![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Hi, I have requested a rename of Category:Evangelical Church in Germany dioceses; see the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 15#Category:Evangelical Church in Germany dioceses. Thanks! + An gr 17:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed the deletion of Clancularii. If anyone can find a verifiable source and additional information on this Anabaptist group, it may be salvageable. ✤ JonHarder talk 15:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I was surprised to see that our article on
City of God (book) (De Civitate Dei) by
Augustine of Hippo is basically just a stub (and has no cites.)
It's marked as "supported by the Theology work group" and of mid-importance on the Project's importance scale. Can anybody do anything to improve this? Thanks. --
Writtenonsand (
talk)
15:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Søren Kierkegaard for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Arsenikk (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not versed in the analysis of non-canonical Christian texts, so I'd appreciate it if someone could look at this new article and figure out if it is encyclopedic or even if the author is performing original research. Thanks! Clifflandis ( talk) 23:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello! The category Category:Josephite sects in the Latter Day Saint movement has a biased name, and a worse biased content:
The category seems too small to exist, and it is populated with opponents on an issue, so the reason for it seems to be confused. Opinions? ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 15:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RfC started at Talk:Miraculous_Draught_of_Fish#RfC: Merge or keep separate? All project members are invited and encouraged to participate. Viriditas ( talk) 11:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I've asked History2007 if we need two different articles on Miraculous draught of fishes and Miraculous catch of 153 fish, with no response. Both articles are largely unreferenced with only links to primary sources. I can understand the argument for keeping separate miracles on different pages, but can someone look at both articles and decide what to do? There is, after all, significant overlap and a lack of citations. Viriditas ( talk) 12:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there a need to have two articles on the same, related subject? Shouldn't we have one article that includes all subjects rather than many that refers to one? Viriditas ( talk) 09:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
This link points to copyrighted pictures NOT in the public domain unless you find out otherwise. We probably have legal pictures of many of these already. But some of these may need released pictures to Wikimedia. See http://www.boredpanda.com/50-most-extraordinary-churches-of-the-world. Student7 ( talk) 00:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
If you have a moment, please see
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Biblical disambiguators. Thank you!
—
V = I * R (
talk to Ω)
07:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I was doing some research on Christianity today, only to find that all of the information I was looking for was no longer available and was redirected by someone named User:Clinkophonist in 2006. That's a huge surprise to me, since the redirects did not contain the information that was in the original articles. I was going to contact Clinkophonist and ask what was going on, but the user hasn't been active since March. In my opinion, most of these so-called "merges" (actually redirects with no merge) were poorly conceived and should be reverted. For only one of many examples, I went looking for information about the phrase " fishers of men". There was once an article about it called Matthew 4:19, but Clinkophonist merged this information into Twelve Apostles (now called Apostle (Christian))in April 2006, [3] but that content is no longer on Wikipedia. So to start with, could someone tell me why all the articles on biblical passages have disappeared? Viriditas ( talk) 04:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I would sure hate to see any or any more scripture verses being given redirects instead of deletion. The encyclopedia should not be that textually oriented. BTW, we would also have suras from the Koran, text from the Book of Mormon, vedas, etc. None of which is desirable IMO. Wikipedia is not intended for meditation. People interested in text have many other resources on the web. This shouldn't be one of them. Student7 ( talk) 14:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 15:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Members of this WikiProject might be able to help out on some of the disputes at Christ myth theory. For those unfamiliar with the subject, the Christ myth theory is the claim that Jesus never existed, and the stories about him are fabricated myths. This is a fringe theory, and is called so by multiple scholarly sources. Current disputes on the article include the definition of the theory itself; whether scholars' comparisons of the theory to Holocaust denial should be included in the lead (or at all), and whether the article should be rolled back to the version of December 5, reverting a substantial number of edits. Of course, many of those edits were reverts--two editors have recently been blocked for edit warring on the article, and the page is currently fully protected. Some new voices might help resolve what have so far been unresolvable problems. --Akhilleus ( talk) 02:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Please see:: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yahweh and Allah. Borock ( talk) 07:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
There are lots of articles on bishops which don't seem to give any assertion of notability other than them being a bishop (eg. all the recent Bishops of Kensington). Has there been a discussion anywhere about the notability requirements for clergy? Being a bishop doesn't seem like its enough to me... -- Tango ( talk) 21:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.
All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Does Listing of Christianity articles by quality include all subprojects or just main project (Wikiproject Christianity) -- Vojvodae please be free to write :) 10:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Howdy, could someone please look at Talk:Religious_response_to_ART#Article_for_Catholic_section. There's a new on the Church and IVF policy. I don't know enough and would appreciate if someone here could flip through the article and see if it jives with what is currently in Religious_response_to_ART. Thanks, Joe407 ( talk) 09:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
In the current move to delete unsourced BLPs I came across the article on Rubem Alves, which had been tagged as a "non-notable theologian". Looking around a bit I discovered that he was one of the founders of liberation theology (which surprised me, because I didn't know that it Protestant roots, at least in part). I was able to add a few basic cites, but it strikes me as an important bio, and probably worthy of attention from someone who knows more than a little about the topic. Guettarda ( talk) 16:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Christianity. I requested an assessment for the article Sergei Kourdakov about a month and a half ago but no one has assessed it unfortunately. Could someone qualified please do so soon? Thank you very much. Sorafune +1 18:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.
The two opposing positions which have the most support is:
Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.
Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.
If you don't already have Cleanup listings, Cleanup listings is a bot which collects all tagged unreferenced biographies of living people, plus other lists onto one page in your project.
