Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion that members of this Wikiproject may be interested in. The discussion is at DRN:Gospel of Matthew and the content dispute concerns when the Gospel of Matthew was written. Feel free to add a new section for your initial comments or drop me a line on my talk page and I will add it for you. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking for an article

Already solved

I recall reading such an article on here a while ago, with names given in extra-biblical literature for biblical figures who don't have canonical names. Caspar, Belthazar and Melchior and all that. I was reading Ehrman & Plese 2011 yesterday and came across a reference to one of the robbers who was executed with Jesus being named as "Demas", but when I came onto Wikipedia to check if the name was mentioned in that list, I was unable to find it.

(And no, I don't mean this one.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Would the names in any such article meet criteria for notability? I doubt it. — Jpacobb (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree. That's why the names are included in a list, rather than given individual articles. I'm not planning on MAKING articles for them (although the Demas article is currently devoted to a biblical figure at least as non-notable as the other Demas). I'm just looking for the page for my own reference, and perhaps to update it if I find something like that (the apocryphon in question apparently doesn't have its own Wikipedia article yet, but it almost certainly meets GNG). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Huh. I found it by myself. Anyone else think "List of names for the biblical nameless" is a really clunky, unintuitive title? Use of "nameless" as a collective noun in an article title is probably bad form, and I shouldn't have to remember an unnamed biblical figure off the top of my head, go to their article, go to "What links here", and then Ctrl+F for "list" just to find the page I'm looking for. (>_<) I'd RM the page, but I don't know to where I'd like to see it moved, and I'd like to ask here what other people think a better name would be. (Or should I go somewhere less active but more appropriate? I came here rather than there because I wanted a quick answer to my initial question.) The current list of redirects provides only a few, pretty abysmal options... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


Earl Wilbur Blighton

Electrical engineer died 1974, founded his own religion, doesn't have a bio. See Talk:Holy Order of Mans. Anyone care to wade in with a combine harvester and prune this down to a small clump of reliable sources? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

AfD which may be of some interest

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/After Saturday Comes Sunday (2nd nomination). Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Cru (Christian organization)

The article has major issues with sourcing, as I have noted on the talk page. I've started to trim it of unsourced claims, and self-sourcing. It needs people who can build up the article by finding reliable sources. Anyone who can help would be appreciated. I will of course try my best, but I don't really know much about the organization actually.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Gospel Book

Hey, the article Gospel Book has been nominated for deletion. I think it doesn't really run a risk of being deleted, but a quick glance shows that it's unsourced and probably needs quite a bit of copyediting to bring it into shape. Anyone interested in saving the article, please feel free to address the issue. I'll try to do something myself, but am for the moment to busy IRL. Cheers, Yakikaki (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

About Diocese of Angamaly

Hello all. I think I may have incorrectly identified this diocese as of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church. From what I can see, it may be of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. Could you possibly have a look into this? Thank you! Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

RSN on Book of Elchasai

Please weigh in at RSN on reliability of the sources used for the Book of Elchasai, per WP:RS. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Church History CfD

A new category "Church History" was created which has been nominated for deletion. Please participate in the discussion here: WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 31 Ignocrates (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

St. Josaphat Kuntsevych Controversy

IP 188.129.90.247 has been aggressively editing the article on Josaphat Kuntsevych, a canonized Catholic saint. After making several obviously POV attempts to edit the article w/o sources he has added one. Unfortunately the source is a polemically anti-Catholic website which I doubt passes WP:RS. Further a good chunk of the most recent edit looks like a copy and paste. That said, some of the claims may be legitimate and there are original sources quoted. Kuntsevych is a VERY controversial figure among Eastern Orthodox Christians. See the talk page. Currently I am unable to revert any of his edits due to 3RR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem:, a few comments. I am sorry to see such grievous behavior on WP over what for some clearly remains a virulent issue after almost 400 years. The event in question took place during a time and place of hostile and violent conflicts between the Catholic and Orthodox churches and membership. It was one among many clashes in which blood was shed (on all sides, of course), and over which events there understandably remains much hostility and resentment. WP must do all it can to be the most carefully and fully neutral it can be here, for we're not in the business of settling the matter, much less in any position to do so. This point of context should be remembered, that the whole issue is not about only the single event of Kuntsevych's death - that is just one element of the history.
To the end of trying to establish a neutral discussion as well, let me say first that Kuntsevych is controversial between Catholics and Orthodox; that's where the principal divisions of the story lie - not within the Orthodox. However, there are a variety of attitudes among Orthodox regarding the hostility. Also, I know this Orthodox website: it is Orthodox, not "polemically anti-Catholic"; it is not a one-issue site. It does, however, contain some items on it that are polemically anti-Catholic, and the one cited is such a one. As to WP:RS, I think you would find that its contents are individually reliable, accurately reflecting (in some cases) views held in common by all Orthodox, and (in other cases) views held among some Orthodox but not all. This cited item is one of the latter, and its hostility of tone is quite reliably genuine and probably accurate, but not universal. Do not mistake that any controversy in this matter is about history, not about doctrine; it is just divided along religious lines. One thing is sure for this talk page, and that is that it will not help the article if a battle is raised here like it was at the article.
I myself am not an expert in the details of this historical event, but it doesn't take an expert to see that sources are likely to be given to stating viewpoints of one side or the other. Neutrality in the sources themselves may be hard to come by. So, as an editing community, we must do the work of neutralizing in the best way we can. I would suggest that wherever there are points of contention, we first of all try (as much as possible) to avoid encumbering the article with "according to" or "Catholic (or Orthodox) view" and similar phrases. The more we can stick to purely descriptive text, the less contentious it will be.
I will now suggest that the language towards the end of the lead paragraph "killed by a mob of Orthodox Christians during a pogrom that he was leading against them" has enough slanted language to offend both sides. Some changes are in order, even if the prior editing behavior was inappropriate. Does anyone else think "killed in a violent clash between Catholic and Orthodox Christians" is a better WP statement for the lead? Evensteven (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. There has been a long ongoing discussion about some of the problems with this article on its talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Moved discussion to the article talk page. Evensteven (talk) 03:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikisource Latin textbook

There's a scanned copy of a Latin grammar book at Wikisource: s:en:Index:The New Latin Primer (Postgate).djvu It needs to be proofread and formatted. Proofreading at Wikisource isn't very difficult, especially if you're working on the yellow "proofread" pages, which just need a double-check. It's possible that someone who reads Latin would find that easy to do. I posted this at WikiProject Latin, but they're not very active, so I thought I'd look here for other people who might enjoy this and/or want to brush up on their Latin grammar. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I can try, and I think some of our other editors, including one of our best, @Nishidani:, who I know knows Latin much better than I do, might be interested in helping out at least in the verifying, if I and others can do the earlier stages. John Carter (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

especially if you're working on the yellow "proofread" pages, which just need a double-check

What's that mean operatively, in plain speech. I looked at five pages and they look like perfect reproductions.Nishidani (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:Bishops of Egypt

FYI Category:Bishops of Egypt has been requested to be renamed -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This is another case where people who don't understand the naming conventions of dioceses are lining up to overturn the entire category structure. I missed another discussion last month which moved the bishops of Jamaica along the same lines (Jamaica is the Anglican diocese, Kingston is the Catholic archdiocese). Mangoe (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Help requested at Oriental Orthodoxy

Please see the discussion at Talk:Oriental Orthodoxy#Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church to resolve a question of viewpoints left unaddressed for six years. Evensteven (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Over the past few days I've been unable to get the hyperlinks provided for bible citations to work. The hyperlinks refer to www.tools.wmflabs.org/bibleversefinder but this site appears to be non-existent. I have just tried with the bible citations on Bishop and similar pages, all to no avail. Is this a global problem, or is this just my problem on my PC? --Observer6 (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Revisionism on Exorcism

A user seems to be eager to edit war over that Exorcism is pseudoscience, however, they have no sources to support such pseudohistorical revisionism. See Talk:Exorcism#Lead change. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Christianity/Theology work group articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Help on WP sourcing question

Hi everyone! Over at WikiProject Buddhism, there has been a question raised in a RfC as to what works are considered primary or secondary sources on WP. It's kind of devolved into the usual tl;dr discussion of minutae that generates more heat than light, particularly as the RfC was worded (in my view) far too broadly to really allow for a hard and fast answer. So I thought maybe you folks, who wrestle with NPOV issues constantly, could possibly pop over there and give us a sense of what general guidelines you've come up with for determining how to classify a work in terms of WP:PRIMARY, secondary, RS issues, Verifiability not truth, and so on. No need for expertise in Buddhism, just a sense of how you folks generally utilize, say, the Bible versus works by Augustine versus works by Pope Francis versus works by Pat Robertson or someone like that. See my post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism#Let.27s_try_it_from_this_angle. Thanks. Montanabw(talk) 18:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Episcopal Church in Minnesota vs. Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota

I am the Director of Communications for the Episcopal Church in Minnesota. We have referred to ourselves as this for years and are hoping our Wikipedia page would reflect that. User nyttend has changed it back to "Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota" due to conventional US and worldwide naming conventions. We feel our page should be able to have the title of what our organization is actually called.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Episcopal_Diocese_of_Minnesota — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snide034 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would agree. I think it's inaccurate to call an organization by other than the name it calls itself. And if an article about that organization is named differently, how is anyone to tell what organization the article itself is really about, or to find it? Let "Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota" be a redirect to "Episcopal Church in Minnesota" if someone insists on supporting a naming convention. Personally, I object to establishing (or having anyone else "worldwide") establishing naming conventions that others must abide by. Such conventions can be useful, but they can also hamper, can be wrong, and can be rigid. Names are very important. Conventions should not be allowed to get in the way of accuracy, and of established preference (and freedom to establish preference) of individuals and individual organizations. Evensteven (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Conventions are basically that if there is an official name and it is not in some way inherently problematic it is to be used. I can't see any reason not to use the official name for this article, as it doesn't create any sort of ambiguity or other problems. It may be perceived by others as nonstandard, but that is not much of a basis for complaint. I have started a request to move the article on the talk page of the current article and await responses. John Carter (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Just a nit here, to underline my prior comment. The name of both the article and the organization are not "nonstandard" if they are correct and accurate. How could they be? It would be the standard that was incorrect and inaccurate. At WP, we are in the service of (and even at the whim of) "what is"; we are not the organizers of "what is". Our organization of material must be reflective and subservient. It would be unencyclopedic to be otherwise. Evensteven (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate both of your comments very much. Removing the word "Diocese" from our name was a big deal for all of us here, and it something that is important and very meaningful to people within the Episcopal Church in Minnesota (ECMN) and especially to our Bishop. I am really hoping to get more supporters to sign the "name movement" on our page. We all got so excited to finally see our page say "Episcopal Church in Minnesota" yesterday, and when (within two minutes or so) someone changed it back, it was disheartening. I truly appreciate anyone willing to support the cause of being able to have our Wikipedia name accurate. Thank you. Snide034 (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Lest there be any doubt, interested editors please join the discussion at Talk:Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota#Requested move 16 December 2014 about a proposal to rename the article. Evensteven (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Catholic/Catholicism naming conventions

You are invited to contribute to a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism#Catholic.2FCatholicism_naming_conventions regarding better consistency in using the terms Catholic and Catholicism throughout Wikipedia. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Greek diacritics in article source text

Please see the discussion/comment at the Nicene Creed talk page for consideration of how Koine (or ancient) Greek should be presented in articles. Evensteven (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Category discussion about theologians

See following: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_20#Category:Theologians. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Template:Infobox hymn with Template:Infobox musical composition

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 22, and please add your !vote. Softlavender (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Pentecostal pastors, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ltwin (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for input: "Historic Baptist" teaching on Spirit baptism

Could editors knowledgeable about historical Baptist teachings on the baptism with the Holy Spirit please contribute to the relevant section of that article. An editor recently created this section but its sources seem to be drawn primarily from Landmark Baptist points of view. It would be great if we could have information from good, reliable sources representing the full range of non-charismatic Baptist churches for this section. Ltwin (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles about chapters of the books of the canonical New Testament

Recently an editor started creating articles about chapters of the books of the canonical New Testament of the Christian Bible (see, e.g., 1 Corinthians 4, Category:1 Corinthians chapters). In terms of style, the articles do not conform to Wikipedia standards. Could someone take a look at this editor's latest contributions and comment on their appropriateness? --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

A brief survey of various of these articles indicates to me that there is a consistency of style and approach that is not particularly encyclopedic, but more along the line of a Bible commentary in itself. The main sources are widely shared, and indications are that the editor is a devotee of the King James version, and that that is the orientation of the sources as well. It's not that such an orientation is a bad thing in itself. It's just that it makes all the articles I looked at potentially one-sided and derivative of one type of Protestant outlook only. I did not see any egregious examples of POV pushing, but there is potential for theological conflict, and the entire set would need checking. What I am less convinced about is the need for such a highly detailed set of articles. They contain little material not readily covered in a more general way in the book articles. And they all mention authorship of the book from only one point of view, a matter much better reserved for the book articles themselves. Evensteven (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm comfortable with the idea of an article on every chapter (but not every verse) in the NT. I agree, however, that we could do without the copy and pasting from Gill. StAnselm (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Page move proposal: "Five solas" to "Three solas"

Contributions would be appreciated at the Five solae Talk page, in the context of a proposal to rename (move) to "Three" rather than "Five" (the current "solae" may also be changed to "solas" but that is a minor side point).Thomask0 (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

International Christian Church

The above article on a comparatively new denomination has some serious problems. Any input on improving it would be welcome. John Carter (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Jesus in India hypotheses subsection in Christianity in India

Hi, I am writing here to request help with a situation in the article Christianity in India. There is a section called 'Jesus in India hypotheses' in the article as a subsection of 'Early Christianity in India'.

My first issue with this section is that these hypotheses don't really have anything to do with Christianity in India. No Christians believe in this, rather, this is an Ahmadiyya belief, and as such, it is more suitable in an article on Ahmadiyyas. My second issue is that it is placed in a part of the section dealing with the history of Christianity in India, and gives an impression that this is a part of the history of Christianity in India, when it isn't.

Instead of removing it completely, I tried to introduce the counterview that Jesus was crucified and died, but was reverted. There is a discussion on the talk page and I am not sure how to proceed now, so I request your views on the talk page. The Discoverer (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Is Paulicianism a fair article?

I'm trying to get a handle on Paulicianism. The talk page has indications that it is biased, or inaccurate, but also has indications that these issues were fixed or are no longer a problem. Does this article need a complete rewrite as the tag says? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The article would benefit from additional citations, even in areas where it is not currently tagged. The tone in some areas seems to be almost apologetic, reflecting a synthesized antipathy toward traditional scholarly views and original sources (e.g., "The Paulicians were not a branch of the Manichæans, as Photius, Petrus Siculus, and many modern authors have held."). This and similar bits of slant may have been unintentionally imported from the sources cited, and that could be addressed by widening the sources used to include other scholarly views. Neither of these things seem to require a complete rewrite. • Astynax talk 00:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

"Table of Nations"

The usage of the pagename Table of Nations is up for discussion, see talk:Sons of Noah -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

21 Copts Murdered by ISIS

Do we have an article on them? If not, that probably should be corrected. According to this report they have been canonized as martyr saints by the Coptic Orthodox Church. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. I found the article and made the appropriate changes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Grace Covenant International Ministries

Your description for the Grace Covenant International Ministries whose headquarters is in Platte, City, Mo states that some of the churches within this organization "have an affinity toward the emerging church movement". Can this be verified or can you be more specific and list the churches involved in this movement that are affiliated with Grace Covenant International Ministries? We have attended one of the churches under the apostolic covering of Grace Covenant International for four years, and we are in no way an "emerging" church. Thank you and please let me know if you need more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.27.194.2 (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Proofreaders wanted!

Over at wikisource, wikisource:Index:A dictionary of the Book of Mormon.pdf and wikisource:Index:Pearl Of Great Price (1851).pdf await help in, basically, proof-reading the transcluded text. When finished, the first of them will be able to be broken up into separate articles, available for finding as individual topics by search engines and also available for use here in developing articles on those topics, as such PD sources can be used word for word when such is indicated. Information for new editors of wikisource from wikipedia can be found at wikisource:Wikisource:For Wikipedians. There are a few other reference sources available over there which would be invaluable for developing some of our content, and I am actually, albeit more slowly than I would like, getting them set up for similar usage. Many other reference sources and sacred texts are available as well. If anyone has any interest in helping to finish some of these that already exist, or can think of others which would be useful to have available, please feel free to help out and maybe indicate your willingness to do so below or suggest new texts for inclusion there below. John Carter (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to move Methodism to Child Project

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Methodism Jerodlycett (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The Return of the Ret. Prof.

