Talk:List of Christian denominations

United Church of Canada

The United Church of Canada is not Presbyterian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45words (talk • contribs) 23:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Pre-Luther Protestants

Cathars? I don't believe the Cathars belong here any more than would the Arians or the Gnostics. Just because a group resisted and was persecuted by the Catholics doesn't necessarily make them Protestant. Cathar beliefs certainly don't mesh with what is generally regarded as Protestantism.

Agreed. For my part, I don't think the historical "pre-luther Protestants" belong here at all; this is a list of current groups, not once-upon-a-time groups. Tb (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Quakers

It has come to our attention that Conservative Friends (Wilburites) were missing from the list. We added them. Conservative Quakerism is alive and well in the USA, Canada, UK, Greece, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.40.239 (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Who is "we"? It is not permitted to edit Wikipedia as a group, only as an individual. Tb (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Redundant?

Isn't listing both Christian Science and Church of Christ, Scientist redundant, or was this intentional to distinguish the church from the ideas? WilliamKF (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a mistake to me, though aren't there some adherents who are not part of Church of Christ, Scientist? That is, I think there are breakaway groups of some kind, though I can't recall any details. Tb (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, not all followers are members of the church, but probably same can be said for any religion, so I'd say it should be removed. WilliamKF (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

subgroups of armenian apostolic church

I am nervous about the new additions under the Armenian Apostolic Church (Oriental Orthodox). There are a couple problems. First, they are not links to what they appear to be, for several of them. Our practice here is only to link to churches that have Wikipedia pages, and several of these are links to something other than the actual named church body. For example, the link named "Catholicosate of Etchmiadzin" does not point to the Catholicosate (a church organization) but rather to Catholicos of All Armenians, which is a description of an office. (It is as if "Roman Catholic Church" linked to Pope or "Church of England" linked to Archbishop of Canterbury.) Likewise "Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople" links to Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, and "Catholicosate of Cilica" links to Holy See of Cilicia. Second, the practice has been to identify more or less independent groups. For those subject to the pope, we list each church sui juris; we list each independent Anglican church; we list autonomous and autocephalous Eastern Orthodox churches. It would be bad to set the precedent that we list the internal hierarchical subdivisions too far down for groups (especially when those subdivisions don't have their own pages), or the page would become unmanagably huge. It's not that the specific case of the Armenian Apostolic Church is a problem, but that the precedent set will get used to start listing every Roman Catholic province, every presbytery in the PCUSA, and so forth. The page at Oriental Orthodoxy does list these groups, but I think we need to be careful. The key question is, however vaguely, what degree of autonomy do they enjoy? Is it at all similar to the three second-level subdivisions in this category now? And, more to the point, our policy has always been that links should be added here only after the bodies in question have their own Wikipedia articles. And so:

• I object to the inclusion of all but the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem since they don't have wikipedia pages of their own, and
• I object (but less strenuously) to the Jerusalem listing because it is not clear what autonomy (if any) it enjoys within the Armenian Apostolic Church.
• I've removed the three that are incorrect links, and left the Jerusalem one for now, and would appreciate more discussion. Tb (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Requirement for reliable sources

This list should comply with the guidelines of WP:SAL. This includes "where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, list definitions should be based on reliable sources". With particular regard to the section List of Christian denominations#New religious movements which includes some organizations that have been termed "cults" in the press, these definitely fall in the area of "likely to be disputed" and require third party sources. I am unclear on how an organization that may call itself "Christian" but has no official recognition and may even be seen as a money-making scam could be labelled a "Christian denomination" as the term denomination would be in contradiction to the lack of official recognition.

For example the Shangra-la Mission has no official status as a "denomination" as it existed as website with two people who declared themselves "anointed messengers for the Great White Brotherhood". With no third party sources to back up an assertion that their organization is considered a "Christian denomination", their inclusion here is ridiculous.

I am adding the references needed tag back on this basis.—Ash (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the membership criteria. The membership criteria do not include whether a group is or is not a money-making scam, nor do they refer to any kind of official recognition. (And recognition by whom, exactly, would you want?) The membership criteria are instead those in the italics in the lead:

* The list reflects the self-understanding of each group

* The list only includes groups which have Wikipedia articles

* Status as Christian denominations can be found at their respective articles

Those are quite objective and not likely to be disputed. In the case of the Shangra-la Mission, there is no indication on its wikipedia page, or its own website, that it claims to be Christian, and so I've deleted it. Feel free to make further edits along those lines, but remember, that it is not relevant whether a group has "official recognition", nor is the list a claim about whether a group is or is not a "money making scam". Instead, it is a list of groups which understand themselves to be Christian, and are categorized in accord with their self-understanding. Tb (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand the membership criteria as stated, I also understand the meaning of the word "denomination". If organizations are included with no requirement for any third party or "authoritative" acceptance of their status then the word denomination should be removed from the list name as it is being mis-used. Would you like me to propose such a name change?—Ash (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is twofold. First, the word "denomination" doesn't mean "official", it doesn't mean "respectable". It means "label". (Note the etymology.) But rather than that, focus on the the practical question directly. Suppose a group has no third-party anywhere which refers to them or says anything about them. In that case, the article for the group itself should be deleted (as you've proposed for Shangra-la Mission, about which I agree). Since only groups with wikipedia pages are allowed in this list, groups which are not really in existence can't make it. But what about groups which do unquestionably exist, but are money-making scams? For example, many think that the Church of Scientology is nothing but a big giant money-making scam. However, if they self-identified as Christian (which they happen not to) they would unquestionably belong on this list. Consider that the LDS are here: not because other Christian churches think they are "real" (by and large, most other Christian groups think the LDS are not Christian at all), but we certainly can't get into that POV-laden nightmare. It seems as if there is one group which was listed here incorrectly (which doesn't meet the standards at all) and you have concluded that the standards are bad. In that case, I would invite you to propose alternative standards which avoid the POV-laden problem of addressing who is a "real" denomination or a "real" church or a "real" Christian. Tb (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You are using the etymology of denominate for denomination which in this context has the specific definition of "a recognized branch of a church or religion" (according to the OED). Consequently the list is mis-named given the current inclusion criteria. The list should be moved to a weaker name such as List of Christian organizations if you wish to avoid any possible further disputes over inclusion due to a lack of sources to demonstrate "recognition" (as per WP:SAL).—Ash (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which OED you are looking at. The Oxford English Dictionary entry for "denomination" does not include the word "recognized" anywhere in it. It says "5. A collection of individuals classed together under the same name; now almost always spec. a religious sect or body having a common faith and organization, and designated by a distinctive name." Do I get to cry foul when what you quote isn't in the source you quoted? Tb (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Further investigation shows that the phrase "branch of a church or religion" does not occur anywhere within the Oxford English Dictionary. (Online OED is awesome, huh?) Since your own chosen source rather proves my point, can we return to issues of substance instead of terminology? If there are groups listed here which should not be, then please, help improve the encyclopedia, and identify them. You already noted one, which you were independently interested in, I understand. If there are others, we should address them. But history shows that the dispute you want to avoid hasn't been a problem. (Far more often has been the "hey, they're not really Christian even though the claim to be" complaint, and the consensus for managing this article has thus far been quite satisfactory at addressing those without needless dispute or POV problems.) Tb (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm using the compact online version, free so anyone can check it for themselves: http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&field-12668446=denomination&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact&sortorder=score%2Cname - WP:AGF applies.—Ash (talk) 05:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Alas, you've been tricked by OUP. The "Compact OED" is not the OED at all, and they used the name simply to gain some cache from its more respectable older sibling. Given that the OED itself says nothing about recognition, it is clear that at the very least, there is nothing about the word "denomination" which necessarily implies some kind of official recognition--at most, it is sometimes used that way, and sometimes not. (Though I think actually, the OED is simply a better source.) And, if the word is ambiguous, the right course is for the article to make its usage clear. I've indeed already added a paragraph to the explanatory notes after the lead addressing just this issue. Since the listing you objected to was not controversial, are there any others? Are there any other listings you think are doubtful? Or if not, are there none that you are inclined to doubt? As I said, I'd prefer to discuss issues of substance. Tb (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The compact OED is created by OUP and by the same editing staff. Perhaps you could point to the part of WP policy that tells us which published English dictionaries are acceptable sources? I know of no requirement that states that the full OED has to be used. As for which further organisations require sources on this list, I suggest the rest of the New Age movements and in particular any movement based on Theosophy. Checking Share International, they are a "spiritual" organization but not a specifically "Christian" one. I really don't want to have to validate the rest of the list for you, it seems perfectly reasonable for me to ask that WP:SAL applies; basically if other editors have doubts then reliable sources are required, SAL does not expect other editors to prove a case against each separate item on the list before sources are added.—Ash (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not created by the same staff, but that's beside the point. The point is that the word "denomination" does not necessarily imply some kind of official recognition, since at least one pretty darn major source for the meaning of the word doesn't take it as implying that. If lexicographers disagree, that means the word is ambiguous, not that it necessarily implies recognition. Since it's ambiguous, the appropriate course is to clarify usage in the article, as is now the case. As for the particular cases, I'm happy to go through them it detail. Once that's done, I'll invite you again to raise any objections you have. Tb (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm grateful for your attention to this. A brief perusal of all those groups shows that your suspicions were certainly correct. I don't object in principle to anyone who wants to add sources. At the same time, I think it's ridiculous to doubt that the PCUSA or the Roman Catholic Church is belongs here simply because it doesn't have a source. Their own pages have perfectly adequate sources already. Are there other cases you think should be examined? Tb (talk) 06:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add an references needed tag against New religious movements and New Thought rather than the whole article. The normal interpretation of WP:SAL is that the argument that references are available on another WP page is not sufficient for disputed information or information about living people.

