Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reformed Christianity/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Invitations

Hi. I've not long joined the project after seeing the banner on a couple of talk pages. If no one thinks I an treading on their toes, I'd like to invite the Wikipedians in Category:Calvinist Wikipedians and Category:Presbyterian Wikipedians, and a few other people who might be interested, to join the project. Blarneytherinosaur talk 02:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You joined the project within the first 24 hours. I've altered the userbox so that everyone who uses it is automatically added to the Calvinist Wikipedians category. Once the project gets going properly (say 30 members), I'll consider setting up a Presbyterianism task force, with a separate userbox.
-- TimNelson 03:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I see everyone in Category:Calvinist Wikipedians has been invited. I have placed the invitation template on one or two talk pages of people I have come across before. I've also come across another likely bunch of contributors at Category:Calvinist and Reformed Wikipedians. If no one beats me to it, I'll start inviting them over the next few days. Blarneytherinosaur talk 07:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good! That's what we like :). I noticed Flex seems to have been working his network too. I covered Calvinist Wikipedians and Reformed Presbyterian Wikipedians. I'll also look through Presbyterian Wikipedians. -- TimNelson 09:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I removed the automatic categorization of members of this project as Wikipedians. I can imagine an atheist or an Arminian joining up but not wanting to be considered a Calvinist. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I saw that. Thanks! That's why there's now a separate userbox for that sort of thing :).
-- TimNelson 14:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

More useful Presbyterian categories?

Hi all. Presbyterianism is currently defined as a subcategory of Calvinism, which, according wo Wikipedia Category theory (IIRC), means that everything under it should be able to have the Calvinism label applied to it. I'm wondering if there isn't some way to get a more useful set of Presbyterian categories, so I'm writing some ramblings here.

If I had to do it, I'd be doing something like this:

  • Presbyterians
    • Presbyterian liberals
    • Presbyterian traditionals (ie. I'm a Presbyterian because my father and grandfather were; Calvin? who's that?)
    • Presbyterian evangelicals

Does anyone else have a better way of doing things? I know there are subdivisions within what I said (ie. evangelicals include paleopresbyterians and neopresbyterians :) ), but I'm just trying to get it down in outline for now.

-- TimNelson 04:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Calvinist Userbox

One of the categories this userbox tag adds is Category:Born-again Christian Wikipedians. Though I don't object to the term as a description of myself, I was really surprised that the assumption had been made that anyone calling themselves a Calvinist should automatically be categorized as born-again. I know this raises the whole question about the difference between mental assent and saving faith, but I think such an unwarranted assumption might very well trip up the unwary new participant! DFH 19:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess my thought was that anyone who cares enough to actually categorise themselves as Calvinist would be born-again, at least in this day and age; I wouldn't be tagging all historical figures who claimed to be Calvinist as born-again.
If there are any large-sized objections, though, I can change it.
-- TimNelson 00:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Plymouth Bretheren

Does anyone know if Plymouth Brethren are Calvinist? The page on them says they "include elements of Calvinism".

--TimNelson 08:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What next?

The question is, after we do assessment for a while, what do we do next? I can see a few possibilities:

I recommend we do both :). To start with, we should all vote on the article we'd like to see go to FA class. Only one biography and one "other" will get elected each month for a FA push. I'm not intending that any articles actually be elected, though, until May. See the Collaboration section of the main page for details as to what I intend, but if you just want to vote, then:

In the meantime, after we finish assessing (see post above), we can work at improving all those Category:Top-importance Calvinism articles that aren't yet up to B-Class articles.

Note: I rate things as stubs if they don't have enough headings. You have been warned :).

-- TimNelson 13:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Restructure, & stage change

Hi all. I've restructured the main page a fair bit over the last week. I've moved a fair bit of content out into subpages, but these can all be accessed through the navigation bar.

Also, I figured the assessment stage, as a stage, is done. Sure we'll continue with assessment, but the important thing is we've got a list of Category:Top-importance Calvinism articles, and they are the ones that, to my mind, fit the criteria on the assessment page: "The article is one of the core topics about Calvinism. Generally, this is limited to those articles that are are included as sections of the main Calvinism article". This gives us a bit of focus as to actual content creation, so I think we can move on from assessment as a stage to running it simulataneously in the background as part of the ongoing project work.

I figured we should run the "Role-filling" stage I'd proposed simultaneously with the normal part of the project. So I'll just add it to the todo list instead.

What I'd suggest are the things to do at the moment are:

  • Nominate or vote for your favourite articles so that they can be Collaboration of the Month; see Collaboration page for details. First collaborations begin 1st May.
  • Fill the roles suggested in the Roles section of the main page
  • Consider the formation of task forces. I've decided to mostly scrap the minimum requirements for the task forces, now that I understand them better. Those can be discussed on this page. But if you want one I've already suggested (see above), please speak in its favour.

