Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

Possible debate on JWs in May newsletter regarding Jehovah's Witnesses?

I think most of us would recognize that the Jehovah's Witnesses are one of the more controversial major movements in modern Christianity. Many of us are aware of a few editors who have been engaged in some heated discussion there. I wonder what the rest of you might think of maybe having a moderated debate for the next newsletter between AuthorityTam and BlackCab regarding the JWs, with perhaps Jeffro serving as the moderator. John Carter (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

So this was not enough? I have not read it, but happened to notice it. History2007 (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I read it. I wish I hadn't. Please enough JW-vs-JWbasher for 2012 already. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I really do not know why these groups are angry with each other (and their issues are not relevant to me), but as you said, it is probably better not to know and not be in the cross fire anyway. The encyclopedia should have a content improvement agenda, and nothing else. History2007 (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking of a debate relating to the JWs as both insiders and outsiders see them, and also, possibly, including some material as to the question of possible POV regarding people who have left a religious movement. If there were to be a Wikibook on the JWs, I would think that such content might be useful there as well. But, maybe you're right. John Carter (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I am capable of objectively serving as a moderator for such a topic. However, because AuthorityTam has accused me of various things, I do not believe that my serving as a moderator would be perceived as neutral.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

In ictu oculi's crude reference to "JW-vs-JWbasher" is undeserved and inaccurate. In fact both AuthorityTam and I have stated repeatedly that our highest priority is improvement of JW articles. There has been frequent disagreement between us, however, over what should and should not be included in articles, what should and should not be accepted as RS, and also the interpretation of certain Watch Tower Society statements.

Here's some background. I was on the way out of the religion when I discovered the range of JW-related articles on Wikipedia. I was unimpressed with many of them because they were cheery, unbalanced pieces of propaganda. I began removing some of the excesses and injecting some critical comment that very clearly met the rules of WP:RS and WP:V. Some of my early edits probably suffered from a certain acidity because of my resentment at having been deceived by a high-control religion for more than two decades. But my goal, as I endeavoured to explain on my userpage, was aimed at presenting the public with a broader picture of the religion that is normally available to converts or prospective converts through official Watch Tower Society literature. The way I see it, people should have sufficient information to reach an informed decision. This approach is almost guaranteed to meet stiff resistance. JWs are unused to reading criticism of their religion. They are trained to treat criticism as the work of "apostates" and the devil. My self-identification as a former Witness – and one prepared to criticise the religion – marked me as an "apostate", which means I am regarded by JWs as entirely untrustworthy and devious. This is how they are trained, through Orwellian-like repetition, to view defectors. This alone sparks an almost instinctive revulsion of them towards me; the same revulsion has been expressed in talk pages about former JWs James Penton and Raymond Franz, the latter being the most important defector the religion has ever had.

My edits have tended to focus on critical material, though I have never blocked or removed favourable material if it meets normal WP standards of inclusion. I wrote the Watch Tower Society presidency dispute (1917) article, covering events that are still treated in a very one-sided and distorted fashion by WTS publications. I also substantially rewrote and expanded the Joseph Franklin Rutherford article, dealing with arguably the most significant figure in the religion's history. The fact that it has received only minor editing since then is testament to my ability to write fairly and accurately, and my reliance on reliable sources.

As others have done, I am more than happy to acknowledge the improvements AuthorityTam has made to JW articles. He has a great deal of intimate and probably high-level inside knowledge of the religion. I have always been ready to defend my edits and now attempt always to deal strictly with content on talk pages. My complaint is that he fails to do the same thing and seems more intent on picking at old scabs, accentuating divisions and inciting anger than addressing content in a reasoned way. I still want to improve articles, and I accept that he does as well. They have reached a level of stability for now, I think, though for how long I don't know. I certainly don't want to engage in any more wars.

I'm unsure of the nature of the "debate" John Carter suggests or what it hopes to achieve. I agree that Jeffro would not be the best candidate as a moderator. He is intelligent, articulate and well informed, but he has also been targeted by AuthorityTam. As the endless "can we wrap this up" skirmish showed, neither is prepared to let the other have the last word. As I have said several times at the ANI, all I want is for AuthorityTam's inflammatory behaviour to cease. That would be enough to settle things down. BlackCab (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this could be quite valuable, if the purpose of the "debate" was to illustrate how differences in perception of a topic can be resolved through applying policy. This could include: how to avoid injecting personal experience, and instead stick to what references say; how sources self-published by a group may be used in an article; the necessity, when differing opinions from references are included, to have the article reflect the weight given each position; how policy deals with fringe views/sources; etc. I don't think John Carter is suggesting a simple rehashing of an old debate, but rather to turn it into something instructive. • Astynax ^talk 20:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Astynax and I take your point. Thinking more about this, I think there is room to discuss the issues that do cause conflict. I am compiling a short list of the main challenges encountered on JW article pages (as opposed to talk pages) and I think there could be some benefit from airing them. I'll return with that list in a dot-point form. BlackCab (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

In response to BlackCab, would there be any individuals whom both he and AuthorityTam would perceive as neutral and as unbiased as realistically possible? I do assume that if there were any such debate, the moderator might initially store the debate in his own userspace, and then perform any editors for space concerns, stray comments, and other matters as required by the format, but would try to leave the substance of the relevant content in place. John Carter (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that such a "debate" would be ill advised at best and a fast track to another ANI in all probability. Wikipedia should encourage working together in an attempt to make the articles more accurate and not make an attempt to elicit a controversial "debate" from two editors who have been engaged in heated discussion already. Willietell (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Not a good idea. Blackcab has expressly asked several times just to be given the peace to edit, I think he deserves that. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the last two comments, I have begun a dot-point list of the main causes of conflict with content of JW pages. The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Christianity_noticeboard/JW_discussion. It's just a quick start and I'll return to tidy it up and perhaps get it on to a more formal basis when I get a moment. All comments welcome. BlackCab (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone here familiar with Oneness Pentecostalism?

The article God the Father had a few unsourced tags and I posted on the Hinduism and LDS project pages and people came in and helped. I am not really familiar with Oneness Pentecostalism, but they seem to have many denominations, and I am not sure how to represent their views, given that they have no central teaching authority. There is a discussion there on Talk:God the Father and suggestions will be appreciated. That article is a key building block article and the Christianity section in it (including the subsections) really needs to get cleaned up. So suggestions will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The original term for the Oneness teaching is Modalism or Sabellianism it was rejected as a trinitarian heresy in or around the 3rd century, but continues to come back periodically. Hungus (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Hungus, this is wrong opinion which is repeatedly claimed by unfamiliar theologians from mainstream churches. Oneness Pentecostalism is not the same as Arianism. Modalism and Sabellianism are teachings which were rejected by the Roman Catholic Church (Western Rite). And thus, it is only opinion (aka Roman Catholic's POV). Should I be burned at stake? Go to hell with me? In any case, Oneness Pentecostalism' view differ from other Nontrinitarians (Not Arians) in their view on Jesus, which they call as the Supreme God himself. Their view in this specific is very similar to the Swedenborgian's New Jerusalem Church. Problem of Oneness Pentecostal churches is that there are thousands of denominations inside the Pentecostals movement and they have usually also different believe as History2007 mentioned. --FaktneviM (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

User:FaktneviM I said nothing about Arianism. As for Modalism and Sabellianism being rejected only by "Western rite" churches that is patently false. There was no division of east and west at the time and the 'Orthodox' churches reject both of those heresies the same as the western churches. You might want to go back and read the church fathers again. If you cannot sign off on the nicene creed, I know of no christian denomination that will accept you as a christian, but that is neither here nor there. Monarchism/Modalism/sabellianism is an old heresy. Hungus (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Hungus, I am sure that God himself is only one who could say if he is the trinity or not. The Bible is the key on this matter. Are you ever think about that there is no single verse in which God said ... "I am the Triune" and later he added "Worship me as the Triune God" ... And. There is not even at least single verse of such kind. But think about. Only God can say what he wants from us. Men are not allowed to reveal their own philosophical theories about him. Trinitarian doctrine was established some 300 years after death and resurrection of the Christ. Trinity doctrine started in 4th Century and firmly established in hearts of people in about 12th Century after Christ. Do you really thinks that it was by God's will? (I am not Oneness Pentecostal, I find that only Jehovah's witnesses teach the truth what 1st Century apostles believed). Ask them for free Bible study. I only write this because you already ask for that. My knowledge of other Nontrinitarian churches is limited to the core doctrines from which could be found true or false. Have a nice day in any case. --FaktneviM (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it is certainly the case that Christians differ on a wide range of theological issues, starting from the theology of the pre-existence of Christ to the end times, etc. So debate among Christians has existed for about 2,000 years and although ecumenical councils are still held once in a while, many of the participants have a hard time seeing eye to eye at said meetings. So all we can really do here is try to explain what these different Christian groups teach, and acknowledge that they do have different beliefs. And I think in our presentations in Wikipedia we should try and show respect for the beliefs of all groups, for the last thing we will need will creating friction among the members of different denominations. History2007 (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Without question I agree with all you wrote. Explaining various belief systems is good goal for Wikipedia, which aim should be inform readers without prejudice, misleading statements and inaccuracies. Respect to each other' viewpoints and express love to your neighbors are also good ways and good motives to apply for each of us. I only disagree with relativism. Clearly saying - All opinions can not be truthful. The key how to distinguish among various Christianity teachings actually exist. Relativism is big danger for all Christians. --FaktneviM (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes relativism is a danger so much so that Christianity established the ecumenical creeds which were agreed upon. Those 3 creeds define the minimum core belief for christianity and part of those creeds is Trinitarianism. If you switch to dualism, monarchism or quadrianism (neo logism for 4 gods in one) then you are not talking about christianity instead you are talking about something else. Now in religions the word that is used to describe claiming to be part of a religion and teaching things contrary to that religion is heresy. Now if one espouses something contrary to a religion but does not claim to be part of that religion, they are not a heretic, they are hetrodox. --Hungus (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read [1] again. All is mentioned there. YOU are my friends if YOU do what I am commanding YOU. (John 15:14). If someone believe that some councils (man's word) have higher authority than the God's Word, then after no chance for him/her to enter into God's Kingdom. --FaktneviM (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be the case that a) they have many denominations and b) they are growing rapidly. In fact as new denominations appear, I am not sure how their teachings are similar or different from each other on specific points. The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements does have information about the movement at the top level and many denominations may adhere to those but I am not sure if there is a formal requirement for that. Most denominations seem to hand out literature, tapes etc. They are clearly non-Trinatarian, and the roots go back to a 1913 gathering, but as they grow, I am not sure if there is total uniformity in the teachings. History2007 (talk) 08:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I am also lost in bush of their large number of denominations. Perhaps some literature up-to-date is needed. Many of them I realized that they worship Jesus and they view him as God, what is in fact very similar to Trinity or Binitarianism, while in the same time, they believe that only one person exist as manifestations of those two. In article "God the Father" they have place as one 'major group' inside 'Oneness Pentecostalism movement' which is also part of much larger belief system called 'Pentecostalism'. --FaktneviM (talk) 08:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I am actually not happy with the presentations on several subsections (not just this one) on the God the Father page, but have not had time to work on them immediately. I posted on the LDS page and people came out and helped on that, but various other sections need help yet. But the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholicism subsections etc. have been quickly thrown together, are still fluid and far less than adequate or representative. And Anglicans, etc. are not even present. That is a key building block page for this project and should be in far better shape. History2007 (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a problem with all of the 'Folk Theologies' they do not have originating creeds or documents and it makes it very difficult to trace their theological genetics. Hungus (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the many denomination issue, yes, but the presentations in Wikipedia articles should somehow make a note of that issue. E.g. that the statements made are from in books written by one specific denomination, etc. and not necessarily representative of all teachings. Regarding the overall quality of that article, even sections such as Eastern Orthodox and Catholic have problems, and those teachings are well documented. And there are empty sections there. History2007 (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you still refer to the article God the Father or to various articles across Wikiproject Christianity? Which one? Could you specify the worst covered examples? Maybe I could help a little with it. --FaktneviM (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

There are many articles in the Christianity project that need help, e.g. John the Baptist has tags on it and needs clean up, Salvation in Christianity is not much better, etc. In this case, however, I was referring to the God the Father article which has empty sections, and sections that overlap and need work, etc. In fact I think the Christianity material in that article is so large now that deserves to move out to a separate article with a Main, for it now overwhelms the Jewish and Islamic sections. And there is another article God in Christianity which is really unkempt and deserves much attention. In fact I think "God the Father in Christianity" should become a separate article and then God in Christianity should refer to it.

Here is the irony: God the Father in Christianity gets viewed about 12,000 times a month and is really unkempt. On there other hand, Johnny Depp's page gets 600,000 views a month an is in very good shape. Needless to say, that is a key page for WikiProject Christianity and should be in much better shape. I started a discussion on the talk page there a few days ago, and comments will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Request for Comment: Removing "Handling of sexual abuse cases" from critic section

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Request for Comment: Removing "Handling of sexual abuse cases" from critic section. Somebody familiar with the topic may please give opinion/suggestion. Fazilfazil (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Manual of style for WikiProject Christianity

At the moment there is no MOS for this project. I think one is needed. Example items include:

• Bible references: At the moment these have multiple chaotic forms and refer to various Bible versions on various external sites without any uniformity. And should some of those sites shut down tomorrow, chaos will ensue.

• Naming conventions: Terms such as Mormons, Latter day Saints, Moonies, Unification Church etc. are used all over the place and some type of naming convention is needed.

• Self-published sites to avoid: This has come up again and again, and at the moment many articles refer to self-published websites that are far from WP:RS. A list of the no-no self-published sites will be essential, and will help avoid debate. a list of self-publishers e.g. Xulon Press will also help. It is used all over the place now.

John, given that you know this project so well, would you like to draw up a rough draft? Your help will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I tend to think that Christianity probably wouldn't have any particularly different MOS requirements than religion in general. And Biblical references are probably more in the range of Religion rather than Chrstianity as well. John Carter (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then should these get added to the religion MOS item, so it will actually be an MOS rather than a policy exemption ticket? History2007 (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. I'll go over the other two existing MOS related to religion and add any material I think relevant from them, or other material which I think should be included but isn't. John Carter (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Disastrous article list

There was talk some time ago of making a list of lowest quality articles. I think we should start it sooner or later, and generally a somewhat central article that has multiple problem tags on it should be included. But minor articles will clutter it.