In this case it may not be obvious to readers or correct that a new religious movement is self-defined as Christian, in particular that such a movement believes in a messiah as prophesied in the Old Testament. Where such movements use the term "Christ" this may or may not be in reference to the conventional Jesus, but may also be part of a belief in several "anointed ones" or "masters" which would be in contradiction with the standard use of the term "Christian". In summary, if an organization does not clearly define itself as "Christian" or where an organization does not specifically believe in Jesus (as defined in the Old Testament) or believes in several messiahs, then they should not be part of this list.—Ash (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

We tend to want to stay away from doctrinal tests, because they are intrinsically POV problems, entirely apart from a question of sourcing. But in practice, I don't think there is too much trouble sorting out the cases, and your help towards that goal has been much appreciated. Tb (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

New Thought is an unusual and special case, I think. Unity Church explicitly and clearly considers itself Christian--though most Christians would of course find their beliefs quite heterodox. Divine Science is more in the "we are Christian, of a different sort, and we teach what Jesus taught". Religious Science (as you correctly note) is more distant from Christianity still. These are weird cases, indeed, but also quite different (in history and in character) from the Ascended Masters cases that first came to your attention. It's also not right to lump the New Thought folks in with the new religious movements; they were once new, but they're old hat now. (When I first ran into a guy who was part of Unity, I was flabbergasted at how old they actually are. If they are "new", then so are the Mormons and the Pentecostals.) Tb (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've made a slew of recent edits now, much cleaning up this section. My own concern is far more with the mainstreamy things, and I'm grateful for your prodding to clean up this grubby corner of the page and bring it up to proper standards. Will you give another look and see what you think? Most crucially, it occurs to me that "new" is not a category--that "new movement" is the modern neologism for "cult", without the negative overtones--when this page should not be concerned there, but rather with what it claims to: historical and doctrinal categorization. The remaining groups fell into three categories: syncretistic groups (hence the new section title), where I cleaned out the ones that didn't actually include Christian elements, one group which is simply another non-Trinitarian group, and one group which is a secular association. I think it's vastly improved, though surely more work remains to be done. Tb (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Note in the beginning of the article imprecise

According to the note, there are more than 38'000 sects. If the link to the source is followed, the wording is *approximately*. If *their* source is followed, the number is 33830 as of 2001 (source: http://christianity.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=christianity&cdn=religion&tm=15&f=00&tt=11&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.adherents.com/misc/WCE.html )

Could somebody verify and fix this? Thanks :) 93.161.59.1 (talk) 11:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the wording to say "approximately". Thanks. Tb (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Time to update the DIAGRAM, its not Roman Catholic Church but Catholic Church

Considering Wikipedia has made a decision to remove the Roman prefix as RCC does not represent Eastern Catholics (part of the world wide Catholisim, along with Latin/Western Catholism)...its time to make the clarification to this citation, and simply state: Catholic Church with perhaps Latin/Western and Eastern subdivisions (recongizing that Maronite and Italo-Albanian churches never left the universal Church.Micael (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"We" have made no such decision. It depends on the context. In this context, to remove it is insulting to the other churches, listed right there, who consider themselves equally catholic. Just as the "Eastern Orthodox" are not only in the East, just as the ancient Church of Assyria is headquartered in Chicago, so also the Roman Catholic Church is not only the Roman one. In this context it is wildly POV to start talking about who "left the universal Church". In this context we are not making POV statements about who has left what. We must find a term which, difficult though it is, does not express a POV claim which we should not be making. Tb (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

""We must find a term which, difficult though it is, does not express a POV claim which we should not be making."

Plain and simply, some subjects have absolutely no neutral POV...its an impossibility...to pretend there is one, would be a POV claim in and of itself. Therefore, the final conclusion made regarding the Catholic Church terminology of that Wiki article.

"In this context, to remove it is insulting to the other churches, listed right there, who consider themselves equally catholic" ...

Well what you and many do not seem to understand that doing so is just as insulting to Catholics also listed right there. Bottom line is that you can not insult one without insulting another. Hence you must look at the historical meaning of the Catholic Church at the very least. That said, (just as you mentioned for Roman Catholic) you simply make a stance regardless of who it offends and make a choice which is most OBJECTIVE to history and/or least insultive at to Christians at large, not to denominations in general. Therefore, I suggest looking at the earliest Church fathers of the first four centuries of Christiandom and find the characteristics of that "Catholic" church and find which one is fundimentally identical to that Church. (Starting with Ignatius of Antiochs letter to the Smyrnaeans see http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.html ) Secondly, Catholic Christians make up over a billion Christians worldwide that is more than double of any other. Therefore by siding with the POV of non-Catholics which consider themselves equally catholic as well you are siding to not offend the grand miniority and instead offend a great many others. This is foolish, the context of this citation is simply the generic title of Christian denominations not what they consider themselves individually, it is a simple diagram of world 'denominations'! Lastly, saying Catholics are Roman is quite disingenuous to millions of non-Latin(Roman) Easterners, but certainly 100% Catholic.

So whether you recognize it or not you are claiming POV statements, regardless of how you try to avoid it. You are the one making claims when you look into this so miopically, trying to find the non-existing NPOV, not realizing this is simply a citation pointing out to Church titles in a generic sense. To make this more than that is taking its point out of context, and attempting to pretend there is NPOV, which does not exist and simultaneously insulting millions of Catholics, interestingly making a POV by trying to avoid it! Micael (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies do not have an escape clause for cases where editors think that no NPOV article is possible. If you have a better neutral term to suggest, please do so, but "Catholic Church", in this context, is not one. The claim of offense is a bit obviated by the existence of churches which announce themselves, in words carved into stone several feet high, to be "Roman Catholic". Tb (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of clarification: I am discussing the diagram-template listed as "Major Branches within Christianity"..;

...Tb, the mere existence of a relative few churches considering themselves catholic does not remove the reality that there are objective facts involved historically and substantially...otherwise you water down the very essence of an encyclopedia. The bottom line is that there are acceptable general understandings as well as, objective, FACTUAL-historical ones. The point is that some things are applicable by more than mere subjective considerations. It is with such an understanding that Wikipedia (and the majority of worldwide encyclopedias) has accepted for the Catholic Church to call itself simply the "Catholic Church" as it is the most historical and objective TITLE for such a church, not to mention it truly is the most common title for the Church itself.(are you going to deny that the Wiki article for the Church appears as simply Catholic Church?) Also, the mere existence of churches that consider themselves catholic certainly DOES NOT obviate discussion of the issue. It's the equal of saying that multiple political parties disagree yet those parties that disagree represent a grand minority of the people. That is exactly what you are doing. Catholics represent over 1 billion of the world's Christians and call themselves as such. While on the other hand while there may exist a few that consider themselves catholic yet may or may not even entitle themselves as such, it is none-the-less but a miniscule minority ill representative of the Christian consensus. Thus, to say there is a mere existence.. of other parties/churches..., is an insincere alibi for providing a false-neutral POV in the name of appeasing a limited few while insulting the grand majority of over 1 billion Christians that proclaim themselves as members of what is ENTITLED globally and historically as simply the Catholic Church, besides the great many non-Catholics which accept and are not offended by Catholics calling their Church as such. I'm not even addressing the exaggerative preeminence of subjective opinionated views above historical objective evidence.

