Template talk:Christianity sidebar/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Edit request by 129.13.186.3 (talk): Evangelical/Evangelicalism

In "Denominations and Movements: Western", "Evangelicalism" is shortened to "Evangelical".

This is not true; even in English, the adjective "evangelical" does not mean "concerning Evangelicalism", but also to "evangelical" as a term of Christian theology (Evangelical Counsels) or as a synonym for "Protestant" (Evangelical Church in Germany, Prussian Union (Evangelical Christian Church).

To avoid this confusion, the term "Evangelic" now is frequently used (at least in Europe) - here, this ironically was also a redirect to "Evangelicalism". I started a stub using de:evangelisch.

Please expand "Evangelical" as a Denomination/Movement back to "Evangelicalism" to avoid confusion.--129.13.186.3 (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Topher385 (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Examples from reliable sources are given above. There is no contest that "Evangelical" in Evangelical Counsels does not mean Evangelicalism. So what good reasons are there not to change a misleading label, as the link already goes to "Evangelicalism"? --129.13.186.1 (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Done

I've made the change. It's clear that "Evangelical" is ambiguous – see eg [1], [2], [3] – which in itself is a good reason to prefer "Evangelicalism"; in addition, now that there's an article titled "Evangelical", a wikilink with that name really shouldn't pipe anywhere else. Note that I made this change not by editing this template directly, but by editing the sub-template {{Christian denominations}}. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Caption for the current image

Regarding the side issue Amanda raises about the caption "Jesus Christ is the central figure of Christianity", I agree that this appears too much like a surname. If we keep this image, I suggest changing it to the present tense version of Amanda's suggestion: "Jesus is recognized by Christians as the Christ", or the possibly more NPOV "Christianity holds Jesus to be the Christ". --99of9 (talk) 05:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

No big deal for me, just FYI the surname type issue is discussed here I think: "Jesus God and Man by Wolfhart Pannenberg 1968 ISBN 0664244688 pages 30-31". History2007 (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

99of 9-- I think your edit losses the main point of the the caption. Can we just say "Jesus is the central figure of Christianity" or maybe "Jesus, called Christ, is the central figure of Christianity" or "Jesus, who is also called Christ, is the central figure of Christianity". ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 02:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think one of Amandajm's points is that mainstream Christianity is based around a triune God, so it's simplistic to pick on Jesus :). --99of9 (talk) 02:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, 99!  :) Amandajm (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I was the original author of the caption "Jesus Christ is the central figure of Christianity". I don't think that "central figure" is a crucial thing to say. It should be fairly obvious from the name that Christ plays a big part in Christianity. But it's rather hard to pick a good short caption that adequately describes Jesus in Christianity, so I went with the most generic thing I could possibly say. I personally don't think the surname issue is a big deal; the name "Jesus Christ" is widely used and generally understood to mean "Jesus, the Christ". However, I think that 99's edit is acceptable, though it's rather vague to those who don't know what the term Christ means. If we really want to go along that vein, then how about something like this: Christianity holds Jesus to be the Christ ("the annointed one" of which Hebrew scripture prophesied). ...comments? ~BFizz 06:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Two brief side notes: 1. The proclamation of Jesus as Christ is not an issue in Nontrinitarianism. 2. In 4 years of looking at this template, I had not even noticed that pop-up caption. History2007 (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A "Allah" Name Locket.

Respectable Father, I Want to know that can A Catholic Girl wear A neck-less or Locket words Name like "Allah" ? in oregional Arabic.ΚΗΆΝ Please help me to know about that.

My E-Mail: solocards@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.239.208 (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not the right place to ask your question. We are writing an encyclopedia. --99of9 (talk) 01:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

However, you can look at List of Christian terms in Arabic. "Allah" would not be problematic according to the traditional understanding of Arabic-speaking Christians, but a number of other terms (starting with عيسى Isa) might be... AnonMoos (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

jehovah's witnesses are not Christian

They change Bible verses and do not adhere to the beliefs of the Bible originally compiled together by Emperor Constantine. If I take the characteristics of an orange away from it, is it still an orange or another fruit entirely? If I take the colour and make it red, is it still an orange? What if I change the flavour? If you agree that changing characteristics no longer makes it equivalent, then how can you label Jehovah's witnesses as Christians when they change Bible verses and do not believe what the bible says? Jews believe in Jesus Christ and Islam believe in His existence as well, does that make them Christian? No. Then how can you label Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.224.211 (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

As referenced above, and in the edit history summaries-- to remove or add an article to this template it ought to be a top-importance Christianity article. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list for the list of Top-importance Christianity articles. As of 1 April 2009, there are just 80 articles on the list. If you would like to remove JWs, start a discussion at that talk page first (the list is designed to be smaller than 100 articles). ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 00:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and should note that not all parties will ever be happy with whatever designation is arrived at. Whether the JW or the Moonies are Christians or not is not going to be the subject of universal agreement - yet some designation is necessary, regardless. History2007 (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Jews do not believe Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, meaning the Messiah of the Old Testament. Witnesses do. Muslims call him the Messiah and hold Christian-like beliefs regarding the second coming, but do not believe in his atonement. Witnesses, on the other hand, do embrace New Testament teachings about Jesus's atonement. Categorically, Witnesses clearly are much closer to mainstream Christianity than are Judaism or Islam. This discussion pops up occasionally at the talk page of Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, currently still on that page: Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Not Christian. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Per my words above, this is still not the correct location for such a discussion.^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 00:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hyperdispensationalism article incorrect

The term hyper dispensationalism or ultra dispensationalism was wholly made up as a personal attack on sincere Bible believers by the denominationalist Ironside. He infers many things which are blatantly untrue about several different groups in an attempt to defend his Baptist denominational beliefs. Defending his views is entirely his right however slander is not. Especially in dealing with Christianity. The entire article is also obviously written from a proponent of this view and these derogatory labels are linked to grace believers. The entire article is a sham. If you want to have an accurate article about this term then take out all references to anything but mr Ironsides slanderous/ inaccurate article.

Pastor Paul McGregor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.207.45 (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The validity of the Bible

I am seeking an understanding to some of the church concepts. I personally feel that God knew that some of the bible books would be deleted due to war(the crusades),etc. Because I believe God is all knowing and powerful I believe that what ever humans have done God knew this would happen in advance. Thus I currently believe it is entire. So why do the missionaries say it isn't? I read it and the words touch my heart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel 72012 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This is really not the place for such discussions (it's actually for technical template maintenance talk). You might want to go to a site with forums devoted to religion discussions... AnonMoos (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 March 2012

Please change 2 Cor. 13:13 to 2 Cor. 13:14, please, in the section, "Refetences Used in Scripture," line 11. The second reference on the Trinity is properly shown in the text, but the scripture reference shown, 2 Cor. 13:13, is incorrect. It should be 2 Cor. 13:14.

Ra6457 (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

✗ Not done Sorry, but you are requesting this on the wrong page. Please move your request to the correct talkpage since I don't have any clue which page should be changed. You are requesting this at the moment for the Template:Christianity and not for any article! mabdul 17:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Image at top of box

Oh dear! I'm sorry, but I have done the wrong thing again! I didn't realise that there had been a lengthy discussion over the image of Jesus.

I find that image of Jesus frankly mawkish. It is over-sentimental. Given that dear old Alfred Handel was one of Australia's greatest stained glass designers, and the father of a personal friend, I am loathe to say this, but NO, that is not a good image with which to represent Christianity or the person of Christ in the World's biggest encyclopedia.