Please add to the list below, so we can begin to have a list of articles that really need ER-help. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Does this refer to articles of even lower than Stub-status quality? If so, on what basis would they be classified as such? No objections to the idea per se, but I think we would need the information. John Carter (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I find the page ratings to be often out of date, if not haphazrad. Theoretically, some arithmetic function of (Importance / Rating) could be used where high importance and low quality items would be noticed. But in practice I see no practical way of using that. Yet articles such as Christian cross or God in Christianity are central to this project, yet far less than perfect. As you may have noticed, we recently liberated this project from one disaster article. But there are others that can not just be redirected and need to be cleaned up. I cleaned up Sermon on the Mount and Beatitudes some time ago, but I am getting tired of cleaning up for ever. Hence the list. History2007 (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

List of low quality articles

• Jesus is Lord: Needs serious help

See article talk-page for a first proposal and possible new ledeJpacobb (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Christian cross Not a total disaster, but really unkempt, mostly unsourced and disorganized.
• Salvation in Christianity

Big Bang RfC (Part II)

The latest RfC (administratively closed on 18 March) confirmed that there should be a presence of a brief "religious and philosophical implications" section in the Big Bang article. Which draft should be selected to appear in the section? Please participate in the RfC if you feel called to do so. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Why has April Fools' Day been added to the Christianity project?

I have just noticed that April Fools' Day has been added to the Christianity project, but surely this is a purely secular event. I know 1st April is dedicated to St Hugh, Bishop of Grenoble, St Gilbert, Bishop of Caithness, and St Melito, Bishop of Sardes, plus, no doubt, several others, but that page is about the Fools' Day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MidlandLinda (talk • contribs) 15:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree and have removed the WikiProject banner. There's very little in the article about Christianity (nor should there be), and it's certainly not top-importance. Probably a mistake on John Carter's part. (Being included in the scope of a WikiProject doesn't hurt, of course, but in this case I don't see how it helps.) Huon (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't object to WikiProjects in general, and as a Christian I'm in favour of this one, but I don't think any project should gather in irrelevant pages. It could divert editors from important work on other relevant pages having to check the extras. Sorry I forgot to sign my last post. MidlandLinda (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Basically, that article is the redirect destination of All Fools Day, which is included in the Lindsay Jones' Encyclopedia of Religion as a separate article included in the Synoptic Outline of the Christianity content. But inclusion in that highly regarded and comprehensive source is, to my eyes, basis for project inclusion. Having said that, there are at least a few redirects and other pages which I myself find questionable. I'll get together a list of them for community review later. John Carter (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with your source but is it not more likely that it is referring to the Feast of Fools at the beginning of January rather than April Fools' Day? MidlandLinda (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, at this point, I don't know myself. I may well have made a mistake. :( I just copied the list of articles from the Synoptic Outline's Christianity section. Give me a chance to go over the other problem articles, and then I'll check the content. But, FWIW, it is the second "edition" of Mircea Eliade's earlier "Encyclopedia of Religion," and the two of them are in general counted among, if not the, most comprehensive and authoritative reference sources on the general subject of religion, which is why I chose it. John Carter (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave it in your hands then. I wasn't aware of there being two similar pages (Feast of Fools and April Fools' Day) Rather than the redirect that sent you there in the first place, there seems to be need of a disambiguation page. MidlandLinda (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Top priority articles

I've gone through and tagged all the Christianity related articles included in the Jones encyclopedia as being of top priority, based on their inclusion in that work, which is both rather comprehensive and academically very highly regarded. I am now going through the same list and tagging them as Top priority for Religion. Doing so might help draw some attention to them, and should also help in setting up a bit of an "outline" of high importance articles, which might help editors determining which articles to link to in the event of perhaps having some doubts. Yes, I know it is basically mindless busy work as well, but I think it probably needs to be done.

I was wondering whether anyone else might agree that Pope John Paul II and maybe Billy Graham might qualify for inclusion there as well. Personally, I have no doubt the former qualifies, based on the amount he did over his remarkably lengthy pontificate, and I think the latter's remarkable popular appeal and the public attention he received may well qualify him as well, although I am less certain of that. John Carter (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Both personalities should be included as top priority. Interestingly, the two individuals you named had good relations with one another :) Best wishes, Anupam^Talk 01:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That seems to disagree with our current assessment scale: "The article is one of the core topics about Christianity. Generally, this is limited to those articles that are included as sections of the main Christianity article." According to the current scale, I doubt either John Paul II or Billy Graham qualify as anything higher than mid-importance. Personally I don't care much about the importance scale, but we should try to be consistent. Is a change of the assessment page in order to reflect whatever is now assessed? Huon (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I tend to think we probably should alter those terms in the existing assessment scale. Those terms were, I think, first developed with other topics in mind, which tend to be rather more, well, focused than Christianity, like maybe South Africa, Physics, and other more tightly focused topics. Also, we already have about 100 core articles already included, many of which already do not qualify. From what I remember, the general, the terms at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Importance of topic more generally indicate that the subject is a "must have" for a print encyclopedia, and I would think that maybe the topics actually included in the best print encyclopedia are probably, in some way, considered "must haves" by the editors. I do think that Brill's encyclopedia Religion Past and Present should probably be consulted for the matter as well, but I haven't yet gotten to it. Anyway, would there be any objection to altering the existing phrasing of our importance criteria to more closely match those of the 1.0 criteria? John Carter (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

American Catholic Church in the United States

Needs attention, and editor needs help, see Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#article "American Catholic Church in the United States". Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Uniformalizing the Template we use to reference Scripture

I am proposing switching the template used on Wikiproject:Christianity pages to be {{bibleref2}} instead of other templates that are out there

I am proposing this for three primary reasons

1. This template has the ability to include various variables that produce a broader range of options. {{bibleref2|BOOKNAME|c:v-c:v|Optional_Bible_Version|Optional_Display}} It allows you to remove the book name, use an abbreviation, superscript the reference, add an option display, or display it in a variety of translations.Luke 16:19–31Luke 16:19–31 16:19–31 16:19–31The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man
2. The template utilizes the standard Chapter:Verse syntax rather than Chapter|OpenVerse|CloseVerse that some other templates use which is alien to how most Christians think of the text (easier to use)
3. This template is most commonly used among articles on Wikipedia, and as we all know... redundancy and inconsistency is something that all editors are trying to reduce

(unsigned) (..... this was by ReformedArsenal I think - Yes, it was me. Sorry I forgot to sign it.)

• Oppose This is a very bad idea, and goes against the usual way we handle such matters, leaving things to the discrtion of local editors. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose But for a different reason in any case. What Wikipedia is trying to reduce is WP:Linkrot, not dependence on external items. Exactly who determines if Biblegateway is going to be there next week at all? And indeed exactly who determines that it should be Biblegateway and not another website that is best? It is totally against the philosophy of Wikipedia to standardize on an external website over which it has no control. I have, for long been replacing Biblegateway with Wikisource links which will not die if Biblegateway dies next week. Wikisource is now a rich component of Wikipedia and should be used as a stable "Wiki-asset". In fact, the overall direction of Wikipedia is "self-reliance" via Wikisource and per WP:Linkrot those are the best links to use. History2007 (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• • Those are valid points. Can we create a template that mimics the functionality of bibleref2 (the ability to do superscript, drop book name, or provide an alternate title for the text) that utilizes wikisource, or is there an existing template that does this?ReformedArsenal: ὁ δὲ θεὸς 19:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for being understanding. The way to use Wikisource now is via links, because it also links to many, many other valuable ancient works, say Origen, Jerome, etc. The link Mark 1:1 as used here is just a wikilink and is similar to the link to Jerome Letter 46. One could certainly write a little template to make that easier, it just takes time to do it, but for now Wikisource can be used anyway. History2007 (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no experience writing templates, but would like to be able to mimic the functionality listed above, how would we do that?ReformedArsenal: ὁ δὲ θεὸς 15:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There is probably a place to ask for "requested templates". I am just too busy to do it now and do it right, but in the meantime if you ask on WP:Helpdesk they may do it. And I recall User:Afaprof01 writing a few of those, but he is not that active any more - a sad symptom of our losing good editors right and left. So for now, a Helpdesk question may be the best option and someone may just write it. History2007 (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed moves

There are discussion underway at the talk pages of Books of Chronicles, Books of Kings, and Books of Samuel as to whether or not to move those pages to article titles reflecting the singular nature of each of the works in the Masoretic text, rather than the current Septuagint-based titles. The input of any interested editor would be greatly appreciated. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 05:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I haveproposed Joses be merged to Desposyni. Discussion can be found at Talk:Joses#Proposed merger. Any informed input, for or against, would be more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Isaiah 7:14

PiCo has made a lot of questionable edits to Isaiah 7:14, which includes deleting most of the material in the article. Given his tendency to edit-war, I can't fix the problems with it by myself, so can anyone here take a look at the edits and tell me what you think?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but will probably wait till he has finished before intervening. Jpacobb (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

User attrition

I just noticed this: User:Carlaude walked away. It seems that he asked for a WP:Third opinion and decided that he had had enough of Wikipedia. For a user to make 40,000 edits then quit after one incident, means that there was gradual dissatisfaction with the process. Something needs to be done to stop this from happening again. He was a pretty good editor. The whole WP:3O process seems frustrating for people because those who provide opinions may not be familiar with the topic.

I think the newsletter needs to have some type of suicide prevention hotline, where users can be helped before they walk. Ideas? History2007 (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Start saying your goodbye's to Anupam. The resignation of this veteran editor who has never been blocked is only a formality at this point. He hasn't made many friends editing atheistic articles from a Christian perspective and defending articles from anti-Christian vandals and the wolves are circling. 15,000 edits and 7 years of positive contributions coming to an end. His most recent project will be the one he will forever be remembered for: resurrecting our newsletter Ichthus. I don't know how we can survive by driving away losing people like this.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors should leave their perspectives at the door and try and edit to make the articles neutral. POV pushing of undue material is what caused some of these issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you meant by editing from atheistic articles from a Christian perspective? IRWolfie- (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be happy to explain, and have done so at the "User:Viriditas and User:Anupam" thread here: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban_proposal. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Lionel, canvassing is usually considered a Bad Thing. I realise that lots of other rules have fallen by the wayside recently, but are you really exempt from WP:CANVASS? bobrayner (talk) 11:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Joanna, wife of Chuza

I proposed Talk:Saint Joanna for move to Joanna, wife of Chuza based on Google Books. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Bump

I thank Evan2008 for the Proposed move note above. But the way it is phrased maybe Users on the board won't realise exactly what is proposed. It is proposed to rename Books of Samuel (plural) Books of Kings (plural) Books of Chronicles (plural) as per all English language Bible versions (including JPS1917, JPS1985 and Stone Chumash Tanakh), and the majority of modern Google Scholar sources and SBL style, to Book of Samuel (singular), Book of Kings (singular), Book of Chronicles (singular). The reason I'm bumping it is that incorrect statements - such as that the JPS has "Book of Samuel" which it doesn't - have been used as arguments and support votes registered presumably on that basis. This needs the attention of a wider range of Users as a major rename - of which the consequences for 100s if not 1000s of linked articles are not clear. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

on mouseover = Bible Verse

There are several problems with the handling of Bible verses and references as present managed in wikipedia as other talk-pages and discussions show. This is section contains a simple suggestion which would be very user-friendly: a simple template which brings up a box when the cursor is placed on the reference in the article and the box would contain in small type the verse or verses inserted by the editor.

In outline, if the template were called "window", we would have:

{{window|reference|text|version}}

For example:

{{window|John 1:1|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.|RV}}

The version should appear at the end between brackets, and if possible should be a required data-field. Jpacobb (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I later came across the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-04-30/Discussion_report which deals with a similar idea. There are some lessons to be learnt, particularly about pop-up blocking, but my proposal is much more specific since it affects only a small number of references. Jpacobb (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That is a very good idea in fact. I support the proposal. History2007 (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

New Workgroup - Christian History

I would like to propose a new workgroup for Christian History. I've noticed that there are a lot of articles that could use the support of a group specifically devoted to the historical study of Christianity. What needs to be done to get this workgroup started? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReformedArsenal (talk • contribs) 04:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea, and as usual, what is needed is people to work on it. Many of those articles have incorrect info, missing references, etc. Early Church history articles are specially incomplete and incorrect. If you start on it, I can do a few things there as well. History2007 (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to filter through things as we go... I'm a graduate student (Just finished my MA in Church History, but I have another that I'm doing next year, so time isn't always a premium). How do we go about getting a workgroup going and getting a template like {{WikiProject Bible}} for Christian History? ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can build a template. And anyone can place it anywhere if no one else objects. Select the template you like among the many available, and you can just substitute items. If you need help, just leave me a message and I will fix it. It is pretty easy - the only thing is to select the items that go into it. I will leave one on your talk page and you can just extend it if you like. History2007 (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I love the template!! What I was looking for though was for a Wikiproject subgroup. Like the one that indicates the class and importance

Like this one

That one is generic, and you do not need to build it. Regarding where to set the subproject/task I think you should leave a message for user:John Carter who knows where it would fit best. History2007 (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

A few things come to mind:

• 1) In general, it has been suggested that at least five people should so an interest in a proposed group before it gets started. That is of course a rough guideline, and with me we have at least three people so far who seem interested in such a group. It might be a good idea to wait to see if there are any other people interested as well.
• 2) It would have to have some sort of page indicating the articles within its scope, etc., like any other project or subproject. We could probably build that when and if there is sufficient interest shown.
• 3) It would really help if we had a clear indication of the specific intended scope of the group. I personally could maybe see a group (or multiple groups) focused on two specific areas of greatest contention, neither of which clearly falls within the scope of any of the extant related projects: early Christianity and the Reformation/Counter-Reformation era. But a clear indicator of scope would also be called for.
• 4) Once all that is done, then I could, if we needed, alter the project banner to allow for individual assessment of articles included in the scope of the group and have them tagged approporiately.
• It might however be a good idea to see if there are more interested parties, and to determine as clearly as possible what will and will not be considered within the scope of the proposed group. John Carter (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I was able to figure out the header alright, but I'll need some major help making a page for the Project. I will probably do what I did with the template and just copy another page's and make appropriate changes... unless someone else has the knowledge and time. I've got individual assessments working. ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

As a first candidate for attention, let me suggest Pliny the Younger on Christians. That is a relevant piece of Christian history that has received a low quality treatment so far, as the talk page indicates. And as of yesterday it became the subject of an educational assignment so students will be passing through. I think it will be good if that gets the attention of this effort of Christian History. History2007 (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I like it. I'll take a run through it this weekend... it's graduation, but I should have some time on Sunday evening. Let's start applying the template {{WikiProject Christian History|Class=|Importance=|Attention=}} to flag the ones that we need to work on (and to start classifying things for our project). Also, lets start getting a running list going over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian History. Also, if you guys could pop over and add your names to the list, that would be great. I want to get departments up and running soon... but I don't have a lot of know how on how to do that.