However, all this is well beyond the context of this citation. The citation is merely showing a generic breakdown (in large part) of the major Christian denominations and they are reflected and compared to from a historical perspective. It speaks of these churches as they are entitled, not merely what they consider themselves subjectively- but a TITULAR historical/objective context. Otherwise, why the dotted line for the Restorationalist, no objective evidence, only claimed evidence. That said, I'm simply saying; Wikipedia and this citation should be consistent...1) if Wikipedia has, for the church described here as Roman Catholic is not named in such a manner in its article for the very church being discussed then it should be corrected. (an article is certainly more impacting that a mere visual image/table- therefore, why your intransigence?) 2) It is very much incorrect to call Eastern Catholic churches, Roman. The Roman or Latin church has always been understood as "the West”, hence the oxymoronic connotation to say Eastern Catholic Church, of the Roman Catholic Church. NO, it’s the Eastern and Latin/Roman churches, of the CATHOLIC Church. Micael (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are arguing about the image, please take the discussion there, and not here. Tb (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Updated the Diagram to reflect 2013 realities Qurbono (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Church of the East

There needs to be a separate section on this article entitled "Church of the East". It should include the Assyrian Church of the East (which is currently listed incorrectly in the "Catholic" section), and the Ancient Church of the East, which split off from the Assyrian Church in the 1960s. --Elonka 17:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain why it's incorrect? It fits the definition, and follows the ancient church order (episcopal succession, etc) which the term refers to in this context. I agree that the Ancient Church of the East needs mention. Tb (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the Assyrian Church of the East is not connected with the Catholic church. Do you have a source which says otherwise? --Elonka 19:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No, but the usage here is not about being part of the Catholic Church in union with the Bishop of Rome; it's about what it says in the text: churches which claim continuity (based upon Apostolic Succession) with the church before separation into Greek or Eastern and Latin or Western. Tb (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

By that definition, everything on the page should be "Catholic", including the Anglican and Protestant sections. What I'm saying, is that it is not proper to put the Assyrian Church of the East as a subheading within "Catholicism". They've had huge messy schisms over precisely that question. For example, in the 16th century, the group in the Church of the East that wanted to rejoin with Rome, split off and became the Chaldean Catholic Church, making it brutally clear that the Assyrian Church of the East is not Catholic. Heck, look also at the diagram on this page, which clearly shows the Church of the East being one of the first to split off from the main line, in 431. It is not correct to put the Assyrian Church of the East in the "Catholic" section. --Elonka 21:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No. The Presbyterians do not claim continuity based on Apostolic Succession. You are showing that it's not in union with Rome. The Church of Greece is also not Catholic in the sense of being in union with Rome. What you're missing is that Catholic in that section is not about union with Rome. The Anglican section used to be in Catholic; it was separated because some were concerned that it should be visually a via media. But the Presbyterians or the Baptists are not Catholic by the definition given. (And I believe the Assyrian Church of the East would not agree that it has "split off from the main line", but rather the reverse.) Tb (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see, we're using two entirely different definitions of the word "Catholic". Okay, so to avoid confusion, how about changing the section header, from "Catholic" to "Apostolic succession"? --Elonka 23:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the existing header is clear, especially if one reads it. It matches definition 2 and 3 of the list of definitions at Catholicism, and while it may be unfamiliar to you, it is not wildly uncommon. Tb (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to work with you towards consensus on this... Can you point me at a source which uses the term "Catholic" in reference to the Assyrian Church of the East? I've read several, and the term "Apostolic succession" is pretty common, but I haven't run across any that refer to the Church as Catholic, possibly because of the confusion between the definitions of the term. --Elonka 00:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's an odd place, but [1] came up fairly quickly. Kind of a creepy source, but it would be interesting to see. See as well the Product Description of [2]. Or the last paragraph of [3]. And of course, there is its official name: the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East. Now, "Orthodox"--there's a word the Assyrian Church of the East rejects faster than, well, some appropriate simile. Tb (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all of Tb's points here. If we were to move the ACE, then we would also have to move the EOC, the OOC, and so on. Deusveritasest (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Tb: Okay, you got me there on the title. I'll freely admit confusion on this point, since it appears that both "The ACE is Catholic" and "The ACE is not Catholic" are true, depending on which definition of the word "Catholic" is used. Ugh. I've run into similar problems on some other religion articles, trying to straighten out "orthodox" and "Orthodox" (sigh). In any case, I am willing to bow to the term "Catholic" on this, even though I think it's confusing and wish we could find something more specific. Meanwhile, please add a listing for Ancient Church of the East? Best, --Elonka 04:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Anglicanism

I think Anglicanism should be moved back to the Catholic section. The point was made that it is equally identified as Protestant. But that is not true. Not all Anglican theologians have agreed that their church is Catholic. The general formula that was agreed upon was "Reformed and Catholic", not "Protestant and Catholic". Seeing as how the Anglican Communion has generally been self-identified as Catholic, but only by some as Protestant, I think it is clear that it belongs in the Catholic section. Deusveritasest (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no quarrel with this, naturally. Tb (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There have been no disagreements for two months; I'm making the change. Tb (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Reformed means protestant. This is fucking ridiculous. john k (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously with your brilliant knowledge, and a vocabulary as large as yours, you are a true doctrinal expert on protestantism. I cannot imagine why anyone would even doubt your word. Clearly Time Magazine should have spoken to you before they published this. Poor John, if only they would just listen. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 02:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"the ________ considers itself..."

Am I the only one who finds these little tidbits at the end of various sections totally unnecessary? Deusveritasest (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm kind of ambivalent. For some of them it's a key part of what they understand Catholic identity to mean, but then, it's not clear that means it should be there. Those tags have been there for as long as I've been involved with the page, IIRC. Tb (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The history is interesting. On March 4, 2007, User:Lima bean of the north added the sentence, "The Catholic Church does not consider itself a denomination", at the same time as he was fixing the Eastern Catholic Churches to be together with the Western [4]. Then User:Dylanschrader changed it to say "The Catholic Church considers itself the one Church that Christ founded." And naturally, the Orthodox jurisdictions needed the same. And, then, the Anglicans needed a statement of something like the "branch theory" of the same. Neither of these users has been very active. I doubt there is a strong constituency for retaining it. Tb (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That's the same exact reason why "Eastern Orthodox Church" was changed to "Orthodox Church". The RC's push their POV and establish changes that indicate their supremacy, and all the other Catholic traditions wind up feeling outraged and pressured to respond in kind. It's getting rather tiresome. :( Deusveritasest (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been going on for rather a while. :) Tb (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Mar Thoma Church

This church is missing from the list. Sarcelles (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It is listed under "United and uniting churches". Tb (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

But "United and uniting churches" belongs to Protestant. Sarcelles (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a problem, because the CSI, CNI, etc., are all part of the Anglican communion as well. Tb (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

But Mar Thoma Church is in communion with other churches also, not only with Anglicans. This Church has nothing to do with "United and uniting churches". Probably someone who is ignorant of the history, traditions and teachings of this Church wants it there, so it is there.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Who else do you have in mind that the Mar Thomites are supposedly in communion with? Deusveritasest (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The Mar Thoma sect is a split from the Oriental Orthodox Church in India, with protestant doctrine.Qurbono (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In an earlier talk on the position of the Holy Marthoma Syrian Church , I have mentioned the true orientation of the Marthoma Church and had replied to their questions which has been edited and deleted by people Sebin Prasad Cheriyan Marvallill (talk) 04:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