I've got to ask: is that really the image that you want to present to the world (says I, presuming, perhaps rashly, that people who contribute to articles on Christianity are mostly Christian)

Anyway, being unaware of the discussion until after I had already saved, and hailing from the evangelical diocese of Sydney, I got out a Bible, set the focus on John 3:16 and took 145 photos. I chose the one in which the verse which summarises Christian belief is in the sharpest focus. If you want one that has the other part of the text in better focus, I have several.

I put this before you for consideration. If people don't like it, it can be reverted! Amandajm (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to revert, although a good picture. But this topic has had more discussion than one may imagine, so consensus should be achieved before change. Sorry, I must revert. History2007 (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

OK!

I want to register here the fact that I very strongly Object to the present image. And I can't imagine why people who have put up all sorts of different ideas have allowed that mawkishly sentimental image of Jesus with his head down and his eyes turned up like Princess Di at the infamous interview should have been allowed to remain as the default image.

If we must have somebody's imaginary image of what Jesus might have looked like, then there are hundreds of thousands to chose from, with Alfred Handel being way down the list.

Why must we reduce a man of courage and power (aside from any Godly nature with which Christianity might perceive him) to an image of saccharine sweetness? It has to go!

I propose the Bible, because Christians all use it, and I don't think that the image can actually turn anyone's stomach.

Amandajm (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That was funny. but if you want to achieve consensus for a change let that process begin. I would prefer a picture to a book, but I am not attached to this picture. Just a book picture says very little and books are used in templates for other religions too - so not a Christian calling card by any measure. And I think Jesus (the Good Shepherd) did have somewhat of a sweet character after all, rather than an angry figure. In fact he only got angry in the Temple cleansing, etc. Did not even get angry with Herod or Pilate. But let us wait to see what everyone says. There will probably be different opinions and depending on who clicks here this week and who is on vacation, a semi-random outcome will be arrived at. So what is your favorite image of Jesus? History2007 (talk) 08:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Jesus with a less saccharine face?

If you want power, Handel(?) has a depiction of that as well. Or maybe it's by someone else. But I take it from your comments below that it's not about what face he's got on, it's more the problem of whether Jesus is even the most encycopedic representation of Christianity? --99of9 (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll engage with this discussion properly later, but for now, I'll just point out that if we go for readable text, the translation has to be out of copyright. Unfortunately Amanda's image (while technically and aesthetically very good) is likely to be deleted from Commons before long. --99of9 (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer an image of Jesus, and agree that an image of a book is not necessarily unique to Christianity (though the suggested image is certainly a beautiful photograph). I wouldn't mind a "courage and power" image of Jesus, though I see nothing wrong with the current sentimental depiction. I find it ironic that Amandajm opposes the depicted sentimentality, and yet selected to photograph one of the most sentimental verse of scripture in the Bible ("God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son"). After the last discussion (or was it the one before that), I thought that consensus was leaning towards an image of a cross (despite my preference), but it never went through. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think your "nothing wrong with this depiction" statement is valid and again made me think of all these long discussions that consume energy while articles like Fruit of the Holy Spirit do not even have a single inline secondary reference. So there is so much to clean up elsewhere and I wish this type of effort could be directed towards that. What image is used here will not make a huge difference to what Jesus taught, yet what he taught is not well represented in WikiProject Christianity - for so many articles are in need of so much help. Now, on that note, I should type less here. History2007 (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

1. "File:Bible Johns Gospel 3 16.JPG" would be more the image for Template:Bible related.
2. "File:Bible Johns Gospel 3 16.JPG" is not even very good for the Template:Bible related. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 04:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply

• The comment about that particular Bible being not out of copyright may well be true. Thanks for pointing this out.
• Just a book picture says very little and books are used in templates for other religions too - so not a Christian calling card by any measure.

Other religions may use a book, but you are wrong in suggesting that the Book is "not the Christian calling card". There is only one other faith in which "the Book" is so revered and read. That is, of course, Judaism. And then, when depicted, it is shown as a scroll.

If you know your Christian history, History2007, then you know just how crucial the written Word has always been to Christianity, and how many people have suffered persecution in order to have the right to read it. Ownership of a Bible marks a Christian to the extent that Christians are still being persecuted for owning one.

• I don't really want any imagined portrait of Jesus as the lead to the articles on Christianity. The "Word Incarnate" is no longer with us. The "Word Scriptural" is.

There are two issues here: The encyclopedic issue and the Issue of how committed Christian people might wish their faith and the historical person of Jesus represented.

• The description that accompanies the image states that "Jesus Christ is the central figure of Christianity". From a Christian point of view, this is conceptually and theologically naive.
• The word "Christ" is used as if it was Jesus' surname. It wasn't! For encyclopedic purposes Jesus is either "Jesus" or "Jesus of Nazareth". The word "Christ" when used in conjunction with Jesus (in an encyclopedia) needs to be used in an appropriate context. The context might be a cited quotation, or a sentence such as "Jesus was recognised by his disciples as the Christ". You have to realise that Jews have an equal claim on the term "Christ" and do not recognise Jesus as such.

Amandajm (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• History2007, I've have just checked out your statement that "books are used in templates for other religions too". This isn't the case. certainly not on their main templates. (I haven't checked to see if there are pics of books as templates referring specifically to the Scriptures of other faiths.)
• Regardless of that, it is the "Book" which defines Christianity, more than any other religion.
• As a Christian art historian, I have entered into great many debates and disputes over the way in which Jesus is depicted in art. It seems to me that this discussion here concerns only a very few people. (I was unaware of it until yesterday.)
• I want to make this clear: It is not simply a case of not liking the image. I do not dislike it in the context of the Anglican Church at St John's Ashfield. I greatly enjoy Alfred Handel's stained glass, in the context of church architecture. (I'm the main author of the Stained glass article and have included Handel's finest window in Rose Window of which I am also the author.)
• What I want you to take on is that from a mature (read elderly), evangelical (read Sydney), messianic (read Jewish father), scholarly (read my articles), Christian point of view, I object to the present image.

It is not simply a case of my not liking the image. This is a case of very strong objection to the use of the image in this particular context.

• If you feel that you can truly justify the use of an imaginary image of Jesus of Nazareth (A.K.A the Christ Incarnate) in the light of my strenuous objections, then please reply.

Otherwise, change it to something that does not attempt to physically represent something we cannot know.

Amandajm (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, wp:TLDR. History2007 (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, History2007, I must say I find a comment like that with a signature like yours, rather amusing. It's a good excuse.

just read this bit:

• History2007, I've have just checked out your statement that "books are used in templates for other religions too". This isn't the case. certainly not on their main templates. (I haven't checked to see if there are pics of books as templates referring specifically to the Scriptures of other faiths.)

