This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The photo of Jesus Christ used in this article is Anglican more then Protestant. Evangelicals do not believe in Jesus having deity, or a halo, while on earth. Most would also agree we do not know what exactly he looked like, but it was most likely darker skinned. This photo is not as good for this article as an empty cross would be, being as that is the mainstream belief of where salvation was started. I hereby move that this image be replaced with one more appropriate. 2602:306:CD1E:B200:C4A5:EB7B:BDEF:6243 ( talk) 15:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Anglicans are Protestant (and the correct word is than not then) and I attended an Anglican congregation that was, and still is, very evangelical. The Alpha Course was started by an evangelical Anglican congregation in London, Holy Trinity Brompton.

Evangelicals do believe in the divinity of Jesus while on earth. Anything else would be considered heresy. There are a lot of denominations involved so one cannot paint them with such broad strokes, or with a particular form of iconography.

As for "where salvation started", again, that's not as easy to paint as well. It could be argued as starting at the incarnation, Jesus' earthly ministry or at the resurrection. The empty cross may not be any more appropriate than the current image.

I'm not opposed to discussing a change in image, but it should be done with fact-based arguments. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

From what I understand, Anglicans consider themselves the "via media" — neither Catholic nor Protestant. But, even RC don't believe he had an actual "halo" over his head. That's just symbolic. — Confession0791 ^talk 16:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the halo symbolic of? 108.209.235.32 ( talk) 17:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Your understanding of Anglicanism is not correct. They do consider themselves protestant. They were formed out of the protestant reformation. However, there are "high Anglicans", who align themselves more closely to Catholic forms of liturgy and "low Anglicans", who distance themselves from it. However, that has nothing to do with their theology, which is firmly protestant in nature. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing about this depiction that would offend most evangelicals. This is a dispute over nothing. Ltwin ( talk) 21:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

And of course, it's not a photo. But also - it's not specific to the article. It is part of the Christianity template, and discussion about the picture should be held at Template talk:Christianity. As for this article, the template certainly belongs. St Anselm ( talk) 22:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

We all realize it is not a photo, but a drawing. Thank you for helping us. Now back to it. Show me one example of an Evangelical using such a photo? Seems to me something of this nature would be found in a Catholic church, Not a baptist church. If this is used for the blanket term "Christianity" then that is its own issue. However when i go to view "catholic church", this image does not display there. So I would say this is an issue if this image would not be used by a denomination fitting the evangelical label. 2602:306:CD1E:B200:6D6F:F467:B55B:B844 ( talk) 02:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It may be an issue, but as I said - not for this page. St Anselm ( talk) 03:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not a drawing either, it's a photo of a stained glass window.

So now it's Catholic and not Anglican. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Its not Protestant. 2602:306:CD1E:B200:88BC:69F1:3326:D8FB ( talk) 17:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute . . . you mean there is a rule that Evangelical churches can't have stained glass windows depicting Christ? Oops. I need to call my local Fist Church of the Nazarene and First Baptist. Boy do they have some renovations to undergo. Who knew they had it wrong this whole time . . . :) Ltwin ( talk) 17:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

next time you go by, see if Christ has a halo. 2602:306:CD1E:B200:88BC:69F1:3326:D8FB ( talk) 17:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

All you've managed to do is assert your opinion of what is Protestant and what is Evangelicalism. You've offered absolutely no sources that say that all Protestants or all Evangelicals vigorously reject the use of halos in their depictions of Christ. Sorry to inform you, but you don't get to decide what all Evangelicals believe about halos. Ltwin ( talk) 17:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:AGF let start with proof that halos are widely used by evangelicals. Your saying keep the current photo, so where is your proof that they DO use them. I have personally been to Baptist, Pentecostal, Brothern, CoG, sothern Baptist, black Pentecostal, and have not one time seen Jesus Christ, with a halo. If something is not in wide spread use within Evangelical churches, why would it be used as the title photo (drawing, painting, photo, color by numbers(not the issue here))? I can propose many different, widespread images these churches use. None that I have personally seen in 40-50 churches I have visited have had a halo. In fact some consider the image (drawing, painting, photo, color by numbers, carving, statue) idolatry. A non-Jesus artistic rendition would be better. (as there are no actual photos of Jesus that are 100% positive). 2602:306:CD1E:B200:88BC:69F1:3326:D8FB ( talk) 18:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not the "title photo" of the article. It's a picture at the top of a box that states, "Part of a series on Christianity" which is designed to give encyclopedia readers a convenient guide to some important Christianity topics. As a Pentecostal myself, I can tell you that most evangelicals don't give a flying flip if Jesus Christ is drawn with a halo or not. Ltwin ( talk) 18:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Then I would recommend we insert a title photo above this box. 2602:306:CD1E:B200:88BC:69F1:3326:D8FB ( talk) 20:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If this crusade against haloed Jesus is as important to you as it seems, you can always go to Template talk:Christianity and revive the discussion over the picture there. This is not the place to discuss this picture. Ltwin ( talk) 18:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I would consider it a fine photo for the term "Christianity" as there are arguably more Catholics then there are Evangelicals; And they call themselves "Christians" as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD1E:B200:88BC:69F1:3326:D8FB ( talk) 20:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm amused by your arguments but not by your grammar, spelling or logic. I'm sorry, this is not an informed opinion. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest a paragraph between Billy Graham and the last paragraph.

Some evangelicals argue for an even broader definition of the term evangelical. Steve Wilkens and Don Thorsen claim that "Evangelicals are people of the Great Commission." ^[1] They further argue against caricatures of evangelicals as many are not inerrantists, Republicans, Calvinists, or anti-evolutionists.