These people seem to have power and authority in deciding the faith,history and orientation of the Marthoma Syrian Church. They seem go have formed a hate group against the holy Marthoma Church and tries to constantly vandalize the Marthoma Church several pages.Let The Lord Jesus Christ judge them and protect the Holy Marthoma Syrian Church Sebin Prasad Cheriyan Marvallill (talk) 05:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Special thanks to Neduvelilmathew (talk) and Sarcelles (talk) on questioning this false attribution of the Marthoma Church. Sebin Prasad Cheriyan Marvallill (talk) 05:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The Marthoma Church is not Anglican .it is ORIENTAL ORTHODOX Sebin Prasad Cheriyan Marvallill (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Latter Day Saints

Why are the Latter Day Saints given a sub-section as if the movement is as large or influential as "Catholicism" or "Protestantism"? Wouldn't they belong in "non-trinitarian groups" or under a "restorationist" sub-section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.119.141 (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think the sections are rankings of importance? The LDS consider themselves to be Trinitarian, but many others do not consider them to be so. For that reason putting them under either Non-Trinitarian or Restorationism would each take one side or the other in that POV dispute. Tb (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Since when do the LDS consider themselves Trinitarian? They never have accepted the doctrine of the trinity, nor do they advocate it today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.119.141 (talk) 03:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If anything, they are closer to tritheism than orthodox trinitarianism. That's for the main LDS church. Some of the smaller groups do seem to accept orthodox trinitarianism. Tb (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please consider the fact that they are simply not Christian at all. Abrahamic rooted-ish, however not "Christian". See : Jew = Torah / Christian = Bible / Mormon = Book of Mormon / Jew = Jehovah / Christian = Jesus / Mormon = Kolob, 'Adam god' & Smith. Msqared80 (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

See Christian primitivism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you NielN I did. Seeking to use the most ancient and 'pure' interpretation of the Bible is one thing, it is not the same as including and accepting a whole different book "The Book of Mormon" which is clearly not Biblical and defines the religion as not Christian but a parallel branch of the greater Abrahamic Mythos. See : http://magazine.biola.edu/article/12-summer/what-are-the-key-differences-between-mormonism-and/ , http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2012/08/27/why-mormons-are-not-christians-the-issue-of-christology/ , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Christianity & https://books.google.com/books?id=QUWqDQAAQBAJ&lpg=PT314&ots=Xv0ykBvypj&dq=abrahamic%20mythology%20.edu&pg=PT314#v=onepage&q=abrahamic%20mythology%20.edu&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msqared80 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

This is debate was resolved a long time ago, with the established consensus for Wikipedia succintly summed up here. That consensus was based in large part on how non-sectarian academics categorize the LDS movement as part of Christianity (a good indication of which is how the LoC groups it) and on how Mormonism self-identifies as part of Christianity. Your Bible argument only works as a definition of orthodox or mainstream Christianity (which version of the Bible, what about the Apocrypha?). Please respect the existing consensus - if and when a new consensus is reached, then the change can be made. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

References

LDS consider themselves nontrinitarian Missionisagape (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

LDS consider themselves nontrinitarian Missionisagape (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Organization

Including Anglicanism in Catholicism is ridiculous and outrageous. Having it as its own section is bad enough; including it in Catholicism is completely indefensible, and blatant POV-pushing. john k (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Orthodox=Catholic?

Almost every book or encyclopedia that I've read breaks the Christian denominations into three major groups; Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox. Even the Christianity template on Wikipedia shows those three plus Nontrinitarian. Why is Orthodox part of Catholic here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.194.56.199 (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Roman Catholic Church be a single denomination?

The Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches are all under the authority of the Pope. So doesn't that make them one denomination with varied rites, as opposed to 23 different denominations? 128.250.5.246 (talk) 02:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

As all of them treat themselves as a special group apart from other denominations it is probably best to leave it as is. 99.195.200.51 (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Christian Atheism

I looked through this whole list, but I did not find Christian Atheism (I prefer to call it "Atheistic Christianity", but that's just me). Is there a reason it is not here? Did I miss it? Where would it go if we were to add it? 97.96.65.123 (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This list specific Christian denominations, not variations of Atheism. 99.195.200.51 (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Christian Missionary Alliance

Noticed this myself. Is there any reason the Christian Missionary Alliance is listed twice. It is both under "Pietists and Holiness Churches" and "Miscellaneous/Other". Unless I'm mistaken and there are two denominations with the same name, I'd say one of these doesn't need to be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.99.149.210 (talk) 06:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Iagree. The C&MA should be listed as a Holiness Church since it's roots are in the Deeper Life Movement. I recommend it be removed from Misc/Other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srvfan84 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note

There's really no reason to add "Please note" to the page, it adds nothing to the text. The text is there so people will note it, see WP:EDITORIALIZING for a similar case. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree; should these ideas be incorporated into the article or removed wholesale? --ProfPolySci45 (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Universalism is not Christian

Universalism is a completely separate religion. Why is it listed as a denomination as Christianity? 214.13.69.132 (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Catholic Church's def of true church

I don't see the relevance of the Catholic church's opinion on the true church in the lead. --JFHutson (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right, so I removed it. Editor2020 (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Methodists are Anglican, not general protestants.

Methodism is a splinter of Anglicanism (which is a splinter of the Catholic church). If the definition of a protestant is a reformed church, then Anglicans and Methodists would be protestant, but if the definition of protestantism is Calvinist, Lutheran, etc., then neither Methodists nor Anglicans are protestants. There is much confusion about defining these two denominations, but the key point I make here is that Methodism is very Anglican, more so than anything else. It is so similar that there are even some churches working on uniting the two. Also, theology is nearly identical. There are only a few differences, mostly in general ceremony (e.g., weekly communion vs monthly) and titles. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 01:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Why was Lord's New Church Which Is Nova Hierosolyma removed from under the header Swedenborgianism?

I was trying to find this group (Lord's New Church Which Is Nova Hierosolyma) and was having the hardest time remembering it, I had first Heard of them from this section, so it was kind of stressful to go back and see that it was no longer there, which made me have to do some extra work to remember their name. Is there a reason this group has been removed from the list? they still have an artical on the website but no link from this list now. Anthony maybury (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

EARLY CHURCH(?) IMAGE

Because this image is grossly historically inaccurate, even according to the pages linked for the content; because it creates conflict, thereby, with linked pages; because it is completely unnecessary to the content of this page. It should remain removed until consensus is reached. Wikipedia looks pretty stupid keeping this image up. People are laughing at us on message boards thanks to this image. That's where I found it. Shame on whoever originally posted it. --Wiki Comic Relief (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

With this edit the image File:Christianity-Branches-2013update.png was removed. I object to its removal, as it is informative and part of a series of images which illustrates the divisions in the history of Christianity. It balances the other image included in this article, which only illustrates Protestantism. It is particularly difficult to follow this timeline without a visual aid. It meets WP:PERTINENCE and is a freely licensed image. Please justify the reason for removal, and explain why it is historically inaccurate, with examples. Elizium23 (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Coordinating your editing on sites outside Wikipedia is forbidden and I have placed a warning on your user talk page. Elizium23 (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no coordinating from outside sites. I don't know where you would get that from. What I said was that I found out about this image from two messages boards that were basically using it as a laughing point to talk about how unreliable Wikipedia is.

I think the use of an image is important, but that image has to be (1) historically accurate, which then makes it useful to the content; and (2) not be in conflict with pages that are linked from this page. In the instant case, the aforementioned image is historically inaccurate, even according to pages liked from here - thereby bringing it into conflict with them. It's comparable to the page of US Presidents saying that G. W. Bush died, and the other page saying that he hasn't died. Which page is correct?

