Talk:Local churches (affiliation)

Naming Discussion
Two recent edits moved this page from "Local churches (affiliation)" to "The local churches (affiliation)" and then to "The Local Church (affiliation)". As is evident on this talk page, there has been ongoing discussion related to the appropriate name for this article, and consensus has formed around the previous formulation. WP:TITLECHANGES certainly applies here - I'll outline my reasoning for reverting the changes, and would be happy to discuss whether there's a more appropriate way to name the article, but articles with a history of debate shouldn’t be lightly moved.

Important note on the sources linked on this and related pages: there is no source for an official organization called "Local Church" or "Local Churches", and there is no source referencing an individual congregation called "Local Church", rather congregations that use the formulation “the church in ” to describe themselves, as in: http://www.churchinanaheim.org. As is also evident from this talk page, there are difficulties presented in describing and classifying these congregations, for reasons outside the scope of this discussion, and so the consensus has been to follow multiple sources that refer to lowercase “local churches”, usually with some other qualifiers, which is represented in the previous title of this article: “Local churches (affiliation)”, which should properly disambiguate from the general concept of a local church which has many context-dependent meanings. There are, however, various (usually older) sources that use the capitalized “Local Church” or “Local Churches” to refer to affiliated congregations.

The edit refers to one such older source (https://www.britannica.com/topic/the-Local-Church) which clearly and consistently uses “Local Church”. It’s worth noting that the last reference used by Britannica is from 1981. However, the second source (https://www.localchurches.org/beliefs/), a contemporary site, conspicuously uses lowercase throughout, only capitalizing the words as part of a book title. Clearly, it’s not an open-and-shut case of a commonly accepted name.

MOS:CAPS makes it clear that capitalized terms should be "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources”. While Britannica is consistent, there are many newer independent sources linked on this and Local_Church_controversies that use lowercase in referring to the affiliated congregations.
 * https://www.lctestimony.org/FullerStatement.pdf (2006)
 * www.equip.org/localchurch/ (2009)
 * https://www.lctestimony.org/AnswersInActionStatement.html (2007)

MOS:ISMCAPS clarifies that “names of organized religions (as well as officially recognized sects), whether as a noun or an adjective, and their adherents start with a capital letter. Unofficial movements, ideologies or philosophies within religions are generally not capitalized unless derived from a proper name.” While a case could be made that this article refers to a sect, a clear and lasting consensus has developed around “Local churches (affiliation)” as an unofficial movement after extensive debate. Happy to hear your thoughts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfih24 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.localchurches.org/beliefs/ does not looks like an official website for this denomination. I do not think I should have used the capitalisation found there, but I do not think having a redirect The local churches (affiliation) is a bad thing.
 * The Encyclopedia Britannica which can be found online at britannica.com is often updated. Veverve (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The main point I'm making is that the page shouldn't be moved without discussion since it's been controversial in the past. I've requested technical help to revert the move since there are now various redirects blocking the reversion, and I'd be happy to continue the discussion on whether a move should happen, but there is a significant amount of context here to be aware of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfih24 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

"Ground of oneness" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ground of oneness and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 15 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 16 January 2022