I am a student researcher for Dr. Thorsen, so do not want to add it to the document myself. Klfkyle ( talk) 21:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

There was a recent edit apparently by the UK Evangelical Alliance which was reverted on COI grounds (also the username is against policy and has been blocked). I've undone the revert as I think this is a case where common sense is needed and the edit did improve the article. The statistics that were added were sourced with reference to a survey whereas the previous version of the paragraph contained an unsourced statistic and a dead link. I also don't think that WP:COI technically applies as the edit did not advance the editor's interests above those of Wikipedia. Whilst the survey was commissioned by the Evangelical Alliance itself, I do not believe its results are disputed or contentious. For completeness I have no connection with the Evangelical Alliance myself. SmilingFace ( talk) 20:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I too agree. If the information is sourced, and the source is not a primary one, then it's not a COI. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with SmilingFace and Walter Görlitz: I saw no COI. Rjensen ( talk) 04:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I should add, it was not at all promotional. not sure how it was a CoI. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, it appeared to be the Evangelical Alliance adding the results of its own survey, so you could argue there's a CoI, and we must assume good faith on the part of the editor who deleted it. But the edit would have been same had anyone else made it, and I consider the survey to be a reliable source, so I didn't see a problem. There can obviously be some situations where an organisation commissions a biased survey for the purposes of self-promotion or agenda-pushing, but this isn't one of them - the edit actually significantly reduced the estimated number of evangelicals in the UK! SmilingFace ( talk) 15:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

An editor changed the non-neutral word proselytism to activity. It was changed back claiming that the sentence "doesn't actually make sense". The change was "Protestant missionary activity in Asia was most successful in Korea" to "Protestant missionary proselytism in Asia was most successful in Korea". The issue is that not all missionary activity is an attempt to proselytize. There is medical and educational work. To categorize all work as proselytism is clearly loaded. I restored it because I felt the sentence does make sense. Which phrasing should be kept? Should the sentence be reworded? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 13:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, missionary activity includes other work. But this sentence (and the paragraph of which it is the lead) is not about medical and educational work, it is very explicitly about conversion work! There are exactly zero mentions of hospitals or schools run by evangelicals in Asia in this section; instead, there is a detailed discussion of the expansion of Christianity, i.e., the success of missionaries in converting people. Thus, the word "activity" here is vague and misleading to the reader. I do not have any particular insistence on the word "proselytism" if you don't like it, and I would be perfectly happy with any alternative construction that served as a clear and accurate introductory sentence to the section. -- JBL ( talk) 14:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You are being tendentious and misrepresenting the paragraph. It starts with showing how missionaries pushed back Japanese cultural incursion via language and in the second paragraph "and opposition to the old Japanese colonialism and to the authoritarianism of North Korea". I'll let you restore. If I see nothing I'll know that you are not editing in good faith. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how "activity" is "misleading". I don't think the word "proselytism" should go there. "Activity" is better -- though another word could be better (but I can't think of one right now). There's only one other place in the article where "proselytism" is used. It's used appropriately there, but not here. -- Musdan77 ( talk) 01:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

In the section "United States", under "Recurrent themes", subsection "Secularism", the words "restricted church-related schools" are linked to Coit v. Green. I don't understand how such a case on racism in a school would be in any way related to the schools' relations with churches. The Average Wikipedian ( talk) 13:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to rephrase so that the reference is decipherable. Let me know what you think. -- JBL ( talk) 17:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Not the same concept. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 22:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • FYI Evangelical is a redirect to Evangelicalism. Editor2020 ( talk) 00:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks. We can move "Evangelic" over the redirect. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 01:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The United States section of this article was way too long, so I forked it over to a new page that formerly redirected to the section. I also copied over the HIstory section and cut out the non-American parts (which only amounted to a few sentences overall), and merged the two "20th century" subsections. This raises the question of what to do with the history section here. Almost all of it is American, yet

1. It's not in the United States section, and
2. It's redundant with Evangelicalism in the United States#History.

Should it be summarized and a {{ Main article}} hatnote be placed at the top, linking to Evangelicalism in the United States#History? Or is it okay to leave the redundant content? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{ re}} talk | contribs) 08:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@ Jujutsuan: I wrote much of the early history. It's meant to emphasize the trans-Atlantic character, that this was not just an American phenomenon and the connection to other streams of Protestantism. We still need a history section that focuses on the development of evangelicalism globally. However, that global history is going to be primarily British-American because evangelicalism's history was largely shaped by an Anglo-American revivalism and that is what much of the English-language sources will focus on. I guess what I'm saying is that the history section of this article and the one at Evangelicalism in the United States are going to overlap. However, they shouldn't be carbon copies of each other. I would not want to see the history section summarized on this article, since while it currently may see American-centric the history it is far from complete and needs to be fleshed out. We should probably craft a narrative that explicitly looks at Evangelicalism in America (rather than global connections) at the new article. Ltwin ( talk) 15:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

With the exception of a few sentences on Britiish Evangelicalism that I've already removed, it seems to me that the history part of the new article is already Americentric. I think if either of them needs to be retooled in that way, it's probably this article's history section. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{ re}} talk | contribs) 16:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

On another note, it might be a good idea to discuss such major changes on the talk page before you do them. Also, taking a look at the archives might also be useful. If you look at Talk:Evangelicalism/Archive 3#Unacceptable gutting of article, you can see that an editor did this before and the consensus was to revert. Of course, consensus can change, but its wiser to discuss big changes like this first. Ltwin ( talk) 16:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I think there's a qualitative difference in that the US section had gotten so much longer (<15,000 bytes in 2013; >56,000 now). If consensus develops to revert, fine, but I saw a problem (the unmanageable length and disorganization) and decided to WP:FIXIT. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{ re}} talk | contribs) 16:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

