Template talk:Reformed Christianity

Baptist?

I was wondering when you guys would get around to making a Calvinism template! At any rate, I just wanted to ask whether or not "Baptist" was appropo for this template. While there certainly are Calvinist Baptists, there are many Baptists who are not Calvinist, and it is kind of its own tradition with its own doctrinal history. Just a thought. KHM03 15:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Particular Baptist, maybe? The problem with "Reformed Baptist" is that it is also the name of a very anti-Calvinistic restorationist sect. Mkmcconn (Talk) 16:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Mkmcconn said above, regarding Reformed Baptist, "it is also the name of a very anti-Calvinistic restorationist sect". That's interesting because I have never heard of such and the wiki article on Reformed Baptist doesn't mention such. Hmmmm. Jim Ellis 19:21, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

The people the rest of us used to call "Campbellites" used to call themselves "Reformed Baptists". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

People choices

Good work on the Calvinism template. The hardest part is deciding what to leave out. One thing perhaps worth adding is presuppositional apologetics, though I guess that's not universal like the five points and solas. Some people probably worth adding are Charles Spurgeon, Charles Hodge (instead of Warfield?), and maybe John Owen? Just trying to cover the (temporal) spectrum a bit. --Flex 16:08, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

The Princeton Theology

I chose Warfield instead of Hodge, because he is often represented as the "Last of the great Princeton theologians" (and besides, I like him more :-) I chose Edwards instead of Owen, as representing the more abiding line of Congregationalist influence. Kuyper rather than Schilder, to represent the Continentals because he's better known (although I favor Schilder). Spurgeon would be a nice addition; and we need a few representative graduate schools (like Princeton, perhaps). Mkmcconn (Talk) 16:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I think Warfield instead of Hodge is proper, and Edwards is essential to American Calvinism. Kuyper & Schilder I don't know much about (other than names). Spurgeon, though Calvinist, would be more of a Baptist giant (maybe the Baptist giant), wouldn't you say? Don't really care; not a really big fan anyway. KHM03 16:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Any shot for John Wesley? KHM03 16:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe a good way to handle the choice between Hodge and Warfield is not to make the choice (although I much prefer Warfield - did I say that already?), and to bundle them up under a new article called Princeton theologians, which perhaps would redirect to Princeton theology. There we could put Geerhardus Vos, B.B. Warfield, Charles Hodge - and for that matter, the whole Log Cabin/New Jersey college New Light + Old School tradition: in which case, we could put in John Orr, and take out Edwards (who is part of that Princeton tradition). Mkmcconn (Talk)

Wesley will have to wait for another day to become a Calvinist. :-) Mkmcconn (Talk) 16:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Having a link to Princeton theology/theologians is probably a good way to go, and certainly historically important (would you include Machen, who bolted?). But I might still include Edwards, whose importance to American Calvinism is probably greater than the rest of the Princeton group combined. But I defer. KHM03 16:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Edwards makes the cut

Good point about Edwards' breadth of influence. I do like the idea of pointing to Machen, Van Til and Murray (via Princeton, that is). Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd definitely keep Edwards. In the first century or two of American history, maybe only Asbury can compare to Edwards in terms of accomplishments and influence...and Asbury's were not (for the most part) theological, but organizational and evangelistic. Whitefield might compare in terms of the impact of his preaching, but Edwards is up there with the all-time most important American religious figures, and may be #1 (it pains me to say somewhat!). KHM03 17:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of "Princeton theologians." If we had to choose, Hodge seems to me to be a better representative of Calvinism because of his work in systematics. Warfield (whom I like equally if not more) did a good bit of that, too, but there is no unified magnum opus to point to; his theology is spread out among myriad popular articles and scholarly essays rather than collected and systematized in one book. Hodge is primarily seen (historically speaking) as a defender of orthodox Calvinism, while Warfield's efforts were divided between various fronts (biblical inspiration, perfectionism, Calvinism, etc.).

No question that Edwards should be in there. I was looking for a 17th century representative, though, and Owen seems like the best candidate for that. Machen would be good for a 20th century figure. We might also consider some well-known, living teachers of Calvinism like R. C. Sproul or J. I. Packer. Or maybe the rule should be that they have to be dead. --Flex 18:08, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Knox makes the cut

Probably a good rule of thumb; but there might be another way to do that, under a List of Calvinist theologians; however, to start that page and make it worthwhile, we're going to need a lot more people interested in the topic. Most links would be red. Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

There's already Category:Calvinists and its subcat Category:Reformed theologians which are fairly well populated. Seems a bit redundant to copy all that data into another location, though it might allow more convenient organization. Even if we create that list, I'd still favor listing the most important theologians in the template. Speaking of which, I presume you included Knox because of his historical influence. The others are more known as devloping the theology rather than leading historical movements (well, aside from Calvin himself who did both). If someone had to go to make room for others, I'd say he's the best candidate. --Flex 19:27, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Neato. Perhaps we could add that thus:

Reformed theologians John Calvin John Knox Jonathan Edwards Charles Spurgeon Abraham Kuyper B.B. Warfield

Mkmcconn (Talk)

and re: Knox, ouch. Examining my feelings of loyalty, I'm not very open to taking out Knox to leave room for the Baptist. Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Project overview: Sorting who is whom

Another thing to consider is that, although I personally rarely bring to mind any of the neo-orthodox and liberal theologians, when I think of "Reformed" - a list of Reformed theologians without the likes of Richard Baxter, Karl Barth, and even Jeremy Taylor (listed in order of egregiousness) and the like, merely because of their situation in history, as leaders in a nominally Reformed church. Reformed, and Calvinist, are not the same. I would wish that the top level Category was Category:Reformed Christians (John Milton,Woodrow Wilson) (subcat Category:Calvinists(Guillaume Groen Van Prinsterer), subcat Category:Calvinist theologians (Calvin, et.al - we will be bold to declare him one), and subcat Category:Non-Calvinist Reformed theologians (Arminius, Amyraut, Baxter, Watts, Barth), etc. Mkmcconn (Talk) \

That last one stinks; but I don't know what else to call it. Mkmcconn (Talk) 20:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Reformed and Calvinist are not the same: Barth

Barth makes sense...probably the greatest theologian in the Calvinist stream of the 20th century...certainly the most important. Beza also deserves mentionoon the template...moreso than Kuyper or Spurgeon or Warfield, don't you think? And how about Michael Servetus (he, he)? I also don't think a "non-Reformed" category makes any sense. There are already categories for Methodists, Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, et al. KHM03 20:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

And, also, leave on Knox. He put the "meat on the bones" re: Calvinist ecclesiology, whereas Spurgeon...was a Baptist. Knox seems to me to be far more essential to a Calvinism template. KHM03 20:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Torrance and Packer

ONE MORE THING...or two...Thomas Torrance and James Packer are both GIANTS in 20th century Calvinist theology...perhaps only Barth is more important. Just something to ponder & keep in mind. KHM03 20:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

No comment about Taylor? I put him in just for you :-) ! But lo; you said "non-Reformed" I said "non-Calvinist Reformed" ; and that is the difference I want to make more clear.