A better image would be one that does not argue a theological position, which this one clearly does, but, rather, simply uses the claimed date or origin of the organizations to provide a visual that enhances the content, rather than bring it into conflict. --Wiki Comic Relief (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

For example, the current image is in direct conflict with this linked page Catholic_Church, which says that since at least by 110 C.E. one Church has called itself Catholic and after the East-West Schism the Churches in union with Rome continue to call themselves Catholic. Therefore, a proper image would have one unbroken line that starts from the at least the 2nd Century and continue, with other groups breaking off from it. The current image is not unbiased historical - it is biased theological. --Wiki Comic Relief (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed unsourced map

Obvious incorrect map, for example for distribution of religion for USA , refer http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/12/12/religion-in-americas-states-and-counties-in-6-maps/ . Many other mistakes but main reason , no reliable source provided. Grsd (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Excluded

Jehovah witnesses are Christians and they have been left off the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.31.40.253 (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

UU national organizations do not consider themselves to be Christian groups.

Unitarian Universalist (UU) national organizations such as the Unitarian Universalist Association and the Canadian Unitarian Council do not consider themselves to be Christian groups, but a minority of their members are Christian (mostly of the Unitarianism and Christian Universalism varieties). But national organizations for Unitarians (such as the American Unitarian Conference and Christian Universalists (such as the Christian Universalist Association) do consider themselves to be Christian groups. The confusion is cussed by the fact that UU national organizations have been founded by the coming together of groups that began as Unitarian and Christian Universalist respectively. And as a result one can not tell by the name of one of these groups, example the Canadian Unitarian Council, if they are UU or Christian of either the Unitarian or Christian Universalist varieties. What I am asking is, as this is a list of Christian denominations, should UU groups by listed here? I think not. But I am looking to gain some consensus before I begin to be bold again, as I have already been reverted once after having bold on this topic. Thoughts? --Devin Murphy (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Every Christian group of this kind should be mentioned, as Christian Universalists & Unitarians are significant in the U.S. You can use brackets to note something or clarify. I don't see a problem here.Ernio48 (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland

Listed twice 72.197.155.162 (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)david park 20160206

Where to put Remonstrant

Remonstrants are currently not listed. It is not easy to place them. In their ways they share much with the Pentecost movement but are not member of a Pentecost organization and are much older. Their belief is based on the Reformed teachings of Jacobus Arminius. This got them expelled from the Reformed churches in the Synod of Dort. They are still a (small) church within the Netherlands. Formally it makes sense to add them to the reformed list like the Huguenots; but the Remonstrants where actively kicked out. What do you think? Arnoutf (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to let List of Christian denominations by number of members merge with this list

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

• There is Nno consensus to merge these pages, and no likelihood that consensus is possible (one way or another). While participants have expressed their belief with policy based language, they remain steadfast in their opposition with no compromise in sight and no hint that common ground may exist. The relative "lack of participation" in context with how long the discussion endured indicates that a contingent of prospective respondents chose to give silent support, instead, for the easily discernible outcome, well entrenched by the divergent sides; especially in light of a near doubling in page views throughout the discussion, since it began.[5]

  The discussion is, therefor, closed without prejudice or restrictions against discussing a merger anew; amidst the following recommendations: avoid commingling content disputes with a proposal's merge rationale; nearly ensuring a consensus will not emerge. For example: challenging the neutrality of the list's existing sort order was, at best, ill advised. Espouse compromise, as well, and avoid excessive zeal when advocating a side; too often, thereby, is discussion derailed. (non-admin closure) by --John Cline (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Current sorting "by theology and history" is flawed per WP:NPOV. I object. This could be an extensive discussion, but needing to have it has been implied by the responses of the above merge discussion. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

If there is not source that indicates a quantity of members of a denomation in order to make it qualify here, then I'm not sure what to make out of it? Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. "Denominations families", for lack of a better word, are now more logically ordered. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed solution

I advocate merging List of Christian denominations by number of members with this list, for the following reasons:

1. The sorting of List of Christian denominations is currently completely arbitrary for no good reason
2. There hasn't been any clear case or arguments presented for the current arbitrary sorting
3. Sorting List of Christian denominations by size as default is the least problematic solution according to WP:NPOV:
   1. By "Christan denominational families" as main groupings, as seen in Category:Christian denominational families
   2. Or by other taxonomy that could be the subject of another discussion
4. There is such a large amount of what could be aspire to Christian denominations, that an implicated minimum size qualifier would be at hand
5. Since there is such a vast amount, one list would very much suffice to keep maintained

Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: better to keep a simple, exhaustive list (this one) and some more selective ones with more detail. StAnselm (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support It makes sense to include the numbers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral: Unless you somehow include Christian groups that are no longer around and listed here, like Lollardy, in a "dead denominations" section or so, I am opposed to this. Someone might come looking for it, and find nothing.Ernio48 (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ernio48: Yes, I think we all participants so far agree with that that needs to be worked out somehow. Does this conclusion make you more positive than neutral? Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

More positive, but there'll need to be some reasonable categorization introduced to this article after the merging since now it is a mess.Ernio48 (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ernio48: Agree - personally proposed above under #3, but could be subject to a separate discussion. I share your concern. Do we now have a support vote from you, please? Chicbyaccident (talk)

• Support if complete; Ernio48 is correct that we don't want to lose information.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't believe the numbers in the "by number of members" list, and adding such numbers elevates the numbers importance inappropriately. The current list is organized sensibly, sort of by chronology of development. Adding numbers would lead to issues about organizing here. Which size should be given here, a current estimate of membership or a past biggest membership, with varying quality of references supporting the numbers? It would be a mess. A hugely important once-huge-in-membership denomination could get minimized here. I strongly feel that persons interested in size of denominations should be catered to separately in their separate article focussing upon size. --doncram 17:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

That is precisely the issue at hand, which would supposedly be dealt with according to #4.1 or #4.2 above. Either case, if #4 is simply way too big a question, then that would per se be a reason for a merge in order to work that out properly rather than having the dissonance as of preexisting arbitrary design. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The numbers are never going to be sorted out. Adding numbers would effectively trash this good, essential, encyclopedic list. Leave the problematic numbers over in the separate article for those obsessed or otherwise interested in poor quality indicators of size, or in "ranking" churches, etc. IMHO, it is possible for there to be encyclopedic discussion of the difficult/controversial matters of size, but that cannot be allowed to overwhelm / contaminate the reasonable history- and chronology-based and hugely important article. Numbers as of 2010? As of 2017? According to whom? Again, leave that to readers and editors who would believe in what others reasonably will believe is nonsense.

An alternative to this RFC dictating what must be done, would be for someone to actually try to draft a good, encyclopedic all-wonderful article, and then propose that be accepted. Frankly I don't believe anyone can develop a decent alternative with numbers worthy of consideration to substitute for this good list-article here.--doncram 18:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, I agree with that disputability. That is precisly why I, for WP:NPOV reasons and general convenience, propose to keep this scope tighter in one and the same list. We don't need to dispute over the disposition of two different lists when simply one of them would be enough as a subject of dispositional dispute. Do you see what I'm trying to say? Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Are we having a consensus for a merge? Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

No. And I will add another oppose. Besides size being one of the least important characteristics of a denomination, it is notoriously hard to source and would require constant updating of the list while a list sorted by theology and history is far more stable. Rmhermen (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You're asked to present good reasons for the current, arbitrary sorting. Refusing to opt for a more substantial ordering by size because WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't suffice. See below. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Keep it simple. - STSC (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support and remove the count. It is a receptacle for POV.--2.34.156.146 (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. @SMcCandlish: Encouraged by the support expressed above, I have added all information from List of Christian denominations by number of members here in a merge (diff). By effect, List of Christian denominations by number of members is now redundant and may be redirected here for further improvement conveniently of one single list. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there a way to include the numbers without embedding them in the headings themselves? If the numbers are ever updated, it has the potential to break several links to subsections from other articles. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the merge as without consensus. Rmhermen (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rmhermen: Substantial efforts were made into that update. Would you mind accepting the edits - the entries of more denominations - at least without the added figures? If you object to the merge altogether, good arguments would be asked for since you (and your revert) obiously reflects a minority position judgin from the discussion above. We hade the multiple issues tag inserted for quite some time now, and we should be finishing the merge now in order to let it go. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm obviously not Rmhermen, but I figured I'd weigh in since he hasn't yet. I appreciate the effort you put into your update, and I think it would be great if you were to add more denominations to the list. That said, I would oppose the reintroduction of the membership figures. I think there is some wisdom in keeping this article and List of Christian denominations by number of members separate. I also agree with Rmhermen's assessment of the discussion above; it does not seem to me that there was a consensus to merge the two articles. Bnng (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bnng:, Alright, but what is your arguments for the current sorting of the list, though, if not by size, please? Please note that by plain voting, 5 users support a merge while 2 don't. If you belong to the minority, would good arguments for your stance be too much to ask for? Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so, no. To my mind, it makes the most sense to group the denominations by theological family (e.g. Anabaptism, Eastern Orthodoxy) and arrange the larger theological/denominational families chronologically. This is how Wikipedia and many other encyclopedias treat various Christian denominations in the context of general articles on Christianity and is also how many, if not most, books on Christian denominations are arranged. Not only does this arrangement make sense, it is also likely to be the most helpful for readers. Those who are interested in a grouping by size can see List of Christian denominations by number of members.

