Talk:United Methodist Church

message: I shuffled around the Clergy section to make it more organized. I shifted piece on Women's Ordination to the history part of the section and made the history and Women's ordination titles smaller. Then I ordred the clergy offices in descending order, and I have no qualms with switching the order but this seems reasonable. I then divided and rewrote the sections on Deacons and Elders since they were full of irrelevant information and many grammatical errors. No citation is added until we get the new Book of Discipline, although all material is fromt the 2008 version.
I think the section is now cleaner and more organized. If you have any issues with my changes, please let me know.--Revmqo (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clergy Section 

message: I am removing the photo again. Please review WP policies on photos before you reinsert the photo. And put forth an argument for why it should be included on the talk page. Quite simply, based on your history as noted above regarding Glendale UMC, it appears that you are inserting the photo because it is your POV. If you want to put a photo relevant to the ordination of women, then how about a photo of Maud Jensen or someone relevant to the issue at hand. Revmqo (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is your argument, then why is it any more appropriate that Foundry UMC, United Methodist Church in Ceylon, Minnesota (2011), Metropolitan United Methodist Church, Detroit, Michigan, and Christ United Methodist Church in Rochester, Minnesota are included - as they have no more validity in the section they are in - at least Glendale, with a female minister has that description in the section of ordination in relation to women (which is where I meant to place it the first time). The pictures (which should rotate to keep the interest of the page up) where currently there are two churches both of stone and three of the four look like large churches - maybe some variety could be in order and acceptable. And yes, I go to this church - just spreading the word about us as anyone should - and I work for United Methodist Communications so I work for representing the denomination as best (and as whole) as possible. Ska8706 (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *The photos you point out do violate WP:PERTINENCE and I have removed them. Revmqo (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

text: First, you should learn more about WP. Second, as an employee of the denomination's communications division, your objectivity can easily be called into doubt. Third, if you have a problem with the other photos, then remove them -- but be prepared to explain. Fourth, your admission that you attend this church is enough to prove that your motives for posting the photo into the article are again suspect. Bottom line - WP discourages each action you have taken! Revmqo (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Please read WP:PERTINENCE Revmqo (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, any person should want to have their church in the spotlight (as the other pictures on this page do help with) It's just a picture of a church (a UM church on the UMC page) - that is all. I was only being open and honest with you about that. Sorry for that "suspect" admission. Maybe some kindness in explanation, rather than accusatory tone would help conversation. Its not like this was trying to get some random business placed on a page it had nothing to do with or something negative on here. Ska8706 (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you need to read WP policies. Even for how to reply in a discussion. I removed your insertion and gave the reason in my edit summary. You reverted my removal based on your own POV rather than entering a discussion or following WP guidelines. Before you start throwing around comments like "rather than accusatory tone would help conversation, maybe you should take a look at your own actions or pause to make sure you understand your actions. Revmqo (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of Glendale UMC in [[United Methodist Church]] article 

message: First, I am not an experienced contributor to Wikipedia so pardon any lack of convention on my part.  I find the first sentence, describing the UMC as "both mainline Protestant and Evangelical" is both contradictory and confusing.  The article on Mainline Protestant contrasts Mainline Protestant with evangelical, fundamentalist, and/or charismatic Protestant denominations, so it is difficult to understand how they can be both.  I do not, by the way, have any disagreement with these divisions as provided in the Mainline Protestant article.  In general, the term "evangelical" (either with a capitalized or not) is confusing.  As a statement of the history and foundations of the UMC, it is indisputably Evangelical in the historical context.  However, in the contexts by which the term more often heard today -- usually sociopolitical or theological rather than historical -- the term does not resonate as an accurate description of United Methodists in general.  Even the article on Evangelicalism suffers this confusion as some references lump Methodists in, or out of, their definition of Evangelical.  Research from the Pew Center shows a discontinuity, with their Center for the Study of Global Christianity, in this paper http://www.pewforum.org/files/2011/12/Christianity-fullreport-web.pdf counting "as evangelical all members of denominations that belong to a national, regional or global evangelical council" (clearly United Methodists do participate) along with the centrality of the "born again" experience (clearly not a universal theme in United Methodism today) while other Pew Center research such as this paper http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf delineate Methodists, as a Mainline Protestant church, distinctly apart from Evangelical Protestant churches.  One could say that my original argument is with the Evangelicalism article because the it does not sufficiently help the ambiguity of the term.  At any rate, I do not think the term, without clarification of the specific meaning intended, does not provide an accurate description of the United Methodist Church, and propose that it simply be changed to  ..."mainline Protestant." (period) Mrjlal (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: good points and I tried to fix the opening.  The term "evangelical" changes meaning over time. In the 21st century it is closest to Southern Baptists. In the 19th century it was based in Methodism. Even today the Missouri Synod uses "evangelical" as part of its name --as a carryover from 17th century German usage. Rjensen (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mainline Protestant and Evangelical" 

message: These edits added about abortion policy.  Then an i.p. editor made a small change and reverted themself, as if to hide the abortion-related edit from being apparent on watchlists.  I have no opinion about the abortion policy edit myself, but think more eyeballs should be reviewing this. --doncram —Preceding undated comment added 20:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  abortion topic edits and possible attempt to hide them 