Beza makes the cut

Regarding Beza, I think that you are putting your finger on why making the short list is hard. Who is Beza? Hardly anyone knows, although you are right that he looms large. Ask in my church and no one under 25 will likely know. But ask about Kuyper, Warfield, Spurgeon? Eyes will brighten. They feel the impact of these men, and not of Beza.

And, you're right. Torrance belongs - not because I would put him there, but because the whole rest of the world would (and I don't seriously begrudge that - Calvinism's identity is not set in stone - you may now jest about the stoney heart of the Calvinist.). But if Torrance belongs, then so does Barth. ...

... sorry. I'm geting too chatty here, I think. May we move toward deciding together? What do you think about the subcategory suggestions? Mkmcconn (Talk) 20:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'll gladly defer to you. My suggestion would be to make a Letterman list...Top, say 6 important people.

First, you can ignore Calvin himself by keeping the link to him at the top of the template...no reason to list him again...it's clear that he's the godfather of the whole Calvinist disaster Calvinist system.

Who else makes the list...in terms of importance, not necessarily fame? Beza, I'd say. And Knox. And Edwards. And probably Barth. (Taylor, too, if you have the inclination!) The link to the "Princeton school" would cover a multitude of sins. I'd say that Beza, Knox, Edwards, and Barth are far more important than Kuyper, Spurgeon, et al. Packer & Torrance would be two nice more contemporary names, but it would be hard to justify them (I had the same problem with the Methodist template).

I suggest listing Beza, Knox, Edwards, and Barth, and include a link to a list of Calvinist theologians...it's a Calvinism template, not a Reformed template. That should help.

Good luck...on to perfection. KHM03 20:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, fine. Leave Knox. I say Spurgeon deserves a spot because he's the most famous Baptist ever and even non-Calvinists like him. We might say he's a preacher and popularizer of Calvinism rather than a theologian who developed it (John Bunyan and even John Piper might also fit that description). As for Beza, he was important but is more obscure (like Turretin), and I would still prefer broader representation across the centuries and outside of Geneva. For this reason, I refer you to my unanswered plea for Hodge and Owen. We should add Barth even though he was a wild one; Reformed theology was still his base of operations.

We could always make another template for Reformed Theology as a discipline which could include Biblical Theology, Presuppositional apologetics, Covenant Theology, Reconstructionism(?), etc. --Flex 21:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well, Biblical theology is a whole lot bigger than Reformed stuff. You guys do what you want, of course...I say leave Spurgeon off. He's famous and liked, but not as important as the others (in my view). I think the Reformed theology template would be so similar to Calvinism...would they co-exist on the John Calvin page? That seems silly to me.

Beza might be obscure, but he's crucial. Far more so than Hodge or Owen. Piper doesn't seem to merit mention (esp. compared to more important "contemporaries" like Torrance or Packer), but I like the Bunyan idea. You can add him to my list of suggestions. With Servetus.

And Calvin and Hobbes. KHM03 21:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not thinking of a template, but a category. Is that what you were thinking? And with subcategories its not necessary to list everything related. You can be specific, and not make lists of adjectives. Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The Princeton theology

Should it be "The Princeton theology" or is the "Princeton theology" okay? Should it go to "theologians" or "theology" Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Gateway pages

How do you feel about the Reformed Christian confessions of faith, and the Princeton theology link? is this a good approach? Should we use other gateway pages like these to solve problems raised by having to choose?

Group by nationality or century: Rejected

We might try a "16thc. 17thc...." approach to theologians; or, we could try using the nations most moved by the Reformed, eg.

European Calvinism American - British - Dutch - French - German - Hungarian - Irish - Italian - Scot - Swiss -

That also looks cumbersome. I feel obligated to embrace the total spectrum, but I don't know how to do that. Mkmcconn (Talk) 08:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the link to the confessions; they are important texts for Calvinists. The Princeton link seems a decent compromise to get some of those folks acknowledged in some way in the template.

I wouldn't do the whole "European" link or centuries...just hit the big names. Again, I vote for Beza, Knox, Bunyan, Edwards, and Barth, with the Princeton link. Those are the biggest of the big guns. Why not take it for a spin? KHM03 12:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

What does Flex think about that? Anyway, Beza can make the cut, but I favor Spurgeon over Bunyan as being the Baptist more important to Calvinists. It would raise confessionalist Calvinists eyebrows if we bump Kuyper in favor of Barth. Barth and Torrance are rarely ever mentioned in my circles, and are thought of as neo-orthodox, not Calvinist. I know that widening the circle of reference, this is not true. But, as a compromise, we could bundle both groups (Dutch Christian Reformed, and the Barthians) if we linked to Neo-Calvinism and sorted out their differences there. I'll get to work on that page, and in the meantime remove Kuyper, in favor of Beza. Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Neo-orthodoxy and neo-calvinism

I always considered Neo-Orthodoxy to be a Calvinist subgenre the same way that, say, the Holiness movement is a subgenre of Methodism. In an NPOV encyclopedia, wouldn't Barth be the more important Calvinist, even if some Calvinists don't like his particular brand of Calvinism? Few theologians in the 20th century - - of any family (Calvinist, Methodist, etc.) - - can compare to Barth in terms of importance. Just something to think about.

And why wouldn't people like Torrance? KHM03 20:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I also defer re:Bunyan vs. Spurgeon. But I think that Bunyan is far more important in terms of all of Christendom; Spurgeon is inconsequential outside of Calvinist and Baptist circles. More food for thought. KHM03 20:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Barth and Torrance: Calvinists or Calvin admirers

I might be the wrong source to go to, for deciding whether Barth should be listed prominently. Mainline Reformed are under his sway - but primarily, in my opinion, because he provided a non-Modernist escape from Calvinism. He was a favorable interpretor of Calvin, but he was far from a confessional Calvinist - and there you have me. I am a confessionalist. Barth was crypto-univeralist, whose influence is ... well, that's why people even in his own camp call themselves "neo-orthodox" and "neo-calvinist". They mean that, they are not the stodgy, "17th century scholastic" "neo-gnostic" calvinist hypocrites with their (my) paper popes (standards of orthodoxy) and quaint obsessions with sexual purity: they are a new kind, they are anxious to say; and so they are. So wouldn't it be a nice, neutral way to solve the question, to combine people like Kuyper, Barth and Torrance, under "neo-Calvinism"? Mkmcconn (Talk) \

Torrance might be seen as a much milder figure than Barth, since his work on trinitarianism and the Fatherhood of God are so greatly admired. But he is not a Calvinist in anything but the neo-orthodox sense. Mkmcconn (Talk) \

I understand what you're saying about Bunyan. If it were "Calvinists" instead of "Calvinism", maybe the choice would go the other way. Mkmcconn (Talk) 00:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Neo-calvinism: not consensus terminology for Barthians

I'm not too sure about the label "Neo-Calvinism". I don't recall ever hearing it, and I graduated from a mainline Presby seminary with a strong Barthian influence. Then again, I was focused more on my own tradition then what the Presbys were up to. If Barth et al are "Neo-Calvinist", then, by all means, put up a link. I maintain that Barth - - like Edwards - - is one of the most important Calvinists in terms their importance outside the Calvinist camp. Every theologian, Calvinist, Wesleyan, Lutheran, whatever, has to deal with Barth at some point. His importance - - for good or for ill - - cannot be overstated. So, you would certainly want him connected in some way to an NPOV template.

