

New links/articles should be added only if they are more central (in some important respect) to Christianity than the links already on the list (a necessarily but sufficient condition), so Joseph (a biblical figure) could only be should be added only if he is more central to Christianity (in some important respect) than at least one biblical figure already there. Yet Joseph is way less important, in every important respect, that any biblical figure already there.
While it can be shown (that he is less important) on theological grounds, I will not do so because theological are always apt to be POV, so I will refer to outside documents and data. The easiest biblical figure to compare him to is Mary.
1. We can see Joseph is less central to Christianity than Mary because Mary is discussed more often, and in more detail, and by more authors in the Bible than Joseph.
2. Likewise, we can see Joseph is less central to Christianity than Mary because Mary books on general Christian history and general Christian theology discuss Mary more than Joseph, even when it has a Protestant publisher.
3. We can also see Joseph is less central to Christianity than Mary because even though Mary and Mariology is split among 9 or 10 pages, and Joseph and Josephology is only split among 2, the lead page of each (Mary, mother of Jesus) still has about twice the number of page views in the past 30 days than Saint Joseph (the lead page on him) has had (70,299 vs. 36,303). tahc chat 17:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph is much more important than many of the Apostles, who are listed as a group, and of most of the Church Fathers. Combined they number about 50, and since Joseph, the father or stepfather of Jesus, who raised him, nurtured his values, saved his life on several occasions, took care of him and Mary, and is honored in many ways (see Josephology and other items on the Josephology template), doesn't fit into the Apostle or Church Father list (he is the ultimate church father, yes?) then he has "no room at the inn" to coin a phrase? Please give real reasons why he should not be included, and not just that he is less popular than Mary. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say (for arguments sake) I agree that Joseph is more important than some of the particular Apostles, but less important than other of the particular Apostles. That would not make him more important that Apostles as a group-- so what is your point then? Let's say Joseph is an adoptive father to Jesus. That does not make him adoptive father to Church, but even if Joseph was a Church Father-- being a particular Church Father does not make him a reason to add the list. Nearly all Church Fathers are not on the list. Do you have any reason-- in all these words-- to add him? Is so please try to be more clear. tahc chat 19:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Mary has about twice the views as Joseph. Then again, she has more fans, street cred and carries forward the age-old Goddess tradition as its representative within the Christian religion. This argument for not including Joseph, Mary's husband and caretaker - you do realize that she and the unborn Jesus would have been stoned if he hadn't married her, and not in the good way - seems to me to be tangential to the question presented. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you think inclusion in the template should be based on anyone who (in your view) is saved Jesus' life? That seems very arbitrary. I can say Melchior saved Jesus' life because he gave the gold needed to escape to Egypt. Should we also include Melchior now? How do we even know Joseph saved Jesus life? Christianity typically views Jesus as being looked out as for by more than just Joseph. tahc chat 19:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dreams and action. And he was his father, or step-dad, and apparently raised him right. In any case, I thought my Holy Family argument, that we really can't, after reading that page, include only 2 of the 3 Holy Family members on the list, would have changed your viewpoint because it makes good sense. It seems to me that Joseph pretty much has to be added by Holy Family alone, let alone a respect gained by a complete reading of the many pages on the Josephology template. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that the article of Joseph is more important than the article on the Apostles or that of the Church Fathers, and certainly the subject is not more important that that of the other two.
The RfC above is not particularly conclusive. With only three !votes, it could easily be redone. I would say that there's no really convincing argument to exclude Joseph as per @Chicbyaccident:. To state that he's "not even a major Biblical figure" but yet include the Church Fathers and denominations is strikingly odd. The topics are not on those only in holy writ, but rather those important to Christianity. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you say do not add Joseph because his article in an encyclopedia of Christianity is not two pages long? Lord have mercy (literally!). That's almost but not quite up to the "As popular as Mary?" test preferred by another naysayer. This RfC seems to have adequate reasoning to add Joseph to the list, and the points against adding him amounting to no points against him. The third wheel (or the odd-man out) of the Holy Family certainly should be on this list. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Randy, you seem to object to very sensible reasons-- as if they are not very sensible-- and then you propose very silly and arbitrary reasons as if those were not silly and arbitrary. For example, someone (not anyone in Scripture) invented a term for a particular three people. Your reasoning seems to be that because the term exists (to some people) we should either have all three in the list, or have all three out. tahc chat 22:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are no sensible reasons (at least to my point of view, you and I seem to have opposite points-of-view on some things). That Joseph doesn't have an article somewhere two pages long, and that he is not as popular as Mary, and that everybody on the list (including each apostle) is more important - in your opinion - so Joseph can't be added, no, they don't seem sensible. And the fact that he is included in a several centuries old honoring of the Holy Family, the three as a unit, show his importance to a large percentage of Christians. Also read Josephology to ascertain other aspects of his importance to Christianity. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are over 100 articles treated at greater length in the most comprehensive encyclopedic source out there. Even with space at a premium in print works, they chose to allocate more space to those other topics over Joseph. To my eyes, that is a clear indicator that they found those other topics more important for comprehensive coverage of Christianity than Joseph. John Carter (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • And how many of those 100 articles are associated with members of the holy family? If the concept is not important, please feel free to state that. At this point, I don't see consensus forming and so it will likely not change to include Joseph, but acknowledging Randy Kryn's point is likely essential for him to move on (see WP:STICK). Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for thinking of me and my need to stop beating that dead horse (I detect a pulse). But if I were the closer this is an easy "Add" for Joseph, as consensus is dependent on actual points made. That Joseph doesn't have a two-page article somewhere (how close is it to two pages? Is it a paragraph short, or do they just give him a quarter-of-a-page? And what does the article actually say, is there a link?) or that the page isn't as popular as Mary's, are not real reasons, although they may approximate actual reasons in an editor's point-of-view. If those irrelevant "reasons" were tossed out then the Joseph and John the Baptist pages would be added. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to say you may be the last person to complain about beating a dead horse. As it has developed, this list has, basically, become effectively a list of the most significant first-level descendant articles of the main Christianity article. Given the breadth and number of topics covered by the numerous reference works relating to this topic, having some sort of indicator of the outline of the topic would be useful. There are a rather huge number of notable topics relating to Mary, including devotional practices, apparitions, visions, and such, there are a huge number of spinout articles relating directly to her. There are also, obviously, huge numbers of articles relating to various traditions, denominations, practices, and so on. I am aware of comparatively few direct spinout articles relating to Joseph, John the Baptist, and many other topics. If you could produce evidence along those lines indicating that Joseph would qualify as one of the most important primary spinout articles, rather than simply indicating an opinion, that might be more productive than the rather pointless and comparatively useless comment above. John Carter (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John Carter, good points. Please see the template {{Josephology}} as well as the Josephology page itself, and Category:Saint Joseph (husband of Mary). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Extant articles here are probably not the best indicator of comparative priority, as we know we do not have our content developed proportionately across the board. Although line by line ranking of lengthy articles in reference sources would also be open to question, their content probably, in general, will cover all the direct subtopics the writers consider significant, and the more space they allocate the more encyclopedic subtopics they see it having, which is why I mentioned article length before. Regarding Mary, Google shows two encyclopedic sources directly relating to Mary, which is a fairly good indicator of the comparative significance of that broad topic, and indicates a great number of potential articles. I don't find any similar encyclopedic sources on Joseph, but do on Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Christian theology, Marian theology, saints, Augustine of Hippo, Christian history, and on and on.
The fact that Joseph's biography in particular is so short, even compared to other saints like Augustine of Hippo or Therese of Lisieux, who also have numerous prayers in their names and innumerable patronages like Joseph, is I think one of the reasons most reference sources place him in what might be the second 100 or so articles, rather than the first. John Carter (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on of this "core list"

