Template talk:Christian denomination tree

Comments

Moved to keep this abstract and to allow improvement and re-use. Consider using a timeline scheme like the one below: -Ste|vertigo 05:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

SVG version: -Ste|vertigo 07:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Nou problemou, but a little L8R Plezz. Rursus 10:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Labelled map

(Copied from another post). You can put hyperlinks on an image. This would improve this image a lot, and was the original motivation for the text version, as I remember. Compare {{Australia Labelled Map}} and the tool Labelled Image Editor. (This comment also posted on Image:Christian-lineage.png). -Colin MacLaurin 18:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong

I linked this (new) template up wrongly. It should link to categories, but links to articles. I'll fix it. Rursus 10:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

FIxed. Rursus 21:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

See Talk:Schism (religion) for discussion of this vs other versions Johnbod 14:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding a suggestion to also compare with the French image file which presents some compelling details considerable also for the development of this template. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Sub-trees

This template looks great. Hence, I propose designing additional "sub-trees" which will give more detail for a particular strand, such as Anabaptists for example. A link could be placed on each template to the other one, i.e. on the end of each node for the main template (this one), and at the beginning for a sub-tree. Colin MacLaurin 09:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Error: Falsehood

I find it untrue to allegation that the Restoration claims to be of a seperate lineage. The Restoration Movement holds origins in the Protestant Reformation, but we hold seperate goals and beliefs; we are, for lack of a less schismatic word, dogmatically different, but we don't claim to be of different history. This chart shows history of Christian beliefs and where they split; the Restoration split where the solid line shows.

We don't claim to be some seperate body of belief that subverts and over-shadows the rest. We believe the opposite: all Christians are part of Christ's Church, whether we always agree or not.

I opt that the dotted line with it's false label be removed before a reader is given the impression that Restoration Churchs believe themselves better than other Christian groups. IanSvinth (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources Do you have a source for your claim that Restorationists view themselves as Protestants? -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Response It does not matter when Restorationists claim their belief originated, only the historical details. Wikipedia is not the place for evaluating the hermeneutic claims of a religion. Because Restorationism originated in the 19th century, and in the context of Protestant converts, it should be left as a schism with Protestantism. The dotted line should be removed.

Lutheran via media?

Sources please Do Lutherans see themselves as Catholic and Reformed? This seems improbable to me. While some Lutherans, especially in Northern Europe have kept a high church, liturgical practice, I do not know of any defining documents that identify Lutherans as anything other than a purely Protestant church. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

While what you say is true, most Lutheran groups are averse to being lumped in with reformed churches or catholic churches. I think that the denomination tree should have the "protestant" line split into "lutheran" and "reformed" at the very least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.129.68.23 (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Eastern/Western Rites

'Union' should be changed to 'Uniate'. Assyrian and Oriental Orthodox should also have a line joining The line for eastern rite Catholicism. Orthodox Christianity has a western rite (starting at least 1864, after eastern rite Catholicism). These shouldn't be on the same line (i.e., joining) -- western rite Orthodox should be on the Orthodox line, not a jut-out new line, reflecting the fact that compromises in Catholic theology were made order to accept Orthodox churches into the Catholic communion under a eastern rite. See: Western_Orthodoxy and Eastern_Catholic_Churches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.111.105 (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This chart is so simplistic it is misleading

I don't think this chart is very useful. The Protestant and Restorationist groups really come from two separate lineages. The vast majority of them split from the Anglican church or derived from ones that did. Perhaps a half a dozen or so split directly from the Roman Catholic Church. Lutheranism originated before Anglicanism and split directly from the Roman Catholic church. In addition, the Moravian Brethren existed well before Luther, given they originated around the time of the Jan Huss Controversy. Add the Mennonites, Swiss, and Dutch Reformed to this smaller group.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 07:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Browsers

For me, the diagram works in IE8 but not in current Firefox, Opera, Chrome. In Firefox, please test also with View Text Only set and zoomed. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree, problem recognised. Adding help request on this one. Browsers in mobile platforms seem to fail this template for unknown reason. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems to work fine for me in Chrome 69, please can you be more descriptive about what the problem you're seeing is? stwalkerster (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page not moved: withdrawn Ground Zero | t 16:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Template:Christian denomination tree → Template:Christian denomination tree (categories) – This template links to categories, and is apparently for use in categories, however it is being used in a few articles. I would like to move it to a name which makes it clear that it is for categories and create a new template that links to articles. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC) JFH (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment some of the links in the imagemap are articles, and not categories. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Split or rewrite (Copy and rewrite) make two templates, one for articles, one for categories, where the imagemap links link either to articles or categories. This can be done with two templates (simpler) or a namespace detector (more complex single template) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm torn as to whether there should be one or two templates. The template is pretty complex already, and so I don't think we can expect inexperienced users to edit it anyway, so perhaps a namespace detector is the way to go to avoid forking. --JFH (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: A namespace detector should fix this, but if the goal is to discourage use in articles or something, maybe I'm just missing something.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Adding a disambiguator into the title of a template isn't a too common of a practice. However, A better option may be to change the title altogether without a disambiguator in the title, but what that title could be, I have no idea. Steel1943 (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Withdraw, I've figured out how to use a namespace detector, and I agree it is a better solution. --JFH (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Arminianism

