text:
Citizen's arrest

A citizen's arrest is an arrest made by a private citizen – a person who is not acting as a sworn law-enforcement official. In common law jurisdictions, the practice dates back to medieval England and the English common law, in which sheriffs encouraged ordinary citizens to help apprehend law breakers.

Despite the practice's name, in most countries the arresting person is usually designated as a person with arrest powers, who need not be a citizen of the country in which they are acting. For example, in England and Wales, the power comes from Section 24A(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, called "any person arrest". This legislation states "any person" has these powers, and does not state that they need to be a British citizen.

Legal and political aspects
Anyone who makes a citizen's arrest can find themselves facing possible lawsuits or criminal charges (e.g. charges of false imprisonment, unlawful restraint, kidnapping, or wrongful arrest) if the wrong person is apprehended or a suspect's civil rights are violated. This is especially true when police forces are attempting to determine who an aggressor is. Private citizens do not enjoy the same immunity from civil liability when making arrests on other private citizens as police officers do.

The level of responsibility that a person performing a citizen's arrest may bear depends on the jurisdiction. For instance, in France and Germany, a person stopping a criminal from committing a crime, including crimes against belongings, is not criminally responsible as long as the means employed are in proportion to the threat. In both countries, this results from a different legal norm, "aid to others in immediate danger", which is concerned with prevention, not prosecution, of crimes.

Australia
In Australia, the power to arrest is granted by both federal and state legislation; however, the exact power granted differs depending on jurisdiction. The power to arrest for a federal offence is granted by section 3Z of the Crimes Act 1914. Under the Act, a person who is not a police constable may, without warrant, arrest another person if they believe on reasonable grounds that:
 * the other person is committing or has just committed an indictable offence; and
 * proceedings by summons against the other person would not: ensure the appearance of the person before a court in respect of the offence; prevent a repetition or continuation of the offence or the commission of another offence; prevent the concealment, loss or destruction of evidence relating to the offence; prevent harassment of, or interference with, a person who may be required to give evidence in proceedings in respect of the offence; prevent the fabrication of evidence in respect of the offence; or would not preserve the safety or welfare of the person.

A person who arrests another person must, as soon as practicable after the arrest, arrange for the other person, and any property found on the other person, to be delivered into the custody of a constable.

Generally speaking, as regards the law in Australia: Where it is clear on the evidence that a private citizen, or security officer, in detaining a suspect, acted reasonably and the suspect unreasonably, then it is likely that the court will find in favour of the citizen or security officer and against the suspect if that suspect chooses, later, to sue the citizen for assault or false imprisonment. In other circumstances where, e.g. a property owner (or an agent) arrests a thief in a manner, and in circumstances, disproportionate to the likely harm to the victim, and in clear defiance of the rights of the suspect (for example, to be taken forthwith to a police station), then the court is very likely to find in favour of the suspect (guilty or otherwise). The courts may order compensation for such suspects in appropriate circumstances.

New South Wales
In the Australian state of New South Wales, the power to arrest is granted to anyone who is not a police officer by section 100 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW). Under the Act, a person may, without a warrant, arrest another person if:
 * the person is in the act of committing an offence under any Act or statutory instrument, or
 * the person has just committed any such offence, or
 * the person has committed a serious indictable offence for which the person has not been tried.

Section 231 of the Act allows the use of such force as is "reasonably necessary to make the arrest or to prevent the escape of the person after arrest". A person who arrests another person under section 100 must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, take the person, and any property found on the person, before a magistrate to be dealt with according to law. The magistrate will also decide whether or not the force applied in making the arrest was reasonable under the circumstances.

According to the Law Society of New South Wales, the arresting person should:
 * inform the person that they are under arrest and
 * inform the person of the reasons for the arrest.

Queensland
In the Australian state of Queensland, the power to arrest is granted by section 546 of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld). Under the Act, any person who finds another committing an offence may, without warrant, arrest the other person. The power to arrest in Queensland also allows for arrest on suspicion of an offence: "If the offence has been actually committed–it is lawful for any person who believes on reasonable ground that another person has committed the offence to arrest that person without warrant, whether that other person has committed the offence or not."

Section 260 of the Act also provides a power to arrest in preventing a breach of the peace: "It is lawful for any person who witnesses a breach of the peace to interfere to prevent the continuance or renewal of it, and to use such force as is reasonably necessary for such prevention and is reasonably proportioned to the danger to be apprehended from such continuance or renewal, and to detain any person who is committing or who is about to join in or to renew the breach of the peace for such time as may be reasonably necessary in order to give the person into the custody of a police officer."

Following the arrest, the person arrested must, without delay, be handed over to a justice of the peace or police officer, in accordance with section 552 of the Criminal Code. Legal advice should then be sought to avoid any possible legal action for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment or assault.

South Australia
Section 271 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) grants arrest powers to a person in South Australia.

"s271(3): A person is liable to arrest and detention under this section if the person is in the act of committing, or has just committed an indictable offence; or theft (whether the theft is a summary or indictable offence); or an offence against the person (whether the offence is summary or indictable); or an offence involving interference with, damage to or destruction of property (whether the offence is summary or indictable)."

Tasmania
Under the Police Offences Act 1935 (Tas), section 55(3), any person may arrest any other person whom they find committing an offence, where they have reasonable grounds to believe that the conduct will create or may involve substantial injury to another person, serious danger of such injury, loss of property or serious injury to property. Section 55(5) states "For the purposes of this section, a person is said to be 'found offending' if he does any act, or makes any omission, or conducts or behaves himself, and thereby causes a person who finds him reasonable grounds for believing that he has, in respect of such act, omission, or conduct, committed an offence against this Act." There are further provisions in section 301 of the Criminal Code Act 1924 (Tas) that appear to allow a sliding scale of force in executing an arrest.

Victoria
In the Australian state of Victoria, the power to arrest is granted in section 458 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). It states that a person may, without a warrant, arrest a person that they find committing an offence for one or more of the following reasons:
 * to ensure the appearance of the offender in court, and/or
 * to preserve public order, and/or
 * to prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence, or the commission of a further offence, and/or
 * for the safety or welfare of the public or the offender.

A person may also arrest another person if they are instructed to do so by a member of the police force, or if they believe on reasonable grounds that the offender is escaping legal custody.

Section 461 states that if an arrest is made under section 458 of the Crimes Act, and is later proven to be false, then the arrest itself will not be considered unlawful if it was made on reasonable grounds. Section 462A allows any person the right to use force "not disproportionate to the objective as he believes on reasonable grounds to be necessary to prevent the commission, continuance or completion of an indictable offence or to effect or assist in effecting the lawful arrest of a person committing or suspected of committing any offence".

Western Australia
It was only in 2004 that the Western Australian parliament repealed the provisions of the former section 47 of the Police Act 1892 which allowed any person to arrest without a warrant "any reputed common prostitute, thief, loose, idle or disorderly person, who, within view of such person apprehending, shall offend against this Act, and shall forthwith deliver him to any constable or police officer of the place where he shall have been apprehended, to be taken and conveyed before a Justice, to be dealt with according to law ..." A private citizen would have found it rather difficult to interpret the terms "loose" or "idle" with any degree of legal certainty. Citizen's arrest powers are now in section 25 of the Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA).

The Territories

 * Northern Territory
 * Under section 441(2) of the Criminal Code of the Northern Territory, any person can arrest another whom (s)he finds committing an offence or behaving such that he or she believes on reasonable grounds that the offender has committed an offence and that an arrest is necessary for a range of specified reasons.

 * Australian Capital Territory
 * See the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), section 218, which permits a citizen's arrest.

Austria
In Austria, citizen's arrests (Anhalterecht Privater) can be made under § 80 Abs 2 StPO (code of penal procedures). The person making the arrest is allowed to hold the arrestee solely for the purpose of turning him over to a proper legal authority such as the police.

Brazil
In Brazil, a Federal law allows any person to arrest a suspect criminal found in flagrante delicto or fleeing from the crime scene. The person has to, at his/her own judgment, have the physical power to keep the suspect detained, has to verbally explain what (s)he is doing to the arrestee and has to call the police. Both have to wait for the arrival of the police. The person who makes a citizen's arrest has to sign the police forms as a witness and explain the facts. Typically it will lead to a time burden of at least two hours. If the facts cannot be verified the person who realizes the citizen's arrest might be sued by the arrestee.

Federal law
Canada's blanket arrest authorities for crimes or violations of federal statutes are found in the Criminal Code. In Canada, a criminal offence is any offence that is created by a federal statute—there are no "provincial crimes".

Criminal offences are divided into three groups: indictable, dual procedure, and summary conviction. For the purposes of arrest, dual procedure offences are considered to be indictable.

The Criminal Code provisions related to citizen arrests were changed in 2012, by the Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act. As a consequence, it is now possible to make a citizen's arrest in Canada in circumstances where a "reasonable" amount of time has lapsed between the commission of a property-related offence and the arrest.

Provincial law
There are several arrest authorities found through the various provincial statutes. The most notable citizen's arrest authority in Ontario is found in the Trespass to Property Act, but there are others found in the Highway Traffic Act, the Liquor Licence Act, and many others.

China
Chinese criminal procedure law empowers any citizen to make citizen's arrest:

"Article 82. Under any of the following circumstances, a person may be immediately taken by any citizen to a public security authority, a people's procuratorate, or a people's court for handling:(1) the person is committing a crime or is discovered immediately after committing a crime;

(2) the person is wanted;

(3) the person has escaped from incarceration; and

(4) the person is being pursued for capture."

