Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity. 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 2

Archive 3

→

Wikiproject Abrahamic Religions

Hi! I am already a member of this group before any strange questions start getting asked. (I dont know what that was about either but you know I just had a feeling) Anyway I am proposing that a new Wikiproject be formed called WikiProject Abrahamic Religions. Christianity is of course one of the three Abrahamic Religions the others being Judaism and Islam. I don't know what people think about my proposal but for more information and/or to show your support, as the project cant start without consensus please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals and view the Abrahamic Religions Section. (that makes me sound like a dodgey TV advert doesn't it?). Once again any comments or support would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. The Quill (talk) 11:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to throw in my 2 cents... I'm not sure a Wikiproject Abrahamic Religions is necessary. There are already Christianity, Judaism and Islam wikiprojects in existence, as well as Wikiproject Religion - which most likely covers the scope of your idea, to deal with comparative issues in religion. Why do you propose this project would be different? Why not name it perhaps Wikiproject Comparative Religions under the Religion wikiproject umbrella? Kristamaranatha (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it is only for Abrahamic Religions and this would meen that other non-Abrahamic Religions would be compared. Also please could I request you place comments on the wikiproject talk page. Thanks The Quill (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I share the view of Kristamaranatha and is skeptic of the scope and use of such a project mainly bcoz already Christianity, Judaism and Islam as well as Wikiproject Religion wikiprojects is in existence and very active too-- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 10:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Do the other Abrahamic religions not count, or are you simply unaware of their existence? jonathon (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The Quill has indicated elsewhere that he knows comparatively little about the other Abrahamic religions. He has however yet to demonstrate that there is a particular need for a separate project to deal only with content common to all the abrahamic religions. I seem to remember having read that there was a similar proposal for the Dharmic religions as well. The fact that it has gotten rather little support is another factor which leads me to think that the proposal, while perhaps of interest to that editor, is of little specific interest to most others. John Carter (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Theology workgroup

The proposed theology workgroup is now online, here. Any suggestions, improvements, and ideas are more than welcome - as are interested editors. Pastordavid (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Category cleaning

A proposal to clean up the articles and sub-cats in Category:Christian theology can be found here. Any input would be greatly helpful. Pastordavid (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Natural Theology and "Astrotheology"

The expertise of those knowledgeable in the subject of Natural theology would be very helpful both in that entry and on the possibly soon deleted Astrotheology entry. There is a content dispute that broke out on the second of the two entries, which has now spilled over to the first. Exactly what natural theology includes and how best to define it are at the heart of this dispute. Thanks for any help. (Note: I am cross posting this on WikiProject(s):Philosophy and Religion).PelleSmith (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Numismatics and Charity (virtue)

Miguel.mateo (talk · contribs) insists on re-adding a paragraph about coin-design, perhaps as a coat-rack for a non-free image he wants to include, to the article Charity (virtue) about the theology of caritas.

In the context of the article, this material seems to me to be entirely marginal, non-notable and disproportionate. Which is why I believe it should be promptly removed, as it was when similar attempts were made to try to insert it into Christianity and Charity (practice).

But he won't take my word for it; so I'd appreciate if project members could lend a fresh pair of eyes, and say what they think on the talk page. Jheald (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears the user has already decided to agree with you. GRBerry 14:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Project Newsletter June 2008

The project newsletter for the month of June 2008 is ready to take off at Template:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/June 2008. Please review ... -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 09:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to John for making this newsletter for the month of June 2008. I have filed WP:BRFA for User:TinucherianBot at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TinucherianBot 2. Once approved I will deliver the newsletter to the member userpages -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 14:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Sorry about the delay, by the way. John Carter (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

BRFA for Newsletter delivery of TinucherianBot is approved. Now we can have our own bot to deliver the project newsletters -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 10:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Quality assessment

I've been driving for the last 17 days to get all of the project tagged articles assessed for quality, thus emptying the top level of Category:Unassessed-Class Christianity articles. I'm asking now for a bit of help. When I started, we had more than 600 pages in the category. It is now down to 11 pages, and I'm hoping that you all can polish it off over the weekend while I take a break. GRBerry 20:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you GRBerry for your wonderful efforts. Keep up the good work -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 02:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, thank you GRBerry. I think we've got everything except what is in John Carter's userspace. John, could you take the banners off of what is in your userspace; or mark them with "nowiki" tags until they move back to mainspace? Thanks. Pastordavid (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter June 2008

The current edition of the newsletter is available at {{WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/June 2008}} and was delivered to the talk pages of the members -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 10:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

New Age Pagan/Atheist attack Christianity on "Nazism" article

Recently, new age pagans/atheists have added to the intro of Nazism article "Nazism, particularly its antisemitism, found strong ideological roots in Christianity." This is a clear attack on Christianity by claiming it is an "antisemitic" ideology.. this was added by User:Esimal who has made numerous controversial edits in regards to Christianity, and then re-added by hipster-neo-pagan User:Gnostrat. Why should such a blatant and brazen attack on Christianity be allowed on Wikipedia? Especially such a vicious and untrue claim. - Gennarous (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Because it is, at least partially, true. Certainly Hitler drew on a broad stream of Christian anti-semitism, at least for his rhetoric and to garner popular support (see Luther and antisemitism for just one example). Pastordavid (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There is enough truth that it belongs somewhere in the article; I doubt it belongs in the lead of the article, but I trust the ordinary editors of the article to sort it out. GRBerry 22:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

GRBerry and Pastordavid are unfortunately right. There is a history of anti-semitism and Christianity, and Hitler did use the antisemitic tendencies of Christianity as part of the basis for Nazism. It would be an overstatement to characterize Chrsitianity as anti-semitic on that basis, but not unreasonable to say that he used the existing antisemitic tendencies which can be found in some Christians to his own advantage. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The new age pagan seems to be using Luther as his basis that "Christianity = antisemtitsm" which is highly dubious since Lutheranism is only a relievely small part of Christianity (when looking at the overall figures). The Catholic Church for example explicitly states that anti-semitism is not compatible with Christianity in the Catechism (the official doctrine of its teachings), also I've never heard of the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Church of England being linked to such things. I'll isolate its mention to Luther's "On the Jews and Their Lies", however I still don't really think this warrants a mention in the intro. - Gennarous (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Gennarous, yes I'ma a dirty Neopagan nontheist (so, pig-atheist too), but please, keep New Age out, I hate New Age. --Esimal (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter glitch

The latest newsletter appears to leave all talk page contributions below it in small font. Johnbod (talk)

I noticed that too. Lemme work on it. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't figure out where in the template the font size isn't sealed, so I can't come up with an answer. Let me try to adjust the draft of next month's so it reads normal font size, though. That way the problem shouldn't reappear. John Carter (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding one more |} to the end of the newsletter will fix it. I will go around and fix the issue on the talk pages with WP:AWB -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 02:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Done I have fixed the issue on the talk pages . -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 14:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The Long Revelation‎

Could someone else take a look at this. It may need a prod as OR/synthesis, but I would like others to see if there is anything salvageable here first. Thanks. Pastordavid (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete. The author was given notice back in April that he needed to add references to reliable sources.--Carlaude (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything salvagable. GRBerry 17:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Otis Moss III

Article under AFD (and deletion sorted). I think it requires a rewrite but is salvagable. Some sources I found are linked in my AFD opinion. Anyone want to lend a hand - especially anyone knowing more about the American black church than I do? GRBerry 19:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessments

I added some entries for assessment on the assessment page. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Counter-Reformation

See the requested move proposal (to Catholic Reformation) at Talk:Counter-Reformation. Pastordavid (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Help request: Martin Luther King, Jr.

Hello, I would like to request some help with this article, which is under the scope of this project. I fully sourced it over the past week, and I would like to help it get to GA or FA status. It would be great if any editors from this project could look it over, possibly do some copyediting, and give some feedback in the peer review. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Help please, I'm being slandered

Sorry to distract people from constructive work, but a couple of trouble-making editors have been playing games, interfering with work on an article and getting their way by slandering me and using forceful editing rather than addressing the content issues I raise. I'm afraid I think the only thing that will help is for a few people to come and help take the heat off me.

I'm afraid it will need a little time to do it properly, because these people make edits rather than talking. They've said enough to show they're trouble, but it's the edit style that proves it. They need to be confronted, but that requires a few people other than me to observe the evidence and join me in the confrontation. If a few people answer my request for assistance, I'll start providing links to the evidence. Otherwise, all this just sucks time away we could be using elsewhere.

From what I can see, one of the editors seems to have a "thing" about "God stuff". He already has been warned by others, but he's going to be even more trouble unless we help him realise it's a pointless waste of time. If personal attacks are tolerated, they are encouraged.

Please just sign below if you've got some time and patience, a cool head, and understand why this needs to be done. Hopin' for some help. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prayers, I think the problem's solved. Cheers all. Alastair Haines (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was wrong, the problem is not solved. Perhaps this issue doesn't need much more than a few people who are willing to watch the page and ensure edits address content issues, rather than being justified by personal attacks, "majority" opinion or questionable procedural matters. My most recent post and the request for mediation at Gender of God provide a short and simple introduction. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think taking it to informal mediation is a good way to go. Happy to watch the page. I have no strong views either way. I think it is really important to use reliable sources to support wikipedia's policies of no original research and verifiability. I think through those you should be able to get to a solution. Best wishes --Matilda ^talk 21:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Matilda, I really appreciate this. It's a funny thing, I'm defending sourcing and NPOV, so that Hindus and others get a fair say. Also so we don't assume things about God and gender that we may guess, but which are more complicated than we think. I'm not defending Christianity, I'm defending fair processes and respectful editing. I don't really have a "side" myself, except connecting readers with reliable sources, and learning more about what other people think. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

I have listed Ravi Zacharias for peer review in hopes of getting some feedback to get it up to FA status. Any input is welcome. Thanks! Kristamaranatha (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Portal selections?

The Portal:Christianity still lacks a biography and a selected scripture for next month. Any suggestions? John Carter (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Made a few at Portal:Christianity/Selected content nominations. GRBerry 21:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We still need picture suggestions and scripture suggestions. I only suggested bios and general articles. GRBerry 01:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced confidence?

I am fascinated to see that this project regards the Last Judgement as of "low importance"! Anyway the article is a terrible mess. Johnbod (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't ask me why, but it wasn't a member of the project, but rather Betacommandbot here, that tagged it as low importance. I agree that the article could stand definite improvement. On a possibly related matter, it would help a lot if we could sort out the importance rankings, at least for the Top and High importance articles. John Carter (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed a few other such Low markings from Betacommandbot where I can't see how a bot could have made the call. Feel free to change Betacommandbot importance assessments whenever you feel it appropriate; human assessment is more likely to be reliable than bot "judgment". GRBerry 13:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am the 'culprit' behind this :). See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity#BetacommandBot_incorrectly_tagging_articles_as_stubs

I asked BCB to do this . The idea was to reduce the huge backlog we had once upon a time

Our project banner is {{ChristianityWikiProject}} 
You need to 
1) If "|importance=" is empty , replace it with "|importance=Low" . Make sure you dont  overwrite if importance is assessed already.
2) If "|class=" tag is empty, replace it with the highest quality assesment from the other project banners on the same talk page.
3) If there are No other wikiproject banners / any assessment already, please use the general  wiki guideline of no of characters for Stub/Start classes and then add the appropriate class  tag for quality

I did this on the folllowing assumptions :-

1) The number of High/Top Importance artilces in unaccessesed articles may be less. On a second manual sweep, we should be able to identify the higher importance articles if any
2) We should not replace the orginal importance assessment if any.
3) The standards for assessment scale for most projects is the same. Hence if there is an already assessment done , we could just reuse the information .
4) Similar automated attempts were done in different Projects like WikiProject Africa - see here.
5) This task for the Bot was an approved task , hence I assumed it to work smoothtly -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 14:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah ha! What you missed is the possibility of Mid assessment; since you thought in terms of Top/High/Low, while the scale also includes Mid. Not that I'm thrilled with our guidance on the importance scale; it currently says "Most people involved in Christianity will be rated in this [Mid] level." That is just ridiculous, but I haven't yet been bold enough to change it. GRBerry 14:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that needs to be fixed, although the phrasing seems to be rather standard. Maybe something like "Most individuals who have had a significant influence on the development of Christianity or specific movements in Christianity will fall no lower than this category." Clearly, Paul of Tarsus and the like will qualify as higher, given the criteria there. John Carter (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This shows the unwisbom of these bot runs - there are in fact all sorts of reasons why other projects might give high or even top importance to articles that are certainly of low importance to this project. Better to have no rating at all than a silly one. Looking at the categories, the top-importance ones seem mostly reasonable, though the list is short and has obvious omissions, but the high-importance list is unhelpful - Foot washing, Fear and Trembling (a book), and so on. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess the importance tag tagging to low was a bit stupid, But the autoassess ( Class tag )based on other wikiprojects was really helpful..-- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 15:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

We didnt tag "|importance=" based on other projects, It was only the "|class=" tag utitized from other project banners -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 15:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, Christian art, as stubby a stub as I have seen, not mentioning anything between Byzantine and modern art, was a B class until I re-rated. I give up. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Predestination

The articles Predestination and Types of religious predestination have been listed to be merged for over a year. A drive is on to clear out Category:Articles to be merged since April 2007 and this merger could use the attention of someone with expertise in the field, or at least someone who knows more than me. If anyone could take a look, it would be greatly appreciated. --Gimme danger (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone(s) at Portal:Calvinism can be a help here.--Carlaude (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Perfectionism

Why does Perfectionist movement direct to an article about the Oneida Community (which already has its own article)? There is a lot more to perfection theology than this sect that believed "each to be married to every other member of the opposite sex"... Can this be fixed, and a new article about perfection theology be started? Thanks Kristamaranatha (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably fairly easily. I can't imagine that there would be any serious objection to at the least greatly expanding the existing text of the article, and maybe keeping the current text in only one section of the expanded article, or alternately, moving much of it to the existing article on the Oneida Community and keeping only a summary section in the existing article. John Carter (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It might take a bit, but I'll see what I can do to improve the article. Any help anyone can give is greatly appreciated as I'm pretty short on free time these days. Kristamaranatha (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Any translators out there?

