Talk:Middle judicatory

Middle judicatory has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 29, 2025. (Reviewed version).

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 August 2024. The result of the discussion was keep.

Christianity Mid‑importance

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

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Middle judicatory appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 June 2025 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the term "middle judicatory", which many denominations use for their mid-tier organizations, originated in Presbyterian courts (example pictured) for church discipline?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2025/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Middle judicatory.

GA review

Passed. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Middle judicatory/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Dclemens1971 (talk · contribs) 19:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 01:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
I made some copy edits.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Fixed some MOS:SAID issues. See also comments.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
The history is quite vague. It's glossed over in the first sentence of the terminology sentence, and then the only specific year mentioned in the History section is 1968. I'd expect to see some sort of discussion of secondary sources that cover the roots of middle judicatories (e.g., how did Catholic dioceses arise?) and their development in the 20th century as churches changed their modes of organization. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
See commments.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
I've nominated File:Methodist Episcopal Mission district conference, Szechwan.png for deletion on Commons.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Thank you for including alt text.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

There's a MOS:SAID issue regarding Bacher in the Terminology section. I'm also not sure whether it's due. If it is, is there an opposing POV that defends the term?
a major topic of discussion and tension in negotiations over church union in the 20th century This needs some additional context for readers unfamiliar with the broader topic of church union in the 20th century.
To help middle judicatories support congregations during an era of shrinking mainline churches, late 20th- and 21st-century ... The two citations for this sentence are from 1998 and 1977, neither of which are in the 21st century. ... building denser networks of communication among their member congregations and emphasizing congregational activities and buy-in. I don't know what "denser networks of communication" or "congregational activities and buy-in" means. Did they make specific proposals for communication, activities, and attracting support? Also, I think this needs in-text attribution.
Please paraphrase the long Ronald J. Allen quote.
particularly in environments of organizational decline. This clause is dangling.

Source review and spot check

To come. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article version.

Ref 4: I can't find anything about the reliability of Magi Press. The source itself is a preface describing a group's work in the middle judicatory. I think a source about the middle judicatory in Lutheranism specifically would be better.
Ref 7: PhD dissertation. Is there a more reliable source? Ref also needs a page number.
Ref 8/9: Ref 8 supports provinces for the Anglican Church, but doesn't mention middle judicatories. Unable to access ref 9.
Ref 13: AGF on the quote being correct.
Ref 11b/16: 11b quote is correct. Neither ref appears to discuss "programmatic activities, mission work and church planting coordination".
Ref 19: Does not support the text in the body.
Ref 5c: Unable to access source.
Ref 2c: The quote provided in the reference doesn't support: Depending on the polity, the middle judicatory can have decisive authority over a local church, can offer standing for clergy members but little or no control over congregations, can offer counsel and services but no authority, or can serve as an informal vehicle for fellowship and communication.
Ref 22a: Broken URL.
Ref 23: The reference is to pages 76–92. This needs a more specific page range.
Ref 22b: Broken URL.
Ref 27: Unable to access source.

I am quick-failing this nomination given the sourcing issues and the concerns under criterion 3. I do not believe that these issues can be fixed within a one week hold. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC) Re-opened and placed on hold per request of nominator. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on references:

Ref 4 (Magi Press) - Used a different source (Lummis)
Ref 5c (Willimon) - Looks like archive.org took this out of its lending library (I was able to borrow it when I expanded this page).
Ref 7 (Child) - Added a second source for discussion of UCC judicatories and added a page number for the dissertation.
Ref 8/9 - Added a source that refers to provinces and dioceses as middle judicatories.
Ref 11/16 (Roch/Vallet) - Rouch says "Gradually denominational programming has shifted to middle judicatories" (see the quoted section, which is another way of saying "programmatic activities"). Clarified the text on other points.
Ref 19 (White) - Supported by the quote And just at the end of that “curve” the Council, under Grimm’s leadership, made a transition from traditional conciliar body with congregational membership to a denominational judicatory-based organization known as the Metropolitan Church Board (MCB). The Roman Catholics became a part of this new ecumenical vehicle with a $10,000 annual contribution and a seconded staff person. This new organization shifted governance to the middle judicatories of the denominations, and the goal was to help the churches be more responsive to urban issues. It was “never radical, always moderate.” And at the same time, there were parts of the work in the city, like civil rights, housing, and hunger, where the Jewish community joined forces with the MCB. I clarified the text and added a source.
Ref 2c (Richey) - Shortened this sentence to a version clearly supported by the source.
Ref 22a/b (Lummis) - Link updated. I also provided page numbers for this source.
Ref 23 (Hamm) - Specific page provided.
Ref 27 (Allen) - Looks like archive.org took this out of its lending library (I was able to borrow it when I expanded this page). The quote can be verified by searching for "domains of power" in the book, though.

Comments on your textual remarks:

Bacher - reworded it and moved it to a place where it is more DUE.
Church union - glossed slightly for clarification.
Allen quote - paraphrased more
Dangling clause - fixed

More responses to come soon. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts:

Historical background: fleshed out with a new paragraph.
"To help middle judicatories..." This is fixed.
Photo was tagged by its uploader with what appeared to be an appropriate copyright status at the time of use, but since you have nominated for deletion I have removed it.

Let me know if there is anything else you'd like me to address. Thanks for the chance to make changes! Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RE Ref 19 (now 23), I agree that it supports that one church did that, but I think you need a different source that says this was a part of many different denominations, or "some cases". I think you can either specify the MCB in text or find a more general source that talks about middle judicatories more broadly. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an estimated date you can add for the term coming into use? While the term "middle judicatory" originated in Presbyterain polity voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The role of judicatories expanded from ... Again, when? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

during this era which era? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts: Two sources have been added to the "some cases" sentence. I cannot find a specific date for the term coming into use beyond Presbyterianism. The sources that describe the spread of the term describe it as "in recent decades", "recently", "lately", etc., and are 20th century sources, but I can't get more specific than that. I added a ref to the same broad time period (20th century) to the next couple sentences; I don't have specific dates for this shift but the sources are clear it was a 20th-century timeframe. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing. The criticism subsection is much longer than the functions section. Is criticism receiving due weight? Are there more supporters that you can cite here? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

voorts, in my research on this I found sources that discussed the middle judicatory neutrally as a concept, and I found sources that offered criticism of the way judicatories operate in certain traditions/ways. I didn't find any sources that just generally defended the operations of judicatories in their traditions. If I had, I would have included those sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

Methodist Episcopal Mission district conference, Szechwan.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 History6042 talk 20:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Attendees at a meeting of a Welsh presbytery in Berriew in 1940.

... that the term "middle judicatory", which many denominations use for their mid-tier organizations, originated in Presbyterian courts for church discipline?

Source: "Such campaigns disclose yet a third internal system, congregations and regional or middle judicatories. The latter, variously termed association, presbytery, conference, diocese, region, or synod, functions administratively between congregations and the national or international structures and authority." https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofre0001unse_r5c3

"Fascinating, and less well explored, is the same process that prevailed among congregations of Presbyterians at the same time. Pastors, for example, became supervisors in new and different ways. They had long supervised the administration of church discipline, a practice in which the session or other governing body sat as a court to judge the merits of complaints against members for grossly sinful behavior." https://archive.org/details/organizationalre00loui

- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Green Thumb Industries

Improved to Good Article status by Dclemens1971 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 6 past nominations.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I'll review this. Thriley (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article has achieved Good Article status. No issues of copyvio or plagiarism. All sources appear reliable. Hook is interesting and sourced. QPQ is done. Ready to go. Thriley (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]