Anyone feel like chiming in at WP:NPOVN#Gospel of Matthew: 50 CE? John Carter (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Notification

Hi John, I actually did not leave, but took your good advice to review WP Policy. Although most of our disagreements have been worked out, clarification is needed regarding the 50 CE date for Matthew. I agree with John that it would be good to have others join in on the debate WP:NPOVN#Gospel of Matthew: 50 CE! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I have closed the discussion per WP:NOTHERE. StAnselm (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding notability of Methodist bishops

OK, I've been out of the game regarding notability for some time now. Draft:Jeremiah J. Park is a current draft space article relating to a living Methodist bishop. Have we ever determined anything regarding the presumptive or inherent notability of Methodist bishops? John Carter (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It would seem note; they fall in the crack between the two groups mentioned at WP:CLERGY. StAnselm (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I (though the author of the draft, and probably biased on this) feel that they are notable as the leaders of the Methodist churches. We don't have popes nor cardinals, we have bishops. It seems that Catholic bishops tend to get a pass, even though from a rough count there are more Catholic bishops in the US than Methodist bishops (in the major denominations of it) in the world. The UMC has fewer total bishops than the Catholics do in my home state of Pennsylvania. I'd put ours on the level of cardinals, not bishops. Again I am somewhat biased. Jerodlycett (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm virtually certain they are myself, which is why I asked a rather obviously leading question about including the UMC in the text of a relevant page [Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Question regarding United Methodist Church bishops here]. But it probably would be a good idea to get support from at least someone else before including it and maybe having some objections later. John Carter (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Christianity for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Go Phightins! 02:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Please consider answering the questions; we would love to run this interview soon. Thanks! Go Phightins! 01:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed this earlier. Would having the answers put in later this week be enough? I should be able to do something marginally competent by then. John Carter (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
That'd be great, John. I think that this will run in next week's edition, so the deadline would be about a week from tomorrow (Tuesday). Go Phightins! 02:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
@StAnselm:, @In ictu oculi:, @Adjwilley:, @Astynax:, @Ad Orientem:, @PiCo:, @Jeffro77:, @BlackCab:, @Mmeijeri:, @Evensteven: @Johnbod:, @Neelix:, and, well, anyone else I might have easily missed in the quick review I made here, any input any of you might have would be more than welcome as well. @I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: and @Dougweller: might have some interesting comments to make as well. John Carter (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Would any of the listed above editors be willing to participate? I am really in need of a few more commenters to make this work! Thanks. Go Phightins! 23:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Working on an article and would love collaboration

I already made a major revision to Urbana (conference), an InterVarsity Christian Fellowship student missions conference, and I plan on continuing to expand, cleanup, and add more reliable sources to it in the next few weeks. I would love some help if you'd be interested. I especially need someone who is good at writing to fix my less-than-stellar prose. Reply here if you'd like to volunteer, or simply be bold and edit. Thanks! ~EdGl! 03:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Need extra eyes at Kip McKean and ICC articles

Hi all, I'd like to request that a few of you please add Kip McKean and International Christian Church to your watchlists. Over the past year or so I've been dealing off and on with a user who is a former member of these churches this church, he seems to have an axe to grind, and seems interested in covering the accusations that the church is a cult. This is well beyond my expertise (as if I have any) and extra eyes would be helpful in maintaining NPOV and helping to take some of the burden off my shoulders. He tends to come by, write a lot of stuff on the talk page, then disappear. His most recent input is here. Much obliged, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Just have to ask, how biased are you? As a Methodist and a son of a pastor in the UMC I do actually have a bias I have to keep in mind (see the conversation about bishops), so I'm not accusing you (I've not even looked at either page yet, nor know anything about either of those). Jerodlycett (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Jerodlycett:, I'm only watching these articles in my capacity as a wikignome. I believe what brought me there originally is that this user placed a {{help me}} template on one of the talk pages and I happened to be cruising Category:Wikipedians looking for help. I don't have a connection to this church or any other. My bias is centered squarely on the other editor, because they have been be engaged in a long-term pattern of soapboxing at both of these articles' talk pages. I brought him to ANI for this reason, and that was his second trip—he's been soapboxing since 2010. If there is sufficient reason to include info about cult accusations, I'm all for it (if it is not UNDUE and it fits NPOV), but I would prefer that editors with more experience in the topic make the determinations. My default position is to ignore him when he posts, but since that's not entirely fair to him, I'm asking this WikiProject to take a look with clean eyes. He's recently posted again here and I just discovered that he's also been active at Talk:International Churches of Christ, which now I have to watchlist. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Christian denominational families

You are invited to a discussion regarding the naming and content of category:Christian denominational families found at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 10#Category:Christian denominational families. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Categories on church councils

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 22#Church councils accepted by Protestantism where I think the input of WikiProject Christianity members would be helpful. Liz Read! Talk! 18:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

UK/US parish churches

I notice that most UK parish churches have articles, whether or not historic buildings, while in the US we almost never make such articles. I'm a little curious why. I could argue more easily for including the US. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I would respectfully reply that abuse of standards is not a good argument for lowering them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Good question, difficult answer. I tend to think, at least on a personal basis, that the various parishes in the UK are probably more historically significant, and that perhaps the editors of the UK tend to be more willing and able to find readily available sources for writing articles on parishes other than their own. Unfortunately, while I agree that there are almost certainly enough diocesan and archdiocesan newspapers to establish notability for most parishes, I also know from experience that finding those diocesan newspapers can be a bit more problematic, particularly for those outside of the editor's particular area. And I think that maybe, as in my own archdiocese, which recently merged several parishes together, the possibility of merging/renaming of parishes, and former "parish churches" becoming "chapels," or subordinate churches within individual parishes, is another problem. There are at least a few of those in town here, where older "ethnic" parishes have been merged into regional parishes. And these, of course, are in addition to the often much shorter history and fewer readily available, obvious sources. Having said that, for a lot of parishes in the older states of the US which probably have more material on the net written about them, I don't think it would be unreasonable to see more developed, if we had editors interested in doing so. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
For the merging, see {{Infobox organization}} and the merger option. Jerodlycett (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Can I get a definition (or example) of a parish? I come from the UMC and if we use parish, it's to refer to the church and the church body together, so I don't think I'm using it the same way. Jerodlycett (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

"Most" UK parish churches certainly do not have articles, & most that do are historic. We have 40,000 medieval churches (at least in significant part) in England alone, & few of these have articles. Johnbod (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a very good point and one that we, on the other side of the pond, might tend to forget. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

"Dominicans"

The usage and primary topic of Dominicans is under discussion, see talk:Dominican people (Dominican Republic) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Ret. Prof. and the Gospel of Matthew

I invite input from parties who have previously been involved in the numerous related discussions over the years to review the material at WP:NPOVN#Gospel of Matthew: 50 CE and offer their opinions on the optimum way to resolve this long-standing problem. John Carter (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The 50 CE date is a very recent issue??? In any event I agree that fresh input is a good thing! - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC) - PS The wording almost sounds like you are canvassing for an attack on me???
Friendly warning, that could be misconstrued as WP:NPA. The editor had no such wording. You should have notified this project yourself, honestly. Jerodlycett (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the friendly warning. I read the comments and you are correct. Therefore I struck the comment. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jerodlycett You seemed to misunderstand my concern. The NPOV Noticeboard should not be used to target Editors but to resolve NPOV issues. Targeting me in the title was not appropriate. But as a sign of good faith I struck the comment. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
@Ret.Prof: Possibly he didn't understand it because you are looking at something that isn't there? You seem to be indicating that you believe that this is the NPOV noticeboard, and, if you noticed the actual title of the page, it isn't. And, although I acknowledge that you seem to think that you are the "target" of others, which some might reasonably wonder is perhaps the paranoia of the absolutely committed conspiracy theorist, mentioning a name of a person who has been more or less the prime if not only cause of disruption or disagreement is not necessarily "targeting" them. Although it could be, it is not necessarily so. In a more personal vein, you seem to be acting on the rather irrational and unsupportable belief that AGF is everything. It clearly is not. Individuals whose input can be seen as problematic either on the basis of WP:COI or possibly WP:CIR, among other pages, may well be acting "in good faith" to the best of their abilities but still wind up being disruptive and or incapable of contributing in a reasonable way. And, in fact, most people would know this. Having said all that, there is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding matters related to this discussion, and I think anyone seeing the discussion here would be more than welcome to offer any input there. The discussion is at WP:ANI#John Carter and Ret.Prof. John Carter (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I was actually more looking at him as the OP on the NPOV/N as why it was okay to mention him. Jerodlycett (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Paul Washer

The notability of Paul Washer under Wikipedia's guidelines has been questioned. See Talk:Paul Washer#Notability questioned and this edit. --Bejnar (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Christians in the United States Military

As Buddhists in the US Military was deemed notable, than I highly suggest that a new article Christians in the United States Military should be created. Using the logic used to defend the kept article, an article about Christians in the United States Military will clearly pass notability requirements.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The logic that special accommodations were made? Based on that logic any article about Christians in the military would fail, but if you think you have enough sources to make one, WP:Be bold. Christian pacifism would be a good start, although Quakers in the United States Military would be far more likely to pass than one that's general. Jerodlycett (talk) 04:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Let's not confuse notability with "the unusual" or "unexpected" or "just somehow different from what I generally think about". Just because some would say that they expect there to be Christians in the US military is not to say that they are not notable. Also, just because someone would say that they are surprised there are Buddhists in the US military is not to say that they are notable. Their notability is not dependent upon their religion, nor is it automatic (or disallowed) because of their religion. Please look at the policies of WP to get a clearer picture of what constitutes notability and what doesn't, and then ascertain the need for articles of this sort. Evensteven (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible changes to the core topics list

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list#Proposed major changes. John Carter (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Good and significant PD primary/secondary sources and reference sources for Christian groups?

Miserable title, I know. But I know that there are a rather huge number of sources on the rather huge number of Christian groups out there. Many are obviously of recent origin and might not have any particular sources available in the PD yet, given their recentness. Others, particularly the older groups, will have reference works specific to their tradition, as well as numerous "texts" of importance to them. Some will also have well-regarded works on their individual histories, which could be used to develop and create articles here.

So, if anyone wanted to list below the PD sources which they think would be most useful to those who use wikipedia to be able to find either used as sources or included in some sort of "file" form over at commons, or possibly with full text over at wikisource, it might be useful to have such a list available both for the article developers and the readers. I have started a small list of encyclopedic sources directly relevant to religion over at Bibliography of encyclopedias: religion, but, obviously, some of those are not at all related to Christianity. It might be interesting to get together similar lists of sources for other religion projects as well, but I have a feeling this project probably has the greatest number of vatiations within it to be covered. John Carter (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I've gone through the first 2 volumes of the Jones Encyclopedia of Religion for all their PD sources, and have started the page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Library. I know that in time I am going to have to break it up into separate lists for individual projects. When I do so, I might try to consult the more clearly relevant reference source for that project's scope and add anything they include as well. John Carter (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Old Catholic Confederation and Old Catholic Church in the United States

Hello,

I am trying to populate information on these two Old Catholic jurisdictions but I am having a great deal of trouble getting started. I keep getting hit with COI accusations that is making my progress...frustrating to say the least. I would appreciate any help you can give me. My apologies in advance if this is an inappropriate forum for such a request. TITUSIIX (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Old Catholic Confederation Old Catholic Church in the United States

You "keep getting hit with COI accusations" because there is very good reason to believe that this is what you are blatantly engaged in whilst denying it and then seeking anywhere on Wikipedia where you can try to circumvent any restrictions on your editing of these articles by making complaints about me and canvassing the support of other editors. It is all very suspicious behaviour on your part and does not enhance your credibility. Anglicanus (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
It is generally permitted for even individuals who have close connections to a subject to add information to it, but it is also generally a good idea for them to propose such changes on the talk page first, with the references to support the changes in text, and receive consensus from others before making the changes. I have the pages on my watchlist now, and I encourage others who see this to add them to their watchlists as well. Please feel free to discuss your proposed changes and solicit support for them. John Carter (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Good Article nomination: Presbyterian Church in the USA

I've nominated Presbyterian Church in the United States of America for Good Article status. Please check it out if you might be interested in reviewing. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Mass CFD for churches/church buildings

Feek free to participate in the new CFD discussion I've just initiated - Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 1#Churches/Church buildings, over whether all the categtories related to churches/church buildings should be called "churches" or "church buildings". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Move help

I need to change the title of the article about our Christian college and Seminary. The "move" function is not showing on the article page even though I am an approved editor on Wikipedia and am logged in. Our schools name changed from Luther Rice University to Luther Rice College & Seminary. This can be confirmed on our website www.lutherrice.edu. The page is located here: [[1]] Can anyone that monitors this portal please help me with this title name change? ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsorrow (talk • contribs) 13:16, 5 May 2015‎

You seem to have found the Move button now. – Fayenatic London 16:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I cannot seem to figure out how to upload our logo/seal on the infobox. Can you help me with that? Rsorrow (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Conversions from Islam Article

Hey, there's currently a major attempt by one user, who apparently strongly objects to the content on unclear grounds, to (repeatedly) remove tremendous amounts of info from List of converts to Christianity from Islam article, there has been an unresolved dispute over his edits and removal of said information on the talk page, can anyone else help address this please? KarenAddie (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The Gray Matrix

Draft:The Gray Matrix has been submitted at Articles for Creation, apparently by its developer Frank Gray. I am uncertain about accepting it because I am not certain whether the references supplied are sufficiently independent ... or in some cases reliable ... to establish notability. Please could you take a look and let me know what you think? The Draft author has provided some additional thoughts here on my talk page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Catholicity and Catholicism

In March 2015, the page Catholicity (disambiguation) was moved to Catholic (disambiguation), and "Catholicity" is now a redirect to Catholicism, both reflecting a similar perspective on the meaning of "Catholicism".

Please be assured that I mean to make no great divisive issue over POV here, but I do think there may be a distinct (and understandable) difference in outlook and word meaning when the term "Catholicism" is used from within the RC church, and when it is used from inside other branches of Christianity. It strikes me that the current state of the pages mentioned above reflect the meaning that would be particularly familiar to RCs. "Catholicity"'s intent to refer to universality in the church must naturally coincide with and mutually support RC doctrine regarding the one true church. It would (I suppose) become natural to come to identify pretty much everything RC as "catholic", a part of "catholicism" and a reflection of the universality implied by "catholicity". That outlook would become invested in RC writings, and being so very prominent, would highly influence the English language itself. Influence, I say, but not override.

Growing up Anglican, the outlook I learned and used and shared from within Protestantism was not so neatly meshed. In fact, it was carefully separated. "Catholicism" always meant "in reference to the RC church", whereas "catholicity" meant "universality in the church". And indeed it is so also within Orthodoxy, at least with respect to catholicity (Catholicism is not much used there formally).

I think you all must know that the RC and Orthodox churches share pretty much the same idea and doctrine about what "universality in the church" is; the difference lies in where (in what church) the catholicity is placed. I think Anglican doctrines to be somewhat different regarding universality, but it also differs with respect to the placement of catholicity.

Within the whole span of articles on Christianity, it is critically useful to remain not just NPOV, but to express the articles' wording in clear language. We must be able to be precise in order to present (or discuss) that which is distinct (or shared) among the various branches, and to do so without violating the general sense of English words. It is therefore incumbent on us to weigh how we apply common word meanings, sometimes setting aside wider meanings in some contexts, in order to make good use of narrower meanings that give us the precision we need. My main point here is that "catholicity" and "Catholicism" generally need to remain distinct, and especially so when discussing the universality of the church or the one true church. It is my contention that the pages mentioned above need some tweaking in order to give a clearer picture of this also-common distinction in our language, and that doing so will serve the whole Christianity project. I submit as example the long-term proliferation of attacks on the Eastern Orthodox Church page by some Orthodox that the church is not catholic, precisely because they maintain the word means RC and nothing else. That is, of course, contrary to both etymology and Orthodox church teaching, but it does signal the kinds of confusion we may raise in our readers, especially if they are inclined to take one POV or another to a greater extreme.

Are there any initial objections or concerns regarding making a few changes? Evensteven (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Orthodoxy

Interested editors please see recent edits on article Sabbath in seventh-day churches and discussion at Talk:Sabbath in seventh-day churches#Orthodoxy for an overview of issues related to Orthodoxy and western Christianity as relates to the Sabbath and the Lord's Day. Thanks. Evensteven (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hvítakristr

good day,

We could do with some technical help over at WP:RFD#Hvítakristr, the Hvítakristr currently redirects to Jesus, but another good editor there has pointed out we have no List of names of Jesus in other languages (that other editor didn't quite suggest that exact name of the list, but that is not important), the point is do we have a list or set article on what Jesus is generally known by in other languages? Otherwise this one will probably be deleted.

God bless you all.

I am not sure this even means Jesus C. because the "ktristr" at the end is a bit of a giveaway. But the point remains, do we have a list of names of Jesus in other languages?

S. Si Trew (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

May I add an inquiry? Do we have a list of names for Jesus in English? Consider: Christ, Messiah, the Holy One, Emmanuel, the Way, the Truth, the Life, Alpha and Omega, Pascal Lamb, Pascha - surely that list is not complete. We even have an article for Son of God, although some would use that for others than Jesus as well. Evensteven (talk) 04:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
The article is Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament. StAnselm (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Serpent (Bible) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Serpent (Bible) to be moved to Serpents in the Bible. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Help needed with a draft at AFC

Please help the author of Draft:Tolerance and intolerance in the history of protestantism to either get the article into acceptable shape, if it can be done. By the way, I see this project's Assessment system is not yet handling Draft pages (the Class=Draft parameter in the project banner). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this WikiProject dead? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Trouting this entire project for ignoring a simple request for assistance posted several weeks ago. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Greetings!

There is an editor who adds content to or creates church articles rife with copyvios. Often Presbyterian, sometimes content related to homosexuality, this editor was just blocked, and I expect him to register a new account and resume at once.

Could readers of this please keep an eye out and let me know if you see anything? Many, many thanks.