-- TimNelson 02:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Task forces

Any task force may be included on this list if:

  • It looks like 2 or more people might be interested, OR
  • Someone is interested enough to add it with their name next to it

Suggested task forces

Discussion

Now that I understand task forces better, I'd prefer to form them earlier rather than later, so I'm scrapping all prerequisites except that someone be interested in forming the task force. Is anyone interested in forming any task forces? (Incidentally, we now have 22 members). -- TimNelson 13:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Tim, I'm more in support mode right now and don't have the time and energy to take on a new role, but I'll help out where I can. --Flex (talk|contribs) 18:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to edit the text. It was reversed. You must understand that the 1689 confession is not the same as the 1646 confession which is unique. I am going to try to reedit, and unless you give me good cause on why the term "law and gospel" should not include the significant historical exception of the 1646 First London Baptist Confession of Faith, I will continue to add the edit. This term "law and gospel" is not simply under the ownership of Lutherans or Calvinists. Please note that I believe in predestination, but I am of the opinion shared by the 1646 confession, that the gospel has the power to convict, not the law, and indeed this is what happened as Peter preached to the assembly in Acts ch 2. --bgamall

I see. And how is this relevant to the task forces? -- TimNelson 04:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Calvinism stub picture

I appreciate that TimNelson created the current picture on {{Calvinism-stub}} as the WikiProject Calvinism logo, but I've taken a look through the pictures of tulips on Commons and I would like to suggest a couple of others that might look a little nicer in the template. . Both the first and the second look good at 30px. Ideas? Blarneytherinosaur talk 07:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I know this is cosmetic, but I have to agree. Nice already - but let's make it better. Number one looks good.Brian0324 14:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
If this is such a big deal to anyone else, check out this satire on PurgatorioBrian0324 20:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Love the link Brian0324.
I've uploaded an edited version of the first tulip to Commons showing only the head. What do we think? Blarneytherinosaur talk 11:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I like unedited #1 best. --Flex (talk|contribs) 12:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I should've just called for a logo :). I don't mind what we do, so long as we're consistent. So check "What links here" for the other one when we get some consensus on the changeover.
Hmm. I like the edited #1 better (well, actually, I like my original best, but whatever :) ). But I think what I like about #1 is that it's upright. If what Flex likes is that it's zoomed further out, maybe we could have an upright version of #1, but zoomed out.
Also, what I was trying to achieve in my first logo was something which not only is a tulip, but also something that captures the quintessential tulipness. What I mean is, people are supposed to look at it and go "Oh, that's a tulip". For this reason, I vote against #2 and #4; not tulippy enough to my mind :).
-- TimNelson 04:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a couple of the suggestions aren't tulipy enough. How about we consider variations of #1? Blarneytherinosaur talk 08:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Fine by me. -- TimNelson 11:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I've uploaded an upright version as well. The variations of #1 are at 40px. I'll be away for a week, so I won't be able to continue this discussion personally. Blarneytherinosaur talk 02:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I like . --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Pro -- TimNelson 12:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Pro Blarneytherinosaur talk 03:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Pro Brian0324 16:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC) gave my wife some tulips last weekend...
Well, since everyone involved seems to agree, Blarney, feel free to replace the other one with it.
-- TimNelson 14:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Right. I'll do the changeover today. Blarneytherinosaur talk 23:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


Calvinist terminology

I have just merged the little information from Calvinist terminology that was not already in the articles about Predestination (Calvinism), Supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism, and The Five Points of Calvinism into those articles, and redirected that page to Calvinism. If anyone is seriously interested in developing in glossary of Calvinist terms feel free to change that redirect into a article. Blarneytherinosaur talk 05:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Translations

Hello everyone, Meshsa here (the translator?) I have added a few thing in the terms of the project translating from french/german/spanish/italian to english. If there is anything you see and you like me to translate relevant to the project please let me know, either by leaving a request in the Translation page or on my talk (though preferably on the Translation page. Cheers Meshsa 15:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For everyone's information: the project translation page is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Calvinism/Translation -- TimNelson 23:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Reformed Presbytery in North America

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reformed Presbytery in North America. Can anyone find any sourcing for this - and write a proper stub to avert deletion.--Docg 21:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Christianity core topics task force/work group

Hi all. Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity has just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group. One of the ideas behind this is that people from all the Christianity WikiProjects can participate in these articles without having to add the banners for all 16 or so related WikiProjects to them.

-- TimNelson 11:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

New project proposal

There is a new WikiProject task force proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Inter-religious content that is being proposed to deal specifically with articles whose content relates to several religious traditions. Any editors interested in joining such a group would be more than welcome to indicate their interest there. John Carter 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


Categorization: Reformed or Calvinist?

