Talk:List of the largest churches in Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 List of the largest churches in Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
List This page is a list and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale.
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
List This page is a list and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity.

Contents

[edit] ToDo

The PhD cited on some of these churches' websites (http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/digitaltheses/public/adt-acuvp78.25092005/02whole.pdf) also lists Townsville AOG (calvaryaog.org.au) and Richmond AOG (raog.org.au) as megachurches with over 1,000 members. Wikipedia cites 2,000 as being the lower limit for a megachurch. They may have 2,000 now, but I can't find anything to substantiate it.

I've informally adopted the view that only megachurches should be listed on the page.Natebailey 01:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dates?

This table really needs some dates identifying when it is/was/will be current / correct. If you are making a list... call it a list. If you are calling it Largest churches in Australia - then talk about them, don't just list them. Garrie 03:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research?

I'd question whether this article belongs on Wikipedia. It looks like WP:Original Research to me. Peter Ballard 02:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers

Two things which come up when I look at this page is:

  1. Is there consistency with the way numbers are reported for attendance & membership. Does attendance include members who attend? Or are they mutually exclusive lists? This should be defined in the article to ensure all entries, as well as all future entires are kept to the same standard.
  2. There needs to be an established "cut off" point for this list, so that it doesn't become simply a directory. It would probably be best to make it the "10 largest" (by attendance) or "2000 or more in attendance"...

Just my 2 cents... :) Tiggerjay 15:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd also question if this article is actually important. Does the subject matter really matter... the numbers are difficult to substantiate, with little independence, the only organisation that would actually have any credibility on this would be the NCLS - and to my knowledge they haven't reported to the congregation level. Besides, if numbers are important, these numbers ought to be put into context in terms of membership and attendance across all the Christian church. See the tables in Christianity in Australia for example. --Dean Tregenza 06:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Answers:

  1. There is a consistency with the numbers. Attendance refers to then number of people that attend the church on a given weekend. Membership refers to the total number of people are on the church database and that would in essence consider their home church (without necessarily attending)
  2. The cut of point is 2,000 people, which is the definition of a megachurch, the only problem being if is it is defined by attendance or membership. At the present it is defined by membership, the larger figure.
  3. Yes, the article is of importance. While denominational statistics provide an overall attendance figure, it is of interest to know the largest congregations of local churches. This is evident by the emergance of the megachurch, and its critisism and media time. Obviously if you came to this article, it is of some use and importance. Tatie2189 08:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I still think it's WP:Original Research. Where's the cite showing that the list is complete? Peter Ballard 09:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR refers to the content of the article, not its formation. Using your definition, all wikipedia is OR :-) I'm not sure how one could get a cite to show this list is complete (or any similar list), short of someone actually doing a formal survey and publishing it; and in such cases, several surveys often contain overlapping but somewhat conflicting lists. The fact that no list currently exists, and that Wikipedia is building one with cited references is one of the things that makes this article valuable. Natebailey (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Churches not (yet) included

I removed the following line from the article (with a comment to the author), This list also does not include several Roman Catholic churches (eg. St. Francis' Church in downtown Melbourne which sees several thousand attending over 50 masses and other services each week) [1].. The list should be comprehensive, and include all churches of 2,000+. If there is a reference for St. Francis' attendance, it should be added. Other churches that have been listed, but since removed for lack of reference include St Hillary's and Wesley Mission Sydney. Contributors are welcome to find references for these (or other churches that should be added) and add them :-) Natebailey (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] title and list

This list has no context of when or where and no sense of history - is there some ever present 'now' - there is no qualification in the lead paragraph anything that might explain such an elusive title as to figures being as at a particular date or further context (what happens, before or after? surely some congregations fluctuate in all churches?). And is it not that the particular churches make claims for themselves - are there really reliable third party sources for any of these claims? SatuSuro 13:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Rationale for comment - in its current state the title could be considered POV, and there are grounds for prodding - lest energies are expended to improve - there could be good reasons either way. It doesnt matter to me either way - but 3rd party sources are really needed for some of the claims - and how could a list like this remain accurate with such a claim in the title and lead para - there is a need to understand that an article would have been a much better way to go that could have put in context and be less vulnerable to the issus that a prod could elucidate from the list as it is. SatuSuro 13:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)