"Operation World" (note 69) is considered a reliable source? Pew Research Center (which shows a slightly lower figure) would be better, e.g. http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/ 71.121.193.107 ( talk) 10:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The image at the top of the page isn't that great. It's an American Mega-church. It's great for the Mega-church article, but not for here. First, it's American, and Evangelicalism is a world-wide phenomenon. Also, Mega-churches are a recent phenomenon. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 23:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Until recently, there was another image at the top-a missionary leading a revival. It was moved to the bottom of the page. Ltwin ( talk) 23:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not concerned that the image is of an Amercian subject, since Americanism and Evangelicalism are strongly linked, but do agree on the mega-church issue. Is there an image you suggest? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

But Martin Luther is also not appropriate. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 22:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

American megachurches are a common and distinctive manifestation of evangelicalism. Any single image will not encapsulate evangelicalism. I'm fine with the revival image too. This might be a good place for a collage. -- JFH ( talk) 14:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

American megachurches are a manifestation of modern day American Evangelicamism. That however, represents a huge recent and American-centric bias. Wikipedia is supposed to be timeless and universal. Megachurches have not been around long, and they may only be a recent fad that may die out in a few decades. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 14:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

They are more common today, but our article on megachurches gives examples of earlier ones. It also says 5 of the 10 largest as in Korea. Also see this list!-- JFH ( talk) 14:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

There is even one Roman Catholic one: https://wn.com/the_mass_and_the_megachurch,_the_roman_catholic_church, so megachurches are not an exclusively evangelical phenomenon. However, as I wrote above, Martin Luther should not the symbol for Evangelicalism. While that this term for Protestant in German, most Lutherans in the English-speaking world would not be considered evangelical. 208.81.212.224 ( talk) 21:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing Churches of Christ from the list of example movements within Evangelicalism. Since they are in basic agreement with the central tenets of Evangelicalism, there is no good reason to remove them. Discuss. Hokie RNB 16:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

They IP gave a reason here. Not a good reason but a reason. Our article on the Churches of Christ states they believe "baptism is not an inherently redeeming ritual" and that it is an earthly sign caused by the conversion. If we need to remove this, we need to remove all Calvinist or Calvinist-influenced groups (not saying we should) on the grounds that their belief that salvation leads to works is a works-based faith. Ian.thomson ( talk) 17:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The CoC article is clear that some are more evangelical than others. It's also clear that there is disagreement on the purpose and role of baptism in the denomination. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe that the CoC are not "evangelical" in the broad sense of the term. I reverted the last edit as consensus appears to be to leave them in the article. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 17:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I would argue that the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was tremendously influential in defining post-60's evangelicalism. It feels like mention of this 1978 document, and the convention that created it, should be included in the history section of the article. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 06:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Words like "dynamic" and "surged" appear. This sounds like an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 ( talk) 16:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

We learn that evangelicalism is "on the rise globally". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 ( talk) 13:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I came to this article looking for a list of the Christian denominations that are considered Evangelical. I suspect such a list (even if it includes some sort of proviso as to its completeness and/or subjectivity) would be helpful to many others as well. At a minimum you ought to include a link to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations where people can sort of find this information. Second, even though it says at the top: "Not to be confused with evangelism" I would suggest in your basic explanation of what Evangelicalism is that you briefly mention how it could easily be confused with evangelism and what (very briefly) evangelism is. I mean, I suspect it is a common mistake and one that adherents to Evangelical Christian denominations would like clarified for those who'd be looking up "Evangelicalism". Niccast ( talk) 19:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Why would an article that does not start with "list of" contain such a list? The short list that is present is fraught with problems. Anglicans, for instance, encompass several schools of thought and not all Anglicans would consider themselves as Evangelicals. I would not venture to create such a list without a bulletproof set of references for each denomination listed.

As for a brief distinction between the terms, feel free to add it. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that the list is not forthcoming, since being evangelical is a set of qualities rather than a set of affiliations. And given that the qualities are critical judgments on denominations, there are bound to be some groups for which reliable references can be found both for and against their being called evangelical... and they may both be true, depending on when each was written and the working definition for "evangelical", which does vary. - 208.76.28.70 ( talk) 15:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

An anon tagged the lede sentence with needing clarity, particularly since it was too technical. Is there something specific we could do? I don't really see how we can make it more clear while keeping it accurate. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed the following from the further reading list of Evangelism since they referred to Evangelicalism, not Evangelism.

• Jay Riley Case, An Unpredictable Gospel: American Evangelicals and World Christianity, 1812-1920. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.
• Matthew Avery Sutton, American Apocalypse: A History of Modern Evangelicalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014.

The Further reading list of Evangelicalism is already quite long, so I leave it to the editors of this page to determine if these are worthy of inclusion here. Daask ( talk) 18:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I see nowhere that contemporary worship music is a defining characteristic between Evangelicalism and mainline protestant churches. There are Evangelical denominations that avoid it while many mainline protestant congregations use it. I plan to remove the phrase unless anyone objects as it appears to be WP:OR. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I suppose there may be a reliable source somewhere that says contemporary worship is more often associated with evangelicalism, but unless we have that source, you're right, this is unverified, original research. Ltwin ( talk) 19:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree. More often is not what’s being claimed, "defining characteristic" is. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Walter, this was a very poor edit. I added the citation tag because it's uncited and dubious. Sure, it doesn't have to be cited in the caption, but contemporary worship is nowhere referred to in the article. St Anselm ( talk) 22:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

True, and the reason is sound: we do not tag citations. I just removed the sentence based on the discussion here. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 22:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I've never heard that before - is that in a guideline? I don't see it at Wikipedia:Citation needed. St Anselm ( talk) 22:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@ Walter Görlitz: May I ask why my edit removing a period from a caption that didn't include a complete sentence (per MOS:CAPTIONS) was reverted without explanation? 142.160.89.97 ( talk) 01:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Not unexplained. I marked it as vandalism. I fully explained the issue and you decided to continue your edit war. The phrase is a full sentence. It can stand by itself. "A worship service at Lakewood Church, Houston, Texas, in 2013." It can also be a sub-clause: "At a worship service at Lakewood Church, Houston, Texas, in 2013, an elephant was spotted in the room." Since it can stand alone, we assume it should in a caption. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 01:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@ Walter Görlitz: MOS:CAPTIONS says "Most captions are not complete sentences but merely sentence fragments that should not end with a period." It helpfully links to Sentence clause structure § Incomplete sentence which explains that unlike a complete sentence, a fragment lacks a grammatical element essential to a sentence, such as a subject or a verb. Where is the verb in the phrase in question?