Amandajm (talk) 09:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I seem to remember books used somewhere, could not be bothered to search. Have more useful things to do. TLDW. History2007 (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

History2007, I believe reddit eyes are in order. ಠ_ಠ. In response to Amandajm, I do feel an "imaginary image" of Jesus is justified. Firstly, it's not like any "real" images of Jesus exist; I am unaware of any portraits painted during Jesus's life that have survived to this day. Secondly, this is an encyclopedia, and the image is used on a template which represents a(very long) "series of articles" related to Christianity. Several of these are biographical articles on Mary, Jesus, and his apostles. Others are about doctrinal topics and events, such as his resurrection. Generally, it's safe to say that most of the links on this template are directly related to the life and teachings of Jesus (with exceptions: articles on the various denominations are less closely related to this). So when selecting an image for this template, it seems completely natural, for me, to select an image of Jesus, the person that this is all about. Using a photograph of the Bible seems indirect: it is a depiction of a written description of Christianity. Using the face of Jesus seems more direct: it is a depiction of the star of Christianity. For a similar reason (indirectness) I prefer Jesus's face over a cross on this template: a picture of a cross is a depiction of a symbol of Jesus. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, as Carl also said above, a Bible would be more the image for Template:Bible related. So the long and short of it seems to be that there is no consensus for using the image of a Bible. Now... on to fixing actual articles.... History2007 (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

People, you are not getting it. That book, (the Bible) in whatever form it takes and whatever language it is in, is our one finite connection to Jesus. The book is not "a written description of Christianity". This is a complete misrepresentation and miscomprehension of what the Bible is. It is the evidence, the good news, the testament of those who walked with Jesus and the teachings of the incarnate Christ. It also contains the earliest Christian theology and the earliest formal structuring of "Christianity" at the hands of St Paul and the other apostles. To any person who has not experienced some "mystical revelation" (and that means most people) then the Bible is all that there is, as evidence that Jesus lived, that he was who he was said to be, and that he taught those things which he is said to have taught.

There are no Christians in the World who do not accept a written form of the Bible as the evidence of Jesus, and as containing the subject of his teaching, and the record of his death and resurrection. On the other hand, there are a great many Christians throughout the world, particularly Protestants, who regard "graven images" (representations of Jesus etc) with a deal of suspicion. (For example, there are a great many Protestant churches which have maintained a ruling not to show images of Jesus, and have stained glass that is floral, geometric and textural.)

From my point of view, a portrayal of Jesus used to illustrate a Biblical event, a particular theology, a mystical event or a legend is fine. See the article that I wrote: Poor Man's Bible.

On the other hand, Faith (in this case Christian faith) is a deeply personal thing. It differs from person to person, church to church and denomination to denomination. Whatever is used to symbolise Christianity must be acceptable to all.

I do not want my faith (Christianity) represented by one late 19th century man's personal vision of Jesus. To Christians, the man Jesus who described himself as the "Good Shepherd" depicted by Alfred Handel, is also, and most significantly, part of the Divine Godhead, the Holy Trinity.

You keep wanting to represent Jesus as "THE central person of Christianity". This is an extraordinarily naive view of what Christianity is about, and what the "central person" of Christianity is about! It is a child's view of Christianity. The portrayal that has been selected equates with the little prayer "Gentle Jesus, meek and mild, look upon this little child. Keep me happy all the day, in my work and in my play....."

I am certainly not insistent that the photo of the Bible that I have provided should be the picture used.

But I am insistent that a more universal symbol of Christianity be found than an imaginary portrayal of one person's concept of one of the person of the Holy Trinity.

Amandajm (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I will be brief; insistence is one thing, consensus is another. History2007 (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the Christ the King from Ashfield looks to me like a Lyon and Cottier window. It's almost certainly not Handel.

There is no consensus here. The number here is far too small to have any sort of reasonable consensus.

This may mean, History2007, re-reading what is here, and the putting aside of self-importance. I am frankly surprised at your frequent attempts to simply fob-off reason in an off hand manner. You are dealing with someone with a serious objection.

It is also plain, from my writings, that you are dealing with someone of a broad view. What is being written here requires you to expand your view and seriously consider the points that are being made. Amandajm (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If there is no consensus, what there is, remains. And there is no consensus. History2007 (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Like Amandajm and most others who have commented on the Jesus face picture, I agree that an image of Jesus is not the best picture to represent Christianity. That's the majority view. However, no one other picture has gained much support, and most of us have grown weary of arguing about it with History2007 and a couple others, and so the Jesus face remains the "consensus". Just goes to show that a few dedicated people can thwart the majority if they spend enough of their time on it. History2007, if you really have something better to do, no one is forcing you to police this page. I admire your relentless dedication to preserving the face of Jesus on this template (though I disagree with your conviction), but if you're going to spend your time dominating the conversation on the Jesus face, then please stop whining about how much time you spend here - it just serves to belittle the contributions of others, like Amandajm. And that's not what Wikipedia is about. --Wikibojopayne (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, History2007 is right, Amandajm: you don't have consensus to change the pic. Get some votes, then we can talk about changing the pic. --Wikibojopayne (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Such matters are not really supposed to be settled by a straight-up vote count. If extended discussions have failed to resolve the issue, the next Wikipedia step is "third opinion" or "mediation" or "request for comment"... AnonMoos (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification, AnonMoos. How might one go about those options? --Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

---

I'm still strongly of the view (explained in detail in previous sections above [now moved to archives]) that the main purpose of a template image is NOT to call attention to its own beauty, but rather to be instantly recognizable at a low pixel size -- so that if dullness equals instant recognizability while artistic beauty brings in various distracting associations and/or only expresses one semi-small part of the subject matter, then dullness is greatly to be preferred... AnonMoos (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Though the issue is less important than it used to be, since more articles seem to use {{portal|Christianity}} than this template nowadays... AnonMoos (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with AnonMoos --Wikibojopayne (talk) 23:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Wikibojopayne, read WP:Third opinion and/or WP:Request for comment.

If someone wants to give a third opinion, let me sum up my view of the reams of text written about this over the years.

1. Nearly everyone seem to think the way to go is either (1) an image of Jesus or (2) an image of a cross. A few have proposed various other Christian symbols.
2. The number of people who want one of these two main options seem comprable– but there may be more that want (2) over (1).
3. Most that want (1) are happy with or prefer the current stain-glass Jesus image. Even many editors that prefer an image of a cross are happy with this current Jesus image.
4. Most that want (2) seem to prefer a particular cross image that no one else likes. No particular cross image seems to gain the following of more that just couple editors. Many feel strongly against the crosses prefered by others. If I recall, there has never even been an agreement in principle of what to look for in a cross.
5. I have long since concluded that it is be a hopeless cause to develop any consensus on a particular image of a cross . ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 04:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually a WP:3O requires that there are just two editors, and a 3rd person comes in. Given that there have been so many people talking here for ever and a day, no 3rd can apply. And again, there are so many, many articles in need of content help in this project that I am not sure why all this time is spent on the image issue. History2007 (talk) 08:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been involved in a discussion of this on another page and was told to discuss it on a more appropriate site, so I came here and found that there had already been an intensive debate. Can I throw in my opinion that the image of Jesus is effete? It doesn't correspond with the individual who, whatever one may think of his status or teachings, threw the money-changers out of the temple and heroically met a painful end. The history of Western art is full of better images of Jesus: from the grotesque of Gruenewald, through Leonardo and Carravaggio, to the kitsch-sublime of Holman Hunt, and more recently even Dali. There is no shortage of images to choose from!89.100.37.108 (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, any image of Jesus would be at best controversial. He almost certainly didn't look like any of the major historical artistic images, so they could all be objected to one that basis. Certainly any image using a cross would be considered objectionable by the Jehovah's Witnesses, who say it was a torture stake, and by others who believe he wasn't himself crucified, but someone else was, or that he survived through some preordained plot, or whatever. Maybe and I mean just maybe an image of the early Christian "lamb" might be the least objectionable, but would also raise, not unreasonably, some WTF? questions among readers and similar discussion. I am no particular fan of the current image myself, but I can't imagine any image which would not stir some discontent, and that image, to some degree or other, does seem to represent to some degree the most common, if not most accurate, view of the subject. John Carter (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If WMF could get a penny every time this issue is discussed they could buy a whole new set of servers.... History2007 (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

