Jump to content

Talk:List of Christian denominations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I need support from other Wikipedian.

[edit]

I am new as a Wikipedian and can embarrass myself. Not really having tried to edit a topic yet.  Remember this as you evaluate my example of improvement. Two or three rejection I can deal with though I dislike.

In one Biblical Church the saved were called Christian. The meaning of Christian inhabits that of meaning Christianity as if it were member being in the Church within their church building. Unless other than the nature of things "Christian" has a general meaning most read and most accept as common. When a title in a persons past life explains past and present ( and may be explains future ) circumstance a person commits to being this. Any person can commit even when that person is smaller than any title offered and has no title. A person commits to a title making a person committed to and carrying out all work associated with this title by the person accepting this title which proves the person with the title. Past present and future, the meaning is the same for as long as the title sticks when the title is kept.

I am not saying that there is no need for denoting reference to single or multiple belief, ( This is not to disgrace those who are Christian. ) and since Christian are protected in the United States Of America from any type of harm, mind, body, and soul, it is not only wrong to use Christian in differently but punishable.. An example of this punishment is comparable with a member having said or done some small wrong within the large Church, catches hell outside the church. This being offensive to the person harmed is by Church decision to be refunded to the offended in the manner agreed on by both. Christian is a title only, and one people in the United States Of America take seriously. The Wikipedian who used "Christian" here has to some degree, small or large, offended the Christian. If small enough, a simple "I am sorry, I apologize" after fixing the problem,  often makes things right. Leroy 11-28-1952 (talk) 04:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Christian and Missionary Alliance

[edit]

Since when is the C&MA is a uniting church? It's a holiness denomination ! 24.201.79.253 (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Christian and Missionary Alliance is a Keswickian denomination and has been properly categorized as such. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 14:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East

[edit]

The Oriental Orthodox Church and the Church of the East are with a great historical importance and have a great cultural impact in the present, in their geographical locations; for a more objective view of the page, they should be have a separate section, rather than being a subcategory of Early Christianity. MaxAfton (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While sensible, I would have to disagree, as they were formed during the period as stated by that section. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Independent Sacramental" a somewhat artificial category

[edit]

I find it unhelpful to categorize smaller catholic and eastern orthodox denominations under the "independent sacramental" heading rather than the "catholic" and "orthodox" headings, respectively. The introductory paragraph to the independent category and the categorization itself seems to violate NPOV. The ISM is loose and overlapping with these other categories, and the Wikipedia page for it seems to say Union of Utrecht churches are not a part of it, unlike this list. 50.37.165.54 (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valid argument, I'd posit. The Union of Utrecht isn't even listed, except for a simple mention. Truly, we editors have generally closed some areas. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Union of Utrecht is not part of the ISM, since the Union of Utrecht is mainstream. Veverve (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic edits by User:GastonN'estPasBon

[edit]

User:GastonN'estPasBon has moved several denominations out of their traditional heading into separate Evangelical sections for each tradition. There is no consensus for this change and I have reverted his/her changes. I find User:GastonN'estPasBon's categorization to be confusing as the classification of certain denominations as evangelical are not black and white, but nuanced. Many mainline denominations might have a strong evangelical contingent, dependent on geography. The United Methodists in Africa, for example, have an evangelical churchmanship while those in New England might have a more progressive churchmanship. An individual looking for Methodist denominations would have to toggle between two sections to find all of the Methodist denominations. In view of this, I have restored the stable version of the article prior to the changes made by User:GastonN'estPasBon. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GastonN'estPasBon's changes did make this article difficult to navigate. All denominations of a family should be in that section. I had to scroll all the way down to the bottom of the article to find the Anglican Church in Brazil. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I completely agree I just wish everything I added wasn't completely thrown out in the process of correcting it. Is it acceptable that I add everything I added back without the weird evangelical split or are there other issues you want to talk about?GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:GastonN'estPasBon, yes, you can add other links to the article. However, it is clear that there is consensus not to have separate sections for evangelicals in each denomination. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that the evangelical sections weren't a good idea. I got lost in a sunken cost fallacy and kept it even though I started to hate it. Thank you for activating me to change it. GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. The only other major issue that I could see by glancing at your edits was your renaming of the "Quaker" section to "English Nonconformists". Surely, you will realize that this renaming does not make sense as "English Nonconformists" would include Baptists, Methodists, etc. (each of which have their own section). Also, Nonconformists have vastly differing beliefs. The term Nonconformist simply referred to any individuals who did not conform to usages of the Church of England. I have reverted that change. If you want to add defunct groups (which I do not consider helpful at all) to this article, you could do so in this section. AnupamTalk 14:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fixed. Until there is a wikipedia page called 'List of Defunct Christian Denominations' I think including defunct groups is necessary. GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]