One thing we could definitely use would be any individuals who can read other languages, as I think we all know that there are a lot of items out there written in languages other than English. I can read German fairly well, but, unfortunately, not French. I say unfortunately because I was just informed of a site from the Burkina Faso government here which gives some biographical material on at least religious leaders there. Are there any of you out there that would be willing to help out in slogging through foreign material if one of the rest of us finds a source in a language we can't ourselves read? John Carter (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We might make a good team; I don't read German, but I have a degree of fluency with French having lived there for a few years. Is there someone specifically you would like to know about on the site above?--Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

French is my mother tongue, though I hear that African French has a few expressions not understood elsewhere. I may not have a lot of time to write articles on these people, but I'll see what I can do. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem FAR

Jerusalem has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. <eleland/talkedits> 21:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Shituf Page

Another editor has requested mediation on the Shituf page, so I looked up the mediation process. The first step is to ask for third party opinion -- which is the reason I'm here.

Shituf, briefly, is a Jewish term applied to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The definition of the concept, however, appears to be Arian: lesser beings (the son and spirit) worshipped in junior "partnership" with God. Accordingly, I included a short Christian view section which simply describes that Christianity has formally rejected multiple deities in junior partnership since Nicea.

The contention is whether or not the section should be included.

My argument is that an article describing Jews eating human blood on passover would require a short section describing that Jews actually FORBID such a practice. Accordingly, an article describing Christians in Arian ways would require a short section describing that Christianity actually FORBIDS such a belief.

In any case, since the other editor suggested mediation, I'm taking the first step and asking for third party review.

Thanks.Tim (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Tim has given you false information. The Jewish concept of shituf was not created for application to the Christian concept of the Trinity. Judaism has a very absolute idea of what monotheism is. Any worship that diverges from this absolute monotheism is viewed as idolatrous in Judaism. The one exception is where the worship can be viewed as including the One God worshipped by Judaism. In such a case, the other deities or aspects are seen as "associated" or meshutaf to God, and there is a rabbinic view that this is permissible for non-Jews, and not idolatrous for them (though it is still considered idolatry for Jews).

There is a minority opinion in Jewish law that says that the Christian Trinity constitutes shituf, and not avodah zarah (idolatry). This opinion is not based on Christian concepts such as Trinitarianism and Arianism, since Jewish law is based on actions, and not beliefs. Judaism views statements such as "in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" as being contrary to Judaism's absolute monotheism, regardless of whether those three are viewed as separate deities or aspects of a single deity.

The question of whether intent matters in issues of idolatry is asked and answered in the Babylonian Talmud, and the unanimous legal decision amongst the rabbis is that worship that is non-monotheistic or idolatrous in form is a violation of the commandment against avodah zarah, regardless of the worshipper's intent.

Furthermore, Tim sees the issue of shituf as fundamentally connected to Christianity. And indeed, the article on Shituf is written that way. But this is because Tim wrote the article. As a point of fact, shituf applies to other religions, such as Wicca, where a commonly stated principle is "All the gods are one god, all the goddesses are one goddess, and the god and goddess are One."

I think that having a section on "Christian views" in an article on shituf is no different than having a section on "Jewish views" in an article on the Trinity. In both cases, it is non-encyclopedic, and highly polemic in nature. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys -- as I said -- a third party look is in order. In English, Lisa just said you were all polytheists, which is a legitimate Jewish view. My take is that it's nice to have a section saying that you forbid polytheism.

And as for the history of this, the entire concept was created in the Middle Ages in reference to the question of whether Jews could have business dealings with Christians, since they were forbidden to have business dealings with idolaters. The Jewish solution is that, "Yes, they have multiple deities, but they are like junior partners." Loosely defined, "shituf" is "partnership." The context and origin was directed toward Christianity. Christianity, therefore, cannot be excluded from the article without making it polemic.

Again, thanks. You should be honored -- two Jews are asking for YOUR third opinion!Tim (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary. I don't think this section belongs here. I'm only responding in order that Tim's false statements not be left unrebutted. Shituf is a Jewish concept. I wouldn't create a section on "Jewish views" in articles on Trinitarianism or Arianism or Transubstantiation or any other Christian concept, because that would be inappropriate. Shituf is a particularly Jewish concept, and should not have a "Christian views" section.

Furthermore, I've edited the Shituf article. Tim originally created it with a strong focus on Christianity, despite the fact that it has nothing to do with Christianity, per se. The source Tim brought in the article from the Middle Ages (and the concept of shituf pre-dates that) doesn't even mention Christians.

Tim says that I called you all polytheists. I recognize that we have different definitions of monotheism. The Jewish view is far more extreme than the Christian view. When we say "Hear O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is One", we read that "One" as being utterly indivisible. No parts, no aspects, no anything. Even the "attributes of God" we sometimes refer to are seen as things created by God as tools by means of which we can perceive Him in part. By our definition of monotheism, Christianity doesn't measure up. But by the Christian definition of monotheism, I imagine it does. Tim is merely trying to turn this into a holy war by using incendiary terminology in an inappropriate place. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- in the past few days you've called Christians polytheists at least six times. Anyone can go through your contribs or just read the Shituf talk page. That kind of bias needs to at least be admitted. If it's your belief -- be proud of it.

As for the edits -- Lisa can't edit out all references to Christianity on the Shituf page because it's APPLIED to Christianity. When I removed any paragraph that used the word "Christian" or "Christianity" she reverted it as vandalism.

That being said, I no longer care. I have better things to do than to prevent a member of my own religion to promote falsehood to yours. You're welcome to chime in.

Best.Tim (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Lisa's comparisons with "Trinitarianism or Arianism or Transubstantiation or any other Christian concept" are not equivalent. Her own version of the article cites statements about, or interpretations of, Christian beliefs from Maimonides, Rabbi Walter Wurzburger, & Louis Jacobs. It would seem appropriate to clarify the actual Christian position from the horse's mouth, although I am not sure a whole section is necessary. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Tim, in a Jewish context, Christians are polytheists. And I don't deny that I used the term. I would not do so in a Christian context, both because it's rude, and because it's not necessarily true in a Christian context.

JohnBod, articles on Christianity claim that the Jewish messiah can be a deity. But I wouldn't use that as an excuse to go in and add a "Jewish views" section rebutting it. You're entitled to your beliefs about our concepts, provided that they are sourced and encyclopedic in nature. So yes, my comparison was apt. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Christianity incorporates the Old Testament and regards itself as a successor to Judaism, so many Jewish concepts are Christian concepts too. This is not true the other way round. But articles on Christian subjects that include statements or views about the Jewish faith as practised in the last 2,000 years should represent the authentic Jewish view of the matter from Jewish sources, and many do. That is the situation here. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

John, the fact that Christianity incorporates parts of Judaism doesn't mean that it's immune to challenges by Judaism on the basis of Jewish concepts. The fact that we don't insert such challenges into every Wikipedia article about Christianity is because Wikipedia is not a place for such challenges. That's polemics, and Wikipedia is no place for it.

Limiting Judaism to the past 2000 years is incorrect. Christians make many misstatements about Jewish concepts that predate Christianity, but Wikipedia is not for thrashing such things out. Nor is it appropriate for Christians to polemicize in articles about Jewish concepts. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you've read what I wrote very carefully; at any rate your points do not address it. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

John -- BINGO. Thanks. Okay, I need to sign off now and spend some time with my family. I'll look back in Sunday. Best.Tim (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please move this all to talk:Shituf. It does not belong here once we have the idea-- we have the idea and those interested can follow it there. --Carlaude (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Christian Page

In addition to trouble with the Shituf page, the user Lisaliel is also trying to eliminate references to "monotheism" regarding Christianity. Case in point, please see recent vandalism [2] of the Christian page. I cannot keep up this extended edit war, and only ask that you be aware that there is an effort to eliminate recognition on Wikipedia of Christianity's self identification as a monotheistic religion. The article of Shituf is equating Christianity with Arianism.

Please be aware of this activity.

Thanks.Tim (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

A peer review of Peter Jones (missionary), an article about a Christian missionary who successfully evangelized what is now part of the greater Toronto area, has been requested. Please leave your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Peter Jones (missionary)/archive1. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 12:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion

An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - , member of WikiProject Council. 15:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Christianity WikiProject Newsletter - July 2008

The current edition of the newsletter is available at {{WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/July 2008}} .Full content Newsletter was delivered to 223 members and Link only content to 5 members by TinucherianBot automatically. To stop receiving this newsletter next time, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 09:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

POV forking at Torah and Pentateuch

Within the last week, Pentateuch has been re-forked off from Torah and the latter massively rewritten to mostly exclude any Christian or Islamic perspective. From my brief reading both articles have significant POV issues as they stand, especially as Pentateuch seems to be written entirely from a Jewish perspective. Mangoe (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you propose one article with NPOV or two? I think the only problem from a Jewish perspective is that the Pentateuch is a subset of what Jews mean by "Torah" (which includes the Pentateuch, Oral Torah, teaching in general, etc.). I'm puzzled that Pentateuch would be the one with the POV problem. Anyhow, I'm on the Wikiproject Judaism list, and I'll help from our end as well. Just let me know how I can help. Have anything in mind to start?Tim (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the Pentateuch page... it appears completely unnecessary. All we need is a redirect to Torah. How do we do that?Tim (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion page on Pentateuch, you'll see that it used to redirect, and doesn't any more. So don't be hasty. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Will do -- thanks for the heads up. I did put a "main article" link in there. That way, if people want to read more they won't have to figure out which of the "see alsos" is the one to look at. Oh - apologies to the rest of THIS page. We've exhausted what we should say here...Tim (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Theories about the origin of the Eucharist‎ edit warring

Hey. There's been a bit of an edit war brewing over at Theories about the origin of the Eucharist‎, so I was hoping someone from here could go and take a look. Basically, this edit has been added and reverted. We've got an editor who's trying to push a POV of sorts with edits such as this. There's an RFC pending, but no one has responded to it thus far. If someone could swing by the article and take a look, that'd be great. The discussion starts here‎. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Knights of Saint Gabriel

I tagged Knights of Saint Gabriel with the primarysources template, but I'm now wondering if this is a bona fide organisation. I looked at their supposed website: http://diplomaticsociety.tripod.com/ and it just does not look right. See Talk:Knights of Saint Gabriel where I added the project banner. -84user (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Christadelphians and Amended Christadelphians

There is discussion at Talk:Amended Christadelphians regarding what content regarding the largest Christadelphian group, the Amended Christadelphians, should be included in the article on that specific group, and what in the main Christadelphians article. All input is welcome. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Dating the Bible

There is discussion on the talk page of the above article regarding how much weight should be given to traditional dating of Biblical works relative to modern academic conclusions at Talk:Dating the Bible#"but according to medieval sources...". All input is welcome. John Carter (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring on the name of a diocese

Two editors have been engaged in an unhelpful and disruptive edit war concerning the name of a diocese in theUnited Kingdom. I have issued an RfC and fully-protected the page against page moves by anyone until the matter has been fully discussed and a consensus reached by more editors than just the two involved in the edit-warring. Anyone able to is invited to engage in the discussion to help wikipedia improve by reaching a better solution than the unstable edit warring that has previously happened. See Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle#What should the name of this article be?. The two names that were being used were "Roman Catholic Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle" and "Diocese of Newcastle and Hexham". Thank you. DDStretch (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I have now realised, after a message from another editor and another administrator and looking at various editing histories, that the same thing has happened mostly today but over the past week for almost all of the dioceses concerning the Roman Catholic church in England and Wales, and it has mostly involved the same two editors. DDStretch (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable source examples#Religious sources proposal

Proposing an example explaining the appropriate use of religious sources in religion-related articles. The intention is to clarify and explain existing policy, not to change it. There have been a number of debates over the years, some of them heated, about whether and what kinds of religious sources should be used. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that there is now a bit of a clarification of guidelines here. There was an interesting discussion leading up to this, but unfortunately I didn't find it till afterwards. I am disturbed at how many of the Christianity-related articles are being attacked by fringe ideas such as those of the Jesus Seminar and the Quest for the Historical Jesus. Editors who are pushing these views seem to think that their ideas are the mainstream (i.e. nobody really believes you can trust the Bible anymore, not even the theologians... see, let me quote Spong...etc). Is there anything we can do to make sure there is a balance in these articles? Kristamaranatha (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Fringe or extreme Christianity

I just discovered this talk page this morning. On April 19, I discovered a Wikipedia article on me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier that has been here for over two years. Granted, the Administrator who created it knew only about my runs for Parliament as an Independent (referred to as a fringe candidate by local media) and nothing about the prophetic Christianity aspect of my being. The article itself does not reflect this, 95% of the information removed to the dustbin of history. The information there does read more like a mini novel than an encyclopedia entry, but the events and stories, I assure you, are true, factual and unembellished. An interested editor would have to read the discussions on the other user talk pages referenced in the section 'Let's build the article together" in the talk of the article. The section 'Favorite Bible Verses' removed to history as not being encyclopedic, were selected to give an general overview of my vision. There is more substantiating information I would like to add to the talk for discussion and inclusion to the article, but until what is already there is refined and restored, that would serve no purpose. I have recused myself, rightly so, of editing my own bio. Hopefully interested editors of Christianity topics will take a look to see what can be done. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not heard of you. Maybe you could also try at Portal talk:Quebec or Wikipedia:WikiProject Quebec --Carlaude (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That's no surprise. All information was reported locally only. I did receive this e-mail the morning I discovered the article.