I signed up for it. John Cater knows the project issues better than myself, so we should leave the project organization to him. I will discuss issues on the project talk page now. History2007 (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a good idea, the history section on the Christianity page is also pretty limited. Jainsworth16 (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that also needs help. We are making a "to do list" on the project page. It would be good if you could also add your name there (just a signature) to get the project gain momentum. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

Comments on this requested move will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And Talk:Saint Joanna In ictu oculi (talk) 08:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles needing attention

Dear community, I am new in asking for help, but I need your capable assistance in the matter of Adam Cappa, Andy Cherry and Moriah Peters at the current time, but in the future may need assistance with Tricia Brock, Matt Hammitt, Dara Maclean, Lindsay McCaul and Rend Collective Experiment. I need you all to use MUSICBIO criteria to judge these article alone for notablitity in the ongoing deletion discussions we are having and maybe in the future if need be. By the way, I want you all to look at Ashes Remain, and a new article to be created later Samestate, when I can get to it.HotHat (talk) 04:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Anabaptist work group

I am integrating into the project banner specific code for a separate work group for the Anabaptists, meaning separate from the Baptist work group. I think it makes sense to separate them. I am in the process of creating a separate page for the group as well, along the lines of WP:FMH. Just give me a bit of time to make sure everything holds together before I make changes. I shall indicate progress here as it is made. However, I am not a code monkey. Code monkeys have a far better idea of what they are doing than I do. I am just a hairy monkey. It will take me a bit longer to get up on the code and such. John Carter (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you put the Christian History one in there as well while you do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReformedArsenal (talk • contribs) 02:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Christianity banner

The new banner can be found at User:John Carter/Christianity banner, and is shown in use at User talk:John Carter/Christianity banner. John Carter (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks very good. Not sure if Halloween task force was not a typo, but otherwise great. History2007 (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_21#Category:Depictions_of_the_Virgin_Mary

A renaming CFD for a large art category. Johnbod (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries. That can be easily verified by searching through a few books. History2007 (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Joan of Arc gets a higher score than Jesus?

Yeah, it seems kind of strange to me, but according to this statistics page her "score" is three points higher. Does anyone have any ideas how this is, and maybe what we could do to change this, if it should be of course, and, maybe, how to do something similar with any other articles that seem to have unreasonable scores? John Carter (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Do we have any idea what that score measures? I would assume it favours quality; Joan of Arc is a featured article, while Jesus is not. Furthermore, Joan may be of interest to other groups of users (say, the military history buffs), and that may increase that article's score as well. Anyway, I don't think score optimisation is a worthwhile endeavour in itself. Huon (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The scores are generated based on importance and quality. If you want the Jesus article to have a 'higher' score, improve the article. However, there is no special reason that the Jesus article 'should' be better from some POV theological perspective. Ideally, all articles should be of high quality.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

An interesting point - Thanks for raising it, John! My immediate reactions are as follows: (i) the Jesus article is over-referenced with a lot of multiple sources being given which means that visually it is unattractive; (ii) any Jesus article will be highly conflictive which means balancing alternative positions - while this should not affect quality, it often seems to do so; (iii) Joan is a far more manageable subject, while Jesus has many potential ramifications and possible "see also's" which makes it difficult to maintain coherence and readability; (iv)the Jesus article has had over 24,000 editorial interventions, as against 6000+ for the Joan of Arc one = "too many cooks ..."?

One serious question comes to mind: Is the Jesus article way over the maximum recommended length for a single article? If so, how should this be remedied? Jpacobb (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The Jesus article is getting close to the border of the length recommendations but has not breached it. The archeology section may be trimmed and made a new article for instance. There are many other much longer articles in Wikipedia. And for a highly controversial topic, the Jesus page has been surprisingly stable for some time, with no edit wars etc. And yes, there are many references in that article, indeed - because I put them there. I put them in to avoid disputes about sources, and that has worked. That page used to be a very volatile boat, now it is stable - no need to rock it in my view. It may have had 24,000 edits, but if you look now, it is a pretty calm situation. The last brouhaha was about calling Jesus Palestinian or not, and that revolved around 3 or 4 words and was resolved. The only section that has a flag is the Bahai section, and we are waiting for an editor who knows that topic to come back from a trip so he can fix it. But deleting references to help visual appeal will be a nightmare we do not want to get into. There are many other articles in this project that need much more help than that. May I mention God in Christianity again that had a major improvement by yourself, but still awaits help. As for the ratings/stats, I never pay attention to them. Content is what matters in my view. In those scores Galileo and Isaac Newton both score above God, Bible and Crucifixion... Halloween scores above the Eucharist, Trinity and the Lord's prayer. Those scores are obviously meaningless for this project anyway. History2007 (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, History2007. So far as the references are concerned, why not follow standard academic format and group all the references at any one point of the text under a single number? Eg

I think a simple search & replace searching for "<ref></ref>" and replacing with "<br />" should do most of the work. Jpacobb (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Example References

Smith, A.B.C. Some Subject Publisher1, p.123
Jones, Y.Z. Same Subject Publisher2, p.321

Well, nothing is "simple" in an article with 300k views a month and 1694 watchers. Some time ago a user started changing all those references (one by one) to conform to GA or FA or whatever standard, after some discussion. He changed something like half of them, then somehow stopped. We are still waiting to see if he will continue. Undoing all his changes will "not be wise". That article is viewed by many people with many backgrounds - Christians, Muslims, Jews, Bahai, atheists, etc. The date formats say AD/CE for that reason. It is not just a simple matter of making a decision there. History2007 (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You're looking at the results of the WP:1.0 team's selection algorithm for offline releases. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Article selection has the details on how it is calculated. It rates articles according to quality, number of incoming links, importance per WikiProject, and so forth. It is not meant to draw fine distinctions between articles, and you need not worry: both of these articles will easily make the final selection list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I did not know what those numbers were used for. But as an aside, heuristics obtained by straight multiplication often get very skewed results, so just multiplying numbers, which may be rough in the first place, often amplifies the roughness - giving surprising results. History2007 (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for someone to take a look at Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God

Stumbled across a rather odd series of additions to Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God while reviewing WP:SCV. It looks to me like someone adding a bunch of non-notable stuff to the article, but its so far outside my area of knowledge that I thought it would be prudent to ask for someone more knowledgeable about the subject to take a look at it. So if someone could take a look at it and either remove the material, or let me know its appropriate, I'd appreciate it. Monty₈₄₅ 04:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... it's irrelevant to the article... and this guy's sermon is basically a straight copy of Edward's with some slight alterations. Thanks for the heads up. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

New Template:Heresies in Catholicism

A new template was created earlier today Template:Heresies in Catholicism - I have my concerns about it (see Template talk:Heresies in Catholicism) - I think other people should have a look at it as well. Jpacobb (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated this for deletion: see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 24#Template:Heresies in Catholicism. Mangoe (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Guidelines and standards continuity for articles on Christian organisations

Dear Christianity noticeboard editors, I'm rather new to Wiki, and it's possible this query is not appropriate here (so feel free to redirect me). I've been in the process of creating an article on the Christian organization, Community Bible Study (CBS) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Community_Bible_Study. I keep failing to get it accepted for reasons that do make sense, particularly regarding issues of credible media attention. However, in comparing the CBS draft to the accepted article on Bible Study Fellowship (BSF), I'm confused. The BSF article seems very thin and yet it was accepted. (Have Wiki guidelines changed since 2009?) Thoughts? Thanks so much! ChristelledeWit (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS explains, the existence of some articles with insufficient notability or sources is no reason to have more of them. Secondly, the Bible Study Fellowship article dates back to 2005 and never went through the AfC process (I doubt that process even existed back then). I doubt guidelines have changed significantly since 2005, but I believe we have become more strict in enforcing them - at least when we notice substandard articles; there may be lots that just fly below the radar. BSF seems to be the subject of several books, though; if those works aren't self-published by BSF members they will likely suffice to establish notability. Huon (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

List of heresies in Catholicism

I have proposed that the above page be moved. Please feel free to take part in the discussion at Talk:List of heresies in Catholicism#Requested move. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Urgent Issue with Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh

User:DBD has renamed the article Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh to Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican Church in North America). The edit summary says the following, "(DBD moved page Talk:Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh to Talk:Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican Church in North America): prefix Anglican incorrect (not actual Anglicans))". Please discuss on the article's talk page. Ltwin (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Dead project subpages

Hi, I have proposed Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Todo for deletion as it has not been used for 5 years. I am also minded to nominate Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity/Articles, a very long list which has not been maintained since 2008 and is now full of redlinks anyway; any objections? – Fayenatic London 09:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, how about the index of categories at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Jesus work group/Categories (not maintained since 2009)? – Fayenatic London 09:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Can´t see any problems, but as a relative newcomer maybe I don't have enough experience to spot them yet. I'd be interested in a reaction from John Carter and/or History2007. The articles subpage is a visual mess and unless the Bot is still available seems pretty pointless. Jpacobb (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is need for some serious clean up, as you said. Why don't we make a "project plan" and try to clean things up before the end of the year. So we make a list of the organizational items, and decide to do items A, B C each month. And once we have the self-imposed deadline, we may actually meet it. I am trying to make a list of the "key articles" e.g. God, Trinity, Holy Spirit, etc. and see what needs to happen on those. And by the way, if you look at the talk page of the Christianity article, the editors have an agreement that there is need for improvement, but the plan is yet to be formed. So your comments will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good. Any ideas for the first month? John Carter (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I would start by deciding what needs to be done in the next 6 months, then divide by 5 and leave a buffer because as we all know... So we need a list first, then we will divide by 5 and do one per month. History2007 (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

As a proposal, in no particular order. Also noted that some might take longer than just a single month to complete:

1) assessment - including quality and, where possible, priority, so that we know what we have and how good (or bad) it is. Also, it allows us to find duplicate articles more easily. I remember once finding three different articles on the same friend of Muhammad with the same spelling, just different punctuation.

2) MOS - I just asked for input at WT:MOS about the proposed Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. Having that in place would help a lot of people have a better idea of how to construct articles.

3) Portals - not necessarily important, but they are nice and help "show off" content and make it easier for outsiders to see what we have

4) Collaboration - honestly, it is going to be hard, if not almost impossible, to find material on some of the figures in the Assyrian Church of the East and some of the Eastern Orthodox churches in English. Maybe a collaboration, with several people looking for material, might help there.

Just a start, anyway. John Carter (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we could have the MOS as an ongoing long term task, but the then my feeling is that we need to deal with the key items first, then the others. So while some people may want to work on Assyrian Church of the East, I think the major theological issues need serious help. I am not even sure if anyone is watching Christian theology since Carlaude retired. History2007 (talk) 06:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Current requests for peer review and nominees for Good or Featured status

Several editors have requested peer reviews of articles relating to Christianity. The current requests for peer review include Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Current GA nominations include Bartolomé de las Casas, John the Warrior, Edmund the Martyr, Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa, and Joseph Franklin Rutherford. And, lastly, William S. Sadler is a current nominee for FA status. Byzantine Empire is also currently being considered for FA review. Any assistance with any of these pages would be most welcome. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who nominated the John the Warrior article but I doubt whether the English will pass muster. Do GA's require inline parenthetic referencing? Jpacobb (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Require might be a bit strong, but, yeah, they are indicated. It is probably worth noting that some articles nominated for GA can at times barely reasonably qualify as "Start" class, but sometimes some people need to learn that the hard way. I think there is a "Quick-fail" option for GA reviewers if they see something that clearly isn't up to GA level. John Carter (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

RFC: Churches vs. church buildings

Hi folks. There were a couple of discussions in May about whether categories that sort church (buildings) by country and US state should be named "Churches in Foo" or "Church buildings in Foo." The relevant discussions are from May 4 and May 12, addressing countries and states, respectively. Both proposals were to move "Church buildings in" to "Churches in." Currently, treatment among both countries and states is inconsistent, and I think most people advocating for either format would agree that consistency is desirable. Both discussions have gone cold in June with few hints at consensus, so I'd encourage you to take a look at them and weigh in as you feel appropriate. --BDD (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

How to add a new section to existing page of an article?

Hi,

I am new to wikipedia and had permission from an external web site owner to do add some new view into an existing view.

This page is predominated by the predestination view of John Calvin of Geneva. However, the view that I wish to add to is different in many aspects of the John Calvin's doctrine, because the writer of this view is not a follower of John Calvin.

It is a minority view, no doubt about that, but no less than an alternative view also. Which qualifies it as a section within this

Existing view on Predestination. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination

Extended content

Originally I added this section under Predestination#Various views on Christian predestination Unconditional Salvation Ephesian 1:11-12 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. The Unconditional Salvation view of eternal salvation is purely unconditional on part of the individuals chosen before the creation of time by God the Word(not written word), Godhead Himself, manifested in the flesh of mankind by person of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. This view may sound similar to the well famous Calvinism made famous because of teachings of John Calvin. However, they would plainly reject John Calvin as the originator of such doctrine. Because practical differences of within these doctrine when compared to the well known T.U.L.I.P. Godhead did choose the individuals from all eternity prior to creation, but passively long-suffered the created being to fall into sin. Hence, in Unconditional Salvation, this view does not implicate the Godhead in direct causing of mankind in the activities of sins. This view is also contradictory to the Calvinistic view of pro-active reprobating of the unchoosen mankind. Hence, in Calvinistic view, in Godhead in participating or direct cause of bringing mankind into sins against Himself. This view also includes another contradictory point of Calvinistic view in which it is power of Godhead(and not the saints) that preservation(maintain/sustains) of saints into the stage of eternal life. Judaism, Roman Catholics, Calvinistic and also Arminianism, however, place the responsibilities of entering eternal life on the hand of a limited power mankind. Having clearly state this, most would just regard this as another form of Hyper Calvinistic view, from John Calvin of Geneva, by most people. This group of people would ask history itself into account of the multiple fruits of saints holding such view that are martyred during the time of the dark ages and also the clear writing of the Holy Bible when rightly divided. For more information: unconditional-salvation [2] Or Calvinism, Arminianism, and the Truth http://www.letgodbetrue.com/sermons/salvation/calvinism-arminianism/sermon.php

I have communicated with Nathan2055 and he suggested me to post this in this discussion group.