JohnCarter -- As has been discussed in the archives, if the cross is lowest common denominator of traditional Christian symbolism during the period ca. 400 A.D. to 2012 A.D., and is accepted by groups representing the vast majority of Christian believers, then the possibility of objections by JW's and by Docetists(?!) should really not override the usefulness of the cross to represent Christianity in templates such as this one... History2007 -- The issue keeps getting raised, because multiple people independently find the symbolism of the stained glass to have certain discordant and annoying aspects. AnonMoos (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, do the Christians ever agree on anything? As John pointed out there is a 5 hour epic Wiki horror movie playing on the cross issue, etc. I do not even look at that page any more. And any image on this type of template would get an objection from someone. I am certain of that. The Template gets viewed several million times a year. So someone will a keyboard will type something. And in reality, given the millions of page views there has been relative calm recently. And no image would even generate more time wasting discussions. History2007 (talk) 08:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Christian mythology

Christian beliefs redirects to Christian mythology, which is not associated with this template and is linked to by hardly any Christianity articles. I have added a hatnote to reduce confusion, but shouldn't this page be in the Christianity series? ~ Kimelea (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 April 2012

These sentences were found under the heading of history of Catholic.. Please remove: . It has been scientifically proven that Catholic women strongly enjoy the taste of penis in the mouth. Also, they love nothing more than to have violent intercourse with at least five people at one time. In addition they strongly support abortion and all forms of birth control.

174.96.214.194 (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

ω Awaiting clarification: Hi and welcome, IP. You have made this request on a template, a bit of Wikipedia code which is included on many Christianity-related articles. I assume you're referring to vandalism on one of those articles, but I can't find it in a search. Can you tell me the name of the article with the vandalism on - the title of the page? The objectionable content might have already been removed though. ~ Kimelea (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Titles

I think it should be more clear that "Jesus" and "Christ" are two separate links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.87.42 (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, welcome. Please sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~ thanks :)

It currently appears as Jesus · Christ in the template. The separator between them indicates that they are different links. Do you have a suggestion for how we could better represent the name while linking to both articles? ~ Kimelea (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not even clear that those are links because they are not blue, but bold. I suggest moving Christ down, after Virgin birth, and just have Jesus at the top in bold. Rationalei sthat he was born, considered Christ then crucified. History2007 (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right, it is a little misleading. Some of the headings link to articles ("Bible" is clickable and the words in "History and traditions" have two links) but some are not ("Foundations", "General topics"). And the only way to find out is to hover over them to see if they are clickable. I don't want to break up the name "Jesus Christ", but maybe if we stop forcing the headings to be black, it would be more clear what is an article and what isn't. Thoughts? ~ Kimelea (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If you can stop it being black, then much better, and we can move on. There are errors, errors and errors all over content, so time needs to go there.... History2007 (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Now anything that's a link is blue, or whatever colour the user's browser likes links to be, and anything that's not a link is black (including the separator between "Jesus" and "Christ". Does this make things clearer for the IP who started this thread? ~ Kimelea (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Changes to template format

After the changes to become a sidebar, now the state=collapsed no longer works on other pages that use it. And the width seems much more than before. Needs be fixed and width somehow reduced - it is just too wide everywhere else now. History2007 (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The width is the standard sidebar width, which is 22em. Previously, it was 20.5em (or about three characters narrower), which meant it didn't align with infoboxes. The change is marginal. Collapsing the entire sidebar is discouraged (and {{sidebar with collapsible lists}} doesn't support it): I made sure to check the highest-profile articles that transclude the template and of those few which set it to collapsed by default none are negatively impacted layout-wide by showing it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry that is not what the collapse button is there for. This template is used in lots of pages and often in small sections that do not allow an elephant sized presence. It is "supposed to have a collapse flag". You can not at will go and decide that it is discouraged. The user should be able to use that flag.

As "a user" I would not have complained if this did not cause an inconvenience. It does. And it is not up to you to decide where it is negatively impacted or not. The system should allow users to use the template as they want to. Your change reduced functionality and decreased convenience. History2007 (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to go and fix "Sidebar with collapsible lists" to allow for a state=collapsed, then see if it makes sense to use that here. But not until then. History2007 (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry Chris, but I noticed that instead of responding here, you went ahead and changed a few other template with no consensus whatsoever. As requested on your talk page, please "seek consensus" from those who use the template before making these changes. Time to stop and seek consensus before changes. Your change here was also sans consensus and needs to be reverted until consensus is reached for it. History2007 (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Objection noted, but the huge increase in consistency and code maintainability this has resulted in massively outweighs what is still an anecdotal problem IMO. As I've stated elsewhere (and previously in discussions with you), "no consensus" is a result and not an argument. You cannot use it as a veto for changes you dislike. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I am sorry, it does not work that way. If there is no consensus for a change, what there is remains. Look, there are others who watch this page, and we will wait. But someone wishing to making a change, has no priority based on issuing an "IMO". There are other people who watch this page, and I will hereby seek their opinion as to whether you "should make changes without consensus" here or not, regardless of arguments about the nature of changes. History2007 (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I welcome third opinions and am more than happy to address them if a good argument is presented in their favour. Let's see what happens. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

We will probably get 4th and 5th comments too. Many people watch and use this template. History2007 (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

As another question, why don't you just fix that sidebar template so it can allow a "state=collapsed" case? That can probably get fixed in the time it will take to talk about it here. History2007 (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's non-trivial, and previous discussions on whether to attempt it have AFAIR centred around whether it was genuinely necessary. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is a case where it is "desired by a user". I have not looked at the code (and really do not want to) but where is it anyway... I should not really ask this. I do not have time to work on the code.... And the way out of coding may be to just have a template called "Christian" which is a small template, and on pages where users do not have space can use that.... Then we will be done with this. History2007 (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's inherited from {{sidebar}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I do not have time to do coding now... Should not even look at that. Let us wait and see what people say now. History2007 (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I am with History2007 on this, Chris. tahc ^chat 07:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

In what regard? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

We may even have an easier solution: Does the sidebar support "state=collapsed" if there are no nested items inside? If so, given that there are just a couple of those, we can make those not nested and then have the "state=collapsed" button still work like before. So does teh routine support that if we un-nest those here? History2007 (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at the sandbox and test cases for an attempt at this. How does that appeal to you? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I like the Sandbox, and it may actually be an improvement. But I do suggest:

• Just one show/Hide for Denominations & movements. They do not need 3 separate items. And when that shows, there will just be the three subsections that all open up at once.

• "Bible & Foundations" to be one show/hide. They are both smaller items. And Bible should really be ahead of Foundations there anyway.

• At the bottom, a link to the portal without an icon to save real estate.

That way we have a "medium sized" item that tells still has all the items, and tells story anyway with hide/show items. I think that will be an improvement over what there was 3 days ago anyway. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason I left the denominations separate is to preserve backward-compatibility with articles that use that format already, but it's easy enough to merge them if desired. Same with the two headers to be merged. For the portal, the use of {{portal-inline}} to link to portals from sidebars is standard, and the saving from removing the icon would be minimal. If it is truly intrusive then removing it entirey might be a better call, as it will often be found in the article appendixes anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that it is easy enough, let us just do that so we can wrap this up before Christmas gets here. The backward compatibility also applies to those who had it all minimized, so lumping those three is no big deal in that sense. There is life beyond this template. History2007 (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, it took a few minutes to reshuffle it to Template:Christianity/sandbox2. There were other internal fixes that were needed, e.g. Gospel was coming after some other items - not logical.