Your assessment of Torrance is right on. In the post-Barth era, only Packer (from the Calvinist camp) is respected on his level. He may be neo-orthodox, but he was a committed Calvinist.

Thank you for not mentioning R.C. Sproul at any point, whom I consider a hack.

Now, I've got to go and look over my sermon for tomorrow, on "Sanctifying Grace & Christian Perfection". Worship well on Sunday...He deserves it. KHM03 01:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I hope that it's not tiresome to discuss this before acting. I think that labelling makes all kinds of decisions ahead of time, that are hard to undo afterward. I do agree with you that "neo-calvinism" is not a nice label, and in using it this encyclopedia could be forcing into wider circulation a terminology that otherwise only a few people use. Mkmcconn (Talk) \

However, you will be able to find Barthians labelled this way (probably not by themselves, though). But then, I'm not sure that "neo-orthodox" is a self-label either; and, this other label is used in almost exactly the same way, with almost exactly the same meaning. The difference is, under neo-Calvinist I can put both, Kuyper (and the other Christian Reformed folks, including Rushdoony and his like) and Barth (with Torrance, et. al.). As a bonus, I can refer to those who split from the neo-calvinists (the Dutch self-labelled ones), like Hoeksema and Schilder, and in so doing cover a wide spectrum. Mkmcconn (Talk) \

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly tomorrow, for apart from him we can do nothing. Mkmcconn (Talk) 04:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Neo-calvinism: Consensus terminology for Kuyperians

I haven't read anything by Torrance, so I'll defer to you all. I wouldn't have connected Kuyper and Barth as "Neo-Calvinists." The term, as far as I have heard, usually refers to "Kuyperians" (e.g., Van Til, Vollenhoven, Dooyeweerd, etc.). (Actually, I have also heard it used by a seminary prof to refer to what Calvinists sometimes call TRs -- the "truly Reformed" aka the hyper-conservative who question if Arminians are saved, etc.) Where have you seen Barth and Kuyper linked as such? I agree that Barth should be in there because he is considered "Reformed" by most non-Reformed folks (of course, his page should indicate that he's not a confessionalist, etc.), and I'd say Kuyper deserves a spot because of his influence in the Dutch Reformed circles, which have a significant standing in America also.

Perhaps we should change "Princeton theology" to "The Princetonians" or something since the the title is "People" rather than "Groups." I still think we need a Puritan representative, and I still think it should be John Owen. As for Sproul, I did mention him above, KHM03. :-P Regardless of our opinions, he's undoubtedly one of the most well-known Calvinists living today. (In light of the names on that list, however, I don't think he deserves a mention.) --Flex 16:06, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, since we have a "Princeton" group, a "Puritan" group would be appropo. Still think that Barth deserves mention...and that Sproul is a hack! KHM03 20:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

So much for being proud of your alma mater! --Flex 20:20, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Pgh Seminary's greatest success was Fred Rogers. What's so amazing to me is that Mister Rogers was a theological liberal. Also, he excelled at Biblical exegesis; the award given to graduates of PTS who are tops in the Bible courses is the Fred McFeely Rogers Award. At any rate, what a ministry he had.

Sproul, on the other hand, is a hack. His attacks on evangelical Christianity in the name of Calvinism (which is only a "subset" of evangelicalism) are painful and silly; he gives Calvinists a bad name...hyper-Calvinism gone crazy. It's every Calvinist's right to be incorrect :-) , but no Christian - Calvinist, Wesleyan, Catholic, etc. - has a right to be mean. And that's what Sproul is, more often than not. His tone toward other Christians is offensive...and not in a good way.

I hope and pray that Sproul is never lifted up as an exemplary Calvinist, because I believe that inherent to Calvinism is grace. Westminister got at least one thing wrong (actually, a lot of things...but I digress)...it started out with sin & depravity. Even the most faithful Presbyterians I know wish it had started with the grace of God instead, for that is the beginning of all things.

At any rate, I'm proud to be a PTS grad. Good school, and I was there at the right time. I had wanted to attend Asbury or Duke, but the Lord directed me to PTS, much to my dismay at the time. But at graduation, I could see God's hand at work and could see that he used PTS to challenge me and help me grow, and had actually used me to help PTS (I was president of Evangelical Student Fellowship - first UM to be that - and also of UM Student Fellowship, and was able to help a lot of Methodists be more Methodist and a lot of Calvinists to really explore what it was they were affirming, and a lot of liberals to really examine what they were all about, etc.). So, it's a good school with some really fine professors and I commend it to you, and announce that all you Presbys can be happy with it.

Except for R.C. Sproul! KHM03 22:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Flex, the only connection between Barth and Kuyper, et. al., is that some people sometimes call one or the other "neo-calvinist". They simply mean, "an updated intepretation of Calvin" (in the case of Barth), or "an updated interpretation of Calvinism" (in the case of the Dutch guys). It's sheer coincidence that the label is applied to both groups - no one means to imply that they are branches of the same thing. I suppose that's reason enough not to try to refer to both of them by the same link. Mkmcconn (Talk)

KHM03, perhaps instead of "People" we should be thinking in terms of theological streams, or types - as in Puritan, Princeton, Neo-orthodox? Mkmcconn (Talk) 22:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

That might not be a bad idea. Certainly, there should be a link to Calvin himself (top of template), and perhaps Beza (who is really "Calvin, Part II"), and maybe Edwards (the most significant non-European Calvinist), but perhaps the rest can be "grouped". And the three you suggest seem good to me. Maybe you could even have another one with "Contemporary figures", to keep it current, and not show it to be the outdated system that it is "out of touch". KHM03 11:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Neo-Calvinism could be too confusing since the term is used for such different movements. The streams of thought is a good idea, though in the end it might get too bulky. Maybe we could come up with a diagram like Image:Christian-lineage.png for the Reformed churches. (That could get really messy: Presbyterians do schism like Italians do pasta, someone once said.) --Flex 13:19, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

It wouldn't have to be too bulky. Beza, Edwards, Puritans, Princeton, Neo-Orthodox, and (if you feel it's necessary) Neo-Calvinists. That's all you'd need, really.