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

The result of the move request was: moved. There's a strong consensus here that the undiscussed move should be reverted for now. Some editors are open to a follow-up RM to consider whether "The Local Church" is preferable, although others are satisfied with the "local churches" title. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The Local Church (affiliation) → Local churches (affiliation) – The title of this page has been discussed at length, and a consensus developed around the title "Local churches (affiliation). The last move was made without discussion, but I'm unable to revert because the past page is now a redirect. Bfih24 (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Warm Regards, ZI Jony  (Talk) 10:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose: the current name is sourced by the most recent version of the Encyclopedia Britannica. No one has opposed the renaming but you, and you opposed not on the ground you disagree, but on the ground people in the 2010s disagreed. Veverve (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Should have been accepted as a technical request to undo a recent undiscussed move. The RM should be for the current title not the longstanding one. Srnec (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: Moving a page should be done carefully and discussed first. Proof that the "The Local Church" moniker is not widely used is seen even in the references used in the article. The very first reference, Olson's Handbook, uses lower case, as does Pitts in the congressional record, as does Hanegraaff in his research journal, as does Fuller Theological Seminary in their statement. Even the reference (https://www.localchurches.org/beliefs/) that the editor who initiated the move cites to justify the change uses "the local churches" lowercase so I'm unclear as to why the change is being insisted on. Finally, none of the primary sources referenced use capitalization indicating that this group does not even refer to itself as "The Local Church." Therefore, insisting on this moniker only leads to confusion. That one online encyclopedia entry uses capitalization should not override all the article's references which do otherwise. This matter was discussed previously and a resolution was reached involving the use of the word 'affiliation.' I suggest we not retread this ground. -Abishai 300 (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Correction: Olson does use capitalization in the first paragraph before reverting to 'local churches,' but his rendering is "The Local Churches" plural, a far more common designation, also making the point that the group was formed 'without a specific name' (p. 328). This fact is corroborated by the primary sources and the majority of the secondary sources used according to my survey. This indicates that "The Local Church" designation is not claimed by those within the group or widely used by those without. -Abishai 300 (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: The move to The Local Church (affiliation) was not discussed. WP:RM#CM says that the discussion process is used if "there has been any past debate about the best title for the page". As Veverve acknowledged, article name was discussed due to disagreement back in 2010. The present renaming should not have happened without a new discussion. Therefore, the present renaming should be promptly reverted, and a new discussion should take place with regards to Veverve's proposed renaming.  JarOfGems  (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: This move was a bit odd in that it seems that the move was not at all discussed with any others from the community and seems to have been done unilaterally without referring to previous discussions or general guidance regarding this very same topic and was based on one single source while ignoring numerous other solidly based sources some of which are in body of the article itself. I assume the editor who completed the move was doing this on good faith but the concerns and evidence brought forth by the other editors above is but a portion of the otherwise clear and adequate amount of information available to support the reversion of this article back to its condition prior to the major change completed by Veverve. I too support the prompt return of this page back to its previous condition. &mdash; Σosthenes 12  Talk  20:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

"Difang Jiaohui" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Difang Jiaohui and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 24 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

"Difang jiaohui" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Difang jiaohui and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 24 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Why are there two of these threads? Please delete one. Only a Mandarin speaker would know the term "Difang jiaohui." This is an article for English speakers. I propose "Difang jiaohui" point to what is currently the Chinese language equivalent of this article. -Abishai 300 (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are there two of these threads? Based on your edit summary No discussion about redirect yet, you may not have noticed this part of the above message: This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 24. If you follow that link, you will see it is indeed a single thread discussing both the normal-case and title-case redirects. You could ask the closing admin to reopen and relist the discussion if you have a policy/guidelines-based argument that you feel was not adequately covered in the discussion, but ...
 * I propose "Difang jiaohui" point to what is currently the Chinese language equivalent of this article. Per WP:SOFTREDIRECT, Soft redirects to non-English language editions of Wikipedia should be avoided because they are generally unhelpful to English-language readers.
 * This is an article for English speakers. See WP:RLOTE for general discussion of when foreign-language redirects should be created. Note in general Category:Redirects_from_non-English-language_terms. The fact that English Wikipedia is aimed at "English speakers" does not necessarily mean it is aimed at monolingual English speakers. English Wikipedia editors create foreign-language redirects and add foreign-language name infoboxes on articles about topics which are primarily associated with non-English speaking countries, because those kinds of topics often have (1) high-quality sources in that other language, and (2) multiple possible translations of their name into English; having the foreign name infobox helps bilingual readers who may have read about that topic in the other language confirm that they have arrived at the right article, and helps bilingual editors find sources which can be used to expand the article. Note in particular that such redirects don't necessarily have to be the "official" name of the topic, merely names whic hare frequently used in sources in the other language. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was not clear. When I mentioned the redirect, I meant there has been no discussion, that I can see, of the term "Difang jiaohui" and its connection to the topic in question on this talk page. I am aware of the discussion of the whether or not to cause the redirect to point to this article but not that separate threads for normal-case and title-case are automatically generated.
 * I do not know if discussion should be reopened; I do see some problems. The Chinese name of a denomination which was started in China clearly meets point #1 of WP:RFOREIGN Original or official names of people, places, institutions... directly contradicts the introductory paragraph: 'The local churches do not take a name, but some outsiders referred to the group as the "Little Flock..."'3 As mentioned in Talk:Local_churches_(affiliation), it also contradicts the first reference which says that the group was formed 'without a specific name.'1 According to the article and its references, it is a historical fact that no original or official name exists for this group. Moreover, English Wikipedia editors create foreign-language redirects and add foreign-language name infoboxes on articles about topics which are primarily associated with non-English speaking countries... seems to err as the article, excepting the "History" section, discusses the group from a wholistic/international perspective. That its origins trace to China does not indicate to me that the article is primarily associated with China anymore than the Lutheranism article is primarily associated with Germany. Also, the sources are, without exception as far as I can tell, all in English so ...(1) high-quality sources in that other language... does not apply. I propose we disregard the info box suggestion and perhaps further consider the suitability of the redirect itself. -Abishai 300 (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)