Now, this list currently follows the arrangement I just suggested to some extent, but it could certainly be improved upon. So if you're asking me to defend the current arrangement in its entirety, I cannot. I simply think it would be improved by going in a different direction than you wish it to go.

Before finishing up, I would like to note that you have miscounted the number of supporters and opposers. The present count is 5 in favor (including yourself), 1 neutral, and 3 opposed. With this edit, I will be adding an oppose vote, making the tally 5 support, 1 neutral, and 4 oppose. The oppose votes might be in the minority, but not by much. There is certainly no consensus to make the sweeping changes you support at this time. Bnng (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Bnng

Let's see. For current ordering (and without size information), except arguments such as "some wisdom", "to my mind", "I simply think", also "chronologically" has been put forward as an argument for WP:NPOV, referring to "many, if not most, books on Christian denominations". Sorry, but since the current ordering has been tagged for a long time as violating WP:NPOV, would it be too much to as for at least one of these these books and its neutral authority on the subject? Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't have time to respond to this in full at the moment, but I would like to respond to one point you made. You claimed "the current ordering has been tagged for a long time as violating WP:NPOV," and yet the list was not tagged as violating WP:NPOV until 17 minutes ago, when you added the template to the top of the page. It can be difficult to AGF when you make claims such as this. Bnng (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

It's been there and then retrieved. Until you or someone else has time to provide arguments for the ordering, I believe it is fair it should be kept as a signal that I and possibly more of the majority that supports a merge are still waiting for arguments for the current ordering. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bnng: Fair enough about the vote. However, the branching that you are referring, isn't that branching employed also in the "by numbers of members" list? That is why I guess we who support a merge expect more convincing arguments for duplicate lists, and in particular for the one simply disregarding figures. In short, you are asked to put forth arguments, and if not I have a hard time seeing how you can block a correction of an unexplained state of exception from WP:NPOV. See also the discussion about that under the header immediately here below. Chicbyaccident (talk)

It is to some extent, though like this article, it doesn't follow my suggested grouping exactly. However, you argued repeatedly above that this style of sorting is inappropriate and non-neutral, preferring instead that the denominations be listed in order of size. Could you perhaps clarify how you prefer to see the denominations in this list sorted and organized, and explain why you prefer them to be organized that way? Bnng (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Like List of Christian denominations by number of members. Because it is more neutral. I have yet too see arguments or ecen description of whatever sorting is preexistingly done in List of Christian denominations? Is it too much to ask for that the minority proponents of status quo offer that? Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. See reasons listed above, both in my comment and in the responses of doncram and Rmhermen. Bnng (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Conclusion

@SMcCandlish: inter alia: Longstanding result: 5 support (including nominator), 1 neutral (but "more positive"), and 3 oppose. Notable is that during the time of the discussion, users have updated the contents of List of Christian denominations to further look like List of Christian denominations by number of members, including name of denominational families ordered by size aready (but without the actual numbers). In summary, 3 oppose againt 5 support for introducing the members numbers to the denominations' names seems not convincing for keeping away added, relevant content from this list, but instead to merge the two lists in one, coherent list for more convenient maintaince and overview. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Contest.- I contest this as it removes the generalized list of notable movements.--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't have to be the case, does it? For scatteredness, it might as well be distributed into more denominationally-specific lists. In any case, that would be a secondary question. Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Good point!--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I think you will need to get an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. StAnselm (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Not to be rude, but doesn't that mean uninvolved means they likely don't care, and are going off their own perception rather than having involvement? Involvement in these articles is what helps the conversation, as their contributors converse among one another, especially since these articles are different in the fact one is more exhaustive thus being more informative?--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - As I am sure you are aware, decisions such as this are not made by majority vote, but by consensus, and it seems pretty clear to me that there is no consensus to make the changes you desire at this time. Also, I noticed you once again undercounted the number of those opposed to your proposal. The current tally is 5 support, 1 neutral, and 4 oppose. Bnng (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, missed one. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge

• Comment - Should the notice template be removed now?--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@TheTexasNationalist99: Before you do that, please finish the merge. Feel free to take into account the format in the last previous attempt. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Not all can be numbered however, so it'd be pointless to merge wouldn't it, @Chicbyaccident:?TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

As you can see in my last draft, it's alright. It can be worked out later per WP:NOTFINISHED. The most important to take into a ccount now is the ordering in this list per WP:NPOV. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@TheTexasNationalist99: Thanks for your good contributions. Do you intend to attempt a merge anytime soon? Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Chicbyaccident: Thanks! As for the merge, I do not attempt any time soon because I find it an obstacle by adding the numbers, yet leaving several there without any numbering whatsoever.--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@TheTexasNationalist99: Don't worry. I, and hopefully the others, will help you with it. If a few lack figures we'll get there in time per WP:NOTFINISHED. The important thing is to finish the merge now per WP:NPOV (getting away with precurrent arbitrary ordering). Alright? Are you ready? Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Chicbyaccident: I suppose so.--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Chicbyaccident:, I have a question. Before we move any further, should we truly do this, as I still have some reservations particularly when the article clearly states it isn't by the purpose of numbers. Forgive me if I'm forgetting something I was told about prior.TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@TheTexasNationalist99: We cannot have two lists of Christian denominations. The order may be altered in either way - divided in branches and/or single denominations; ordered chronologically/by size in respective dimension - but at least then we just have to discuss over one single list. And one single list would be difficult enough to maintain and order neutrally. We can't do two. Therefore I advice you to proceed (effectively making the other list redundant). Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Chicbyaccident: But wouldn't that be contradictory? And why are you pushing this so quick and somewhat aggressively now? There's two lists of countries by every thing imaginable, along with other subjects, and they cannot all be merged because of the sake of consistency, and sizes, etc.--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@TheTexasNationalist99: I'm not. Just minding WP:NPOV. Yet, at least for pure convenience, I would probably advocate merging of such another list(s) as well. Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Chicbyaccident: Check the latest draft out!--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@TheTexasNationalist99: Excuse, where is the latest draft, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Chicbyaccident: The latest edit.--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@TheTexasNationalist99: Thanks for the reply. It seems alright to me. Again, as the others said above, as long as no information is lost in the merge, I would encourage you to go ahed, please. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Chicbyaccident: Then great! As for information, not all numbers would fit, so I only placed the numbers for the branches of Christianity as whole, like Catholic, Orthodox, Prot, etc. Numbers for all of those articles however could be found on their pages as the article declares the sizes of all of them isn't (and therefore shouldn't), be relative to this list (especially since all cannot be numbered. Right? TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Chicbyaccident: Done!TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Excellent! So are you saying List of Christian denominations by number of members is completely redundant now? No information, nor source references, will be lost by redirecting it here now? Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Excellent indeed. That page is completely redundant now, and no information or source references have been lost by it redirecting here now since the sources pertaining to memberships for the branches of Catholics, Orthodox (Oriental and Eastern), and for Protestant branches (such as Anglicanism, for example), have references to the number of members they hold (again, branchwise for the sake of consistency since some have no documented numbers).TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Reverted merge

"5 support (including nominator), 1 neutral (but "more positive"), and 3 oppose" (actually 5 oppose, including the one who was not counted and me) is not consensus, at all. Moreover, this discussion was notified just once at Talk:List of Christian denominations by number of members, it was one year ago and users following List of Christian denominations by number of members (like me) were not informed about anything. The two lists have different scopes and different content. I oppose the merger or, at least, a merger without numbers. Per User:Bnng and User:StAnselm, I will restore List of Christian denominations by number of members. After that, I will be much willing to discuss, but clearly we need more editors involved in the discussion. @User:Walter Görlitz, User:Ernio48, User:SMcCandlish, User:Rmhermen, User:Chicbyaccident, User:STSC, User:FyzixFighter, User:TheTexasNationalist99: Please all of you have a say! --Checco (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