Could someone please help me to advice how best this can be done. I do not mind if a new article is created in an entirely different page dedicated to do such comparison. Thanks very much for any assistant. Mattongbp (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

My feeling is that the source you have is not WP:RS and probably subject to WP:Fringe. That Wikipedia page is pretty low quality overall, but the source you have does not help it much. Unless you have WP:RS sources for those and show that they are minority views rather than Fringe, I doubt if you will be able to add it. History2007 (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with History2007 and also have to note that the paragraph's language is, to put it mildly, strange. For example, I have no idea what the last sentence is supposed to say. It almost reads like a machine translation of some foreign-language text. It's also highly problematic to declare one interpretation of the Bible the correct one; other theologians would probably disagree. I'd suggest attributing the belief to the group that holds them - there's an important distinction between "Group X believes the Bible says Y" and "The Bible says Y". Huon (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Yearly_Meeting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Yearly_Meeting has a photo of the Farmer's Institute Friends Meeting as an exemplar of an old Indiana Yearly Meeting Quaker Meeting. The problem is that The Farmer's Institute is a member of the Western Yearly Meeting and as far as I know, it always has been. I am a member of the Lafayette Friends Meeting: we are good friends with the Farmers Institute Friends and attend one anothers' meetings in spite of our philosophical differences. Perhaps some other photo of an old meeting house that is a member of the Indiana Yearly Meeting might be substituted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomarelli (talk • contribs) 02:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You should bring this up on the article talk page. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Bartolome de las Casas

I note that the editor who recently nominated the above article for GA has, presumably for good reasons, indicated he will be on break through the end of the year. I personally think, as someone who isn't a GA reviewer, that the content of the article is very good, and would welcome additional eyes to the article to help ensure that the work that he and other editors have done does not get damaged through unhelpful edits in his absence. John Carter (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Fyodor Dostoyevsky

hello project,

I have requested a peer review for the article Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Any comments are appreciated. Thanks.--GoP_T^C_N 15:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanx for your support

Thanx for your support for Notable Chapels in Siolim --Bdwolverine (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed MOS for Religion

There is now a proposed general Manual of Style for Religion and other articles relating to ethoses or belief systems at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. Any input would be welcome. I personally believe at least one of the reasons why many articles in this field have been as contentious as they have been is because of lack of such guidelines, and would very much welcome any input from others to help come up with some generally acceptable solutions to some of these problems. John Carter (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Template Christianity

Comments about this will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of polemical categories from two book articles

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Removal of polemical categories from two book articles. Several "Books critical of ..." categories were recently removed from Another Gospel (see here) and Cults: Faith, Healing and Coercion (see here). The reason given was that these polemical categories are not the main focus or notability of each book. I'm not at all convinced by this reasoning; indeed, it seems to me that criticism of such groups as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Scientology, and the Unification Church is central to the purpose of each of these books. I would favour putting the categories in question back — and possibly adding other, similar categories, since I know lots of other groups are criticized at length in Another Gospel (and I suspect in the other book as well). Comments? — Richwales 01:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion should be kept at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Removal of polemical categories from two book articles. It's beyond the scope of this WikiProject anyway when it discusses Scientology or New Age religions. Huon (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk page

Posting Talk:Resurrection of the dead here per this request for posting it. History2007 (talk) 08:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Knights of Columbus GA

The preeminent lay organization has been nominated by yours truly for Good Article. If you would like to review Knights of Columbus click here--it's only #201 in the queue! Arrrgggghhh!!!! – Lionel ^(talk) 03:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Mass deletion of links

The important template {{Religion topics}} has suffered a mass deletion of Christianity links. The editor responsible for this has avoided the talk page and they appear to be edit warring. I have started a discussion here Template_talk:Religion topics#Deletion of links. – Lionel ^(talk) 21:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Albertus Soegijapranata

I was wondering if anyone here could take a look at the article and ensure I used the terms correctly (such as Holy See vs. Vatican, apostolic vicariate, novitiate, etc.) . I'm not very well-versed at writing articles about Catholicism, let alone bishops. Thanks beforehand! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Devil's pitchfork

Is the Devil's pitchfork a significant item in religious art and iconography? Or is it a popular culture topic? -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 WikiGrail Contest

It gives me great pleasure to announce that the winner of the 2012 WikiGrail Contest is Toa Nidhiki05. Toa's contribution to Christianity-related articles was impressive:

• 17 Good Articles
• 1 Featured List
• 9 DYKs

He represented WikiProject Christian music in the competition. Congratulations, Toa. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Related RfC

Please comment at Template talk:Religion topics#RfC on what articles to be included in this template. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Pope Pius xii, Eugenio Pacelli

HI I was curious if anyone was in Eugenio Pacelli's ( Pope Pius XII) family was interested in getting in touch with me? Thanks very much, and may God bless you. Kristy , my e-mail is mice11111@hotmail.com if you'd like to e-mail me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.223.32 (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the material in this section is irrelevant and should be deleted. Jpacobb (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Seeking opinion(s) on Angelus Silesius

I have spent the last few days doing a massive revision of Angelus Silesius (17th Century German mystic and poet) and am almost finished with it. I have one section left to write (interpretations of his work) and will likely have the two or three paragraphs I plan to add completed by tonight (15 July 2012). I am asking for another set of eyes (or several sets) to give the article a quick look, copy-edit, and suggestions for improvements. My goal is to recommend it for GA in the next few days. Thanks in advance for your help. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Krista Branch

From the Krista Branch article:

While Branch and her husband were living in Colorado Springs, their baby daughter, Kenna, nearly drowned in their bathtub. Branch and her husband attributed their child's survival to the power of prayer, having been inspired after seeing The Passion of the Christ a few days earlier.

Isn't that a beautiful story? Listen people: this article is up for GA. It's been listed for over 3 months! Can someone please click here and get this article reviewed. Thanks! – Lionel ^(talk) 07:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Started Talk:Krista Branch/GA1 with a few suggestions and a provisional no vote. Hope my suggestions help.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the GA lists get kinda long at times, and articles get picked on a first-come, first served basis by the generally overworked group of GA reviewers. Sometimes, there can be a rather significant delay in processing. John Carter (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I am a bit surprised by it too. Before my hiatus several years ago (different account), I was often involved in GA. When I took another look at things a few weeks ago, I was a little shocked at how backlogged GA was (and that it was flooded with candidates that definitely weren't GA ready). But that seems to be the majority of projects around here...the corps of copyeditors is backlogged to May 2011.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if another editor would provide an additional opinion on this nomination, preferably with more detailed suggestions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Help needed at Talk:Judas Iscariot

I reverted a new editor's addition to the article for various reason - OR,NPOV and what I think is copyvio. If anyone has the Lutheran Study Bible they may be able to help with the copyvio issue. The discussion starts at Talk:Judas Iscariot#Copied from my talk page about material I deleted yesterday. Thanks. (I don't think I ever added any sources to this article, the new editor has that wrong). Dougweller (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reason to think that the Lutheran Study Bible is not a reliable source?ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source for the notion that the lutheran study bible is "The best-informed explanation for this apparent contradiction"? I have no doubt that an in-universe treatment allows all ambiguities and contradictions in a religious text to be waved away easily, but we should rely on independent sources wherever possible. And then there's a cherry-picked Augustine quote which sets us up for the no true scotsman fallacy; if any reader sees a contradiction in the text, they simply haven't understood the text as well as Augustine did. Facepalm bobrayner (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I note John Carter has commented at the talk page about the Lutheran study Bible, suggesting that maybe it isn't the best source in any case. Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of good practice, shouldn't everything but the request for help be on the appropriate talk page rather than here? Jpacobb (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Julie Pennington-Russell

Hi, I've just created an article about this lady, who is a notable female baptist pastor. There's plenty more that could be done, including in-line cites, categories, infobox, etc. If you have a moment to spare, please take a look and improve it if you can. Thanks. Sidefall (talk) 11:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles on English Translations of the Bible

While looking for translations that might be legally quotable on Wikipedia rather than referenced by external linking, I took a detailed look at a large number of the articles on English Translations of the Bible. It seems to me that there are problems of notability in that many of them come over as little more than detailed publishers' blurbs and heavily dependent on this particular class of source. While these may be adequate to supply details once notability has been established, they do not demonstrate it in the first instance. What does? I can think of three criteria which, while not definitive by themselves, could well be applied (there must be more).

1. Specific recognition by a major denomination or Church for liturgical use.
   
2. Sponsored by a major inter-denominational Council such as the British Council of Churches.
   
3. Quoted or referenced frequently and regularly by recognised academics in the course of their work or used as a standard text for courses.

Consideration should also be given to bringing into a single article the newer revisions of a translation; for example, the the notability of Revised English Bible might be questioned but it has an unquestionable place in the article on its parent, the New English Bible. An intelligent use of redirects seems to be called for. I suspect that the notability of many of the updates to the King James Version is little more than an inherited one and a strict application of WP:Notability could produce a rash of AfD's.

I don't see this as a sufficient priority for me at the moment, but I am prepared to make helpful comments if someone takes this on. The navbox is given below and I am posting an "news flash" about this topic on the Bible Project Talk-page Jpacobb (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This is actually a very good question. To me, the first thing that comes to mind is whether a given translation meets WP:BK. So, for instance, I would assume as per point 4 there that if a given denomination or group of denominations uses a given translation as their primary version or one of their primary versions and that group/those groups operate several universities which have religious programs where that translation would be used, that might qualify a translation for meeting notability. So most of the major denominations' preferred versions would qualify, probably to no one's real surprise. This however does not deal with some of the literary translations, like Walter Wangerin's version. My own gut feeling, and that's all it is, is that most of the translations whose publication has received significant attention would have included in that attention some indication of textual variations between the individual text and others, some indication regarding who did the translation and under what circumstances, the beliefs of the translators, etc. If there is sufficient reliably sourced material on such basic topics to constitute a fair-sized article, then I think it would make sense to keep. At a rough guesstimate, I would figure, maybe, any revision which has sufficient encyclopedic material for over five paragraphs of material that meets the consensus of "encyclopedic material", without duplication, could maybe be counted as the minimum threshold for spun out, although I would prefer if it only regularly happened at, say, ten paragraphs or more of such material. Regarding the Revised English Bible you mention above, I don't know that one well enough to offer an opinion, but I would welcome any comments regarding this topic from anyone else, and everyone else, as well. John Carter (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Saints Sergius and Bacchus

An editor has expanded a fringe theory to the point where the Saints Sergius and Bacchus article has become completely overwhelmed (WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV). See Talk:Saints_Sergius_and_Bacchus#Recent_edit_to_lead– Lionel ^(talk) 02:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Revelation (Third Day album) FAC

Revelation, an album by Christian rock band Third Day, is up for a second FA nomination. The article is high-importance at WikiProject Christian music, a subproject of this WikiProject, and is ranked as high-importance in that project. If passed, this would be the first CCM-related article to pass FAC and would make an excellent addition to the already-impressive list of Christianity-related FA articles. If you would like to comment or !vote, you can do so here. Thanks! Toa Nidhiki05 19:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Seven princes of hell

hi~, so i was reading about the seven princes of hell and noticed that Satan, Lucifer, and Beelzebub appear as different demons, while I always believed those were all names for the Devil. Can someone explain this to me clearly? Are they all the same? Are they different demons? Are they different sides of the devil? Otherwise, what are they?

Sorry if this wasn't the right place to put this, but i'm not sure.

Techically, the reference desk would be the right place for such questions. Whether Satan, Lucifer and Beelzebub are different demons or not depends on the demonology you look at. The Bible metions all three in different parts, Satan as an accuser before God, Lucifer as the "son of dawn fallen from heaven" and Beelzebub as a Philistine god. Since they all are (more or less - Satan less than the others) adversaries or rivals of God, in mainstream Christianity they are usually identified (as "the Devil"), though the Bible itself mentions them separately. During the Renaissance people invented several intricate classification systems for demons, including the "seven princes of Hell" which include all three as distinct entities. I don't know whether these seven princes were supposed to be subordinate to yet another chief Devil, but their correspondence to the seven Archangels of Heaven, the top servants of God, makes that likely - I wouldn't be surprised if different demonologists have different opinions on this question, though. Huon (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC on God

There is a request for comment regarding the scope of the article God at Talk:God#Scope of this article. Any and all input is welcome. John Carter (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

List of founders of religious traditions

An IP is adding St. Augustine, whose article does say he's " founder of the English Church", but surely not of a religious tradition? I reverted once but it's been replaced. Dougweller (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a very serious question which should be addressed regarding this particular article, and that is the question of how we define the article's qualifying phrase "religious tradition." Any input on that matter would be very welcome. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks you Doug and John - good points, but shouldn't the debate go to the specific talk page? Jpacobb (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have noted I started a section at Talk:List of founders of religious traditions#Definition of "religious tradition" for the purposes of discussion. John Carter (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Revelation

Featured Article reviewers needed for Toa's nomination here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Revelation (Third Day album)/archive2. Thanks! – Lionel ^(talk) 09:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The new Pew Study on Christianity is out

Their representative promised it would be out by March so it's a bit late but here's the December 2011 study on Global Christianity and tons of new numbers good as of late 2010. Started updating the Christianity by country article and I'm sure a lot of other articles can use this information. Hopefully the fighting over the numbers by sockpuppets can subside for a while now. Alatari (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Take a look here

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Chick-fil-A gay-marriage freedom of speech controversy --BoguSlav 13:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Special activity of next month

FYI, I am going to try to get the newsletter out in around the middle of the month. In the newsletter, I think it might be a good idea to maybe have some sort of contest or other coordinated effort of some kind included in it. This could be a tag-and-assessment effort, or some sort of competition for article or topical content creation or development, or "best picture of the month," or any number of other things. I think personally it might make sense to have only one such contest highlighted per month, but which one would you all think it should be? John Carter (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sacrament: scope of the article

I have opened a section on the talk-page on the scope of this article. It is not clear whether it is limited to Christian sacraments as the body of the article seems to imply while the title is not specific.[3] Recently a short section on Hinduism was removed for not being on the Christian sacraments. Jpacobb (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes to WP:NOT

Please see the recent notifications at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts#Proposed changes to WP:NOT and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposed changes to WP:NOT as it effects all religion editors: "There is currently discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Is wikipedia a devotional compendium? regarding a proposed addition to that policy page. As topics of this nature tend to spawn some of the most heated and contested discussions we have, any and all informed, neutral opinions are more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)" Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Exodus dispute

There is a dispute right now on the exodus. One editor is trying to radically re-write it in accordance with a very liberal brand of protestant scholarship.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 06:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete new section "Hate group" in Article Born again (Christianity)

Please read Talk:Born again (Christianity)#New Section: Hate group. I consider the section should be deleted but would prefer a consensus first. Jpacobb (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Nuke it ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete. There's a difference between an encyclopaedic discussion of criticism based on academic analysis and meritless polemics by idiot bloggers. This content violates policies regarding POV, reliable sources, and is not analysis worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. In fact, it's rather incendiary and culturally insensitive. Wikipedia shouldn't be a forum from one hate group proclaiming that another group (from whom they see the world differently) is a hate groups. This is name-calling for no more a reason than because they can. --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This discussion must take place on the article's talk page --Guerillero | My Talk 04:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

On the Talk page of Depiction of Jesus there is a "Requested move" to Depictions of Jesus. This article is within the scope of "WikiProject Christianity"[4] and "WikiProject Visual arts"[5]. That discussion is found here. Bus stop (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments in response to August 2012 newsletter

First, I would like to say that I believe it is very important to this project to have some clear idea as to which articles are considered of being, for lack of a better word, "core" importance to as many topics within the field of Christianity as possible. Unfortunately, we do not at present have the banner capacity to determine a "core" importance for each related project. One of the best reasons I can think of for having wikipedia books on each of the relevant projects is that, basically, we would be able to use the book itself as an indicator of which are the most important topics to a given project's scope. So, for instance, even though we don't have a "core" priority for the Catholicism WikiProject, or the LDS project, Lutheranism project, etc., we would be able to basically have an idea which articles are included in the small number of most important subjects to any of those topics by using the book as an indicator - those articles included in the book are the most central ones to the topic.