I think we can just go with that unless someone else has a better idea. The state=collapsed seems to function on that from within the test cases anyway, so that should work. History2007 (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I've now pushed the code from sandbox2 live. Many thanks for working to a compromise here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said, the format you used ended up being an improvement over what there was 3-4 days ago. History2007 (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

"Eastern Catholic" is not a denomination

While Eastern-Rite Catholics are, in some sense, Eastern Christians, they are *not* a denomination; they are Roman Catholics by denomination and their beliefs and theology and everything else that defines a separate denomination are those of the Roman Catholic denomination. Therefore, I dispute the reversion of my edit of 14:58, 13 October 2012, wherein I deleted "Eastern Catholic" as a denomination. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 11:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Eastern Catholics are not of the Latin Church, which most people would understand as "Roman Catholic" and very often confuse with the whole Catholic Church. Eastern Catholicism comprises 22 sui iuris true Churches and 5 distinct liturgical rites, with distinct theological language corresponding to Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches. They are of equal dignity in the Catholic Church and deserve to be mentioned alongside all other Eastern Christianity, rather than buried and ghettoized in the "Western" section under "Roman Catholicism". Elizium23 (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Your points are well taken and correct, and long known to me.

However, the Wikipedia article, Roman_Catholic_(term) , states,

The usage that makes the term "Roman Catholic" mean members of the Latin Rite or Western Church to the exclusion of those who belong to the Eastern Catholic Churches does not appear in any recent document of the Holy See, and popes have used the term "Roman Catholic Church" on various occasions throughout the 20th century to mean instead the whole Church without exclusion of any part.

And, the Wikipedia article, Catholic Church (Redirected from Roman Catholic Church) , contains an infobox titled "Major sui iuris Churches" to accompany the section "Autonomous particular churches"

All this, I contend, suggests that "Eastern Catholic" is a subset of "Roman Catholoic" and, given that they share the same beliefs, are the same denomination. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Seeing no reply in three days to my above comment, I'm reverting to my edit and, should that cause dysphoria, I'll seek outside conflict resolution. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not seeing this before. While I see User:Lipsio's POV, I have to agree with User:Elizium23 on including Eastern Catholic somewhere, per longterm consensus that...

“ to add a new Christianity article to this Template:Christianity, or the Template:Christianityfooter-- it ought to be a top-importance Christianity article. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list for the list of Top-importance Christianity articles... If you would like to remove one or add one, start a discussion on that talk page first. ”

There is just no perfect word to cover all the groups currently linked under "denominations", but it is more important to include links to all the top-importance Christianity articles. tahc ^chat 21:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

But there are dozens of ore topics in that list of Top-importance Christianity articles which are not in this template. I fail to understand why this particular one has to snuck in under the classification "Denominations" where, methinks, I've well demonstrated that it does not belong.

Having stated in my previous posting that if reverting to my edit should cause dysphoria, I'd seek outside conflict resolution, thus will I do. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

While you share no examples of the claim, if you do find any core topics from the list which are not in this template let us know. Any you don't see are likely to be behind hind/show tags. tahc ^chat 06:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The list of core topics that you link to is helpful, but it is very out-of-sync with Category:Top-importance Christianity articles which contains 562 articles. Surely we can't add them all to the template, but it may warrant a discussion about the difference between these lists. Elizium23 (talk) 06:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

"Eastern Catholic" is not even in Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list ! As for examples of articles in that list but not in the template, I simply don't have time to prove or disprove my claim. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Top-importance Christianity articles is not a list, nor based on consensus, and not under discussion.

Read Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list. You seem to be aware of it, but you have not even proposed the change at that talk page that you want. -tahc ^chat 06:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think broadly speaking the term denomination has two connotations. One is that of an official organization with definite boundaries and markers (See Southern Baptist Convention, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and others). The second connotation is that of a less definite informal grouping that is delimited by doctrinal or structural differences (See Baptist, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, etc). Eastern Catholics would fall under this second distinction.ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Methinks that since Eastern Catholics have the exact same doctines as Roman Catholics and that their hierarchical structure is dictated by Rome (Some cardinals are Eastern catholics, so Eastern Catholics include the electors of the Pope of Rome), that they fail to fall into your second distinction Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Eastern Catholicism is not Western and so cannot be lumped in under the "Western" division of this template. Elizium23 (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It *is* Western theologically, accepting the Faith as defined by Rome. Liturgically, mostly they are Eastern, but some are hybrids. The articles I cited above show that elsewhere in Wikipedia and according to the RC Church, they are Roman Catholics. The RC Church includes both Western and Eastern liturgical traditions; perhaps it needs to be in its own catagory, transcending the East/West distinction. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The Catholic Church is a communion of 23 Churches. The Church would not call herself a denomination, in fact, this is a concession to WP:NPOV. Elizium23 (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

But, "I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church ..." Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Ecclesiology is an interesting topic. Would you like to study it or discuss the present topic? Elizium23 (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you are approaching this wrong. If you want to change any of the template for the above reasons, re-lable the "denomination" section. For example, "Traditions and Denominations", or just "Groups", etc, etc.

The Roman Catholic Church (and some others) do not consider themselves to be a denominations... but they are what is ment by the term. All the others in the western list... Anglican, Baptist, Evangelicalism are not denominations, but either denominational families, movements, or both. So Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod is a denomination, but "Lutheranism" is a denominational family. tahc ^chat 21:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I like that idea! Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The Eastern Catholic Churches are still a distinct tradition from the Latin Church, so if your goal is to eliminate mention of them by rearranging the categories, I still object. Elizium23 (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

!? I never wrote anything that suggested that I wanted mention of them eliminated! My objection is simply that they are not a denomination; by denomination, they are Roman Catholics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lipsio (talk • contribs) 23:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

[4] and [5] suggest that. Elizium23 (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggest what? That they are not a denomination? Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It is hard to be entirely sure exactly what the point of contention here is. However, it has been more or less decided that the articles to be included in this template should be only those included in the Core topics list. "Core" is not an official designation per the banner or anything like that, but it is considered to be perhaps, if anythin, higher than "Top" importance. Also, as the guy who has been basically doing these importance assessments, most of the "Top" importance were subjects which have separate articles in the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion. It actually was, and still is, my intention to find a few good reference works on Christianity specifically to use in determining the broader field of "Top" improtance to Christianity in particular. However, as I indicated, I am not entirely sure exactly what the bone of contention here is, but I think the best option might be to maybe, perhaps next month?, start a renewed discussion about which 100 or so articles should be included in both the Core topics list and this template, and then see what the outcome of that discussion is. Would that be an acceptable option? John Carter (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

With the debate in large part looking at what a denomination is and/or what Eastern Catholicism is, the difficulty seems to have been resolved with my last talk-page comment, and this edit. tahc ^chat 07:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I thank you for finding an amicable solution and for editing it in. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the title of the heading should reflect whats in the wikilink. The wikilink directs to "Christian denominations", hence "denominations" is a more apropriate description. I would also prefer the term "branches" over "groups". Another reason i oppose the usage of groups is that the term group usually has non-religious connotations; the term denomination less so. Pass a Method talk 22:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Then kill the wikilink; we're dealing with something different here as a result of a compromise that was argued about at length. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

"Christians hold Jesus to be Christ"