Czech Republic
In the Czech Republic, pursuant to § 76 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Zákon č. 141/1961 Sb. o trestním řízení soudním (trestní řád)"), the personal liberty of a person caught in the act of committing a crime or immediately afterwards may be restricted by anyone if necessary to establish the person's identity, prevent their escape or secure evidence. The arrester shall, however, be obliged to hand that person over immediately to the police authority; The arrester may also hand over a member of the armed forces to the nearest armed forces unit or garrison administrator. If such a person cannot be handed over immediately, the restriction of that person's personal liberty shall be notified without delay to one of those authorities.

Denmark
In Denmark, pursuant to § 755 (2) of the Administration of Justice Act, anyone may arrest a person caught in the act of committing a crime or in direct connection to a crime if the criminal act is subject to public prosecution. The arrestee must as soon as possible be turned over to the police with information about the time of and reasons for the arrest.

Ethiopia
In Ethiopia, any private person may arrest without warrant a person who has committed a flagrant offence as defined in Art. 19 and 20 of the Criminal Procedure Code where the offence is punishable with simple imprisonment for not less than three months. In addition where the police call for assistance in making an arrest with or without warrant there shall be a duty to assist where assistance can be given without risk. The Criminal Procedure Code also provides that where an arrest is made the person making the arrest shall without unnecessary delay hand over the person so arrested to the nearest police station.

Finland
In Finland, Coercive Measures Act 22.7.2011/806 gives a right to apprehend someone in the act of committing a crime (in flagrante delicto) or fleeing from the crime scene, if punishment for the crime might be imprisonment or the crime is petty assault, petty theft, petty embezzlement, petty unauthorized use, petty stealing of a motor vehicle for temporary use, petty damage to property or petty fraud. A person wanted by the police (arrest warrant) can be apprehended by anyone. After the apprehension, the detainee must be handed over to the police as soon as possible. If the criminal is resisting or tries to escape, the law gives a citizen the right to use an amount of force considered necessary, when considering the nature of the crime, the behavior of the apprehended and the situation as a whole.

France
French law allows any civilian to arrest a person caught in flagrante delicto committing a felony or misdemeanor punishable by a jail sentence, with the obligation to immediately bring that person before the nearest officer of the police judiciaire. In modern practice, one would detain the perpetrator and immediately call the nearest police, then hand over the perpetrator and any evidence to the first police officers to arrive at the scene. Use of force is not authorised.

Germany
Citizen's arrests (in German: Jedermann-Anhalte- und -Festnahmerecht) can be made under § 127 I 1 StPO (code of penal procedures) if the arrestee is caught in flagrante delicto and either the identity of the person cannot be otherwise established immediately or they are suspected to try to flee. The person making the arrest is allowed to hold the arrestee solely for the purpose of turning them over to a proper legal authority such as the police. German law does not establish that the crime has to be serious, nor that the person making the arrest has to actually be a citizen of Germany. The use of force is authorized, but the force must be proportional (verhältnismäßig) to the circumstances and the suspected crime.

Hong Kong
Citizen's arrest is known as the "101 power". Under the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (cap. 221 of the Laws of Hong Kong), section 101(2) provides that "Any person may arrest without warrant any person whom he may reasonably suspect of being guilty of an arrestable offence" using "force as is reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances". Once an arrest is made, the suspect must be delivered to a police office as soon as possible for court proceedings. "Arrestable offence" is defined as any crimes that can be sentenced for more than 12 months of jail time.

Hungary
According to article 273 of ''Act XC. of 2017 concerning Penal Procedure'', anyone may arrest a person caught committing a felony, but is obliged to hand the person over to the "investigative authorities" immediately; if this is not possible, the police must be informed.

India
Section 43, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 states that: "# Any private person may arrest or cause to be arrested any person who in his presence commits a non-bailable and cognizable offence, or any proclaimed offender, and, without unnecessary delay, shall make over or cause to be made over any person so arrested to a police officer, or, in the absence of a police officer, take such person or cause him to be taken in custody to the nearest police station.
 * 1) If there is a reason to believe that such person comes under the provisions of Sec 41, a police officer shall re-arrest him.
 * 2) If there is a reason to believe that he has committed a non-cognizable offence, and he refuses on the demand of the police officer to give his name and residence, or gives name or residence which such officer has a reason to believe to be false, he shall be dealt with under the provisions of Sec 42, but if there is no sufficient reason to believe that he has committed any offence he shall at once be released."

According to this section any private person may arrest or cause to be arrested 1. A person committing a non bailable and cognizable offence in his presence or

2. Any proclaimed offender he shall without unnecessary delay take such person over to a police officer or to the nearest police station.

Iran
The Code of Criminal Procedure allows private citizens to detain those suspected of crimes in order to prevent their escape, so long as the crime in question is on the list of crimes subjected to citizens' arrest, the crime is evident, and law enforcement is absent from the scene.

Ireland
The term "citizen's arrest" is colloquially used for arrest, without an arrest warrant, made by someone other than a member of the Garda Síochána. Despite the colloquial name, non-Irish citizens have performed such arrests. The law of the Republic of Ireland, being derived from English law, inherited the common law power for private individuals to arrest for felony or  breach of the peace. The Criminal Law Act 1997 abolished the common-law distinction between felonies and misdemeanours and instead distinguishes "arrestable" and "non-arrestable" offences; arrestable offences are those punishable by at least five years' imprisonment, and private individuals may arrest those in flagrante, having committed, or about to commit an arrestable offence.

Several other statutes which define offences likewise state "any person may arrest" someone committing the offence; relevant offences include making off without payment, hawking revenue stamps, and property damage — this last permits arrest for a past crime as well as one in progress. In addition, the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act 1976 schedules offences associated with the Troubles in Northern Ireland, and authorises anyone to arrest someone for committing or having committed such an offence, whether in the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland. The 1976 act, and a similar Westminster act giving reciprocal extraterritorial jurisdiction, obviated the need for extradition between the jurisdictions, which would have been more controversial.

If the arrester lacks reasonable cause to believe the arrested person to have committed the offence, the latter may sue the former for defamation, wrongful arrest, or trespass. For most offences, a private individual can only make such an arrest if the suspect would otherwise evade arrest by a Garda, and the arrester must surrender the suspect to Garda custody as soon as practicable. An exception is that stamp hawkers must be brought before the District Court. Citizen's arrests are rare; most often they are made by store detectives on shoplifting suspects.

Israel
An Israeli law allowing anyone to arrest a suspect whom they witnessed carrying out a felony was repealed in 1996 and replaced by a new law allowing the detention of a suspect by another person under certain conditions. Section 75 of the Criminal Procedure Law (Enforcement Powers – Arrest) of 1996 allows anyone to detain a person who is witnessed carrying out certain suspected crimes. The crimes include the following: a felony, theft, a crime of violence and a crime which has caused serious damage to property. A person using these detention powers may use reasonable force if their request is not met as long as they do not cause the suspect bruising. They must hand the suspect over to the police immediately and no later than three hours. A citizen's arrest cannot be performed on persons whose identity is known or who are not suspected of fleeing. The law can be used by both private individuals and private security.

Italy
Any private citizen can, according to article 383 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, arrest another person, provided they are caught "in flagranza di reato" (In flagrante delicto) and the felony they are caught committing includes mandatory arrest from the police and is "perseguibile d'ufficio", meaning that the judicial authority, once received the "notitia criminis" (a crime report), has the duty to commence prosecution, without a party necessarily filing a complaint. The person making the arrest is legally required to hand to police the arrested person and the corpus delicti to the judicial authority, failure to do so could result in the person making the arrest committing a crime.

Japan
In Japan, Section 213 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows anyone from civilians to firefighters witnessing any crime in progress to make an arrest. This is called genkouhan (現行犯, meaning in flagrante delicto). Most criminals who attempt to flee, or refuse to identify themselves, can be held until police arrive. However, making a citizen's arrest to prevent petty crime (e.g. illegal assembly, accidental injury, accidental trespass, defamation of character, leaving a parking lot without paying) is false imprisonment per Section 220 of the Criminal Code.

Latvia
Criminal Procedure Law in Latvia gives a right to any person to apprehend someone in the act of committing a crime (in flagrante delicto) or fleeing from the crime scene, if punishment for the crime might be imprisonment. Also a person wanted by the police, for whom there is an arrest warrant, can be arrested by anyone at any time. A person stopping a criminal from committing a crime is not criminally responsible as long as the means employed are in proportion to the threat. The arrested person must be handed over to the police immediately.

"THE CRIMINAL LAW Section 31. Detention Causing Personal Harm (1) Detention causing personal harm is an act which is directed against such person as is committing or has committed a criminal offence. Criminal liability for this act shall not apply if the harm allowed to be effected to the person is not evidently disproportionate to the character of the offence, non-compliance or resistance.

(2) A person who, in carrying out detention, has violated conditions regarding the detention, shall be liable for violating such conditions.

(3) If the acts by which harm has been caused to the person to be detained have not been necessary for his or her arrest, liability on a general basis applies for the harm caused.

(4) The causing of harm to the detained person through negligence shall not be criminally punishable."

Malaysia
Section 27(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code allows for a private person to arrest a person who, in his view, has committed a seizable offence or a non-bailable offence:

"Any private person may arrest any person who, in his view, commits a non-bailable and seizable offence or who has been proclaimed under section 44 and shall without unnecessary delay hand over the person so arrested to the nearest police officer or, in the absence of a police officer, take that person to the nearest police station."