It can also be a sub-clause Whether it could serve as a sub-clause is irrelevant. That is not the criterion specified by MOS:CAPTIONS.

Since it can stand alone, we assume it should in a caption. If it could stand alone – which I believe I have demonstrated it cannot – on what basis do "we" make such an assumption? 142.160.89.97 ( talk) 01:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, WP:VANDALISM provides, "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge [emphasis in original]." On what basis are you asserting me to be a vandal, bearing in mind WP:AGF? 142.160.89.97 ( talk) 01:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

What's the sentence right after the one you quoted from the MoS? That conditional is quote important. And no need to ping me here. I'm watching this article. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 01:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

What's the sentence right after the one you quoted from the MoS? That conditional is quote important. The following sentence is "However, if any complete sentence occurs in a caption, then every sentence and every sentence fragment in that caption should end with a period." It qualifies the sentence that precedes it by saying that fragments should receive a full stop in, and only in, cases where there is a full sentence somewhere in the caption. "Sentence fragments" and "complete sentences" being mutually exclusive, it applies specifically to where there can be more than one full stop in the caption.

And you haven't addressed the two questions:

1. "Where is the verb in the phrase in question?"
2. "Additionally, WP:VANDALISM provides, 'On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge [emphasis in original].' On what basis are you asserting me to be a vandal, bearing in mind WP:AGF?"

142.160.89.97 ( talk) 03:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You're right. You're not a vandal. In light on WP:NPA, I will refrain from stating what I think you are. I have self-reverted and suggest you get an account or face further patrolling. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@ Walter Görlitz: suggest you get an account or face further patrolling. What do you mean? 142.160.89.97 ( talk) 05:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

As this article stands it makes a number of controversial assertions without proof.

What is the most appropriate forum for discussing this?

David Lloyd-Jones ( talk) 08:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

You could start by explaining here what you find problematic in the article, and then any interested editors can participate in the discussion and reach consensus about what to do. Ltwin ( talk) 09:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

tell us if a) the problem is lack of citations. or b) the problem is false statements. If b) please provide your reliable secondary sources. Rjensen ( talk) 09:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Mitchell and Richard,

Thanks for picking this up so quickly. I'll get a start on it before the New Year.

Happy of which for 2019, and many more of 'em, to both of you.

Cheers,

David Lloyd-Jones ( talk) 11:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I will follow-up as well.

If it's a lack of citations, either add a {{ citation needed}} to a phrase or {{ Refimprove section}} to a section.

If it's a false statement, there are several possibilities and should be discussed, unless it's about an individual (or identifiable group) and that statement is slanderous, in which case it should be removed and an edit summary should be left.

If you have sources, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources should explain how to add them.

I hope that helps a bit. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Back in May ServB1 replaced the lede image without specifying why. I really can't think of a more unrepresentative picture, unless it was a triumphalist statement of the superiority and invincibility of that form of Evangelicalism.

For reference, the pictures that have been used are:

Restored Ernio48's Jan 2018 choice May 2018 ServB1 Special:Diff/843098750 no reason given

Changed Mar 2018 Ernio48 Special:Diff/828665608 with reason

(top picture should be of a characteristic, not random pastors (a pastors' conference - this is not a distinguishing feature); moving)

Changed 8 Mar 2018 by 174.46.190.10 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) [1] with reason

(changed photo because this picture shows the four figures who represent a good variety of Evangelicalism.)

Changed by Jan 2018 Ernio48 with reason

(switching images; lakewood shows more effectively the scale of this phenomenon.)

Added Feb 2016 Ernio48 with no reason given

So, one person (now blocked) really wanted to jam in an 'example' picture, then there were differences of opinion of what should be represented, then we ended up with the most extreme.

I object to the "we've got you outnumbered!" corporation church picture. There have been different opinions on what is representative. Perhaps best would be returning to the unadorned article lede?

Note also that there are geographical subsections with pictures. Perhaps American basketball churches should be illustrated therein? Shenme ( talk) 23:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhpas, rather than just one single image, the lead image should be a collage of different representations of evangelicalism. For example, something like is seen at Conservatism in the United States. Ltwin ( talk) 23:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I prefer no image. No single image can meaningfully represent a worldwide movement based on a belief. A big crowd in Houston, in a tiny pic, certainly doesn't. It's a big city, and I'm sure they have lots of big crowds for all sorts of reasons. And a collage would be a challenge, with risks. I've seen gaining consensus in what should be in collages for many articles create considerable angst. There is always a risk of the "we've got you outnumbered!" crowd pushing hard, and forgetting about and upsetting people from parts of the world less well represented in Wikipedia. HiLo48 ( talk) 00:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless there is a recognized founder of Evangelicalism, or a single image, icon or symbol that represents the movement, I would have to agree that having no image would be best. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

An anon just removed the image. Would anyone be opposed to moving it out of the lede? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 18:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I am good with removing the image, I think many would argue that none of these photos on their own represent Evangelicalism well. Some would argue that some of these photos don't represent Evangelicalism at all. Preston A. Vickrey (humbly) ( talk) 20:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Conservative evangelicalism in the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 21:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I had planned to remove the "Various Reviews" section added by User:Japhet777, but another editor beat me to it. It should have been removed for 2 reasons having to do with sourcing: (1) The "Article on Akklesia", which is the citation for the first sentence, linked to a "not found" page and (2) the web page christochrate.ch (the source for the second sentence) looks like a personal website, which violates Wikipedia:SELFPUBLISH.