As one of the editors mentioned above, I don't know where I got placed in that count - am I the neutral? Saying I'm "more positive" extrapolates way too much from my previous single comment. I strongly disagreed with putting the numbers in the headings. I am not against adding number of members information to this list, but in general I oppose the merger as the two lists have different scopes and organizational schemes. This is not uncommon on WP. There are several lists on WP that duplicate high-level information, organized by different criteria. So I see no problem with maintaining a general list like this one organized denominational families and another list organized by number of members. --FyzixFighter (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, @Checco:. This happened last year, and then this article was notified this year by the user proposing it? I apologize for my ignorance on the matter. I believed the same as well, and even then I still felt something strange because the lists were completely different, and merging still didn't feel natural, with the person using NPOV-pushing. I oppose the merger altogether however, as this article specifically states "Some groups are large (e.g. Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans or Baptists), while others are just a few small churches, and in most cases the relative size is not evident in this list." This means this article isn't meant to have all the numbers unlike the List of Christian denominations by number of members has. This article primarily just gathers the numbers of most where possible, particularly the branches they are in. I staunchly oppose this now. I thought you were all notified of our conversation, and were just taking a backseat. Forgive me! --TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@TheTexasNationalist99: @Checco: The problem isn't so much List of Christian denominations by number of members, but List of Christian denominations. The proposed solution was therefore to merge List of Christian denominations by number of members with List of Christian denominations. So what is the problem with List of Christian denominations? Well, none seems to be able to offer convicing arguments for the precurrent, arbitrary order "by theology" or "by branch". That's the key issue. Until that is solved - and that does seem hard - keeping List of Christian denominations in its preexisting arbitrary sorting is a WP:NPOV issue rather than merging it. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Checco: @Chicbyaccident: Read the article's lead and terminology and qualification. Otherwise it'd make sense to call you out for WP:Civil POV pushing. It's in plain English the ordering of the article. The lead just describes what a Christian denomination is. There is no key issue really from what I have seen, and from what I have read from others other than you constantly using WP:NPOV as a reason constantly, though the article doesn't give any branch an "upper hand". --TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course I am open for good arguments. But to give a concrete example: Oriental Orthodoxy is now presented before Catholic Church, and Eastern Catholic in the listing. I'm not sure that reflects the expectations of readers when presented a list of Christian denominations. That's just one example of potential problems I see with the ordering of this list. Again, I don't claim a fits-all solution of ordering, but at least keeping one and the same list will limit the dispute to one location (which should arguably take into account "by numbers" somehow). I'm really sorry if TheTexasNationalist99 sees a problem with this critique beyond my understanding. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@User:TheTexasNationalist99: Call me out for WP:Civil POV pushing? I agree with everything you wrote, but I think I will not be involved in this article as far as the other one remains a separate article. --Checco (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Oriental Orthodoxy, according to history, was before the split of the Great Church, and therefore has to be placed, in accordance with history, as a late early Christian group since it existed before the Great Schism. So, there truly is no problem there. That's also why I added Arianism as an early Christian group as well, because it was before the First Council of Nicaea, @Chicbyaccident:. TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Checco: I was calling out @Chicbyaccident:.TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Precisely this "according to history" assertion above is an example of problematic statement in multiple ways. I am sure there are more users than I to react to that out of WP:NPOV concern. However, if name-calling persists, I better let you have your way and get on with improvements elsewhere. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

"According to history" assertion is an example of a problematic statement? If so, I apologize, but let me clarify, from historical records, everything has been as re-ordered as perfectly possible since the article in the lead for a long time has also stated "from ancient to contemporary Christianity". The headings and sub-headings do indeed lead us from ancient to contemporary Christianity because historical records, and not sheer bias, supports them. But again, forgive me if I'm ignorant in this matter. Though historical, the viewpoint still remains neutral however as nobody's sidepoint validates them as being "the one true almighty church where others should be criticized as false." Regarding name-calling, I did not do such a thing but just alleged a case of POV-pushing against you.TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Once again, someone needs to assess consensus and close the discussion before the merge takes place. StAnselm (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thanks for contributing. I don't see a consensus leading to merge however. But I'm just going to sit back and watch.TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment: I quitting this talk. If new proposals of merger arise, please notify and keep updated the users involved in List of Christian denominations by number of members at Talk:List of Christian denominations by number of members. --Checco (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment: This whole proposal is dead. It's been nearly two years now and a consensus still will not be reached.--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, doesn't that discussion above indicate that there is substantial support still for a merge? Chicbyaccident (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

With certain stipulations, but as strongly argued, there isn't a need to simply merge these two. These are of two different scopes.--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, then again, what is the sorting of this one and the need for that sorting, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, obviously we've explained to you time and time again the sorting of this one is from "ancient to contemporary Christianity", and also let's not forget the fact it also has the basis of serving just for denominations as the relative sizes of denominations is not relevant here. This is the desired sorting because its feasible to inform others of the progression of Christian history and the numerous schisms it has within it. It helps simplify searching in history on Wikipedia for how early Christianity up to now is. What don't you get?--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying it isn't satisfying to WP:NPOV. That "Church of the East, "Assyrian Christianity", and "Oriental Orthodoxy" is to be listed first as being the oldest denominations "from ancient to contemporary"... I'm still lacking explanation for how that applies to that sorting. Furthermore, "Oriental Orthodoxy" is listed under "Historical groups", when it is in fact a very-much existing entity. Well, I could go on. And so could anyone who come across this list and really evaluates how the content is presented. Simply validating it with "ancient to contemporary" might do in theory, but it is obvious that this comes with a bunch of headache when you actually try to practice it with such a vast material, with substantial overlapping and content in terms of claims of historical legacy. You may be able to convince all the others except me that you chronological rendering is the only feasable and natural ordering, but I am afraid other users will come around also asking for arguments how it is rendered. All in all, ordering by size in terms of branches is complicated enough to reach a WP:NPOV solution. This chronoligical by schism event... Well, I don't know? Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

"Church of the East", "Assyrian Christianity," and "Oriental Orthodoxy" are listed first as being the oldest from "ancient to contemporary" because they were in existence before the Great Schism. If you simply read to understand, and not to push an agenda, they form part of "Late ancient and Medieval Christian groups". The article clearly states: "The following are groups of Christians appearing between the First Council of Nicaea, the Great Schism and Proto-Protestantism." Assyrian Christianity was only included there because the following churches stem from this Late ancient to Medieval Christian group known as the "Church of the East". That's how that applies to sorting, and I'm glad you asked because I could so better explain in more detail. It does not anywhere in there say "extinct groups" in that sub-section whatsoever so it should be included there. Finally, again, "from ancient to contemporary Christianity" pertains to early Christianity and all the schisms it has weathered up to today, from the early Pauline and Jewish and Gnostic Christianites to Protestants. It's that simple...--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support for Merge - List of Christian denominations by number of members is obviously a subset of List of Christian denominations. As mentioned in WP:Merge, "there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept". STSC (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• I have to renew my support for merging, since my "if" in my early comment a long while back was clearly taken into a consideration and complied with. The reversion stuff seems to be tit-for-tat behavior. I don't see a practical, reader-facing rationale for it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• Still oppose - The terminology and qualifications of the articles are set out plainly, in addition to the previous arguments.TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

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.

Re-directed from BRANCHES of Christianity, but is mostly about denominations.

This article is re-directed from 'Branches of Christianity', but is titled denominations. That doesn't seem accurate nor helpful. The article on Christianity says, "Worldwide, the three largest branches of Christianity are the Catholic Church, Protestantism, and the Eastern Orthodox Church." It seems to me that Branches are the larger category, with denominations being sub-categories. Maybe the sections here about Branches should be in their own titled article, with this one reserved for the myriad of denominations within Branches? UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@UnderEducatedGeezer: This issue is being dealt with in the two headers above, please check them out. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Where does Westboro Baptist Church fit on the list?