Sub-section 5 further allows the arrest of a person who commits an offence on or with respect to the property of another by any person who is using the property to which the injury is done, or by the servant of either of those persons or by any person authorized by or acting in aid of either of those persons:

"Any person who commits an offence on or with respect to the property of another may if his name and address are unknown be apprehended by the person injured or by any person who is using the property to which the injury is done, or by the servant of either of those persons or by any person authorized by or acting in aid of either of those persons, and may be detained until he gives his name and address and satisfies such person that the name and address so given are correct or until he can be delivered into the custody of a police officer."

A "seizable offence" is defined as an offence in which a police officer may ordinarily arrest without warrant as per defined by the Code.

Mexico
Article 16 of the 1917 Constitution of Mexico allows any person to arrest a criminal found in flagrante delicto. A non-police officer doing so must immediately bring them to the nearest civil authority. A person who fails to do so may be found guilty of illegal deprivation of liberty, a crime similar to kidnapping that can result in a prison sentence for the perpetrator. In 2006, the celebrity bounty hunter Duane 'Dog' Chapman was charged with unlawful deprivation of liberty for arresting an American fugitive in Mexico and attempting to take him across the border to California without consulting police.

Nepal
Section 9(8) of The National Criminal Procedure (Code) Act, 2017 states : "If the police is not available for the time being at the time of commission of any offence, any person who is present at the time of commission of that offence or who is eye witness thereto may prevent the person committing such offence from going away or escaping and hand him or her over to the nearby police office."

New Zealand
In New Zealand, some legal protection exists to those making a citizen's arrest as provided in the Crimes Act 1961 in that there may be justification or protection from criminal responsibility. Justification of the arrest ensures the arresting person is not guilty of an offence and is not liable to any civil proceeding. Protection from criminal responsibility means those who make the arrest are not liable to any criminal proceedings. They are however liable for civil proceedings. The legislation is carefully worded and only applies to offences covered in the Crimes Act 1961, not other offences such as those covered in the Summary Offences Act 1981.

Specifically, the Crimes Act 1961 states that everyone (not just New Zealand citizens) is justified in arresting without warrant:
 * Any person found committing any offence against this Act which the maximum punishment is not less than 3 years' imprisonment; or
 * Any person found at night (9pm till 6am) committing any offence against this Act.

Other situations where members of the public are protected from criminal responsibility when involved in arresting where:
 * They have been asked by a police officer to help arrest any person believed or suspected to have committed any offence unless they know that there is no reasonable ground for the belief or suspicion.
 * They witness a breach of the peace, and therefore are justified in interfering to prevent its continuance or renewal, and may detain any person committing it, in order to hand them over to a police officer provided that the person interfering does not use more force than is reasonably necessary to prevent the continuance or renewal of the breach of the peace, or than is reasonably proportionate to the danger to be apprehended from its continuance or renewal. Similar legislation applies to suppressions of riots by members of the public.
 * They believe, on reasonable and probable grounds, someone has committed an offence against the Crimes Act 1961 and is fleeing and is being pursued by any one they believe can arrest that person for the offence (such as a police officer). This applies whether or not the offence has in fact been committed, and whether or not the arrested person committed it.
 * The person making the arrest is entitled to perform a search on the suspect, provided (s)he is not working for the place of arrest (e.g. a security guard in a hospital).

In all cases a person making a citizens arrest must hand over the suspect to a police officer at the earliest possible time.

Nigeria
The Administration of Criminal Justice Act (2015) allows private citizens to arrest a person who commits a criminal offense in their presence or a person who they reasonably suspect of having committed a crime for which a police officer would be legally entitled to arrest them without a warrant. Property owners are entitled to arrest those found damaging their private property and to authorize people working for them to arrest anyone damaging their property as well. Anyone damaging public property may be arrested by a private citizen. Private citizens who make arrests are legally obligated to immediately hand over the suspect to a police officer, or, in the absence of a police officer, to turn the suspect over to the nearest police station. After turning in the suspect, the private person who made the arrest must give a formal witness statement on the circumstances of the arrest.

Norway
In Norway, pursuant to § 176 of the Criminal Procedure Act any person may arrest a suspect caught at the scene or pursued from it. The arrestee must be handed over to the police immediately.

Peru
The Code of Criminal Procedure allows private citizens to arrest persons caught in flagrante delicto in the commission of a crime. Private citizens who make an arrest are obligated to immediately turn over the detainee to the police.

Philippines
Although the Philippines does not have a national law covering citizen's arrest, the local government of Quezon City passed Ordinance 2307 or the "Citizen's Arrest Ordinance of Quezon City". Any citizens within the Quezon City area can arrest a person even without a warrant in the instances mentioned and provided by law.

Poland
In Poland anyone has the right to apprehend a person caught in the act of committing an offence, or seized in a pursuit undertaken directly following the commission of an offence, if it is feared that such person may go into hiding or if his identity cannot be established. The apprehended person should be surrendered to the police without delay.

Portugal
In Portugal one is not civilly liable for restraining another person as long as one has used proportional force in order to defend themselves or someone else or anyone's property, under Articles 336, 337 and 339 of the Portuguese Civil Code (self defense, necessity and alike), and as long as there is an impossibility to resort to law enforcement. The main requirement of proportionality is that one does not give way to property rights over personal rights, the latter prevailing at all costs. There is also an exception to the proportionality principle which applies when, even though the defensive violence was excessive, it was triggered by a legitimate fear of the offended.

With regards to the criminal aspects of the citizen's arrest, Article 255 of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure gives any person the right to detain another in flagrante delicto if and only if the latter's conduct in question is punishable with imprisonment by law and the criminal procedure does not require private complaint, and no law enforcement authority is available in due time. The arrester must immediately bring the detainee into the custody of law enforcement.

Russia
In Russia, any person is allowed to arrest someone in the act of committing a crime pursuant to articles 37 and 38 of the Criminal Code of Russia and the Ruling of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Russia of 27 September 2012 if the person performing the arrest is certain that the arrestee has committed a crime. The arrest must be carried out with applying as little force as required for the apprehension and the arrestee should be surrendered to the police without delay.

Serbia
In Serbia anybody can arrest somebody in the act of committing a crime that the arrested would otherwise be pursued after in official capacity, provided that the police are notified.

Spain
In Spain, any person is allowed to arrest someone in the act of committing a crime or a fugitive as described in article 490 of the Criminal Code of Spain.

Sweden
In Sweden, any person may arrest someone in the act of committing a crime, or fleeing from the crime scene, if the crime committed is punishable by imprisonment. A person wanted by the police, for whom there is an arrest warrant, can be arrested by anyone at any time. After the arrest, the police must be contacted as soon as possible.

Security guards and others working with preventing crime but are not police officers, have this law as justification to arrest thieves and other they encounter.

Switzerland
According to the Swiss Criminal Procedure Code § 218, citizens have the right to arrest a person when there is insufficient time to obtain police assistance, provided that 1. they have caught the person in the act of committing a felony or misdemeanour or they have encountered the person immediately after committing such an offence; or

2. the public have been requested to assist in tracing of the person concerned.

When making an arrest, private individuals may only use force as a last resort and any force used must be reasonable. Arrested persons must be handed over to the police as quickly as possible.

Taiwan
An arrest without a warrant is explicitly forbidden by the Article 8 in the Constitution of the Republic of China, "except in case of flagrante delicto as provided by law", as shown below:

However, the first additional circumstance, i.e. "pursued with cries" has been considered ambiguous in recent years, leading to many ongoing discussions and controversies of whether this would cause an infringement of the personal freedom.

Turkey
Turkish Criminal Procedure Code states:

"Article 90 – (1) In the instances listed below, any individual is entitled to make an arrest of another person temporarily without a warrant: a) If the other person was seen committing an offense,

b) If the other person was under pursuit after committing an offense, if there is the possibility of escape of the person under pursuit after committing an offense or, if the establishment of his identity right away is not possible."

England and Wales
A citizen's arrest can be lawfully carried out on any person under section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for an indictable offence, including either way offences (in this section referred to simply as "an offence"), but with some exceptions listed below.

A few examples of indictable and either way offences are theft, criminal damage, burglary, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, possession of an offensive weapon in a public place, possession of a controlled substance. Further examples of either-way offences are listed under Schedule 1 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980. It is thus permissible for any person to arrest without warrant:
 * anyone who is in the act of committing an offence, or whom the arrestor has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be in the act of committing an offence, or
 * where an offence has been committed, anyone who is guilty of that offence or whom the arrestor has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it

However, both of following two conditions must also be satisfied:
 * it appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a police constable to make the arrest instead, and
 * the arrestor has reasonable grounds for believing that the arrest is necessary to prevent one or more of the following:
 * the person causing physical injury to themself or others,
 * the person suffering physical injury,
 * the person causing loss of or damage to property, or
 * the person absconding before a constable can assume responsibility for them

Where an arrest is made after an offence has been committed, the person who makes the arrest must actually know, not simply suspect that an offence has actually been committed. If it later turns out that an offence had not been committed, such an arrest would be unlawful.

"Any person" powers can be used to arrest before an offence occurs as long as the offence in question falls within the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. This act creates the offence of an attempted offence, as long as the offence being attempted is an indictable. For this to apply, the offence must actually be in the process of being attempted—preparatory steps are not sufficient. Furthermore, the definition of what constitutes a "crime" was clarified in R v Jones (Margaret) which stated under the S3 CLA1967 meaning, it was held to be any domestic crime in England/Wales. Kent Police have released a brief yet comprehensive guide on reasonable force.