Thinking more broadly about this section, there are scholars of Evangelicalism who have pointed out that the movement has connections to the rise of market capitalism (though it's not apparent to me why that has to be made into a criticism of Evangelicalism rather than simply a neutral explanation of one of the aspects of the movement). This should be something embedded into the article, particularly the history section. If there are criticism of Evangelicalism in this regard it should be well sourced and given due weight. Ltwin ( talk) 16:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand that you want to monopolize the article, but normally an encyclopaedia is not there to hide the negative aspects of a religion.But if all the contributors decide to give one point of view, okay. But in the meantime, I think we should leave this section (I put an extra reference). Greetings. Japhet777 ( talk) 22:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

First, Japhet777, please read WP:Assume Good Faith because this accusation is not true and neither is it helping to improve the article. When two separate editors come to the same conclusion, that is not monopolization but a developing WP: Consensus. Secondly, christocrate.ch is still a self-published source, and I removed it and the claim attached to it once more. Thirdly, please clear up lingering concerns with your contribution. You need to provide a page number to Ellul's book. Also, you wrote that some writers "reproach evangelism"; does that mean Ellul is not specifically writing about Evangelicalism? Evangelism is not the topic of this article. Ltwin ( talk) 23:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't understand why you're being so formal. I've been a wiki contributor for years (except in English, because it's not my native language) and I know how it goes.

There are several authors who have criticized evangelicalism the two ties I put before prove it. I removed this one: www.akklesia.eu/index.php/post/On-Billy-Graham/, and now you're telling me the other one wouldn't go either, even though the article's sourced enough. Self-publishing doesn't apply here. So I'm going to hand over both references and the book.

There is also, it seems to me, Darren E. Grem's book The Blessings of Business: How Corporations Shaped Conservative Christianity, which draws a parallel between evangelicalism (or a type of evangelicalism) and capitalism. But I only read a summary, so I didn't put the link.

And there's more. So I think this section has its full place here... Japhet777 ( talk) 13:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I've been a wiki contributor for years (except in English, because it's not my native language) and I know how it goes. So, can you please add a page number to the Ellul citation.

There are several authors who have criticized evangelicalism the two ties I put before prove it. You added random blogs from the internet that we're supposed to take seriously?

Self-publishing doesn't apply here. But Wikipedia:SELFSOURCE does. It states in part: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves . . . without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met . . It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)." There are better, reliable sources detailing criticisms of evangelicalism. Ltwin ( talk) 17:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

It's okay, you won... I can't do anything about arguments as good as yours. Congratulations. Japhet777 ( talk) 21:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

This article implies that modern North American Evangelicals are part of a continuous tradition going back to the 16th century. They're not.

Modern North American Evangelicalism was born in the 1920s - 1940s as a reaction against mainline protestant denominations moving toward non-literal interpretation of the Bible. They branched off from those mainline denominations one by one to form new denominations whose only significant difference, initially, was interpreting the Bible literally and believing in the doctrine of inerrancy.

At first they called themselves fundamentalists. But that term fell out of favor among those who wanted to seem like normal modern people outside of church, so they co-opted the iconic old name Evangelical. Aside from the name, they don't significantly resemble the Evangelicals of the 16th - 19th centuries. The name change was just marketing.

The two sides continued moving apart -- the old mainline denominations de-emphasized the Bible and emphasized social engagement, while the Evangelicals emphasized individuals' personal engagement with the Bible. But that doesn't mean the latter became more like the old Evangelicals in a meaningful way. Modern North American Evangelicalism is a new movement, about a century old, that took the name of an old movement that no longer existed in a meaningful way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greglovern ( talk • contribs) 21:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Greglovern, it's true that there have been changes in who is included within the evangelical label overtime. However, the view that there is no continuity between modern Evangelicalism today and that of the 1700s is not backed up by scholars who study Evangelicalism and Anglo-American Protestantism in general. Historians like David W. Bebbington, Mark Noll and others have identified such continuities. For example, George Marsden writes on pages 4–5 in Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism that:

Roughly speaking, evangelicalism today includes any Christians traditional enough to affirm the basic beliefs of the old nineteenth-century evangelical consensus. The essential evangelical beliefs include (1) the Reformation doctrine of the final authority of the Bible, (2) the real historical character of God’s saving work recorded in Scripture, (3) salvation to eternal life based on the redemptive work of Christ, (4) the importance of evangelism and missions, and (5) the importance of a spiritually transformed life.2 By this account evangelicalism includes striking diversities: holiness churches, pentecostals, traditionalist Methodists, all sorts of Baptists, Presbyterians, black churches in all these traditions, fundamentalists, pietist groups, Reformed and Lutheran confessionalists, Anabaptists such as Mennonites, Churches of Christ, Christians, and some Episcopalians, to name only some of the most prominent types.

Ltwin ( talk) 08:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Ltwin, that's an extremely broad definition of evangelicalism that would include even the mainline denominations that today's Evangelical denominations broke away from. It defines the word in a different way than that used by the people who call themselves Evangelicals today. For the people who call themselves Evangelicals today, a key component is literal interpretation of the Bible, known as the "doctrine of inerrancy". The people who call themselves Evangelical today would not agree that those who do not affirm the doctrine of inerrancy are Evangelicals.