Also, regarding the two articles selected for improvement this month, I think it is probably worth noting that both have substantial articles in at least one encyclopedia and there is to my eyes anyway probably no good reason to think that we should not easily be able to get both of them as viable DYK candidates, although there might, conceivably, be some problem in developing that much text for Nerses. But, speaking at least for myself, I do think that maybe some sort of focused attention on some of these articles, which are apparently among the most significant to "Christianity" in general, even if they are not among the most obvious articles, might be one of the better ways to help develop the more central content.

If anyone does develop the wikipedia books, please list them below. And, yes, if nothing else, I will work to try to bring both of the articles selected up to DYK level myself in a week or two at most, although I would be most appreciative if others wanted to use the sources they have to generate the content they can before then, to help ensure we get the best possible content on these topics. John Carter (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Ogdoad

I know this is out on the fringes of the Christianity topic area, but I didn't know of a more specific place to post about Gnosticism. The article Ogdoad covers both the Ogdoad in Egyptian mythology (a group of gods who created the world) and the Ogdoad of Gnostic belief (a group of aeons). I've argued on the talk page that the two subjects should be in two articles, as the connection between them is tenuous; see Talk:Ogdoad#Egyptian and Gnostic. I'd like input about the location of the divided articles (whether one gets the main "Ogdoad" title or whether that page becomes a disambiguation). A. Parrot (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Improve Heresiarch

Let's get together and at least de-stubbify Heresiarch; I have some good sources (listed on the talk page), and some help to get it started would be appreciated, even though it's relatively low-importance (the article Heresy could use some major work too).

Also, I've not received any of the WPChristianity newsletters (Ichthus)... I received the first one (with all of the problems of over-distribution because of a bot malfunction) and thought that there wasn't a second... if there is a second, or more, please tell me where to access them, and put me back on the list to get them. As well, now that the summer is over, I have more time to dedicate to Wikipedia again, so drop by my talk, etc. etc. if anyone needs help, references, writing, voting, debating, so on (I've been relatively dormant since the RFC on Genesis creation narrative earlier this year). St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 21:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Requested move

Discussion on name of Genesis creation narrative article at Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Requested move. -- 203.171.196.112 (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Can biblical scholars be used as sources for Acts 18:1-18?

On the talk page for Suetonius on Christians we are having a lovely discussion about the reliability of books by "biblical scholars" who are professors in well known universities. I actually do not care that much about that page, but the real issue is if professors of religion can be portrayed by some Wikipedia editors as bumbling fools who make "blunders", or worse that they "invent material" to suit their beliefs even if they have published over 20 books.

I posted about it on WP:RSN here as well, but given that the page is within the project Christian History which is a sub-project here, I think it is relevant here because if books by biblical scholars start to get viewed as no-no, then this entire project gets affected. Interestingly enough the only people who write about Acts 18:1-18 are of course professors of theology who are biblical scholars.

I think this really goes to the very heart of how this project can use sources, and goes far beyond Suetonius. If sources by some professors of biblical studies are ridiculed about the Book of Acts, something is amiss, for professors of Hinduism are not getting questioned for writing on the Bhagavad Gita, and Islamic scholars are not getting banned from appearing on Quran pages.

Comments will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I've only skimmed the dialog on Talk:Suetonius on Christians and I don't claim to be able to resolve the dispute therein. However, the key point here is that a Wikipedia editor should not dismiss a source as unreliable without another reliable source that explicitly questions the reliability of the first source. If spin control believes that your sources are unreliable, he/she needs to, at a minimum, present sources that are are claimed to be more reliable and present a different perspective. Preferably, spin control would present sources that directly criticize your sources. Unless such sources are presented, spin control's criticism of your sources can only be judged to be OR. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is a long discussion, but he prefers one or two "other" biblical scholars of his liking (say the Anchor Bible dictionary) and dismisses several others as making blunders or inventing things. The issue is that if that starts as a trend, then biblical scholars can be rejected because they are labelled as "inventors", biased or blundering, etc. based on an "argument from authority" made by Wikipedia editors. Moreover, it is essential to note that the AD 50-51 date for the trial of Paul supported by the "blundering scholars" is already acknowledged as the "majority opinion". It is the scholars supporting it that are called blundering based on the authority of Wikipedia editors to judge content... Go figure... But my concern is not just that page but the entire Book of Acts and this project. History2007 (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

To restate my point... no Wikipedia editor's judgment counts for anything. If one wants to dismiss reliable sources as blunderers and inventors, one must provide reliable sources that make those judgments. If one wants to present a thesis as the "majority opinion" or an "opinion that is gaining support among the academic community as superior to the mainstream opinion" then one must provide reliable sources that say that. Failing such sources, such judgments can only be considered to be OR. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. As you said: "no Wikipedia editor's judgment counts for anything". I have therefore tagged the relevant section as WP:OR and asked on WP:RSN as well. But the issue does not seem to want to go away... History2007 (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Contra the title of this discussion, Acts 18:1-18 is only a small part of the evidence in discussion for issues relating to Suetonius and Roman history. We examine the significance of Claudius 25.4 about which the classicists are not as strident with assumptions as the non-Roman historians. We also look at the dating of the expulsion which regards Cassius Dio, Orosius, a letter from Claudius, and small portions of a Seneca letter and a Pliny E. comment. I have also cited a few biblical scholars on the imprecision of Acts 18:1-18 for historical purposes. The title of this thread shows the interest of my colleague.

The majority opinion found in the article is not of classicists whose field we are principally dealing with. It is of scholars from another field. It is frequently from popular books and there is sufficient error and speculation in the material to show that much of it is not reliable. Examples of reliability I noted on the talk page:

• Birge who makes the false claim that Seneca in Ep.104.1 says when Gallio became sick he returned to Rome.

This is what Seneca actually said: "I kept saying the same thing my dominus Gallio said when he began to feel feverish in Achaia; straightway he went on board ship, insisting that the sickness lay in the place, not in his body." Does Seneca say that Gallio returned to Rome?

• In a lovely little infobox Cosby (p.76) makes the false claim that Gallio was the younger brother of Seneca!

This error is made clear here though I can supply numerous other examples.

• Thiselton (p.30) makes the false claim that Seneca said that Gallio did not complete his term of office.

Checking the Seneca citation in the first point one can see that this claim is false.

• Murphy-O'Connor makes the unsupportable claim that Gallio was a hypochondriac. In fact both Gallio and his brother Seneca suffered from the same complaint, ie consumption, and Pliny notes that Gallio discharged blood in the context of a discussion of phthisis, ie tuberculosis or consumption.

And another example I supplied at length here, where a scholar seems to have simply misread the source. Scholars who prove to be untrustworthy in facts are not reliable sources.

Claims of scholarly consensus found in the article fundamentally about Roman history do not regard classicists but biblical scholars. I have cited classicists I could find and they are not reflective of the claims of biblical scholars' consensus found in the article.

Now if History2007 would remain tacit for a while, you independent editors may be able to comment. -- spin^control 00:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

So the summary of that is that you assert that "the professors are in error" but do not provide citations from other professors who say that - just your own analysis and intellect.

And the discussion above is of course mostly about Gallio/Paul and Acts 18:1-18. There are other issues such as Cassius Dio in that article, but the section being discussed is clearly titled Gallio and refers to Acts 18:1-18 and the "the trial of Paul" is the focus - i.e. Acts 18:1-18.

And of course about two weeks ago in Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_34#On_WP:DUE you already acknowledged what the majority view was. Right? Has biblical history changed since then?

Anyway, the issue of your arguing based on your own authority against the blundering professors is obvious here. And anyone can comment any time, of course.

And now that the discussion is getting to be long, I suggest it should move on to the article talk page, given that there is a clear pointer to it here, so this page will not get cluttered. History2007 (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Not to engage in further fruitless discussion with an editor I believe to be tendentious in the particular article, I leave the field to independent observers. -- spin^control 01:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That is fine with me, that is why I asked here for other views. And I specifically agree with Pseudo-Richard's statement that "no Wikipedia editor's judgment counts for anything". You need sources, not use your own analysis and intellect to label professors as blunderers, as above. History2007 (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you wouldn't care if they were professors of hair science. We need peer-reviewed materials and materials from scholars in the appropriate field. Verifiably inaccurate materials don't qualify. -- spin^control 01:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No, you got that wrong. I do not know what hair science is, but is not applicable. But the issue of "the trial of Paul" is about the Book of Acts, and most scholars who write on that are biblical scholars - not scholars from other religions. And again, as you were told by Andrew Dalby when a scholar in the field writes in a book by a well known publisher, that is WP:RS. I am sure you recall that. So you can not at will label some scholars as blunderers based on your own judgement and intellect for you may be a 12 year old, I may be a 12 year old. Any editor may be a 12 year old, and can not pass judgement on scholars. Now, speaking of that, how about stopping 12 year old type discussions and following policy, such as WP:RS, and WP:V let us say. Given that your last statement runs counter to WP:V. Of course you asked on WP:V a few weeks ago, and I am sure you recall the response there too. History2007 (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry folks, it is impossible. "I do not know what hair science is"! The trial of Paul itself is irrelevant to the article. Acts 18:1-18 provides a fragment of relative chronology in a complex discussion about Roman history. Suetonius, Claudius, an instigator in Rome called Chrestus, an expulsion of Jews from Rome amid Suetonius's list of problems with various races (not religions), a discussion of Acts 18:2 in the context of that expulsion, Cassius Dio, Orosius, Paul's conjunction with Gallio in Corinth, a letter from Claudius to Delphi, Gallio, Seneca, Pliny. -- spin^control 02:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hair science, whatever it may be, is beside the point. That section is about the use of the Delphi inscription to date the "trial of Paul" which is Acts 18:1-18. And the subject is not really complex. It is pretty straightforward, in fact. History2007 (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"Hair science, whatever it may be, is beside the point." That is the point. Biblical scholars are not classicists. I've said this to you many times: you don't get a brain surgeon to do your taxes. (Or a hair scientist to give you acupuncture.)

The trial itself is irrelevant, we are interested among other things in the concurrence of both Gallio and Paul in Corinth in relation to the letter of Claudius. The evidence comes from Roman sources. -- spin^control 02:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No, biblical scholars who are professors can not be excluded from the discussion of the "trial of Paul" which is part of the Book of Acts. They publish books on it by Oxford Univ Press, Wiley/Blackwell, Baker Academic etc. And you have used several biblical scholars yourself in your edits - it is the pesky ones who say otherwise (stating the majority opinion) who seem to be getting labelled as blunderers. Again is this in play here?... History2007 (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been edifying, I need to be offline for a little while, but will see you soon... History2007 (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Professors of hair science are just as relevant to Roman history. Peer reviewed journals and other peer-reviewed venues, or monographs by classicists, are fine. -- spin^control 03:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually as you have seen two other users on the WP:RS talk page have now disagreed with you, saying that "You don't get to label an author "a biblical scholar" and then say that therefore their publications are completely unreliable because they're the wrong kind of scholar" as WhatamIdoing said and that "we don't discount one system of knowledge production and publication, or elevate it above another" as Fifelfoo said there. As I said there, those users were both right. And those users frequently comment on that page and are fully familiar with the reliability issues.

Biblical scholars who are professors can not be excluded from the discussion of the book of Acts. That is clear. History2007 (talk) 06:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You are certainly ducking and weaving these days. Many times I've said I use biblical scholars regarding analysis of Acts... remember, Murphy-O'Connor and Harrington?

But you are still simply refusing to acknowledge that most of the questions we are dealing with have little to do with Acts. Here's the list once again: Suetonius, Claudius, an instigator in Rome called Chrestus, an expulsion of Jews from Rome amid Suetonius's list of problems with various races (not religions), a discussion of Acts 18:2 in the context of that expulsion, Cassius Dio, Orosius, Paul's coincidence with Gallio in Corinth, a letter from Claudius to Delphi, Gallio, Seneca, Pliny. Most of the discussion is certainly not Acts. It is Roman history. So while you turn a blind eye to most of the discussion you won't be dealing with it. Acts supplies a fragment of relative chronology. Roman history supplies all the possible fixed points. Biblical studies professors do biblical studies. Classicists deal with Roman history. So, feel free to return to your ducking and weaving now. -- spin^control 13:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, this specific discussion has been about the "trial of Paul by Gallio" in an article section called Gallio. That trial is about the Book of Acts. I should also note that a parallel branch of this very long discussion is taking place on the reliability talk page here as I stated there, the key points have been made there already. The long list you typed above was also typed by you on that talk page. The discussion is at the point of overflowing these talk pages now with no new issues, and only repetitions. History2007 (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Then your premise for starting the discussion here seems misguided. I have used biblical scholars (at least those of the New Testament variety) regarding interpretation of Acts. As I have pointed out, that is at best tangential to our discussions on the topic of the article. -- spin^control 14:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, unless there are comments by other users, I will not respond to you further, given that this has become circular. Do not expect a response from me here unless there are new comments. This has become circular and can not go on forever like this. If there are no other user comments I will just leave it as such with no further comment myself. History2007 (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And, as we've confirmed the apparent futility of this discussion, there is no reason for me to comment unless someone says something relevant to the Suetonius on Christians article. -- spin^control 14:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments requested at Biblical cosmology

Page: Biblical cosmology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion: Talk:Biblical cosmology#almost exactly that of the source

There is bias at Biblical cosmology. Please come by and have a look there. Currently the resident editor and I disagree over how to summarize, non-summarize, or quote a source. This will help us all escape the pull of thinking we WP:OWN articles. Thanks. tahc ^chat 08:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:CANVASS you should be framing things neutrally and not with "There is bias at X". IRWolfie- (talk) 09:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I think both I and the other editor agree that "there is bias at Biblical cosmology"; we just would dissagree where it is. None-the-less I will try to better next time. tahc ^chat 18:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Editor biased against religion and specifically Christianity at religion-related articles

Will someone keep an eye on User:Pass a Method's edits to religion or religion-related articles? Or at least propose a topic ban with regard to his edits at these articles? There have been various complaints about this user's editing, not just to religion or religion-related articles, by the way. See this and this for some of the editor's other problematic editing.

With regard to religion or religion-related articles as of late, here are some problematic edits the user has made:

• Messed with the Soul article to add "mythological" to it, while removing "traditional spiritual"; this was tweaked by another editor, but "mythological" still currently remains the first descriptor.

• Removed "Christian church" and "Christianity" from the Universalism article.[6]

• Removed the part about "church" refering to a "Christian religious institution or building."[7]

• Added "mythological" as first description of Hell.[8]

• At the Genesis creation narrative, stated, "I find it quite astonishing that some editors are arguing that possibly giving a negative connotation to widely-held unscientific misconceptions is somehow a bad thing. Its a GOOD thing.[9] This show his bias.