Link: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cryx88

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Russian Orthodox Church

Some eyes would be appreciated at Russian Orthodox Church. It appears that a newbie is intent on an edit war, without discussing on talk, of course. Evensteven (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Samuel Kaboo Morris

Hi. I want to add some comments about your article "Samuel Kaboo Morris". I have read a biography about Samuel Morris titled "The March of Faith". Your article seems to be a good summary of that book. Catholics have many saints. Protestants don't have saints but heroes of the faith. I would rate Samuel Morris on a par with a Catholic saint. He has real hero status within the Protestant church and particularly the Pentecostal movement. I would rate Samuel Morris as very important to modern Protestant Christianity and also to Black Protestant Christianity as most of the heroes from Christian biography classics are White missionaries. I'm a White Protestant Christian from NZ and I was raised in a Pentecostal church. I enjoyed reading the article.114.79.32.244 (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Regards Shane D. Taylor

What are saints but heroes of the faith? As an Orthodox Christian continually inspired by the lives of those who have been faithful to Christ, I have often wondered at the Protestant denominations that disparage the idea. (Growing up Anglican, we did have saints.) But your reaction to Samuel Morris' life is an excellent description of that kind of inspiration, and your testimony is a reason why we do have saints. It's just helpful. It's really too bad that some Protestants don't have some form of recognition that gives them this resource. One's own admiration is one thing, but it's another when a whole Christian community stands up and says "here's something worthwhile". And I'm afraid that's just the sort of thing that gives Wikipedia the means (the sources) to recognize prominence: a verifiable community testimony. Evensteven (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Catholicity and Catholicism

I find my comment left 40 days ago has already been archived. Wouldn't 60 days be a little more reasonable as an archiving interval? I've needed to chew on that topic for a bit, and have had other things going. Surely that happens often enough, yes?

Having just returned from another look at it, I'm less sure about how many changes I would propose, if any. I think what I said is valid enough, but the impact strikes me differently today. I'll look and consider for a while longer, and be in touch if I think something needs attention. Evensteven (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Changes for two re-directs

What's the preferred procedure for proposing/accomplishing a change in re-directs? Seems like a community issue to me, but I wouldn't mind learning the mechanics myself.

We currently have two of them related to the Sabbath and changes I have made recently in that area. "Christian Sabbath" and "First-day Sabbatarianism" both redirect to the article "Sabbath in Christianity". That article is mischaracterized by these re-directs, since they are not equivalent topics, and the re-directs may not get the reader to the place s/he's looking for. I would suggest that the right thing to do is to send them to disambiguation, since so many interpretations of either redirected term are possible, and the place to go for that is Sabbatarian, itself a redirect of "Sabbatarianism", but also the current clearinghouse for direction issues related to many Sabbath topics. And that may bring up another point: why not rename "Sabbatarian"? Make it a clearing house for all the Sabbath-related topics, including Sabbatarians, and redirect "Sabbatarian" to the new name. I think resolving any issues around this one may also give us a direction for merging materials and simplifying the vast array of content forks under Sabbath topics.

Comments? Thoughts? Thanks! Evensteven (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively, "Christian Sabbath" could redirect to Non-Sabbatarianism, which explains it in the lead. Evensteven (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, maybe this section is overkill on communications. I do this out of a sense of courtesy, and of providing clues in a documented record that later editors can find if they need. But I sometimes forget that it's not always liked at the time: too much verbiage. If you're one: sorry. I'm just going to go ahead and make changes as suggested above. It's easy enough for anyone to speak up if they think there's better. Evensteven (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

Please have a look at Draft:William Thom. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed page move

Interested eyes please at Non-Sabbatarianism talk page. Evensteven (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Proceeding with the move in a day or two if there is no objection. Evensteven (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

God and Satan?

See discussion Talk:God and Satan (song): should God and Satan be a dab page with Book of Job etc as options, or should something else be done? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

JC's Girls

I have started an FAC for the article about JC's Girls, a Christian organization. The reviewers who have contributed to the FAC so far seem sharply divided. Any constructive contributions would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

"Dominicans"

The usage and primary topic of Dominicans is under discussion, see talk:People of the Dominican Republic -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

"Saint Pancras"

The usage and primary topic of Saint Pancras is under discussion, see talk:Pancras of Rome -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

How to address a C15th Irish bishop?

Thomás Bairéad, Bishop of Annaghdown in the fifteenth century, has an unsurprisingly sparse article relieved by a small infobox. Which helpfully explains that his reference style is "The Right Reverend", likewise for other forms of address. Is this, given the intervening half millennium, accurate? Should we use such boilerplates in the infobox for a figure so long ago? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you asking whether the term was used at the time, or whether the usage might have been made standard later, or whether the particular infobox belongs in the article? Personally, I would myself possibly integrate the terms of address into a separate infobox for Anglican clerics in general? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.108.112.211 (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Let's remember that there was no "Anglican" at the time. The Church in Ireland was Catholic then. It was before the Reformation, to say nothing about English/Irish relations. Evensteven (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I think we're likely to have {{Infobox bishop styles}} for most articles on bishops. However I'm surprised to see that the contents have apparently remained the same for so long. Is this really the case? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Getting together an idea for a possible new WF entity, wikialmanac

Some time ago, I looked in the phone book and saw we still locally have a "dial-a-saint" recorded information line. It inspired me to start a discussion about, maybe, trying to set up something around here which could serve the same sort of purpose, particularly to those individuals with cell phones, but also include options for non-Catholic listeners, because all the ones I've ever seen are Catholic, and, maybe, for other sort of "today in history" type messages as well. I even started a discussion on the topic a few days ago, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year#Early discussion about possible new WF entity, wikialmanac, in an attempt to get together a fairly solid proposal to submit to the foundation at Meta. I know that there are a lot of details involved, and if possible I would like to have some decent responses to questions about them before making a more formal proposal.

Basically, I guess I'm seeing the possible result I want to see better than the details of how to get to there. So, for Christianity, I can imagine a main portal-like page which might include a section for each separate group which might have a liturgical calendar with roughly daily commemorations. So, it might include single "article" sections for Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran calendars, with links to more focused "portals" for those more focused subjects. Those more focused "portals" might have one or two regularly displayed sections for "calendar event of the day," or other items, or, possibly, if required, some sort of "flip the page" option which might allow them to review all the relevant commemorations on that day in a single portal component, allowing all 10 or so EO commemorations which might be held on a single day to be seen in one box, for instance. For saints type portal contents, something like about two or three minutes of spoken text and a prayer might be the content. There might also, maybe, be links to wikipedia articles on the topic, if available, and, maybe, to wikisource or other sites with the full text of works by or about them. And, maybe, depending on the topic, a link to various artistic representations of the subject or places named in their honor.

It might be possible for those more specified portals to themselves have further subportals. So, for instance, a Catholic saints portal might have related portals on commemorations in the US, or the UK, or by the Dominican, Benedictine, Jesuit, or Franciscan communities, for example. And the Anglican portal could have links to more focused portals for individual churches in the Anglican Communion.

For the most part, these church calendars are kind of recognized authorities on their subjects. It might also be possible to expand the range of pages to various other subjects by contacting the most directly relevant museum(s) or similar entities and perhaps partnering with them through the GLAM project in such a way that they develop the calendar which we would then use to fill in the various boxes. For topics beyond liturgical calendars, the portals might have more than one box, perhaps a "today in history event" box for an occurrence of some sort and a "born on this day" box for people relevant to that topic who were born on that day.

These might be even more useful if we could, somehow, get people to read the material aloud somewhere, making the more traditional audio versions more readily available for individuals and organizations that might want to link to the "portal."

Anyway, any ideas? John Carter (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, John, there already is the Eastern Orthodox liturgical calendar article, which points to individual calendar day pages listing such contents, and containing links to relevant articles. But the factor most likely to complicate your project is that certain major commemorations are tied to the date of Pascha, and hence vary year to year in irregular ways. In addition, the Orthodox calendar commemorates events as well as saints, and some of the other churches do as well: (Nativity/Christmas Dec 25, Theophany/Epiphany Jan 6, Annunciation Mar 25, the Dormition/Assumption Aug 15, Elevation of the Holy Cross Sep 14, Lazarus Saturday day before Palm Sunday, Nativity of the Theotokos/Virgin Mary Sep 8), and a host of others, and the Orthodox dates do not always match the RC. Further, the Orthodox Church always commemorates on the exact day, no matter what day of the week. Many churches in the west tend to move dates to the nearest Sunday, or something like. Anglicans always celebrate the Ascension (Pascha + 40 days) on Sunday any more, not on Thursday. And the Orthodox date for that one is tied to Pascha, which only coincides with western Easter occasionally, so there's often a shift of one, four, or five weeks as well. Then you have the Orthodox that observe all dates according to the Julian calendar, while others use the modified Julian, which names dates in the same way as the Gregorian. So some Orthodox observe Christmas on Dec 25 Gregorian, like the west, and others on Dec 25 Julian, which works out to Jan 7 Gregorian (for this century anyway).
I think you'll agree it all gets messy, and Orthodox would not have much use for something that included only the saints. In fact, I wonder how much the other churches would seek out information along this path, as some would surely look for timings just within their own tradition. This would be more a comparative tool, and I can't say what the degree of interest might be in that. I guess my bottom line input would be that it looks problematic enough to implement that it may not be practical. Sorry to rain on your well-intentioned idea. Evensteven (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The issue of movable feasts is a fairly common one, as some parts of the world use different calendars in public as well as religious senses. I have a felling that wikidata as it now exists might well be able to address them. And, I guess, I should have specified that I was considering all liturgical celebrations, not just feasts of saints, although those are generally the numerically biggest percentage of them. Some feasts in multiple churches are listed as being "the [first] [day] after [some other day]," and similar, and it probably wouldn't be hard to get those built into some sort of program to automatically affix them. Once that is done, all that would necessarily be required would be, maybe, having one person enter in the date of the "anchor" feasts once a year and an indication of the first day the first day of the year falls on (Monday, Tuesday, etc.), for most of them to fall into place. The fact that the dates of feasts don't match between churches, or, sometimes, even within the same church, can be met by having the "entry" either transcluded for each body separately for their relevant date in which it should be included. That would take a fair amount of time, admittedly, but lots of things here do. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, my comments above are certainly not an indicator of absolute obstacles by any means. And if you're going to run calendrical calculations for sorting out complexities, I would suggest you do just that for the general case, rather than depending on the entering of new starting points each year. Pascha, Easter, and the day of the week are all readily calculable, and perhaps the most reliable reference for providing their details can be found in Calendrical Calculations, 3rd edition (2008), Dershowitz, Nachum and Reingold, Edward M., Cambridge Univ Press, ISBN 978-0-521-70238-6 (paperback). (I don't think there's a newer edition out - may not ever be, as Reingold is retired.) Days of the week are quite easy: calculate "days since Monday, 1 Jan AD 1", plus the right offset, then take the result modulo 7 and interpret with Sunday = 0. The book has a wealth of material on all sorts of common calendars, so if you need to convert say, from the Julian or Hebrew calendars, or even the Islamic, it's all there. In Orthodoxy, there's only the one "anchor" feast, Pascha. All the variable celebrations are keyed around it, this or that many days before or after. Evensteven (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Jewishencyclopedia.com (the Jewish Encyclopedia) and newadvent.org WP:Reliable sources?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Are jewishencyclopedia.com (the Jewish Encyclopedia) and newadvent.org WP:Reliable sources?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC

An RfC, Should this biography include commentary or reactions from politicians?, has been posted at the talk page for Kim Davis (county clerk). Interested editors are invited to comment. - MrX 17:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merger/redirects

I know that this has been discussed before, but I don't think it was ever actually done. So this is a proposal to turn each of the following pages to redirects to this one:

Opinions? John Carter (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, merging them all would make Project Christianity too cumbersome. The others permit of more specialized focus, each of which is useful for many things, including the clear presentation of church matters one tradition at a time. It can be overwhelmingly complex (not to say muddlesome) at times to try to include all variations in one place. And such as it is in writing articles, so it is in organizing efforts. When a topic or article is of shared interest, then this project serves as the clearinghouse, and the means for wider discussions. I think things are generally fine as they are. If there are some projects among your list that are inactive, then individual consideration can be given for closing them, but care should still be taken where it's hard to draw knowledgeable editors, for the existence of even a dormant project can still be a draw for areas where additional expertise would be most welcome. (I would say Oriental Orthodoxy might be one of those to keep open no matter what.) Evensteven (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Focus, yes. Attention, not so much. And, unfortunately, it looks like at least a few pages don't get watched enough or enough attention for them to be a benefit to their groups. John Carter (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
And as with Jerodlycett below, I think that's something those projects should decide themselves. Some projects founder for a while and then come back alive. Preserving the infrastructure can assist the revival. We should resist thinking we know enough to act, lest we end up being destructively pro-active. Evensteven (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I say let them decide. If they don't think they need their own talk page because they're small enough, then let them redirect it here. Jerod Lycett (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, certainly that; and above is even stronger. Evensteven (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Faith healing as pseudoscience

Request for comment: Is Faith healing a form of pseudoscience and should it be labeled as such either in the article or by assignment of category pseudoscience? Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion at Talk:Faith healing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Sola gratia

The current Sola gratia article reads like it is written by a Catholic apologist. I would prefer more Protestant perspective on the subject and fewer the Catholics did it first references. Permalink to article below:

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Sola_gratia&oldid=669113671

MaezMc (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Is your viewpoint supported by WP:RS? If so the article should be easy to update. Jerod Lycett (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian thinkers in science (2nd nomination)

Discussion likely of interest to this WP - article could do with some attention if kept --ℕ ℱ 14:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Rhema (doctrine)

User:Wowaconia created this article earlier this year as a spinoff from Rhema. I found it looking for articles using tektonics.org, run by a YEC with a Masters in Library Science. Here are the references; References[edit] ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac Bill Hamon (1987). Prophets and Personal Prophecy: God's Prophetic Voice Today Volume 1. Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image Publishers, Inc. Jump up ^ Jack Hayford (January 22, 2015). "The Word—Part 1". Jack Hayford Ministries. Jump up ^ Jack Hayford (January 23, 2015). "The Word—Part 2". Jack Hayford Ministries. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x Watchman Nee (1993). The Glorious Church. Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Alfred Raa Olson. "The Logos and the Rhema". End Time Message.org. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k Dr. Shirley Christian (2003). Cleansing and Healing Streams. Shirely Christian Ministries. ^ Jump up to: a b c "MEMRA (= "Ma'amar" or "Dibbur," "Logos")". Jewish Encyclopedia. 1906. ^ Jump up to: a b c Bill Gothard, Ph. D. "Understanding Rhemas". Institute in Basic Life Principle. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Jeanie Rose. "Finding Rhema: God's Word Spoken to You". Daybreak Resources. Jump up ^ Jamee Rae. "What is a Rhema Word from God?". Sharefaith. Jump up ^ "What is a "Rhema"? - Scripture for personal application". Advanced Training Institute International. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j James Patrick Holding. "Rhema and Word-Faith: An Analysis". Tekton Education and Apologetics Ministry. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e "What is the rhema word?". GotQuestions.org. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g "Bill Hamon's Strongholds of the End Time Delusion". Watchman's Cry Ministries. January 2, 2009.

I know nothing about the subject, but most of these look like personal or minor websites not up to our usual criteria. Doug Weller (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church‎#Not a conflict of interest, WP:Wikipedia is not censored

There is a discussion at Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church-- mostly over WP:Identifying reliable sources of historical demographics. Please come and join. tahc chat 06:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

RFC at Christian egalitarianism

Hi, I have opened a request for comment at the article Christian egalitarianism. Interested participants may like to comment here. Rupert Loup (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox church

In Template talk:Infobox church there is an ongoing discussion about adding additional types of pastor to the list of clergy. Comments are requested by the end of the week. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Christian Science isn't actually Christian...

According to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Christianity: "Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, fully divine and fully human, and the savior of humanity whose coming as Christ or the Messiah was prophesied in the Old Testament.[9]"

According to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Christian_Science: "She saw Jesus as a Christian Scientist, a "Way-shower" between humanity and God,[56] and distinguished between Jesus the man and the concept of Christ, the latter a synonym for Truth and Jesus the first person fully to manifest it.[57]"

Anything "between humanity and God" is at complete odds with "fully divine and fully human." Church of Christ, Science is not Christian based on the definition of Christianity. They should not be included in the Christianity WikiProject.

2601:1C0:8000:2A00:5814:ED5F:13A9:A139 (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)AK (apologies if double-posted, first time trying this!)