It is very easy to add to your project: simply add a template to a page of your project! Instructions
A list of examples is here
If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip
If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
Ikip 08:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
There are only a few issues that the reviewer felt should be addressed, but the main contributor that improved the aritcle hasn't been around for a while. I helped with a few small things, but it's not really my area of expertise. Can anyone address the issues raised on Talk:Genealogy of Jesus/GA1? Then the article could be renominated and achieve GA status. ...but what do you think? ~ B F izz 06:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I would like to start new work group: Serbian Orthodox Church but I dont know how to do that. Can someone help?-- Vojvodae please be free to write :) 08:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate uninvolved editors having a look at the intense editing at Christian Conventions. Blanking of referenced material and unsupported dispute tagging by one editor in particular has increased during the last days, with no references in support of the blanking/tagging being given by the editor when asked. This has been a problem in the past, is wearying to other editors, and doesn't move the article forward. Since I am involved in editing the article, uninvolved editors might again offer ways to get back on track. If there is a better venue for handling this, I'd appreciate a pointer, since I'm not sure how to categorize this sort of situation. • Astynax talk 00:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at Alfred Seiwert-Fleige? It is unclear whether this bishop is currently in communion with Rome, and I don't know enough about traditionalist Catholic churches to be able to evaluate the article. There is a speedy tag on the article; remove it if that is what you think you should do. - Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 15:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Another_Gospel#RfC:_NPOV_and_article_Another_Gospel. Thank you for your time, Cirt ( talk) 00:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I read the entry under "Christian Ethics" and found that it is not only weak and often historically incorrect, it also violates the Neutral Point of View rule. Rather than edit it, myself --because of time-constraints-- I wrote my critiques on the Discussion Page. There are two, one on the article in general, and the other on "Protestant Ethics." It is the second that concerned me the most, as it not only was biased against Protestantism, it was also lacking in any historical perspective. These problems (NPOV, factual errors and lack of historical perspective, in my judgement, weaken not just the Protestant section, but the entire article. As I am a Protestant and familiar with Protestant history and thought I felt comfortable criticizing that section. It would be good for others to examine the whole article. What do others think?-- Comsources ( talk) 03:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm looking for a Wikipedia-suitable source (or sources) substantiating a link between the title of the book Another Gospel and the Apostle Paul's use of this phrase (Galatians 1:6) to describe heresy in the first-century church. Failing that, I'd like to find a suitable source linking this phrase to the views and aims of the Christian countercult movement. In my opinion (and I'm sure I'm not alone), Galatians 1:6 is "obviously" the origin of the title of Ruth Tucker's book — but clearly that's not sufficient justification for saying so in a Wikipedia article, hence my quest for sources so this fact can legitimately be noted in Another Gospel and/or Christian countercult movement. Any help would be welcome. Thanks. Richwales ( talk) 04:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Catholic social teaching/GA1. I have placed the article on hold for seven days. Jezhotwells ( talk) 21:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Could someone explain why there is a wiki link about Michael Jackson on the main page? I would remove it myself, but I have no idea how to do that. -- 209.244.30.253 ( talk) 05:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Is there anyone interested to collaborate in Christian theology work group?-- Vojvodae please be free to write :) 17:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
A single user has changed the entries of the ELCA's German sister churches to their German names because he thinks the "concept" can't be translated. Most of the discussion takes place on the wikipedia article on the Evangelical Church in Germany, the roof organisation of the Evangelical (Lutheran) churches in Germany. Maybe you have a look? Because according to that user (and he really insists) the Church should not be called that way. Some of the member churches are outspoken Lutheran like the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria, some are "united" like the Evangelical Church in the Rhineland, 2 are Reformed like the Evangelical Reformed Church. Usually one member church covers a unique area (pretty much like a diocese). Maybe you want to take part in the discussion? -- Mk4711 ( talk) 12:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
An RfC is currently open ( Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(clergy)#naming_convention_associated_with_Eastern_Orthodox_officials) regarding the appropriateness of having position titles in the article title of religious Eastern Orthodox officials. Commentary would be welcomed, as the WP:NCWC talk page has a low level of activity.-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 17:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Ammended: The proposal currently tables is to remove of all prefix religious titles, positions and/or honours from the article title.-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 20:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
On Talk:Ōura Cathedral I proposed a move ... Ōura Catholic Church, which that religious community actually calls it, or its formal name. The current name could be kept as an redirect. Please give a look and input. Thanks. -- Aphaia ( talk) 18:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
A proposal has been made to restructure and shorten the article Catholic Church. Comments on whether or not the proposed changed should be implemented are welcome. Karanacs ( talk) 22:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm developing Jacob Frank (an 18th-century Jew who led his own religious movement called Frankism, and ultimately converted to Christianity) as a mascot for Wikipedia's sister project Wikiversity. Wikiversity aims to be an online open school and university, and was also created to host original research. Because of its nature, it's open to educational resources in almost any format. Wikiversity's mascots appear on User talk pages when new Users are welcomed. In my opinion, the Wikiversity mascots could be used more fully as an opportunity to teach. The previously developed Wikiversity mascots lack intrinsic educational value. For example, they include a jack-o-lantern, a goat and twin babies not noticeably tied to anything else. In contrast, Jacob Frank is tied to a chapter of history that is relatively little-known and is probably interesting to some people who might not have heard of him beforehand. I'm also hoping to use his professed ignorance in real life and the Frankist doctrine of "purification through transgression" to introduce the Wikiversity policies of "Be bold" and "Ignore all rules" (Wikipedia has very similar policies with the same names). I would appreciate your going over to Wikiversity to provide feedback on the pages about the mascot: v:User:JacobFrank and v:Template:JacobFrank. The Template is left on new Users' talk pages; the Userpage is linked from the template and provides more information about Jacob Frank. Also, any ideas for other Wikiversity mascots? Thanks. -- AFriedman (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao is a current FA candidate. So far nobody has supported or opposed the nomination. Please make your opinion known. Review Page Here ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 16:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
here Thank you For you time Weaponbb7 ( talk) 17:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Maggie Gallagher's bio is part of WikiProject Christianity, however there is no indication of her faith or the connection. -- DCX ( talk) 06:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church has opened to decide which of several versions of the article has consensus, and how best to develop it. Input is welcome. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles ( BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.
The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>> Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard/Archive 5/Unreferenced BLPs<<<
If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.
Thank you.