PS - I like the pasta analogy...very funny! KHM03 14:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The reason that schism is a scandal to the Reformed, is because unlike Baptists and many others, we have a doctrine condemning schism. The fact that we desire to be together makes our divisions funny. If we had a taste for split P's, nobody would be laughing when we so often choose them. Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Summary of above

If we group the people and movements under "Influential", that segment might look like this:

Influential   Prominent influences (Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)) Theodore Beza + Synod of Dort  Puritan  Jonathan Edwards Princeton theology  Neo-Calvinism  Karl Barth  Neo-Orthodoxy

Does that about sum it up? Mkmcconn (Talk) 00:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but upon further consideration, you may even be able to eliminate Edwards (hate to even suggest that) if he's factored into the Puritans article (which I haven't looked at). KHM03 09:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems to me like we should eliminate the people in the list altogether and restrict it to "Movements" or something like that (Beza and Synod of Dort might be better replaced by "Continental Reformed Theology" or something of the sort). Perhaps two lists are in order: people and movements, or is that overkill? Also, we could rename the template "Reformed theology" or something like that so as to include Zwingli et al. under "Continental." What about Christian Reconstructionism? --Flex 17:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

My recommendation is to keep it as "Calvinism", since that is a better known term than the oft-misunderstood "Reformed theology". Beza is certainly "continental", but I think every Calvinist on the planet has been influenced by him...moreso than more "precise" figures like Kuyper or even Barth. Didn't Beza help to really define the Calvinist system? I would think he's bigger than "Continental".

I don't know much about reconstructionism. Is it worthy of note? KHM03 17:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Beza's influence to me seems to be very much indirect today. It would certainly show up in the confessions and catechisms and canons of the Reformation era (and in textual criticism), but almost no one reads him today directly. For that reason, lumping him into "Continental theology" doesn't seem unfair to me. The term Reformed is often ambiguous, but it's the term we still tend to prefer to identify ourselves. --Flex 18:07, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Flex, I would rather keep the focus on Calvinism. "Reformed" is too big and blurry an idea - that's why we have "church movements" there. I understand what you're saying about Beza, but it's "historically responsible" to mention him prominently. As KHM03 advises, we should aim for the Letterman top 5 or 6. Reconstructionism definitely belongs under Neo-Calvinism (an article yet to be written, if you're interested). I'm feeling pretty settled on preferring "Influences" over "People" , "Movements", or geography - for reasons briefly discussed above, somewhere (as well as under #Boers and Magyars) Mkmcconn (Talk)

Ok. How about calling the section "Influential streams" or something like that. "Influential" alone (sola influentia?) doesn't express much. --Flex 19:42, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

"Influences" ? Mkmcconn (Talk) 20:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

"Formative influences" ? Mkmcconn (Talk) 20:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

"Notables"? "Noteworthies"? "Notable currents"? "Prominent shapers"? "Preeminent leaders"? Influences seems to me to indicate that the people/groups in question are not participants but outside influences. --Flex 20:49, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'm looking for a word that is neutral with regard to whether they are really "in" or "out". I may be in the OPC, but I have to acknowledge the influence of people like Barth, as much or more than of Machen or Van Til. Some do not think that Van Til is "in", and others don't think that Barth is "in". We don't need to decide that, if we call them both, "influences" - that is, supposedly Calvinistic influences on the development of Calvinism. "Prominent shapers" sounds like "people" to me - where "Prominent influences" might include schools of thought, or notable turning points. Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Van Til is strictly Calvinism; his influence outside that family is nil. Barth affected most Christians on earth (for good or for ill is debated). Doesn't that count for something? KHM03 22:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It counts, it counts :-) I think we've pretty much figured out how prominently Barth should be featured, as representative of Calvinism. Machen and Van Til are buried in Princeton, Van Til will show up again under neo-Calvinism. Barth, and H.Richard and Reinhold Niebuhr should be prominent in whatever the target is for representing the neo-orthodox interpretors of Calvin. But the question is, what do we put these all under? See my scratch example, at the top of this section. "Prominent influences" okay? Mkmcconn (Talk) 22:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

OK with me. KHM03 00:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm frustrated with the present state of the articles. I'm posting what I can, considering how unfinished the articles are, that they point to. Mkmcconn (Talk) 05:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. What about adding Pilgrims to historical movements? They were a breed of Puritan, but they also had a profound effect on the shaping of America once they split off. I don't know much about the historical influence of the Boers or Magyars, but I've heard a lot more about the former than the latter. --Flex 12:38, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Go ahead. Mkmcconn (Talk) 14:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I just realized that I now have Puritan twice. Sorry. Mkmcconn (Talk) 14:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Boers and Magyars

Having inserted Huguenots should we add Boers and Hungarians? Or, is that a troublesome direction? Did I just answer my own question? Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Flex, you changed Boer to Afrikaner, with the note Boers to Afrikaners (the former is considered derogatory according to the article about it My strong impression is that it might also work the the other way around. Boers don't like the name, Afrikaner, much, when it's made to signify something different than Boer. "Boer" is one people and culture. "Afrikaner" embraces many peoples and cultures, and for that reason some who are proud of the the name "Afrikaner" don't want to be called "Boer". The Boers have the Calvinist history, the Afrikaners only have it insofar as they include the Boer people. Anyway, I might be exaggerating - a Dutch friend tells me that it sounds funny to call an entire people "farmers", "'hicks', as it were". So, I've used both links on the same line. Mkmcconn (Talk) 22:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Can we fit this quote in somewhere?

"Let the Presbyterians do what they please, but let the Methodists know their calling better." - John Wesley to Francis Asbury

Let me know. Thanks. KHM03 23:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we add a heresy section? :-P --Flex 14:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Denominations

The Anglican/Episcopal/Methodist denominations each hold/held Calvinism to some degree at some point (e.g. Cranmer/Packer/Whitefield, respectively)? Should they have some representation in the template, perhaps under the denomination or historical section?

My opinion is "no", since in Methodism it's always been such a minority (like Arminians in Calvinism - - they exist, but no one likes to talk about them!), and the Anglican tradition is much bigger than one simple categorization, and prides itself on being a "middle road" between Protestantism and Catholicsm.

Bottom line: few look at Methodism or Anglicanism as Calvinist families. KHM03 20:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Then are we back to a heresy section? ;-) --Flex 20:35, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Institutes

Added the Institutes...how could we have forgotten that? The most important Calvinist document of them all? I felt stupid when it occurred to me. KHM03 14:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Width decisions

In Mozilla (and Firefox), the sans-serif font is a little wider than on MSIE. A few titles wrap at 9em, but are on one line at 11em. I thought that a good compromise was to make the template a little wider than it had to be (for MSIE). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, good catch. (Long live Firefox!) --Flex 18:29, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Barth and Reformed Baptists

User:Yakuman has repeatedly removed Karl Barth and Reformed Baptists, most recently with the comment that "Making Barth or RBs 'Calvinst' is speculative and POV -- Calvin himself would not recognize them."

First, as the article on Calvinism describes, Calvin is not the sole arbiter of what is now called Calvinism. Yakuman is defining Calvinism more strictly than the Wikipedia does.