The subject is discussed at significant length in reference works relating to Christianity, and, on that basis, can be seen as reasonably falling within the scope of this project. If those associated with this project are in a better position to be able to access good well-sourced material on the subject, then it makes no real sense for us to not at least potentially offer our support in the development of the topic. John Carter (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
What is and is not Christian is a topic that has a notably divergent stream of separate opinions, all of which may fall within the scope of this project (and often do). For example, an Orthodox opinion might approach it this way: that what is truly Christian is that which is in concert with Christ Himself, since His Name invokes His Person, as supported by the commandment "thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain"; that applying the name of "Christian" to what is not truly of Christ then violates the commandment, a matter which God alone can judge, and will judge at the last; and that human beings thus are not responsible for "defining" what is and is not Christian, but God alone. For myself, I'd say that's a reasonable way to approach it also here on WP, as there is no way to get a consistent answer among people anyway. Evensteven (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

RfD notification: Mormon Cult

Mormon Cult has been nominated at RfD. Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 19#Mormon Cult would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Article: History of Christianity in Zambia

Can I request assistance in editing and improving the article History of Christianity in Zambia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.168.35.2 (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no article on Christianity in Zambia; that article would be better to creat than to add more to the History of Christianity in Zambia. tahc chat 16:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I have simply moved the "History of Christianity in Zambia" article and talk page to "Christianity in Zambia" (+talk), and fixed the resulting double re-directs. Future article development can take care of any additional article creation or naming needs, but I think "Christianity in Zambia" is a better title for the primary subject area, and it now has what there is. Evensteven (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Athanasius of Alexandria

There has been recent discussion on the talk page regarding the use of a separate section of the article for quotations. That section has since been removed, as indicated at Talk:Athanasius of Alexandria#Quotes removal from Article Page. Input of editors involved here on how to deal with that material would be welcome.John Carter (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The Gospel of the Holy Twelve

Needs eyes. New editor changing it to an OR/pov article. Semi-protected at the moment by another Admin and I've reverted it to the better version. Doug Weller (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Coptic-speaking people

Category:Coptic-speaking people has been nominated for deletion -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

template talk:S-rel

In fixing a template parameters for "Orthodox" bishops, be have created and are migrating to new parameters for bishops of the Church for before it split into the Catholic Church and and the Eastern Orthodox Church. There is a dicussion on how to best make these many small fixes at template talk:S-rel. Please comment. tahc chat 21:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

De laudibus Christi

I've been working on Cento vergilianus de laudibus Christi for the past few days. It's one of the first examples of a Christian poem, as well as one of the few extant examples of a poem by a women. I'd love it if anyone wants to look over what I've made. Thanks.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

"Life of Christ"

The usage and topic of Life of Christ is under discussion, see talk:Life of Christ -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Tribe of Dan

Although the tribe of Dan is not on the list of 144,000 sealed in Revelation, I notice that this tribe is included when sections of Israel are allocated to twelve tribes in Ezekiel 48. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.77.204.90 (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


The tribe of Dan slowly disappears throughout the New Testament. They are exiled and, in some ways, come to symbolize those who transgress or the unrepentant. This is largely why they are not represented in the elect of the book of the Revelation of John. (cf. Gen. 49:16-17; Num. 2:31; Jdgs. 18:30-31) M4CD0N4LD-D4N (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Military order

The topic and usage of Military order is under discussion, see Talk:Military order (monastic society) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Grammar on the project page?

Is "endeavor [verb] that [conjunction]" grammatically correct in American English, or a biblical-sounding archaism with which I am not familiar? I don't recall encountering it before, and the majority of Google hits appear to be in the form "endeavor [noun] that [relative pronoun]]", the one exception ironically being a Bible translation. I don't want to change it myself since I'm not 100% sure, and I'm not a member of this project (yet -- I'm considering increasing my activity in Christianity/Bible topic areas again in the near future). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The best and most useful thing I can think of to start with would be to look at the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Prospectus and Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Prospectus and see which if any blue links are incorrect and which if any redlinks actually have an article on that topic under another title. It would also probably be useful to see if any of the subarticles listed there similarly have extant articles here under some name. Once we know what we already have a bit better than we do now, it will make it easier to find editors and sources to develop the material we don't yet have, as well as make internal links easier. John Carter (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

relevant Wikipedia Visiting Scholars opportunity at USF

Of potential interest to members of this WikiProject, the University of San Francisco is looking to sponsor a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar to improve articles about social justice reformers and reform movements in the Jesuit Catholic tradition or about Ignatian/Jesuit educational traditions and spirituality.

This is a great way to get access to university library databases and other resources while making an impact in areas you may already contribute to. For more information, including an overview of library resources, see USF's Visiting Scholars page. Thanks. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment for First Council of Nicaea

First Council of Nicaea, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Miyagawa (talk) 10:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed move: Genesis creation narrative-->Genesis creation myth

For those who are interested, there is a proposal to move Genesis creation narrative to Genesis creation myth. See Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative#Requested_move_22_January_2016. First Light (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment

Howdy, i created the article above today. please feel free to improve it. Jytdog (talk) 05:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This would make a good WP:DYK submission for the home page, if you aren't already planning that. First Light (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I tend not to engage in that stuff but if you would give you or the project pleasure, i would not object.  :) Jytdog (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, it's been submitted at DYK. The article is interesting and well-written/researched, and deserves an audience, which was my interest. It could use more reviewers/editors for editing and accuracy (not doubting your work, but only because it's such a sensitive subject for many people.) First Light (talk) 10:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventh-day Adventist historicist interpretations of Bible prophecy

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventh-day Adventist historicist interpretations of Bible prophecy. Thanks. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 20:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained edits by 217.211.249.4

217.211.249.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has been adding and removing content from various bible related articles without an edit summary. Including edit warring on Syriac Sinaiticus removing about 1,600 bytes four times. There are other edits without comment to the following and other pages. It appears to be a don't like. I am not familiar with the subject, so other eyes would be appreciated.

Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Demoniacs has been nominated for discussion

Category:Demoniacs, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Question: how many Catholic Rites?

Recently I saw the Seven Sacraments (Sacraments, rites, and liturgies of the Catholic Church) template & compared to the Catholicism template.

Wondering if another editor (with more knowledge) can update these templates? Don't know if both are correct? Or in need of updates? This is way outside my field of knowledge, so I'm asking for help.

From the Revision history, perhaps Elizium23, Chicbyaccident, Greenknight dv, Mr. Stradivarius may be able to chime in or know of another editor, or anyone on this watchlist. Regards,  JoeHebda (talk)  19:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

There's definitely some confusion going on here. In this context, "rite" usually refers to the broad liturgical tradition of a particular church. The Catholicism template lists the major liturgical families as well as some historical rites of the Latin Church. The Seven Sacraments template, on the other hand, has an overload of information, included rites limited to particular religious orders, and several rites no longer used. I've commented on both pages, hopefully we can get the situation sorted out.
The Seven Sacraments template in general could use some cleaning up. In my opinion, it should reflect the current usage of the Church. 8bitW (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Split Article Alerts page?

Is it possible to duplicate the article alerts on a separate page? I like to be able to bookmark it and go directly to it. 8bitW (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Article alerts? --JFH (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
There it is. Thank you! 8bitW (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Symbol of Franciscans

Reading the article on the whole of Franciscans, I have no idea why the symbol is described as having a Tau cross because it doesn't as seen from the given image. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

This question was answered by Esoglou on the article talk page. The form of the cross is not essential. It is sometimes rendered as Tau and sometimes Latin. We can either find another source with the description that way, or display a variety of renderings including the Tau. Elizium23 (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Should the title Finding in the Temple be changed to Jesus among the Doctors? I suggest a different title: Jesus among the Doctors

At least in art, the subject appears to be most frequently labeled Jesus among the Doctors or something of the sort, Finding in the Temple seems a vague title. The thrust of the event was not merely that Jesus gravitated to the temple but that he held his own among the notables there. Again the visual focus of the title need not be the title for the written story, but does this title pick a focus?Rococo1700 (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

  • ’‘Among the Teachers’’, Vasiliiy Polenov, 1896.
  • ’‘Boy Jesus in the Temple’’, John Linnell, 1843. Tate Gallery.
  • ’‘Boy Jesus in the Temple’’, Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld, 1851-60.
  • ’‘Boy Jesus in the Temple’’, He Qi, 2002.
  • ’‘Christ among the Doctors’’, Bernardino Luini, National Gallery, London
  • ’‘Christ among the Doctors’’, Giotto di Bondone, 1304-06.
  • ’‘Christ Returning to His Parents’’, Simone Martini, 1342.
  • ’‘Christ among the Doctors’’ (Missal), Degli Attavanti Attavante, 1485-87.
  • ’‘Christ Among the Doctor’’s, Master of the Catholic Kings, c 1495/1497. National Gallery of Art.
  • ’‘Christ among the Doctors’’, Albrecht Dürer, 1503.
  • ’‘Christ among the Doctors’’, Albrecht Dürer, 1506.
  • ’‘Christ Among the Doctors’’, Bernard van Orley, c 1513. National Gallery of Art.
  • ’‘Christ among the Doctors’’, Bernardino Luini, 1515-30. National Gallery, London.
  • ’‘Christ among the Doctors’’, Rembrandt, 1654.
  • ’‘Christ among the Doctors in the Temple’’, Albrecht Dürer, 1511. Christian Theological Seminary, Indianapolis.
  • ’‘Christ Child in the Temple’’, Charles Goldie, 1898-1911.
  • ’‘Christ Disputing with the Doctors’’, Luovico Mazzolino, c. 1520-25. National Gallery, London.
  • ’‘Christ Disputing with the Doctors’’, Rembrandt, 1630. Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco.
  • ’‘Christ Disputing with the Doctors’’, Rembrandt, 1652. Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco.
  • ’‘Christ Disputing with the Doctors’’, Gregorio Preti, 1660's. National Gallery, London.
  • ’‘Christ Returning from the Temple with his Parents’’, Rembrandt, 1654. Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco.
  • ’‘Christ Seated Disputing with the Doctors’’, Rembrandt, 1654. Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco.
  • ’‘Christ Teaching at the Temple’’, Carl Bloch, 1875, Hope Gallery.
  • ’‘Disputation with the Doctors’’, Duccio di Buoninsegna, 1308/11.
  • ’‘Dispute in the Temple’’, Simon Bening, c. 1525-30. Getty Museum.
  • ’‘Finding of the Savior in the Temple’’, William Holman Hunt, 1854.
  • Jesus among the Doctors, Francesco Maria Raineri, Santa Maria della Carita, Mantua
  • Jesus among the Doctors, Simon Bening, Getty Museum
  • ’‘Jesus Among the Doctors’’; Unknown; Regensburg, Bavaria, Germany; about 1400 - 1410
  • ’‘Jesus among the Doctors’,’ Albrecht Dürer | Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza
  • ’‘Jesus among the Doctors’,’ Paolo Veronese
  • ’‘Jesus Among the Doctors’’, James Tissot, Brooklyn Museum
  • ’‘Jesus Among the Doctors’’, Fra Angelico, c. 1450.
  • ’‘Jesus with the Doctors’’, Gustave Doré, 1865.
  • ’‘Jesus Disputing with the Elders’’, Juan de Valdés Leal, 1686.
  • ’‘Loss of the Child Jesus in the Temple’’ Adriaen Isenbrant, 1518-35.
Please discuss at Talk:Finding in the Temple#I suggest a different title: Jesus among the Doctors instead of here. tahc chat 00:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

  • What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
  • When? June 2015
  • How can you help?
    1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
    2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
    3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.


Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

More eyes requested

We could use some more eyes on the following articles and others in the topic area of Indian Oriental Orthodox Christianity.

There is currently a flurry of editing going on, it's rather disruptive. The articles were in a sorry state even before that time, however. There is much broken English, unsourced assertions, sectarian bias. I've been trying to hold it together for some time. Elizium23 (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Christian ethics/Archive 1#Citation needed tag for criticism

Under discussion are the reliable sources of of Christian ethics. The article body discuss sources on and since Jesus, but the Christian ethics#Citation section deals with no principles from the body of the article body. What is a reliable source for this connection?
Please comment.tahc chat 18:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Article on birth of Jesus created based on other Wikipedia articles

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Michael Cox (bishop)

The usage and topic of Michael Cox (bishop) is under discussion, see Talk:Michael Cox (Catholic bishop) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Newcomer

Please consider taking a look at a newcomer's contributions. He may need a bit of welcoming and guidance. Thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: I did some cleanup of pages they've created. The biggest issue I see is some of the content was written in a factual manner as opposed to clarifying that it is part of a religious belief (e.g. fixes here and here).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Godsy. Thank you very, very much, my friend. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move for Saint Joseph

Requested move discussion going on for Saint Joseph → Joseph (husband of Mary). Please check out and discuss. Thanks, cheers — CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 22:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Neutral notification of move discussion

There is a discussion underway to move the article Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (with a single comma) to Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Please share your opinion on the matter at Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. Day#Requested move 22 April 2016. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

San Giuseppe

The usage and primary topic for San Giuseppe is under discussion, see talk:San Giuseppe (disambiguation) -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikia proposal

Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Possible wikia site(s) on religious devotions or practices/prayers/calendars/etc.. John Carter (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Judas Iscariot

It has been proposed that Judas Iscariot be renamed and moved to Judas at Talk:Judas Iscariot.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 09:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Philip A. Amerson

Hello editors of articles about Christianity. This draft was declined as lacking notability. I haven't been able to find any reliable independent sources to add to overcome this, and according to WorldCat his books aren't in many libraries. Perhaps someone here knows better where to look, but otherwise the draft will be deleted soon.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how it could possibly have been declined for notability - it clearly passes WP:PROF #6. It's reliably sourced, too. This was very poor reviewing. StAnselm (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree that he does seem to meet the standard of notability StAnselm indicates above. Having said that, @Anne Delong:, I would be interested in your input, as someone who deals with a lot of draft space articles. Do you think that there are many articles in draft space which would meet a basic level of utility/usefulness for the reader which for whatever reason, perhaps including those cases where notability seems likely but might be harder to establish, or the subject has a single, well-sourced and extensive, independent RS but maybe not multiple such, which might, perhaps, in some way, qualify for inclusion based on possibly lower standards at one of the relevant wikia sites? If there are such articles, do you think that there would be a purpose in maybe trying to work up some guidelines for when and if articles might qualify for transfer there from here? John Carter (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, John Carter and StAnselm. Since you both felt this passed notability, I did some editing to focus more on facts and moved it into the encyclopedia.
John Carter, your question isn't really a Wikipedia question. All text written on a Wikipedia page, whether draft, user space or article, is licensed for use by anybody (even other wikis!) as soon as the editor presses the save button. It would be up to the people at the other sites to select material they want to add, not us, and they do it all the time. The Amerson draft is already in at least one "mirror site". However, there is something that can and often is done with drafts that don't quite pass notability - they can be "content merged" into other articles as sections or summaries, and then moved to mainspace as redirects. I did one of these last week, merging International Sport Security Conference into International Centre for Sport Security. The main thing is to make sure that the edit summary mentions all of the editors who added content to the merged-in draft, to keep the copyright attribution straight. Sections of articles still need reliable sources for verifiability, but don't have to be independently notable.—Anne Delong (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

New userbox at WP:Catholicism

Greetings, There is a new userbox at Catholicism talk page. Your thoughts & opinions are welcome. Posting here so it's visible to more page watchers. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Mormon Texts desired for transcription?

Hi, I'm looking into piloting a transcription project on Wikisource for a Mormon/LDS text, preferably one that isn't on Project Gutenberg yet and was scanned by BYU (BYU's public domain scans are on archive.org: https://archive.org/details/brigham_young_university).

Let me know if you have an opinion; otherwise I'll probably start with the Relief Society Magazine next week: https://archive.org/details/reliefsocietymag01reli Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Reliable Christian sources?

I'm trying to find reliable sources for Nibiru cataclysm; an article it's particularly hard to find reliable sources for. It's basically an endlessly mutating meme about a giant object coming to crash into Earth, that is named after whichever sky object happens to be in the news at the moment (Sedna, Eris, Comet Elenin, Comet ISON, Planet Nine, you get the picture). Naturally, one of the big names this object has accrued over the years is Wormwood, the star that crashes into Earth in the Book of Revelation. But as you can probably imagine, I have yet to find decent sources connecting this delightfully unkillable little bit of pop culture detritus to Wormwood. Of unreliable sources, I have found plenty. One of my main issues though is that I don't really know what constitutes a reliable source when discussing contemporary Christianity. Any thoughts? Serendipodous 19:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything about a giant object crashing into earth, but the BYU Folklore archives do have thorough item-level cataloging, if you're interested in LDS folklore: https://findingaid.lib.byu.edu/viewItem/FA%202/Series%208/Subseries%202/ There was one story about the City of Enoch coming back; if you like I can probably get a digitized version for you: https://findingaid.lib.byu.edu/viewItem/FA%202/Series%208/Subseries%202/1.8.2.4.1/ Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, and many appreciations, but I'm afraid both those sources predate my topic by many decades :0) Serendipodous 06:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

JL-Bot broken

I've just been looking over the featured content page and I have noticed that it hasn't been updated at all this month and I know there is content relating to WP:X that has run in May. Is JL-Bot broken? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Further opinions on debate at Talk:Mary,_mother_of_Jesus#BVM_as_title_in_lead

Looking to develop a broader consensus here, besides the 2 people who have currently been in the debate. Please take a look if you have the chance. Please also duplicate this in individual denominations' WikiProjects, too, to help avoid biased canvassing. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Christophany/Claimed Examples

In "Christophany," "Claimed examples in Hebrew Scriptures" should include Melchizedek, as many denominations teach that He is Christ and not merely a type of Christ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.182.10.57 (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Auto-assessment of article classes

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ RobTalk 22:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Catholicism RM discussion

Please see the RM discussion here. Looking for relevant voices to round out the discussion. Please copy this to other WikiProjects that might be interested. I'm putting this up initially at WP:Christianity, WP:Catholicism, and WP:Anglicanism, since the page is part of those projects. Thank you. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 00:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Possibly useful Citizendium articles

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium Porting, two articles more or less within the scope of the Christianity WikiProjects, Joan of Arc and Kamehameha I, have articles in citizendium which haven't yet had our articles here checked against them. Anyone interested in doing so is, of course, more than welcome to do so. If you do, you might leave a note here to that effect, or at the Citizendium Porting project page. John Carter (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

How is Kamehameha I within the scope? StAnselm (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
You're right, he hasn't been tagged for any of the Christianity projects yet. I do remember one of the encyclopedias I went through, which I haven't yet added to the prospectuses here, listed him as an article describing him as an early convert to Christianity (or, at least, early for Hawaii), but, evidently, I haven't added that list yet. There are, unfortunately, a few hundred pages of those lists, so it might take some time to add everything. My bad. John Carter (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Seeking input on possible page move proposal

See Talk:Antisemitism and the New Testament#Move to Antisemitism in early Christian literature?. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Help at Christian perfection article

To any interested and knowledgeable editors, help is needed at Christian perfection, particularly with the section on Catholic teaching. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

AfD "Arian Controversy"

I had just AfD'd the article Arian controversy for multiple reasons. Please see the AfD Page. The subject can be adequately covered in the more satisfactory one entitled Arianism. Why have and maintain two articles when one will do? — Jpacobb (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

{{Christian mysticism}} RM needs more voices

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Template_talk:Christian_mysticism#Requested_move_24_June_2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 16:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Participants here often create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, handle POV editing, revert vandalism, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's an insightful summary of what it means to edit Christian-related articles. On the other hand, I edit Christian-related articles and I have publicly disclosed Christian beliefs - that's probably enough to pretty much rule me out as being accepted as an admin. StAnselm (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@StAnselm: There is no reason in policy or in practice why that would rule you out. It does not amount to a conflict of interest. Unless you have been editing demonstrably in breach of WP:NPOV, please give further thought to Adminship. Christian faith and editing was no problem when I stood in 2012. – Fayenatic London 17:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move proposal, Martin Luther King, Jr.

