Talk:Christianity in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Shaping Up

I like the recent work User:Carlaude has been doing here; really makes it spiffier. One thing I would suggest is that the table is currently very heavy in appearance. Maybe some form of lightweight thing, not a strict table, might be a better way to present this information. Also, I think the table might well be placed later in the article. That would have the advantage that it wouldn't conflict with the boxes and pictures that are (rightly) near the top. Also, the Christianity box shouldn't be there; it's being phased out in place of portals and footers. Tb (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo with the flags

Many Christians in the US are made extremely uncomfortable by easy assumptions that civil patriotism and Christianity have anything to do with each other; this article is not about pro-US Christians, but about Christians in the US. Accordingly, and in view of WP:FLAG, I removed the picture. The idea behind the picture is a very good one: something that shows a church, clearly in an American context, but the particular way of depicting American context (use of a flag) is not ok. Tb (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] State Flags

Do we need the flags in the table? Looks like another case to examine WP:FLAG.Brian0324 (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree; the flags in the table should go, and it should be organized alphabetically by state, not by region. But kudos to all the hard work making this page look so nice! Tb (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

These flags add to the rapid loction of data and is an excellent use of flags-- but state names are there are as well. See Wikipedia:subnational flags. I quote: "A common example of use of subnational flags is in tables or lists of... Another applicable situation would be that of a list concerned with subdivisions of a specific country." Note this quote is for a good use, in contrast to the bad ones.

Since the table is sorable, readers can make it alphabetically by state at any time.--Carlaude (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's for cases where the only identifier for the locality is the flag, which is done because there is no room for a complete name. The question here as always is to ask what the flags are doing to contribute? Do people remember state flags as well as state names? Tb (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
No-- a flag as the only identifier is a bad practice. It seems you should read WP:FLAG.
People can find the image of a flag much faster in a long list that the name only. Most people will know the image of there own state-- the most common state for them to want to read.--Carlaude (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree completely. You have a preference for graphics: I don't know why; but they are a waste of space and do not include comprehesion. People know the alphabet, and can scan an alphabetical list very quickly. Indeed, people are usually more interested in things they do not know: that is, other states. Tb (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images in table

The guideline for including images and icons in tables should be whether it actively contributes, or just "makes it pretty". Icons and images are generally a bad thing it tables. I am willing to be convinced, but I'm not willing to accept images and icons in this table without a clear explanation of why they give information that cannot be understood any other way. A typical example of a good use of US State Flags in a table can be found in U.S. state, where the table is telling the reader what the flag looks like. But this page is not U.S. state, and so this page is not the place to tell the reader general facts about the state. Especially things like church logos do not belong here. In particular, the desire to have a logo has produced the creation of a logo where none exists: namely, the use of the Papal logo as if it were a Roman Catholic logo. This is directly contrary to WP:FLAG. There is no generic logo for the Roman Catholic Church. Inventing one is not allowed. Tb (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regions in table

The use of region names in the table is extremely problematic. For the reasons indicated in U.S. state and List of regions of the United States there is no sensible reason to choose one particular regional grouping than another. The nice map graphic already gives convenient regional information. I object to the listing of region as a column in the table without a specific justification for why the particular regional assignments make more sense than some other. Tb (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This section is about Regional Christian Demographics -- Many denominations are stongest in certain regions. There is no better way to convey this infomation except to sort by region.
To require justification for one regional grouping over all others is an totally artificial and unneeded requierment. If you think another regional assignments system in better tell us why or at least why it is not. By the way this system seemed to fit with patterns on denominations listed on adherents.com, but I am open to others.
"For the reasons indicated in U.S. state..." You mean like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlaude (talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The choice of regions is not neutral, and the way region boundaries are drawn can change the way the data appear. It is simple to change the title to say Christian Demographics by State. To pick a single regioning without defending it is not only to advocate a POV, it's to advocate one without any reason. I am entitled to object to a POV without proposing an even better POV; rather, I object to any regional labelling of states as having any particular relevance here. Tb (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you notice, by the way, that the map you give of census regions (one regioning among many) does not match the regions you have chosen in the table? Why do you prefer those regions? Where did they come from? Why are they the correct regions to group by? Tb (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The choice of regions could be POV but it is not automaticlly POV. You have to tell us why or how this system is POV-- not just claim it is. --Carlaude (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure-- my point is that I am not stuck on on set "system".--Carlaude (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
My point is that any assignment of regions is inherently POV. For example, your assignment puts New Jersey in the "Mid Atlantic" and New York in the "Northeast". Why? This expresses the view that New Jersey is more closely associated with Pennsylvania and Delaware. Why is New Mexico "West Coast"? Shouldn't New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma go together? But then we can't put New Mexico and Arizona together. Any grouping will say "this state belongs with that state, and not this other", and thus will be inherently expressing a POV about the natural grouping of states. As U.S. State explains, there is no natural grouping for such purposes. Tb (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abbreviation of denominations in table

I think it would be useful to abbreviate denomination names in some sensible way in the table. For example, "Episcopal" and "Presbyterian" are reasonable abbreviations, provided the wikilinks go the right place. But I'm not sure. As it is, the info is visually cluttered because of the length of the names used. Tb (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This is why the icons are so useful to help identity them.
Use of "Presbyterian" for the PC(USA) is not a good idea, as PCA apeers three times in the chart.
The main problem with you idea is that some denominations have "good" and some do not.--Carlaude (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed the PCA in there; that is a wrinkle. But your latest revision had some abbreviations in it, which I think do go a long way toward improving readability. Icons don't help: that's like making up a new abbreviation which has never been used before and putting it in, at least, when you make up icons that are not actually existing icons of that group (like the image of a baptism, the photo of the Mormon temple, or the papal insignia). Tb (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity series box

Of course, the series box is going away anyhow, but for the time being, note that it is not present in the other "Christianity in XXX" pages. Series boxes are not duplications of categories. It is inappropriate to think that this article is "part of the series" unless simply every article touching on Christianity is part of the series, and that's not plausible. Tb (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Your logic is false.
You just do not like the template and do not want this helpful template used. It is very simple-- this article is better with the template.--Carlaude (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)