Good morning Mr Ray: thank you for your mails. Sorry, but I am not able to answer directly all the correspondences, and when I have to do so it is by post. Please, do understand that you will not receive any further answer from me, but it is not for lack of respect. I am pleased for your love for the Church and for the Holy Father. Your thoughts have been duly noted. I reciprocate your best wishes of joy, peace and Goodwill

+ Luigi Ventura apostolic nuncio to Canada DoDaCanaDa (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of you may be interested in this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kingturtle#Images_Copyright_and_Free

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:East718/Archive_14#Article_under_attack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ground_Zero#Discussion_of_this_article_-_Other_User_Talk DoDaCanaDa (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Molotschna

Hi! I saw that this article is within the scope of your project. So I decided to place my question here. Why does this article use the German transliteration? The article says: "The settlement is named after the Molochna River...", so why the river is translitered "Molochna" and the settlement "Molotschna"? Isn't the right spelling for the settlement also "Molochna"? Thanks in advance and kind regards Doma-w (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Judaeo-Christian Web sites

I think I may have offered the use of this before, but I do not remember. If anybody requires any legitimate information on Christianity in general or the Catholic Church in particular, I have a list of them here Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam for anybody to use. I thank you. --209.244.30.237 (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Simple English wikipedia joint project

I was wondering whether any of the members of this project would be interested in maybe helping to develop some of the Christianity content in the Simple English Wikipedia. That wikipedia is of particular use to individuals who are less familiar with English in easier to understand language, although that doesn't mean the content is "dumbed down". Having reasonably high-quality content there would definitely be useful for English as a Second Language students, and probably increase the visibility of some of the content here as well, through additional links there. If anyone would be willing to devote some time to such a project, please indicate that below. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --Carlaude (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I find quickly that we cannot say much in Simple English without explaining your terms. For example, I have created Christianityfooter in Simple English Wikipedia and am looking for feedback on the glosses that will be need to use for all the common Christian terms in it. (Only "Father" and "Son" were already on the Basic English wordlist. All others need a gloss like (Payment for wrong action) for "Atonement" but many are harder to do than that one. See also [3] Please look at it and discuss/ give feadback, etc. I also hope this will lead us to use the same glosses for words in the articles.--Carlaude (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

To be completely honest I don't think we need a Simple English Wiki. It takes time away from editors that would be expanding and helping the English Wiki. Has anyone ever used a dictionary before? If someone is new to the English language, they look things up, ask questions. It seems like a waste of time to struggle to put 2 million articles into simple english. Grk1011 (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with that feeling.. I 'simply' dont understand why we need a second English Wikipedia and where we divide the boundaries of Eng.WP and simple.WP. -- Tinu Cherian - 16:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Simple English wikipedia is designed to be written so as to be readable for those learning English as a second language. There is no constraint on this wikipedia to test for readability. If you have ever tried to learn a second language then I think you would appreciate the gift that the Simple English Wikipedia could be, particularly for adults learning English. The only other way to get reading material which is readable when you have little language skill and knowledge in the early stages of your learning to practice with is to read children's books - a very dull prospect indeed. I concur with the suggestion put up by John Carter and would be happy to help if there is a project developed. Note a good introduction as to how to write such articles is at simple:Wikipedia:How to write Simple English articles noting particularly The language is simple, but the ideas don't have to be. --Matilda ^talk 21:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Faith & Values Media"

is, we are told (with no evidence), the nation's largest coalition of Abrahamic faith groups dedicated to media production, distribution and promotion. Etc. Then why all the redlinks, and why does so very little link to it? There's something fishy about the article. Could somebody take a look? -- Hoary (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say either put a {{fact}} tag on the words the nation's largest or remove that assertion altogether. The rest of the article looks legit. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Second Council of Ephesus/Robber Synod

Reading the article on the Second Council of Ephesus (AKA the Robber Synod) I see it needs to be rewritten badly. I have added it to the To Do List above under other. The article is long but relies largely or entirely upon a single source, a source with a favorable view of this council. --Carlaude (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"Simeonites" need article

Samuel Butler's novel The Way of All Flesh mentions a 19th-century sect known as the Simeonites. (Possibly named for someone on the list at Simeon and/or the Tribe of Simeon.) I'm unable to find much about them online, but they were apparently factual and not fictional - http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-ButFir-t1-g1-t2-g1-t13.html . Can anyone begin an article on them, or link to an existing article if appropriate? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

s:Wikisource:WikiProject Bible dictionaries

Are there any Wikisource members in this project, if so would you like to help with the above project. I'm trying to revive this project, but the other two members haven't been near it since 2006. At the moment it consists of copying pages of Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897) If anyone's interested please reply on my talk page. Kathleen.wright5 02:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Issues of Neutrality for Goa Inquisition

I wish to initiate a dispute on the neutrality of the articale found under Goa Inquisition, which discusses the inquistion in Goa, India under Portuguese rule. This article appears to present a biased view of the subject. Much of the body of the article uses loaded language extensively. The sourcing of this article appears questionable as well. For example, in paragraph four of the title page, some very broad allegations of atrocities are made using a quotation attributed to Voltaire (himself a radical opponent of the Roman Catholic) as its sole support without any other verification. Later on, a quote presumably taken from one of the artical's sources makes fierce allegations against the Portugues ("...in the name of the religion of peace and love, the tribunal(s) practiced cruelties to the extent that every word of theirs was a sentence of death") without any support or commentary on the validity of the statement. In fact, the opening statements of the article states that according to the surviving records, out of the 16,202 persons brought to trial over the inquistion's 251 year lifespan, 57 were executed. This hardly indicates that "every word of theirs [the Portuguese] was a sentence of death". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraken66 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:BibleAsFact

I have proposed this template for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 30. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion#Templates would have been a better place for this notice. And for future Christianity specific cases, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity#Misc.. GRBerry 14:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Emerging Church pages

A lot of the Emerging Church page has substance and badly referenced. I have therefore started adding in citations and references for some of the material there, so that it shifts out of the identified problems. It is an important movement that needs to be written up better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KerryDawkins (talk • contribs) 12:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

New pages for churches. Definition of notable as applies to churches

I noticed that there are pages which list Category:Churches_in_the_United_States_by_state with a random selection of churches in each state. Usually these churches refer to historic buildings but occasionally to congregations in a non-notable building. I also noticed that there is a section for deleting Christianity pages ([4]), so before I consider creating a church page, what are the criterion for it being notable enough to deserve a page? Calebu2 (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That deletion sorting page is not "for deleting Christianity pages". It is a way of listing active deletion discussions about Christianity related topics so that editors who are interested can find them easily. The best editors treat each case on its merits - but every editor comes with different knowledge background; for example I have a lot easier time determining the merits of a Christianity related topic than I do of an Islam or Buddhism related topic, hence being able to find the Christianity related topics lets me opine where I can actually give an informed opinion. There is a division of thinking among the community. There is a presumption that a national historic building is always notable and merits an article - so buildings meeting that description that are or were churches tend to have articles and get listed/categorized. Some think a church is a congregation and want sources on the congregation and its activities. There is no presumption of notability for non-goverment organizations, so Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) is the usual standard. But generally, for any topic Wikipedia:Notability is the primary standard "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." GRBerry 14:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Edward VI of England

Is undergoing a Featured Article review, please feel free to come and help bring this article up to current Featured Article standards! :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hail Satan

Members of this project might be interested in the AfD for the above-named article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yahweh

Perhaps a few calm editors might look at the neutrality of Yahweh, which addresses the tension between Jehovah's Witnesses and Yahweh-related groups. Thank you. HG | Talk 14:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Links

I have recently noticed that in the Article: Advent there are no relations to the people that the candles and the prayers said after lighting the Candle(s), Or to 'The holly and the Ivy' which after the candle(s) are lit certain verses are sung to correspond with the prayer and the particular sunday. hannah (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Cathedral of Magdeburg at FAR

Cathedral of Magdeburg has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Prayers

I thought perhaps someone could perhaps do a prayer of the Season box on the Christianity portal hannah (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Parables in need of work

Several of the Parables of Jesus require an expert's attention. The articles consist of the primary source text, no secondary sources and little to no interpretation. In their current state, they violate WP:NPS. I found the Parable of the Two Sons, the Parable of the Leaven, the Parable of the Wise and the Foolish Builders and The Master and Servant especially lacking, but unfortunately I lack the background and inclination to bring them into a proper shape myself. Huon (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I just tagged The Birds of Heaven‎, The Test of a Good Person, Parable of the Two Sons‎, Parable of the Leaven, Parable of the Wise and the Foolish Builders and The Master and Servant for only citing the Bible as a source without any secondary sources (and was quite shocked to learn that this is a common enough problem for us to even have a distinct template). If no improvements are made, I will probably send them to AfD for failing WP:NPS and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. Huon (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Church of the Lord Jesus Christ

I recently came across this article, which is in serious need of work. Presently it is a collection of claims that do not seem to carry a neutral point of view, and its references are thin. I've placed your project's tag on its talk page and hopefully you are in a position to begin reviewing it soon. Accurizer (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This gets more interesting. There seems to be conflicting information between this article and Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith. Accurizer (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This problem has been addressed at least temporarily by reverting to an early version. Accurizer (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Christianity

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Christianity calls itself

Portal:Christianity calls itself at the lowest part of the page.

Anyone know how to fix this?--Carlaude ^(talk) 17:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed ... someone copied the portal page into this month's scripture passage for some unknown reason. --B (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please RSVP to Purity Ball

You are cordially invited to join us at Purity Ball, to assist with its expansion. Please come. Whatever404 (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Christian literature and Portal:Christian Art

I suggest new portal. I think that we have enought matrial for it and it can help to make this articles better. --91.150.78.197 (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

How about Portal:Christian Literature and Art instead.

For one thing, comics and manga are a legitimate and increasingly popular art form that is both Literature and Art.

This would also give the poral a wider array of articles to "draw" on. --Carlaude ^(talk) 20:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I would be opposed to the Christian art one as the articles are in considerable disarray at the moment, and very badly categorised. I expect the same applies to the Literature. Johnbod (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move discsussion involving Kabbalah

Since there is a form of Christian Kabbalah, I suspect some of you may be interested in the discussion at Talk:Kabbalah#Requested move. Bob (QaBob) 14:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of popes

The featured list List of popes has been nominated for removal. You can comment here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Christian Zionism in the United Kingdom

Can someone tell me who gave this a B (rather than start) rating as part of your project? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The talk page reveals that - there is only one editor for the talk page, who gave it all the ratings for all the projects. I don't recognize that editor, and they are not on the list of members. GRBerry 15:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have reset all of them to Start/low. The article is a mass of POV/wikification issues, which I have tagged for. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that there would be some collective discussion before a project assigns a rating. That's why I asked. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No, assessments are normally added by one user. There would only be discussion if there is disagreement, because assessments aren't that important. I think they are usually added by project members (or bots, but lets not go there...) - at least I don't normally rate for other than this project and its sub-projects, though I may remove a rating that looks no longer valid. Don't treat them as very significant. My personal opinion is that above stub and below FA the ratings are essentially the same. GRBerry 17:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Christianity and Judaism

In a recent AfD a (snowball) decision was taken to merge this article into the article Judeo-Christian.

Unfortunately the merge proposal was never flagged at the article Judeo-Christian, nor was the AfD ever flagged at the project talk-pages which tend to be a clearing house for such discussions; which is unfortunate, because as far as I can see, as a result nobody familiar with the Judeo-Christian article appears to have participated at all.

Two points in particular I would like to make,

Per WP:ADJECTIVE and WP:MOSNAME, we use nouns and noun-phrases for article titles, not adjectives. So a general survey on the relationships between Christianity and Judaism (a topic this encyclopedia should certainly cover) should be called Christianity and Judaism, as per the articles Christianity and Islam, Islam and Judaism.
The reason the article Judeo-Christian exists, as its own hatnote declares, is specifically to survey the history and use of that word-phrase -- which has its own controversy, and its own tale to tell. (See here where I've set things out in a bit more detail.) That story is a good fit for its own article, and will get completely lost if the contents of Christianity and Judaism get inappropriately dumped on top of it.

People seem to have particularly objected to is the statement in the lead of the Christianity and Judaism article that:

The article on Judeo-Christian tradition emphasizes continuities and convergences between the two religions, this article emphasizes the widely diverging views held by Christianity and Judaism.

I would agree, if that were true, it would set up a completely deprecated WP:POVFORK. But the truth actually is that the Judeo-Christian article does not review the "continuities and convergences between the two religions". Instead, its hatnote says "For the relationships between the two religions, see Christianity and Judaism." -- which, per WP:ADJECTIVE is exactly where that discussion should be found.

Having contacted the closing admin, his advice was to open a new discussion at Talk:Christianity and Judaism, advertise the discussion widely, and if a new consensus can be reached in that discussion, then per WP:CCC the new consensus should be followed, rather than the AfD decision, without the need for a DRV or a new AfD.

Concerns about the proposed merge have also been expressed by Slrubenstein (talk · contribs), LisaLiel (talk · contribs) and SkyWriter (talk · contribs).

So this post is to let people know that that discussion is underway, at Talk:Christianity and Judaism#Overly speedy deletion. People may also wish to review the problems with the article in its present form, as identified in the AfD. Jheald (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Damnation contains little on theology

The article Damnation is very short and focuses largely on slang use of the word.
IMHO this article can and should have much more on theology of the concept of damnation.
(I will not be editing this myself.) -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism article GA reassessment

Your thoughts would be appreciated here: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Messianic Judaism/1 -- Avi (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Carlos Annacondia

Would be nice if somebody could write up about Carlos Annacondia. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.162.56 (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Archbishops of Canterbury

I've nominated this article for removal of it's featured list status. Feel free to comment, here. iMatthew (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Kosuke Koyama - help needed to make this article better sourced, pleased

Recently, I created the page on the Japanese theologian Kosuke Koyama, as it surprised me that this celebrated theologian did not have an article in Wikipedia. I first learnt of this through reading a Lion Handbook of Christian theologians in 1985, but as it was a long time ago that I read this, I do not recall all the details. Does any one know of the book in question, or indeed, have any other book references for Kosuke Koyama? If you know some good references that would help to improve this article, you can leave a message on my userpage and I shall be grateful - I shall be happy to edit the Koyama article if any one leaves messages on my userpage. Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Christianity in Asia proposal

Please consider commenting at Wikiproject Christianity in Asia proposal. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 20:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The suggestions are there that this would probably be best served as a task force of this project group. Would it be too much to ask of you if you created task forces with names such as "Christianity in America" or "Christianity in Asia"? Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Input wanted on Francis Macnab

A discussion has started at Talk:Francis Macnab about how to cover his announcement of a new faith, see here. The sections dealing with it are rather long, and further we have had a request from the Executive of his church that we remove some sourced information about the public response of another church. Your input is appreciated. Blarneytherinosaur ^gabby? 23:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In the Above To Do list

Warning: There is no such thing as the "Assemblies of Yahweh (Michigan)". There is one Assemblies of Yahweh (Bethel) which has branches over the world. Just like to let you know. Apparently, the Assemblies of Yahweh have had copyright issues already with groups such as the Assembly of Yahweh, or House of Yahweh, calling themselves Assemblies of Yahweh. Kiddish.K (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Geevarghese Mar Ivanios

Can someone from this project run their eyes over Geevarghese Mar Ivanios, I've removed a lot of the gushing love letter like tone from the article but a lot of terminology is complete alien to me and it could do with an expert running their eyes over it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Purity Ball

Someone mentioned this article before, but they failed to mention how biased against the event it is. The article includes several quotes criticising the event but not a single positive comment to support it. Wikipedia articles are supposed to have a neutral point of view, this one clearly does not. 75.93.9.235 (talk) 04:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Dishonest Anti-Missionary Activity

I am a new user and I have noticed a lot of clever anti-missionary activity on many of the christian pages. One example:

Page in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_prophecies_(Christian_view)

CHARGE: The page has been attacked by an anti-christian opinion. I have a serious problem with the content and link references given but do not know all the Wikipedia rules yet.