I'm sorry, but what on earth does that even mean? I found it distracting. I think it should be removed. --Quasipalm (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, after more digging around, I get it. But I think it would be much more clear if it was "Christians hold Jesus to be the messiah" or something. --Quasipalm (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, messiah probably makes more sense to readers who don't know Greek (I seem to remember "Christ" and "Messiah" both mean something along the lines of "the anointed".) ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Heading

Which of the following descriptions do you find the most appropriate for this heading:

1. Denominations
2. Groups
3. Branches
4. Sects Pass a Method talk 01:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I like "Denominations" but I think "Denominations and movements" is my next favorite. tahc ^chat 02:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Denominations, because thats the wikilink we link to. Pass a Method talk 11:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Sects is definitely out. Personally, I have to believe that none of the above are acceptable, and believe that there may well be a problem in that it perhaps other alternatives are not to be considered. Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions breaks religious groups into "families" of religions, and while I personally don't think that word would really be best here, I do think that some other term might be best. "Traditions", "Church families," or something similar would be my favored choice, as it would allow groups to be put together in accord with one or more of the early groups whose beliefs and practices they might largely continue, and/or indicate the specific group from which they broke off. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, however, I note that wikipedia policies and guidelines do not require that terms used in templates like this also be used in the articles themselves, particularly if the term is one which is rarely if ever used to describe a group individually. John Carter (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Picture

hello,

I believe the current picture is not really representative and to me he does not look like Jesus. First, Christ was a Jew, so he had an olive skin, dark hair and maybe a crooked nose (like this). Secondly, this picture depicts an overly gentle person, but the former picture is more impressive and correct. Thirdly, the current picture is not at all "iconic", but just a stained glass picture of a modern Anglican church, while the other picture is from the well-known Basilica of Sant'Apollinare Nuovo build in the 6th century! The former discussion do not mention this picture as far as I can see, so I suggest to replace it with this picture. The picture is File:Christus Ravenna.jpg. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 17:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You should read the long, long discussion in the archives about this. Many of these issues had been discussed there - some people wanted a cross, not a picture, some wanted 3 crosses, some wanted a different image, some wanted a fish symbol, etc. So anyway, please read those. But one thing that is certain is that "to me he does not look like X" has about 100,000 different values for X, depending on who states that. The conclusion of that long discussion was that until there is "clear consensus" to change, the image should remain. History2007 (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever -- you know very well that there is no "clear consensus" to keep the current image, and that many different people have objected to it on many separate occasions. By your standards of "lack of clear consensus", the current image should be nuked... AnonMoos (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If you also read the archives, I did not add the current image. The way Wikipedia works, the lack of consensus means that nothing changes. History2007 (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

1. about reading long discussions in the archive, why is it that one cannot comment in the archive, but must comment here?

2. the picture is just plain wrong, it isn't Jesus. This is Jesus (acc 2 NT):

File:Jesus camina sobre el agua.jpg

The image currently perused doesn't in any proper way represent the literary Jesus – quite contrary it represents an unnatural contrafactual interpretation of peacefullness and pleasantness which is invented for small children in order to make the Jesus-story less provocative and disturbing in the Christian education. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Now Mr Rursus, how did you determine that "it isn't Jesus. This is Jesus..." Did you determine that by yourself? If so, please do enlighten us... Or do you have WP:RS sources for it? And regarding the "pleasantness which is invented for small children in order to make the Jesus-story less provocative and disturbing in the Christian education.", how did you determine that one? Did you come to these conclusions by yourself, or do you have WP:RS sources to support them? History2007 (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, in view of these never ending comments, the best way may be to use a composite of multiple biblical scenes probably. Perhaps better quality art than those Rursus suggested, but there are plenty out there. However, that change can not happen without consensus. If there is consensus we can do it, else will have to stay with what there is. And I do not mind that either. History2007 (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I would accept an image that reflected Isaiah 53:1–12 or Daniel 7:13–14. I do not think the current image is especially deficient. I think that the image should be of sufficient resolution that the details of Christ's features (even though they have never been recorded from firsthand observation) are apparent. I think that the thumbnail should be a closeup of Christ, preferably just the face, so that it is not overly confusing "who are all these people?" Per Isaiah I would also accept an image of Christ tortured and crucified. Per Daniel, an image of Christ Pantocrator would be fitting. Elizium23 (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• How can we know the current image "does not look like Jesus"? All we have is religious art from subsequent centuries; you can pick from Byzantine icons which make him look Byzantine, many great works of Renaissance art which make him look European, maybe for a bit of variety you can pick some Coptic art which gives him darker skin. We can choose from various artwork which showed jesus radiating Love, or Wisdom, or Power, or whatever else the artist wanted to portray in that commission. It's not as though we have any photos (although one could perhaps photograph something associated with him; reliquaries across Europe have enough splinters and nails from the True Cross to build a whole new ship). It would be silly to treat biblical texts as literal and accurate descriptions of his appearance. In that light, I'd prefer a composite image, which incorporates images from different religious contexts. bobrayner (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

One wonders whether this discussion will ever actually end. I see no objections whatsoever to the existing image. It is a stained glass image of Jesus, and, lets be honest, many Christians to some degree equate stained glass images with Christianity. But, yes, I could see any number of other images as acceptable as well. Maybe the best alternative might be to either change to one of the images of commons:category:Icons of Crucifixion or commons:category:Paintings of crucifixion. Yes, I know, there are groups within what is broadly thought to be "Christianity" who do not believe in the crucifixion, but there are groups within Christianity who would dispute pretty much any image. Maybe some sort of composite, with stained glass and crucifixion images would work too. I really neither know nor, actually, care much. The one point I really do believe is that this semi-regular discussion is among the least productive I can imagine, and it would be great if it could be resolved, finally, one way or another. John Carter (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I don't really mind the current image.