You could argue that the people who call themselves Evangelical today are using the word incorrectly, and from a historical perspective, I would agree. But word meanings change over time as people use the word differently. Lexicographers assign meaning to a word according to how people use it now, not how people used it historically. The way Evangelical is used today, at least outside history books, includes the doctrine of inerrancy as a critically important component, and does not include anyone who does not affirm that doctrine as an Evangelical.

If it was the liberals who broke away to form their own denominations in the 1920s - 1940s, then it would make sense to say that today's Evangelicals are a continuation of classic Evangelicals. But the old mainline denominations evolved toward liberal interpretation of the Bible, THEN the new Evangelicals broke away to form new denominations. That isn't a continuation.

Also, the classic Evangelicals didn't place a big emphasis on inerrancy. No one was seriously arguing for a liberal interpretation back then, so it wasn't an issue, and a person could believe some non-literal interpretations without running into trouble with church authorities. The ideology at the center of today's Evangelicalism wasn't a major issue at all in classic Evangelicalism.

I assume Marsden's broad definition of evangelicalism has some utility for a historian. But it isn't helpful for understanding the people who call themselves Evangelical today. Old word, new meaning. Today's Evangelicals broke away from their tradition and started something new, using an old label.

Greg Lovern ( talk) 00:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I can only say that Wikipedia goes by published, reliable sources. And that's the history. Movements evolve and change over time, but there is continuity with the Evangelicalism of today and this is recognized by historians in the field. Just because the Fundamentalists lost control of the historic institutions does not mean they can't claim to still be the intellectual heirs to the evangelicals of the 18th century. And even today there are still important evangelical movements within the Mainline denominations, so its not like they ever completely left. They just lost control of the denominational institutions. The article here and at Evangelicalism in the United States needs to do a better job of fleshing all of this out, and I'm in the process of doing so whenever I get time off from work. Ltwin ( talk) 01:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Greg Lovern and I would point out that the claim to direct succession can be made. Just look at Evangelical Anglicanism. Evangelicals have been a continuous movement within the Church of England since the 18th century, and they remain within their historic church to this day.

And yes inerrancy of Scripture is a big deal for Evangelicals today precisely because liberals made scriptural authority an issue. For evangelicals past and present, the Bible's authority was not questioned. Liberals began to question it in various ways, and that is why evangelicals responded by demanding a more precise definition of scriptural authority. They never needed one in an earlier time.

But I would also add that evangelicalism has always been a broad movement, and I'm sure there are evangelicals who don't subscribe to every dot and comma of biblical inerrancy.

Ltwin, that's an extremely broad definition of evangelicalism that would include even the mainline denominations that today's Evangelical denominations broke away from. I disagree. Liberal Protestants openly question the Bible's authority in favor of other sources of authority, such as saying the Bible is literary product and that the true canon is the person of Jesus (whatever that might mean). So, no I don't think the mainline churches as guided by liberal theology can claim to the the successors to 19th century evangelicals. Ltwin ( talk) 01:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

what's new (late 20th century) among many of the fundamentalist evangelicals is the total trust in the minister to interpret the Bible--as seen in giant megachurches where one person is in full control of the theology. Rjensen ( talk) 03:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful not to create a new section every time we add information to the article. We currently have a "Characteristics" section and a "Beliefs" section with a subsection on "Miracles" and then all by itself we have a random section on "Sexuality". Can we please be more conscious of keeping the article outline logical? Thanks. Ltwin ( talk) 03:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I took the liberty of trimming down the "Beliefs" section and moving it along with the "Miracles", "Sexuality" and "Worship service" sections within the "Characteristics" section. The "Beliefs" section seemed to mainly reiterate that there were commonalities and differences within evangelicalism and that it had fundamentalist, conservative, moderate and liberal movements. However, all of this is discussed in detail in the "Diversity" section, so it seemed redundant to discuss it elsewhere. Ltwin ( talk) 04:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Currently, the section on "Sexuality" has this statement: The conservative position is very hostile to homosexuals and is involved in anti-gay causes and homophobic statements. The reference is as follows: Charles H. Lippy, Eric Tranby, Religion in Contemporary America , Routledge, USA, 2013, p. 108. Saying that conservative evangelicals are hostile to homosexuals and make homophobic statements is a pretty strong claim. Can we have a quotation from this source added to the citation so we can read the actual words of the author? Ltwin ( talk) 04:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

the new section on "Evangelical Ministries" is a useful overview of factual information about the way evangelicalism works today. it does not duplicate this or any other article. One editor wants to delete it -- but fails to explain why deletion improves this article. Rjensen ( talk) 02:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a useless overview. Nothing added is distinctive to evangelicalism as it is practised by mainline churches and other denominations as well. I explained why when I deleted the first time. I can't tell you're too lazy to check the full edit summary or you're just lying that I didn't provide an edit summary, but either way stop it. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll let @ Anupam: speak. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

And while we're at it, "old" for "elder", spaces before refs, dab links, spaces inside of links. The writing was terrible. The only think specific to evangelicalism was the discussion of ordination of women, but that did not need a sub-heading. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

the article stands by itself and people come here to learn about Evangelicalism and they may or may not know much about other religious groups. We never assume readers know a lot about Catholics or Amish or Unitarians etc etc. In terms of sin, erasing info without using the talk page is a sin at Wikipedia. Rjensen ( talk) 04:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