Please lend your thoughts to Category_talk:Calvinist_ministers_and_theologians. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger: "Christian Church" and "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church"

I recently merged these two articles. There was an objection that was raised and a request was made to seek feedback here. Please offer commentary on the talk page, for or against.

--Mcorazao 03:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC) pp Johnbod 01:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

James Burns (shipowner) and friends

I notice that James_Burns_(shipowner) has been marked as part of WikiProject Calvinism. As far as I can tell, he's been included because he was prominent, and a Presbyterian. I've read a bit about Sir James. I haven't found anything about him spreading Calvinism, but I may have missed something. He used to be on a list of prominent Presbyterians, since removed because it was a list copied from another web page. If we've included everyone from that list in WikiProject Calvinism, I think we're bound to have made some major mistakes. Maybe that's not why he's included, though. I wouldn't want to accuse anyone of making assumptions, based on my own assumption.. Could someone tell me why he's included? WotherspoonSmith 09:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought James Burns qualified because of the material in the "Later Life" section of his article, petitioning the Presbyterian Church of Australia to found the Burside Presbyterian Orphans Homes, charing it's board for ten years, and suggesting that his son donate the family property to the home following his death. I'm happy for him to be removed if the consensus is that this is a bit of a long bow.
As for the list (List of famous Australian Presbyterians), it was deleted because it was a copy and paste from elsewhere, which as I have stated elsewhere was my fault. In some cases the peoples connection to the Presbyterian Church was a bit tenuous, but I don't think it is completely unreliable, so I have added the likely ones to Category:Australian Presbyterians. I then went through that category to find people who have made contributions to the life of the church and tagged them as part of WikiProject Calvinism. The ones that made it to the Project were are mostly ministers, missionaries and theological college lecturers, although it does include a couple of benefactors, the other one I can think of being Francis Ormond who made major contributions to the Presbyterian Theological College in Melbourne.
Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 00:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance at Template:Books of the Old Testament

Friends,

I would appreciate assistance at Template:Books of the Old Testament.

  • Context:
    • Wiki has navigation templates for Tanakh, NT and Qur'an, but a shocker for Old Testament.
  • Events:
    • I corrected an error which claimed Anglicans include the apocrypha in the Old Testament.
    • I provided Article 6 of 39 Articles for any interested parties to check.
    • My correction was reverted by an anon user.
    • I attempted to resolve things by simplifying the Old Testament template to the books of the Hebrew Bible.
    • I created a new template for the apocrypha, which actually gives more space to cover that complex grouping.
    • My simplification was reverted and then protected by an administrator without any prior discussion.
  • Result:
    • The misleading and convoluted OT template is now protected.
  • Comment:

The administrator simply acted unilaterally and then hypocritically abdicated responsibility to consensus, having not attempted to gain consensus for her own action. There was no engagement with the source that had been provided. It is important that errors of judgement and bad examples like this be called "foul". However, it's no big deal, we want admin to keep doing their thankless, helpful work.

  • Request:
    • Please visit the talk page and contribute if you feel comfortable doing so.
  • What I have claimed:
  1. Tanakh is Jewish name for the books we call Old Testament in Jewish order
  2. Hebrew Bible is ecumenical name for undisputed canonical books
  3. Old Testament is name for 39 books in traditional Christian order
  4. Apocrypha is Protestant name for non canonical books of OT accepted by various non Protestant groups
  5. Deuterocanonical is description for Apocrypha among groups that accept those books
  6. Anglicans do not consider the Apocrypha to be canonical (hence not deuterocan.), nor part of the OT

I guess most of us normally mix in circles where these issues are not contentious, either people have been educated in them, or they don't care about them. Since Wiki is asking for consensus regarding these things, could you please come and point out these things already have documented scholarly consensus, which is the responsibility of Wiki editors to learn and reflect in their work, rather than debate anew. Sola Scriptura. Alastair Haines 23:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

New Problem at Talk:Hebrew Bible

Thanks to the brother who emailed me. Thanks to everyone who prayed. That template issue is still not resolved, but it is certainly much improved.

I have a new issue. Probably not a major one. It does involve Covenant Theology in a general way.

Unfortunately, the majority of Wiki people think Old Testament means "Replaced" Testament.

This is an issue I'd love help with for three reasons:

  1. there are only a few people in the debate so far and it is a short debate for you to catch up with,
  2. we actually educate people in something more important than they realise if we show them how Reformed Christians think of Covenant,
  3. finally, if we do not address this issue, people will be emboldened to try to make Christian articles more PC.