A citizen's arrest cannot be made: Although a person cannot make a citizen's arrest before an offence takes place, they may use the power provided section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 to use reasonable force for the prevention of crime. This would not allow a citizen's arrest before an offence takes place in this sense but would allow any person to use reasonable force to prevent an offence from occurring; for example, restraining a suspected offender who raised a brick in their hand in order to imminently smash a window. A citizen's arrest is a form of lawful custody and anyone attempting to flee would commit the offence of escape from lawful custody. Similarly, a person who uses force to resists a citizen's arrest would commit the offence of assault with intent to resist arrest.
 * inside a polling station, on a person who commits or is suspected of committing an offence of personation (that is, pretending to be someone else in order to vote) in elections, or
 * in relation to an offence of stirring up racial hatred or stirring up religious hatred under the Public Order Act 1986.
 * by someone of their own husband, wife or civil partner for the offences of theft or criminal damage where they are the victim.

In addition to an arrest without a warrant, where an arrest warrant is issued by a court, the warrant may name people (other than police officers) who are able to use it to arrest the person against whom it has been issued.

Other powers
A citizen's arrest is a form of lawful custody and anyone attempting to flee may be guilty of attempting to escape from lawful custody. Furthermore, the offence of 'assault with intent to resist arrest or lawful apprehension or detainer of himself' may apply if the arrestee assaulted the arrestor under Section 38 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Both assault with intent to resist arrest/lawful apprehension and escaping from lawful custody are indictable, the former being so by the mode of trial of the offence, the latter is a common law offence and therefore indictable only. Therefore, these offences—whether fully carried out or merely attempted—are citizen's arrestable in themselves.

A citizen's arrest may also be made technically for a warrant for an arrest if the offence listed is indictable as there is no law prohibiting a re-citizen's arrest or the number of times they may be arrested for it nor is there a time limit. The warrant would satisfy the requirement for the arrester to have reasonable grounds to suspect the guilt of the arrestee. For example, if an offender failed to attend Crown Court this would satisfy two conditions for a lawful citizen's arrest at a later date – that the offence had taken place and that it was obviously indictable by way of being tried in Crown Court.

Although not technically citizen's arrest powers, any person also has the power to arrest for a common law breach of the peace which also provides any person with a power of entry. Section 3 Criminal Justice Act 1967 also provides any person the power to apprehend a person unlawfully at large e.g. an offender on a recall to prison or in the circumstances where someone has managed to escape from lawful custody.

Until 2006, there was an "any person" power of arrest under part of the Theft Act 1968 in England and Wales that related to poaching, which was used by private water bailiffs (as opposed to Environment Agency bailiffs). This ceased to have effect as a result of a general repeal of such arrest powers by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. An officer or agent of certain companies may seize and detain any person who has committed an offence against the provisions of the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 whose name and residence shall be but unknown to such officer or agent, and take them before a justice of the peace, who "shall proceed with all convenient dispatch to the hearing and determining of the complaint against such offender".

Under the Standing Orders of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, the Serjeant at Arms has the power to take into custody any member of the public who is in a Members-only area of the House, or who misconducts themselves, or who fails to leave when the House sits in private.

Court security officers in England and Wales have the additional power to restrain and remove persons from court buildings under s53 Courts Act 2003 as well as powers of search and seizure of certain articles.

Northern Ireland
Similar provisions apply to Northern Ireland as to England and Wales, implemented through the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (SI 1989/1341) as amended by the Police and Criminal Evidence (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order (SI 2007/288).

Scotland
While no statutory provision for citizen's arrest exists in Scots law, there is a common law position that anyone committing an offence can be arrested using minimum force if necessary with consideration to what is reasonable in the relevant circumstances. The offence must be a serious one and not merely for a breach of the peace. The person exercising the power must have witnessed the offence occurring therefore they cannot act upon information from another person.

United States of America
In the United States, a private person may arrest another without a warrant for a crime occurring in their presence. However, the crimes for which this is permitted vary by state. This procedure was criticized in the state of Georgia for the potential of abuse and racial bias after the murder of Ahmaud Arbery. As a result, Georgia repealed its citizen's arrest law, and replaced it with a narrower law applying only to business owners, inspectors, security guards, and private investigators.

Common law
Most states have codified the common law rule that a warrantless arrest may be made by a private person for a felony, misdemeanor, or "breach of peace". "Breach of peace" covers a multitude of violations in which the Supreme Court has even included a misdemeanor seatbelt violation punishable only by a fine. The term historically included theft, "nightwalking", prostitution, and playing card and dice games. Texas courts have defined and interpreted the term "breach of the peace" to mean an act that disturbs or threatens to disturb the tranquility enjoyed by the citizens.

State statutes
Consider, for an example of this codification, California Penal Code section 837:

"837. A private person may arrest another:
 * 1) For a public offense committed or attempted in his/her presence.
 * 2) When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his/her presence.
 * 3) When a felony has been in fact committed, and he or she has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it."

"Public offense" is read similarly as breach of peace in this case and includes felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions. There is generally no provision for an investigative detention by a private person under the law. With certain exceptions (see below), an arrest must be made. "Holding them until the police get there" is simply a form of arrest. The officer is accepting the arrest and processing the prisoner on behalf of the private person.

In the case of felonies, a private person may make an arrest for a felony occurring outside their presence, but the rule is that a felony must have, in fact, been committed. For example, consider a suspect that has been seen on surveillance video vandalizing a building to the extent that the arrestor believes it rises to a felony due to the damage. If they find the suspect and make the arrest but it later turns out that it was misdemeanor damage, the arrestor is liable for false arrest because a felony had not, in fact, been committed.

Because most states have codified their arrest laws, there are many variations. For example, in Pennsylvania, the courts have been clear that a non-law enforcement officer cannot make an arrest for a "summary offense". In North Carolina, there is no de jure "citizen's arrest". Although it is essentially the same, North Carolina law refers to it as a "detention".

Other states seem to allow only arrests in cases of felonies, but court decisions have ruled more broadly. For example, in Virginia, the statute appears to only permit warrantless arrests by officers listed in the Code. However, Virginia courts have upheld warrantless arrests by non-law enforcement personnel for breach of the peace misdemeanors. Other non-police persons are granted arrest authority by statute, in the case of those who are state-certified, armed security officers: "A registered armed security officer of a private security services business while at a location which the business is contracted to protect shall have the power to effect an arrest for an offense occurring (i) in his presence on such premises or (ii) in the presence of a merchant, agent, or employee of the merchant the private security business has contracted to protect" and "For the purposes of § 19.2-74, a registered armed security officer of a private security services business shall be considered an arresting officer."

Use of force
In general, a private person is considered to be justified in using non-deadly force upon another if they reasonably believe that: (1) such other person is committing a felony, or a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace; and (2) the force used is necessary to prevent further commission of the offense and to apprehend the offender. The force must be reasonable under the circumstances to restrain the individual arrested. This includes the nature of the offense and the amount of force required to overcome resistance. In Texas, a civilian may use reasonable force, including deadly force if reasonable, to prevent an escape from a lawful citizen's arrest.

Shopkeeper's (merchant's) privilege
In some states of the United States, the courts recognize a common law shopkeeper's privilege under which a shopkeeper is allowed to detain a suspected shoplifter on store property for a reasonable period of time, so long as the shopkeeper has cause to believe that the person detained in fact committed, or attempted to commit, theft of store property. The purpose of this detention is to recover the property and make an arrest if the merchant desires.

Differing liability from police
Private persons are occasionally granted immunity from civil or criminal liability, like the police are, when arresting others. While the powers to arrest are similar, police are entitled to mistake of fact in most cases, while civilians can be held to a stricter liability depending on the individual state. Police can also detain anyone upon reasonable suspicion. However, ordinary citizens cannot claim "qualified immunity" to attempt to defend against a civil complaint for false arrest.

title: Citizen's arrest


text:
Bathing machine

The bathing machine was a device, popular from the 18th century until the early 20th century, to allow people at beaches to change out of their usual clothes, change into swimwear, and wade in the ocean. Bathing machines were roofed and walled wooden carts that rolled into the sea. Some had solid wooden walls, others canvas walls over a wooden frame, and commonly walls at the sides and curtained doors at each end.

The use of bathing machines was part of the etiquette for sea-bathing to be observed by both men and women who wished to behave "respectably."

Especially in Britain, even with the use of the machine to protect modesty, bathing for men and women was usually segregated, so that people of the opposite sex would not see each other in their bathing suits which, although extremely modest by modern standards, were not considered proper clothing in which to be seen in public.

Use
The bathing machines in use in Margate, Kent, were described by Walley Chamberlain Oulton in 1805 as:

"[F]our-wheeled carriages, covered with canvas, and having at one end of them an umbrella of the same materials which is let down to the surface of the water, so that the bather descending from the machine by a few steps is concealed from the public view, whereby the most refined female is enabled to enjoy the advantages of the sea with the strictest delicacy."

People entered the small room of the machine while it was on the beach, wearing their street clothing. In the machine they changed into their bathing suit, although men were allowed to bathe nude until the 1860s, placing their street clothes into a raised compartment where they would remain dry.

Probably all bathing machines had small windows, but one writer in the Manchester Guardian of May 26, 1906 considered them "ill-lighted" and wondered why bathing machines were not improved with a skylight.

The machine would be wheeled or slid into the water. The most common machines had large wide wheels and were propelled in and out of the surf by a horse, or a pair of horses, with a driver. Less common were machines pushed in and out of the water by human power. Some resorts had wooden rails into the water for the wheels to roll on, and a few had bathing machines pulled in and out of the sea using cables propelled by a steam engine.