This article needs more input from people who know something about Christianity. Right now some people are trying to define a Christian soldier as a terrorist. Steve Dufour ( talk) 12:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I have undertaken the review of this article against the Good Article criteria, per its nomination for Good Article status. A number of outstanding problems have been identified, however. The shortness of the lead is a particular concern and grounds for immediate failure. However, I have kept the review open to allow editors time to rectify the issues identified, which can be found here. If you have any questions or concerns please don't hesitate to contact me. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 07:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Michaeles Nagoda has dropped a term paper, more or less, on us in the form of The Secret Gospel of Mark and the Synoptic Problem, and hasn't edited it or anything else since. I think this article is going to have to put up for deletion, but it would be useful to mine it for material in the article on the Secret Gospel of Mark. I'm probably not knowledgeable enough to evaluate this by myself, so I would ask anyone who can help to drop me a note or just have at it themselves. Mangoe ( talk) 15:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
This was a major cause of loss of life and repression of women for hundreds of years and is a symbol of the backwardness of the middle ages in popular culture. It's a very important part of the history of Christianity, in fact I recently read a news article criticising extremist Islamists for drawing parallels between their beliefs and the past misdeeds of Christianity on the basis that Christianity has evolved and they are still mired in the dark ages. Surely it deserves to be of medium importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.31 ( talk) 16:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I just did some updating of Next Level Church and thought I'd pop in here to see if I could get some people to drop by and spiff it up some more. Thanks! Huw Powell ( talk) 01:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I saw almost exactly the same information twice on Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am not experienced enough to decide what to keep and what to delete. I think the article will be better if it is in one place only. Look here please. Thanks a lot. The first is:
Official church materials refer to "Heavenly Parents," implying to some the existence of a Heavenly Mother.[23] Belief in such a figure is common among members, and she has been mentioned in meetings by church officials[24][25] and alluded to in two of the hymns of the church.[26] However, very little on the subject of a Heavenly Mother has been taught by the church. See also: Exaltation (LDS Church), King Follett discourse, Mormonism and Christianity, Mormon cosmology, and Religious perspectives on Jesus#The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
The second is:
Official church materials refer to "Heavenly Parents," implying to some the existence of a Heavenly Mother.[41] Belief in such a figure is common among members, and she has been mentioned in meetings by church officials[42][43] and in some of the hymns of the church.[44] However, very little doctrine on the subject of a Heavenly Mother has been released by the church. See also: Exaltation (LDS Church), King Follett discourse, Mormonism and Christianity, Mormon cosmology, and Religious perspectives on Jesus#The_Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 90.231.11.211 ( talk) 08:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic terrorism, Jewish religious terrorism and Christian terrorism included in AfD. Steve Dufour ( talk) 22:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I am new and I got the advice to come here and ask for help. I have not seen the links here that I am showing you, and I think it would be great if the information could be included in one way or the other. I don't know how to do it, so I hope that someone perhaps could give some help.
The LDS Church themselves think they belong to the Jewish-Christian tradition. There are non-LDS scholars that support that view too.
Also, even if the LDS Church members don't talk so much about Open Theism, they are probably the most (or one of the most) Open Theists because of the theology in the LDS Church.
Professor Emeritus W. D. Davies, a famous scholar in theology (and not a member in LDS) said: Mormonism is the Jewish-Christian tradition in an American key. He explained in "Israel, the Mormons and the Land" http://rsc.byu.edu/pubWDaviesIsraelMormonsLand.php
Also the famous lutheran theologian Krister Stendahl was active in Jewish-Christian dialogue and was a close friend of LDS and helped them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krister_Stendahl
Reflections on Mormonism : Judaeo-Christian parallels : papers delivered at the Religious Studies Center Symposium, Brigham Young University, March 10-11, 1978 http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/rsc&CISOPTR=36013
LDS are strictly Open Theists, says professor emeritus Louis Midgley at BYU.
http://www.fairblog.org/2010/01/20/lcm_open_theism/
Oh no, someone deleted my paragraph. Please help! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WBardwin#Why_deleting_the_paragraph.3F 90.231.11.211 ( talk) 07:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC) 90.231.11.211 ( talk) 20:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I changed some sentences so everything looks better. "The church's approach to theology is strictly open theism. God does not know everything in our lives, only what is necessary. He does not know the finer details of our lives, even if he knows all the choices that we can do. God does not know what we choose. God has given us humans a free will to choose according to our knowledge and interest. Prayer is therefore meaningful to us humans, because God then will know more things about us than he did before. In open theism man cooperates with God so that things will happen. A prophecy is the event that is most likely to happen in the future, not necessarily the only option. Open theism is in contrast to classical theism, when God knows everything and controls all events that will happen in the future." 90.231.11.211 ( talk) 07:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I included a paragraph about "open theism" in Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 90.231.11.211 ( talk) 16:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I included a sentence about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Open theism because theu are that too. 90.231.11.211 ( talk) 20:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh no, someone deleted my paragraph. Please help! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WBardwin#Why_deleting_the_paragraph.3F 90.231.11.211 ( talk) 07:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be an article on racial segregation in American Christianity. This has got to be an important historical topic. Steve Dufour ( talk) 23:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Input would be appreciated to settle a dispute at Talk:Christ myth theory#RfC: Should the lead contain a dissenting voice?
The Christ myth theory is the argument that Jesus did not exist as an historical figure. Some Wikipedians say it is a fringe view. Some Wikipedians say this is a small-minority view within academia. There is therefore a disagreement as to whether the lead should contain a dissenting voice, and if so, what it should say.