Second, Reformed Baptists clearly claim to be Calvinists as that article clearly states, and contrary to Yakuman, it is POV to unilaterally remove them from this template. Charles Spurgeon certainly considered himself a Calvinist (see his "Defence of Calvinism"), as does John Piper (see, e.g., "What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism" and "How to Teach and Preach Calvinism") as does Founders Ministries, which exists to call Southern Baptists back to their Calvinist roots, as did the Calvinists who touched up the Westminster Confession of Faith to produce the Calvinist 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.

Third, we had an extended discussion above about Barth and reached consensus, which neither Yakuman nor anyone else can unilaterally overrule without establishing an even broader consensus (cf. Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change). We may not agree with what Barth has to say, but he certainly is in the Reformed tradition and is a sympathetic interpreter of Calvin (cf. The Theology of John Calvin). Moreover, as above, he is the single most influential follower of Calvin in the last century -- his influence goes far beyond the Reformed tradition (unlike, say, John Knox). --Flex (talk|contribs) 12:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that since Reformed Baptists fall into the Calvinist category by their own confession, they would be appropriate to include on the Template:CalvinismBrian0324 13:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yakuman seems to have a narrower classification in mind. His concerns might be satisfied by creating a different navigation template based on those more limited criteria; unless such a navigation scheme would be too limited in its scope to be really useful. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but this advice seems to be in conflict your concern in the following section about templates multiplying and having more than one in an article. What are your specific thoughts on these two deletions from this template? Should they stay or go? --Flex (talk|contribs) 18:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, they ought to stay. The only way to justify taking them out, would be to narrow the criteria for inclusion in this template. Narrowing criteria results in more templates - so my concern in both places is really the same. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Additions to the template

Besides the deletions mentioned in the previous section, User:Yakuman added Huldrych Zwingli, John Knox, Geneva Bible, and Abraham Kuyper to this template. The above discussion suggested we aim for the "Letterman's top 5 or 6" for the lists. That's not set in stone, of course, but we don't want the lists to get too long.

In considering the additions specifically, Kuyper or some Neo-Calvinist representative was certainly missing, and I don't have a big problem with any of the others in principle. Yet, while Zwingli certainly was of tremendous historical importance during the Reformation, was he more important in the development of Calvinism/Reformed Theology proper than Martin Bucer, Heinrich Bullinger and Peter Martyr Vermigli, whom Calvinism lists as important contributors? Similar reasoning applies to Knox. What is the justification for the Geneva Bible? Certainly it was important, but does it deserve a place on this list of the most important? Just asking for your thoughts. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As I've watched these templates multiply, they have begun to add to the visual clutter of some articles. It doesn't seem to me that there should be more than one of these things in any article, and there should be a hierarchical relationship between them that would guide the choice of which one belongs. But this isn't how the template scheme has developed - instead they have acquired the qualities of advertisements. I don't know how to solve this problem, without re-working the navigation template scheme from top to bottom: which would be quite a challenge. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What is your opinion on the current template (excluding the deletions mentioned above)? Is it too long or just right? If the former, what should be excised? Should Neo-Calvinism be substituted for Kuyper? --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The term "neo-calvinism" is a little ambiguous, because it is used by older scholars to compare Barthianism to classical Calvinism. However, since that article doesn't mention dialectical neo-calvinism at all, it would seem to be a more topic-relevant target than a link to Kuyper alone. I wish that article took a broader view of the Dutch neo-calvinist movement. It doesn't mention Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer, for example - whom many (including Kuyper, I believe) consider to be the "founder" of the movement. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And what about Knox, Zwingli, and the Geneva Bible? --Flex (talk|contribs) 17:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Zwingli and the Geneva Bible look funny in there, although I see why they are there. It's not as though they're only remotely connected, like the recent vandal's contribution of Michael Jordan, which is there only to be funny. I wouldn't be surprised either way, if they stay or go. I suppose that if it's more amenable to building consensus, they should stay. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Decisions like this would be easier if we had a better idea of when Template:Protestantism or Template:Reformation should be used, instead of this one. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that, in accord with your comments in the above discussion with KHM03, the list should be limited to the top 5/6 influences? If so, which should they be? --Flex (talk|contribs) 19:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I am being kind of evasive of the question, aren't I. Sorry.

Lutherans and Zwinglians will disagree with you, if you say that Zwingli is not a major influence - even if it's one that you and I would like to minimize, his involvement in the mix is an important reason for doctrinal diversity in the Reformed Churches. He's like Arius, to the Arians. A very minor figure, but representative of an extremely important development. He represents the rationalistic, stripped-bare, unchurchly, anti-sacramental, individualistic character of which Lutherans consistently accuse the Reformed. You can't leave him out.

Beza is important, but arguably because his stamp on Calvinism preciptitated the crisis of Dort. I'd reluctantly leave him out, and leave Dort in.

Knox is important not for the intellectual contribution, but for cultural and historical reasons which continue to present themselves in discussions between Continental and Presbyterian Reformed.

The Puritans are important for reasons too obvious to need explanation.

The Geneva Bible is not one of the top five - it is symbolic though of the printing press and the break with Latin. Leave it out because it's not the right place to link, but the right link is in that general direction somewhere.

Europeans might not see why Jonathan Edwards belongs in the list - I don't know. But I think Princeton theologians is more inclusive, in explaining how he figures in - even though both "sides" (Old School and New School) are directly traceable to him. It's in them that the "warm orthodoxy" of Edwards is continued.

Abraham Kuyper belongs, unless Neo-Calvinism is also included - as that provides the more comprehensive description of why Kuyper matters.

Karl Barth belongs for reasons we've discussed. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you've said, except that I'm confused about your comments about Edwards and Princeton. Are you suggesting we keep one or both? --Flex (talk|contribs) 17:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm undecided. The list looks funny without him there. It looks empty without Princeton. Sorry for the subjective criteria - maybe both of them belong. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I can live with both. If one had to go, I'd say Princeton since they were more defenders of Calvinism than definers/innovators or historically important contributors. So are there any objections to redacting the list as Mark suggests? --Flex (talk|contribs) 18:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are objections. I say this, if only to keep others from claiming a future "consensus" that does not exist. That we are talking about leaving Beza out and shoe-horning Barth strikes me as odd and a wee bit POV. I have no problem with adding Martin Bucer, Heinrich Bullinger and Peter Martyr Vermigli,but I know others will.

I included Kuyper to ensure some reference to Holland. Karl Barth clearly does not fit and including him is an imprimatur that goes beyond the scope of this media. To the intelligent layman, Barth is not a major example of Calvinism.Yakuman 18:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The two questions at issue are: (1) how many people/things should be included? and (2) what criteria should be used to decide who/what is included? On the first point, I'm suggesting (as above) that we keep the lists relatively short. The top 5-6 influences was suggested above, but while I'm not committed to that, I also don't want the list to become too long. On the second question, see below. --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The Geneva Bible seems out of place as an "Influence". Isn't it more of a product of the movement, at the early stage? Wouldn't the section "Influences" be better named "Pivotal figures" or broken down into "Pivotal works" and "Notable Calvinists"?Brian0324 19:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see modern Calvinists like John Piper's 7pt calvinism, Mark Driscol, Tim Keller, DA Carson, and others who are redefining the resurgence of calvinism in america. This should be on the template Wyatt 20:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Karl Barth and all that

Flex wants to restore the Barth and RB entries here, claiming a consensus that does not exist. Also, he is forcing wikipedia to take sides in an open debate, which is a no-go. Making Barth or RBs "Calvinst" is speculative and POV -- Calvin himself would not recognize them. We are not looking for "innovators," as Calvinism has historically never sought that as a goal. Why make a simple task so difficult? Yakuman 18:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem here, as we discussed above on this page, is the criteria we're using for determining what constitutes Calvinism. Let's deal with the Baptists alone for a moment as they are the least controversial. Perhaps reaching unanimity on them will help give us a path forward.