Once in the water, the occupants disembarked from the sea side down steps into the water. Many machines had doors front and back; those with only one door would be backed into the sea or need to be turned around. It was considered essential that the machine blocked any view of the bather from the shore. Some machines were equipped with a canvas tent lowered from the seaside door, sometimes capable of being lowered to the water, giving the bather greater privacy. Some resorts employed a dipper, a strong person of the same sex who would assist the bather in and out of the sea. Some dippers were said to push bathers into the water, then yank them out, considered part of the experience.

Bathing machines would often be equipped with a small flag which could be raised by the bather as a signal to the driver that they were ready to return to shore.

History

According to some sources, the bathing machine was developed in 1750 in Margate, Kent. That version was probably intended to conceal the user until they were mostly submerged in the water because, at the time, bathing costumes were not yet common and most people bathed nude. "Mr. Benjamin Beale, a Quaker, was the inventor of the Bath Machine. Their structure is simple, but quite convenient; and by means of the umbrella, the pleasures of bathing may be enjoyed in so private a manner, as to be consistent with the strictest delicacy." In the Scarborough Public Library, there is an engraving by John Setterington dated 1736 which shows people bathing and is popularly believed to be first evidence for bathing machines; however Devon claims this was a year earlier in 1735.

Bathing machines were most common in the United Kingdom and parts of the British Empire with a British population, but were also used in France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, the United States, Mexico, and other nations.

Prince Albert used one at Osborne Beach near Osborne House on the Isle of Wight, as did Queen Victoria, who used it to sketch and for bathing. She wrote about such an experience in her diary in July 1847. After the monarch's death, her machine was used as a chicken coop, but it was restored in the 1950s and put on display in 2012. According to a news report, "The queen's bathing machine was unusually ornate, with a front verandah and curtains which would conceal her until she had entered the water. The interior had a changing room and a plumbed-in WC".

Bathing machines remained in active use on English beaches until the 1890s, when they began to be parked on the beach. Legal segregation of bathing areas in Britain ended in 1901, and the use of bathing machines declined rapidly. They were then used as stationary changing rooms for a number of years. Most of them had disappeared in the United Kingdom by 1914, and, by the start of the 1920s they were almost extinct, even on beaches catering to an older clientele. However, in Aldeburgh, Suffolk, Eric Ravilious was able to paint bathing machines on wheels with winches still in use as late as 1938. In many places around the world they have survived to this day as stationary bathing boxes.

In fiction

 * In "The Hunting of the Snark" a Snark's fondness for bathing machines is listed as the fourth "unmistakable mark" that Snark hunters should consider.
 * In Iolanthe, the Lord Chancellor's "Nightmare Song" describes a passenger ship as not much larger than a bathing machine.
 * The use of the bathing machine and segregated swimming is depicted in the 2019 ITV series Sanditon, based on the 1817 unfinished novel of the same name by Jane Austen.
 * In Persuasion by Jane Austen, the principal street in the town of Lyme is said to be “animated with bathing machines” during the season.
 * In "Of Human Bondage," Somerset Maugham describes the main character, Philip, swimming in the ocean, after which, "he crawled back, dripping and cold, into his bathing-machine".
 * Chapter 22 of Vanity Fair (1847–48) by William Makepeace Thackeray records that, following Amelia Sedley and George Osborne's wedding: "Some ten days after the above ceremony, three young men of our acquaintance were enjoying that beautiful prospect of bow windows on the one side and blue sea on the other, which Brighton affords to the traveller. Sometimes it is towards the ocean—smiling with countless dimples, speckled with white sails, with a hundred bathing-machines kissing the skirt of his blue garment—that the Londoner looks enraptured (...)"
 * In Devil in Spring by Lisa Kleypas, "Serapfina led her to a bathing-machine that had been left near a dune. It was a small enclosed room set on high wheels, with a set of steps leading up to the door".
 * The bathing machine is referred to in The Woman in White by Wilkie Collins.
 * The 2020 film, Ammonite, depicts Charlotte Murchison using a bathing machine.
 * Chapter 24 in Agnes Grey by Anne Brontë describes the morning preparations on a beach in a bathing town, and mentions bathing machines.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Bathing machine


text:
Talk:List of Christian denominations/Archive 1

Anglicans
Listing Anglicans under "Protestantism" isn't NPOV. Unfortunately, not listing them under Protestantism is also not NPOV. Any suggestions for how to fix it? Note that Anglicanism does not fit the broad definition in Protestantism since the Church of England split with Rome entirely independently of Martin Luther; Henry VIII of England was titled "Defender of the Faith" because he wrote a treatise against Luther. The "Protestant" heritage of the CofE, for those who believe in that (insert smiley here) came later. --Tb 03:43 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Moved Anglicanism from under Protestantism, since technically they are not Protestants.

 * Taxonomy can be a very difficult task, even with a sub-group such as Baptists. When we try to extend that to all groups that identify themselves as Christians, it is daunting. IMO, Anglicans need to stand as a separate group, neither Catholic nor Protestant. A good precedent for this is the World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in The Modern World (2nd edition, David Barrett, ed., hb., 1730 pp., Oxford University Press). In that volume, all Christians are first categorized as six megablocs - Anglicans, Independents, Marginal Christians, Orthodox, Protestants, and Roman Catholics. For those interested try researching at the World Christian Database

--Rlvaughn 7:50 pm CDST 11 Oct 2003

 * Although I moved Anglicans back, I am sympathetic to the reasoning here. I've changed the title to more inclusively describe the groups that are included under it, to "Protestantism, Anglicanism, and descendant churches".  Is that a good compromise? Mkmcconn 21:10, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Sounds like a good compromise to me; I hope it is generally accepted. Rlvaughn 04:06, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Also, a more accurate tree would look like:

 * orthodox (little O) ??
 * Nestorian
 * Antiochene
 * orthodox (little O) ??
 * Oriental Orthodox (monophysite)
 * Chalcedonian Orthodox
 * Eastern Orthodox
 * western
 * Roman Catholic
 * Protestant
 * Anglican?

why? well, under the principle that "before people divide, they are one", and that names alone don't tell you historical relationships correctly. (The Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics are both closer [officially] than either is to the Oriental Orthodox.)