Should the lead contain the following sentence? "The philosopher Michael Martin of Boston University writes that, while the historicity of Jesus is taken for granted by Christians and assumed by the majority of non-Christians and anti-Christians—and anyone arguing against it may be seen as a crank—a strong prima facie case can be constructed that challenges it." The source is Martin's The Case Against Christianity 1991, pp. 36–37. Eugene ( talk) 18:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal to change the category: Category:Christians to Category:Christian people, which is part of the batch of changes being proposed in this discussion. If successful, it will probably be followed by moves to replace the word "Christians" through the Wikipedia categories by the words "Christian people". Davshul ( talk) 20:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
It is said that Cessationism is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity. I have not seen that there was work on the article from November 2009, although the article suffered many shortcomings, such as not many references and NPOV concerns. I have made a major change to the article and I am wondering who is responsible for reviewing changes on the article, so that the article can get a new rating. Aleksandar Katanovic ( talk) 08:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Am I correct in thinking that a major contributor to the Cessationism article is User:Theophil789 whose signature on Talk:Cessationism appears as "Aleksandar Katanovic"? And also that a lot of the cited references are to the writings of "Aleksandar Katanovic"? If so, and if my logic is correct, is this not a significant WP:COI? Probably also WP:OR? Feline Hymnic ( talk) 11:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Please can someone check the 'semiprotected edit request' Talk:David#Edit_request which I was unable to perform myself, as it needs someone with some knowledge of the Bible. Thanks, Chzz ► 06:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear Project Editors, Sorry to intrude, but I am having an incipient dispute in the above article. An editor (using an IP, but acting in good faith it seems), has been adding an extensive section detailing the theories of James Edwards in his 2009 book The Hebrew Gospel & the Development of the Synoptic Tradition (which I have not read). I have been unable to locate any academic reviews of this work but based on the additions, the author (1) displaces Marcan in favour of Matthean priority (via a proto-Matthean Hebrew Gospel) and (2) relatedly refutes the existence of Q and the two-source theory. I assume this is some kind of variation on Griesbach. At any event, I am arguing that Edward's theory not be afforded prominence in the Hebrew Gospel article since it remains so far without any academic comment that I can find. Further views would of course be welcome before this dispute goes any further. Thanks, Eusebeus ( talk) 21:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I don't edit in the religion area at all, but I noticed that there are a lot of bio articles, especially about saints, where the women are described as "virgin martyrs", but there is no article about the. I see that here is a book about them, or at least about English legends about them. I hope someone will start an article about them. Best regards! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 32,665 as of May 16. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.
Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Unreferenced BLPs. As of May 17 you have approximately 84 articles to be referenced, a 3.4% reduction from last week. The list of all other WikiProject UBLPs can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.
Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope ( talk) 17:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Please look at this Sorted list of Unreferenced Christianity BLPs and consider assisting on a couple. şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ: τᴀʟĸ 22:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I have made proposals regarding possibly expanding the scope of both Wikipedia:WikiProject Messianic Judaism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Church of the Nazarene, on the talk pages of those projects. Comments about these proposals, positive or negative, are welcome. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 21:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated List of Church of England dioceses for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Anyone want to help clean up Category:Christian terms? An anonymous editor has been slowly adding more and more articles to this category over the years, and it now has over 1000+ items. Some clearly are relevant, while others clearly not, with a lot of gray area. Anyone want to discuss some inclusion criteria, to figure out more objectively what belongs and what doesn't, or should we all just take a wack at removing what we don't feel is right ;) Any help or comments would be appreciated! - Andrew c [talk] 20:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus#.22one_of_the_most_influential_persons.22_sentence
There is a discussion on whether to include a sentence about Jesus' influence in the lead, and if so, how it should be phrased. Flash 17:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
A few sections in Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences have a seemingly inferior logic that perhaps affects a larger selection of subsections. Those interested who are proficient in theology, philosophy and logic, might give a helping hand by assessing relevant subsections and giving comment at the talk page HERE! Thank you for your attention, and otherwise happy editing! Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 09:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
According to modern scholars, the Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC. I would argue that this is a relevant information to put in the introduction of the article, but another user thinks otherwise. The "third opinion" agreed with my position, but the other user still opposes to this settlement.
Those who would be so kind to give their informed opinion are invited at Talk:Book of Daniel#Date of composition in introduction. Thanks -- TakenakaN ( talk) 15:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi
I came across an editor who seems to be adding "Roman Catholic" wherever they can as well as removing "atheist"
In the interests of accuracy (as I am not that informed on overly religious topics) and self-policing could someone examine the contributions the editor has made and try and limit the damage they are causing [5] [6] [7] [8] and [9] to name but a few
contributions [10]
I have already dealt with some, such as their trying to reverse history on the Cuba and Fidel Castro pages
Things such as changing several Orthodox Catholic to Roman Catholic may not really be acceptable
thanks
Chaosdruid ( talk) 22:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday I was invited to a Discusion at Talk:East–West Schism as part of a WP:3O,
I am now posting this to get wider opinion on the Dispute in Question from Relevant WikiProjects
Thank you for your time Weaponbb7 ( talk) 15:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Some believing wikipedians have declared that the Joseph Smith, Jr. article is unduly biased and negative. Your outside opinions would be useful...especially if you have found yourself in a comparable situation. ...comments? ~ B F izz 03:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Would someone please respond to the question raised at Talk:East–West Schism#Renewed request for a third opinion about the legitimacy of the repeated complete edit-reversions. Esoglou ( talk) 06:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Comments invited at the talk page of this new article, which seems to me to have an ill-defined scope and focus, and overlaps at a lower level of quality numerous other articles (mentioned there) which it doesn't even link to. First para of lead: "The Roman imperial church, the official Christian church of the Roman Empire, was formally established during the 4th century CE though it was descended from the earlier Christian fellowships that had existed since the foundation of the Christian religion.[1] The Church was officially sanctioned by and closely linked with the Roman state.[2] The emperor came to be seen as the Church's defender and leader along with the bishops.[3] The Church existed, at least in theory, as a unified entity until the Great Schism of the 11th century. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church have both claimed to be the legal and spiritual continuation of this Church. Additionally many other Christian sects, including the Anglican Church and the Lutheran Church, claim to be descendants of this Church alongside Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy." Johnbod ( talk) 22:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I am interested in helping to see that articles on various denominations feature overview info boxes that are consistent in format. Is anyone already working on this? Is anyone interested in working on this with me? Scoopczar ( talk) 14:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
A new article which is clearly promoting a website and a pov, but I think might redirect somewhere more appropriate? It seems to relate to the topic here Seven Feasts of Israel. My inclination is to take both to AfD but I'd like other input. I've reverted the creator of the first article at Prewrath where he also seems to be promoting his website. Dougweller ( talk) 14:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I notice that some articles link "non-Chalcedonian" to Non-Chalcedonianism whereas others link to Oriental Orthodoxy. But I'm wondering if those two are different enough to be separate articles? If they are significantly different, what criteria could we develop to determine when to link to each? Case in point: I created a redirect page for "non-Chalcedonian Christianity" and linked it towards "Oriental Orthodoxy" only because that's where "non-Chalcedonian Churches" links--but I wondered if both those should be redirected to "non-Chalcedonianism" instead. Or if the two existing articles should be merged. Help, please? Thanks, Aristophanes68 ( talk) 20:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Is anyone interested in creating and expanding pages for the Presidents of the National Association of Evangelicals? Please see the box at the bottom of Hudson Armerding's page for example. Thanks. Zigzig20s ( talk) 11:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Having come across the Latter Rain Movement article in List of new religious movements, I found that the article describes a post-WWII movement which doesn't include information on the movement of that name which traces to the late-1800s. I've proposed an article move with "Latter Rain Movement" becoming a disambiguation page. Interested editors are invited to comment on the article's Talk page. • Astynax talk 20:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi
The article Igreja Pentecostal e Apostólica Missao Jesus is just a set of three quotes. It really needs some substance about the Church or else maybe change the title ? Can someone have a look please.