Contrary to your opinion, I think it's POV to suggest that Reformed Baptists are not Calvinists, as my unanswered arguments above also discuss. First, we don't know Calvin's opinion of this group which came later in history, and suggesting that you know whom he would "recognize" is entirely speculative and not verifiable. Moreover, Calvinism, as the article on the topic makes clear, is not the work of or defined by one man, though Calvin's influence is certainly the most important. Therefore, even if we did have Calvin's opinion of the Reformed Baptists who came after him, excluding them based solely on Calvin's opinion does not appear legitimate.

There's also an implicit consensus in the perhaps 100+ articles that identify RBs as Calvinists (cf. Category:Calvinists, Reformed churches, etc.) that have been worked on by many different people ("Silence equals consent" --WP:CONSENSUS). That's not to say that these many users are certainly right and that you're certainly wrong, but I think the general consensus is clearly against you. In short, you are defining Calvinism more narrowly than the Wikipedial consensus does, but the latter must prevail (unless you or others are able to persuade and change the consensus). --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think some of the problem here results from semantic confusion. What is Calvinism? Are we talking about the soteriological doctrines of grace (i.e., the five points)? Or are we referring to the overall teachings of Calvin (i.e., you have to agree with Calvin on every point of doctrine in order to call yourself a Calvinist)? When I use the term Calvinism, I usually mean the doctrines of grace. As Spurgeon said, Calvinism is a nickname for the gospel. I believe that is the proper definition of the word for the purposes of this template. Therefore (for whatever it's worth) I would acknowledge the RB as Calvinists. Whether Calvin would have embraced the RB is immaterial, based on the definition given above.

The question of who should be listed on the template is quite another matter, though. Some criterion needs to be suggested. Do we want great proponents and/or defenders of the doctrines of grace? This list would be inordinately large, so I vote against this. Are we looking for notable Calvinist hallmarks to represent every significant era and nationality? This seems somewhat reasonable, though subjective and possibly lengthy also. I'm not sure what to suggest as an alternative.

As for comments on the particular issue at hand, I think Barth and Kuyper look strange on the list. IMO, they don't quite fit in a category with Knox and Edwards, and their 20th-century influence is undoubtedly dwarfed by that of their contemporaries: Pink, Murray, and Sproul. If we're looking for a good RB representative, I would suggest Spurgeon. If we're looking for a 20th-century person, I would choose Pink.—Emote _{Talk Page} 02:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest we be aiming for the most significant elements in the Reformed tradition (which, is more or less synonymous with Calvinism, as the article says), and in that regard, the lists will have to be relatively broad with respect to the many strains (English vs. Dutch, for instance) but selective in order to maintain a reasonable length. Regarding what type of person/group/movement to list, I'd say we should be aiming for those who have the most theological/historical influence (that's the title over that list). We're not aiming for our favorites but for the most significant in a broad sense.

Certainly the mark of Westminster and the Puritans are all over English Calvinism and their descendants, and they deserve a spot. Edwards is important both because of his historical role in the Great Awakening but also because of his writing (his historical accounts and theological evaluations of the Great Awakening are very important; he is essential to the development/spreading of modern postmillennialism; he made notable contributions in philosophy [cf. his entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]; and he is often cited as the father of the governmental view of the atonement). I'd say Neo-Calvinism definitely needs some representation on the template, and while Kuyper is as much of a figurehead as you can get, perhaps Neo-Calvinism itself would be better, as we discussed above.

As for Barth, if you accept him as being within the Reformed tradition (which I think is reasonable, even if you strongly disagree with him), I don't see how you can say Pink, Murray, or Sproul (PM&S) is more influential. His influence is tremendous and widespread, as Sproul himself laments. Barth -- like Calvin, the Puritans, Edwards, and Kuyper -- rocked the world; PM&S, as much as we might like them, did/have not. (Anyway, I'd still say Machen and perhaps Van Til beats PM&S out for historical/theological influence.)

On the other hand, while Spurgeon was a great and reknowned preacher, I don't see his influence as of the same type as, say, Kuyper's. Similarly, while the Princetonians are important as defenders of orthodoxy, they are more of what we might call "regurgitators" and didn't really put things in a new light by their actions and writings like Kuyper did (what Frame says of Van Til could equally apply to Kuyper: "Unoriginal as his doctrinal formulations may be, his use of those formulations -- his application of them -- is often quite remarkable").

Perhaps one mark of influence we could use to judge who belongs and who doesn't is the amount of study dedicated to the person/group/movement's ideas. For instance, Yale is not only continuing to print the definitive edition of Edwards's works and has a professorship and college named after him, but they host the JE Center, which is dedicated to the study of his works. There are also many books and much scholarship dedicated to his life and work. Similar things can be said of Kuyper (cf. The Kuyper Lecture, The Kuyper Foundation, Kuyper College, the many books about Kuyper and his thought), Barth, the Puritans, etc. AFAICT, the same cannot be said (at least not to the same extent) for PM&S, the Hodges and Warfield, Thornwell, Owen, Turretin, Spurgeon, Bunyan, etc. This is not to diminish or deride the valuable work that these people have done, but it gives us a benchmark to start from. Obviously this shouldn't be our sole criterion for inclusion, but I think it should be one of our criteria. --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is a Reformed template, I think we should rename it as such. Doing so will greatly reduce the confusion about who and what belong in the template. I don't think that the regulative principle of worship or covenant theology belongs on the Calvinism list. Those have an associative relationship with Calvinism but not a filial one. (Again, it comes down to the definition of Calvinism. If we're defining it as "everything that Calvin believed and taught," then we need to add paedobaptism to the list and delete people like Barth who don't qualify as strict disciples of Calvin. If we're focusing on the soteriology, then we need to omit the non-soteriological doctrines while retaining groups like the RB.)

As for the issue about which people are more notable/influential than others, I suppose your opinion just depends on which Reformed circles you run in. (It would appear that Barth and Kuyper are significantly more influential to your denomination than they are to mine.) If I made a one-to-ten scale of influential Calvinists with Calvin as a 10, I would rank Edwards–8, Spurgeon–7, Sproul–4, Pink–4, Kuyper–2, Barth–1. I see such a disparity between Spurgeon and Barth that they are almost incomparable.

