Talk:Amended Christadelphians

Repeating article

Hello Jack. Thanks for the time given to this. I'm just wondering, though, if this article is necessary because there already is an article on the "Amended Christadelphians" at: Christadelphians (the "Amended" community is the largest Christadelphian community). Perhaps the new information here should be included in a different article (perhaps the Christadelphians article itself, or the Unamended Christadelphians page)? --Woofboy (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think what might work best would be for the main Christadelphians article to describe the Christadelphian movement in general, including maybe basic history and doctrines of the movement as a whole, and then use the other articles as the location to go into greater detail about the history and thinking of each of the separate groups. But it doesn't seem particularly useful to have the Christadelphians article be the main page for the Amended Christadelphian content, even if it is the largest group. That page should probably be used for the history of the movement as a whole, including its origins and a history of the developments in the movement since then. John Carter (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• So, do I keep working on the article or not? I'm not going to spend more time on it if it's going to be deleted or merged. Jack1956 (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You have my sincerest regrets for having not noticed the extant Christadelphians article was perhaps inaccurately used as the main article for the Amended Christadelphians. Logically, it would make most sense to have the main article on the Amended Christadelphians be the Amended Christadelphians article, and on that basis I can't see that it would ever be deleted per se. And it doesn't seem particularly NPOV to see that a group which calls itself "Amended" is the primary group by a given name. Neither does merger seem likely, although some moving of content from or to one or the other article seems reasonable. John Carter (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi both. It makes sense that the main Christadelphians article be about the majority group in terms of weight. --Woofboy (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree, actually. WP:NAME indicates that an article's name should accurately reflect its contents. The argument above seems to be using a numerical justification to defend due weight, saying the Christadelphians article should be about the Amended Christadelphians because of their being the numerically largest group. I'm not sure that would be acceptable according to WP:NAME. It was on that basis that I suggested that the main Christadelphian article be about the history, development, theology, practices, etc., of the Christadelphian movement as a whole, and allowing articles about developments within any particular branch of that movement to be placed in the article about that particular Christadelphian group. I have however posted a note on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity about this discussion, and hope to hear from others as well. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I don't quite see how WP:NAME changes things: the policy's about the most recognized name for readers. In this case, using the title "Christadelphains" when referring to the largest community is the most recognised name for that group (the largest body of Christadelphians is rarely referred to as the "Amended Christadelphians", usually only when used in contrast to the term "Unamended Christadelphians"). However, the title "Unamended Christadelphian" is the common name for the smaller Christadelphian community (churches in the smaller group often refer to themselves as "Unamended Christadelphians").* (Additionally, I don't think copy and pasting from one article to another is going to be too helpful for the reader, which is also why a concise paragraph/section in an already existing article would be more helpful.) (*It's not a totally accurate demonstration, but compare a search on Google of "Unamended Christadelphian" and "Amended Christadelphian": "Unamended Christadelphians" is the self-used title of many Unamended Christadelphians; the same is not true of Christadelphians in the largest community of Christadelphians.) --Woofboy (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What an editor who by his userpage could well be seen as having a possible conflict of interest regarding the subject is not necessarily of primary importance, however. I would remind that user that the article on the religious body headed by the Pope of Rome, which includes roughly 1/6 of all people alive today, is at Roman Catholic Church, despite that body describing itself and even being formally named Catholic Church, because of the comparatively small number of people who belong to other bodies which refer to themselves in their official names as "Catholic". That leads me to believe that the arguments regarding size and what the individuals involved call themselves could well be spurious. On that basis, I have restored the text, and am filing a request for comment regarding this subject, regarding what the correct title for an article about the Amended Christadelphians should be, and what would be the preferred content for the Christadelphians article. I would urge no one to make any substantial changes to either article until such time as the RfC is concluded. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just had another read through the main Christadelphians article and (yes, I know I an "amended/central/majority Christadelphian", and therefore biased! ;-) it's actually very balanced in therms of representation. It never claims to be about the majority group and, in fact, all the info there is applicable to all Christadelphian groups. So, perhaps my claim at the start of this talk page that 'there already is an article on the "Amended Christadelphians" at: Christadelphians' is incorrect is so far as the article represents all streams of Christadelphians. I take it back - I don't see anything wrong with having seperate articles. Sorry about the fuss. (With this in mind, I think the current article on Amended Christadelphians needs streamlining: the majority of the relevant info is on the main article (there's no need to repeat history, for example. I'll try to get onto this some time soon (well, it'll probs be next week)). Sorry again. --Woofboy (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding article names and content

There is a belief expressed by at least one editor above that the Christadelphians article should be the primary location for content regarding the group which is called by at least some the Amended Christadelphians. One party has raised concerns that too much content regarding the Amended Christadelphians on the Christadelphians page might violate WP:NAME and perhaps WP:POV for giving the Amended Christadelphians a greater apparent claim to the name "Christadelphians" than any of the other Christadelphian groups. I have earlier said it seems reasonable to me that the content relating to this body should be placed in the Amended Christadelphians page, and that the Christadelphians page should be the main article for the movement as a whole, with links to the articles on the various bodies which refer to themselves by this name. Part of my reasoning is that it seems likely to me that we should use the same names as are used elsewhere, and, on page 531 of the fourth edition of J. Gordon Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions, the Amended Christadelphians are referred to explicitly by that term. As that's one of the few standard reference books I've found dealing with the subject, and the only one immediately available to me right now, it strikes me that we might be best served by using the name given there. John Carter (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A word of warning is needed. The name "amended Christadelphian" (and "unamended Chistadelphian") is a N. American term. Outside of N. America the term is rarely used, and (both inside N. America and outside it) it's only used when in contrast to the "unamended" group. So "Amended Christadelphian" isn't entirely suitable for a article title about the body the name is attached to. Like I say above, I'll try and help out with the article within the next week or so. --Woofboy (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I just realised a further issue: the term "Amended" is not exclusive to one group of Christadelphians. Within the "Amended" umbrella are a few fellowships. I've edited the article here to make that clearer. --Woofboy (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is true. "Amended" was (naturally) used by the "Unamended" community 1898-1923, and when the US "Amended" community divided into "Central" and "Berean" 1923-1952 then the "Unamended" were still using "Amended" to refer to both. However since 1952, with almost all "Bereans" having returned to "Central" in the 1952 reunion the only place where all 3 groups exist is Texas, and judging by Unamended magazines and webpages (and 1 on 1 conversation) the "Unamended" no longer call "Berean" "Amended". So the heading needs a rewrite.In ictu oculi (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)