I have addressed my concerns on the talk page Chaosdruid ( talk) 22:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
As many of you will know, we currently have the option of creating "books" which are collections of articles relating to specific subjects which are basically too big to be reasonably discussed in one of our comparatively short articles here. Having reviewed Britannica's Macropedia, I see that they include in their "in-depth" articles several topics relavant to Christianity, and that we, at present, don't have similar "books" on many of those topics. Would anyone be interested in helping to get together such "books"? They would probably best include, based on Britannica's Macropedia, each of the following:
Book:Augustine, Book:Bible, Book:Calvinism, Book:Christianity, Book:Crusades, Book:Dante Alighieri, Book:Eastern Orthodoxy, Book:Erasmus, Book:Jesus, Book:Joan of Arc, Book:Martin Luther, Book:Saint Paul, Book:Protestantism, Book:Catholicism, and Book:Thomas Aquinas.
There would also, of course, be considerable room for additional "books", particularly taking into account that Britannica's article on Christianity is over a hundred pages long. If anyone is willing to work on developing these books, if they don't already exist, that would be extremely welcome. Also, if anyone wants additional wikipedia books, please feel free to list the suggestions below. Other relevant extant books include Book:Abrahamic religions, Book:Mary and Mariology, Book:Parables of Jesus, Book:Testaments of the Bible, Book:The Old Testament of the Bible, and Book:The New Testament of the Bible. John Carter ( talk) 21:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Please see my post at Talk:Christianity#History of Christian Spirituality about the prospect of creating a page that focuses on the key figures in Christian spiritual/devotional history. Thanks, Aristophanes68 ( talk) 00:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The recent move of the articles below has engendered concern on WP:ANI if the consensus reached was representative of the wider wikipedia project. Therefore, three RfCs have been opened to fully discuss the proper names of the articles, so consensus can be reched. Please visit and opine at the sections listed below.
Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 17:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Comments would be appreciated at an RfC about the best title for the Christ myth theory. See the discussion here. The article is about the theory that Jesus of Nazareth did not, or probably did not, exist as an historical being. Should it be moved from Christ myth theory to, for example, Jesus myth theory? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The peer review for First Crusade is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — MC10 ( T• C• GB• L) 18:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I think people here should have been notified about this RfC. The underlying issue: if we know the religion of a book or article on religion, can we infer from that that the person is expressing the "POV" of his or her own religion? My answer is of course sometimes but not always and we cannot assume. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The dismbiguation page for Latter Rain Movement has had a recent edit which seems to be pushing a faith-based personal PoV or experience. I'm unsure whether the edit should be simply reverted or amended/expanded and spun off into a separate article. A look from another editor would be appreciated. • Astynax talk 18:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
An editor has proposed a complete rewrite of Logos, an article of interest to this project. Please see Talk:Logos#Proposed Re-Write. -- Radagast 3 ( talk) 13:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Fresh eyes would be appreciated on an RfC about whether, in using in-text attribution for sources on the Historicity of Jesus, we should include whether that source is an ordained minister or similar. See Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#RfC_on_in-text_attribution. Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Please comment on: Talk:Substitutionary_atonement#Article_title. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 01:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
We need help at Robbie_Mannheim. There is a problem with an editor who is attempting to override the other editors in every improvement. The article is a mess and structured badly. I have posted an RFC on the talk page too. 75.21.154.247 ( talk) 04:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing,
Tel Dan , has been proposed for a
merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going
here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
Sreifa (
talk)
10:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (3rd nomination) Sumbuddi ( talk) 23:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a request for comment regarding statements made by members of this group in the past regarding expected future events (such as the end of the world) which have apparently not proven accurate. Input is requested on how if at all material regarding those alleged "prophecies" as well as about whether they qualify those who made them as "false prophets" at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Failed Preductions/False Prophet Accusation against Jehovah's Witnesses. Any and all input is more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 19:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
There is an AFD for The Most Hated Family in America, which is a television documentary film that was written and presented by the BBC's Louis Theroux about the family at the core of the Westboro Baptist Church (info from lede of article).