One reason people try to silence Christians is they misunderstand what we believe. There are lots of great people at Wiki, who are committed to being impartial. They are willing to defend each POV in establishing a NPOV. Please watch and help if you can or if you think it needed. Cheers. Alastair Haines 13:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on all this. I had a look at it, but didn't feel I could contribute anything. -- TimNelson 11:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for dropping a note. It's all pretty messy. In some ways, it's better I work alone and use sources to back the points I make. The people at this page are pretty good actually, they don't try the old there's-three-of-us-and-one-of-you-so-we-have-consensus-and-you're-biased trick.
Actually, I'm going to dip my oar in at biblical canon at some stage, the article's a bit messy; and I get the feeling it's more about people fighting people over lists, rather than people struggling together to establish what they believe to be divine revelation. It needs to be reported that divine revelation was the belief and the issue. Anyway, one thing at a time. Cheers and God bless everyone. Alastair Haines 14:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Another update, I think we are making progress with the Hebrew Bible article. It has drawn me into something that has been marked as covered by Project Calvinism — the Supersessionism article. I do hope all your churches have great sessions, but that is not what this article is about of course (sorry, couldn't resist). I think I've found a place to contribute something of genuine use to this project. I'll report back when I start making progress. Cheers. Alastair Haines 12:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I put that there because I think the section titled "Covenant Theology" on that page needs work. -- TimNelson 04:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

vote for Moses to become a featured article vote

Vote at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Moses so as too get Moses into a featured article Java7837 23:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

James I

I must object to the main article's classification of James I of England as the model "enemy of Calvinism." James was himself a Calvinist - he was raised in the Presbyterian Church of Scotland and remained a Calvinist his entire life. Heck, he sent a delegation to the Synod of Dort and instructed them to side with the Calvinist party. Now, he was an opponent of Puritanism and was a resolute defender of episcopacy against presbyterianism. But if you were a Calvinist who supported episcopacy, James was your man. Sure, James did allow the growth of an Arminian party in the Church of England but his personal beliefs remained Calvinist. Adam_sk 00:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please add new comments at the bottom -- I'm liable to miss them at the top because that's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work.
You make some good points. James I has already been discussed somewhat in the Tagging and Scope archive; I'd recommend skimming over that (short) section of the discussion before we continue (I've just reviewed it myself).
I've altered the scope to be less dogmatic about it. However, if you have any better suggestions as to enemies, feel free to chime in. I'd also prefer to refer to particular people rather than offices (eg. a particular pope rather than the office of pope).
-- TimNelson 14:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Great Apostasy

I was surprised to see that the Great Apostasy was under WikiProject Calvinism. I'm pretty sure that article was originally created to document the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' view of the early church. Do the editors here think that it should be part of this project? Wesley 05:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering the section entitled "Reformed Perspective" is nearly 3 times longer than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints section and 25% longer than the whole Restorationsist section, I think the tag is warranted. (In fact the Reformed section is longer than the other 2 main sections.) I have tagged it as part of WP:Christianity also. Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 07:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe

I wonder if someone would take another look at the biography of my namesake John Foxe once again. I believe that I've now improved the biography beyond its current "B" rating.--John Foxe 14:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'd make two suggestions:
-- TimNelson 03:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

What "stories" of the Bible merit separate articles?

There has recently been some discussion regarding which "stories" or portions of the Bible merit having their own articles. For the purposes of centralized discussion, please make any comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#What should have separate articles?. Thank you. John Carter 13:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Calvinism-stub

Just though I would note here that Kaihsu (talk · contribs) has changed the picture [1] on Template:Calvinism-stub from Image:Tulip single upright.PNG to Image:John Calvin.jpg . I don't have a problem with using a different pic, but I though I would mention it. Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 00:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

... and not just there, either, but also on the WikiProject Calvinism page. I've invited him to WPCalvinism. I presume he has no understanding of the significance of the tulip. We'll see what happens.
-- TimNelson 09:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Lol, God is sovereign in revealing his truth. ;) Alastair Haines 12:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Category structure

Anyone like or hate the current cat structure? Category:Calvinist_artists_and_writers is being considered for deletion. Category:Reformed Christian Americans was recently added. --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Bored, restless, time on your hands?

If there are any people out there with too much time and not enough action. Please feel free to drop by the supersessionism article. I've just about finished a complete overhaul. It has a small section on Covenant Theology. I'm sure however mind-numbing your life was prior to looking at the article, you'll thank God for it after spending time with the article. I'm offering this opportunity to help you grow in godliness. ;) Alastair Haines 12:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Parishes in Presbyterian Polity

TimNelson prompted me to look again at a stagnant discussion at Talk:Presbyterian polity about the terms "Congregation" and "Parish". I've had a look at the Form of Presbyterial Church-Government and found a definition of a congregation, but I don't have any definition of a parish. Anyone? Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 06:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Update

I updated the look of the project and corrected some things like the collaboration to reflect the reality on the ground. My work isn't done, so save all your complaints and compliments until the end. -- SECisek (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

New barnstar for the project. Be bold and show some recognition!

The TULIP Barnstar for hard work and diligence on the Calvinism WikiProject

-- SECisek (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Reformed_Christianity/Archive_1&oldid=1218733608"