Talk:List of Christian denominations

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Pre-Luther Protestants

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Quakers

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Redundant? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  subgroups of armenian apostolic church 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've changed the wording to say "approximately".  Thanks. Tb (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note in the beginning of the article imprecise 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)

text: If you are arguing about the image, please take the discussion there, and not here.  Tb (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to update the DIAGRAM, its not ''Roman'' Catholic Church but Catholic Church

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Church of the East

message: 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)
replies: text: I have no quarrel with this, naturally.  Tb (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  There have been no disagreements for two months; I'm making the change. Tb (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 .  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It's been going on for rather a while. :) Tb (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the ________ considers itself..." 

message: This church is missing from the list. Sarcelles (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is listed under "United and uniting churches". Tb (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But "United and uniting churches" belongs to Protestant. Sarcelles (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Latter Day Saints 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Orthodox=Catholic? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Shouldn't the Roman Catholic Church be a single denomination? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Christian Atheism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Christian Missionary Alliance 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Universalism is not Christian 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Catholic Church's def of true church 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Methodists are Anglican, not general protestants. 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed unsourced map

message: 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)
thread_title:  Excluded 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: UU national organizations do not consider themselves to be Christian groups.

message: Listed twice
72.197.155.162 (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Where to put Remonstrant 

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

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

message: *Comment - Should the notice template be removed now?--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   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)
replies: text: Not all can be numbered however, so it'd be pointless to merge wouldn't it, ?TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:   Thanks for your good contributions. Do you intend to attempt a merge anytime soon? Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Check the latest draft out!--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   Excuse, where is the latest draft, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text:   Done!TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Merge

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thank you for clarifying, . 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)
replies: text:    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)
replies: text:    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)
replies: text:  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  sees a problem with this critique beyond my understanding. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

text: @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)

text:  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, . TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was calling out .TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  "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)

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

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  "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)
thread_title: Reverted merge

message: 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)
replies: text: This issue is being dealt with in the two headers above, please check them out. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-directed from BRANCHES of Christianity, but is mostly about denominations. 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Let's move them then! --TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Independent and/or syncretic Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Russian Orthodox Church? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The position of the Marthoma Syrian Church 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Misc listings 2019 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Pentecostal denominations partial list lost

message: 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)
thread_title: World Mission Society Church of God

message: 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)
thread_title:  Only extant groups? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I need support from other Wikipedian. 

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

message: 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: 
From Messianic Judaism: 
From Christian denomination: 
From Christianity: 
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)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:List of Christian denominations]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "Independent Sacramental" a somewhat artificial category