I propose that Arminianism should have its own branch here because of its strong influence. It has influenced on Methodism, Holiness movement, Pentecostalism, and to some extent on General Baptists, and Restoration Movement. 113.186.91.208 (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@113.186.91.208: While Arminianism is certainly an important development in Christian history, it's not usually viewed as a denomination but as a movement. Compare with (e.g.) fundamentalism. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Diagram without explanation is very NPOV

Without a caption explaining what the diagram/template depicts, it is very NPOV. The diagram depicts some, but NOT all major "branches". This is not clear from the existing title, and has been a problem with many editors misinterpreting its intention. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

My point is that it is your POV that these are branches and denominationational families, as it they are two different things. That the diagram depicts only some can be said without those terms. tahc ^chat 21:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not oppose your phrasing. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Refs

I am not sure why you are adding ref to this chart. The sources do not have more information to give more detail than the chart has, and since the sources do not match the template, it does not show any lack of bais in the template (even if the sources had a lack of bais). Since Eastern Catholicism is not the origin on the Copts, the source CUNY can only be a way to categorize the denominations-- and not infomation on their historical relationships. In others words, its different purpose makes it a poor source for this template. tahc ^chat 22:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Wrong

Restorationism is not Protestantism. This template is wrong.Ernio48 (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe Restoration movement is intended? --JFH (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a part of Restorationism, which is not Protestantism. A major mistake in this chart.Ernio48 (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I mistakenly assumed the chart had Restorationism instead of Restoration movement. So the issue is actually that the Restoration movement doesn't consider itself Protestant according to the WP page. I have moved the Protestantism label so it doesn't include the Restoration movement.--JFH (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The Restoration movement is totally part Protestantism in all meaningful ways. Only (some) members for the Restoration movement itself would say otherwise in that its purpose it to restore the way of things to as they were in Early Christianity (before the Protestant Reformation). Protestantism and the Protestant Reformation, however, also has largely sought to restore the way of things to as they were in Early Christianity.

The different parts of Restorationism has also claimed similar goals, but (in most cases) these groups are quite different from each other and from Protestantism (e.g. most being Nontrinitarian).

None-the-less, I like [this edit of Jfhutson's] for tightening-up the mash of words. tahc ^chat 03:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Tahc (talk · contribs). Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

"Branch Theory"

I removed the "Branch Theory" annotations. I think there were several problems with them.

Firstly, I think it would generally be accepted by most neutral observers that there are multiple bodies which would generally be considered Christian churches, which have divided from each other at various times; and which vary as to whether they recognise each other. That doesn't require a theory, it is simply a historical observation. Yes, there are disputes among them over which are "truly" the Church, but their existence isn't really disputed.

Secondly, this graph bears no resemblance to Branch Theory. Branch Theory is specifically the theory that a Universal Church, retaining Apostolic Succession, exists in each geographical area - the Eastern Orthodox in the East, the (Roman) Catholic in the West, the Anglican in Britain. If this were a Branch Theory diagram, it would have only those entries on it.

Thirdly, most Christians have never heard of Branch Theory, but would have no trouble recognising the contents of this diagram. This is not depicting branch theory; just history.

We might want to consider the use of the word "denomination", as I know that isn't accepted by Orthodox or Roman Catholic Churches - "divisions", maybe? - but I think saying the only way you can recognise this diagram is if you subscribe to Branch Theory is going quite a lot too far. TSP (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I advocated reverting your edit before seeing your post here. As for branch theory, the article states in the first sentence that "while others may also include the Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, Old Catholic and Lutheran churches". Wouldn't it be problematic to argue that Wikipedia's article on the subject as well as its graphics should subscribe to an arguably originalistic interpretation of branch theory where initial proponents would override later elaborations? Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

That article does state that; although only since you edited it to do so - I'm not sure the sources say that. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, quoted in the lead, clearly defines the theory to be limited only to those churches with Apostolic Succession, and specifically to those three named. (A few sources refer to other versions, but most describe seem to these as "a variant on branch theory" or similar.)

If it would be problematic for Wikipedia to endorse that (the most common) interpretation of Branch Theory, it is certainly more problematic for Wikipedia to endorse a different, more obscure, interpretation of Branch Theory; which it is currently doing through this caption.

Incidentally, in your edit comment you referred me to this debate to explain why I shouldn't have removed Branch Theory with no debate on the talk page. That debate was specifically about the fact that User:tahc had completely removed the caption from the diagram, which was duly resolved at that time (March 2015); it has nothing to do with your edit, almost two years later, to add branch theory - with no debate on the talk page. TSP (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I realise that I have been slightly led down a rabbit hole with the above answer.

The more important response is that I am not suggesting that we should say *anything* here about Branch Theory; to remove the caption does not mean Wikipedia endorses a different view of Branch Theory, just that it stops using (inventing?) this one. TSP (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed: it's not necessary for understanding. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Add Nontrinitarianism as special and mildly related branch from both Eastern and Western Christianity

Since their wide known Nontrinitarian denominations throughout history like Arianism, Unitarianism, Latter Day Saint movement and few more denominations have their own versions of Nontrinitarian theological concept, bigger numbers, ritual and etc. And I think this is time to put them a spot in very above every family (with minor connections in some them like Protestantism or Eastern Orthodoxy for Spiritual Christianity like Doukhobors for example). Chad The Goatman (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2018 (EST)

The tree will never have all denominations and should not have all denominations. Nontrinitarian denominations quite different from each other and are unnecessary. Any effort to show Nontrinitarian denominations in this tree will be (even more) misleading (or worse). tahc ^chat 19:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)