Please comment on a requested move to change numerous article titles which contain Dr. King's name. Randy Kryn 11:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Theology template

There is a discussion about {{Theology}} over at Template talk:Theology § Too large - discussion resumed in 2016. Feel free to join in. Thanks! YBG (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

"Christological"?

I wonder what other editors think about whether the adjective "Christological" should be capitalised. It currently is (see, e.g. the article Christology), but The SBL Handbook of Style says it should not be capitalised. The relevant guideline is MOS:ISMCAPS, but it doesn't give much help one way or the other. If we think it should be spelled with lower case, that could be something to mention in that guideline. StAnselm (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Adjectives formed from proper nouns or derivatives thereof (in this case, Christ -> Christology -> Christological) are themselves still proper, and should therefore be capitalized. This applies as well to Eucharist -> Eucharistic. juju (hajime! | waza) 02:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
But it's explicitly not the case with "biblical". StAnselm (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I believe that portion of ISMCAPS is nonsensical and should be revised. Why should "Koranic" be the only one to be capitalized? And it violates simple common sense—adjective forms of proper nouns are proper. juju (hajime! | waza) 02:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I actually agree with Jujutsuan on each point-- except that Eucharist is not formed from a proper noun and I do not see a reason to capitalize "Eucharistic". Eucharist comes from the Greek for "Thanks". tahc chat
I appreciate the agreement. But regarding "Eucharistic": Christ comes from the Greek for "covered in oil". So what's your point? Eucharist has one meaning in English, and it's the name of the sacrament, which is a proper name, uniquely among the seven. Are you really arguing that Eucharist is a common noun? juju (hajime! | waza) 07:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Media upload of images from Museum Catharijneconvent

Dear project-members,

I would like to draw your attention to a media upload that may be of relevance to your project:

Museum Catharijneconvent in Utrecht, The Netherlands, holds an important collection of Christian religious textiles and clothing from northern Europe, ranging in date from the medieval to modern periods. The museum has recently donated a collection of approximately 600 high-resolution images of these textiles to Wikimedia Commons. This donation is a follow-up to an older donation of some 2400 images of other objects and paintings in their collection.

Kind regards, --AWossink (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

GA reassessment

Pontius Pilate's wife, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

The nominator for the reassessment is hoping to get "attention from a subject expert" (see discussion at WT:GAN#Talk:Pontius Pilate's wife/GA1, which is more likely to be someone here than anywhere else. Thanks for any help you can give. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Economy of Salvation

I know this thread is old so pardon me for continuing it at this time. The term "Economy of Salvation" I believe was first used by St Cyril of Alexandria starting around the year 428 AD. He used the term repeatedly in his work "On The Unity Of Christ." This was written in response to the apparent heretical teachings of Nestorius from Syria. There is a wonderful history of the protracted battle between the two at the beginning of the book printed by ST Vladimir's Seminary Press in 1995 written by John Anthony McGuckin. It is a fantastic read. St. Cyril was highly influenced by St Athanasius. His work "The Incarnation" I believe is a must read prior to this to get a full understanding of his thoughts. St Origen (185 - 254 AD) whose is best known for his work "Against Celsus" was also a major influence but I must confess I am not very familiar with his work at this time.

St Cyril does not give a precise definition of what he meant by The Economy Of Salvation.He was well known for turning a phrase that could capture a whole argument in just a few words so, I am afraid that time and translation may prevent us (or at least me)from truly grasping what he meant. The thrust of his argument was to prove that Christ was wholly God and wholly man. A necessity for the redemption of humanity. Man infused with the whole of the God-head, a fact that Nestorius and others of the Syrian church adamantly opposed. The phrase was used over and over as a catch phrase almost. So I think it safe to say that the economy of salvation is used as a way of condensing his entire argument of Christ as God/Man for the complete destruction of sin/death for the ultimate and final restoration of humanity back to God. One completed and finished work.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.77.163 (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification of Requested move

There is currently an open requested move on Talk:Christ to move the page from its current name to Christ (title). Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 17:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Featured Article Proposal Comments: St. Peter's Basilica

I have nominated St. Peter's Basilica for Featured article status. Its entry is listed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/St. Peter's Basilica/archive1, where you can leave your comments. All comments are appreciated and the more there are, the more quickly it can be promoted or the nomination closed. Ergo Sum 22:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Possibly undue criticism at Bart D. Ehrman

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Bart D. Ehrman/Archive 2#Sorry, but the scholarly consensus is what it is; it is not what a few ultra-conservative evangelical scholars want it to be regarding the "reception" section in the Bart D. Ehrman article. This may be of interest to editors here, and it may be good to get some more input in the discussion. StAnselm (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Use of "heresiology" as a countable noun rreferring to a work of heresiology?

Our article Gospel of the Ebionites currently includes the text

extant only as seven brief quotations in a heresiology known as the Panarion,

but is this normal? Neither our article on the Panarion itself nor our heresiology article use the word in this sense, nor does Wiktionary's entry thereon list such a usage. My copy of the OED doesn't include the word, although the two paper dictionaries I do have on hand (English-Japanese bilingual dictionaries that are not always the best sources for correct English usage) imply that it can be used in this sense. Clearly it has been used like this on Wikipedia at least once, but how do others feel about it? (I admit I once got in a big fight over whether the word "mythologies" was acceptable, with me being in favour of it, but in that case the OED was on my side.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

New article: Evangelical Anglicanism

I created the Evangelical Anglicanism article, which used to be a redirect to the Church of England article. Any and all contributions would be appreciated! Ltwin (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Paragraph on consistency of Church teaching on sexuality

This edit has been proposed to be added across nine disparate articles, mostly under the purview of this Wikiproject. @Ulrich von Metz: did the adding, and sees no problem with the paragraph as it stands. Neither does @Tgeorgescu: even after I pointed out that it is a glaring violation of WP:NPOV, in that it presents a minority scholarly opinion as fact in Wikipedia's voice. At first I repaired the NPOV problem when I found this edit on the Eastern Orthodox Church article. I was inclined to let it stand. But when I found that it had been steadily spammed into NINE articles, my opinion shifted to removal and I therefore deleted it from all affected articles. Ulrich quickly reverted me, and along with Tgeorgescu proceeded directly to WP:ANI without discussion, where an incipient investigation has been closed prematurely. Therefore I am taking the centralized discussion here, since it is about a mass change in article content and not suitable for my user talk page, or an isolated and underwatched talk page of one of those affected articles.

Even if NPOV problems are fixed and the paragraph is deemed suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, I would still oppose its inclusion on many of those mentioned articles, because it is only tangentially related to the subject matter. It is WP:UNDUE coverage of a minority, almost WP:FRINGE, scholars' opinion, and is really only directly relevant to Fornication and Religious views on masturbation. Elizium23 (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any WP:NPOV violation. Remember that WP:RNPOV says that we should render both theological and secular scholarly views upon religion. I fail to see how rendering Bible scholarship by a Harvard professor would violate WP:NPOV. The question if that information is appropriate to each of those articles has to be decided separately for each article. E.g. the information is definitely germane to Religious views on masturbation, so it should not be removed from there. It is germane to the topic of theological inerrancy/infallibility, so I believe that should not be deleted from an article addressing theological inerrancy/infallibility. It is also germane to church history: Catholic/Eastern Orthodox theology did not arise perfect as Athena from the head of Zeus, but it was a historical process among multiple players, some of whom were originally considered orthodox but later condemned as heretic, some who are still considered orthodox. Anyway, there were debates among different views for what should be accepted as orthodox by those churches (originally these were one and the same church). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
We mustn't render a controversial opinion in Wikipedia's voice, we must render it as the opinion of the scholars cited. What do you think of this edit? Elizium23 (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't know very much about the development of the theology of sexuality, but I have read these books: Michael Coogan, God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says and Jennifer Wright Knust, Unprotected Texts: The Bible's Surprising Contradictions About Sex and Desire. Their conclusion is that the Bible is often at odds with itself on matters of sexuality. So, it is not a big leap of faith to: church theology was at the beginning at odds with itself. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Demonizer Zilch

copied and pasted discussion

Understand that these projects are for biblical/theological studies, for example, Supernatural (U.S. TV series) references biblical names, places etc. and visually does representations of actually occult sigils but is not taken is a series matter because the ideal of the show is just a show. Unless there is some sort of news worthy information that's making academics get excited and speculate on the particular manga/anime, the subject is irrelevant to the project. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@JudeccaXIII: The entire series is about demons, deals with a fictional Christian organization, and drops references left and right. These things exist in fiction as well and expanding project coverage is a good thing not a bad one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I also want to add that the main character Zilch is possessed by Alastor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I referenced Supernatural (U.S. TV series) as an example why it isn't on either Wikiproject, but for more clarity, it's not educational. Constantine (film), Constantine (TV series), and Supernatural (U.S. TV series), all of these media content mention satan, angels, demons, demon possession, sigils etc. but there not on Wikiprojsects Occult on Christianity because it's not educational, it's just media entertainment. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any policy/guideline related arguments in your reasoning so this is nothing more than a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT discussion. As for education, by whose definition are we going by? If someone sees a mention of Alastor wouldn't the person who is interested look up or want to look up this info? It isn't confined to anime or manga entertainment. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
If someone wanted to look up Alastor, he/she would simply click the BLUE LINK or go to the search bar. This is common sense. If you don't know what a Wikiproject is, see WP:PROJGUIDE. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I didn't read anything there regarding this situation, education in this case is subjective. If you want to start an RfC or amend a project's scope then feel free. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The article: Demonizer Zilch, a Manga/Anime which mentions biblical names and its art work references occult symbols as Knowledgekid87 mentions...Does the article meet the scope of this Wikiproject. I have copied and pasted a discussion I had with the editor, and he/she has suggested I get input to resolve this matter. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity has 22,300 start class articles, going through them can you define which ones are "educational", and which ones aren't? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
What makes you think this cartoon has any relevant information to this project? Nothing historical or academically important. BTW, I'm not interested in looking at 22, 300 articles, just this one. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
@JudeccaXIII: I dont see why you care so much, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. There is no policy for exclusion, the series is laden with references to Christianity and the occult. Just drop it already. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Doesn't belong in the Christianity WikiProject, which covers sincere and earnest approaches to Christian doctrine, ritual, theology, practice, membership, and faith -- with fiction generally being hagiography or else allegories for theology (and those end up being mid-importance at most). In short, there is some form of actual belief behind any artistic works that are covered by the project. The Exorcist (both the movie and the book) and Dogma (film) are not covered by WikiProject Christianity, and they were both written by Catholics working with or through sincerely-held beliefs. @Knowledgekid87: can you show any other non-devotional works of entertainment that were not created by professed Christians which are already covered by the Christianity WikiProject?
As for the Occult WikiProject: The Invisibles, Promethea, The Illuminatus! Trilogy, Psychic TV discography, and Aleph at Hallucinatory Mountain were created by recognized occultists, to some extent "for occultists," and many of those works were even given significance within their own occult worldviews -- yet they are not included in the Occult WikiProject. Crowley's novel "Moonchild" is only in the Thelema WikiProject (I assume any article about anything he did or wrote is), not in the Occult project. The Rape of the Lock is not covered by the Occult WikiProject, despite being drenched in parody of then popular occultism. The Cthulhu Mythos (which has sincere and devout followers among some Chaos Magicians) is likewise completely absent from the Occultism project, save for a book that was written as if earnest doctrine and taken as such by some practitioners of magic. @Knowledgekid87: can you show us any uninitiated works of entertainment which were not created by professed occultists, magicians, neopagans, mystics, etc, which are already covered by the Occult WikiProject?
Outside of those projects, His Dark Materials is not included in this WikiProject or the Gnosticism projects, nor even in the Atheism project. The Percy Jackson & the Olympians covered by the Mythology or Classical Greece and Rome projects. Kung fu (Wuxia in general) is not covered by the Buddhism project. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Kali Yug: Goddess of Vengeance are not covered by the Hinduism project. Talbot Mundy's The Nine Unknown, Robert E. Howard's Kull of Atlantis, What Dreams May Come, and The Neverending Story are not connected to any religious categories despite their rather clear inspirations from Theosophy (or in the case of The Neverending Story, its offshoot Anthroposophy). Scanners, Firestarter, Firestarter (novel), Carrie (1976 film), The Fury (1978 film), and The Power (film) are not included in the Parapsychology WikiProject.
The closest I can find to anything like this is the anomalous inclusion of Kung Fu (TV series) in the Buddhism project. However, I'm quite certain it would not be difficult at all to locate academic discussions of that show being many Americans' introduction to (something vague idea of) Buddhism. There's also Battlefield Earth (novel)'s inclusion in the Scientology WikiProject, but I'm pretty sure they include all of MutherHubbard's works in that (as with Crowley and Thelema).
It seems pretty clear from current practice that there is no consensus to include non-devotional entertainment in WikiProjects about sincerely-held beliefs (even if historical) and a (silent but still positive) consensus to largely exclude non-devotional entertainment from WikiProjects about sincerely-held beliefs.
Also, simply mentioning angels, names of God, etc, isn't enough to include something in the Christianity WikiProject -- otherwise the overwhelming majority of the Occult project would be absorbed into the Christianity project. Alastor is not mentioned in any theological works, but rather artistic and/or occult works by authors who may happened to be Christian. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Seems like sound reasoning to me. YBG (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
While I think that VeggieTales could be part WP:WikiProject Christianity I do not Demonizer Zilch could be.
Even the article's only mention Christianity is to say that "dropping of Christian references... were unoriginal". Many articles mention or reference Star Wars but are not part of WikiProject Star Wars-- and many articles mention or reference World War II, but are not part of WikiProject World War II. We do not make articles part of WikiProject Christianity just because they mention or reference Christianity. tahc chat 15:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I removed the project links as frankly this isn't a huge deal. You guys really should clarify your project's scope though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

International Justice Mission request

Hi, I'm Sterling, of International Justice Mission. Can editors interested in faith-based articles on Wikipedia review an edit request to improve the International Justice Mission article? My proposal attempts to add information on International Justice Mission's organizational structure and budget breakdown. I have a conflict of interest so I have posted an edit request on the article's Talk page and have sought editor involvement here, and other WikiProjects. Best, SE at Int'l Justice Mission (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Need expert opinion

I came across an IP's edits to Epiousios today on Huggle, initially reverting due to the fact the lede was left in a rather precarious state. Upon further analysis, the IP has made several dozen edits over the past few days that have substantially altered the article and I'm afraid I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to assess them appropriately. Could anyone review these please? Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 03:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Your description is a bit misleading. The "substantially altered" content you refer to is largely editorial and oriented toward eliminating redundancies, re-flowing sections to where they are most appropriate and logical, and adding clarity by way of (cited) historical references. Even if you are not feeling expert enough to review it yourself, I do very sincerely invite you to read the citations as well as the article. Learning is fun...and this is a quite important subject. Cheers. --107.194.72.223 (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Urgent: comments requested at WP:NPOVN

Page: All Pope pages, especially pre-schism
Discussion: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Early_Popes_of_Rome_as_head_of_the_Catholic_Church_-_opinion_versus_fact


Comments are urgently requested at the afore mentioned page. We have a discussion which requires informed comments from those familiar with the topic of this discussion. Your help at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. Gold Standard 01:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Urgent: comments requested at Matthew 5:9

Page: Matthew 5:9 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion: Talk:Matthew_5:9


Hi I am new to being a member of Wikipedia, saw that the page on Matthew 5:9 has a reference that the gospel says in no place "Our Father" but it does. Matthew 6:9. Paul the Apostle in his epistles explicitly refers to God as our Father(eg Romans 8:15)as I mentioned I am new to Wikipedia and want to contribute in the correct manner and not just change something on that page. Please help with in put on what is the correct manner to correct something. Thank you. 16:27, 15 June 2013 (South Africa)

Are you saying we're misquoting Schweizer and Clarke, or are you saying Schweizer and Clarke have made a mistake? In the latter case there's not much we can do about that; we just summarize what reliable sources say. Paul isn't part of the Gospels, so that doesn't invalidate the article's claim. Anyway, this should probably be discussed at Talk:Matthew 5:9. Huon (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
The claim by Schwiezer and Clarke is probably more nuanced than a straight denial: the article states: 'However, the Gospels never have him referring to God as "Our Father," asserting that the nature of the fatherhood was different for Jesus and the masses.' That is they discard a particular understanding of the phrase. I don't have either text available so cannot check. Jpacobb (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Either way, in Matthew 6:9 (NIV) Jesus tells his disciples to pray "Our Father,..." which rather waters down Schwiezer and Clark's interpretation stated interpretation and should be mentioned included it. In any case, is Schwiezer and Clark's view not WP:FRINGE? --Bermicourt (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Urgent: comments requested at Persecution of Traditional African Religion

Page: Persecution of Traditional African Religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion: [[]]


Comments are urgently requested at the afore mentioned page. We have a discussion which requires informed comments from those familiar with the topic of this discussion. Your help at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. – Lionel (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is the outline of the Gospel of Luke presented on the page for the Gospel of Matthew?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.29.50 (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Urgent: comments requested at Episcopal polity

Page: Oriental Orthodox Churches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion: Talk:Episcopal polity

The article on Episcopal polity says that Greek and Orthodox Churches both trace their apostolic succession back to the Apostle Mark. That's in section five titled "Oriental Orthodox Churches." Having studied the bible and various scholars I have never before heard of the Apostle Mark and I would have thought that such an apostle is not generally known to Christianity. Of course the reference must be about the Evangelist Mark of the Gospel of Mark right? What other Mark would be so much of a big deal huh? Do those churches count him as an apostle for sure? Patriot1423 (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Polish Old Catholic Church

International Old Catholic Bishops Conference

Page: International Old Catholic Bishops Conference (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion: [[]] http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/International_Old_Catholic_Bishops%27_Conference

Comments are urgently requested at the afore mentioned page. We have a discussion which requires informed comments from those familiar with the topic of this discussion. Your help at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. – Lionel (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid the wiki shows the Polish Old Catholic Church as being outside the Union of Utrecht. The Poles in Europe are members. It is the Polish National Catholic Church of the USA who resigned in 2004. Can this be corrected? 2.29.192.152 (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Alan W

I have corrected it. (The UofU website confirms that the Polish Catholic Church is a member of the Union). Diakonias (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Urgent: comments requested at Gender-neutral Bible and New International Version

Page: Gender-neutral Bible (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion: talk: Gender-neutral Bible and talk: New International Version

Please join us at these two pages for a lively discussion on gender-neutral language in Bible translation. As many editors already know, this has become an important issue in the Christian community. We really need well read editors to look into these issues and give their thoughts. Please read up on the topic and join us asap.

