Talk:Global Methodist Church

New page

Wanted to make a page for this new denomination. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Should this really be described as part of the Holiness movement? Is that what they are claiming? The Holiness Movement has a historical and theological development distinct from mainline Methodism-which this new denomination is coming out of. I think it would be more appropriate to label this new church as an evangelical Methodist denomination. I'm not quite sure it fits as specifically Holiness. Ltwin (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ltwin: Huh. Didn't make that addition, but yeah at least using that source seems like a stretch effort to say it’s Holiness-aligned. Will delete. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Global Methodist Church is part of a planned divorce over marriage? Source: "The United Methodist Church is expected to split into two denominations in an attempt to end a years-long, contentious fight over same-sex marriage" ([1])
  • ALT1: ... that the Global Methodist Church is expected to separate from the United Methodist Church? Source: "The United Methodist Church is expected to split into two denominations in an attempt to end a years-long, contentious fight over same-sex marriage" ([2])

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The Occupation of the American Mind

Created by Pbritti (talk). Self-nominated at 22:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC).

• Comment (not a review): I like the clever wordplay of the first hook. Thoughts on replacing "planned" with "proposed" – resulting in "proposed divorce over marriage" – to get a little more subtle wordplay on marriage proposal? DanCherek (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• • ALT2: ... that the Global Methodist Church is part of a proposed divorce over marriage? Thanks, DanCherek.

while the article is over 1,500 prose characters, I'm going to be a stickler and say that this is still a stub. Around half the article is in the lead, and much of the lead contains information not reflected in the body. I reassessed and stub-tagged the article—that'll need to be cleared before I move ahead with the review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Theleekycauldron, while the things you mentioned are not generally relevant to identifying an article as a stub, I have expanded the article accordingly and information from the lede to the body. Let me know if you find it sufficient or if you want more before considering the article a suitable "start" class. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for cooperating! Moving on, the article was created from a redir and nominated in time and is neutral, although I'm requesting a second opinion on the sourcing. The article seems to be plagiarism free, and a QPQ has been done. As for the hook, I'm not sure it quite checks out—is the church expected to break away? Because the article just says that a vote is planned and expected. Once we clear those two up, we're good to go. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Not entirely sure what the concern on the sourcing is; there are multiple reputable sources. Also, the lede is fairly clear that this is a planned schism, as the hook says. While I appreciate the review, I am dissatisfied with your effort. Please let me know if I can do anything else for you, even if you're passing off this particular review. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Isn't there a difference between "planned" (alt1) and "expected" (alt0)? planned implies it may or may not happen, expected is like forecasting—at least, that's how i read it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Merriam-Webster considers them definitionally synonymous terms (see definition 2). Again, I can't help but feel like there was a disappointing lack of effort put into this review. My apologies for my frustration, but I put effort into this article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

My mistake, then—i'm sorry to hear the review didn't meet your expectations, i know you did put a lot of work into the article. Someone else will finish the review in a short while, I hope. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Full review needed by new reviewer. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Interesting article, Pbritti. You could place it in the WP:LGBT project. I really like ALT2 - it is very clever and conveys the same meaning as the other hooks, but will probably draw in some more people. Earwig's is not concerning (copy paste from Wikipedia, not the other way around), the article is decidedly start class, referencing including the hook information is good. New enough, long enough... I think ALT2 is good to go.
• One small problem that makes me prefer ALT2, and may be what theleekycauldron was trying to communicate earlier, is that the anticipated schism is not stated in the article, but it is stated in the sources. By that, I mean: The article says it's proposed, which doesn't support the very true but slightly different statement that it's anticipated or expected to go through! That can be easily fixed - I'll probably come back to the article soon and add that information - but ALT2 is punchier, so I think it's preferable either way. Urve (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Promoting ALT2 to Prep 2 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Lede edit