• Biased, religion-related edits at the Golden Rule article, such as this.

• Removed Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible from God article.[10] As User:Avanu stated when reverting him, "Editor shows a pattern of bias in overall edits." 94.76.201.77 (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not bias, it is the lack of rationality in the edits. I had told him that, John Carter did and IRWolfie did. Pass a Method makes all kinds of edits that defy rationality.... There was a thread on John Carter's talk page about it as well. They are mostly minor edits that reduce quality, not biased but random, useless edits, all over the place. If I drink 14 beers, then start editing, I would do the same... But I never drink 14 beers. History2007 (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Considering what History2007 stated here, I think he meant "not just" for part of the bias-wording above. 65.117.207.142 (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

But you are giving PassaMethod too much of a hard time, I think. But I will say no more. History2007 (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Folks, this discussion shouldn't be taking place at more than one place, the main discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion so I'm asking that from now on people discuss it there. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

International Churches of Christ

There have been editors at loggerheads over the International Churches of Christ article - one side seeming to attempt to add content regarding every claim of scandal and one side seeming to attempt to have the page function as a second promotional brochure home page for the Church.

I have asked the two main parties in the disput to take a break and one of them has asked for a neutral editor to bring the article more in line with appropriate encyclopedic coverage. I am not really qualified or interested in tackling this job, so I would put up the call here for a new set of eyes and editing. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Christian Science Theology

Christian_Science#Theology requires someone who has some knowledge of theology and the respective sources to improve it. Currently most of the section is primary sourced from the book Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. (It's apparently rated GA in this project) IRWolfie- (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Christ (term)#Requested move

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Christ (term)#Requested move. Elizium23 (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Elizium23 (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Isaac

At the moment this is GA status, but changes in Isaac#Christian views (the major change was made with the edit summary "Christian View expanded based solely on Scripture and knowledge of "types and shadows" of Christianity.") mean it no longer meets criteria 2 of Wikipedia:Good article criteria and I will probably ask for it to be reassessed if this isn't fixed. Another editor tagged the section. Dougweller (talk) 08:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Material deleted. Jpacobb (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Gregory of Nazianzus FARC

I have nominated Gregory of Nazianzus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Contest of the month - Advent/Christmas content

Some of you might think it a bit early to be thinking about this, but the Advent season starts relatively soon, and that is the lead-in to Christmas, probably the biggest single event of the current day with which this project is related. There is a bit of a tradition of trying to get the featured article on the main page be related to Christmas in some way on that day, and I would myself maybe like to see, if possible, at least one DYK per cycle on that day also be directly related to Christmas in some way. So, I am proposing that the contest for the coming month is creation and/or development of content relating to Christmas and related subjects. I have gathered together the beginnings of a list of possible articles relating to the topic here, which can be used by anyone looking to develop such content. It lists quite a few related topics on the subject which can be found elsewhere, and which presumably meet our notability requirements.

There almost certainly are several other articles that are notable enough for inclusion that could be written about the broad topic of the Christmas season as well. And, yes, there might also be at least a few which are perhaps significant enough, and possibly unique enough, for articles which might not meet necessarily easily meet our notability requirements here. They might however be reasonable for potential articles at Wikinews. On that basis, I am leaving a message there regarding this thread and asking them for any articles they might think worthwhile for them to have. So, for instance, I live in the vicinity of St. Louis, Missouri, and if I find that the local events related to the Christmas season might not be sufficiently notable enough for a separate article here, I may well work on an article for Wikinews on the major events that take place here over the Christmas season, if the editors at Wikinews respond favorably to this idea below. Based on their response, if any, further details might be added below. John Carter (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Flood Geology

Someone really needs to do something about the flood geology page. A bunch of secular humanists totally hijacked that page. It needs help!!! Sprecher (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed move of Demythology

Please see Talk:Demythology regarding the proposed move of this article. I have found to date substantial content in Karl Rahner's Encyclopedia of Religion, which states that this is a very important current topic, but in articles on "Myth" and "Demythologization," not the current title. Improvement of the article, as well as opinions regarding the proposed move, are more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Primitive Advent Christian Church

The above article has been proposed for merger into Advent Christian Church since July 2009. Probably shouldn't be, since this appears to be two seperate denominations. Mad Man American (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not really a separate denomination in a formal sense... it's a subgroup of Adventist Christians that has minor differences (Like [[Particular Baptist]s or Primitive Methodists). If the group was big enough to be notable on it own I would agree with you against the merger, but it seems to be a relatively small group (The article claims 427 members) that hardly merits its own article.ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

What to do with Calendar of Saints (Lutheran)?

I personally think that, if the sources can be found to do so, this page might function best as separate articles on the liturgical calendars of the LCMS and ECLA. Putting those two groups in one article, and only those two groups, seems to me to be indicating that, somehow, their two opinions taken together somehow represent the totality of the liturgical calendars of the Lutheran churches worldwide. Alternately, maybe, if we were to have just one page on the Lutheran liturgical calendars, we should at least check to see if any other Lutheran denominations have separate liturgical calendars, and somehow try to integrate their information in as well. But, as it stands, right now, I have to say that I think the article as it now stands could reasonably be seen as indicating something about the "Lutheran calendar of saints" which is not at all accurate. Thoughts? John Carter (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Translations needed!

One of my personal goals for the next few months is to try to get together articles on the various "calendars of saints" out there. For the churches of the Anglican Communion, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, and Catholicism, generally, the individuals included in these calendars will include many if not most of the most significant people in the history of that church. I have found a few pages out there for some of these calendars, but they aren't in English. If we had any individuals who knew the relevant languages who would be willing to translate the material into English, that would be greatly appreciated. Also, I've found at least a few which are available in English, and which might maybe just need someone willing to write up the relevant material in code for us to include in an article.

Some of the sites I have found are:

• the calendar of the Synod of the Romanian Church (Catholic), apparently in Romanian
• the Syro-Malabar Church (Catholic), in English
• the Syro-Malankarese Church (Catholic), also in English
• the Byzantine-Catholic Church in America calendar for the North American Ruthenian Catholic Church
• the calendar for the North American Old Catholic Church, Southern Province USA also in English

I'm fairly sure that others are available online as well. For myself, I have gotten the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, the Coptic Orthodox Church, and Ethiopian Orthodox Church calendars already, and at least the calendar for the North American archdioces of the Syriac Orthodox Church. I've also checked various encyclopedias of holidays, and have added those holidays which clearly are Christian holidays to the combined list I am putting together in Word. I am going to try to finish it and transfer the data into a userspace page by the middle of next month. If anyone can find calendars of other churches available online, in whatever language, feel free to list them below. If that individual editor can't read the original language, maybe we can find someone else who can. John Carter (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Source on US Christianity: Red State v. Blue State

Hi, guys! See:

• Blake, John. "Do you believe in a red state Jesus or a blue state Jesus?" CNN. Friday November 2, 2012.

Could be a good source to use WhisperToMe (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Possible religion related goals for 2013

This is probably more than a bit presumptuous on my part, but I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Goals for 2013? asking what if any sort of goals we might be able to reasonably set for the next year, in wikipedia and other WF sites as well. I figured the wikipedia probably gets more attention, which is why I started the discussion there. But I would be very interested in seeing any input regarding what the editors here think might be the areas here most in need or meriting additional attention. Maybe, and at this point it is just a maybe, maybe we might be able to get some input on such topics if we have some idea what it is we really need to work on. Anyway, I would welcome any input anyone here might have. John Carter (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

RFC on using AD vs CE in articles

There is an RFC here as of a few days ago about using AD/BC vs CE/BCE in articles in general and may affect articles in this project. History2007 (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would affect it that much, the new style proposal includes using BC/AD in articles that have a specific content based reason to do so (Basically just Christianity related articles...) ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Neo-Celtic Christianity

Should probably be added as part of the project, but is the lead right in conflating "Neo-Celtic Christianity" and "Contemporary Celtic Christianity"? It uses a book by Koch as a source which doesn't seem to mention neo-Celtic Christianity, and we have an article on Celtic Christianity which has a section heading "Contemporary Celtic Christianity" with (just) the sentence "A self-identification with and use of "Celtic Christianity" is widespread in countries such as Ireland, both among participants in established churches and independent groups.". Dougweller (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Do we want a Christianity "cleanup" template?

Someone just recently remarked that the "cleanup" listings have stopped for some time, because the bot that used to do that is now inactive. I asked about maybe adding project-specific parameters to the general "cleanup" template, and was told that others have gone ahead and created separate templates for their own groups, which probably works just as well. I could probably copy one for use by the Christianity projects, and maybe, depending on circumstances, maybe add some parameters for individual related projects as well. These sort of complicated templates can be a bit of a pain to prepare, and sometimes they take several hours. But, if they would be useful, they might well be worth it. Do the rest of you think, if we had such a template, we might be able to more easily get some editors to address some of the cleanup concerns? I have a feeling I already know the answer, but would appreciate responses anyway. John Carter (talk) 03:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, we could also use the {{To do}} functionality for the group to set up a list of tasks that need to be done, part of the reason I am not on here doing stuff too often is that I don't really know where to start... I've been doing my own thing for a while but a collaborative effort would be good. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

What should be in the Core Topics work list?

We have an active list of the articles included in the "Core topics" field at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list. Some editors have recently suggested changes to it. So, opening it up for discussion. Which articles should be included and why? Also, are there any articles some of you think might be "core" that don't yet exist? I think that the Christianity related articles included in the list at User:John Carter/Religion articles are probably a good place to start, although, admittedly, it is certainly possible that some articles were assigned for inclusion in the relevant reference but not completed by deadline, for whatever reason. John Carter (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I am going to make comments there at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list#What should be in the Core Topics work list?. tahc ^chat 04:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Overall structure of articles on "Eucharist"

As a reaction to the successful proposal to merge of Eucharistic theologies summarised into Eucharistic theology I have suggested an overall structure for articles at Talk:Eucharistic theology#Merge discussion Jpacobb (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

New list-articles of churches

I've recently started up:

• List of Methodist churches
• List of Anglican churches
• List of Baptist churches
• List of Congregational churches
• List of Lutheran churches
• List of Presbyterian churches
• List of Unitarian churches
• List of Catholic churches

as obviously needed, helpful list articles to organize coverage of notable churches. The list-articles complement categories of churches, exactly per wp:CLN guideline. The startup has been a bit rushed by me, due to shadow of a long-term following editor seeking to remove redlinks that would obviously be created in due time and otherwise to cause disruption, including opening an AFD about the Methodist one (which of course closed Keep). They're just starters now; the Methodist one is the most developed as a start. As I further develop them, they will be heavily skewed to covering U.S. National Register of Historic Places-listed church buildings. Other editors' constructive help in developing these, including to cover other-than-NRHP-listed notable churches, would be most welcome. cheers, --doncram 06:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If those articles are intended to be a comprehensive list of church buildings, they are doomed to be perpetually incomplete, and likely to suffer the same problems as, say, List of railway stations. Despite being a net negative for the encyclopædia - an immense timesink which allows somebody to pump up their edit count without actually providing much benefit for readers - it's surely AfD-proof. Also, you really shouldn't use your proclamation of new articles as an opportunity to snipe at a different editor that you don't like. bobrayner (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The articles will clearly always have problems, as Bobrayner indicates above. And I have to say that the removal of redlinks is probably not an unreasonable idea. Not every church is necessarily going to be notable as per WP:NOTABILITY, and it really serves no purpose to have what might well be permanent redlinks in articles. As someone who has a history of lots of dubiously productive userspace edits myself, like at User:John Carter/Patron saints and User:John Carter/SQPN Patron saints, I'm not really in a position to criticize much, but I do think maybe instead working on, for instance, List of churches on the National Registry of Historic Places or similar, or even broader topics like List of buildings in the National Registry of Historic Places, would probably result in creation of pages that might be ultimately more useful. John Carter (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

i didnt get a icthus copy

(Harishrawat11 (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC))

RFC: TFD: Merge Template:Coptic Popes into Template:Patriarchs of Alexandria

On December 21, I proposed merging Template:Coptic Popes into Template:Patriarchs of Alexandria, because upon close examination the latter is a perfect superset of the former. I respectfully suggest that members of this WikiProject should comment on that Merge Discussion. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Good Article Nominee: Thomas Traherne

After undertaking a revision of the article, I've nominated Thomas Traherne for promotion to Good Articles. It is under this WikiProject and I invite anyone to take a look. If you're interested in reviewing, take a look at the article's talk page or WP:GAN. Thanks for your time. --ColonelHenry (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject Christianity/subproject template preference

Is the Christianity Wikiproject template preferred over the subproject templates? If so, should we merge those templates and if not what kind of guideance could we add to the documentation of those templates so that I know which to use where? Please respond at Template talk:WikiProject Christianity#Preference for this over subproject templates?. --JFHutson (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Tin Can Cathedral

This is a newer article I have been helping a little with. Does anyone wish to add it to the correct projects to get more input than just the two of us? --Canoe1967 (talk) 01:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Seraphimite Church

The Lemma is about a building, the text about a congregation. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

God or god of Israel

There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#the God of Israel or the god of Israel as to whether to use a capital "G" in the phrase "god of Israel". StAnselm (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Loop

Why does the WikiProject talk page redirect to the content-oriented Noticeboard? If someone wanted to ask a question about joining the project, changing the design on the project's main page, or something like that, where would that person ask that question? Where should bot-delivered messages from the WikiProject Council or the WP:1.0 team to members of the project be delivered? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That was my fault and I've fixed it. --JFHutson (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Right now we have the noticeboard as a subpage of the main pate, and the talk page of the noticeboard is being used as the project talk page. The problem is that when I get to Wikipedia talk:Christianity, I can't easily get back to WP:Christianity. I think we should move Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard to Wikipedia talk:Christianity. I also think it would be a good idea to rename the noticeboard to something like news or alerts so it doesn't get confused with a discussion forum. --JFHutson (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

What happened to the archives?

I can't find the archives of this talk page. Also, It appears I have broken the buttons at the top by moving the page. Apologies. --JFHutson (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That was a really sloppy move. Now that I am done cleaning up after it, I see that there was little to no discussion about it prior, so I am wondering if it is really the best thing to do. At any rate, I have fixed this talk page, and the archives, and the buttons on this talk page, and the archiving bots. Keep an eye out for any loose ends. And next time we move these pages, make a checklist prior to execution so we have all our ducks in a row. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I had no idea something like that would create such a problem. It seemed obvious to me that the noticeboard should be a subpage of the wikiproject. I apologize for the trouble I caused. --JFHutson (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Antichrist

The usage of The Antichrist is under discussion, see Talk:The Antichrist (book) -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Prelest

Prelest (a Russian/Orthodox term for spiritual delusion) is a new article by a new editor that has at least some obvious issues of neutrality (WP:NPOV) and reliable sourcing (WP:RS). For example, the section on "Prelest and saints of the Roman Catholic Church" includes St. Francis of Assisi, St. Theresa of Avila, St. Ignatius of Loyola, and St. Thomas à Kempis among those who were guilty of being in delusion and self-deception. It would be helpful for some knowledgable editors to separate the wheat from the chafe in this lengthy and well-cited (but not necessarily well-referenced) article, as I don't know where to begin. First Light (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Future contests

I am in the process of getting together individual lists of articles found in reference books specifically relating to the various topics of the Christianity-related WikiProjects out there. Yes, I still am missing some of the biggies, like Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and Christianity itself, but I think they should be finished within the next few weeks.