REASONS: Link references 26, 28 to 32 do not exist on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_prophecies_(Christian_view)

Also the content and additions that these links provide do not share the Christian View but is biased towards the anti-missionary opinion (Jewish opinion that opposes the Jewish Messianic or Christian position). In addition someone changed the alternate title code as it does not resemble the name of the page but the word "claimed is inserted". This was the reason why I tried to slowly create a new page. There are other charges I have against the content on this page that are dishonest but want mention this for the moment. I am seeking to work with someone who knows the laws of Wikipedia so we can destroy the enemies work. I am only a few days old with Wikipedia.

First of all, I'd ask you to assume good faith. I doubt there's an "enemy" on Wikipedia whose work needs to be destroyed, and accusing other editors of dishonesty is not a good idea. The correct place to discuss the article's shortcomings would be its talk page.

Messianic prophecies (Christian view) is a redirect to Claimed Messianic prophecies of Jesus. While I agree the article's name is not the best possible, the title "Messianic prophecies of Jesus" wouldn't be great either since that's a point of view accepted by only one side of the debate. I don't know why it was ever moved to its current title; "Messianic prophecies (Christian view)" seems good to me.

The link references are indeed broken; the correct link seems to be this. Probably the result of a website redesign. I'll repair the links in a moment. Huon (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Message

First Crusade has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. OpenSeven (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Johnson

I was wondering if Samuel Johnson would qualify with WikiProject Anglicanism and the Anglicanism Portal because he ghost wrote many sermons. I have not yet had a chance to finish a page on it, but this and this can give you a sense about his contribution. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

I added a few comments to the DoC talk page about the article's style and content. Since it is under Wikiproject:Christianity I thought it would be good to mention it here so someone with a little more know-how and resources on this denomination could help out. In short, the article is sourced solely by primary sources, and it reads a bit more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic entry. It would be good if someone could fix it up a bit when it comes to tone and sourcing. Thanks. Kristamaranatha (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism

This article, and probably related ones, could use some expert help. The viewpoints of the Messianic Jews themselves and of mainstream Jews are represented but not that of mainstream Christianity. Also in Jews for Jesus, this mainstream group (like it or dislike it) is being confused with Messianic Judaism and some help is needed explaining the difference. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Lists of priests, ministers etc.

This may have been discussed previously, but I cannot find anything in the archive. In articles about churches, is it appropriate to include lists of priests, ministers, and the like? I seem to remember such a list being deleted from a church article, but cannot remember when or why. Is there a policy on this? Many thanks. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say in general that they shouldn't be included, though it might be mentioned that notable people (i.e., that have an article) were associated with the parish. Mangoe (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos

Hi! I just put up Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos and am looking for suggestions on how the article can be improved. General comments or copy-edit are also appreciated. bamse (talk) 12:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me, although it does need some copy editing and some more citations. I'll take a look around... – Alex43223^{T | C | E}

Thanks, I am still improving and adding a little when time permits. Maybe a native speaker could make the text more English. bamse (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Rick Warren

The article, Rick Warren, has been repeatedly vandalized by dozens of unestablished users over the past couple days and needs to have a partial lock added ASAP.

Manutdglory (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is Jesus also known as "King of the Jews"?

INRI (King of the Jews) was inscribed on the cross on which Jesus Christ was crucified.. Why Jews?? Jews also worship him? Is regarded as a God by Jewish people too? Also was Christ born Jew? Are Judaism and Christaianity related? Didn't Jews reject Christ's newly created religion- Christianity? Then how come Jews were hated by the Christian world in the medieval times? Also were Jews in any way responsible for His crucifixion? Everyone please pardon me, but I am very ignorant about both Judaism and Christianity... a few questions which I may have posed could be totally unrelated and "plain stupid"... sorry again --Sanguine learner ^talk 17:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Jesus was a Jew, as were all the disciples, since of course Christianity didn't exist while Jesus was alive. Christianity begin as a Jewish sect at the time of the resurrection. That doesn't really have much to do with his being "King of the Jews" though. This was one of Herod's titles. "King of kings" was a title of the Persian emperor (shah en shah). "Son of God" was a title of Augustus, and "savior of the world" is from a poem by Virgil (anticipating the birth of a child by Anthony and Octavia). So the Gospels took various titles used by powerful people at the time and applied them to Jesus. Kauffner (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Several of the Gospels record why. For instance, in John 18 & 19 Jesus was questioned by Pilate and was accused of calling himself a king; a charge with which he did not disagree. When Pilate tried to have Jesus released, the crowd called out "Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar." "King of the Jews" was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek on the cross on which Jesus was crucified as a description of the charges under which he was condemned. John records that the chief priests complained saying it should have read "This man said, I am King of the Jews." The article you link to covers this pretty well. Hope that clears it up. Blarneytherinosaur ^gabby? 13:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

{{Infobox church/sandbox}}: Revised version completed; comments welcome

Hi, I've finished revising the proposed improved version of the template {{Infobox church/sandbox}}. Your comments and feedback at the template's "talk page" are welcome. If there are no major objections to the improved template, it will be used to replace the existing template {{Infobox church}}. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems very thorough, if a bit over-powering in the full version, & some of the "architectural" headers seem a bit odd. The main thing is that we are absolutely clear that it is up to local editors whether to use it or not. In my experience most editors of articles that are mainly about the architecture prefer not use them. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. To centralize the discussion, I'm copying your comment over to "Template talk:Infobox church#Revised template ready; comments, please" and responding there. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As there were no other comments after revisions were made to the sandboxed template, the improved version of {{Infobox church}} has gone live. In connection with this, {{Parish church}} has been nominated for deletion. See "TfD nomination of Template:Parish church" below. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"Book of Kings" disamb(s) need clarification

-- xposted to Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism --

I was looking for info on "Kings", as in the book(s) of the Tanakh/OT that come between Samuel and Chronicles.

Kings (a disamb page, though not designated as one) includes among other uses:

Book of Kings, a historical book of the Hebrew Bible
- Books of Kings, part of the Hebrew Bible

Book of Kings says:

Book of Kings may refer to:
The Books of Kings in the Bible

The Shahnama, an 11th century epic Persian poem

The Morgan Bible, a French medieval picture bible

The Pararaton, a 16th century Javanese history of southeast Asia

Books of Kings is apparently the actual content: "The Books of Kings (Hebrew: Sefer Melachim, ספר מלכים‎) are a part of Judaism's Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible. ... and were later included by Christianity as part of the Old Testament."

Our various links to "Kings", "Book of Kings", "Books of Kings" seem unnecessarily confusing. Can we clarify these references and redirects? Thanks. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Timothy

This isn't much to show for such a major figure in Christianity. This article needs work. -- Secisek (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Parish church

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus

Template:Parish church has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nativity of Jesus

Does anyone in this wikiproject care that Nativity of Jesus is likely going to shortly be pushed into using CE instead of AD? Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason for this change. WP:MOSNUM#Year numbering systems states: "Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper-case. Choose either the BC/AD or the BCE/CE system, but not both in the same article. ... It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other." — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Can you pop over to that talk page and preach to someone other than the choir? Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Something strange at Futurism (Christian eschatology)

When I tried to remove a section at the bottom of this article (on a different subject than the article - SIMULSUBSTANTIATION) and no I don't know what it means. When I tried to remove this section it said "no such section", and when I tried to edit from the top I found the text didn't exist. What should be done with this? Kathleen.wright5 08:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem was in the christian-theology-stub template. Mangoe (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Another church template matter: clergy

I noticed in reviewing the TFC above that all of the church infobox templates include a place to record clergy. I think this should be suppressed, in the interests of Wikipedia is not a directory. Even cathedral canons are fairly transient, much less parish priests and ministers; and 99% of these people, if not more, are non-notable (and probably want to remain so). Keeping this stuff up to date is a hopeless project. Mangoe (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist conventions?

The watchlist and its recent changes looks useful to have. But what are the conventions about deciding what articles should (and shouldn't) be on it? I have a particular live biography article in mind. But the person himself also seems, I think, to be editing it in an autobiographical and advertising fashion. Might it help if the article were on the watchlist? Then various other editors could help shape the article in a neutral manner. Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that a bot used to automatically update it daily, probably according to which articles used this project's template. For several months, that hasn't been happening. So, go ahead and add any useful pages to the list. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have begun to restore some of the information on Arthur Blessitt. Feel free to check it for accuracy and balance. Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Faith

If any one has an interest, I am hoping to get some input about a dispute occurring at the faith article. I would be grateful for some feed back about the issue, so I can proceed to to produce a referenced article. Thanks. Hardyplants (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

National church

I saw this article but noted that it fails to adequately describe the concept of a national church as distinct from an established church or state religion. Is anyone familiar with this concept who can add sources and improve the article? Or is this article worthy of being included in Wikipedia at all? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

former featured content

Is it need to remove former featured articles from the list?--Vojvodae ist 14:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Kosuke Koyama

The article on Koyama is under the watchlist of the Philosophy Wikiproject,but not this one. Why don't you add a tag to the article to state that it is under the WikiProject Christianity group's remit? I am sure that you could find people here who are interested in Asian theologians. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Thank you - I have now check the article on Kosuke Koyama, and see it is within your project group. Does this group have sub-groups, such as task forces, dealing with Christianity in different parts of the world? Wikipedia has an article on Christianity in Japan and such a task force could potentially help to improve this article. Again, thank you for looking at this one, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Individual reassessment of God

The article God is currently under individual reassessment, which can be found here. Editors are encouraged to participate. Thank you. DiverseMentality 22:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I need one help

I want to start new subprojet Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbian Orthodox Church but I dont know how to do it. Can someone help me about procedure and templates?--Vojvodae ist 12:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Help on Nativity of Jesus

Would someone please comment on a content dispute surrounding a table comparing the infancy narratives in Luke and Matthew at Nativity of Jesus? Thanks. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Scottish Rite Cathedral (Indianapolis)

I was just assessing articles for the Freemasonry WikiProject, and I came across Scottish Rite Cathedral (Indianapolis), which is also tagged as being of interest to you folks. Should I remove it, on the grounds that it was probably an error because of "Cathedral", or do you have a continuing interest in it? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah this doesn't fall into our project. It probably was the word "cathedral" that caused confusion. Ltwin (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll take care of that, then. Thanks!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Religion policy

Project participants may be interested in contributing to the proposed policy Wikipedia:Religion. —Eustress ^talk 18:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

How should Koyama be rated on importance scale?

Looking at the page on Kosuke Koyama, I see that the article has not yet had a rating on the importance rating scale. Having just read the importance rating for Christianity articles, I consider it appropriate if this goes in the "low importance" category. Although Kosuke Koyama is quite a big name in contemporary theology, he would not be as well-known a figure as, for example, Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, Martin Luther, John Calvin or Hans Kung.

The article on Emil Brunner has been rated as low-importance by the WikiProject group for Calvinism. Since Brunner is probably a more well-known name than Koyama, that rather makes me feel in support of my above suggestion that this should be rated as low-importance. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, done. -- Secisek (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:X in signpost

WP:X is in the latest signpost.Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-03-09/WikiProject report. Thanks to User:Secisek. Good work ! -- Tinu Cherian - 12:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion regarding project organization

Any comments regarding the structure and function of Christianity related material are welcome at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum#Project organization. Be prepared for some rather lengthy comments, though. There is a lot of material to cover there. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Knights of Columbus

Hi, this article is currently near the top of the wp:featured articles/Cleanup listing as it is in 5 maintenace categories: Articles needing additional references (Dec 2008), Articles with unsourced statements (Jun 2008, Jul 2008, Aug 2008, Feb 2009). Anyone finding time to make improvements would be appreciated, thanks Tom B (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Christian apologetics

It looks to me that a lot of the articles in this category aren't about apologetics, but rather specific apologists. We don't yet have a Category:Christian apologists to hold such articles separately, but I think that it might make sense to create such a category for these articles. Would the rest of you agree? Also, would it be preferable to make the "apologetics" category the parent of the "apologists" category, or the other way around? John Carter (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems a rather vague term frankly, & I'm dubious many there really belong. If the category is split, the -ism should be the parent of the -ists, following usual convention. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree I both counts. In fact I have been planing to do this sometime... but go ahead.--Carlaude ^(talk) 19:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Christianity in Haiti - A School Project

Please note that there are several students presently creating the article, "Christianity in Haiti" as a part of a school project. Any help you might give them or edits you might contribute to this page are graciously welcome. Also, please note that a couple of antagonistic editors have been interfering in these students' work, and so an assistance with this would also be appreciated. Thank you.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Aramaic language FAR

I have nominated Aramaic language 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. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Anabaptist navigation box

I noticed that, as present, we don't have a navigation box to easily link the most important articles on that subject, like, for instance, Template:Roman Catholicism2, which is used for Roman Catholicism. Would anyone like to help create such a navbox, and what articles do you all think should be included in it? Ideally, the articles to be included would be those which give a broad, comprehensive look at the subject. Those articles would also likely be counted as the most important articles on the subject, as they are linked to from the main anabaptist page through the navbox. Thoughts? John Carter (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Question about the "Christianity Portals"

Why are there so many religions under this category? Does the "Christianity Portals" box representing religions based off of Christianity and Judaism?(I don't really want to get in an argument about the origin of the different religions.)If it is why not put Islam, Mormonism, and all the other similar religions?

But if it is not, then I recommend relocating some of the religions, because some of them contradict the Bible as well as themselves, not mentioning being historically inaccurate.(I am not mentioning the names because I do not want to loose my head...) Please respond without threats or rage, but in a formal, dignified manner.

But if you strike me in rage...I will not back down. If it is war you want, it is war you shall have.(Sorry, for not following the whole "turn the other cheek example" but I will defend my faith to the bitter end. Again I wish peace but I will not leave my defenseless against an attacking rival.)

"I have never advocated war except as a means of peace." Ulysses S. Grant

(Again, sorry for all the commotion) Project Gnome (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not entirely sure which portals you see as being problematic, however, except maybe Portal:Narnia. I don't know how it got there, personally. All the other portals included in the Category:Christianity portals are portals of either religions which are generally recognized as "Christian", or of Christian music, literature or history, which I guess is how Portal:Crusades and Portal:Pope got there. Can you point toward any portal which you see as clearly not belonging there? Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks...that helps clear things up...(Some of the religions are considered Cristian, but are not technically Christian...but I guess in order to keep the peace as well as my rights, they'll have to stay...) And once again thanks for clearing that up.