However, after looking at the template again, it struck me that this is a template for christianity, not jesus. If we're going to have a composite image then perhaps some of the other pics should be of other aspects of christianity rather than just a selection of portrayals of jesus - there are plenty of good images of notable texts, relics, cathedrals, &c. (Hey, maybe a pic of the Schloßkirche in Wittenberg would kill two birds with one stone) bobrayner (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with John Carter's comments above in that we have a reasonable established consensus and are unlikely to improve substantially on it. I would add that the image serves as a logo for the portal so it should be stable over time. Given the centrality of Jesus for Christianity, I can see advantages in having related images as the logos for the two portals. Let's stop turning our individual idea of the best into the enemy of the good and adequate and get on with the voluminous task of editing which is needed to turn mediocre articles into good ones, and good ones into better ones.Jpacobb (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; sometimes "the best" is the enemy of "good enough". bobrayner (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Amen. And may this discussion end here and now. History2007 (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see how that is going to happen when the nature of the current image is such that many people who come across it will independently consider it somewhat objectionable in the context of the template (see my comment of 7:25, 22 March 2012 above). Furthermore, your rather arbitrary diktat that the amount of so-called "consensus"[sic] necessary to keep the image in place is much less than the amount of so-called "consensus"[sic] necessary to dislodge it might not survive contact with a noticeboard, or mediation process, etc. if someone chose to take the matter there... AnonMoos (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you say "arbitrary diktat"? Sorry, I have misplaced my dictator hat today, so I was not issuing a diktat. Did you find it? Buddy, I asked for comments on the Wikiproject, to see what people think. If you think that is a diktat, then you must look up the definition of diktat. But do not consider that an order.... History2007 (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The above comment seems to almost contain some form of threat. However, I would agree that, if the above editor is so concerned about the image that he thinks an RfC or other steps called for, that editor is free to do so. However, I do very much have to question how closely the above comments adhere to talk page guidelines. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policies that concern making a change are not about the support to "change" vs. the support to "keep." The policies understand consensus to be something you do have (at a given time), or you don't have. We could very well have a situation where no particular idea has consensus right now. If there was a consensus in the past it is still going to be okay now. That system can be frustrating sometimes, but (1) it keeps out some changes that are not seen as valuable by any majority and (2) reduces some needless comments by allowing (perhaps many) people who support the current image to do nothing most of the time. Instead of forcing them post again and again "yes, we still like the current image" every month that this comes up, we can just wait until there is some particular image that may really gain consensus... and only then do they have to comment if they still feel the same way. tahc ^chat 02:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE (which is a policy) does tilt the balance towards not rocking the boat. However, as John and others have commented this discussion has negligible encyclopedic value and does not add to content. And as Jpacobb commented it hinders improvements elsewhere.... I am glad I stopped worrying about these things. The encyclopedic depth is just mind boggling here... History2007 (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Current pic looks fine to me.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Current pic looks foul (more precisely: obnoxious) to me. Long live the non-preservationism! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Aaaaaagh enough of this Rursus. Are you trying to be funny or something? You go on a page about Christianity and use terms that are clearly offensive to some other users. Why are you doing this? Read WP:Forum, then go use a social network if you want to yap, else if you have policy on your side, quote it. Wikipedia:I just don't like it is not a policy. Understand? Either quote policy, or stop yapping sans policy. This is not a chit-chat forum. History2007 (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I know this point was briefly mentioned in the archives but the point got smothered in the great profusion of heated discussion about the picture of Jesus. So I want to bring this point up again. A picture of Jesus Christ is offensive to many Reformed Christians. In other words, the picture used in the Christianity portal is very offensive to me and many other Reformed Christians (and perhaps some other non-Reformed Christians also). We think it is wrong to use images of Christ because of the 2nd commandent. We think it is wrong to create and use images of God and of Christ (who is God the Son) because that is using a man-mind image of God, who is divine. So whenever I see the portal, I am offended and feel uncomfortable as I read articles about Christianity which have the Christianity portal at top. It's not like I think it's a sin to look at a picture of Christ or anything but I just feel uncomfortable when I am forced to look at an image of Christ as it appears on Wikipedia articles because then the picture comes up in my head when I think about Christ, distorting my idea about who Christ really is, making it hard for me to think of Christ as the One the Bible testifies He is, not what a human artist thinks he is like. In my opinion, it would be much better if no picture at all or something like a plain cross or Christian fish symbol was used instead of a picture of Christ. Johosephatty (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Your concern is uncited, and is quite unlike anything in the Reformed faith article.

Besides, Wikipedia is not censored. tahc ^chat 21:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Whatever --it has nothing to do with "censorship"[sic], but rather with what type of image best works as a template thumbnail (since template thumbnails are subject to many additional considerations which would usually not apply to ordinary article images). AnonMoos (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of non-English

So I just looked at about two dozen other languages on wikipedia, most of them use a simple cross, some have various images (fish etc), and only a small handful have the European Jesus picture on them. Obviously Jesus was not a European so it's kind of silly from a historical standpoint, but you can of course argue that it's just art. However the wiki problem comes with the context - if an alien being came to Earth to look at Wikipedia they might as well assume Jesus and Mary were from Norway or Denmark, not the Levant, judging by the overwhelming appearance of European depictions of these historical figures on the wiki pages. Now I may be mistaken but it seems like at some point you run up against Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy here. Even if you want to say it doesn't really matter what ethnic group Jesus is depicted as, well, then you at least need to have a variation represented - which Wiki is kind of failing at right now. It is interesting that the various non-english Wiki's have chosen different pictures for this box so maybe we could take a cue from just wandering around and looking at them. Decora (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree... AnonMoos (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Propose inclusion of all "core topics" and only "core topics" in the template

Honestly, one of the main reasons I can think of for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group is to determine which are the "core" topics, which, pretty much, is also the purpose of this template. On that basis, I tend to think that the articles included in the "core topics' list are the ones which should be in this article, and that should anyone propose any changes to this template, that perhaps they propose the changes to the "core topics" list first. Does that make sense to the rest of you? John Carter (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, certainly, per archived discussions, etc. tahc ^chat 02:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Add a link: Saint?

I notice that Saint doesn't appear on the Topic list, even though the article is marked as being of "top-importance" in Christianity. "Saint" is an important concept in Christianity and saints and the "communion of saints" are mentioned in the historic creeds. Is there any reason why this article isn't linked in the template? -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 16:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This quote below is from the documentation of Template:Christianity.

“ Before changing or adding any links, please read the discussion here. Consensus has determined that links should be limited to those listed here. ”

I also see that Saint is listed there as top-importance for Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints, and for some other projects, but not top-importance for Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity. tahc ^chat 04:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Iglesia ni Cristo

Can you please consider Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) on the Non-trinitarian religious group/denomination category? INC is considered as the largest independent church in Asia and one of the most if not the most influential religion in the Philippines. It is a very rich religion with congregations in at least 100 countries and territories with membership estimate of 4-10 million worldwide. Based on their directory, www.iglesianicristo.net/directory , they have 328 congregations in North America alone. Their theology is like Unitarian and restoration movement combined. They believe that God the Father alone is the only true God and denies Trinity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.38.153 (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove images

Please remove the picture of 'Christ'. Many Christians believe such images violate the Second Commandment, so it is not representative of all Christianity!--CovenanterSoldier (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

First off, your understanding of many is a little off. It is closer to being fringe besides the point, Wikipedia is not censored. As with the multiple discussions about the display of Muhammed's picture, Christ's picture will stay whether some people are offended or not.Marauder40 (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I Must agree with Marauder40, but for very different reasons. Your use of the term "many Christians" is hyperbole. It's a small percentage of Christians who hold that any image is idolatrous.

As for not representative of all Christianity, I would argue that before your bibliolatric (idolatry of scripture) image should be considered, an Eastern Orthodox icon should be considered. There's more of them than those in the West who believe that all imagery is idolatrous. We could go down the list, but your opinion is both wrong (in terms of hyperbole) and in the minority (in terms of sheer number of adopters).

There's also the issue that there are few versions of the scriptures in English that are without copyright around the world. Your image of scripture would have to be of one of those. I suspect, however, that you're in the King James only camp and unfortunately, that's still in copyright in England, at least until 2039, but the rules are broad enough that it might pass our copyright police.

So, unless you can propose an image that is free of copyright and meets the criteria of being clearly understood to represent Christianity, I doubt you'll get very far. The similar template for the Islamic group is File:Allah1 no honorific.png. For Judaism it is three small images: a star of David, a stylized tablets of the ten commandments, and a menorah. For Buddhism it is a Dharmacakra, or the wheel of law. Finally for Hinduism it's an Om. That makes the one for Christianity the most ornate by fare and the only reason I would consider a change would be to simply the glyph that is used. Go ahead and try to convince me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The scripture excerpt was taken from the ESV - reproducing it is allowed as long as 'ESV' is placed after the chapter and verse (granted, it probably does break Wikipedia's policy and insufficient data was included). Besides, I used that image as a protest, not as a permanent replacement. I am clearly not in the KJV Only camp and as for your 'bibliotratric' comment, that comes across more as a personal attack and is an utterly ridiculous notion (quoting God's word is idolatory now?). I have already suggested a plain empty cross to replace the image of 'Christ' which is a universally recognised symbol of Christianity. I won't bother saying or doing any more, since my point has been made.--CovenanterSoldier (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

First, it's "bibliolatric" and not "bibliotratric": bibliolatry is a word whereas bibliotratry isn't. It wasn't a personal attack, just an observation or conjecture as to why someone would replace the image with that particular image. In other words, wondering if you believed that the word of God is more important than the Word of God.