At any rate, I don't have any great desire to debate this question at length. You asked for my input, so there it is. I don't intend to interfere with the template, but I'm happy to offer my opinion on it and to make suggestions for its improvement.—Emote _{Talk Page} 17:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Right: we are trying to establish the scope for this template. Unfortunately, the distinctions between "Calvinism" and "Reformed tradition" are rather vague (how ironic since Calvinists so love fine distinctions!) and not at all agreed upon, but I will contend that neither term is commonly used to refer to only that which Calvin believed. This template has been around for a long time, but the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Calvinism wants to use it as its banner, so we need to figure out what belongs in the headlines and what doesn't.

As for the top ten, I agree our personal experiences and opinions will vary, which is why I suggested a more quantifiable metric, viz. the approximate amount of energy dedicated to studying or propagating the group/person's work by third parties and the continuing prestige of his/their name (e.g., the colleges and endowments named after him/them). By this standard, I would rank Pink and Sproul much lower than any of the others you listed. You might persuade me on Spurgeon based on this metric, but I doubt you could on Pink, for instance. Spurgeon has a relatively unknown college named after him, whereas Edwards has a professorship and college named after him at one of the flagship universities of the US, not to mention several recent biographies and many other books about him. On the other hand, while I have much respect for Pink, I don't find nearly as much energy devoted to his work or prestige associated with his name. Surely a greater level of interest and prestige also indicates a greater level of importance in some sense. Now certainly there are other means of measuring importance, but I don't think we can go on our own intuition alone on this matter -- we need quantifiable metrics. --Flex (talk|contribs) 17:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Inclusions

1.) Flex seems to be playing a WP:GAME in that he uses spurious claims of disruption, and 3RR violations and other bad acts to support his edits. He also claims a consensus, where clearly none exists. Please remember WP:DE, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I explain clearly on my talk page that I do not accept defamation and false accusations lightly. Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another. Do not use false charges as a rapier. I take this kind of thing seriously.

2.) Consensus is fine, but I don't see one that actually exists here. I do see that maybe I was hasty in adding Kuyper. Oh, well. Certainly none exists for the two items under debate.

3.) Whether of not Barth is or is not a Calvinist is not really the issue. If I'm not saying anything. Wikipedia is NPOV and does not make a judgment call on the matter. Putting him or the RBs forces WP to make a conclusion on a contestable point. What you or I think is not the issue. Wikipedia can take no position on it. That's the

For raising issues with specific articles, see the NPOV noticeboard. For advice on applying this policy, see the NPOV tutorial. For frequent critiques and responses, see the NPOV FAQ. For the template, see Template:POV.

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

Explanation

See also: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ

Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. Observe the following principles to help achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia:

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that genocide is an evil action but may state that genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil.
• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
• Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice, for example the sky is blue not [name of source] believes the sky is blue. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
• Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source.
• Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

What to include and exclude

See the NPOV tutorial and NPOV examples.

Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material when you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems.

Article structure

Further information: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout

The internal structure of an article may require additional attention to protect neutrality and to avoid problems like POV forking and undue weight. Although specific article structures are not, as a rule, prohibited, care must be taken to ensure that the overall presentation is broadly neutral.

Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear true and undisputed, whereas other segregated material is deemed controversial and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.

Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view or one aspect of the subject. Watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints.

Due and undue weight

"Wikipedia:UNDUE" redirects here. Not to be confused with Wikipedia:UNDO.

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.

Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still appropriately reference the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the minority view's perspective. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position and then discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require a much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. See fringe theories guideline and the NPOV FAQ.

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth). Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material as well.

Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

If you can prove a theory that few or none believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in sources that are reliable, it may be appropriately included. See "No original research" and "Verifiability".

Balance

"WP:BALANCE" redirects here. For balance regarding the "In the news" section, see WP:ITNBALANCE.

Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.

Balancing aspects

An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news.

Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance

See: False balance

When considering "due impartiality" ... [we are] careful when reporting on science to make a distinction between an opinion and a fact. When there is a consensus of opinion on scientific matters, providing an opposite view without consideration of "due weight" can lead to "false balance", meaning that viewers might perceive an issue to be more controversial than it actually is. This does not mean that scientists cannot be questioned or challenged, but that their contributions must be properly scrutinised. Including an opposite view may well be appropriate, but [it] must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries.

—BBC Trust's policy on science reporting 2011
See updated report from 2014.

While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.

Making necessary assumptions

When writing articles, there may be cases where making some assumptions is necessary to get through a topic. For example, in writing about evolution, it is not helpful to hash out the creation-evolution controversy on every page. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology but also in philosophy, history, physics, art, nutrition, etc.

It is difficult to draw up a rule, but the following principle may help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page if that assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page. However, a brief, unobtrusive pointer or wikilink might be appropriate.

Selecting sources

Further information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Some types of sources, and Wikipedia:Academic bias

In principle, all articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look online for the most reliable resources. If you need help finding high-quality sources, ask other editors on the talk page of the article you are working on, or ask at the reference desk.

Bias in sources

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Biased or opinionated sources

A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased, meaning another source should be given preference. Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether.

Controversial subjects

Wikipedia deals with numerous areas that are frequently subjects of intense debate both in the real world and among editors of the encyclopedia. A proper understanding and application of NPOV is sought in all areas of Wikipedia, but it is often needed most in these.

Fringe theories and pseudoscience

Further information: Wikipedia:Fringe theories and § Due and undue weight

Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community.

Any inclusion of fringe or pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The fringe or pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how experts in the relevant field have reacted to such views should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This applies to all types of fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical negationism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo Moon landings were faked.

See Wikipedia's established pseudoscience guidelines to help decide whether a topic is appropriately classified as pseudoscience.

Religion

"WP:RNPOV" redirects here. For neutrality of redirects, see Wikipedia:Redirect § Neutrality of redirects.

Further information: Wikipedia:Myth versus fiction

In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from religion's sacred texts as primary sources and modern archaeological, historical, and scientific works as secondary and tertiary sources.

Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view can be mentioned if it can be documented by relevant, reliable sources, yet note there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as the Rev. Goodcatch) believe This and That and consider those to have been tenets of Frisbeetarianism from its earliest days. Certain sects who call themselves Ultimate Frisbeetarianists—influenced by the findings of modern historians and archaeologists (such as Dr. Investigate's textual analysis and Prof. Iconoclast's carbon-dating work)—still believe This, but no longer believe That, and instead believe Something Else."

Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g., fundamentalism, mythology, and (as in the prior paragraph) critical. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offence or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and relevant sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about particular terms can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch.

Point-of-view forks

See also: Wikipedia:Content forks

A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted on Wikipedia.

All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of a spinoff sub-article. Some topics are so large that one article cannot reasonably cover all facets of the topic, so a spinoff sub-article is created. For example, Evolution as fact and theory is a sub-article of Evolution, and Creation–evolution controversy is a sub-article of Creationism. This type of split is permissible only if written from a neutral point of view and must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article.