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 17:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Christianity articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I am having a dispute on authors of the bible. Can anyone weigh in on this? I am using two mainstream books as sources ( [11] and [12]) and two editors are just reverting the changes I am making because they think it is extreme to claim that not all scholars agree that, for example, Mark's gospel was written by Mark. RomanHistorian ( talk) 04:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I responded on the talk page there. As a start, the table colors make things so hard t read, there is no danger of anyone reading that table too carefully, so no need to get worked up on that page. And the whole idea of expressing the authorship "decision" in a one sentence telegram is not wise. Tweeting is popular now, but tweeting scholarly opinions in a table should be avoided. History2007 ( talk) 08:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Ormulum for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 ( talk) 21:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
User:Afterwriting has reverted my rerating of Catholic Church to "Start" class for its projects. I have said before there that "B" was probably untenable in the current state of the article, and seeing what has become of the lead section recently this is now clearly the case. Apart from the history and doctrine sections, the other parts of the article are, apart from anything else, much too short to be anything but "start" for a subject this size, and, as people are constantly complaining, many important aspects of the church are simply not mentioned. I'm happy to see what others think, especially those not involved in recent editing, but a start rating seems inevitable at present. Please comment at Talk:Catholic_Church#Article_class. Johnbod ( talk) 12:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I am currently trying to get together some lists of articles relevant to each Christianity-related portal which could be used, at least potentially, to help bring all the extant portals up to Featured Portal status. The current, admittedly incomplete, list of articles, images, etc., relevant to each portal can be found at User:John Carter/Christianity portals. I also think that, at least in theory, we would probably best use a single article only in a single portal, and that we probably have enough articles to do that, although there might be a few exceptions. I would welcome input from anyone on the associated talk page regarding which articles and other materials they would like to see associated with which portal(s), any suggestions for additional portals or changes to existing portals, etc. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 15:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, I am reading a book called 'The Story of Mankind' by Hendrik Willem Van Loon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_Mankind
In this book there is a chapter called Joshua of Nazareth. This chapter is devoted to 2 letters that tell of a captain in the Roman Army, Gladius Ensa, who was asked by his uncle to travel to Jerusalam and do discover the truth of what happened to a man called Jesus who was crucified. The uncle, a physician called Aesculapius Cultellus, first heard of this man from a patient called Paul whom he was treating. These letters are quite remarkable and I have not read them before. They were apparently written about 62 AD. I wonder if anyone else has come across these letters out side of this book. I imagine they must be very well known through out history. Can anyone authenticate the origin of these letters? Kind regards Mylesarkell ( talk) 03:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Myles
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bible study (Christian). Jaque Hammer ( talk) 14:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Please see Category talk:Bishops by city for discussion of whether this is a well-formed category. Mangoe ( talk) 15:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion taking place at Talk:Jerusalem over how the article should word certain issues. Some editors want the word "proclaimed" to be added to the first sentence of the article to describe it as the "proclaimed capital" of Israel as the international community does not recognise it as the capital of Israel, others disagree and think the status quo which has existed for about 3 years should remain (something that has been debated many times over the years but retained), and several compromises have also been suggested. The issue has now also spread to other matters, with some editors wanting it to say "proclaimed flag", "proclaimed mayor" , "proclaimed coat of arms" etc, to also highlight the fact the international community does not recognise the status of Jerusalem. This matter could have implications for other articles if changes are made and a similar pattern followed. So input from other editors would be helpful. Thanks BritishWatcher ( talk) 14:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Vassula Ryden is a shocking article constructed from awful sources (mainly self-published) - if anyone has 30 minutes to spare... -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 20:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Could anyone help improve this new article a little? Thanks, Chzz ► 10:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone please help look at this proposed article; please feel free to edit it, and to let the author know what would need changing, if it can be made acceptable. If it is acceptable, feel free to move it to a live article. Many thanks, Chzz ► 08:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Looking for more opinions on the above article. In its current form it includes discussion of long-lived people in the Old Testament. There is disagreement about whether that should be covered in the article, whether under its current name or another name, or perhaps it should be in a related article, or perhaps not at all in the longevity-related articles. Some input on sources would also be very much appreciated. The article has also been discussed on the fringe theories noticeboard. I am going to make a similar post on WikiProject Taoism (longevity in Taoism is also covered in the article). Please do come over and comment. Thanks. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Several of the more specific projects related to various Christian groupings are not particularly active. Taking that level of inactivity into account, and a few other issues as well, I propose that the following changes be made in the scope and perhaps names of some of the subprojects, and, perhaps, the creation of a few more, in an effort to see that as much of .
I think that Mariology article is still very important. If the template includes all the informations about Christianity & It's called Parts of the series in Christianity and features every important articles about Christianity, it has to include Mariology too. If this article doesn't have any full information about Mary, than someone must edit it. We can't just ignore it, you can remove the article if it isn't done yet, but after the reconstruction, we can put it back, just like it was. Imorthodox23 ( talk) 6:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_27#Template:Criticism_of_Christianity_sidebar. -- Noleander ( talk) 21:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
It has been proposed that the article currently titled Mary (mother of Jesus) be renamed Virgin Mary. Your views and vote will be appreciated. Thank you. Xan dar 23:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
On Template:Christianity, which only includes links to "top" importance articles in the project, various people often add Mariology to the template. Various different people revert these additions, since the article is rated as "mid" priority. Should it be top priority? Note that Mary (mother of Jesus) is ranked as top priority. ...comments? ~ B F izz 22:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
It has been proposed that the new article currently titled Pope of Alexandria be merged back into Patriarch of Alexandria from which it was seemingly made. Your views and vote will be appreciated. Thank you. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 00:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
More comments on Template talk:Christianity#Please keep the current image discusion consolidated will be appreciated. The current image seems like an Andy Warhol-like rendition of the Leaning Cross of Calvary and I am sure we can do better than that. So further opinions should be sought. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 21:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Christianity core topics work group articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Gunpowder Plot for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I have noticed that on articles like Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke, and Gospel of John, some editors are pushing a POV. They define a set universe of "mainstream scholarship" and used that to define what the "scholarly consensus" is. No evidence is ever given that this is what the "mainstream" is, it is just assumed and requests for evidence are ignored. Not only that, but this fake-mainstream is even often described as the "consensus". This universe just so happens to include and be personified by skeptics and atheists like Bart Ehrman or the ultra-controversial Jesus Seminar. Actually Ehrman and Jesus Seminar members are often the most heavily cited sources. Any scholars who deviate from this view are labeled "fringe" and their views dismissed. Most scholars actually deviate from what is defined by certain editors as "mainstream", but this nice little definition allows the majority to be dismissed as "fringe". Evidence that these people represent the "mainstream" is never given, editors just demand that one accepts it because "that's what everyone knows". With this, direct quoted evidence that they don't represent the mainstream is dismissed and never taken seriously. If they make claims that are well cited, these claims are deleted outright for no reason other than they don't fit in with this artificially defined universe of what is "mainstream". Wikipedia is ruled by what the majority of editors on a given article think about a topic, not what the "correct" or "mainstream" view is. These edits don't represent the "mainstream" view, but a heavily skewed POV. As such, these articles are badly biased on certain points, especially authorship.
