Template talk:Denominations of Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Another POV Template?

Sorry, mate, but there are all sorts of problem here, as well. Dozens of denominations have been left out, of course. The order in which they are listed is puzzling at best. And why is there a category for "Presbyterian and Reformed" in the UK and US, but not in Australia. A lot of arbitrary decisions go into these sorts of templates. StAnselm (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Very simple-- there are many, many "Presbyterian and Reformed" denominations in the UK and in the US, but not in the Australia. There are few denominations of most everything in Australia and they need to be grouped somehow. Reformed denominations in Australia are under "Historical Protestantism."

And that's blatantly false. StAnselm (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As for denominations being left out, why don't you bring that up within each Template-- or just add them in. No one ever claimed the templates are done as they sit now. --Carlaude (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I think this template needs to be deleted. There are thousands of denominations all over the world - having them in one template is rather silly. We already have category lists for that. Besides, we have the very arbitrary choice of countries here. I guess the template could be salvaged somewhat by making it a list of families - e.g. Presbyterianism. StAnselm (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Having all denominations from all over the world would in a navigation box would be silly -- but that is not what this is about.

If you read the edit screen you will see it is only for deominations of 50,000 members/adherents or more (of English speaking nations).

All navigation templates are arbitrary at some level. That does not make them POV. --Carlaude (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe we need a third opinion here, but in its current form this template is unacceptable. Just singling out the countries you did propogates a systemic bias in Wikipedia. Again, I'd be happy with a listing of families, but if it's not improved it in the near future, it will need to be deleted. StAnselm (talk) 06:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not POV

I have no objection to a 3rd opinion but-- I have to say you have totally failed to show this as any sort of POV issue.

Quote from "Wikipedia:Describing points of view"

"At Wikipedia, points of view (POVs) – cognitive perspectives – are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects. The article should represent ..."

Quote from "Perspective (cognitive)"

"Perspective... [is] ...from which to sense, categorize, measure or codify experience, cohesively forming a coherent belief"

What is the coherent belief, etc. of the template? -- there isn't one.

Quote from "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view"

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.

At most, this would just an issue of systematic bias as you can see in this next page I quote.

Quote from "Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus_and_systematic_bias"

"The Anglo-American focus is in part a reflection of there being so many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project, which in turn is a reflection of the fact that so many of them have access to the Internet. It is also because this is the English-language Wikipedia and therefore the published sources we rely on tend to be in English and reflect the concerns of the English-speaking world. Similarly, the French Language Wikipedia may reflect a Francophone bias, and the Japanese Wikipedia a Japanese bias. Some editors see this as a problem, and some do not. A special WikiProject has been set up to discuss the issue.

Systematic bias is not in itself an NPOV issue"

Note well-- even if we agree this is a systematic bias-- to Wikipedia it is an open question if this is even a problem. I think this is a clear case of sensible limiting of a template.

The Francophones can put French denominations on the French Language Wikipedia, and I personally think it would be silly (and difficult) to create it here also. --Carlaude (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus_and_systematic_bias. I'd read it before, and couldn't remember where it was. But I think the key difference her is that you're introducing a deliberate systemic bias, as opposed to editors just writing about what they know. StAnselm (talk) 10:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)