Traditional Position: http://cbmw.org/uncategorized/the-translation-of-gender-terminology-in-the-niv-2011/

Modernist Position: http://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/gender-accuracy-bible-translation

Happy reading!

Comments are urgently requested at the afore mentioned page. We have a discussion which requires informed comments from those familiar with the topic of this discussion. Your help at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. Toverton28 (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Urgent: comments requested at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_10#Lamb_of_Tishri

Page: Lamb of Tishri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion: [[]]


Comments are urgently requested at the afore mentioned page. We have a discussion which requires informed comments from those familiar with the topic of this discussion. Your help at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. – Lionel (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry if I should put this in "Urgent" were it better to be in "General" but this is about something at Redirects for Discussion and generally they last seven days. Our urgency may be greater than God's, he has all eternity :)
Over at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_10#Lamb_of_Tishri the redirect Lamb of Tishri has come up. Now we have worked out presumably that Tishri refers to what I believe many biblical scholars believe to be the month of his birth, Tishrei in the Jewish calendar. However we can find no concordance in the Bible or other source that actually calls Him by that name. The article Jesus does not say so, nor that he was born in that month, and separate article Lamb of God does not say so.

I hope you might contribute to that discussion, perhaps there is a good place we can retarget this. As it stands, it is likely to go WP:RFD#D2 "confusing" (that is not a threat, just my own opinion) because that is what we tend to do when there's no information at the target, and I can't find that there is.

It's probably best to add your comments into the redirect discussion rather than here.

God speed, Si Trew (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments requested on Template:Infobox Christian leader

I have proposed a change at Template talk:Infobox Christian leader#Proposed parameter, which would add a parameter to the template. It is to add an appointed_by parameter in which one could put who a bishop was appointed by (as in the case of Papal appointments of Catholic bishops). This would work the same way as the current setup for consecrated_by. Comments are very much appreciated to achieve a broader consensus. Ergo Sum 20:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Christian view of death?

See Talk:Islamic view of death In ictu oculi (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Urgent: comments requested at Mother Teresa

Page: Mother Teresa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mother Teresa/archive1


Comments are urgently requested at the afore mentioned page. We have a discussion which requires informed comments from those familiar with the topic of this discussion. Your help at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 07:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested comments on Template:Infobox church

There is a proposed change to Template:Infobox church to add an important feature: a parameter to enter the order of a church. If you support, oppose, or would like to comment, please see Template talk:Infobox church#Add parameter. Ergo Sum 01:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard/Archive 10 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Notable offices

I have an old copy of the Marquis Who's Who in Religion which, as anyone familiar with such works knows, contains an incredible number of small articles about people who are sometimes at best marginally locally notable, as well as biographies of several people who are clearly notable. One of the things it points out is the specific major officers of several denominations. Another thing it regularly discusses is individuals who have been associated with local or denomination religious programs and periodicals.

I don't think myself that we necessarily want articles on all of them, but if any of you familiar with the structure of denominations other than Roman Catholicism (the only one I know in any detail on this matter) would like to make out a list below of the denominational titles, or denominational programs or periodicals, that have or, you think, should have, content related to them here, that might make it easier to figure out what material can be added here. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move notice

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:List of Christian denominations by number of members#Requested move 7 December 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Henotheism and Monolatrism

I have proposed a merge of Henotheism and Monolatrism. I can't see any real difference between the two, and at least one of the sources for the latter shows similar uncertainty ("Monolatry and Henotheism". Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. VIII: 810.). If anyone more knowledgeable can improve the distinction, or provide other comments, the discussion is at Talk:Monolatrism#merge proposal. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Christian Magazines Page

Hi

The Christian Magazines page is incomplete. I could not find:

Today's Christian Woman magazine | Love God. Live ... www.todayschristianwoman.com/ From Christianity Today, a magazine and website for the Christian woman who wants to love God more deeply and live fearlessly for his kingdom.

Attempting to force archiving by signing Jerod Lycett (talk) 09:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Modern views of Sola Fide in Protestant denominations

Historically the doctrine that seperated Protestants from other Christians was their belief in Sola Fide - Justification by Faith alone. As someone who has ties with the Episcopal Church (United States) and the United Methodist Church, I don't believe it reflects the views of most Protestants and Anglicans today. According to poll results from the Pew Forum, 92% of Episcopalians and 85% of American United Methodists believe that non-Christian religions can lead to eternal life. Given that Sola Fide is the belief that faith in Christ alone is the path to salvation, I think the Pew results show that the vast majority of mainliners no longer believe in Sola Fide, and I strongly think that the article on sola Fide should make a note of this fact.

http://www.thearda.com/Denoms/Families/profilecompare.asp?d=734&d=234&d=&d=&d=

Sbrianhicks (talk)

Attempting to force archiving by signing Jerod Lycett (talk) 09:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment

RfC on the subject of new religious movements is being held at Category talk:New religious movements. Input from this group would be welcomed and appreciated. Thank you, Happy Hanukkah, Joyous Christide, have a great weekend. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Bibleverse

A change to Template:Bibleverse is being proposed. Please comment at Template talk:Bibleverse#Replacing the tool with a Lua module. --JFH (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

RM notice

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:General epistles#Requested move 24 December 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Altarpiece, reredos and retable

Hi, There's a discussion going on at wikimedia commons (here) which would benefit greatly from the input from native English speakers or those with a good knowledge of specific Christian terms. The question is, what is the difference between an altarpiece, a reredos and a retable. It would be great if it could be sorted out and the commons and Wikipeida made consistent. Thank you! Yakikaki (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Yakikaki:. I had a look at the discussion but unfortunately it seems to have been WP:OWNed by User:Darwinius. Even though I've provided examples of correct use in English he regards the whole issue as "not about English linguistics, it's about one or more defined objects of cult". He cites a multi-lingual Roman Catholic encyclopedia ("Thesaurus Multilingue del Corredo Ecclesiastico") and rejects other sources ("vulgar dictionary"), which in this case was the full OED! To be fair the problem is that he sees this as a matter of religious dogma, not one of historic definitions of real objects. We'll never agree, so I'm not wasting any more time on it, feel free to take it up further with him if you want. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
@Martin of Sheffield: You, that seem to be so fond of dictionary definitions, should be aware that the main meaning of vulgar is not "crude", as you seem to have assumed. Anyway, I really don't care about "historic definitions of real objects". Historically, mosques and synagogues were often classified as unholy places in many Christian countries, and we do not classify them here as such. Nor do we classify mosques as "churches" because of some obtuse Christian-centered point of view. Reredos are primarily objects of cult, like it or not. And they have a proper and very precise meaning, at least inside Catholicism. We should classify objects according to what they are in their own context, not to what the Oxford Dictionary thinks they are. I absolutely disagree with your idea of reducing the topic of reredos and altarpieces to mere linguistics or "historical definitions", and absolutely fail to see any value on following such advice.--Darwinius (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Urgent: comments requested at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_19#Category:Persecution_by_atheists

Page: Category:Persecution by atheists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_19#Category:Persecution_by_atheists

One user, Xenophrenic, is requesting deletion of Category:Persecution by atheists even though he has added Category:Persecution by Christians to unrelated articles, such as Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas. This occurred after he emptied the category of historical examples of persecution by atheists, such as atheist states torturing people of faith in the Soviet Union or in Revolutionary France. Please share your comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_19#Category:Persecution_by_atheists, regardless of your opinion. Since Xenophrenic notified the atheism project, I decided to post here, even though I personally am Jewish in faith. Eliko007 (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Consensus on Wikipedia on groupings of Christian denominations

I opened a discussion on groupings in Christianity, of which there currently seems to lack a consensus on Wikipedia. The discussion might be of interest for followers of this talk page. Please see: Talk:Christianity#Denominations. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing topics about Christianity is updated - Skysmith (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding tagging of broadly important articles

There has recently been some question regarding which assessment templates should be used on talk pages for articles which have demonstrable relevance to more than one Christianity based WikiProject. The one major problem I can foresee is the possibility at least in some cases of maybe ten or more Christianity groups tagging the same article. (And, for purposes of discussion, I would include WikiProject Bible in that number for material related to material relating to the New Testament, broadly construed.) That, clearly, would be less than productive. So, I am opening up to discussion maybe trying to set up some sort of rough rule of thumb rule.

First, I think it would be useful to establish an approximate baseline parameter for an article to be considered in such a discussion. At the very least, I would think a subject which has received significant coverage in reference works, particularly broadly encyclopedic reference works, related to any those topics which have dedicated WikiProjects or groups is probably deserving to be tagged by each of those groups, especially if the content of those articles varies significantly between the topics. I also think, for purposes of discussion, that it might be appropriately applicable to any topic which is important to maybe four or five such groups.

The options that come to mind to me immediately are

  • 1) Maybe expand the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group to deal with all such articles.
  • 2) Tag the article for one or more projects which have much lengthier coverage on a topic than others, and include all the rest in the Christianity banner.
  • 3) Use the Christianity banner exclusively.

There are, I have no doubt, other questions to be raised as well, and I would welcome seeing them raised here to be dealt with if possible. John Carter (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

MOS:BIBLE?

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#MOS:BIBLE?. Input would be appreciated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed changes to banner

I note that the Catholicism banner has or had code to allow for statements to the effect of "This article can be improved with material available from the Catholic Encyclopedia" or something like that. I myself wouldn't mind seeing the Christianity banner have some sort of similar functionality, particularly maybe referring to text over at wikisource, which might be best because we here can probably more easily add new material there than anywhere else for use here. We might also include some code to allow for special listing in the assessment grid as articles which can be improved in that way. Any opinions? John Carter (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I am currently unaware of an article that needs this. Can you name a couple such pages? tahc chat 00:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I know of at least two encyclopedic entries on Abercius of Hierapolis over at wikisource, and our article on the subject is rather weak. wikisource:Index:Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature (1911).djvu contains a rather largish number of other articles, but I haven't gone through it all yet. There are a few other religious reference works over there as well, and at least a few general reference works which would presumably have articles on major religious topics as well. And a lot more reference works in the public domain which could be added if there were interest in doing so. John Carter (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I have serious doubts about this suggestion (at least in its present form) and it also touches on a wider concern: dependence on elderly materials which are out of copyright such as the Catholic Encyclopedia or the supporting articles of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and the Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers (NPNF) series, all of which are over a century old. Much of their content has become obsolete in the academic world. The Wikipedia guidelines here are WP:IRS#Age matters and WP:IRS#Some types of sources. Theology and ecclesiastical history have moved almost as much as science and medicine in the intervening century. For example, compare the Catholic Encyclopedia or NPNF on Arius with Rowan William's review of the debate over Arius in Arius (2nd Edn. SCM 2001) especially pp 1-25 and the 2001 appendix "Arius since 1987". In the absence of specialist knowledge, it is almost impossible for an editor to know which bits of information are still relevant. To refer people to out-of-date material in a banner appears to me to be counter-productive. — Jpacobb (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, totally agreement with you regarding possible dependence on elderly materials. There have been and are any number of topics which have been changed dramatically since the time when copyrights have expired. Ideally, I would think that the best way to proceed with any material from older sources would be to also check at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Prospectus and similar pages to check to see if we have newer material on the same subject, and whether the newer material is consistent with the older material. Personally, I would love to have a link to that prospectus page in the banner as well, and the related prospectus pages, for recent verification, and, if possible, have more material on them. And, I suppose, if there were to be a special indicator for "additional older material," another variation of that might be "older material (here) reviewed for insertion." John Carter (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Jesu

What does "Jesu" refer to? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Vocative of Jesus, therefore better rendered as "O Jesus". Also used poetically. For instance Bach's "Jesu, joy of man's desiring" could be rendered as "O Jesus, joy of man's desiring". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments requested at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_19#Category:Persecution_by_atheists

Page: Category:Persecution by atheists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_19#Category:Persecution_by_atheists

Deletion of Category:Persecution by atheists has been requested for review. Please share your comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_19#Category:Persecution_by_atheists, regardless of your opinion. The atheism article Talk page has also received a notification. Eliko007 (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC) (Reworded for policy compliance. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC))

Deletion Discussion: Category:Persecution by atheists

There is currently a discussion at WP:CFD that may be related to the topic of this wiki project. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Cru (Christian organization)

This article needs some work. "Cru" is the new name for Campus Crusade for Christ for those unfamilliar with it. I don't know that much about the organization itself so I can't add much. It needs more people to watch it to ensure that it remains NPOV, and it needs to be expanded with better sources. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

There's been recurrant issues with people who are unfamilliar with Wikipedia adding POV language to the article. And I feel like I'm the only one who reverts it. It seems that there's too few people watching the article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore)

This is not really my field of interest, but perhaps people here can have a look at this article. It seems to be chock-full with SYNTH/OR/personal opinion and definitely it unencyclopedic at this point. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was involved in the article early on - and created the related articles Far Eastern Bible College and Verbal plenary preservation - but they have all been expanded by editors passionate about the subject and are totally out of my control. StAnselm (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
What can we do? tahc chat 02:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure. The editor involved (User:Watchman1234) has been edit warring at The Burning Bush to keep all that stuff in and just posted a message on the talk page there (after having been asked multiple times to discuss the issue on there instead of just edit warring). Given that they now accuse me of bias and prejudice against them, I have not much hope that reasonable discussion is possible. --Randykitty (talk) 08:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I have heeded Randykitty's advice in my latest revision on The Burning Bush. I'm open to advice and suggestions. Randykitty's version took out a whole big chunk without explaining other than indicating it was my personal opinion, which I disagreed. -- Watchman1234 (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
No, you have not taken my advice. You have changed three words (removal of "a wealth of"). That section is still promotional and the article is still chock-full of OR, SYNTH, and personal opinion. And the same stuff is present in several related articles. --Randykitty (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I did more than removing the three words "a wealth of" -- this can be verified by comparing the version with the three words removed with the previous version. I have also removed "valuable" now if this is promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchman1234 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
You did. But you did absolutely nothing to address the problems with Synth/OR and, in fact, don't seem to make the effort to understand what this is. The problem is much larger than this article, because you've been adding this stuff to several articles, the one on Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore) just being the most egregious example. --Randykitty (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Please see latest revision to address SYNTH/OR in The Burning Bush. I'll attend to the other articles when The Burning Bush is ok. -- Watchman1234 (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Urgent: comments requested at [[]]

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
Discussion: [[]]


Comments are urgently requested at the afore mentioned page. We have a discussion which requires informed comments from those familiar with the topic of this discussion. Your help at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. – Lionel (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Cru (Christian organization)

This article needs some work. "Cru" is the new name for Campus Crusade for Christ for those unfamilliar with it. I don't know that much about the organization itself so I can't add much. It needs more people to watch it to ensure that it remains NPOV, and it needs to be expanded with better sources. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

There's been recurrant issues with people who are unfamilliar with Wikipedia adding POV language to the article. And I feel like I'm the only one who reverts it. It seems that there's too few people watching the article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore)

This is not really my field of interest, but perhaps people here can have a look at this article. It seems to be chock-full with SYNTH/OR/personal opinion and definitely it unencyclopedic at this point. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was involved in the article early on - and created the related articles Far Eastern Bible College and Verbal plenary preservation - but they have all been expanded by editors passionate about the subject and are totally out of my control. StAnselm (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
What can we do? tahc chat 02:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure. The editor involved (User:Watchman1234) has been edit warring at The Burning Bush to keep all that stuff in and just posted a message on the talk page there (after having been asked multiple times to discuss the issue on there instead of just edit warring). Given that they now accuse me of bias and prejudice against them, I have not much hope that reasonable discussion is possible. --Randykitty (talk) 08:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I have heeded Randykitty's advice in my latest revision on The Burning Bush. I'm open to advice and suggestions. Randykitty's version took out a whole big chunk without explaining other than indicating it was my personal opinion, which I disagreed. -- Watchman1234 (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
No, you have not taken my advice. You have changed three words (removal of "a wealth of"). That section is still promotional and the article is still chock-full of OR, SYNTH, and personal opinion. And the same stuff is present in several related articles. --Randykitty (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I did more than removing the three words "a wealth of" -- this can be verified by comparing the version with the three words removed with the previous version. I have also removed "valuable" now if this is promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchman1234 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
You did. But you did absolutely nothing to address the problems with Synth/OR and, in fact, don't seem to make the effort to understand what this is. The problem is much larger than this article, because you've been adding this stuff to several articles, the one on Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore) just being the most egregious example. --Randykitty (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Please see latest revision to address SYNTH/OR in The Burning Bush. I'll attend to the other articles when The Burning Bush is ok. -- Watchman1234 (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

total of eight churches by st thomas

Thiruvithamcode Arappally ( actually Arasupally)

I had visited the so called ara pally which is often misunderstood as a half church and its said to be st thomas built seven and half churches.

but when i had spoke to the priest who was there, he was telling this ara was actually arasu which means king in tamil. according to the history. king had given land to built a church in his place. so they built and it was called arasu pally in tamil. later when keralites were taking care of the church. and the word in ages turned to be ara pally, knowing it to be half church. the later care takers even extended it. so as to change its name to a church. but till date its known to the world as ara pally ( half church ).


but atleast the new generation should be learning the truth and accetping the fact that st thomas had built eight churches in india. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanpothen (talk • contribs) 07:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Help expand marijuana coverage at Cannabis and Protestantism, Cannabis and Catholicism (Orthodoxy?)