This section needs work. It's not representative of all evangelicals (since these churches come from diverse theological traditions) and needs to make that clear. For example, I don't know of any church that calls an ordination ceremony a "pastoral consecration". However, I see a resolution in sight. This section needs to be moved to a subsection of the "Beliefs and characteristics" section. It's about clergy and the types of clergy used in these churches. "Ministries" in the US often refers to specific evangelical organizations or operations, like a church's ministry to immigrants. Ltwin ( talk) 04:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Other issues--the second paragraph says The training of ministers takes place in a Bible college for a period of one year (certificate) to four years (bachelor) or longer (master's) in evangelical theology.[41]. Really? Every evangelical minister goes to Bible college and gets a degree in "evangelical theology" (whatever that means)? The Southern Baptist Convention has literally no requirements for minister education. Each congregation decides what training its ministers must have. The same is true for non-denominational churches. That source is in French, but I'm pretty sure its not talking about evangelicals in general or else its a pretty bad source. These problems need to be addressed. Ltwin ( talk) 04:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

If we keep this section, we need to steer clear of making generalities. Not all evangelical churches have the same "offices." A Presbyterian evangelical church is going to have teaching and ruling elders, a Baptist church may have a pastor (elder) with a board of deacons, a Methodist church will have bishops. The article needs to reflect that not every evangelical church has the same theology of church government. Ltwin ( talk) 05:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Exactly! And some denominations will only ordain the equivalent of those with Master's degrees: undergrad degree and at least two years in a denominational seminary. The "French" theory holds water as it explains why it original spoke of "olds" rather than "elders". Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe User:ServB1 might be a native French speaker, which might explain the issues with terminology. I think this section could potentially be informative, but we need to make sure we don't give the impression that all evangelical churches operate the exact same way. We could discuss the controversy within evangelicalism over the ordination of women, for example. Ltwin ( talk) 05:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree that the third paragraph is the most useful in the section as the ordination of women has many facets depending on denomination. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I will see if I can improve this section with sources. Ltwin ( talk) 05:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and clarified some things and just deleted some of the more dubious or unhelpful parts. Ltwin ( talk) 06:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, some of the other sections added by User:ServB1 may need to be checked. I've noticed he/she tends to add details like this one from the section on "Worship services": Places of worship are usually called "church building" or "temples".[60][61][62][63] The church building thing is kind of obvious, and English-speaking evangelicals do not call their churches "temples" unless its a specific name like "Baptist Temple" but they don't say "Let's go to temple" or "I need to go to the temple on Sunday." Ltwin ( talk) 06:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Aye, and in the vein, you could add "tabernacle" (which I've seen in several Pentecostal congregation names). Walter Görlitz ( talk) 07:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing my attention to this User:Walter Görlitz. User:ServB1 is doing the same thing across multiple articles, sometimes deleting a large amount of content and merging unrelated traditions (such as Baptists and Pentecostals) into one generic "Evangelicalism" section, which is not helpful. In the article on evangelical theology, the same user has attempted to paint the theology of all evangelicals with a broad brush, when Wesleyan-Arminians, Calvinists, Baptists, Pentecostals (all who would be considered "evangelical") teach different things across the board; this edit summary shows an attempt to minimize the differences. I have partially or fully reverted some of these edits, which I have seen and found to be problematic. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam ^Talk 13:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed issues with they way this editor uses sources for verifiability as well. On this article, some (maybe more) of the content User:ServB1 has added at times misinterprets or does not reflect the cited sources. For example, this edit is of a claim I fact-checked and revised to reflect the sources, for example. However, many of this user's sources are in French, which I don't speak. Verifying is often difficult. However, I also see a pattern of trying to enforce a theological uniformity on Evangelicalism that does not exist and is not supported by sources. This example shows an edit where User:ServB1 attempts to distinguish between true evangelicals and those with simply "evangelical tendencies" that apparently seeks to remove those practicing infant baptism from Evangelicalism. Ltwin ( talk) 17:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Another potential problem with using translated sources is that words have different meanings in other languages. For instance, in German, the word most commonly translated as "evangelical" (evangelisch) is also the word for "protestant" and in cases, "Lutheran". That doesn't seem to be the case for that word in French though as there are two distinct words for evangelical and protestant, but may be the case for other words. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Used without qualification, the term evangelical has increasingly come to mean or indicate the Evangelicaj right, not the Evangelical left. This distinction needs to be made, with a link to the article on the Christian right. The corresponding but much less recognized Evangelical left should also be linked in the current article. I apologize for not having a secondary source at hand for this observation but this is clear to most people familiar with contemporary American christian TV. The proponents of the prosperity gospel tend to be associated more with the christian right. Can anyone help with this edit? I am working on getting secondary sources. Abelian ( talk) 03:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Seems a commendable goal, but a big problem you have is that Evangelical left is a terrible article, far too shallow, and dependent on a single source. I'd recommend fixing that article first. HiLo48 ( talk) 04:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is not just about American evangelicalism. There is an article at Evangelicalism in the United States that covers American evangelicalism and its political context. The political context in other countries may be different, so we need to avoid making this article US-centric. Ltwin ( talk) 14:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

There are a lot of images in the article. A few weeks ago, there were fewer. An anon added more recently and brought the count up to 23. The anon added even more and I began to feel the article was becoming an photo gallery rather than an article, and that would go agains Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts in that the images were excessive. For instance, when I display the article in my browser at 1600 pixels wide, the right edge has an almost continuous line of images until the non-conservative varieties, which is well over a third of the way down the article.