Project Gnome (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose he means things like these. --Carlaude ^(talk) 08:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Book of Mormon
Portal:Christadelphian
Portal:Latter-day Saints

origin of lent

In the article on lent, the author defines its orgin thus: "The forty days represent the time that, according to the Bible, Jesus spent in the desert before the beginning of his public ministry, where he endured temptation by Satan.[1]." This is ambiguous. The forty days refers the the forty days and forty nights of fasting, AFTER WHICH he was tempted by Satan. Omitting reference to the fasting during the forty days downplays the role of fasting in early Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.211.92 (talk) 05:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Categorisation & terminology reality check

I've created and or come across a number of articles on nonconformists and/or presbyterians such as Richard Frankland (tutor), Timothy Jollie, Thomas Jollie, Oliver Heywood (clergyman), Samuel Hammond (minister) ... there may be others to be taken into consideration ... all from the Dictionary of National Biography.

I'm uncertain if these people are Anglicans: could anyone confirm. And thus I'm uncertain about what categories to pop the articles into ... we have such things as Category:English Anglican priests, Category:Calvinist ministers and theologians, Category:Presbyterian ministers, but we do not seem to have Category:Nonconformist ministers ... I'm a little lost.

So. Any advice on the relationship of these people with Anglicanism, and on appropriate categories, much appreciated. thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"Nonconformist" would not be useful Categorisation since it is a term for any non-Anglican Protestant in Britain. What sort of "nonconformists" were they?

I also hope to phase out Category:Calvinist ministers and theologians Since we have Category:Reformed clergy and could just create Category:Calvinist theologians that would be a better subset of other categories. --Carlaude ^(talk) 03:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's all in the articles - Frankland was an Anglican clergyman who went nonconformist, Jolie, always was, apparently independently, & so on. I agree Category:Nonconformist ministers may not be a good idea, but Category:Independent Nonconformist ministers might be necessary - Reformed or Calvinist would not be appropriate terms in an English context I think. Category:Puritans might be also appropriate for those active before 1660 say, except we don't have that either. but there is Category:English Dissenters. Johnbod (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both, but I'm still a little at sea. In your view, are either of the Jollies Anglicans or not? Or is the problem more that I'm trying to apply a 19th century neologism to a 17th century phenomenon? Whether or not, is it appropriate that they be categorised as Category:English Anglican priests or should we move to Category:English Independent priests or somesuch? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't really our place or anyone's place to say that they were Anglicans without direct evidence in the text of the article which says that. So far as I can see, there isn't anything specific in either article which clearly states that they were Anglicans. I'm assuming that's because there isn't a clear indication of that in the source. Personally, if a source doesn't clearly indicate that someone is something that uncontroversial as being an Anglican, then there might be good reason for it not saying that. On that basis, I tend to think that not adding them to any Anglican category at this point probably makes sense. John Carter (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is very clear from the articles (assuming they are correct) that neither Jolie was Anglican, & indeed that they would almost certainly have objected violently to being called "priests" of any type. To be honest, if you can't see that from the articles as they are, I'd avoid trying to categorize them. Category:Christian ministers, mentioned below, is pretty useless for entering directly to imo, as it mostly seems to consist of vanity self-bios by contemporary Americans. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and agreed. But that takes us to the next question: under what category should they be listed? Concentrating on the two Jollie's, they're ministers; independent; nonconfirmist ... does that lead us to Category:Independent Nonconformist ministers? Would Category:Independent ministers do as well? Or is Category:English Dissenters enough? (doesn't work for me since you can dissent without being a minister, presumably) --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Presumably you're looking for a category which indicates their professional standing as "ministers". Maybe Category:Christian ministers? Generally, we'll wind up putting articles which aren't any more specific into the broader parent category, and then when there get to be enough articles relating to a specific subunit creating out a specific category for them. John Carter (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sorry if I've been a bit slow here, but Category:Christian ministers works well. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You haven't been slow. But in time I am going to try to work out if the 140 or so articles in that category can be fit into any more specific ones, or whether additional categories can be created out of it. It might take a while though. John Carter (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

On my quick sample a good % are non-notable vanity cruft. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move Maundy Thursday to Holy Thursday

6 Apr 2009 – Move requested from Maundy Thursday (talk) to Holy Thursday; see discussion. --Boston (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - April 2009

Religious ministry (Christian)

Hi. The article Religious ministry (Christian) is in need of some assistance. While wikilinking a new article today, I found that over a year ago it had been redirected to Minister (Christianity), which is, of course, the specific office. The redirect probably resulted from the fact that the article had been unsourced for about two years. I've added a couple of sources to the introductory paragraph of this article, but it can use quite a bit more work. I've tagged it for the project, but I wanted to mention it here in case anyone had time or interest. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Pointers needed

I intend to write an article from scratch about a church, with a 300 year old building, historically significant members of the congregation and ministers, and current activities that are documented in local and national press. Are there any guidelines for how to structure such an article? Thanks! BrainyBabe (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are some examples of

good articles on churches. --Carlaude ^(talk) 20:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "historically significant members of the congregation and ministers", if they are notable enough for independent biographical articles, feel free to create them as such. Otherwise, I would include only such information about them as is directly relevant to the church itself in the article about the church. John Carter (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that! Some of the notable individuals have their own articles (indeed, even FAs); those who are significant but not yet on WP (which is still the case for some historical figures, even writers in the UK) I will mention only with good sources, but don't think I have the energy to create more articles. I'll create it in a sandbox, and then ask here for feedback. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Angels <-> Deceased humans

Discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Angel#Angels_.3C-.3E_Deceased_humans on whether or not it is appropriate to include in that article the popular notion that when good people die they become angels. Your thoughts on this question are welcome there. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Categorising saints and martyrs

Hi everyone. I would like to give you some heads up for Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 7 and User:Carlaude/Notes#List_C. I would like to know that everything is ok with the proposed categorisation. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. John Carter (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Will it replace/remove existing categories where appropriate? e.g. articles added to Category:3rd-century Christian martyr saints should be removed from its super-category Category:Christian martyrs of the Roman era, because of the general policy at WP:SUBCAT#Duplicate categorization rule. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. There are several extant categories which would have to be replaced if this categorization is to proceed. Are the various other relevant categorizations also itemized, so that the machine can know which ones to replace? John Carter (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes the plan is to remove them from their super-categories, and in most cases (most pages) that is the only part still to be done. See here for items still to be done and for the starting list before these changes began. --Carlaude ^(talk) 01:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if Magioladitis is watching this page-- so if you have questions for him on the process, or me on the list, moving this to either his or my talk page may be best. --Carlaude ^(talk) 01:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Working to remove an orphan tag

The article on the Japanse theologian Kazoh Kitamori has been marked as an orphaned article, but I have now given it links from these articles:

Christianity in Japan;

Kosuke Koyama;

Christian theology;

History of Christianity

This means that just one more link from an article could quite happily result in the removal of the orphan tag - does any one have any ideas where that should be from? By the way, I am not an expert on theologians in Japan, I am just interested (after my pleas for help with the piece on Koyama and now my plea regarding Kitamori, I thought I had better clarify that! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe List of Kyoto University people? John Carter (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please to not add links to general articles just to remove them from an orphaned article list. History of Christianity is already to long and any artical that having trouble finding five spsific articles to link to it-- it not important enophe to link to History of Christianity just for its own sake.

Try linking it to article(s) from here instead: Category:Lutheranism in Asia.--Carlaude ^(talk) 18:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. but, if it really is an orphan, best leave it so. Johnbod (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review?

Would the members of the project be in favor of establishing a more thorough review of an article for A-Class status, perhaps like that discussed at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/A-Class criteria? John Carter (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

is there a Christian theology work group?

I notice that a category has been created, but it appears to have been empty for over a month. --Stepheng3 (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but that category isn't used by it. I'm deleting it. John Carter (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. --Stepheng3 (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Valued pictures

Just wanted everybody to know that there is a new form of recognition for images which are particularly useful to wikipedia.
Oh, yeah, and that none of the valued pictures relate to Christianity yet. That too. I really only say this because WikiProject Islam already has two valued pictures. If any of you have any images that you think would be successful nominees, please feel free to nominate them. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible Christian film task force

There is discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#New Task Force: Christian Films regarding the possible creation of a Christian film task force there. Any interested parties are more than welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Categorising Christian organizations by century

I have created lists of articles and requested they be added by Magioladitis & Yobot to Category:Christian organizations by century and removed from Category:Religious organizations by year of establishment as needed.

See the lists at User:Carlaude/Notes#List A

This starts at the 12th century since I had done much of the needed Categorising some while ago for centuries 1 - 11.--Carlaude ^(talk) 06:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

LDS temples

I noticed some LDS temple articles have Wikiproject Christianity templates on them. Should all LDS temples have this template? LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Which LDS temple articles and/or which templates is it that concern you?--Carlaude ^(talk) 00:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC on name in lede of Gene Robinson

Talk: Gene Robinson#RfC: Is adding Robinson's legal name of Vicky Gene instead of V. Gene approprite for the lede of this BLP?

Your input is welcome. -- Banjeboi 03:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Elephant in the living room

OK, there is a problem regarding importance assessments and other declarations of importance which I haven't seen directly addressed anywhere yet, but which I think should be addressed, if for no other reason than to keep it from arising again.
As most of you know, the breakdown of Christian populations worldwide is roughly 50% Catholic, 10% Eastern Orthodox, and all the others fall within the remaining 40%. Should these population statistics affect "importance" at all? I acknowledge that I am a Roman Catholic, and have acknowledged that repeatedly to help identify any possible COI. Having said that, I do have to believe that it should have some effect, although I do not think that I myself am at all qualified to determine how. I don't think that this should necessarily affect the core topics list, which at present includes only 19 articles relating to the last 25% out of a proposed 100. But it is a factor which I think should be addressed, one way or another, so that we know how to proceed in the future.
An example, if one is needed, of where it might become a problem is a comparison of, for instance, Philipp Melanchthon or John Knox versus Francis of Assisi or Gregory Palamas. Which ones would be count as being a higher priority? While in no way denying the impact of Melanchthon and Knox, much of that impact on the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox populations was comparatively minimal, almost certainly less than the impact of Francis of Assisi on the Catholics or Gregory Palamas of the Eastern Orthodox. Add your own example if you have questions about any of mine. In any event, do any of you have any ideas how, if at all, to address this question, or would we be basically better off letting it lie and hoping nothing happens? John Carter (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you will find that the numbers are much closer to 10% Eastern Orthodox and 40% remaining others.

Articles heavily related to one Christianity group, IMHO, should get a lower WikiProject Christianity importance rating than articles heavily related to that two or more groups, (even) if those two or more groups total the same size as the other one group. (All other things being the same.)

Any Christianity group, IMHO, that also has there own strong WikiProject does not need and should not get as high a WikiProject Christianity importance rating for articles heavily related to that group.

The existence of WikiProject Roman Catholicism does not make Papal conclave less important to Christianity-- but does make it less important to the WikiProject Christianity because readers and editors focused on Catholicism only need only look at the WikiProject Catholicism importance rating for their needs. While counting less-- how much is open to debate-- but leadership, for example, shouldn't be any less than leadership in any other (large) denomonation. (All other things being the same.)

Articles related to Western church and taking place before the Reformation and/or the East-West Schism-- while often claimed by the Roman Church is rightly counted to the heritage all of (Chalcedonian) Christianity (if before the East-West Schism) or Western Christianity if before the Reformation)-- E.g. Francis of Assisi. The exception here is if the article is about a teaching or Council that are since largly reputated by non-Roman Catholics or people remembered for such things characteristic only of the Roman Catholic Church now days-- E.g. the Avignon Papacy.

I hope this helps-- but, IMHO, as I proposed elsewhere we cannot get much more specific unless we develop more specific guidlines in general.--Carlaude ^(talk) 18:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

We are in the process of altering the importance parameters, at least on one level so far. However, we would probably also want to ensure the adjusted parameters reflected on what we wanted before we finally adjusted them, which is why I raised the issue today. While I agree with you to a degree that pre-schism Christianity is effectively within the scope of everybody, at least potentially if they want to claim that particular article, the fact of the presence of a patriarch/pope/archbishop involved, if there is one, does seem to link the article more to that faith than others which don't have such a direct connection.

The reformation era people clearly did have notable importance outside of their own field/church, pretty much across the board. But degree can be important there. And while early individuals can be "claimed" by any number of people, that doesn't mean they always or even often will be.

Personally, I do not think that trying to "pigeonhole" content is necessarily the best way to go, as seems to be implied above. The fact of the existence of a project or work group does not necessarily mean that it is really a functional group. Also, it would seem to imply that the extant groups will continue to be extant indefinitely, which is often far from being certain. Therefore, it would likely have to happen, if we followed that train of thought, that importance ratings would have to be adjusted every time a group was created or deactivated, which would be an unnecessary burden.