Having said that, I think for at least the near future it might be best if we somehow arranged things so that, for the contests, no one individual or group of individuals choose a given article, but rather allow interested editors to maybe choose some of the articles which we still have "missing" and develop them. The questions I guess would be how would we determine who, if anyone, to give the specific top awards for the month to, and how many total awards to give out for any given month. I would definitely welcome any input from any interested parties. I think this sort of approach might be the best way to ensuring that we more quickly come close to being truly "encyclopedic" regarding these topics, but am myself far from sure exactly how to institute any such contest. John Carter (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

TAFI

Hello, Please note that Church (building), which is within this project's scope, has been selected to become a Today's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where comments are welcome about ideas to improve it. After the article is moved from the holding area to the TAFI schedule, it will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's Article for Improvement" section for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thank you, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC) (From the TAFI team)

Madonna

• (Discuss) – Madonna (art) → Madonna Kauffner (talk) 11:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Low-hanging fruit

Hey guys, Template:Psalms has links to articles on every single Psalm, almost all of which are stubs. These should be pretty easy to expand and maybe submit as DYKs if anyone's interested. --Cerebellum (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I wish I had connections at any Christian colleges, these would be awesome for students in an Old Testament class to work on in a Wikipedia Education Program project. --Cerebellum (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments are requested

Comments on Gospel of the Hebrews merge are requested. History2007 (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Time to wrap this up. Please weigh in at Talk:Hebrew Gospel hypothesis#AfD or stub. Ignocrates (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Hebrew Gospel (Aramaic) article has been tagged with a Proposal for Deletion as an uncontroversial deletion. Ignocrates (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The PROD tag was removed. Therefore, the proposal for deletion failed. You may want to participate in a discussion of what to do as an alternative. Ignocrates (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move: Genesis creation narrative

For your information, there is a new proposal to move Genesis creation narrative to Genesis creation myth. See Talk:Genesis creation narrative#New proposal. StAnselm (talk) 09:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

New article Papal conclave, 2013

FYI, with Benedict's resignation, I have started the article on the next conclave. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 11:52, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Bartholomew - COMMONNAME?

Hi. There are a few page moves being proposed relating to Jesus' disciples, eg at Talk:Saint Peter. One I can't get my head round is at Talk:Bartholomew_the_Apostle#Requested_move_2. What is the WP:COMMONNAME for this individual? Bartholomew the Apostle? Saint Bartholomew? Bartholomew (disciple of Jesus)? Something else? Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The Oxford Companion to the Bible and the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels just have "Bartholomew." --JFH (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Papal conclave articles

The Category:Papal conclaves articles which have infoboxes (20th & 21st century conclaves and 1800,1513,1492,1294) all directly code their infoboxes instead of transcluding them. this causes variances in display, and should have an infobox instead of direct coding. Can someone clean this up? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

New infobox created -- {{Infobox papal conclave}} -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

New AfD

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missionary dating -BigJim707 (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Newsletter might be delayed till the 1st

Not sure if anyone will necessarily miss it, but things have been a little weird this past week, and honestly, it seems to me that having the newsletter come out in the beginning of the month probably makes more sense anyway. With any luck, by the end of next week I should have gone through the Eerdmans/Brill Encyclopedia of Christianity, which might help a lot in the content related to its articles. But, wanted everyone to know. If someone else wants to maybe draw up a draft copy, though, by all means feel free to do so. John Carter (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Madonna

The usage of "Madonna" is up for discussion, see talk:Madonna (entertainer) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion needed on sources for denominational membership in National Baptist Convention

Contention has developed at National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc. regarding the denomination's membership numbers. Another editor has repeatedly removed information sourced to the National Council of Churches' Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches. That other editor says the yearbook information didn't come from the denomination. I think we need a third opinion (and maybe more than three), and other editors who have dealt with similar topics may be well-qualified to comment. Please visit Talk:National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.. --Orlady (talk) 02:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Confusion of Peter and Paul in "Gospel of Mark" article?

Could someone "familiar with the topic of the discussion" please look at Gospel of Mark and the comments I have just left on the talk page? I think there is confusion in the article between Peter and Paul at a couple of places at least, and the last paragraph of the lede is very confusing and almost nonsensical. Thanks. Smeat75 (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Interpretatio Christiana

I am not an expert . Please improve Interpretatio Christiana I started from bits and pieces in wikipedia. - Altenmann >t 04:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Petition to merge Lent and Great Lent articles

Discussion right there on the talk page for Great Lent. Would appreciate you guys looking into this. thanks.Skyduster (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

File:John Murdoch, LL.D.jpg

File:John Murdoch, LL.D.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Beatitudes

Hi, you guys probably know more about the issues on how this project may relate to this discussion than I do, so comments will be appreciated. I may stop watching that page after a while anyway, if you guys want to watch it. Thanks. IcarusVsSun (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Render unto Caesar...

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Render_unto_Caesar...#Requested_move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Palm Sunday

Palm Sunday is in danger of being excluded from the Main Page on March 24 because of the {{refimprove}} tag on it. Please add sufficient references to it, especially the Biblical basis and symbolism section before then. Thank you. —howcheng {chat} 06:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I note there is no discussion associated with the tag, and that five references have been added to the section since the tag was introduced. StAnselm (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. I actually meant the Observance in the liturgy section. —howcheng {chat} 19:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding the creation of "wiki articals"

Out of curiosity, Is a user on wikipedia allowed to create an article which discusses a particular group or organisation? I was going to start an artical which discusses the Antioch Bible Society, its effects and influences on the internet, ministries, and beliefs. Is this allowed? The "wiki rules" were somewhat unclear in this regard. Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logicaltheology (talk • contribs) 18:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no problem starting a new article. If you have not done so, check to see if there is another article which covers the subject to be sure that there is not an existing article that could be expanded. Your editing may not be based upon your own opinions or research, but must instead summarize what secondary and tertiary references say. Be sure to add {{WikiProject Christianity}} to the article's talk page header. • Astynax ^talk 19:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Also to avoid later disappointment I suggest you make sure that the subject of the article adequately meets the notability requirements as defined in the guide to notability. If it does not it may well be deleted- Jpacobb (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Perichoresis Contents

The article on Perichoresis has acquired a long section (perhaps half of the total article) entitled "Human body as icon of the communio personarum which goes far beyond the subject of the present article. It seems to fit more naturally into the article Catholic theology of the body, which is a further information link. There are only two editors actively involved with the article at the moment and we disagree about this point (see here). I'd like to know what other editors feel. (By the way, the "Usage" section needs rewriting and will probably be significantly shorter when I have done this thus, in my opinion, unbalancing the article even more.) Jpacobb (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Kingdom of Makuria for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Substantial verifiable evidence of coverage

Editors seem to spend a good deal of time discussing whether particular local church groups are notable or not. (See here for example.) Part of the problem seems to be a lack of clarity as to the criteria. So far as "non-commercial" organisations are concerned Notability_(organizations_and_companies) states the general principle that "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple,third-party, independent, reliable sources.
   

It adds that a local organisation such as a school or club (and I presume a church fits here as well) "can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area". I understand the inclusion of the word "substantial" to imply that more coverage is necessary that the minimum than would be required for a national organisation.

There is also a minor point: are denominational newspapers and the like really independent? They are legally and some people want to include them for notability purposes, but their specialist interest almost certainly means that some items get into their pages when they don't make the general media.

In the light of all this, I am wondering whether a special "local churches" section should be added to the organisations and companies notability page and would like to sound out opinions here to see if there is some sort of consensus before airing the problem elsewhere.

Notes

Jpacobb (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the lack of clarity bit. What do u think can be done? Pass a Method talk 00:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding denominational newspapers, if we are talking about denominational newspapers on, say, a national level, like for instance "Our Sunday Visitor," I would think that they probably are sufficiently independent to be used as an indicator of notability, although that's a bit of a slippery slope, and I would be less certain that, for instance, the Catholic or other religious newspaper of Palau, a country with only 17000 or so people, would necessarily meet the same criteria, given the really limited size of its potential audience and range of local-interest topics.

I'm assuming this question is aimed more at what might be called local congregational bodies than, say, denominations. Denominations in general can probably have their notability established in such sources as Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions and the like.

There probably does need to be some clarification of this matter in guidelines, although I think, honestly, a lot of the questions which might be raised might significantly involve other religions which might have some of the problems of the "Palau" example more frequently, like, for instance, Bahai, Buddhism and Hinduism and Judaism (in some parts of the world, anyway), Zoroastrianism, some of the small but technically widespread NRMs, and others, and maybe an RfC on the guideline talk page with notices at the talk pages of various religion projects might work best? John Carter (talk)

Thank you for your comment, John. You are quite right, I used the term "local church" in a protestant rather than catholic sense to mean a local christian community. All Baptist Churches are technically independent and Wikipedia seems to be collecting a fair number of articles on very "run-of-the-mill" local christian communities in the USA where their inclusion is justified on the grounds of a couple of mentions in non-local press but 85% or more of the article is taken up with material which seems more appropriate for a brochure than an encyclopedia. I agree we shall have to go to a more wide-range RfC or something, but I think it is probably a good idea to toss this around among ourselves to get a good feel of the pros and cons first. This should produce a better starting point for the RfC. Jpacobb (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Local congregations of groups which don't have a defined power structure, which itself can and generally does lead to some mention in publications related to that group, like OSV, can be a real problem. I myself don't know if the Southern Baptist Convention has a denominational journal, but I do know that they are the subject of a 3-volume encyclopedia, which presumably can itself in some cases be an indicator of notability. I'm still in the process of going through religion reference books, so I can't know that I'm right here, but I'm thinking that when finished we should be able to be able to establish notability for articles on, for instance, Baptists in Louisiana or Baptists in Chicago, which, once created, would certainly be a place where the minimal encyclopedic content from independent non-local reliable sources of some of these articles could reasonably be merged. Until that's done, though, yeah, having some basic discussion somewhere, as background for an RfC, is probably a good idea, although a lot of these articles could probably be AfD'd or proposed for merger if they really are poorly sourced right away. John Carter (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

My rule-of-thumb is that individual congregations aren't notable unless there is substantial outside-the-fold coverage of their activities beyond publicity of services or programs. For instance, the fact that the Maryland Church News ran a photo series on every parish building in the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland doesn't make any of them notable; neither does mention of my parish's Habitat for Humanity projects in the paper make it notable. Mangoe (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

And, actually, I pretty much agree with you on that. I might add that it seems likely, depending on whether the Maryland Church News you mention is an Episcopal publication (I don't know) is is also probably the case that it will have discussed at various times the changes in ministers at various churches and biographies of some sort of many of them, and that, over time, those might be sufficient to help establish notability, provided that publication meets the requirements for establishing notability. Catholicism, given its frankly huge numbers of members and the huge number of more-or-less national journals/publications that cover them, and Catholics' significant tradition and history of navel-gazing, is one case where it might well be the case that several local churches are notable enough for articles, but Catholicism's more or less the elephant in the living room or bull in the china shop or whatever metaphor you prefer, and, unfortunately, even if some of us wish that they wouldn't have as many notabale topics as they probably do, policies and guidelines in that case, and possibly in others as well, would seem to indicate that all those sometimes regretable articles could legitimately be created and included here. John Carter (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Prosphora.jpg

File:Prosphora.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Issues with Symbolism Section

I believe the creator of this page confused the word "loins" with "lion" in the portion where he states John the Baptist wore a girdle made from lion. The King James Version of The Bible states in Matthew 3:4 that "And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey." Also, many of the scriptures given to show where Saint Mark is connected to lions do not seem to have any connection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.118.154 (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

What article are you referring to exactly? Ryan Vesey 01:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

List of Christian martyrs

Your attention is called to the above list, which needs work, particularly in organization and references. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Please help to improve the article "Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire"

I have left various messages around WP asking for help in trying to improve Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire, which is very poor in my opinion - for instance, why is there discussion of "Persecution of early Christians in Judea" in that article at all? I would rather collaborate in trying to improve the article with others of varying viewpoints - mine is strictly historical-critical. I note that the request for help on "List of Christian Martyrs" just above this one was not answered (I rewrote the opening sections) so am not very hopeful, but thought I would try anyway before I embark on a re-write of that article on my own. Thanks Smeat75 (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

£20 bounty on Linvoy Primus

If anyone fancies the challenge of getting Linvoy Primus to FA, I have placed a £20 bounty towards Wikimedia foundation if it happens. There will be the possibility of the money going through, anyway, if it turns out that there just isn't enough information out there to get his article there. It is a GA at the moment and not much has changed since that GA status was confirmed, given that it went through around about the time he retired.