How to write neutrally

Naming

See also: Wikipedia:Article titles § Neutrality in article titles

In some cases, the name chosen for a topic can give an appearance of bias. Although neutral terms are generally preferable, name choice must be balanced against clarity. Thus, if a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some could regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names "Boston Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper" are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question despite appearing to pass judgment. The best name to use for a topic may depend on the context in which it is mentioned. It may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the topic in question is itself the main topic being discussed.

This advice especially applies to article titles. Although multiple terms may be in common usage, a single name should be chosen as the article title, in line with the article titling policy (and relevant guidelines such as on geographical names).

Article titles that combine alternative names are discouraged. For example, names such as "Derry/Londonderry", "Aluminium/Aluminum", and "Flat Earth (Round Earth)" should not be used. Instead, alternative names should be given their due prominence within the article itself, and redirects created as appropriate.

Some article titles are descriptive rather than being an actual name. Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed "Societal views on X"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.

Impartial tone

See also: Wikipedia:Writing better articles § Information style and tone

Wikipedia describes disputes, but does not engage in them. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial, formal tone.

Describing aesthetic opinions and reputations

The Starry Night—good painting or bad painting? That's not for us to decide, but we note what others say.

Wikipedia articles about art and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. Aesthetic opinions are diverse and subjective—we might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is. However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts, critics, and the general public. For instance, the article on Shakespeare should note that he is widely considered one of the greatest authors in the English language by both scholars and the general public. It should not, however, state that Shakespeare is the greatest author in the English language. More generally, it is sometimes permissible to note a subject's reputation when that reputation is widespread and potentially informative or of interest to readers. Articles on creative works should provide an overview of their common interpretations, preferably with citations to experts holding those interpretations. Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide a useful context for works of art.

Attributing and specifying biased statements

Further information: Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Point of view

Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and must not be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited.

Another approach is to specify or substantiate the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual. For example: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." People may still argue over whether he was the best baseball player, but they will not argue over this.

Avoid the temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words, for example, "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." Which people? How many? ("Most people think" is acceptable only when supported by at least one published survey.)

Words to watch

Main page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch

There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care because they may introduce bias. For example, the word claim, as in "Jim claimed he paid for the sandwich", could imply a lack of credibility. Using this or other expressions of doubt may make an article appear to promote one position over another. Try to state the facts more simply without using such loaded words; for example, "Jim said he paid for the sandwich". Strive to eliminate flattering expressions, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from noteworthy sources).

Common objections and clarifications

For answers and clarifications on the issues raised in this section, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ.

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales talks about NPOV at WikiConference India

Common objections or concerns raised to Wikipedia's NPOV policy include the following. Since the NPOV policy is often unfamiliar to newcomers—and is so central to Wikipedia's approach—many issues surrounding it have been covered before very extensively. If you have some new contribution to make to the debate, you could try the policy talk page. Before asking, please review the links below.

Being neutral

"There's no such thing as objectivity"

Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows we all have biases. So, how can we take the NPOV policy seriously?

Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete

The NPOV policy is sometimes used as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?

A simple formulation—what does it mean?

A former section of this policy called "A simple formulation" said, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but don't assert opinions themselves." What does this mean?

Balancing different views

Writing for the opponent

I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the opponent". I don't want to write for the opponents. Most of them rely on stating as fact many demonstrably false statements. Are you saying that to be neutral in writing an article, I must lie to represent the view I disagree with?

Morally offensive views

What about views that are morally offensive to most readers, such as Holocaust denial, that some people actually hold? Surely we are not to be neutral about them?

Editor disputes

Dealing with biased contributors

I agree with the nonbias policy, but there are some here who seem completely, irremediably biased. I have to go around and clean up after them. What do I do?

Avoiding constant disputes

How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues?

Other objections

Anglo-American focus

The English Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV?

Not answered here

I have some other objection—where should I complain?

History

Main page: Wikipedia:Core content policies

"Neutral Point Of View" is one of the oldest governing concepts on Wikipedia. Originally appearing within Nupedia titled "Non-bias policy", it was drafted by Larry Sanger in 2000. Sanger in 2001 suggested that avoiding bias as one of Wikipedia's "rules to consider". This was codified with the objective of the NPOV policy to produce an unbiased encyclopedia. The original NPOV policy statement on Wikipedia was added by Sanger on December 26, 2001. Jimmy Wales has qualified NPOV as "non-negotiable", consistently, throughout various discussions: 2001 statement, November 2003, April 2006, March 2008

No original research (NOR) and verifiability (V) have their origins in the NPOV policy and the problem of dealing with undue weight and fringe theories. The NOR policy was established in 2003 to address problematic uses of sources. The verifiability policy was established in 2003 to ensure the accuracy of articles by encouraging editors to cite sources. Development of the undue-weight section also started in 2003, for which a mailing-list post by Jimmy Wales in September was instrumental.

See also

Policies and guidelines

• Conflict of interest
• Fringe theories
• Words to watch
• No original research
• Verifiability

Noticeboards

• NPOV noticeboard

Information pages

• Describing points of view
• List of controversial issues
• NPOV dispute
• NPOV FAQ
• NPOV quiz
• Recentism
• Positive tone (historical Meta policy)
• Understand bias (historical Meta policy)

Essays

• Be neutral in form
• Cherrypicking
• Civil POV pushing
• Coatrack articles
• Conflicting sources
• Controversial articles
• Criticism sections
• Describing points of view
• Don't "teach the controversy"
• Let the facts speak for themselves
• Let the reader decide
• NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content
• NPOV tutorial
• POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields
• Presentism
• Scientific consensus
• Scientific point of view
• Systemic bias
• Why NPOV?
• Wikipedia only reports what the sources say
• Ye shall know them by their sources

Articles

• Criticism of Wikipedia § Neutral point of view and conflicts of interest
• Consensus reality
• Journalistic objectivity
• One-sided argument

Templates

• General NPOV templates:
  • {{POV}}—message used to attract other editors to assess and fix neutrality problems
  • {{POV section}}—message that tags only a single section as disputed
  • {{POV lead}}—message when the article's introduction is questionable
  • {{POV statement}}—message when only one sentence is questionable
  • {{NPOV language}}—message used when the neutrality of the style of writing is questioned
  • {{Political POV}}—message when the political neutrality of an article is questioned
  • {{Fact or opinion}}—message when a sentence may or may not require in-text attribution (e.g., "Jimmy Wales says")
  • {{Attribution needed}}—when in-text attribution should be added
• Undue-weight templates:
  • {{Undue weight}}—message used to warn that a part of an article lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole
  • {{Undue weight section}}—same as above but to tag a section only
  • {{Undue weight inline}}—same as above but to tag a sentence or paragraph only

References

policy.

4.) As to the length, as they say, "it should be like a lady's dress - long enough to cover the subject and short enough to be interesting. The numbers are beside the point.

5.) As I said before, we are not looking for "innovators," as Calvinism has historically never sought that as a goal. Why make a simple task so difficult? Yakuman 20:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)