It probably is the case, to at least some degree, probably more with the RCs than anyone else, the direct impact of a person or entity on that group may well eventually lead to notable impact in other groups as well, thus causing a bit more ripple effect. The proposed changes to "Mid" importance indicated that the determining factor would be their impact on Christianity as a whole. But alternate phrasing for the others should be useful and important as well. John Carter (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Far be it from be to imply that the first or even necessarly an important part of determining the WikiProject Christianity article importance rating is to start by asking what group or groups the article relates to. I was just tring to address (only) the importance question rasied, which might be summarized as "if the article has X importance to Roman Catholicism-- should it necessarly have have Y importance to Christianity, since so many Christians are Roman Catholics?" --Carlaude ^(talk) 22:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that was what I was asking. What I thought I was asking about was the differential importance of the larger church groups as opposed to the smaller ones. So, to perhaps phrase it a bit more clearly, if an article for the Church of the Nazarene project is rated as a High priority for that group, and an article for the Catholicism (or any of the largest groups) article is similarly rated as High importance to that project, would there be any reason, on a consistent basis, to perhaps give one article a higher "importance" rating to the Christianity project than the other, and, if yes, are there any specific suggestions as to how to accomplish that? John Carter (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a tough one John. I think that top needs to be reserved for those figures / topics that are of ecumenical importance, and our eye needs to be on how important a topic is across the board. There might be some weighting involved in that, merely because an important figure from a larger tradition is more likely to have a broader-reching significance than an important figure from a smaller tradition (if that sentence isn't rendered unintelligible from an over-abundance of adjectives). That said, I would not make it a principle, but treat each topic on a case by case basis. The question is, what is the significance of a topic/person to Christianity in the ecumenical-global sense? (Even a "top" importance figure in a tradition could, possibly, have little to no impact outside of that tradition). Of course, this requires a certain amoutn of humility - the ability to say that my important person / topic might not be important to other traditions. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the proximate reason for asking is that we are probably going to have importance assessments for the various "subprojects" happen a lot more quickly and easily than for the parent project, and it would be useful if we could work out some sort of formula such that we could use the subproject's importance rating and determine the Christianity importance rating based on the rating of that one or more subprojects. But I can and do see why it might not be as easy as that. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Elephant II

Sorry. I ment to come back to this.
The let's say that the all the articles of top are areready determined.
We determine which groups are of high and mid (most will be mid). Lets the rule is like this: Any group as a large as Presbyterianism is high.
Any group smaller than Presbyterianism but large enphen that 50% of adult the US population— or any other 125,000 peopl worldwide— have heard of it is mid. They do not need to know anything about it. (This idea is to eliminate very small groups and many such groups are in the US only/mostly.
Say we are determing an article related to a group, Joe's Church, and related to no other group. No article can have a rating higher that the rating for Joe's Church, but they may have a rating for an article that is the same as the rating for Joe's Church— often for the founder and maybe an number of other articals. Let's also say— just for example sake— we somehow knew the impotence of the these articles to Joe's Church. If Joe's Church is a mid-rated group, of course we down-rate all the articles rated top by Joe, to mid, and of course we rate all the articles rated low by Joe as low. But we also rate some of the Joe's high-rated articles to mid and if, say, Joe's Church is nearly as large as Presbyterianism or whatever, we may even rate some of Joe's mid-rated articles to mid. This is because the numbers will always favor the low-rated articles (there are more) and so we do not need to bring all of the Joe's Church-related down two-whole levels just because the maximum is down two-whole levels. --Carlaude ^(talk) 19:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Here is an example. Say all of Christianity has:

80 top articles
300 high articles
1200 mid articles
5000 low articles

(Each level has 4 times as many as the one above).

And say all the Joe's Church related articles are rated by Joe as:

2 top articles
4 high articles
8 mid articles
16 low articles

Then the Christianity rating for the 30 Joe's Church related articles are:

6 mid articles
24 low articles

(Thus low has 4 times as many as the one above). --Carlaude ^(talk) 19:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There are a few problems with the above, but with anything this large there always will be. It could well be the case that a given member of a small church is more recognizable than his church itself is. James Dobson right now is much more easily recognized by most than his church, the Church of the Nazarene. So I can see how, in a few admittedly strange cases, it might be possible for someone to have more impact on Christianity than his church does. But in most of those cases the difference will be obvious. Other cases when someone is involved in the formation of more than one group might exist as well. Also, after a few false starts, I am now contacting the Biography project and asking them how they have adjusted their banner to accomodate another importance rating, "Core". We have more or less done the same thing, and it might be useful to adjust the banner accordingly. That would also allow us to use all four of the other importance ratings with fewer constraints.

I have mentioned elsewhere I can't find right now that one of the things we will want to do is draw more input and attention to the more important articles related to Christianity in all of its forms. But, to do that, we've got to come up with a workable standard of how to determine those importance ratings which most people who are comparatively non-expert on a particular denomination or tradition can somewhat easily apply. John Carter (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

In tring to avoid this sort of problem, I said "an article related to a group... and related to no other group." Dobson, of course, relates to all of Evangelicalism or even Protestantism. Maybe your point is that this begs the question you began with... well sometimes... like with authors, etc.
I expected this to be an imperfect draft at the very best— but I think I was working toward a "workable standard of how to determine those importance ratings which most people who are comparatively non-expert on a particular denomination or tradition can somewhat easily apply"--Carlaude ^(talk) 19:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What I was thinking more of was someone whose impact as a religious figure might be primarily within his own denomination/tradition, but whose impact for whatever reason went well belong that. Like, for instance, authors (like you said). Then there are those who, in effect, founded their own "brands" of Christianity, which may have died out fairly fast, but left a lasting impact on the rest of Christendom. Arius comes to mind. Granted, these are the obvious ones, but they can be used to indicate that at least some times, maybe more than that, it may not be easy to determine how much impact on broader Christianity they may have had. John Carter (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think what you have here is a pretty good suggestion. I would only add that it be worded clearly as a guideline, and that each article has the potential to be evaluated on an individual basis. This would allow for a quick pass through for systematic ratings, and then the ability to go back and adjust. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible rename of Portal:Pope

I have to think the name of the above portal is a bit misleading. On that basis, I have proposed that it be renamed Portal:Vatican, or, potentially, Portal:Vatican City, to more accurately reflect the contents. The discussion for renaming can be found at Portal talk:Pope#Requested move. All interested parties are encouraged to take part in the discussion. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request on my talk page, I added the Christianity project to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. I can also provide the full data for any project covered by the bot if requested, though I normally don't keep it for much longer than a week after the list is generated. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! (note that there is an encoding issue with some non-ascii titles, this will be fixed in the next update). Mr.Z-man 19:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Remarkably useful. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Creed

This appears to be an article with an identity crisis. It seems to want to focus on creeds from the Christian perspective, but has an article title that gives it a broader scope. As a result, it leans toward the Christian perspective on creeds, but not with enough detail to really be useful. I beleive it would be an appropriate fork to create Creed (Christianity); that would allow the original article to have a broader focus and the new article to cover a little more in depth on Christianity and creeds. Proposal is on article talk page, please comment there. Thanks. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Athanasian Creed

The peer review page looked ... abandonded, so I thought I would just list this here. I have done some significant expansion on this article, and would like to get some more eyes to give it the once over. There's a little bit I have left to do, but any improvements to what is there would be appreciated. Thanks. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Nontrinitarian views of the Holy Spirit

There is evidently some serious discussion at Talk:Holy Spirit regarding how much space to give nontrinitarian views of the subject. This is definitely not my field, but I think informed opinions from reputable editors would probably be more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Project challenge of the Month

We just got our first listing of the 1000 most often accessed articles relevant to this project. It can be seen here. Only a few are currently listed as being "Stub" class: Gary Cole, Brian McKnight, Millenium, Andy Richter, Evangelism, Via Dolorosa, Seven Archangels, Battle Cry: Worship from the Frontlines, Emerging church, Non-denominational Christianity, Kevin Sorbo, Ron Livingston, Chris Kirkpatrick, Gospel of Mary, Cosmological argument, Wake (ceremony), Aryan Nations, I am that I am, Effigy, and Millenarianism. Anyone wanting to do a little work on any of them, particularly those that are more directly related to the project, are more than welcome to do so though. I can definitely see maybe an award or barnstar of some kind going to anyone who can bring any of them up to Start by the time the list is next generated. Just ask to have them assessed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Contest, and we'll see how well you did. If that isn't an obvious hint, guys, I don't know what is. John Carter (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

Orthodox Christianity should be listed as a disambiguation page, IMHO. --Carlaude ^(talk) 03:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I could live with that. John Carter (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It is also worth noting this group of articles. Of our 80 identified "core" topics (glad that workgroup got sorted out into a useful list and classification since I last saw it), 25% are rated as "start" class. It would be nice to see some improvement in that area as well. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Very good point. I can't see any reasons not to include them as well. At this point, I'm thinking we might give the Christianity award for the articles peripherally related to our subject, like the performers' biographies, and the Christianity Barnstar for the articles more directly tied to the subject of Christianity. I wish we had a different award for the Core topics articles, but I certainly can see how anyone who can successfully bring any of those articles up at least one quality grade would more than earn one. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've now created a separate "Contest" page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Contest to keep track of the contest details. If anyone sees anything they'd like to see added or changed, please feel free to do so. John Carter (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Work has picked up again for me, but this is a great project and I will contribute as much as I can. I KNOW some of these I can really help with. -- Secisek (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No one actually looks here, do they?

According to this page, we're averaging, oh, only about 20 views per day on this page. My user page gets over twice that as per here, at least in part because of recent vandalism. Any ideas how to get more people to pay attention, barring vandalism of course? John Carter (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we just need more active members. Ltwin (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That un-moving to-do list at the top is enough to put many off I expect. Most of the entries seem NN anyway. Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as the person who created it, I can assure you they were all at least notable, but maybe not all that notable. Having said that, yeah, I can acknowledge it to be more than a bit off-putting. It is also probably redundant to the new article alerts to some degree anyway, and I figure to be moving it after completing this message. John Carter (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That's much better. I suspect most of the more notable ones had been started & so gone from the list. The left-overs looked pretty NN to me, not that I ever felt tempted to research one. Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

They all have separate entries, of about a paragraphy each minimum, in either James R. Lewis's or Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi's encyclopedias of religions, including a lot of entries on groups in underdeveloped parts of the world. But, I can try to create them individually later, using the books as references. John Carter (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

To Do? I am sure you noticed I quietly moved it to less obtrusive places in some projects. That may be a good idea all around. I check in here (and with all the work groups and many subprojects talk pages) almost every time I am on Wiki, so I am doing my part. -- Secisek (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I Am that I Am

Is there a reason that this is not a re-direct to either Tetragrammaton or Yahweh?? It did go to AfD a few years back, but that was a few years back. Now, it appears that Yahweh might be the best "parent" article for this little group of overlapping concepts. If it seems appropriate to you all, I'll post a note on the article talk. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No objections that I can see. It might involve creation of a new section in Yahweh for the other religion and pop culture references, but I don't think that there is very much need for a separate article. Any other opinions out there? John Carter (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - May 2009

GA Sweeps notice of possible demotion of Isaac

I want to inform the community that I have done a GA Reassessment of Isaac and found the article lacking. Not very much will need to be done but enough that I could not keep it GA without some effort. I am notifying all interested projects that I have held this article for one week pending editing. The review can be found here. If you have any questions please feel free to contact my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Martin Luther King, Jr. Request for comment

There is currently a discussion regarding how much material regarding certain matters of the subject's private life should be included in the article above. A request for comment on the subject can be found at Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr.#Request for Comments. Any input is more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Creeds and confessions in Christianity

I have begun a draft of this page in my userspace. It is very much not ready for prime time - not references, I haven't followed up to check on my wikilinks, and it is very incomplete. I would welcome input and editing from others to help get it ready to move to the mainspace. Thanks so much. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 16:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Categorization questions

I'm in the process of making a list of the various relevant categories, so that I may be able to ultimately try to make the existing structure a little more coherent. A few questions have come to mind regarding some already, however.

(1) There are a few categories which contain basically only one or two direct subcategories. Do the rest of you really think such additional steps are useful, particularly if there is no apparent likelihood that other individual articles are ever likely to be created?
(2) There is a question of the naming of several categories relating to bishops. How should the names of the categories be structured? Personally, I can't see that much of a use for a category of just "bishops", except for specific cases when rather small or underrepresented groups have articles on individual bishops. Otherwise, I would tend to think "Roman Catholic bishop", "Anglican bishop", "Eastern Orthodox bishop", and other such related categories would be more useful in general, because of the additional clarification. There might be a question regarding dioceses which had been Catholic but became Anglican, but I can see in such cases how maybe the individual articles be categorized by denomination, and then the "Catholic" category be made a subcat of the other.
There are a few other questions, generally of a more individual nature, which have shown up as well, but I think they can reasonably hold off a bit until I get a better idea of the range of extant categories. Anyway, any opinions? John Carter (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(1) - Maybe if there is a good reason. I can think of one example of this that is uncalled for IMO, but I cannot say I would always have that view of a category with two subcategories and no articles.
(2) - That also depends. Right now we have Category:Bishops by denomination, Category:Bishops by diocese, Category:Bishops by century, Category:Bishops by nationality, (and a few others). Are trying to remove from this or add (subcategories) to this? --Carlaude ^(talk) 18:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(1) I'm thinking here of catgories which have only one or two fairly clearly direct subcats which very directly relate to that parent category. So, as an example, it might be somewhat redundant to have Category:Assistant Bishops of Birmingham made a subcat of Category:Bishops of Birmingham, when both could be made equal subcats of Category:Christianity in Birmingham, England, for example. In some such cases, where the middle cat seems to exist for no particularly great purpose, it might save a step or two to just remove it entirely.
(2) What I was more thinking of would be Category:Bishops of Bristol, which doesn't clarify what if any church the bishops belong to, and just change the name to indicate which church they belong to. John Carter (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Stub Help

I don't like to create stubs for which I don't have the resources to expand to at least start-articles. However, Lutheran Church of the Redeemer, Jerusalem seemed to important to pass up, and I was astounded that we didn't have this article already. I would greatly appreciate any help in expanding this, if anyone has the references to do so. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Third Church of Christ, Scientist (Washington, D.C.)

