Talk:Ecumenism

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Christianity Top‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Eastern and Oriental Orthodox section

There is a section that lumps the "Eastern" and "Oriental" Orthodox churches together. I'd like to remind everyone that these are distinct churches. So distinct, in fact, that if we had to lump churches together, it would arguably make more theological sense to lump the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox together, and put the Oriental Orthodox in a separate section (I don't advocate doing this!). Editors should be careful not to jump to sloppy conclusions based on the mutual use of the word "orthodox" by these churches. 184.175.14.142 (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An important point. From a western perspective, at least three, sometimes four, distinct communions and churches get lumped together as "Eastern Christians": The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, and Eastern Catholic (sometimes). Worth be consistently clear on the distinctions. Protoclete (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

Maybe an good photo to illustrate this article? --Flor!an (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Christian aspects removed

Someone added statements about ecumenism being a general phenomena, rather than a purely Christian enterprise. This is A) wrong and B) completely unsupported in the text below and I have removed it.108.90.117.6 (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ecumenism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious Claims about the Anglican Communion

Either the uncited claims in the Anglican section need to be sourced, or they need to be removed. There have been minority split movements but they are far in the minority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.9.245 (talk) 21 December 2015‎

I agree that the sentence as it currently stands seems like a significant overstatement at best. Moreover, even if that were not the case, it is barely peripherally relevant to the article. I have removed it. Graham (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a

Done so its easier to gloss over. MaximusEditor (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ecumenism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ecumenism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture

My removal of the Popular culture section has been reverted by 185.85.186.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). IMDb is not a reliable source and popular culture content requires reliable third party sources. I will remove the section again, unless this discussion reaches some other outcome. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues tag on this article

I've recently tagged this article for having multiple issues that need resolving. Namely, these are general copyediting, verbosity of language, and condensing - three that roughly fall in the same ballpark. Let's go through them one by one.

Copyediting - Basic things. Tone, repeated wikilinks, style of writing. General and non-specific cleanup that anyone could have a go at.

Verbosity of language - there are a lot of points in this article that read like an essay written in the context of the reader already understanding the subject. Not everyone is going to read and fully understand the topic of every Wikipedia article, but this should be because of the subject at hand - not because of the way the article is written.

For example - the article Galaxy is a Featured Article. I don't understand everything written in that article, but that's because I'm not very good at Science. It's not because it's written terribly - it's a Featured Article, meaning that the opportunity to understand the article subject is there. I just don't have the smarts for it.

I hope this reasoning makes sense - the point I'm trying to get at is that you have to write a Wikipedia article essentially from the ground up, like the reader has absolutely not a clue what Ecumenism is before they hit the page. Currently, this article does not do this. I had to search on google for what ecumenism is, because the very first sentence used to read like this:

The term "ecumenism" refers to efforts by Christians of different church traditions to develop closer relationships and better understandings.

The article's subject can be as nuanced and complicated as you want, but the article still has to be written well.

Condensing - I have a feeling there are too many section headers in this article, but I could be wrong. What I don't feel wrong about is the fact that the information in this article could be heavily condensed and far better organised.

Someone with a greater interest in this subject needs to have a stab at this article, as I couldn't focus for more than one section before my brain started turning into molten cheese. I hope this explanation of the tags makes sense, and I hope that someone takes the opportunity to have a go at improving this article. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of section?

I think we should delete the "Historic divisions in Christianity" section as it is beyond the scope of this article. Important links could be included in the "See also" section. Editor2020 (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Typos in the block quote from The Discipline of the Evangelical Wesleyan Church?

It appears that there may be two typos in section 1 of the block quote from The Discipline of the Evangelical Wesleyan Church. Specifically, I surmise that the passage "The scriptural references, as alleged proofs favoring this doctrine, may be showing to rest upon an assumption in each case that the Word of God will not substance" should read "The scriptural references, as alleged proofs favoring this doctrine, may be shown to rest upon an assumption in each case that the Word of God will not substantiate". However, I cannot find the cited work online. Does anyone have access to it? Ps8v9 (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]