However, I agree with the anon in stating that there is over-emphasis on megachurches and US congregations. It is my understanding that there are more evangelicals in the global South than there are in the US, so I can see how an overemphasis on the region may be unintentional, but should not continue. I am suggesting the following goals:

1. add more diversity to the images
2. space the images out through the article
3. expand the scope of the images to WP:GLOBALIZE and diversify the selection

Is there anyone who is willing to do this work? I do not know how to contact the anon about it either. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Wvi relief.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

https://www.ecosia.org/search?q=%22Evangelicalism%22+%22Trump%22&addon=firefox&addonversion=4.0.4

are there articles in en.wp about this correlation / connection / special purpose (or strategic ?) alliance ? -- Präziser ( talk) 20:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Best place would Christian right. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The statement, "Although they do not approve homosexual practices, they show sympathy and respect for homosexuals", appears to be referencing a specific group or sub-group. I would like a quote from Stephen Hunt, Contemporary Christianity and LGBT Sexualities, Routledge, UK, 2016, p. 40-41 to make it clear what its being explained as, by and large, Evangelicals are vociferously anti-gay, and show little sympathy or respect for them. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

See [2]. Doug Weller talk 14:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Probably more relevant to the American article. — Confession0791 ^talk 21:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

It is completely contradictory to say that evangelicals are not Protestant. Even the definition of the article says:

Evangelicalism, evangelical Christianity, or evangelical Protestantism, is a worldwide trans-denominational movement within Protestant Christianity.-- Rafaelosornio ( talk) 04:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Are referring to this removal it is the claim that the distinction of evangelical churches from the mainline Protestant churches is the believers' Church doctrine. There is no claim there that evangelicals are not Protestants, but rather a distinction that mainline Protestant denominations would not call themselves evangelicals and most evangelicals would not consider themselves to be in the same camp as mainline Protestant denominations. I'm not sure why you removed the content, and added copyright violations directly from https://religionandpolitics.org/2015/10/27/the-political-legacy-of-progressive-evangelicals/ after it was restored.

The original paragraph was problematic because the sources are from a linguistic milieu where Évangélique and protestante are almost synonymous in the French. The term for the protestant or Lutheran church in German is evangelisch. In English we make a distinction, and that has been drawn out. So now, what is your problem with the original paragraph? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

That section was completely misrepresented by claiming that evangelicals are not Protestant, which is incorrect. Rafaelosornio ( talk) 05:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The text you removed read The main distinction of evangelical churches from the mainline Protestant churches is the believers' Church doctrine, although there is a broader "evangelical streak" in mainline Protestantism. Mainline Protestant churches predominantly have a liberal theology while evangelical churches predominantly have a conservative or moderate theology. Nowhere does it make the claim that evangelicals are not Protestant. I am going to restore it per WP:STATUSQUO until we get past this. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Mathglot: As you restored the content earlier, would you care to comment as well? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The section is poorly written and is not in accordance with the references. The text needs to be rewritten since what is mentioned is not in accordance with the references given. For example nowhere in the references does it say that mainline Protestant churches predominantly have a liberal theology. Another reference only speaks of evangelicalism in France. Rafaelosornio ( talk) 10:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

( edit conflict) @ Walter Görlitz:, thanks for the ping. I'm oversubscribed, so I won't be able to give this the reply it deserves right now; perhaps I can come back later. First of all, thanks for mostly undoing your initial re-revert. One minor quibble about this: you cited WP:STATUSQUO which is an essay, so no particular force of policy or guideline attached to it; nevertheless, it was (imho) the right thing to do, so I appreciate it. If a similar thing arises elswehere, you can always cite WP:BRD, or WP:EDITCONSENSUS; the former is an explanatory supplement to a policy, so one step above an essay; Edit consensus is policy, so that's about as strong a support as you can get. Some might question EDITCONSENSUS based on the amount of time the edit has been there, namely since three, or four months (depending on when you start counting), but on the flip side, there are 489 page watchers, so if none of them thought to revert it in that period, that's fairly strong evidence of edit consensus; some might disagree.

Anyway, the backstory is this: that section was originally added by ServB1 ( talk · contribs) on 11 April 2021 (and also at Spanish Wikipedia 90 minutes later as es:ServB1 ( talk · contribs)). This added the "distinction of evangelical churches from the Protestant churches", in both languages. User:TheLionHasSeen came along a month later, and made an improvement at en-wiki from "Protestant churches" to "mainline Protestant churches" which, imho, is crucial to this discussion. And it's been that way ever since, until Rafaelosornio's edit of 9 August. (They made the same edit to the Spanish WP article, 5 minutes earlier, which ought be reverted for the same reason, but hasn't been. So far, anyway; but then, it has only 12 watchers there, and observation of policy and guidelines at es-wiki is much looser than it is here, even if folks were watching it).

I think it's possible this is a misinterpretation of the English expression "distinction of evangelical churches from the mainline Protestant churches" on the part of Rafaelosornio, which doesn't imply that evangelical churches aren't Protestant, but I can't mindread them. This deserves a wider response, but that's all I have time for, now.

Post-ec addition: I agree with Rafael that the section is poorly written, and needs significant improvement. HTH, Mathglot ( talk) 10:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, the three most prominent distinctives of modern American evangelicals are sola fide, sola scriptura, and biblical inerrancy. This article correctly identifies sola scriptura and biblical inerrancy as key doctrines, but there is a huge gap in this article when it comes to the centrality of sola fide in modern American evangelicalism. This is also a problem with the Wikipedia article on Sola Fide, which describes it as a Lutheran and Reformed doctrine, when in fact the chief proponents of sola fide in modern American Christianity are by far evangelicals. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 14:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The article already makes this clear. In the Beliefs section, it says: To evangelicals, the central message of the gospel is justification by faith in Christ and repentance, or turning away, from sin. Ltwin ( talk) 15:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The word "alone" is missing from this passage. Sola is the Latin word for alone. This is a key part of the evangelical belief of Sola Fide. It is not Fide; it is Sola Fide. Also, keeping things in perspective, this one single passage does not do justice to the importance of Sola Fide as an evangelical distinctive. -- Westwind273 ( talk) 04:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)