The header on this page shows: WikiProject Christianity / Baptist [show](Rated Stub-Class), but Third Church of Christ, Scientist (Washington, D.C.) is not and never has been a Baptist or Anabaptist church. It is a Christian Science church and has no provision for physical baptism of any age or in any manner whatsoever. Perhaps it is being confused with Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. Anyway, I have tried to change it but cannot. It seems that the Baptist part is added automatically. Can someone correct this. clariosophic (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of some aspects of early Christian history

I have recently finished a book by Michael Grant, arguably one of the world's top scholars regarding Greco-Roman history, entitled "Saint Peter: A Biography". In that book, he seriously calls into question the possibility that many of the details and events of the New Testament may be inaccurately stated. This includes questioning whether the Council of Jerusalem ever took place per se. Personally, I find the arguments used reasonable and if not convincing creditable. He also provides some material, generally not original to him, regarding his thoughts as to why there are so many disagreements between the Synoptic Gospels and John, and various other matters. What would the rest of you think of adding material from this source to the various relevant articles? For what it's worth, I am using the source extensively in my draft revision of Saint Peter, given the more objective and possibly more thorough consideration of the subject in this volume. I also have other sources, but this one, which seems to be among the most recent, seems on that basis, at least to me, perhaps the best source on the so-called "modern" view of the subject. John Carter (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It is true that the historicity of the Apostle's council is disputed (as is more or less the whole content of the actus apostolorum). But there are also historian who hold the account of the acts true. Therefore it would be unwise only to include the critical view of Michael Grant. Other views are needed as well. I can only contribute German sources, though. --RandomNumberSee (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would only note that Grant states his opinion as only an opinion, and points out a good deal of material regarding the alleged "Council" in any event. I would personally think only that a separate section regarding the possible inaccuracies, including conflation, which is what Grant alleges it was, be added, not that the entire article be adjusted to reflect that opinion. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Please check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian cult (2nd nomination) if you like. I think it brings up some important issues.Borock (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Newington Green Unitarian Church

This is the first time I have created a really substantial article, from scratch, and would appreciate feedback and improvements. (I have listed it as within the scope of this wikiproject, although some might find that contentious.) It is Newington Green Unitarian Church, so that makes it hard for me to find the appropriate categories or projects for it. It was important in the history of English Dissenters from the established church, but is not Protestant (or even Christian?) now. It is both a listed building, and a congregation with a 300-year history of political radicalism. (Most famous minister -- Richard Price, whose sermon stimulated the Revolution Controversy, and who knew and influenced several of the Founding Fathers of the United States. Most famous congregant -- Mary Wollstonecraft, who listened to this and extended liberte, egalite, fraternite to women's rights too.) I have a "Did You Know" factoid in the list, and would like to take this to GA, but thought I'd ask here first. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Black church GAR notice

Black church has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI GAR notice

Pope Benedict XVI has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - June 2009

Problems with Prewrath article

I see several problems with the above article. Not the least of these problems is the fact that the article's title seems perhaps strange, and possibly(?) linked to prewrathministries.com. The original creator of the article, User:Strongtowerpubs, seems perhaps too similarly named to Strong Tower Publications, owned I believe by H. L. Nigro, one of the other listed sources. I also believe most of the article is at best dubiously sourced. I can myself see only one source, the Rosenthal one, that might be considered reliable. The Frederick source is from Lulu Press, a self-publishing house. I have no doubt that the subject is notable, but have very serious questions regarding the reliability of the content. I would welcome any input on the article. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Roman Catholicism in Mongolia

I have done a GA Reassessment of Roman Catholicism in Mongolia as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to need some work, there is a dead reference link and I feel that more could be added to the article. My review is here. I will hold the article for a week and I am notifying interested projects of the possibility that the article will be delisted if improvements are not made. Please address any questions to my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Emanuel Swedenborg

I have done the GA Reassessment of Emanuel Swedenborg as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article does not meet current GA Criteria. As such I have placed the article on hold pending work that needs to be done to bring it up to current standards. My review is here. I am notifying all interested projects and editors of the possibility that the article will be delisted if work is not done in the next week. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. H1nkles (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Pope categories up for deletion

I have nominated the smallest of the categories of Roman Catholic popes for deletion. Of the group nominated, the largest of the categories contains six individuals. Please feel free to take part in the discussion here. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Christian new religious movements move discussion

Please note a move discussion here at what used to be Christian cults Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Outside input requested at Beatitudes

Beatitudes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Leadwind (talk · contribs) and I have been in an ongoing edit war with Radu Comanescu (talk · contribs) at Beatitudes. Radu claims he is adding cited text, while Leadwind and I contend his additions are OR. I'd like some input from uninvolved editors who likely have dealt with issues of this nature before. Thanks. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

United Methodist Hymnal

I just wrote an article on the United Methodist Hymnal. Would anyone care to help me expand this article with more third party sources and information? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Consultation on renaming article: Roman Catholic Church --> Catholic Church

Wikipedians at Talk:Roman Catholic Church are discussing the merits of changing the article name as such.
Roman Catholic Church → Catholic Church. Please share your opinions there. --Carlaude ^talk 12:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Old St Paul's Cathedral GAR notice

Old St Paul's Cathedral has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Grace Gospel Fellowship

Would anyone care to create a page on this denomination? I don't know anything about it except it has 60,000 members in the US accoring to the Association of Religion Data Archives/ The Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches, and that is larger than many other denominations that do have articles. For example, the Friends United Meeting is the largest of the three main Quaker groups and it has only 42,600 members in the US. --Carlaude ^talk 23:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Islam has an outline in the OOK, but Christianity does not

See Outline of Islam.

For instructions, see Wikipedia:Outlines.

Also see WP:WPOOK.

Thank you.

Good luck.

Have fun.

The Transhumanist 23:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Outline of Christianity has been started!

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Drafts/Outline of Christianity

Your help is needed to get it ready to move to the main namespace.

The Transhumanist 23:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Landover Baptist Church

Landover Baptist Church is a website parody of fundamentalist Baptists. Mikhailovich keeps removing an external link from the Landover Baptist Church article and says it isn't relevant. I say it is very relevant. (The only other external link is to the parody website). Would one or two folks mind going there and commenting. Thanks. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Question

There is a current discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#One topic publishing house acceptable as RS.3F regarding whether and how sources from small publishers who deal primarily or only with a single church or movement may be cited in articles. E.g., can we cite a work published on Presbyterianism which is published by a house which only publishes books dealing with Presbyterianism? One editor has requested input from others, and since this might have implications for many articles beyond the case under discussion, anyone who cares to leave input there would help in forming consensus. • Astynax ^talk 16:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

More specific pages for saints

I was just at the talk page for the Catholic Wikiproject, and I suggested that we keep the current list of saints, but make more specific pages for each branch which can then be covered by the branch's respective Wikiproject. For instance, an article called "list of Roman Catholic saints" would be covered by WP:CATHOLIC. I think this would be more convenient for readers than the current chart being used to denote what religion the saint is praised by. 70.108.234.157 (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There is are a few possible problems to that, unfortunately. One of which is what to do with the saints from Christianity before the first major schism. Another is whether saints of any of the particular churches of Catholicism would get separate lists or not. And, of course, some, although admittedly not many, individuals who belong to one church are venerated as a saint (or the effective equivalent, in for instance the Lutheran and Anglican calendars) in another. My own preference would be to perhaps make a major list of the saints who tend to be venerated by the majority of churches, and then separate lists for each church of those individuals who are not venerated by that church but not by the majority of churches. It could be workable, though. John Carter (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm optimistic, but I'll take your word for it. I know that some churches don't have a procedure for canonization, unlike the Roman Catholic Church, so it can be hard to define who is a saint, as opposed to someone who is merely a saint in popular belief. Thanks for the response, though. 70.108.234.157 (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A separate list for saints before 450 AD would be good. Even still, the RC saints since 450 AD will be a fairly masive list.

It seems like it would work okay to just have one list of all the other denomination put together. At least if we did it would still not be as long as the RC list. --^{Carlaude:Talk} 21:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have bodly made the List of early Christian saints--^{Carlaude:Talk} 22:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Dominican Order

Has anyone checked this one out recently? It is unencyclopedic and reads like a Dominican Tract. It is unworthy of Wikipdia and is bad for Wikipedia's reputation. It is made up largely of unverified statements and opinion masquerading as fact. Much the same can be said of the article Saint Dominic. What's going on here? Is the Order's PR department responsible for this hagiography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.99.74 (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What, you mean "In Spain the Dominicans oversaw a regime in which acts of torture and murder were committed on an industrial scale"? Now toned down. I agree the rest of it could do with better balance, (Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!), and links, but no doubt those 120 fact tags will do the trick.

Johnbod (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Suffering of Christ

It seems to me that should either be an article rather than a redlink, or at least a redirect to an appropriate section of another article. The phrases "suffering of Christ" and "sufferings of Christ" crop up in a lot of articles, with a fairly technical meaning (in the sense that the meaning would not be clear to a person without a background knowledge of Christianity). Any thoughts? TheGrappler (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If the "sufferings" you are discussing are limited to those which occurred at the Crucifixion of Jesus, I personally wouldn't mind seeing a redirect created to that page. John Carter (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That looks like a good redirect target to me, but currently nothing links to Suffering of Christ except this very page. Instead of creating a redirect and then links to the redirect, couldn't we instead link directly to the target page? Huon (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't see why "suffering of Christ" shouldn't be a valid search term (hence the need for a redirect/article at that location). Moreover if there is an argument for the topic getting a substantial article of its own at some point as a spin-off from Crucifixion of Jesus then its better to keep links as redirects rather than piped. The expression "suffering(s) of Christ" is a theological term of art, with a specific meaning distinct from the "Crucifixion of Jesus", of which it is but one aspect. The Death of Christ is another aspect of the Crucifixion (presumably the most important), and Death of Christ exists only as a redirect. The Holy Wounds are another (arguably less important), but get their own article - which makes sense, given that there is a lot of Christian thought related specifically to that aspect of the crucifixion, for which there isn't room in the main crucifixion article. Similarly there is a substantial body of work (sermons of Augustine and Luther, as well as many books devoted to the subject) specifically on the "suffering(s) of Christ", and its theological implications.

The closest fitting article I can find is Passion (Christianity) ("The Passion is the Christian theological term used for the events and suffering – physical, spiritual, and mental – of Jesus in the hours before and including his trial and execution by crucifixion") but I get the feeling that that link may be imperfect. That article focuses on the Biblical narrative and its cultural interpretations - which, as a non-expert, is the context I had mostly heard the phrase "The Passion" applied to before. When I did some internet searching for "Suffering(s) of Christ", the results related to how Jesus suffered seen through a theological prism - in particular, questions like "what does it mean for a divine being to suffer?" and "what does this imply about human suffering?" were addressed (again, this tallies with my personal, non-expert impression of where I've seen the phrase used before). These topics were treated separately from "what does it mean for a divine being to die?" - the suffering, rather than the death, was the specific focus (this is why I'm loathe to redirect to Crucifixion of Jesus where the theological focus rests on the death). I can't work out whether "The Passion" and "the Sufferings of Christ" are interchangeable phrases (in which case redirect to the Passion article, which ought to be extended in its theological coverage), or whether they are merely largely synonymous, but with distinct usages - in which case perhaps a separate article is called for. Unfortunately I lack access to a high quality theological dictionary or encyclopedia so I don't know whether other reference works make a distinction. TheGrappler (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - Passion (Christianity) is the most appropriate redirect; as the article says, "passion" comes from the Latin for "to suffer". I can't see the point of an separate article, unless purely on the theological points. Johnbod (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Done As to the issue of no current links to that name ("Suffering of Christ"), you are correct that there shouldn't be any links to it. However, it is a plausible search term. Redirects are cheap. Created. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 00:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there anybody here who is actually qualified to give an informed decision (or has access to a high quality source) on whether the phrases "The Passion" and "Suffering(s) of Christ" are interchangeable? TheGrappler (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

yes. Johnbod's comment above about the latin root of passion (which means suffering) was right on target. The "passion of christ" means the "suffering of christ". My refs are all in the office, but I don't think we need to reference a redirect. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 01:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't thinking about referencing a redirect, just wondering about Johnbod's comment about theological points - it's certainly true that the Passion article at the moment doesn't deal with theological issues, and that the phrase "the suffering of Christ" appears in much theological work. Should the Passion article be expanded to include such points? TheGrappler (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that what you are looking for is how does the suffering/passion of Jesus affect the Impassibility of God. THis is addressed, to some extent, in Theopaschism, which really ought to be merged and redirected to Patripassionism. The real place to explore the topic would be, first of all, the impassibility article. It is difficult, however, to explore the issue in an NPOV way (at least for me) because there is not 1 Christian approach to the idea. Some say that it is wholly a Greco-Roman import, and inapplicable to the God of the Old & New Testaments. Others, seeing its application by some of the early church fathers, have no problem with the concept. Perhaps I could find a couple of refs - but my time on-wiki is a little limited these days. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks a lot. Since the Passion article doesn't tackle the theological angle at all, none of those terms seem to be either mentioned or linked to! Would it be possible for somebody with more knowledge than me to at least work these into the Passion article? TheGrappler (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Billy Sunday GAR

Billy Sunday has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
- This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
- This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
- There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
The data is now retained indefinitely.
The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [5]

-- Mr.Z-man 23:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"Christian" status of some syncretic religious movements

I am personally somewhat uncertain how to classify/categorize/regard some of the more recent religious groups which incorporate into them at least some of the aspects of Christianity, but whose beliefs, practices, or other aspects are at least sometimes "at odds" with Christianity. I'm thinking specifically of Santeria and a few other, related, groups. Do the rest of you think they should be regarded as "Christian"? Any responses are more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Santería, as far as I can see, doesn't self-define as Christian, it self defines as incorporating certain African pagan religions. By it's sefl definition, it would not be categorized as Christian.
Latter Day Saints, self-define as Christian, and thus are ultimately so categorized, though given the prominence of the dispute over whether or not they really are we have Mormonism and Christianity and related material to cover the dispute.

While this is only two examples, I am comfortable with the rule implied. Follow the self-identification and address any controversies about that identification in article text. GRBerry 17:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Apocalypse1.gif

This new image relates to the Apocalypse as related in the Revelation of John, and I have received a question about it. Does anyone who knows eschatology better than me know if there might be any objections to its being used? John Carter (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi John: you know work with NPOV noticeboard, and I may be oversensitive to POV. I've got to say that this image is not neutral, and few people would find it to be NPOV. Through the use of labels, arrows, etc., draws conclusions and uses terminology not directly related to the source (i.e., Revelations). If someone added this content verbally to an article I was involved with, I'd delete it in a shot. Presenting it in a picture form doesn't blunt the POV. Unless it's being presented within a context, such as in the First Holy Church of the Rapture and Tribulation article, with the label: "Diagram of Apocolypse as Viewed By the First Holy Church of the Rapture and Tribulation", it is not a good figure to include as a general reference. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Object. Origininal research. If this were a chart reproduced from a scholarly source, or a denominational source, or ... well, anywhere, that's be something. We could then say something like "X's understanding of the dispensations described in Revelation" or something similar. But this is purely OR. While we're at it, the two articles it links to, Eschatology and Bema Seat are a mess. I wish I had more on-wiki time. I'll try and help, but I'm stretched a little (or a lot) thin at work these days. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 22:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Both of the above comments make sense to me. I am proposing the image for deletion. And I agree that the articles mentioned above, particularly Bema Seat, need a lot of work. John Carter (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I raised the question on John's talk page after I came across the image. My impression was that it probably was not neutral and presented just one possible interpretation of what can be read in the Bible... sounds like you all concur. Ladyof Shalott 01:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the creator of the image has several more diagrams on Commons. I suspect they would also be problematic if put in articles, but I think this is the only one used in an article so far. Ladyof Shalott 01:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Some are pretty straightforward, and could be useful (maybe), others are just more OR. I don't know enough about commons to know the deletion rationales over there, but they certainly don't belong in articles. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 01:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Drnhawkins of this discussion. Ladyof Shalott 02:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
(←)File:Millennium1.gif. Another, in 8 articles. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 02:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

See the commons deletion discussion and a similar commons VP discussion. Bottom line appears to be that OR is a non-issue for a file there, but the issue of its use on en.wiki remains. Soloution for me seems to be just to remove them from the articles. Thoughts? Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You may have a point there, and it does seem to be true that OR may not apply there, but there has been a subsequent "delete" vote anyway, so I'm not sure. In any event, I agree that it may make sense to just ensure that these images don't get used in Wikipedia. Mind you, if someone wanted to create a WikiBooks document on the subject or something similar somewhere else, I wouldn't see any objections to it being used there if appropriate. John Carter (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Roman Catholic" vs. "Catholic" naming for articles, categories, etc.