I believe this "core list" idea is flawed. My previous appeals to have this corner of Wikipedia normalised have been snubbed. I therefore write here again. I have not seen anything like this anywhere else on Wikipedia. I don't even know if there is more than one user who support this solution. I see no reasons why the normal ways to edit and discuss Wikipedia content could not be applied to subjects related to this core list. For convenience and less intimidation, I think it would best be replaced with the ordinary methods. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Using a list here to determine what goes on templates at two other locations is an awkward system. But changing it could make it worse if only one part is changed. If you make a template for Paul McCartney, you could just link every article related to Paul and be done, but there is no way to have one template for all of Christianity. There is always someone who wants to add another link to the template, and-- contrary to what you may think-- adding more links to the template only increases the number of new links that people want to add. We will always need a place to discuss adding (or not) new links.
  • For some reason lost to history, (some) people wanted a side-bar Christianity template and some (others?) wanted a footer Christianity template. Since there was no other difference in purpose, people (sooner or later) wanted to add (or remove) any links in one to also be in (or out) of the other. This was also fine unless, people tried to debate the issue on both talk pages at once, using all the same arguments at both places. No one wants to have an identical discussion in two places. Here are different things we could do about it:
  • A: Keep it like it is now.
  • B: Let identical discussions happen in two places at once. If the articles in each are different or the same just let it be.
  • C: Pick one template to be the "main" template and ask folks to keep all discussion at "main" template, and the "other" template will just use the same links used in the "main"
  • D. Give the two templates different purposes, such as (D-1) Delete one template entirely. (D-2) Make the footer template only for Christian denominations and groups, and remove the Christian denominations from they sidebar template. (D-3) Let the footer template get bigger (maybe top importance and high importance) but keep the sidebar as it is (top importance only). Etc. tahc chat 17:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support status quo which would be option A. Since there are two templates, and unless there is a reason to have them display different content (which is not part of the proposal) we should have a centralized way to discuss the items to include. The talk page of each template should clearly point here unless the discussion is a technical one that only involves one template or the other. I would also support a method to have only one template and provide different parameters to make it display differently depending on whether it was to be used in a sidebar or as a horizontal format. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to make the template talk page of each template should clearly point here. Currently only the template page itself do.
    I like the idea of a method to have only one template and provide different parameters to make it display differently depending on whether it was to be used in a sidebar or as a horizontal format, but I am not sure it is practical. tahc chat 02:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The RFC question provide zero explanation for new arrivals and is incomprehensible. I suggest the RFC be withdrawn, and if necessary collaborate on new language for a new RFC before before posting it. As far as I can determine, this RFC is fussing over where to discuss template content rather than actually discussing any template content. It seems rather pointless. Alsee (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main problem with the list that I've seen, and I've changed my mind on this, is that is set at a specific number, 100. The number 100 seems like a handy ceiling, but is just a number originally set by the fact that the average human has ten fingers which likely set-into-motion the basis used in the present culturally-accepted numbering system. There should not be an upper-limit. More topics could well be added, for the definition of Christianity is quite large, and individuals like Joseph and John the Baptist and sects like the Quakers seem list-worthy. It would help if more watchers check this page to see if a new nomination has been brought forward. But yes, the inclusion of "list worthy" pages could be expanded a bit without a numerical ceiling which now makes each new nommed entry prove that it's worthy to take one of the remaining X number of spots. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unlocking the quantity setting would be one step to make this matter more dynamic, and more wikified. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support C: Template:Christianity footer. Which would then be largely based on Christianity, with its denominations section on a selection from List of Christian denominations. Simple! I would argue that mostly, the footer templates ("navboxes") seem to be referred to as the default ones if sidebar templates also exist. The reason for this tendence is typically that template footers most often came first, and than most templates are indeed footers, which makes these footers sort of the template standard. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think expanding the Christian denominations section would certainly be a bad idea. If someone wants to make a new template for "all" Christian denominations that is fine, but we don't need such as large number of additions overwhelming any of the main Christianity templates. If he wants to expand the Christianity template in all ways (not sure what he wants there) I would have to agree that that would call for a whole new discussion/RFC. tahc chat 17:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd agree with Tahc about limiting Christian denominations to the very major names, maybe with a couple of sub-section names somewhere in there. Christianity doesn't mean listing every breakaway sect that tags itself with the Christian label. And footer templates usually contain a larger map of the site, and are preferable, to some extent (mainly breadth of content), to side-templates. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even a template of just Christian groups would best be focused on denominational families and Christian movements. The possible thousands of particular denominations (like the UMC and the C of E) already have a template system that can be used or expanded at Template:Christian denominations as needed for particular denominations. tahc chat 20:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And for the record, navigation templates only list notable denominations—those capable of sustaining an article. That excludes most of the thousands of "denominations" that include only a handful of congregations. Walter Görlitz (talk)
  • I'm not saying we should include everything. Just the notable ones comme-il-faut. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography has a similar list. In both cases, the lists were created to help draw more attention to the articles included, although neither has been successful in that regard. I could support expansion of the list to make it more clearly useful as an indicator of the outline of the relevant content, although I can see very strong possibilities that it might expand uncontrollably and make it less than useful for that purpose as well. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarianism

How about adding it to "Nontrinitarian" group?Ernio48 (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since we already have Nontrinitarianism on the list, it is neither needed nor useful to have all the different versions of Nontrinitarianism in the template also.
Please also note that -- unlike other Nontrinitarians-- many Unitarians do not even consider themselves part of Christianity. tahc chat 14:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, it's only like, 1% of the U.S. population? Is it a core topic? 梦叙天 (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add. Colleagues! @Ernio48:, @Tahc:, @梦叙天:, @Vorbee:, @Richard3120:, @Bjenks:, @ChaoticTexan:, @MusenInvincible: et al. Once again, we propose to consider the addition of Unitarianism. Not by the criterion of number (the Assyrian church in Eastern Christianity is also not so numerous, but important). And due to the fact that this is essentially the main classical non-trinitarian denomination of the Protestant era. We are not about Universal Unitarianism—one of the new religions—but about the Christian denomination since 18th cent. represented by such notable names as Isaac Newton, Joseph Priestley, John Adams, and others. It is nonsense to include Mormons and marginal Oneness Pentecostals in the topic list with sidebar, and not include the classic denomination. DayakSibiriak (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarianism is not really a denomination. It is a theology or conception of God.
I think many other theologies are more important to understanding Christianity than Unitarianism is in understanding Christianity. For example Isaac Newton and John Adams are interesting figures in history, but are are not normally considered important people in shaping Christianity. tahc chat 19:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this argument. But look. What is the difference between the articles Nontrinitarianism and Unitarianism? The first is specifically about any kind this theology. Unitarianism, starting from the definition in the preamble, is Movement, yes, and theological. The movement, apart from the fragments in Transylvania and Hungary, now represented mainly by the Englo-Saxon tradition such as denomination Unitarian Christian Association. The goal is to add this to the topic so that the reader does not have a false visual opinion that nontrinitarianism is new religious movements like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, but also the old movement/group of denominations from the time of the Reformation. DayakSibiriak (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reshaping false opinions should not be a factor for design of a nav-box. That nearly always leads to a nav-box that is too large for its purpose, and makes the nav-box hard to find things and navigate with. The design of a nav-box should be to aide in navigating Wikipedia content pages. Reshaping false opinions should only be a factor in the design of a articles, and sometimes not even there.
I would rather remove the link to Nontrinitarianism than add a link to Unitarianism, but since the label for Nontrinitarian groups is already there, I do not think there will be any support for such a change.
Why don't you just add Unitarianism to the Nontrinitarianism section of more dedicated Template:Christian denominations. tahc chat 15:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's right about another template. And maybe this is my subjective opinion that in Western Christianity Unitarianism is as original and important a movement as Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism, and several US presidents were unitaries. And for most Wikieditors is not a significant event for a toplist. We'll see. DayakSibiriak (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Mercy