I would like some non-involved editors to take a look at these pages and the talk pages to see what they think. RomanHistorian( talk) 20:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick ( talk) 20:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Please see WP:ANI#Is wikipedia policy to confirm that the Bible is a story book?. Please see Solomon's temple for more background. -- Avi ( talk) 13:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Could I have some help please, on the articles Muhammad in the Bible and Ali in the scriptures? English is not the first language of the articles' creator, and he has asked for help on what appear to be good-faith articles. I've tried copyediting a bit, but it's difficult to tell which of the claims the articles make of references pointing to the arrival of Muhammad and Ali in the Bible are mainstream Shi'a theology as he claims, and which are original research per WP:NOR. Muhammad in the Bible in particular contained a line beginning "I have found...", which points to WP:NOR, if I'm reading his English correctly. All help and advice will be gratefully received. Thanks, Top Jim ( talk) 04:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Fresh eyes are needed for an RfC at Talk:Christianity and violence#Should article be limited to material related to violence?. Thanks . -- Noleander ( talk) 17:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Started really reading New Covenant Theology. To avoid the appearance of recruiting, let me just say that "I believe that it needs some help." I hope that was neutral enough. :) Student7 ( talk) 13:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
We are currently discussing ways to improve Book of Daniel and Son of perdition. Any help from participants in this project would be appreciated. See discussions on Talk:Book of Daniel and Talk:Son of perdition. Elizium23 ( talk) 21:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Help would also be appreciated at Historicism (Christianity) since the editor has moved on to place his mark on this article as well. Elizium23 ( talk) 16:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi I wanted to wish everybody a Happy New Year.
Etineskid ( talk) 01:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
(Notice cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity)
I just created Circumcision of Jesus. The scope of the article is both art-historical and theological/historical. Any help you guys can give would be greatly appreciated. I'd love to get this one on the main page by Christmas. Raul654 ( talk) 20:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
There might be enough time to get it up to FA status between now and then. And I think I might know one of the FA people who can put it on the main page for me (grin) Raul654 ( talk) 22:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Template:Religious text primary, please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Religious text primary. Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 08:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
There have been approximately 33,000 new "churches" founded since the "big break" with Catholicism way back when. Are we intending to catalog all 33,000 if they are still around? Is there, or should there be a cutoff based on number of followers? And how to count them accurately anyway?
I had this thought while attempting to edit New Covenant Theology, a church (or maybe just "belief") of unknown and maybe unknowable size.
One of the problems is getting them to define their differences with other Christians. Most churches seem to have a pretty good grasp of the differences between them and the church they broke with, if it was in recent history. But may be unable to articulate their differences with the other 32,998!! :) Which I don't really expect. But some coherence would be appreciated.
A better statement would be: we believe everything the X church does except Y. That would make sense. Unfortunately, they usually "develop" their "theology", such as it is, over time, and come up with "new" (to them, anyway) ideas. Student7 ( talk) 01:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The Christianity and violence article has undergone substantial expansion and rewriting within the last month. Any suggestions for further improvement would be much appreciated. -- Richard S ( talk) 19:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I have created a New article - Christianity and colonialism. Please take a look and provide your suggestions for further improvement on the Talk Page. Or be bold and just edit the page directly. Thanx. -- Richard S ( talk) 19:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I have created two more articles - Sectarian violence among Christians and Bible and violence. These are subsidiary articles that have been spun off from Christianity and violence which, at 150kb, is getting way too long. Please take a look at these new articles and provide your suggestions for improvement. Or be bold and just edit the page directly. Thanx. -- Richard S ( talk) 18:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Hullo all. I've been systematically updating/adding the infoboxes of historic bishops in England. In the field "church" I have been consistently writing " Church of England" because that has been the church since even before the Reformation — it was a national church of the Church of Rome, but it was nonetheless the Church of England. With the Reformation, it simply became independent of Papery, reform and yet catholic (rather than Catholic and Papist as it had been before). Same church, but changed a bit. Now, some have removed that field from the infobox in-article, some have changed it to "Catholic". Now, we note the man's "religion" (Roman Catholic or Anglican) in a later field, so it will always be obvious that he was a Catholic. I propose that we use " Church of England" in the church field (as I have been) consistently. You views, please, ladies and gents D B D 11:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I have proposed a possible "Wikipedia Council of Churches" annual meeting to maybe provide a form of regular central discussion for religious content at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Annual meeting?. Any response, positive or negative, to the proposal would be welcome. 19:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be useful if more editors expressed views for or against the very recent move whereby the main body of the article formerly called Baptism has been made an article called Baptism in Christianity. See Talk:Baptism in Christianity#Move of article. Thanks. Esoglou ( talk) 14:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The article is obviously written with a particular point of view in mind. It is filled with original research. It needs to attention of a few savvy editors with good sources. Due to the current POV and structure, it may be necessary to rewrite entire chunks and make some drastic changes to the current structure. Any assistance and improvement would be appreciated! Vassyana ( talk) 03:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I have put together a list of authors referenced in this collection needing articles. Since the collection is primarily focused on Christian authors and quotes relating to Christianity, I hope some in this project will be interested in helping to flesh out the more obscure names. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Is there a way to make The Salvation Army which has alot of linking articles, a wiki-project, or sub-project or something? Because there is alot of stuff (books, doco's websites) on TSA and its people and that around, and I think it would be good to co-ordinate with others interested in writing about the TSA in
Just askin :) TimGirling ( talk) 03:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Notifying people to vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wisdom Christianity (2nd nomination). Thanks (: BE——Critical__ Talk 03:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Please take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 29#Category:Antitrinitarianism. Mangoe ( talk) 13:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I happened to look at the article Christ and was surprised how many problems it has. I commented on Talk:Christ#Focus.2C_weight_and_WP:RS about it. Obviously, this a a KEY article for Wikiproject Christianity, but seems to need much help. It does not really tell a first time reader what Christians teach about Christ, but digresses to esoteric thought pretty quickly. Suggestions for how to fix it and reduce the totally obscure items, and expand the mainstream Christian views will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 11:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Should a link be included in this template or is it Undue weight? şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 20:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian republic - Steve Dufour ( talk) 19:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Young People's Society of Christian Endeavour is quite a mess. The article might better belong at the group's present-day name (I believe that's International Christian Endeavor) but right now it reads like poorly written promo rather than an encyclopedia article. Someone with some knowledge of the topic would do well to take this one on. - Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I posted a call for discussion at Template talk:Christian Mysticism. The template was removed from the Christian Mysticism article, and since it doesn't actually use the word mysticism, I wonder if it should be renamed to reflect its own contents. Thanks, Aristophanes68 ( talk) 23:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Is it okay to tag articles with this project, the Spirituality project and the Religion project? Or is that too much overlap? Aristophanes68 ( talk) 23:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! This month, we have a large number of links to disambiguation pages about Christian denominations. We at the Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links project would deeply appreciate any help you could give us in fixing ambiguous links to the following pages:
Cheers! bd2412 T 21:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Please weigh in over at Talk:Ailred of Rievaulx#Requested move. Thanks, Aristophanes68 ( talk) 06:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The article Spiritual warfare is a real mess. It looks like it could particularly use some editing with regard to what are the more orthodox views on the subject. Mamalujo ( talk) 21:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Check out the proposed wikiproject Conservatism here.