There is currently discussion about whether the name "Roman Catholic" or the name "Catholic" should be used on many of our articles and categories, as the result of a recent mediation regarding the topic. Input on the subject is more than welcome here. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Again? It seems as if we've had this conversation before. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 02:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, again. This time though it's after a mediation which basically changed the name of the main article from "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church", and the discussion is basically about whether the other pages and categories should be changed to agree with that move. How long this name will be in place, I dunno. But, it's there anyway. John Carter (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Disamb page Orthodox: POV question

On the disamb page Orthodox, the first meaning given is:

"Correct belief such as Trinitarian, Ancient, and/or Creedal Christian Theology"

The first definition of the term Orthodox Christianity given on that page is:

"Correct theology or belief, such as the ancient, majority, or Trinitarian theologies of Christianity"

These would seem to have POV problems. Can we re-phrase these to reflect that understanding of "orthodoxy" (or its opposite) varies from denomination to denomination and from person to person? -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at broadening the POV of the dab page. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Christian Conventions

Please have a look at Christian Conventions. This article has been given a lot of effort by Astynax, and it deserves a better rating than start class.

Also have a look, if you have a chance, at the LENGTHY discussion with Tmtsoj who tagged the article first as NPOV and later as factually inaccurate. I got involved from a plea on the NPOV discussion board. I don't have much knowledge about this group, although I'm reasonably well informed about how to write a decent article about spiritual topics. I think the article has been adjusted adequately and should be untagged. I don't see a way to further satisfy Tmtsoj's objections, and this is becoming frustrating. I'm ready to do something rash...er I mean BOLD! Not Rash. Forget I said rash.

I would welcome any thoughts about how the matter might be better handled than way I'm doing, i.e., with a blunt instrument. --nemonoman (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me update this request on my own. The article has had past edit warring, wikilawyering, and that could easily begin again. I'm personally loosing patience and possibly objectivity. • Astynax ^talk 22:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The last 2 days have had a flurry of destructive edits. This involves at least one user who signed off and evidently immediately came back as one or more sockpuppets (self-refers to previous posts claims s/he made in Talk that were made under a different identity). Assistance/intervention needed please. • Astynax ^talk 19:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not a sock puppet. Please provide some evidence that I am a sock puppet. I do post anonymously, and I'm told that wiki invites anonymous posting. There's no intention to present one view from multiple sources on my part. The edits that I made a month ago were NOT destructive. As a matter of fact, the article that was there, based on 15 or 20 contributors was replaced en masse by one writer Asyntax who is a critic of Christian Conventions. What bothers me the most is that editors Asyntax and his "mentor" Nemonoman seem to have no understanding or respect for peer review or the academic process. And I fear this lack of respect is widespread in Wiki. Wiki worked when editors busily cribbed from reliable sources, but these days there is far too much original research. I have a degree in English Language and Literature and I do have a great respect for the academic process. That respect does not come naturally to most people including me, and I wish wiki would do more teaching along this line. From where I stand, I don't see why any serious academic would work here. That's because wiki suspends the time honoured tradition of academic process and peer review for the tyranny of majority consensus. It's not 'neutral point of view'. In fact, it drives toward 'single point of view'. If you don't think consensus is essentially tyrannical, then please read On Liberty by John Stuart Mill. Sock puppet, indeed. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The other issue with wikipedia is that there is a strong bias to 'write' over 'right'. And with senior editors overworked and no form of peer review, you're risk building a mountain of crap. Certainly that is the case with the Christian Conventions article. Today my J. Gordon Melton arrived. There is a man who can be trusted, and later today I will demonstrate from Melton, why the CC article is so wrong. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Skirmishes at Christian Conventions

I would very much appreciate concerned editors having a look at the progressively intense editing at Christian Conventions. Edits, mostly blanking, by anonymous IPs have increased. Many of the recent editors seemed determined to remove passages -- even well-referenced passages -- based on personal interpretations of their faith, rather than reliable sources. A key example is the continuing blanking about the founder of the church: According to reliable sources, this was William Irvine, but (apparently) the members of this group believe the founder was Jesus, and are dead-set against any contradiction. That matter is simple and obvious, but a glance at this article's recent history will show the extent of the disputes. This is quickly turning into an edit war, and a few cooler heads might find a way to build a consensus and improve the article. --nemonoman (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

--Never mind. Too late. --nemonoman (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Aside from an ongoing ideological turf war about the meaning of the word 'founder', there are also questions about who began the movement, whether it was Irvine OR Irvine, Cooney and others. I find it interesting how dissenting views are characterized as sock puppets, and edits as 'blanking' when the view dissents from the established editors at wikipedia. Is this how you editors normally carry on?209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There was in fact, no 'edit war'. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review Request Christian Conventions

I've requested a peer review of Christian Conventions, and invite this group's participation in particular. I hope someone will also note that the article is nearing a Good Article nomination, is definitely a state higher than 'start class' as currently listed, and will adjust its class accordingly. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I reiterate the request above. C'mon -- it ain't hard!--Nemonoman (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again I ask for some member of this workgroup to review the article and change it from 'start class'. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Tribulation

Related to the .gif discussion above, I noticed a user uploading copyrighted .gif most likely from his own, self published website. There appears to be 3 of them in the Tribulation article. I was wondering if more eyes could review the situation. I'm concerned that if this isn't a fringe, self-published, original research view, at the very least it is POV pushing of one POV, while ignoring others (as we know there is not just one interpretation). I just am short on time myself, and thought more eyes on the situation would be beneficial. I could also be mistaken about the notability of the views expressed in these images. Just wanted to through it out there that this issue is larger than the one .gif discussed above.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed some of these images, and would like it very much if they would be reviewed before being re-introduced. The "views of tribulation" diagram appears to match the content of the text next to it, but doesn't include all of the views. I'm leaving it. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have posted there a request that the chart be updated to include two other important views that I know of. Please add your comments if you can assist. I do not think I have the know-how. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 15:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unification Church and antisemitism Borock (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Kyrie, Libera Me and Jubilate Deo

Could other editors offer an opinion please? Articles Kyrie, Libera Me and Jubilate Deo are about particular songs (hymns, chants, liturgical texts) used throughout the world in hundreds of thousands of churches and schools. Someone (and some anon-IPs which may be his/her sockpuppets) keeps adding material about one school (amongst thousands) in one country (amongst hundreds). My own view is that we shouldn't start creating lists of the thousands of places where it is used. They also keep trying to add it to a category related to that school. I think it is time for the opinion of others to assist in resolution. Thanks in advance. Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Noted. John Carter (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that Dougweller has locked the articles. That sounds good also. Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Daily Word

The Daily Word article has been flagged for deletion. Does anyone know of any reliable news sources that can be cited? Thanks! --Trelawnie (talk) 01:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator elections

Any parties interested in being one of the coordinators of WikiProject Christianity and its various related projects is encouraged to list themselves as a candidate at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 2. It would be particularly beneficial if we had individuals from as broad a range of areas of the project as possible, to help ensure that we have people knowledgable about the widest range of content possible. John Carter (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Alcohol in the Bible

I have done a GA Reassessment of the Alcohol in the Bible article as part of the GA Sweeps project. My reassessment can be found here. I have found that the article does not meet the current GA Criteria and as such I have placed it on hold for one week pending work. I am notifying all interested projects and editors of this in the hopes that an editor will come forth to work on the article. Should you have questions or concerns please contact me at my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Outline of Christianity

Eu.stefan, has done an amazing job on the Outline of Buddhism.

Please compare Outline of Christianity.

Is there someone here who is knowledgeable enough about Christianity to further develop its outline?

The Transhumanist 22:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Article name RFC

Hi. There is currently an RFC for the name of an article related to this project. Please see Talk:Southern_Baptist_Convention_Conservative_Resurgence/Fundamentalist_Takeover#RfC:_Neutral_name_for_this_article if you would like to opine. The issue is that this name violates our naming convention in a number of ways (no hierarchical names, no POV names) and the question is what would be an appropriate neutral name for this topic. Thank you. --B (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

cAPITALS

Hi,

There is a minor debate- -to-reach-consensus about the correct way to capitalize certain terms; as there are few people working on the article, it would really help if a few others could add their opinions, in Talk:Pentecostalism#Proper_names. Thanks, Chzz ► 09:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Someone (not me) has proposed a merge of Satan into Devil discuss at Talk:Satan#Satan_merged_into_Devil.3F. I am circulating this among relevant boards. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for new article on Japanese theologian

In October 2008, I created the article on Kosuke Koyama - Koyama is now, with Kazoh Kitamori, one of only two theologians in the category of Japanese theologians. However, I think it would be nice if a third name could be added to this list - Masao Takenake. I do not know much about him myself, and certainly would not be able to start an article on him - I just know he is referred to in J. Taylor's chapter, "The Future of Christianity", in McManners, J. (ed.) (1992) The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity. I can give you this quote:

"Even the work of Kitamori, Takenake and Koyama of Japan, which technically belongs to the north, is generally ignored".

(Taylor, in McManners, 1992; p639).

This is Taylor's way of bemoaning how theologians in the northern hemisphere have generally ignored those in the south.

It would be nice if we could have another article on a Japanese theologian in Wikipedia! Many thanks for reading this, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Second Crusade

I have nominated Second Crusade 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior4321 (talk • contribs)

The correct link is here Wikipedia:Featured article review#Second Crusade. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Good Articles nomination backlog

Hello! There is a backlog of Good Article nominations on religious topics here. Several of the pending articles relate to Christianity, so hopefully someone here is able to review them. (One of the article is mine, but please start on the older ones!) Thanks! --Tango (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Nazarene (title)

I have rewritten Nazarene (title). Kauffner (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Call for editors to help manage religion related content

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Coordination of activity. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I need help

I will try in next few weeks to improve article Saint Sava but I need help because I am not native speaker of English language. If there is someone intersted to help write on my talk page. Best wishes,--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 14:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

New Gospel article

Hi, there is a new article Contradictions in the Gospels that really needs help from any of you who know the Gospel in detail. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree.

It also should be renamed to either Intra-consistency of the Gospels or Alleged discrepancies of the Gospels, but this may be more clear once the content is given more balance. (I note now that Bible contradictions was renamed in the past to the current Internal consistency of the Bible.) ^{Carlaude:Talk} 12:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the content really needs help. But I am no expert on that topic, so it would help to get a few Gospel-knowledgeable people to look at it. I have tried to clean up just the Nativity section, but the other sections are still full of inconsistencies - an irony indeed. History2007 (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You might want to read this huge article about the synoptic gospels in general (and the second and the third part - the third especially), this fairly hefty one about the Gospel of John, and this article about nativity in particular, and this one about the resurrection and ascension, all from the Encyclopaedia Biblica.

In particular, in this section ("Extent_of_discrepancies") of the last mentioned article has a table you might find useful/interesting. Newman Luke (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Christianity article

The Christianity article is under fire from a group of editors who think that "Restorationism" deserves to be one of the major groupings of Christianity, alongside Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism, and deserves equal mention with them. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

DJ, you overstate the issue considerably. What you are trying to do is to limit the article two three topics: Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism and exclude any mention of all other groups. More importantly, you want to exclude any name of any Protestant church. There is no reason to exclude information that has been in the article for years. However, more input would be helpful. --^StormRider 21:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest, why does that list you've given here only include Trinitarian forms of Christianity, and not Arianism, Nestorianism, etc. ? The Assyrian Church of the East still exists after all these thousands of years, as do the Syrian Orthodox (who aren't the same at all as 'Eastern Orthodoxy'), neither of which are Chalcedonian, and both of which are major categories of Christianity. Newman Luke (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC).

On the subjct of Baptism

Just thought it might be of some note that I have found an encyclopedia published in 1909 that has about 45 pages of fairly small print devoted to the subject of Baptism in general, also including separate articles on Ethnic baptism, Baptism in the New Testament, Early Christian baptism, Later Christian baptism, Hindu Baptism, Jewish Baptism, Islamic baptism, Polynesian baptism, Sikh baptism, and Teutonic baptism. It's the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings. I'm fairly sure, given the date of publication, it's in the public domain and can be pretty much copied into wikipedia, but I wanted to know if anyone thought there might be problems with trying to do so. John Carter (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There's also this article on "Baptism" in a 1903 Encyclopedia. Newman Luke (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Reassessment of Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

New article - An Evangelical Manifesto

Just to let you know that I've created An Evangelical Manifesto - expansion is welcome. Sidefall (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

List of religious organizations

Hi. The article List of religious organizations is in need of serious help. It was in an abandoned state and discussed for deletion, however I feel it has strong potential to become a useful list. But it needs lots of help and collaboration. Is someone of you interested? --Cyclopia ^talk 23:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As I have time, I will add Christian organizations that currently have an article R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Johannes Maas (missionary)

I've added the project template on the talk page of Johannes Maas (missionary), because I think it falls within the scope.

Please note that it is currently nominated for deletion, here. Chzz ► 23:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Shameless Plug

I don't know if this is a breach of etiquette. If so, feel free to delete. I would recommend interested parties check this encyclopaedia with a Biblical wordlview. Obviously those not interested need not check it. LowKey (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I was interested! I am much less after looking through it for a few minutes, alas. Thanks though, LowKey. --JosiahHenderson (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:GenderChristianity

I'm (VERY) new to the editing/editor concept, so please forgive me if I make a mistake or step over a line. I am willing to be corrected if need be.

That said, I've posted something on the talk page for Template:GenderChristianity about the use of the picture there. If you have a chance, please jump over there and read what I posted and comment. I won't repeat all of my arguments here, but I would appreciate your honest consideration. Thanks, Cajun tiger (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That's Template talk:GenderChristianity, for a quick link. Huon (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Help with More-with-Less Cookbook article creation

Hi all! I would appreciate bored editors' help finding references for the general notability of the More-With-Less Cookboook. For the time being, the article exists here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JosiahHenderson/More-with-Less_Cookbook.

Peace of Christ,

--JosiahHenderson (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Amazing Grace

I rewrote this article and posted it yesterday, also tagging it with WP:Christianity. I would like to see if I can get the article to WP:FA. It is now at peer review and nominated for GA. If anyone would like to read it and make any suggestions, I would appreciate any input to improve its content. My library, formidable as it is, does not concentrate on theology. If I missed anything, I'll be happy to do whatever I can to cover it. I appreciate your help. --Moni3 (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)