However, I addressed the underlying issue as to whether the image should be changed and so I suppose that's a question for Marauder40 and other project members. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see the numerous discussions in the archive about changing the picture before bringing this topic up again. This has been discussed numerous times before, that doesn't mean it can't be discussed again, but it usually results in "beating a dead horse" type discussions. In earlier comment, I was only addressing whether the picture of Christ should be removed because in the OP's opinion it violates the Second Commandment. That will never fly as a reason on WP for the reason I already gave.Marauder40 (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Marauder40 on both his points. tahc ^chat 02:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Change to a cross (or other iconic and probably non-photographic image)?

Leaving aside all issues of iconoclasm (or any other 8th-century heresy), the fact remains that the current image is not culturally-neutral, and not really appropriate to represent global Christianity. A simple plain Latin cross or Ichthys would be much better in that respect -- but some people insist that there must supposedly be a "consensus" to change the image (though there certainly wasn't any such "consensus" when the current image was added in!!) AnonMoos (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

No. The current image was changed here and no one objected.

That is considered consensus on Wikipedia. tahc ^chat 15:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Whatever -- some people have insisted that there needs to be strong manifestations of near-unanimous active support to change the current image, even though there were no such strong manifestations of near-unanimous active support when the current image was added in. Your "argument from silence" is rather weak... AnonMoos (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not objecting to the image for philosophical reasons, but since it stands out against other, similar projects. A simple graphic would be more appropriate. Also, there clearly is a need for a change and so we're talking about changing consensus and therefore previous discussions are informative, but not binding. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

In the past (some years ago now) there was a seeming consensus to use a cross image-- in theory. The hinderance was that no partiular image of a cross had consensus. In fact no partiular image of a cross was even close to consensus. Personaly, don't mind a simple graphic or a cross-- but I also see no reason that it has to be a cross or a simple graphic.

There is little use in gaining a new consensus to change "in theory" but not start by talking about a partiular image. Here is a icon gallery from archive 4. tahc ^chat 15:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

My strong advice is to keep it simple so that it's clear and easily recognizable at a small image size. A simple plain Latin cross (e.g. File:Christian cross.svg) would be most neutral, or something like File:Christianity symbols Cross Ichthys.svg if you want something slightly fancier... AnonMoos (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

icon gallery
0. 4. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 16. 17.

Thanks for the gallery. None of those are icons, they're all photographic images. I prefer File:Christian cross.svg to the images including the one used presently. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

So first, why is a simple graphic good at all? In the normal world, and in Wikipedia, we choose images that are nice looking and clear, such as <File:StJohnsAshfield StainedGlass GoodShepherd Portrait.jpg>.

Second, why would we want as the simplest possible image? Even the tiny graphic for the Christianity portal is more interesting: <File:P christianity.svg>. tahc ^chat 04:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

To answer: why is a simple graphic good at all? Because less is more. The more complex an image, the more it distracts from the main idea: to convey the affiliation of the project or series with the article in which it's included, without drawing undue attention to itself.

The simplest possible image should be used for that reason as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Tahc -- A photograph generally has to be quite specialized in nature to fit the requirements for a template icon (i.e. to be instantly understandable at a small pixel resolution as symbolizing a particular subject matter, without bringing in distracting irrelevancies). In my opinion, the current image doesn't qualify, nor do most of the photographic images in your gallery. The Latin cross is the simplest form of a Christian cross, and is basically acceptable to almost all significant "mainstream" Christian denominations (even though infrequently used by some). If you want a little more visual pizzazz (though not really necessary in my opinion), then I offered File:Christianity symbols Cross Ichthys.svg, accompanying the basic Latin cross with an even older Christian symbol than the cross, and adding color and drop shadows... AnonMoos (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It would seem that, at least by Görlitz's logic, the best thing would be to have no image at all. tahc ^chat 16:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The best would be to have an image which immediately indicates "Christianity!" to most of those viewing it (even at a small pixel resolution), but which does not drag in irrelevant connotations or associations which might distract from the template (since the purpose of a template image is to serve the template, not the other way around). The benefit of having an image, is that if someone is scanning down the page, not reading all text, then the template icon image at the top corner of a colored box still provides an indication that "this is the collection of Christianity-relevant links"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Please don't put words into my mouth @Tahc:. I never implied that nor did I come anywhere near that by stating that the simplest possible image should be used. Since you clearly are incapable of making a reasonable argument or coherent argument I believe you should avoid this discussion until you either strike that nonsense or apologize. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Please be civil.

No one claimed that you said the best thing would be to have no image at all. I said that by your logic that would be best -- and for you to equate the two is not a reasonable or coherent argument. tahc ^chat 17:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we please focus on the main issue, which is not Walter Görlitz's logic, but the fact that the main purpose of a template image is to serve the purposes of the template (not to look beautiful in itself), and also that the claim that a greater degree of consensus would be necessary to change the current image than was necessary to add in the current image is inconsistent and not helpful... AnonMoos (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

And I was being civile. WP:NPA states that we should focus on content not contributors. I'm still waiting for an apology not an excuse. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the simple cross is currently the best option. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

particular images

Thank you.

Let me say that I think you do have some WP:CON to try some sort of change to non-photographic images without my support; you don't need unanimity.

But I also think if you change the image to something too simple, then editors that see then it will come here to let us know... then you will not have consensus for that change. Of course, I may well be wrong on what will happen.

Either way, I think we should be talking about one or two or three particular images. tahc ^chat 22:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

LDS Church

The The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is only part (albeit a very big part) of the Latter Day Saint movement. The LDS Church link should be changed wither to point directly to the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the piped link name should be changed to better reflect aht the link is for the Latter Day Saint movement. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I echo this. The link should not say one thing ("LDS Church") and then link to another ("LDS movement"). I've updated accordingly. —Eustress 21:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not the correct forum for this issue, as has been discussed here a number of times (such as at Template talk:Christianity/Archive 4#Adding new article links, only Top-importance Christianity articles).

Please bring up such issues at WP:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list. In this way any WP:CON will also apply to Template:Christianity footer. You can also comment on other proposals made there. tahc ^chat 23:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Tahc: I think the reason for preferring the LDS Church link over the LDS Movement link is that the LDS Movement is kind of an academic term that doesn't show up much in the sources and isn't commonly used. (The LDS Church/Mormonism makes up some 99.8% of the movement by members.) Perhaps the link should be changed to the religion (Mormonism) instead of the movement, since "Mormonism" is common, recognizable, and also a top-importance rated article if I'm not mistaken. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can set the "importance" on any article to anything. That is why WikiProject Christianity has a centralized location to identify top-importance for the whole project. Mormonism does seem like a better replacement than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to me, but this is still not the correct forum for this issue. Bring you issue to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list, and then we can talk about it. Thank you. tahc ^chat 12:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

←Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity/Core_topics_work_group/Topic_list#.22LDS_Church_.28Mormon.29.22_instead_of_.22LDS_movement.22 —Eustress 01:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)