How to order within a category might also be disputed, but I don't really care about that provided the ordering is clear. (I think clarity means that you put the one with the fewest subgroups first, but I don't care much about the point.) --Tb 03:52 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Generally speaking, lists never tell the truth. That's why it's good that Wikipedia lists present and future articles, rather than trying to graph relationships by the arrangement of bullet-points alone.  On the other hand, this approach creates literally hundreds of links to articles that will most likely never exist, and that's another reason that lists are bad.  Mkmcconn 04:47 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hehe, point taken. But it's reasonable to hope for making things better, right? I don't have any problem making a re-org like the one I've just outlined; it would more accurately depict the historical divisions that let to the current reality. At least not listing "Oriental Orthodox" under "Orthodox", which is the most serious problem. And where to put Anglicans, too. Another issue is that the list is a list of denominations; the different Anglican provinces aren't different denominations, nor are the different churches listed under Eastern Orthodox. It's currently more a list of "independent churches", more or less, with part of the problem being that different families of churches define even that quite differently. Perhaps I'm tilting at windmills, but it's in my nature to want to figure out a better way. --Tb 05:28 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * It's certainly a thorny problem. I think the Eastern Orthodox might be closer to at least some of the Oriental Orthodox than to the Roman Catholics; at least, it's easier for me to envision them reuniting with someone like the Coptics than with the Roman Catholics. As far as the Anglicans go, you have a fair point. How would the placement of the Anglicans affect of the placement of groups like the Episcopalians and Methodists, and denominations that later split off from those? Real history is probably more complex than any ASCII chart or list can show; perhaps we should add some disclaimer to that effect, with a note that more details can be found in the articles about those denominations. Wesley 13:19 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Try listing them in both places. The catholic side of Anglicanism likes to say that they are not protestant, and the Evangelicals would never admit to being Catholic.  But, the fact is that the church is both, schismatic catholic and unreformed protestant.  It has eyes turned in two directions (your mother told you, if you keep crossing your eyes, they'll stay that way!)   A graphic description of Anglicans should describe this double-vision.  (By the way, this inability to choose sides between Protestant and Catholic, and yet not torn apart despite the violence of the forces pulling at her, is one of the most noble and attractive things about the Anglicans.)   — Mkmcconn 15:18 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It's not an inability, it's an unwillingness. There's a difference. As an Anglican firmly ensconced in the catholic side, I would be very bothered if the evangelicals were booted. We are greatly enriched by the diversity. (And, incidentally, calling the Anglicans "schismatic Catholic" isn't NPOV...) --Tb 18:56 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't call them that, but wouldn't a Roman Catholic (and a liberally minded Roman Catholic, at that)? BTW, by inability I meant only unwillingness.  Mkmcconn 19:21 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Um, yes, RCs would generally say that. But Anglicans never would--that's why it's NPOV.  --Tb 19:27 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Incidentally, there is also some affinity between Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox. Around 100 years ago or so there was even some preliminary talk about what it would take to restore communion between them; obviously the two have moved apart since then. (When the Episcopal church voted to ordain women a few years ago, an Orthodox bishop who was at the convention observing said, after the vote had been cast, that the move was raising another obstacle to restoring unity. His announcement was met with cheers.) But when King Henry VIII kicked out the Roman Catholic priests and then looked around for clergy for the new Anglican church, he turned to monks who were still more influenced by pre-Roman Celtic Christianity, which has much in common with Eastern Orthodoxy. And so Orthodoxy had a round-about influence on Angicanism from the beginning. :-) Wesley 05:32, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Another idea: don't even try and have the higher levels of organization. After all, this is a list. My inclination is to list genetic relationships (which would put the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics closer to each other than either to the Oriental Orthodox). But another is to put a sort of generic similarity (which would put the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox close together). Similarly, genetic lineage would put Methodists right next to Anglicans, even though these days they are much closer to, say, Presbyterians or other "mainline Protestants". But abandoning anything other than a two-level system would get rid of some of the helpful info we can convey. How about two different charts then: one showing historical divisions in order; the other showing current family similarities? --Tb 18:59 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I think you'll find changes like this atomistically satisfying and holistically frustrating. But, they seem like reasonable proposals. Go ahead and try it.  There is no harm.  Mkmcconn 19:21 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Local Church (Nee)
Where would Local Church go? Is it a nonaffiliated (or non-denominational) church? I looked at some websites and cannot tell. --Menchi 19:09 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * They are an independent development based upon Protestantism, but developing in isolation in China. I think that in their current form, they resist identification with any historical lineage (which along with their distinctives gets them labelled in unfriendly terms).  Mkmcconn 19:21 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Antitrinitarianism
Not sure of the implications of 'Restoration' or 'Millerite', but I'm pretty sure that the Latter Day Saints would be more comfortable under 'non-trinitarian' churches, unless all of the category they are in are non-trinitarian. I believe the same is true of Christadelphians, but less sure. DJ Clayworth 15:54, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Mkmcconn: The article on the LDS doesn't seem to indicate a close relationship to Restorationism. More to the point, I would think Trinitarian/non-Trinitarian is actually a more helpful classification than the branch they came out of. DJ Clayworth 17:45, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I know that these classifications are not easy. It would be most convenient if we had a stylle-sheet driven formatting for these lists, to offer different views of their relationships.  But, if you are looking for the LDS view, it was the LDS wikipedians who drove the separation of "Restorationism" into a distinct category, apart from Protestantism; and, as a matter of fact,  It is part of current LDS apologetics, to emphasize the relationship between the Campellites and the earliest LDS.  Quite a significant number of the Millerites are non-trinitarian.  Non-trinitarian thinking is also common among Congregational (Uniting/United Churches) as well.  While I would personally prefer to remove these from the list of "Christian denominations", along with Gnostics and other cults, becaue I believe that it is objectively true that they deny the Christian faith, that might say more about me and what I believe than it does about them and who they "are".  Indeed, some would prefer that their church alone would be listed here.  We have to go for something like a consensus.  Mkmcconn 19:18, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree with you there. However the Trinitarian/non-Trinitarian divide is an important one since most denominations consider those on the other side of the divide to be non-Christians. I would venture that it is more significant than whether their origins are in Restorationsim, Protestantism or whatever. For any LDS out there would you consider Trinitarian branches of Restorationism to be just minor variants, like most Protestants would consider other branches of Protestantism to be essentially the same? 207.236.234.180 21:23, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't think it's easy to separate Trinitarian from Antitrinitarian, when categorizing sects in, or at the fringes of, Protestantism. I think that it would require a specialized knowledge of each particular member, where the present list is easily added to according to more-or-less clearly defined "families" of denominations.  Even though it gives a false appearance of simplicity to do it this way, it's asking for trouble to do it the other way.  Maybe we could add key codes indicating trinitarian and antitrinitarian members of each group? That might make good sense, since you're right that this distinction is basic on both sides. Mkmcconn 22:28, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Quakers
I moved Quakers (formally Religious Society of Friends) from Pietist to Non-trinitarian. Since all agree that Quakerism is non-creedal, it is very hard to state authoritatively exactly what Quakers do or do not believe and hence hard to classify them. But here are my reasons.

First, in my limited experience of modern Quakerism it seems to me to resemble Unitarianism more closely than it resembles the Church of God or the Moravians and it seemed to me that they sort of belong in the same category. This is perhaps based as much on social and economic considerations as theological.

Second, with regard to the Trinity I think it can at least be said that Quaker doctrine is poorly defined, or not spelled out, or deliberately vague.

in Rosten's Religions of America, in answer to the question "How to Friends Feel about the Trinity, Richmond P. Miller replied "there is wide freedom for personal opinion... Quakerism is based on a religious way of life rather than accepted dogmas. The Quaker faith is a religion of experience. Whatever is known experimentally about God, the Holy Spirit, the Christ Within, becomes the true guide. Friends tend to believe in the immance of God rather than His transcendence." R. W. Tucker replied " 'Trinity' is not a term found in Scripture."

Penn wrote "[Quakers] believe in the Holy Three or Trinity of Father, Word, and Spirit, according to Scripture.... but they are very tender of quitting scripter terms and phrases for schoolmen's; such as 'distinct and separate persons...' and they judge that a curious inquiry into those high and divine relations... tend little to godliness and less to peace."

I think it is accurate to say that many but by no means all modern Quakers believe in the divinity of Jesus, and the word trinity is not a word that is commonly encountered in modern Friends' discourse. In the United States, Friends' United Meeting is more conservative and closer to mainstream U. S. Protestant beliefs than Friends' General Council, but the term Quaker includes both.

When a denomination has no creed, and individuals within it have a wide range of opinion on the Trinity, I think it is reasonable to call the denomination as a whole "non-Trinitarian."

Dpbsmith 02:55, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I think that it's a mistake to put the Quakers in the Non-trinitarians. As discussed above, it is harder to uniformly categorize groups in these terms.  Quakers are all over the map, because they are anti-dogmatic.  It does not clarify who they are, and where they belong in the scheme of things, to put them there.  You might be objecting to putting them under "Protestantism", for the same reason that "Restorationists" don't like to be called Protestant.  In that case, perhaps it would be better to put them under Restorationists for the same reasons that Southcottites are there: for the sake of pointing out the "family" resemblance, but for lack of a more exact association.  Would that be a good compromise? Mkmcconn 02:59, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't really think so, but that's mostly because, well, "Restorationist" and "Southcottite" don't mean very much to me. I.e. it's not a strongly held or well-informed opinion on my part.

It could be argued that Quakers belong in a category all to themselves. Non-creedal denominations, perhaps. Are there other Christian denominations that are explicitly non-creedal?

Do you agree that they don't belong in "Pietists," anyway?

I was going to add that the very good Wikipedia article on Quakers does not include the word "Trinity," (nor the word "Pietist"). Re classifying them as "Protestant" the article says "Although Evangelical and programmed Quakerism has become more akin to Protestantism, many Quakers consider their faith neither Protestant nor Catholic, but rather an expression of a third way. "

Dpbsmith 03:18, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * There are numerous "prophetic" movements, which consider themselves to be a radical restoration of Christianity, many of which predate the Second Great Awakening - such as Swedenborgianism - I don't know where to put groups like that; "intellectually" and historically they are related to Pietism, which in general was a move away from dogma and a turning toward mystical revelation. The radical Anabaptists were among these, but they came before the Pietist and Holiness movements which stirred the general trend that brought about Methodism and the Quakers.   An important line of the Anabaptist descendant groups is the Anti-trinitarian (and anti-mystical) Socinians.  Socinian arguments are common among Millerite antitrinitarians.  There are numerous other groups which claim to be based on the Bible alone, and reject traditional definitions of the Trinity.  As I argue above, once you begin grouping these sects by what they specifically believe, instead of "who they are" and "where they come from", the list will become very confusing.  Mkmcconn\

 * That's what I mean by "atomistically satisfying and holistically frustrating", in reference to Anglicanism, above.  Particular groups within the most general group do not really belong with the general group, if measured by what they actually teach, and how some individuals perceive themselves.  But you have to know very particular things about them, in order to understand why that is.  That's why I think that it's better to arrange groups where you would "roughly" expect to find them, and allow the particular articles to sort out the details.  Mkmcconn 03:50, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, it's a puzzlement and I'm out of my depth... I took my one shot at editing this page and will leave it alone henceforth. I do have a suggestion, though. You say "As I argue above, once you begin grouping these sects by what they specifically believe, instead of 'who they are' and 'where they come from', the list will become very confusing." The heading says "List of Christian denominations ordered by historical and doctrinal relationships." It seems to me that you're really arguing for grouping on historical relationships alone, on the basis that a) being historical, these relationships are stable, and b) being historical, these relationships are both more objective and less controversial. Which makes sense. But perhaps the introductory paragraph should say "ordered by historical relationships" and give a brief explanation and justification of what this means and why it's being done that way. Dpbsmith 13:34, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * P.S. In the U.S., the Mennonites, Plymouth Brethren, and Quakers are frequently grouped together as the "historic peace churches." Just to add another random thought... Dpbsmith 13:36, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * You're making a good point, here. Although, the historical lineage isn't strictly adhered to, either.  I'm only thinking, if a reader comes looking for Unitarian Congregational Fellowship of Mary the Mother of God, Lutheran Church, it should be found first where they would most likely look for it; and that's why I don't think that Quakers should be listed under Nontrinitarian.  I'll give some more thought to it, and await further input from you and others about how to handle this frequently arising problem of taxonomy.  Mkmcconn 13:52, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree that it might be easier to to group them mostly by historical relationships; there needs to be some flexibility. Would it get too messy if we added a note to groups like the Pentecostal Free Will Baptist Church that they're Baptist as well as Pentecostal (in terms of where they could be grouped), or maybe do that just for ones where the name doesn't make it as obvious as in this case?