Per Anupam's edit here on getting a talk page consensus, just wanted to say I don't want to contest this edit if they want to stand by it. Seems ok enough. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Dear User:Pbritti, thank you. I've authored/edited the majority of Methodist denominational articles here on Wikipedia. The way I rewrote the first sentence is in accordance with those conventions. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 17:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Anupam: Ah! I appreciate the drive towards consistency, something too often neglected on denominational articles. Thanks for the explanation–with it I fully endorse your actions even if I still have personal preferences which matter less than accuracy and user experience. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome User:Pbritti! With regard to your edit here, the history of General Conference rulings, along with nonadherance to them, is indeed relevant to the schism within the United Methodist Church that has resulted in the formation of the Global Methodist Church. Would you kindy consider undoing your edit? Thanks, Anupam^Talk 17:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

On that we disagree. I'm fairly certain that the sources cited all lack mention of the Global Methodist Church or any immediate discussion of plans to create such a body from the UMC. While that information is very much useful context, it constitutes WP:NOR, specifically with by synthesizing sources to (correctly) suggest a pattern of liberalization on sexuality that faced semi-effective conservative/traditionalist opposition. However, given that this article is in its infancy and sourcing will eventually pan out on it, I won't step in your way of restoring that passage (though I think we could remove the extended quotations from the citations). ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I am going to restore it for now, since it provides context on the schism. I should note that the pattern was not towards liberalization, but towards traditionalism in light of the Church growing overseas. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Unclear language

In the "History" section, it is stated that "the denomination was launched on May 1, 2022." However, it is unclear whether this is referring to the Free Methodist Church or the Global Methodist Church.

P.S. I am currently working on creating a more thorough article on the schism.

-AAEexecutive (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Homosexuality

The fact that the schism that resulted in the creation of this denomination was precipitated by differences of opinion over homosexuality is not explicitly stated in the lead paragraph. Homosexuality is not mentioned at all until the second paragraph of the "History" section. Instead, the whole controversy is cloaked in more abstract language about "traditionalists" versus "progressives." This strikes me as the framing preferred by one (or perhaps even both) sides of the schism, but I think this encyclopedic article should more directly and immediately inform the reader that the controversy was focused on the issue of homosexuality.

Frankly I think this entire article has NPOV problems.

As a start, perhaps the second paragraph of the lead could read, "The Global Methodist Church was created as a result of a schism with the United Methodist Church, after member congregations departed over doctrinal differences. Congregations that left the UMC to form the Global Methodist Church opposed recognition of same-sex marriage and the ordination of noncelibate gay clergy." Leoniceno (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Leoniceno: The lead as I originally published the article clearly stated the issue of same-sex marriage as the primary factor in the schism and establishment of the GMC. This was changed, but I have made amendments based on your suggestions. As for the terminology of "traditionalists" and "progressives", these seem support by reliable sources and also appear to be the favored self-descriptors of many involved in these events. Any further suggestions you may have are more than welcomed. Thanks, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Right, by no means do I think the terms "traditionalist" and "progressive" need to be entirely stripped from the article or that they're wholly inappropriate. To be more specific about the NPOV concern I had: On a first read, I thought that the fourth paragraph of the history section could be written in a more neutral way. But on a re-read, I can see how it might be justified as just bluntly factual.

I wonder if the "History" section could somehow be split up into two sections that would make the information easier to absorb. Perhaps one heading could cover events that led to the founding of the denomination, and a second heading could cover the founding and the events that have followed. Leoniceno (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, I have restored the WP:STATUSQUO with respect to a clause that was removed by User:Pbritti. While I do not object to the addition regarding homosexuality, it should be made clear that this was not the only reason behind the schism. The clause about traditional Methodist praxis makes that clear. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The sourcing is insufficient to support the clause you have repeatedly added to the lead. It may have been something of a factor, but almost all reporting is explicit about LGBT issues being at the center of this. Hence, the bit about "praxis" is undue. There is also the question of why the LGBT context was removed in the first place. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I have used the wording directly found in the source even though the descripion about orthodox Methodist praxis is a good summary of what the source states. Please note that my addition does not revert your inclusion of the context about homosexuality. There is a larger context apart from human sexuality that characterizes what sources define as traditionalism versus progressivism, as this source notes. Anupam^Talk 21:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)