I would like to propose it again, since the former discussion was not conclusive. I have to point it out that this idea is the core of Christianity. It means that Jesus Christ is infinitely good for us, so we should trust in Him and be good too. This is also a huge movement of Church renewal, practiced by hundreds of millions and still growing. Propositum (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Church of the East

The Assyrian Church of the East is not proportionate to Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Eastern Catholic, the latter are sets of autocephalous and autonomous churches, and the former is only one autocephalous church, whereas the Church of the East is the collection of all Nestorian Churches, including the Assyrian Church of the East, the Ancient Church of the East, and the Caldean Catholic Church.——梦叙天 (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of the East only was - it was one church. PPEMES (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to change virgin birth to nativity of Jesus

@Triggerhippie4: made a change to replace [[Virgin birth of Jesus|Virgin birth]] with [[Nativity of Jesus|Nativity]]. The rationale was sound as there is a link in the latter article to the former, although it's not in the lede. The former has the link to latter near the bottom of the article. Template:Jesus lists both. I suggest we add Nativity. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the Nativity article has fuller detail and includes the related links. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Until there is a larger consensus, we should not be changing it. A few more weeks should be enough. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's 3 versus 1 with no one else interested after 5 days. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Consensus not numbers, Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state, and I'd like some input from @Tahc: before proceding. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given the small number of comments we often get, I concede there is sufficient consensus. tahc chat 20:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind making the change then? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity sidebar

good evening, I added a topic in the sidebar because it is to complete the section so that others can find shortcut references easily — Preceding unsigned comment added by Softwarestatistik (talk • contribs) 15:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity/Core_topics_work_group/Topic_list"