To answer an earlier question, I believe the Disciples of Christ denomination is explicitly non-creedal, and the related Church of Christ probably is as well. I'm sure there are others. Wesley 17:07, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Brethren
I established a separate group under Anabaptist (though an argument could be made to move them under Pietist), and I labeled them Schwarzenau Brethren (recognizing their origin and differentiating from other "Brethren" groups). I moved the Old German Baptist Brethren there, because they are "Brethren" rather than "Baptist" in origin. I added other Schwarzenau Brethren groups. Unrelated, but I also moved Pentecostal Free Will Baptist Church under Pentecostal. They grew out of the Free Will Baptists, but are Pentecostal in doctrine and practice, and seem to identify with the Pentecostal rather than Baptist movement, as seen, for example, in their membership in the Pentecostal Fellowship of North America. Rlvaughn 04:06, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Unity
"Unity Chu" caught my eye and I figure it has to be a typo. The Association of Unity Churches website consistently refers to the belief system by the single word "Unity" so that's how I listed it. Their Q&A page says "Unity and Christian Science, as well as many other New Thought groups, had their beginnings in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Many of the leaders in these groups studied under the same teachers...." so it ssems to be under an appropriate subhead.

Dpbsmith 19:13, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ready for sub-headings?
Do y'all think that the article would be improved by replacing the outline structure with a heading structure, that would show up in the TOC? I'm thinking, just only the first level of the outline should be replaced with headings; e.g., instead of * Anglicans it would be: ===Anglicans=== Mkmcconn 16:09, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I experimented with converting the list from bullets to TOC, and it just doesn't work. I withdraw my suggestion.  Mkmcconn 18:24, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"Definition of Christian" section
I do not think that the new section should survive. The list as a whole contains so many aberrant groups that it is beyond fathoming how any of them can be called the same faith - but to attempt to sort out the "good" sects from the "bad" sects is a practical impossibility. What you are starting by beginning a list of groups "most denominiations" would not define as Christian, will certainly devolve into collecting a "list of cults" - an enterprise which is doomed from the start, especially in the context of a work like Wikipedia. It is fundamentally misleading, because it cannot possibly be complete even if it were neutral, and it is unnecessarily provocative. The articles each make it clear that these groups are radically at odds with everyone else. Mkmcconn 22:17, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I wanted to be minimalist about it. What I wrote in this section is undoubtedly true, and I didn't want to go beyond it, at least not without more evidence which I don't have. The trouble is that unless some comment is added to the list at present, the reader is left thinking that all these denominations believe much the same thing. And of course that is true for about 95% of them - you couldn't slide a bible page between the doctrinal views of some of them. But for the more glaring discrepancies I wanted to at least add a note. Better a partial list than no list at all. DJ Clayworth 22:22, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I understand and sympathize with the intention, but how to decide what is Christian is a systematic problem, in any list of modern denominations. Here, it's been more or less decided to leave the question undecided, and instead to attempt to accurately portray the controversies in the individual articles.  Every group in the list would draw the picture somewhat differently than it has been drawn, and many would object to any but themselves, or at least their family of denominations, being listed at all as "Christian". Mkmcconn 22:31, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Maybe there does need to be some sort of statement of the principle on which denominations are included. Certainly any denomination that describes itself as Christian should be included. How other denominations regard it should not enter into the decision at all. I'm wondering whether that's inclusive enough; does the list currently include denominations that do not describe themselves as Christian?

For what it's worth, the American Heritage Dictionary's definition of "Christian" is:

ADJ: 1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings. 3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike. 4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents. 5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

NOUN: 1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

I tentatively propose the following language (but don't intend to add it to the article myself): "For the purposes of this list, a denomination is included if its founders described it as "Christian" or as having a connection with the teachings of Jesus."

I don't think that's broad enough to include Islam or Ethical Culture... :-)

Dpbsmith 13:30, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * How about "For the purposes of this list, a denomination is included if its founders or present leadership describe it as "Christian" or as having a connection with the teachings of Jesus." This list should depend on self-declaration of the group. Groups which claim today they are not Christian should not be included - that would be the contrary of political correctness. Groups where part of them claims to be Christians and part of them doesn't, should be listed as "Some groups among Messianic Jews/Unitarians/Rastafarians". --Irmgard 10:58, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Should Rastafarianism be included? Some of them claim to be Christian, but not all. Tuf-Kat 07:36, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)

 * Does the Christian group have a name, distinct from the more inclusive one? Garveyites, maybe? Mkmcconn 07:43, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Not as far as I can tell Tuf-Kat 14:25, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)

Hinduism still might meet this definition, depending on who you ask. Mohondas Ghandi said, “I am a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian and a Jew; for, either I am all of these or I am none of these.” If present day Hindu leadership shares that sentiment, would that count as "... present leadership describe it as 'Christian'"? Many would have no problem worshipping Krishna in the form of Jesus Christ, and following the teachings of Jesus as they understand them, at least according this article:. The article discusses the Hindu response to Zambia's 1996 declaration that Zambia is a Christian nation. I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if Islam accepted Jesus as the Christ or Messiah to the Jews; I'm sure they could reconcile that with their belief that Jesus is a great prophet easily enough. Mohammad doesn't describe his religion as Christian, but he certainly claims a connection with the teachings of Jesus. Really, these attempts to define Christianity without prejudice need to be abandoned as hopeless. Wesley 17:31, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Christian Science
CS really belongs under an "other" category like (since it is) "Other Non-Trinitarian", so I'm planning to move it. While New Thought has significant influences from Mary Baker Eddy students, the non-Wiki Unity site mentioned above is pretty mistaken in labeling CS a New Thought belief, since CS disavows a great part of New Thought, particularly the latter's concept of divine personal empowerment, teaching instead complete individual dependence on and obedience to the God of Judeo-Christian history. CS identifies itself explicitly (as its name indicates) as Christian and conforms to the AHD dictionary definition above. Mary Baker Eddy founded it on an understanding of the Biblical teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as the prophesied Messianic Savior of mankind and acknowledged his virgin birth, resurrection, and ascension. While CS does claim denominational uniqueness and mission consistent with and subordinate to its Biblical understanding, there is virtually not a Christian faith that in some form or another doesn't do the same, -- and the Non-Trin label strikes me as really the best you could find here. chris_rodgers 05:40, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I'm glad that I read your comment here; because I was preparing to put CS into the New Thought category. Mkmcconn 20:48, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Unitarian Universalists
I've broken the list format by noting that many UUs are Christian, even though the UUA isn't a Christian org. Any comments on this? UtherSRG 13:53, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit, Mkmcconn. I like it much better than what I had, although I want to change exclusively. UtherSRG 20:53, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Exclusively Christian meaning, "for Christians only". Any equivalent would be acceptable. Mkmcconn 21:06, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I would suggest, in order to keep a consistent list format, and to keep the list a "List of Christian Denominations", that we list only Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship (which is a Christian "denomination"). Once that article is written, people can follow links to Unitarian Universalism and Unitarian Universalist Association (which is not a specifically Christian organization, even though it has Christian members). Rlvaughn 02:19, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * That's a very decent suggestion, Rlvaughn. I support it. Mkmcconn 02:58, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think I can get on board with that if it includes a note like [an Independent Affiliate of the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA)]. Also include Magi Network as it is another Christian arm of the UUA. UtherSRG 04:26, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Maybe this would look pretty good and be a satisfactory compromise:

 * Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship (an Independent Affiliate of the Unitarian Universalist Association)
 * What do you all think? Rlvaughn 04:32, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I like Mkmcconn's use of a footnote instead. Mush easier to read. Thanks! UtherSRG 17:50, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Review Tb's suggestions
Some time ago, User:Tb suggested that a list should exist which roughly categorizes the descendent denominations in families related by doctrinal history. Although I think that this would be very hard to do for every group, I do agree that this would be helpful in terms of a general outline. Please review his suggestion under Anglicans above, and give thought to how we could create a list that would organize families of churches in the terms he suggests. Regrettably, it appears that Tb is no longer active, and will not be following through on what he proposed. Mkmcconn 18:04, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * One difficulty I see here is that the 'family tree' of religions is not just split-split-split. Mergers and subsequent resplits make creating a tree structure much more difficult, if not impossible. I don't think it is proper for this list, though. Perhaps as a separate article, since a significant number of links on the tree should be to religions which no longer exist (becuse of schism or merger or extinction). UtherSRG 18:16, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * That's what I'm thinking. This list is very legible and easy to understand, in my opinion.  Perhaps it would work to have another, briefer list (a separate page), that summarizes the tree somewhat like the tree on the Christianity page. But, I agree with you that, trying to reflect the same thing on this page would not work. Mkmcconn 18:21, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Church of Christ, Instrumental
Mkmcconn, the Church of Christ, Instrumental is a Baptist "schism". At the time I posted the article, I couldn't decide where to put them, so I just stuck them in for the time. I suppose listing them under miscellaneous is as good, if not better, as any other location. They are quite similar to Free Will Baptists. Broadly, they are "Baptistic", but the problem with putting them under Baptist, IMO, is that they do not consider themselves to be Baptists. They were slightly influenced by Methodism, but not enough to be considered Methodist or Holiness. So, considering they don't seem to fit anywhere, miscellaneous seems quite appropriate. - Rlvaughn 21:44, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the explanation, and for your astounding number of contributions to our articles on Christian denominations. Mkmcconn 22:29, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Alphabetical List
This list is by no means complete but it is an easy alphabetical reference. I was going to try and add it to the list I saw on the Christianity page when I noticed Mkmcconn had deleted it and moved part of it here.