We're fleshing out the article Cannabis and religion with more sections on religious groups and their stance on cannabis/marijuana. I'd like to invite folks here to help make any corrections and add content, and if a given section gets large enough we can split it off into its own article. On Catholicism we just have some statements from the current Pope prior to his selection, and for Protestantism just a few 2016 Baptist cases, and nothing on Orthodoxy yet, so we could use any expert contribution on those topics. Thanks! Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment: International Justice Mission criticism

Hi, there is a Request for comment at International Justice Mission that participants of WikiProject Christianity might find of interest. The question is: Should criticism of International Justice Mission stand in the Criticism section, or should it be incorporated throughout the article where appropriate? Thank you for considering! Best, SE at Int'l Justice Mission (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Anabaptists not Protestants

Can we adopt a general Wikipedia or WikiProject policy that Anabaptists should not be considered a subcategory of Protestants? I'm particularly thinking in terms of pages that are separated into headings of Catholic, Eastern Christian, Protestant. I recently changed Foot washing in this manner (without opposition), moving Anabaptists out of the Protestant section into their own one.

This is based on my understanding that most Anabaptists do not consider themselves Protestants. They also arose as a separate movement, although at the same time of history.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] I realize Reformation history is complicated, and some contemporary Anabaptists are very similar to Protestants or may even consider themselves Protestant; these categories, like most in life, are generalizations.

I'm requesting this because it seems like something that should be decided in general, rather than discussed on individual pages like Foot washing. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

No. Many and better RSs confirm Anabaptists are Protestants.
What was the Radical Reformation? Was the Magisterial Reformation the only part(s) of the Protestant Reformation? tahc chat 22:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
How are Anabaptists not Protestants? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I realize I may have raised a more question more complex than I am prepared to contend. However, I will try. This is precisely the reason I raised it here and not merely on Foot washing! I see three grounds on which we decide whether Anabaptists are to be included under Protestants. 1) Historical usage of the terms in the Reformation era. 2) Judgements of scholars on the basis of similarities in doctrine and practice, as a tool for categorization (which is our actual purpose here). 3) Self-understandings of contemporary Anabaptists.
1) The term "Protestant" originally applied to followers of Luther,[8][9] but was then adopted by the Calvinists or Reformed Church as well[9] Williams notes that when a town declared itself to be "Protestant", Anabaptists were promptly outlawed.[10]
"At first Protestant meant 'a follower of Luther,' but with the appearance of many protesting sects, it became a general term applied to all non-Catholic western European Christians."[11] Thus we see that "Protestant" did not refer to Anabaptists during the reformation era, but the term Protestant has been applied with a very broad definition by some scholars, which brings us to our next point.
2) Some use the term Protestant for "all non-Catholic western European Christians".[11] This is a very crude categorization, and doesn't seem very useful. For that matter, it would seem to include pre-Reformation groups such as the Waldenses. On the other hand, why not group Anabaptists with the Waldenses against the Protestants, as Anabaptists themselves are wont to do? I'm not suggesting this in reality, since I don't know of a generic term to use for this purpose. I'm simply trying to identify the challenges of categorization.
The Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online seems to consistently distinguish between Anabaptists reformers and Protestant reformers, eg.

"While the Protestant reformers advocated the medieval idea of a corpus Christianum, a Christian society composed of saints and sinners, this concept was absolutely unacceptable to the radical reformers."

— Klassen, Peter J. (1989). "Reformation, Protestant". http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Reformation,_Protestant&oldid=128078. Retrieved 21 Feb 2017. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |work= ignored (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

"Protestants, such as Luther and Calvin, stressed the role of the preacher in spreading the new teachings. Anabaptists urged all members to become advocates of their beliefs."

— Klassen, Peter J. (1989). "Reformation, Protestant". http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Reformation,_Protestant&oldid=128078. Retrieved 21 Feb 2017. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |work= ignored (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
At one place, I found George Huntston Williams, a reputable Unitarian scholar, group Anabaptists under the term "sectarian Protestant", namely "all three main Christian groupings of the age, Catholic, magisterial Protestant, and sectarian Protestant".[10] However, note that he still distinguishes Anabaptists as a group of equal significance with magisterial Protestants and Catholics, rather than merely a subcategory of Protestant within a larger Protestant-Catholic dichotomy. At other points, Williams distinguishes Anabaptists from the Protestant Reformation, saying "the whole of Christendom... was breaking asunder in the process of Protestant reformation, Catholic renewal, and the religious separatism of the Radical Reformers.[10] Similarly we see Williams use the categories of "Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, and Radical", with Radical here meaning Anabaptist.[10] Thus I find Williams ambiguous on the matter at hand.
I would consider Walter Klaasen a reputable Anabaptist scholar. "Klaassen received his doctorate from Oxford University in 1960. He has taught at Bethel College (North Newton, Kan.)(1961-1964) and Conrad Grebel College (Waterloo, Ont.) until his retirement."[12] He was the longtime editor of the Conrad Grebel Review. His position is quite clearly in support of distinguishing Anabaptists from Protestants.[1][4]
Mennonite sociologist Joseph Winfield Fretz describes Canadian Mennonites as "neither Catholic nor exactly Protestant"[13] Baptist historian William Roscoe Estep says "Anabaptist theology of the sixteenth century can be viewed either within the context of the Reformation or as a separate movement."[14]
While I still interpret these authors to be leaning toward separation from Protestants, I haven't found any source besides Klaasen that strikes me as both authoritative and decisive on this matter, so I welcome additional references. Would you mind citing a few of those "Many and better reliable sources", @Tahc:?
3) Self-understandings of contemporary Anabaptists are varied. If we are prepared to dismiss the sources I originally cited[2][3][5][7] as non-scholarly, they at least testify to contemporary understandings. For contemporary non-scholarly debate on this issue, see https://www.christianforums.com/threads/are-anabaptists-protestant.1479049/ or https://www.englishforums.com/English/AnabaptismProtestantismCatholicism/vdldp/post.htm
Have to agree. Anabaptists have historically not identified as either [Roman] Catholic or Protestant, and instead consider themselves a third way. That phrase assumes secondary meaning in how they tend to respond to various situations such as their traditional position on non-violence. In recent years many Anabaptist congregations, when pressed, would identify as "evangelical", which has its foundations in the Protestant camp, but there are many others who don't wear that hat either. Feel feel to call them "radical reformers" or "third way". Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
This discussion could be quite lengthy. I personally take the position that the Anabaptists were not Protestants. Theologically, Robert Friedmann, for one among many, explicitly condemns Protestant views as essentially heresy..[15] Practically speaking, the Protestant Swiss cantons issued anti-Anabaptist mandates every few years. And the Swiss Brethren and Amish and Hutterites refused to attend the Protestant (and Catholic) State churches, even making it a matter of church discipline in some cases for those members who did so. While the early leaders among the Swiss Brethren were with Zwingli originally, they definitely parted ways and formed another, separate movement. The south German Anabaptists were largely from the German Mystics, although some of them passed through the Protestant movement.
So it is a complex question, and depends on the interpretation of what constitutes a "Protestant": (Broad view - my term, by the way) anyone who protested Catholicism, or (Narrow view) only those who protested Catholicism but continued in the State churches. Those who accepted rebaptism were essentially renouncing their infant baptism along with the church[es] associated with it, to step out into a different church movement based on distinct theology and practice.
The problem is that both interpretations are present in RSs, so it is a matter of Wikipedia deciding on which to use. Mikeatnip (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Most RS on Protestantism consider Anabaptists to be Protestants and don't even discuss the question. In fact, (while have been part of an Anabaptist church for years, and consider myself well-read) I have never heard until now that some Anabaptists consider themselves non-Protestant. (Please also note: some people of many other Protestant groups also want to be considered non-Protestant, etc.)
I think Wikipedia can either (a) conisder Anabaptist part of Protestantism, as most educated people do, or (b) conisder Anabaptist part of Protestantism for most purposes, but also discuss the fact that some Anabaptists consider Anabaptists to be outside Protestantism, whenever such discussion seem warrented. tahc chat 16:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Tahc: Please cite "Most RS" and avoid sweeping claims about "most educated people" (See WP:Weasel Words). I realize this isn't an easy question, so I've tried to do a reasonable survey of the scholarly sources I am aware of. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Do you want me to cite Handbook of Denominations in the United States by Frank S. Mead and Samuel Hill and Church History In Plain Language by Bruce L. Shelley? I don't have any books with be right now. Do you have any RSs that are not from an Anabaptist author? tahc chat 18:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes please. And while you're at it, please quote them on what they think of the Latter Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses. Wikipedia varies greatly in what most protestants think are and are not facts so to know those three things would be informative. As a general rule, we tend to align with the opinions of those in the groups rather than those outside looking in. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
No-- we do not "as a general rule, we tend to align with the opinions of those in the groups rather than those outside looking in"-- which is why I suppose you are not considering my opinions, even if thought I am an Anabaptist.
What we do here on Wikipedia, as a general rule, is align with the opinions of the most reliable sources. If we do really want take this seriously then I will look up some good sources, but this is not the best location. This discussion should be at and move to Talk:Anabaptism. Please watch and post there if you want to see such sources.tahc chat 19:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
So no cites from your sources for now. I understand.
And, we will have to disagree on your claim about what we do because the concept of a "most reliable" source is a judgment call, and that's being kind.
Not only do we take this topic seriously, the discussion should stay right here not off in an eddy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't have any sources to hand, but from what I've read in the past my sense has always been that Anabaptists were viewed as Radical Protestants in contrast to Magisterial Reformers. Protestantism is a very broad term, but it is a useful one. There are people from many traditions usually classified as "Protestant" who don't like the label. Some Anglicans don't like the Protestant label even though historically they fit in it (the Oxford Movement did a lot to make many Anglicans feel they weren't Protestants but something else). Some Baptists don't think they are Protestants, and just yesterday I had to revert a change to the Southern Baptist Convention page which changed the Protestant classification to "Protestant or Anabaptist." The editor explained it as a "theological dispute". Not only is the identification of Baptists with Anabaptists historically flawed, its ridiculous to assert that Baptists are not Protestants. I'll wait to see what reliable sources others cite, but I'm concerned at the tendency to deconstruct useful categories just because they don't perfectly match people's perceptions of their own religious traditions.
I'm confused as to why we're making a criteria for "Protestantism" to be "remaining in state churches." There are many Protestant churches that are not and have never been state churches. Baptists, Methodists, etc. are all are identified as Protestant and have never been legally established.
In regards to those bringing in Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, Wikipedia excludes them from the Protestant category because no reliable sources include them as Protestants since they contradict central Protestant theological themes. It's not simply out of respect for those religion's own self-perception. (Many Christian sources reject them as Christian traditions and scholarly sources recognize that there are important theological differences that place them outside of Protestantism, such as this Pew Forum research that classifies them as "Other Christian Traditions"). Ltwin (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Klaassen, Walter (1981). Anabaptism: Neither Catholic nor Protestant. Conrad Press.
  2. ^ a b Prokhorov, Constantine (2004). "Anabaptism is Neither Catholic nor Protestant" (PDF). Theological Reflections: Euro-Asian Journal of Theology. 4. Omsk, Russia.
  3. ^ a b "Why are Mennonites and Anabaptists neither Catholic nor Protestant?". thirdway. MennoMedia. Retrieved 29 March 2016. Note: MennoMedia is the official publishing arm of Mennonite Church USA and Mennonite Church Canada.
  4. ^ a b Klaasen, Walter (1985). "Anabaptism: Neither Catholic Nor Protestant". Christian History (5). Retrieved 29 March 2016.
  5. ^ a b McGrath, William R. (2003). "The Anabaptists: Neither Catholics or Protestants". Providence Baptist Ministries. Retrieved 29 March 2016.
  6. ^ McGrath, William, The Anabaptists: Neither Catholic nor Protestant (PDF), Hartville, OH: The Fellowship Messenger, archived from the original (PDF) on 27 December 2016 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  7. ^ a b Tsang, Lue-Yee (19 December 2011). "The Difference Between Protestants and Anabaptists". Cogito, Credo, Petam. Retrieved 20 Feb 2017.
  8. ^ Williams, George Huntston (1995). The Radical Reformation, 3rd edition:. Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies. Truman State University Press. p. xxviii,57. ISBN 978-0-943549-83-5. Retrieved 21 February 2017.
  9. ^ a b Kramm, H.H. (2009). The Theology of Martin Luther. Wipf & Stock Publishers. p. 17. ISBN 978-1-60608-765-7. Retrieved 21 February 2017.
  10. ^ a b c d Williams (1995) Cite error: The named reference "Williams1995" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  11. ^ a b McKay, J.P.; Hill, B.D.; Buckler, J.; Beck, R.B.; Ebrey, P.B.; Crowston, C.H.; Wiesner-Hanks, M.E. (2011). A History of World Societies, Combined Volume. Bedford/St. Martin's. p. 443. ISBN 978-0-312-66691-0. Retrieved 21 February 2017.
  12. ^ https://uwaterloo.ca/mennonite-archives-ontario/personal-collections/walter-klaassen
  13. ^ Fretz, Joseph Winfield (1989). The Waterloo Mennonites: A Community in Paradox. Wilfrid Laurier University Press. p. xiii. ISBN 978-0-88920-985-5. Retrieved 23 February 2017.
  14. ^ Estep, William Roscoe (1996). "Anabaptism and Reformation Theology". The Anabaptist Story: An Introduction to Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 177. ISBN 978-0-8028-0886-8. Retrieved 23 February 2017.
  15. ^ The Theology of Anabaptism, by Robert J. Friedmann; ISBN 1-57910-210-7

Wikipedia for Peace Berlin 4.-18. Juli 2017- Mennonite peace centre

July 4 to July 18 2017: Wikipedia for Peace Berlin
Wikipedia fo Peace Logo
Wikipedia fo Peace Logo
Braniborská brána
Braniborská brána

You are invited to join us for Wikipedia for Peace Berlin, a Wikipedia workcamp in which we will write articles on the topic of persecution and refuge and also experience Berlin. The goal is to teach newcomers how to edit Wikipedia and write as many articles as possible on the subject. We will also visit different refugee projects in Berlin and have workshops on the topic of persecution and refuge. The camp will take place in the Mennonite peace centre in Berlin. Therefore I'm contacting the project group specifically. It would be great if it could to some degree serve as a get-together of Mennonites that spread across the world due to persecutions. It would be great if some of you wanted to join. The project is aimed at people aged 16-40, so the crowd will be younger. We will live in the Mennonite peace centre during the two weeks.

Wikipedia for Peace is a movement that has been active since 2015. We want to publish articles on issues related to peace and also help to create a more welcoming community.

Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!--EarlyspatzTalk 11:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Urgent: comments requested at [[]]

Page: Marketplace Ministry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion: [[]]

Marketplace Ministry is listed as evangelism in the marketplace as opposed to homes or churches. This definition is a bit misleading standing alone. It should be expanded to include that Marketplace Ministry also refers to how Christian business owners or employees apply the gospel of the Kingdom through the way they operate their businesses and manage their careers. It is primarily through example and not "preaching" per se. One citation: <ref>Christianity Today, “The Cutting Edge of Marketplace Ministries: How businesses are doing more holistic ministry than ever.” AMY L. SHERMAN| OCTOBER 12, 2012<ref> Erreid01 (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments are urgently requested at the afore mentioned page. We have a discussion which requires informed comments from those familiar with the topic of this discussion. Your help at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. – Lionel (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Change to the Template:Infobox Christian Leader

I would like to add the parameter "retired" to the Template "Infobox Christian Leader". When active Catholic bishops reach the age of 75, with few exceptions, they are required to submit their resignation to the Vatican, whereby they become a Bishop Emeritus. The parameters "term_start/term_end" address the start/end of a tenure at a diocese, but not whether he has retired or not (e.g. he could be moved into some administrative position). Roberto221 (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

This basically just will let us know that they lived long enough to reach 75. It is not needed for quick reference... can is best in left to the body of the article. I also suppose you can also still indicate this by listing the title as "Bishop Emeritus". tahc chat 04:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted RfC discussion at Talk:International Justice Mission

I invite you to comment on the content at Talk:International Justice Mission#Request for comment on placement of criticism, which is recently relisted. George Ho (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Easter article

The front page of the English Wikipedia today (16 April) failed to mention that it was Easter Sunday. This was picked up by several editors at Talk:Main Page#Errors in today's or tomorrow's On this day, the reason for its omission being:

Has anyone got the time to work through the problems on the article, so that this doesn't happen again next year? Alansplodge (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

A suggested source is here. Alansplodge (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
That's interesting - I wonder on what basis they are saying that. I see it has featured on the main page 20 times before. Anyway, the article has never received a GA nomination before - it maybe worth nominating it to see what happens. It can't be too far off GA status. StAnselm (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata

The discussion going on at Template talk:Infobox religious text#Wikidata is relevant for this wikiproject. Please give your comments. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 13:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Holy Cross

All these articles link to Holy Cross, which is a DAB page (and therefore unhelpful to readers):

Can any of the experts in this Wikiproject help sort out these problem links? I could guess at some of the answers, but guessing isn't good enough. Narky Blert (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I think they probably all refer to the instrument of the crucifixion of Jesus. I'd be inclined to move the disambiguation page to Holy Cross (disambiguation) and redirect Holy Cross to crucifixion of Jesus. If there is a clear consensus for that here, we could do it boldly; otherwise, start a WP:RM. – Fayenatic London 19:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hallelujah Chorus

I invite members of the project to take part in a merge discussion going on at Hallelujah Chorus. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Article needs attention

Spring Harvest has had some RS issues, and as a result, much of the information has been deleted. It needs attention. Thank you. Atsme📞📧 18:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Project advice

Is there some sort of project advice essay/guideline on this WikiProject similar to WP:NCATH? Most helpful would be a guidelines discussing biographies.--Mr. Guye (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Descendants of Adam and Eve for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Descendants of Adam and Eve is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descendants of Adam and Eve (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.PaleoNeonate (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Use of Geobox vs Infobox for buildings

Bringing a proposal about the use of geobox vs infobox for buildings to the attention of this related WikiProject. {{infobox religious building}} is part of this infobox series and its geobox counterpart has been used mostly for (Portuguese) churches; see Category:Geobox usage tracking for building type. --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Protestant denominations - size by default?

You might want to have a look at this discussion: Talk:List_of_the_largest_Protestant_denominations#Requested_move_24_April_20179. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Urgent: comments requested at [[]]

Page: Christianity and violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion: [[]]


Comments are urgently requested at the afore mentioned page. We have a discussion which requires informed comments from those familiar with the topic of this discussion. Your help at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. – Lionel (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Please look at the original article and the edits I attempted and tell me what I can do to make them acceptable. Here is the article I was writing that I was told would be deleted if it wasn't moved out of drafts. How does one go about writing an article in hopes of merging it with an existing article? [[2]]

Urgent: comments requested at Christianity and violence

Comments are urgently requested at the afore mentioned page. We have a discussion which requires informed comments from those familiar with the topic of this discussion. Your help at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. – Lionel (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I want to edit the Bible section of this article. One editor has taken the position, "this article is about violence so that is all that can be mentioned" without being aware, apparently, this is taking a point of view in a debated topic. Please help! I need help!

This article has been flagged as biased and nominated twice for deletion without reaching consensus. I don't think it needs deleting as there is a large body of scholarship in support of the view put forth in this article, but this subject is controversial and hotly debated and this article presents none of that. The article has one side of the debate without including any links to the other side--or even giving any indication there is another side. This is all done under the guise of "summarizing" the single topic of violence only, but no scholar believes a good job of discussing a subject is done by overlooking and ignoring the opposition. That is not a Wiki quality discussion.

One editor said the article communicates "it's Christianity's fault;" and that is exactly what it does. It's my understanding Wiki articles aren't supposed to make arguments, they are supposed to be neutral summaries of ALL the pertinent information. This one fails at that. It makes an one-sided argument, it is not neutral, and all the relevant information is not there. It does a disservice to our readers to leave it as it is.

The article on the Kalam cosmological argument here on Wiki is brilliant. It is a controversial and hotly debated topic yet it manages to remain neutral by presenting both sides pretty equally; it just states what both arguments are. This article needs that. It needs to state both sides of the argument. I have tried editing and so far have gotten in three sentences after much struggle! I started an article I hoped could be merged with the existing one, but the editors made me move it out of draft or be deleted. They said it would never be accepted and I couldn't keep it there because they already had an article on the subject. I wasn't trying to create a POV fork, I was hoping for merging and balance. Now I am down to editing one sentence at a time. It's been pretty discouraging.

Current empirical studies on religion and violence have shone a whole new light on this subject. It shows violence occurs when there is economic, political and social upheaval; religion gets pulled in--but it is virtually never a cause of violence on its own. Isn't information like that important enough to be included in an article on violence and one particular religion? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The Savior

A case of WP:ASTONISH... In ictu oculi (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed; well spotted. This is now fixed. – Fayenatic London 17:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Urgent Noticeboard Broken

It looks to me like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard/Urgent got broken between 25 January 2017 and 9 April 2017. I can't figure out how it worked in the first place, since it appears to have been generated by a form or template, and I don't see any links to one. Any ideas how to fix this? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I've fixed the current (and only) thread. People aren't filling out the fields properly. Softlavender (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I now see the button at the top of this page and the preloaded content at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard/assistance. I fixed the timestamp, but you're right; everything else is user error, not a bug. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I personally had removed the buttons from the top of this page, because like you I thought the codes or system were broken since two entire urgent threads were messed up. When I figured out that people were simply not filling in the fields correctly, I restored the buttons to this page. (Hope that makes sense.) Softlavender (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Urgent: comments requested at Christianity and violence

Page: Christianity and violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to edit the Bible section of this article. One editor has taken the position, "this article is about violence so that is all that can be mentioned" without being aware, apparently, this is taking a point of view in a debated topic. Please help! I need help!

This article has been flagged as biased and nominated twice for deletion without reaching consensus. I don't think it needs deleting as there is a large body of scholarship in support of the view put forth in this article, but this subject is controversial and hotly debated and this article presents none of that. The article has one side of the debate without including any links to the other side--or even giving any indication there is another side. This is all done under the guise of "summarizing" the single topic of violence only, but no scholar believes a good job of discussing a subject is done by overlooking and ignoring the opposition. That is not a Wiki quality discussion.

One editor said the article communicates "it's Christianity's fault;" and that is exactly what it does. It's my understanding Wiki articles aren't supposed to make arguments, they are supposed to be neutral summaries of ALL the pertinent information. This one fails at that. It makes an one-sided argument, it is not neutral, and all the relevant information is not there. It does a disservice to our readers to leave it as it is.

The article on the Kalam cosmological argument here on Wiki is brilliant. It is a controversial and hotly debated topic yet it manages to remain neutral by presenting both sides pretty equally; it just states what both arguments are. This article needs that. It needs to state both sides of the argument. I have tried editing and so far have gotten in three sentences after much struggle! I started an article I hoped could be merged with the existing one, but the editors made me move it out of draft or be deleted. They said it would never be accepted and I couldn't keep it there because they already had an article on the subject. I wasn't trying to create a POV fork, I was hoping for merging and balance. Now I am down to editing one sentence at a time. It's been pretty discouraging.

Current empirical studies on religion and violence have shone a whole new light on this subject. It shows violence occurs when there is economic, political and social upheaval; religion gets pulled in--but it is virtually never a cause of violence on its own. Isn't information like that important enough to be included in an article on violence and one particular religion? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Urgent: comments requested at Amalek

Page: Amalek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion: I am hereby officially associating Wikipedia editors who fail to follow WP:NPOV with Amalekites. :)

There is a significant content dispute at the above named article which has also spilled onto WP:ANI. The dispute involves possible NPOV material and WP:OR claims of a potentially WP:FRINGE nature. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject and related task forces have signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post on Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Popular pages.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding reach of WikiProject Philosophy, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at meta:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, The Community Tech Team, through Johan (WMF) (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Capitalisation

A look at Category:Christian movements shows roughly equal numbers of small 'm' (e.g. Community Church movement‎) and capital 'M' (e.g. Christian Liberation Movement, both among articles and among sub-categories. Is there any agreed guideline on when to capitalise? Colonies Chris (talk) 09:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be lower case unless it's part of an acronym. Christian Liberation Movement should not be in the category at all - despite its title, it isn't a movement. StAnselm (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Open Episcopal Church -- needs help and cleanup

This article needs help and cleanup (and when done, hopefully the tags can be removed). Two editors have also been squabbling about it, both via edit wars and on the talkpage. I just now gave it a bit of a going over, but I've exhausted my skill level on a subject matter I do not specialize in, so any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: It's been helped a bit; could use more help/eyes if anyone is willing, as there are gaps in sourcing. I've added Template:friendly search suggestions to the talk page to assist researching. Softlavender (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

New template

I have created a new template, Template:Episcopal lineage. It is used to display the lineage leading up to a bishop (including cardinals, popes, patriarchs, etc.). It is configured to be used for Catholic, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and other Christian denominations that maintain a historical episcopate. An example of its use can be found on the template page or in the Pope Francis article. Ergo Sum 04:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Merge templates proposal

With the new Template:Episcopal lineage created, I propose merging Template:Ordination with the other. I think the aesthetics of episcopal lineage are preferable and recommend creating a new collapsible section within that template to include the information contained within ordination. Thoughts? The merger discussion is located at Template talk:Ordination#Merge templates. Ergo Sum 17:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Apostles Creed

To whom it may concern.

It is my understanding that the Apostles Creed is also represented in the Episcopal Church.

Catherine A. Cox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:8000:2C73:B517:D2DA:1781:4F64 (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Body and Blood of Christ

There is a discussion taking place at the above location that members of this Wikiproject might be interested in. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

questions re "list of beatified people"

Hello, not sure if this is the right place, but the page directed me here. Two questions. First, when a group is beatified at once, should the individual names be listed here? Second related question. Should a name only be included if there is a Wiki article about that person alone? (as for example "holidays and observances" in the article for each day of the year). --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I posted an example of a question on the talk page. Blessed Wincenty Lewoniuk does not have his own article, nor is he mentioned by name in an article, but the article Pratulin Martyrs names him in the title of an external link, where his companions are also named. Can I include him? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Question about Category:Christianity articles needing attention

Dear editors, I would like to contribute to keeping articles related to Christianity up-to-date and high quality. Currently, the category Category:Christianity articles needing attention seems to contain many articles with no outstanding issues. How is membership to this category decided? Can anyone remove a page from the category? Are the articles listed still in need of attention? The talk page is more or less dead, so I’m asking here in case anyone can point me in the right direction. Thanks in advance.

Best,

Maximilian Aigner (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

If there are no outstanding issues that you can find, to remove the article from the category you go to the talk page into edit mode. Look for "WikiProject Christianity", then look where it says "attention=yes" and remove that parameter. Ltwin (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Maximilian Aigner: This happens inside {{WikiProject Christianity}} when the attention=yes parameter is set. As was stated above, edit the talk page and modify that parameter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ltwin and Walter Görlitz: Thank you both very much. Maximilian Aigner (talk) 06:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Independent Baptist

The article needs more to it, and my edits were undone. A description of their general beliefs should be listed with good sources. Mooters 1563 (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Christian fundamentalism - recent activity

Could anyone take a look at recent activity on Christian fundamentalism? I already reverted there twice. Thanks. 172.56.36.51 (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Using Template:Infobox church/denomination in another template

I would like to use the variable color function of Template:Infobox church/denomination in Template:Episcopal lineage, which I am almost done building. My goal is to have the header change color according to the denomination entered, as well as the font color change when necessary according to the background color, just as Template:Infobox church does. I have tried to code this into the template as it is, but it does not seem to work, as it the header color remains the default color. Does anyone know how I can go about achieving this? Ergo Sum 17:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I came up with a solution. You can see it on the template. Ergo Sum 19:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

"The Bible and violence" article

I am working on a total rewrite-- in my sandbox-- of an existing article that was flagged as needing it. I am wondering if I can put upon someone to give me a fair and honest assessment of the content before I go any further. I'm still pretty new here and haven't made any friends I can ask yet. The existing article is the Bible and Violence. I think the title needs changing because it is too broad, and it's meaning can be seen as ambiguous. I have gone with Violence in the Bible. That is actually what the article discusses. The article not only lacked sufficient inline references, it needed reorganizing. The entire existing article is subsumed in the rewrite. I left nothing out. I even checked and read up on his references. Everything he said is still there--it's just rearranged and either edited for conciseness or expanded and added to. I would especially like comments on including the section on apologetics--which contains the non-sectarian information--or combining them all into single paragraphs--or deleting it entirely...and whatever your reasoning on that might be. Please help me! I have already run into some vitriol on this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC) User talk:Jenhawk777/sandboxJenhawk777 (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Jenhawk777/sandbox

This article needs a lot of clean up, and multiple notices have been given to it. It's particularly bias towards the Subordinationism view without considering the contrary and thus it does not remain neutral. On top of that, some of the sources it gives are either old or not completely reliable. Mooters 1563 (talk) 2:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I am unsure what you mean by multiple notices. Since this is still in my sandbox, other than answers to questions I posted in the Teahouse, only two people have commented. And an attempt to comply and cooperate with what those commenters said is why I posted this request. I do respond to every piece of advice anyone has posted to me. The article does need clean-up. But I need specifics. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Subordinationism is not present, I will argue that, I include the view that the crucifixion is the most violent event in the Bible, and Evan Fales comment, and a couple other things, but if you think that discussion should be expanded, I can certainly do that. Part of the problem, I'm sure, is that the New Testament simply doesn't mention war at all and there aren't the same number or type of events to address as there are in the OT; there are no commands to genocide. The only murder in the NT is Stephen's and he's a victim and that's why I left it out. Perhaps that should be included anyway. I would be interested in hearing your view of that. I can't make stuff up in an effort to avoid some point of view I don't actually have. Representing the majority view accurately while also mentioning alternate views is how this is supposed to work, though, right? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I need to know what references specifically you think are unreliable and why as well. Some sources are no doubt old but that does not automatically disqualify them.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: Ignore the paragraph talking about multiple notices. When you entered your first paragraph ("I am working ...") you edited it in before the existing one, so although it appears to answer you it does not. If you look at the dates you'll see that "Mooters 1563" added his on 30 July whereas yours is from 2 August, 3 days later. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I don't suppose I could talk you into going and reading it and commenting on the content could I? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Possibly tomorrow evening. I'm on UK time and it's 23:34 so I'm off to bed! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jenhawk. I've had a quick look and have nothing to add to the detail, others who are far more knowledgeable than I seem to be advising you adequately. One tiny point though, don't be tempted to try to write the whole article in depth in the lead – the lead should summarise for numpties like me what the subject is all about, rather than expound upon the content. Should there be a definition of "The Bible" in a lead? Probably (this may be being read by, say, a Sikh), but possibly not in as much detail (just say it is the Christian and Jewish holy books, he'll understand). Do "Masoretic", "Deuterocanonical" or "historiography" help a high school pupil in Cambodia understand what the article is about? Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Martin, thank you for responding. I deleted that stuff from the lead. But it may not matter. I have been getting great help--mostly--but I have run into a snag. Instead of attempting to replace the whole article at once, I took the advice of others here with more experience than I and began editing the existing article with some parts of what they had already seen, and given such great help with. It was reverted within a few minutes by Jytdog without anyone else ever getting the chance to read or see or have an opinion on it. There was no consensus. I suggested he put it back--I don't want to get into an edit war so I have not--and allow the community to see it and edit it and decide for themselves. Maybe give it a week. If they edit every word I wrote I feel like, "So what?" The article will be edited and improved and that's the point-- right? I trust the Wiki community to do quality edits--that's all I have seen so far--plus the majority have demonstrated genuine good will and a desire to help. The flag on this article and comments in talk from other editors--including Jytdog--state this article needs a complete rewrite. I agreed--so that's what I did. Then I was advised not to attempt to submit and ask for a merge but to edit the existing article. I edited about half the existing article with plenty left to do. Jytdog said that was way too bold and reverted the whole thing immediately. He can't have even read any of it. Do I have any recourse besides an edit war which I do not want?Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
HI Jenhawk. This is moving too far from "Project Christianity", so I'm going over to your talk page which seems more appropriate. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity/Noticeboard/Archive_10&oldid=1122670937"