Hi all. Could I make an appeal to any project members who may be going to the "BigChurchDayOut" event on 28th and 29th May 2011 at Wiston House, West Sussex, UK? (Stick a .com on the end of the name to see the website.) The grounds of Wiston House are now private property and are only rarely opened to the public—this event is one such occasion. The former St Mary's Church (declared redundant in 2007) stands next to Wiston House within these private grounds. It is not possible to photograph the church with any degree of success from surrounding public footpaths etc., unfortunately. I will soon be starting to compile an illustrated list of places of worship in the district, similar in style to this, and will ultimately write an article on the former church itself. It would be great if any visitors to the event could take, and upload with an appropriate licence, some photos of this ancient and attractive church for use in these articles. Many thanks! Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 20:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement#Template:LDSproject. This invitation is being extended because Template:WikiProject Christianity is also being discussed. 208.81.184.4 ( talk) 17:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC) (Using {{ pls}})
Hello, there is a discussion relevant to this WikiProject going on here which involves some users who wish to state that the Christian group, Family Research Council, is in fact a "hate group" in the introduction of the article. Please see the discussion and consider the arguments for or against this inclusion there. Thanks, Anupam Talk 06:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I found:
The article Nilgiri Christian Guest Homes Association has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
JeepdaySock (AKA,
Jeepday)
17:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
It appears that a Wikipedian who is not a member of this WikiProject has claimed the Talk:Chick-fil-A page for WikiProject Christianity with an apparent political intent. What response if any is appropriate? PeRshGo ( talk) 12:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I think there is a lack of necessity for the Chick-Fil-A page to be tagged under WikiProject Christianity. While the retaurant does have Christian associations, said associations are not the most notable aspect of Chick-Fil-A. The restaurant's most notable aspect is the fact that they are a restaurant which is known for their chicken, as suggested by the restaurant's name. Backtable Speak to me concerning my deeds. 01:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Calling for your urgent attention to matters discussed on Christian terrorism's talk page, thank you. Eli + 20:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
We seem to have a problem with links to copyright violations in articles about the Catholic sex abuse scandal. If you work on these articles, please see Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases#Copyright_violations_by_other_websites for more information. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Please look at the article Tahash, and on the Discussion Page: "Consensus on Timeline" give your opinion about the Timeline. Thank you. -- Michael Paul Heart ( talk) 13:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{
citation}}, {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=
(or worse {{
arxiv|0123.4567}}
|url=
http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567
), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567
, likewise for |id=
and {{
JSTOR|0123456789}}
|url=
http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789
→ |jstor=0123456789
.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello there! Replies to an ongoing RfC at Talk:Crisis pregnancy center have been sparser than might be helpful, so since the RfC concerns Christianity, I thought I should mention it over here. We're trying to decide whether, based on our sources' description of CPCs' religious affiliation, personnel, and behavior, it is best to describe them as "Christian," "run by Christians," or "affiliated with a Christian organization." Thanks! Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 00:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm in the process of arranging the distribution of 400 free Credo Reference accounts to Wikipedians, generously donated by the company and organized by Erik Moeller of the Wikimedia Foundation. See WP:CREDO for more details. The accounts will be distributed on a first-come, first-served basis, plus some eligibility requirements, and the application list will open on March 23 at 22:00. I want to make sure that this day doesn't clash with any religious Christian, Jewish, or Muslim holidays that would make it less likely, or impossible, for observant Wikipedians to be online. Could you please let me know if there's any such issue with March 23? The list will remain open for a week, but the first day is likely to be the busiest. Many thanks, SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 18:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
This nav box {{ American Social Conservatism}} is up for deletion. Is a nav box for important articles where Christianity and politics intersect such as Judeo-Christian values, Pro-life, School prayer, National Right to Life Committee, Christian Right. You can join the discussion here. Lionel ( talk) 00:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
What should be included and what should be left out? Please weigh in at Talk:Christian mysticism#Scope of the article as of March 2011. Thanks, Aristophanes68 ( talk) 03:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Please see the central discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews#Economic history of Religion X, regarding:
Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 03:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Please join the discussion about the open issue whether the Church of Jesus Christ LDS (mormons) should be defined as a christian religion or not here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Argument_against_Christianity . Currently the article defines them to be so, but scholarly works and general references show that we should not be to keen on calling them christian, since there has ever been an ongoing dispute in the academic world, and we should not argue against Britannica or Oxford English Dictionary, as long as we have not come to a reasonable conclusion. -- 217.5.199.242 ( talk) 13:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Please visit Category talk:Christian narrative#Narrative should be a subcat of Literature and offer your input. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Do we need all of {{ Infobox cardinal}}, {{ Infobox Christian leader}}, {{ Infobox LDS biography}}, and {{ Infobox minister of religion}}? What's the best way to merge some or all of them? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have the time to review the ongoing dispute at this (important) article? The issues can be found at Talk:Gospel of Matthew. I have tried to foster a brief presentation of the issues at the bottom of the talk page in a way that hopefully makes the issues clear. Outside help, comment, and opinions would be highly salutary. Thanks. Eusebeus ( talk) 06:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)