 * African Methodist Episcopal Church
 * Albanian Church (Byzantine rite)
 * Ambrosian (Roman rite)
 * American Reformed
 * Anabaptist
 * Anglican (Western Rite)
 * Anglican Church In America
 * Apostolic Christian
 * Apostolic Faith
 * Armenian Church (Armenian Rite)
 * Armenian Catholic Church
 * Armenian Orthodox Church
 * Assembly Of God
 * Assembly Of God Pentecostal
 * Baptist
 * Baptist "Southern Baptist Convention"
 * Baptist American
 * Baptist Bible
 * Baptist Free Will
 * Baptist General Association Of Regular
 * Baptist Independent
 * Baptist Missionary
 * Baptist National
 * Belarussian Church (Byzantine rite)
 * Bible
 * Bible Church
 * Brethren
 * Brethren Church Of The
 * Brethren Evangelical United
 * Brethren Grace
 * Brethren In Christ Church
 * Brethren Mennonite
 * Brethren Plymouth
 * Brethren United
 * Bulgarian Church (Byzantine rite)
 * Byzantine Rite Catholic Churches
 * Calvary Bible
 * Calvary Chapel
 * Calvinist
 * Chaldean (Chaldean Rite)
 * Christian And Missionary Alliance
 * Christian Church
 * Christian Disciples
 * Christian Reformed Church In North America
 * Christian Union
 * Church Of Christ
 * Church Of Christ United
 * Church Of God
 * Church Of God In Christ Holiness
 * Church Of Holiness
 * Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
 * Church Of Prophecy
 * Church Of The Living God
 * Congregationalist
 * Coptic (Alexandrian Rite)
 * Croatian Church (Byzantine rite)
 * Disciples Of Christ
 * Disciples Of God
 * Dutch Reformed
 * Evangelical Congregational
 * Evangelical Covenant
 * Evangelical Free Church Of America
 * Evangelical Reformed
 * Faith Gospel Tabernacle
 * Friends
 * Ge'ez (Alexandrian Rite)
 * Georgian Church (Byzantine rite)
 * Grace Reformed
 * Greek Catholic
 * Greek Church (Byzantine rite)
 * Holiness
 * Holiness Church Of God
 * Hungarian Church (Byzantine rite)
 * Hungarian Reformed
 * International Pentecostal Holiness
 * Jacobite
 * Latin or Roman Church (Roman rite)
 * Latvian Lutheran
 * Lutheran
 * Malankarese (Antiochene Rite)
 * Mandaean Reformed

 * Mar Thoma Syrian Church of India
 * Maronite (Antiochene Rite)
 * Melkite (Byzantine rite)
 * Mennonite
 * Messianic
 * Methodist
 * Methodist Evangelical
 * Methodist Free
 * Methodist Primitive
 * Methodist United
 * Methodist Wesleyan
 * Ministry
 * Missionary Church
 * Missionary Covenant
 * Moravian
 * Mormon
 * Nazarene
 * Nestorian (Chaldean Rite)
 * New Testament Christian
 * Non-Denominational
 * Old Calendar Greek Orthodox
 * Open Bible
 * Orthodox
 * Orthodox Eastern
 * Orthodox Greek
 * Orthodox Russian
 * Paleoemerologites (Schismatic Old Calendar Orthodox)
 * Pentecostal
 * Pentecostal Apostolic
 * Pentecostal Church of God
 * Pilgring Holiness
 * Presbyterian
 * Presbyterian Church In America
 * Presbyterian Orthodox
 * Presbyterian United
 * Reform Church
 * Reformed
 * Roman Catholic
 * Romanian Church (Byzantine rite)
 * Russian Church (Byzantine rite)
 * Ruthenian Church (Byzantine rite)
 * Serbian Church (Byzantine rite)
 * Seventh Day Adventist
 * Slovak Church (Byzantine rite)
 * Syriac (Antiochene Rite)
 * Syro-Malabarese (Chaldean Rite)
 * Tewahedo
 * The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
 * The Church Of God Of Prophecy

 * The Salvation Army
 * Ukrainian Church (Byzantine rite)
 * Unitarian
 * United Church Of Canada
 * United Holiness
 * United Zion
 * Universal Life Church
 * Worldwide Church Of God

If your church is here link it to the relevant article. If it is missing add it here, and if you know two churches to be the same then link them to the same entry.

 * Please look at the List of Christian denominations article itself, and do the work of putting these churches where they belong. There are literally tens of thousands of Christian denominations, only a fraction of which are listed in the article.  I do appreciate the unique items you have provided, which were not yet in the list that has been started.  But, listing them here is not helpful.  Also, following the Baptist example, you might consider detail pages for churches that have a fully shared identity.  (See List of Baptist sub-denominations Mkmcconn 16:07, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Thankyou for the offer, but the taxonomy route is far to complicated for me. A nice plain and simple alphabetical index is much easier to make and use. The taxonomy of these churches would be much more useful for an article about Church History following a simple chronological timeline for the emmergence of church denominations. I will look at the article and post a revamp in alphabetical order just to see what it looks like. It can always be reverted to the previous version. Actually the route which has been taken here (which I must say is an impressive but daunting project) would be much more suited to an article about full communion. would it be right to say that all of the churches taxed together under one category are in full communion with each other?

 * This kind of information isn't so difficult to find. Any American Yellow Pages can assist you to discern these rudimentary relationships - there are lists like this elsewhere on-line, besides Wikipedia, for further reference.  Although it is tempting to revamp the work done here, it will be appreciated by all if that temptation is resisted.  Compare your alphabetical list above - which provides zero information, and simply lists names, with the article itself, which gives a general outline meaningful to people who care about such things.  Leave this list where it is, and do not make alphabetical lists, please; but do add items as you are able.  The list, while dauntingly large, is not very hard to navigate.  If even so, you don't feel qualified to add to it, then perhaps your talents would be better put to use on some other topic than one pertaining to the Christian religion?  Mkmcconn 04:57, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Using a yellow pages is hardly an objective or sound academic approach. Anyway I won't revamp it but as it is, it really isn't a simple list of christian denominations as the title implies but rather attempts to identify the relationship of churches to each other and therefore is subject to problems of NPOV (as I can see from discussions above) and repetition. But if its going for the safety of categorising by full communion then the repetitions are acceptable though it would this belongs on that page and not here. I will edit in the churches I know about as if it were a list of categorisation by full communion since that really is the most objective approach to taxonomy. The best way to categorise a church would be by its apparent structure, and type, of its ceremonies. In this way a church may be termed for example Armenian Catholic then it will either be unafiliated or in full communion with a larger body like The Papacy or The Orthodox Communion. Many people don't realise that certain churches like just for example Russian Churches may be catholic in their structure & type of ceremonies but may be either unaffiliated, or in full communion with other churches under The Papacy or in full communion with The Orthodox Communion or even (as is the case in parts of siberia these days) even be with a body like UCC. There are also problems with the category terminology since there are often more than one common way of describing a church. E.G. Orthodox Churches may call themselves Catholic so there is no difference between Orthodox Catholic Churches & Orthodox Churches except when the individual church may be in full communion with Rome in which case it may look to all intents & purposes to be orthodox but is not actually orthodox because it is not with the orthodox communion. Keep trying everyone it will sort itself out eventually!

This is a thorny matter. I tend to group Protestants and Anglicans under the banner of "Reformed", as a perusal of the Winchester Declaration would definitely put the Anglican into the Reformation camp, even if they are not "Protestants of the name". The problem with grouping by ceremonies is that it makes things like the Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochene Archdiocese of America (Eastern Orthodox) really hard to classify. They're in communion with the rest of Eastern Orthodoxy but have a Liturgy based on the Book of Common Prayer.

In short, it's a taxonomical mess. Dogface 04:19, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I think the best route would be to classify them in their associations of full communion or partial communion. At least it will be NPOV. It is not fair to call it a mess though. It is a very good effort. The enormity of the task is the reason for its pitholes.

 * I admit that I am getting a bit frustrated with this. On the one hand we have people who want to change the list to an alphabetical one, because describing families of denominations is too hard.  On the other hand, we have folks wanting to apply a higher standard, and group churches by full or partial communion - even though the ecumenical movement groups churches across denominational lines - and THEN calls this a more neutral description of Christian denominations!  Please let the list grow in its present form, and we'll prune it into shape, and create alternative listings.  Mkmcconn 23:11, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What is with the title "Orthodox Catholic" including the (very) non-Catholic Orthodox? Doesn't that strike anyone else as confused? Oh, and the Papacy word reminds me, where is the slurs section? I know I've seen a list of slurs or insults, but I forget where, and I can't find it under "slurs" or "insults". Ha, maybe if I read the Papacy article it links directly to the slurs page :)

 * The "Orthodox Catholic church" is a common designation, but it might not be the best term to use here. It doesn't mean that they are Roman Catholics; but because that word is so tightly bound to Rome, it might mislead some.  Mkmcconn 23:04, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What is with the two blank headers under Churches in full communion with the Holy See? (single asterisk ones) Rmhermen 23:15, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)

 * They were culled from Optim's alphabetical list. I wasn't familiar with many of them, and so I left them to stand out in case someone else could discern whether they belong under the Roman Catholics or under the Orthodox. Mkmcconn 02:42, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)