message: I'd like to request to regular editors of this article to consider a new section or subsection that discusses the titles used to describe a Methodist in the hierarchy of the church. I came to this article because I saw someone mentioned in an obituary presiding over a Methodist funeral service as "Rev. [name]" yet as I write this the word Reverend" doesn't even appear in the article! Here is a good research article I found to help you compose the new material: What is the proper way to address a Methodist minister?. Thanks. Please mark this "Done" when and if accomplished. 5Q5 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section needed - forms of address for clergy 

message: I have deleted the following sentence:
The founder of the Methodist Church, the Rev. John Wesley recognized none as Methodists who did not recognize the named Standards of Doctrine. 
The current UMC Standards of Doctrine are from the 1968 merger. It is thus impossible that Wesley insisted that Methodists follow them. The only 'standards' Wesley would have recognised were the Articles of Religion and the Book of Common Prayer as revised for American use in 1784. It is dubious he would have insisted that Methodists adhere to his collected sermons. It must be noted that Wesley remained an Anglican priest his whole life and deemed Methodism a movement within the Church of England, even though this was not the end result in the USA or Great Britain. --IACOBVS (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious sentence under Doctrine header 

message: It would be very helpful if someone could build a table showing yearly membership totals over the past several decades, similar to those in the articles on the Presbyterian Church and its sub-denominations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Sanity Inspector (talk • contribs) 19:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership table 

message: http://www.gcfa.org/media/1614/2017-annual-conference-membership-and-attendance-us.pdf
Maybe sombody can change it. I don't wan't to mess it up. Shai-Huludim (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New membership data - 2017 Membership and Attendance by Conference 

message: There been several articles for a while (a year to couple months ago) about a possible schism by its Liberal/left-wing and Moderate members, with over the "Traditional plan" was approved of adopting against Same-Sex marriage. Chad The Goatman (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess, but there a least couple articles and videos on YouTube, has seems a least there few semi-ex-United Methodist churches in some parts of the US to go as Nondenominational Methodism for now, in protest of their decision.  Chad The Goatman (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  There been news about a potential and possible schism with the Liberal/Moderate followers of the church 

message: Every news article that is released in the media with respect to the United Methodist Church's stance on homosexuality should not enter this article. The section, before I trimmed some unnecessary and undue information was 23,878 characters! The section about "Homosexuality" should summarize the UMC's official stance on the issue rather than be a comprehensive list of everyone who dissents from it. There is already an article about Homosexuality and Methodism, in which more information can be added. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to include every news article that shows dissent, do you also wish to include every statement from Good News Magazine on the topic? That wouldn't make sense, would it? The purpose of the article is to educate the public what The United Methodist Church teaches about human sexuality, not to be a comprehensive list of grievances. The article, as it stands, already has seven large paragraphs devoted to the 'Homosexuality' issue, making it longer than the section about 'Worship and liturgy'. More information actually needs excised per WP:DUE. Thanks, AnupamTalk 04:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:NOTNEWS 

message: User:Tyrekecorrea, you have changed the title of the section under the "Social Issues" from 'Homosexuality' to 'LGBT people', despite the fact that the main article is titled Homosexuality and Methodism. Could you explain why you have done this when the United Methodist Church's Book of Discipline makes reference to 'homosexuality' and does not mention 'LGBT people'? Specifically, it states: 
Please kindly self-revert. I also wish to hear User:StAnselm's input as he the original title restored on the main article. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "Homosexuality" is far superior for the reasons mentioned. StAnselm (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Title 

message: the sentence "He knew that for two centuries the succession of bishops in the Church of Alexandria was preserved through ordination by presbyters alone" is exactly taken from the immediately previous reference, and might as well be put in quotations.  This would also address the tendentious nature of the indirect claim - that in fact what he 'knew' is true and generally accepted as true.  "He knew that vaccinations killed people" would be obvious as a bad sentence to have in Wikipedia.--2607:FEA8:D5DF:F945:8135:8E64:C05B:63FC (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "apostolic succession" 

message: The phrase "church leaders proposed ...", when used without further qualifications or specifications, is always taken to mean "all of the church's leaders, either unanimously or by a majority vote on the question, agreed to propose ..."
Was that actually the way it happened? Or should the sentence be modified to say "some of the church's leaders proposed ..." ? TooManyFingers (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Church leaders proposed..." 

message: Name the four pillars. 41.57.95.228 (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Scripture, tradition, reason, experience KitHutch (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion education 

message: When an article is so long that editing the entire article (though I read about how I can edit the lead as if it is its own section) causes problems with my computer, it's time to consider a split.
This doesn't usually happen, but when I saw corrections needed in the lead after a recent edit by someone else, my computer wouldn't allow me to do anything for a few seconds, then it would let me type or copy and paste or whatever, and then it would quit letting me do anything. Even clicking on "publish changes" was not possible.— Vchimpanzee •  talk • contributions •  18:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Vchimpanzee, readable prose size is 11,212 words. That is pretty large. The most obvious solution is to create sub-articles for topics like UMC History, UMC Governance, and UMC Beliefs. Those articles can then become more detailed and this article can utilize WP: Summary style. Of course, the other option is to trim the parts of it that editors think are unnecessary or poorly sourced. Ltwin (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs to be spilt