Before I considering addition of them, are they Primitive, Calvinist, Old School or even Fundamentalist Baptists? The Westboro Baptist Church based in Topeka, Kansas is infamous for their anti-gay or homophobic, as well other forms of hatred in their pickets and sermons. 12.218.47.124 (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

From Westboro Baptist Church article

"The WBC is not affiliated with any Baptist denomination, although it describes itself as Primitive Baptist and following the five points of Calvinism."

-Editor2020 (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Independent and/or syncretic Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy?

Moved from own talk page:

Since Independent Catholicism has been moved to the other category listing as well, should the same happen for independent and/or syncretic Orthodoxy?--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@TheTexasNationalist99: Good question. I would be inclined to believe that these better suits in the section "10. Other Christian groups", reflecting WP:CONSENSUS in Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodoxy article contents respectively. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's move them then! --TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I grouped different categories of Independent Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy. However, also Independent Catholicism could use some subcategorisation at least into 1) Old Catholicism, 2) Liberal Catholicism, and 3) others. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Russian Orthodox Church?

When is the time to accept the Moscow–Constantinople schism (2018) as fait accompli, listing Russian Orthodox Church under "Independent Eastern Orthodoxy"? If and when the schism would be resolved, it would not hard to move it back. In the meantime, what about the accuracy? Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It likely depends if Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople either abandoning Tomos and eventually plans of merging former two noncanonical Ukrainian Orthodox Churches into one unified National Ukrainian Orthodox Church and not under Moscow Patriarchates control or they will accept by compromise means as they did in 22 years ago with Estonia issue. Chad The Goatman (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

The position of the Marthoma Syrian Church

It has been noted by the Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church that false information is given by this wikipedia page on the position of the Marthoma Syrian Church within Christendom.The Church only has the authority to declare which branch of Christianity it belongs to not anyone else. The Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church IS ORTHODOX in faith and it is NOT PROTESTANT OR ANGLICAN.IT HAS POSITIONS UNDER INDEPENDENT ORIENTAL ORTHODOXY AND REFORMED ORTHDOXY. Sebin Prasad Cheriyan Marvallill (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Sebin Prasad Cheriyan Marvallill: Fanciful claims of all sorts by various Christian denominations, is as old as Christianity itself. In almost all cases these fantastic sounding claims are challenged or rejected by the rest of Christendom and dismissed as nonsensical blether by non-Christians. Now lets discuss the primary source, the official website of the Marthoma church (http://marthoma.in/the-church/heritage/). Describing the heritage of the Marthoma church, it says,

There was a nucleus of people in the church who longed for the removal of unscriptural customs and practices which had crept into the church over the centuries. They envisioned a reformation in the Church in the light of the Gospel of our Lord. There were two outstanding leaders in this group, one was Palakunnathu Abraham Malpan of Maramon (1796-1845) and the other, Kaithayil Geevarghese Malpan of Puthuppally (1800-1855). Both were teachers in the Syrian Seminary (established in AD 1813 by Pulikottil Mar Dionysius) and had opportunities to come into close personal contact with the missionaries and to share their insights regarding the Christian life and the nature and functioning of the Church as depicted in the New Testament and to imbibe the ideas of the Western Reformation. The group led by these two was very much concerned about the need of a revival in the Church.

The founding influence that inspired the reformers was indisputably, Anglican. The reformers imbibed the ideas of reformation, which they later carried out, from the Anglican missionaries. Additionally, this website declares that the Marthoma Church is in full communion with the entire Anglican Communion. It does not mention any communion relationship with any other Christian bodies, except for general ecumenical ties, which all Christian denominations in this day and age, maintain. This claim about communion with Anglicans, is acknowledged in the official website of the Anglican communion (https://www.anglicancommunion.org/ecumenism/churches-in-communion.aspx), which lists the Marthoma church as one of the denominations in communion with it.

Additionally, no credible source on the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox communions even mentions the Marthoma church at all. This is only because the Marthoma church represents a few minor nineteenth century dissenting movements in Eastern Christianity and is not part of its historic mainstream represented by Eastern and Oriental Orthodox communions as well as the Church of the East. This should make it clear as crystal, to any sane person that the present classification of Marthoma church as Reformed Eastern Christian with Anglican influences is accurate and must not be disrupted.

One thing more..... Your self declaration as the member of the Marthoma denomination, brings with it a conflict of interest and seriously blights you from being perceived as impartial. Silly gimmicks like the one above will only serve to make people laugh. Instead, come up with very good secondary sources by people not directly connected to the subject. Special thanks to @Chad The Goatman: and @Srnec: for reverting disruptions.Macinderum (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Misc listings 2019

The page is getting much neater over time, and is now in conforming more with the article "Christian Denominations by Number" which is helpful for readership.

Some Churches listed under miscellaneous and 'other' over time need to be catagorized correcly

If you are unsure where a church you are adding goes, list it under misc or othet and I or someone wilk sort it later.

Keep up the good work wikians! Missionisagape (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Mita, of Puerto Rico

Hi Wikipedians! Where would the Mita Congregation fit into this list, if at all?--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

REPLY: This organization according to that page believe heterodox trinitarian ideas so it would be classified as a charismatic non-niceaotrinitarian movement or church, aka "Restorationist" -missionisagape — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missionisagape (talk • contribs) 20:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Pentecostal denominations partial list lost

There was a partial list of Pentecostal denominations which had built up in list-article List of Pentecostal churches. I deleted all of the denomination items, because that is and always has been a list of individual Pentecostal places of worship. Maybe some of them should be added here though. --Doncram (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

World Mission Society Church of God

I just wanted to give a heads up that this is not a Christian organisation. Rather, they worship a woman in Korea known as Mother God. They do use bits of the Bible, but largely they rely on these things called 'Truth Books' which are supposedly private revelations. I feel like this at least needs to be noted on the page. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 08:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Only extant groups?

My edit adding a couple entries to the Late ancient and Medieval section was reverted bu @Veverve on the grounds that the groups I added were no longer extant. That applies to most of the section- should it be deleted altogether? 72.201.86.125 (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I need support from other Wikipedian.

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)

The Christian and Missionary Alliance

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)

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

Orphaned references in List of Christian denominations

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of Christian denominations's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Melton2005":

• From Methodism: Melton, J. Gordon (2005). Encyclopedia of Protestantism. Infobase Publishing. p. 48. ISBN 978-0816069835. Among the items deleted by Wesley as unnecessary for Methodists were articles on of Works Before Justification, which in Calvinism are largely discounted, but in Methodism lauded; Of Predestination and Election, which Wesley felt would be understood in a Calvinist manner that the Methodists rejected; and of the Traditions of the Church, which Wesley felt to be no longer at issue.
• From Messianic Judaism: Melton 2005, p. 373: "Messianic Judaism is a Protestant movement that emerged in the last half of the 20th century among believers who were ethnically Jewish but had adopted an Evangelical Christian faith.…By the 1960s, a new effort to create a culturally Jewish Protestant Christianity emerged among individuals who began to call themselves Messianic Jews.
• From Christian denomination: Melton, J. Gordon (2005). Encyclopedia of Protestantism. Infobase Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8160-6983-5. Most narrowly, it denotes a movement that began within the Roman Catholic Church in Europe in the 16th century and the churches that come directly out of it. In this narrow sense, Protestantism would include the Lutheran, Reformed or Presbyterian, and Anglican (Church of England) churches, and by extension the churches of the British Puritan movement, which sought to bring the Church of England into the Reformed/Presbyterian camp. Most recently, scholars have argued quite effectively that the churches of the radical phase of the 16th-century Reformation, the Anabaptist and Mennonite groups, also belong within this more narrow usage.
• From Christianity: Melton, J. Gordon (2005). Encyclopedia of Protestantism. Infobase Publishing. p. 398. ISBN 978-0-8160-6983-5.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East

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)

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)

"Independent Sacramental" a somewhat artificial category

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)

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)

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)

Problematic edits by User:GastonN'estPasBon

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, Anupam^Talk 17:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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, Anupam^Talk 01:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. Anupam^Talk 14:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

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)