Leave a message on my talk page if you're up for the challenge. Spiderone 09:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

List of encyclopedic articles

At Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Encyclopedic articles I just added the article titles and relative lengths from the now somewhat dated, but still very good Brill/Eerdmans "Encyclopedia of Christianity," listing all the articles and named subarticles and outline sections. Honestly, it is very hard for me to imagine that there is much of really global significance regarding Christainity which is missing from that source, considering it was published by one of the most reputable sources out there, and later translated, with if I remember rightly some additions, by another of the most widely regarded publishers on Christianity out there. If we could get all of the articles in that source together, along with the subarticles and subsections that are both encyclopedic and not, as is true in some cases, just a paragraph up front defining the scope of the article, I tend to think that most of the major work of this project might be done. I honestly don't expect that to happen anytime soon though. Anyway, anyone and everyone should feel free to at least look at it and see if there are any articles they might want to work on. If you don't have access to it yourself, drop me an e-mail and I can send to you specific articles from this source, or other similar encyclopedic sources, on any given topic, provided I have ready access to them and those topics are actually covered in reference works I have access to. But like I said I think it is kind of hard to imagine that there is much of real significance to global Christianity by the time of its publication that isn't covered in at least some of those sources, particularly that one. John Carter (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Possible move from "Historical Episcopate" to "Historic episcopate"

I am thinking of proposing this move, but would like to sound people out before doing so. The discussion has been started on the current talk page, but I am posting the information here in the hope that more people see it. Jpacobb (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

proposal for creation of Category:Universalism stubs

Some of you may wish to have your say about this; proposal for creation of Category:Universalism stubs. --Devin Murphy (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

blashemy of the Holy Spirirt MK 3:29

It is my understanding that in naming blashemy of the holy sprit as unforgiveable, Jesus condemns those who will not allow sinners the time and space to come to terms with there wrong doing. Those who "box" people into the consequences of their bad choices are condemed as committing the only unforgiveable sin. It is a carhartic way of putting "forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.13.204.194 (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Blasphemy (against the H/holy S/spirit)

The preceding section (which is, in itself, a simple expression of opinion and out of place on this page) drew my attention to a remarkable confusion of redirects. "Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" redirects to Blasphemy, while "Blasphemy against the holy spirit" transports the enquirer to Eternal sin. Having looked at both the articles in question, the one on "Eternal Sin" ranges wider than the theme of its redirect so I am not sure what the best way to improve the situation might be and am hoping the someone else may be more inspired than I feel at the moment. Jpacobb (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd say Eternal sin is the correct target; it explicitly and at length discusses blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; when Blasphemy mentions the Holy Spirtit it links to that article. I've changed the redirect accordingly. Huon (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Henry Martyn Clark.jpg

file:Henry Martyn Clark.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Jesus GAN

The Jesus article has been nominated at GAN. Would anyone here be interested in reviewing it?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

A second opinion is requested.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

File:John Murdoch, LL.D.jpg

File:John Murdoch, LL.D.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

AV/KJV page move discussion

See Talk:Authorized_King_James_Version#Requested_move Mangoe (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Page watch

Is anyone here watching Miracles of Jesus , Parables of Jesus, etc. I only watch them occasionally now and noticed that WP:RS sources were disappearing and "course syllabus" was being used as a source etc. If someone can put them on a watch list would be good. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Input desired

There's a discussion going on at Talk:Anno Mundi#Choice of era style about which era style (BCE/CE, BC/AD or a hybrid) to use in the article Anno Mundi which is about dating systems that use the biblical creation of the world as a starting point. Your input is desired. Thank you, SchreiberBike (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Christian Colleges

Christian Colleges is under discussion, see talk:Christian Colleges -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Churches named "St Something"

We have many church articles whose title begins with "St" (e.g. St John's Church, Dukinfield and yet others that begin "Saint". Should we avoid the former style? If so, should we get a bot to make a list, which we can check and edit to remove false positives, and then get the bot do the renames? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

And do we use a full stop i.e. "St." or not i.e. "St"? --Bermicourt (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so, we should look at RSes. The church you pointed out has "St" on its website, on the C of E website, and on the National Heritage List for England website. St vs. St. is a British/American thing, right? --JFH (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, we should go with what reliable sources state for each specific church. I'm guessing that there will be a fair amount of variation between religions, regions, local language, and saints. First Light (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Policy advises us to defer to British English usage, so St would be the appropriate rendering over the AmE "St."--although I don't have a preference with Saint John's Church or St John's Church, we need a consistent usage throughout Wikipedia. Like with WP:WINE, colour designators are lowercased for consistency (Vidal blanc, Pinot noir, instead of "Blanc" and "Noir"), we should decide either St or Saint and make it consistent and make policy clearly state that style preference. Such a drive toward consistency will require a large bulk requested move.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a guideline, and I assume you are referring to MOS:TIES which says that if an article has strong national ties, to use the local variety. So a church in the UK would use British English, but a church in the USA would use American English. Actually, I think the relevant guideline is MOS:COMMONALITY which says to seek common terms used by all varieties of English, rather than local variety. That would mean in this case that we should strongly prefer spelling out "Saint", which is universal English, over either "St" or "St.", which are local variations. But I would guess that we will not find strong enough consensus for that position to effect such a massive page-move campaign. Elizium23 (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

MOS:ABBR has something to say about this: "Saint" vs "St" or "St." in placenames should depend upon the official usage. Is a parish church a placename, or does this only refer to cities, municipalities, etc.? Elizium23 (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

How a church names itself would be official usage. So this has nothing to do with the spelling of the Saint's name, but the official spelling of the Church's given name. I'm assuming that what a church names itself will also be the spelling used by the city or municipality where it was located. Which brings us back to using Reliable Sources. WP:Title, which is a policy, makes it very clear: "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." First Light (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure you understood what I was saying above. I believe MOS:ABBR does not apply, because it is speaking of placenames and not parish churches, for example "Mount St. Helens". What I am saying is that it is somewhat irrelevant what sources say since "Saint" and "St." and "St" are all exactly equivalent, except for the latter two being burdened by local language; if we vigorously applied WP:COMMONALITY to these article titles, we could achieve more perfect consistency by spelling out the word "Saint" as it is acceptable English usage all over the world. And I don't think anyone has mentioned the spelling of the saint's name. Obviously that would follow official and local usages. Elizium23 (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I see - I thought someone higher up was bringing up the spelling of the saint's name, but I was mistaken. I still believe that we should spell a church's name the way that reliable sources spell it, which is the main criteria of our WP:Article title policy. For a parallel example, see how the names of these cities are spelled that are all named after the same saint: St. Louis, Saint-Louis, Quebec, and Saint Louis, Seychelles, which were named for Saint Louis. Also Saint Petersburg (Russia) and St. Petersburg, Florida. And Saint Paul, Minnesota, St. Paul, Iowa, Saint-Paul, Savoie, and São Paulo. I think if a locality wants to name their church (or city) in a way that doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards, we should use their spelling, assuming it is reported in reliable sources in that way. Regarding consistency, I think we should follow Emerson on that (wikiquote:Consistency#Sourced). First Light (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"St" without punctuation is standard British spelling, for churches, and also the very many streets, districts and towns that have it in their name (never mind personal names), though "St." and "Saint" will also be found. It should certainly be left where appropriate, like "St.". The difference between "St." and "St" is much too trivial for WP:COMMONALITY to override WP:COMMONNAME, MOS:TIES and other policies. Who could honestly claim to be confused by either? Are we done here? Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Eyes needed

Please see Talk:Quest for the historical Jesus. Two standalone articles treading on this subject's toes, both showing telltale signs of WP:OR and POV. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with In ictu oculi that eyes are needed. However, I do believe the Oral gospel traditions is notable and with Dunn's book it has become a hot topic in Biblical Circles. I believe the rush to delete Oral gospel traditions by redirect is a big mistake. Furthermore I believe Bart Ehrman is a reliable source and his scholarship should not be deleted from Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it could be argued that the topic may be just getting enough recent attention to become notable and that Dunn and a couple of other people are trying to make that happen. Or maybe that it will remain a sleepy subject, as it was 10 years ago. Time will tell. But one key item in what you said that I agree with is the use of "Biblical Circles". While it is getting attention in Biblical circles the same is not happening as much in the historical circles. In the end it will be a judgement call (pronounced r-a-n-d-o-m) as multiple users express opinions on that. But the real problem is "content" of course. These debates have not been about notability, they have been content debates - and as I said below here, all that can be done is to accept the limits of crowd-sourcing and be pragmatic. History2007 (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Fwiw, I have contacted admin AGK about bringing some oversight to the Oral gospel traditions article. I think some form of mediation is necessary at this point, and that this complex dispute - spanning three years and several related articles - is eventually going to end up in arbitration. Ignocrates (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not looked (yet!) at either article but may do so. There is one comment that I can make now: Bart Ehrman is a reputable academic source, but he is by no means "the reliable source". As in many academic disciplines outside the hard mathematical sciences, experts are divided into differing schools. To mention just two names, Rowan Williams and Tom Wright are equally first-line academics (if less attractive to the media) and their opinions are equally weighty from an intellectual angle. The great difficulty with the type of article we are discussing is giving due weight to the various schools and this requires a wide-ranging knowledge of the literature. Jpacobb (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jpacobb that this issue requires a wide-ranging knowledge of the literature. And that is exactly why the outcome of the process is going to be haphazard. Many a user will make a comment, but the topic is non-trivial enough that depending on who happens to comment consensus will go one way or another. Then some users wear out and new players come in but the debates continue. The concept of the "Quest for the historical Jesus" has been well known since Schweitzer coined the term over a century ago. The "oral gospel tradition" has also been discussed for about a century as a subtopic of the "quest", and is less prominent, but is not totally absorbed by that given that it also has a theological component. I have deliberately avoided delving into the oral gospel tradition issues partly because I see it resolving once the Bell's theorem page has been successfully liberated from the tags it has - probably 3 Olympic games later. It has been debated for a while. I stopped looking there a year ago. Bell's theorem's first line says it is a "no-go theorem". I often think it is a no-go article, because the underlying crowd-sourced model can not handle that type of topic. The same fate probably awaits the oral gospel tradition issues, because they are non-trivial enough that well intentioned users can not put their hands around them. So the best way may be to set a lower threshold of expectation and just hope to provide a simpler overview of the issues regarding that. Pragmatically speaking I see no other way. History2007 (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I just don't have time to participate in this much, but I do want to re-echo Jpacobb's comments about too much reliance on a single figure. Mangoe (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Wideranging is a problem, so also is someone with time. Do we have anyone with those two assets to at least merge the 2 orphans into 1 slightly healthier orphan? Oral transmission (synoptic problem) + the newer one. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that merger (Oral transmission (synoptic problem) + Oral gospel tradition) may make sense, but sense is subject to consensus, of course. History2007 (talk) 09:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, based on that I made an alternative proposal here and it has some support. If that flies, there will probably less debate all around. History2007 (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Requested move

History of Christianity of the Late Modern era → History of modern Christianity tahc ^chat 21:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Front page repaint

There is an old story that there was a man whose factory was losing money and he did not know how to fix it. So he found an top consultant, and the man took a look around and said "paint it bright". Having paid the fee, the owner repainted it, everyone's mood changed and he succeeded. I took a look at the project front page and was reminded of that. I replaced the main image to give it more life, added a link to the newsletter - someone who edits Christianity pages told me they did not know there was a newsletter. And by the way, the newsletter has a new editor, User:Gilderien, and as of next month will have a slightly different format.

I think the light blue menu color is pretty sleepy, but maybe the default Wiki-color. But I will look for some other items with signs of life. And the section called "images" really has to go. It includes 3 images (really) for a project that has a rich set of articles on Christian art, all with galleries. Anyway, I will touch those up, and that will conclude my consulting. History2007 (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Q source introduction

In the introduction to the Q source article, the following paragraph is found.

One of the most notable skeptics of Q is Mark Goodacre, a New Testament professor at Duke University.[4] The omission of what should have been a highly treasured dominical document from all the early Church catalogs, and from mention by the fathers of the early Church, might be seen as a great conundrum of modern Biblical scholarship.[5] However, other scholars explain this by pointing out that copying Q source was unnecessary, since it was embedded in other texts...

I feel that Mark Goodacre's argument(s) should be presented in the sentence currently footnoted as 5, not the sentence that is currently there. As it is currently, the argument is presented weakly and doesn't fit well with the counterargument that is presented after it.

I apologize. I don't think I did this right. I was expecting this post to go on the Q source page. It has been a long time since I have tried editing a page.

Eincrat (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• First off "one of the most notable skeptics" is peacocking and should be avoided. Personally, I don't see how the sentence or a mention of him is necessary for the lede. I would suggest moving the mention of his arguments/skepticism and his purported prominence among sceptics to the section where scholarly debate is discussed and leave the lede a broad summary.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• NOTE Because you hadn't arranged this discussion at Talk:Q source, I copied this conversation at Q source too. It can be found here: Talk:Q source#Comments transferred from WikiProject Christianity talk page. RE: Lede section--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The difference between Christians and Protestants

I have the Chelsea Noble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article on my watchlist. Recently another user, Iloverussia (talk · contribs), changed the category of American Christians to American Protestants. The article clearly states that Noble is a born-again Christian, so I reverted it back. They have since come back to the article and reverted my revert as well as added an additional category, American evangelicals. So, could someone here tell me who is more correct and why? Thank you, Dismas|^(talk) 07:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• American Protestants is a subcategory of American Christians. It's more precise (i.e. catholics, orthodox, Anglicans, etc. are Christians too). However, American evangelicals is a subcategory of American Protestants (and thus more precise) so American Protestants has to be removed per WP:SUBCAT and WP:OVERCAT. The only category of the three should be evangelicals.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, the Eastern Orthodox are also evangelicals, although they operate in a fashion that is distinct from Protestant evangelicals. Just for what it's worth. Evenssteven (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• I am well aware of that--indeed, evangelical protestants are the largest share of converts in recent years to orthodox christianity. Trying to explain the difference though to some snake-charming Baptist or prosperity-cult megachurch adherent that thought would take more than a category label to explain.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Let's try to avoid deepening the confusion, & stick to terms as they are generally used. Many Catholics are methodical, but that doesn't make them Methodists! Johnbod (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sure, fine by me. Just wanted to mention it in case it was something that needed a look. Evenssteven (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem lead RfC

There is currently a request for comments open about the lead section of the Jerusalem article, and all editors are welcome to give their opinions. I'm posting this here because the WikiProject Christianity banner is included at Talk:Jerusalem. The dispute over the lead section is one of the oldest on Wikipedia, dating back to 2003, and focuses on whether or not it is neutral to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The discussion was mandated by the Arbitration Committee, and its result will be binding for three years. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, and will be open until 22 June 2013 (UTC). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Eyes needed

Talk:Council of Jerusalem? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

User GabbyMerger adding odd wording, IP reverts, admin freezes page. Good for now. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

File:The Immaculate Conception WGA.jpg

File:The Immaculate Conception WGA.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Lost original New Testament theories again

Recent additions to Hebrew Gospel hypothesis need someone to take a look - return of all-but-SPA pushing lost Aramaic New Testament theories, deja vu, original research and WP:FRINGE from 2009 reappearing almost verbatim. Occasional reasonable sources, if someone on less of a mission was weighing them, but basic thrust looks fringe/OR. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Anyone? "perceived logical improbabilities in Greek" eyes needed. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:History of Christianity#Etc

Please join the discussion of this template that is used on many articles. At the moment it is about the sections of the template. Thanks. tahc ^chat 17:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Charles Williams -- Member of the Inklings

I would like to make a recommendation that some additional attention be drawn to the Charles Williams (British writer) page.

Charles Williams was a member of the Inklings alongside C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. In Mr. Lewis' letters, Mr. Williams is noted time and again as someone who Lewis looked up to and who strongly influenced him (see That Hideous Strength).

The more I've read about Mr. Williams, the more amazingly influential I've discovered he was to Lewis -- I am presently reading The Descent of the Dove, and there are clear overlays between his theological beliefs and C.S. Lewis' beliefs.

My reason for posting here is to ask if anyone could contribute to creating a Theology section on the Charles Williams page -- His works are lush with theology, and there are plenty of biographies (referenced in his article) that can be looked at in order to develop a concise description of his theology for Wikipedia. I don't really have the type of free time to commit to developing the theology section, and I'm a neophyte Wikipedian, so I would rather entrust this action to someone more devoted in time and skilled at encyclopedic articles.

Thank you for your attention to this! I believe that the Charles Williams article can be more than a B-rated, Low Importance article -- and it would be a great help to all of us C.S. Lewis fans to see more description on one of his influencers!Sir Ian (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC of interest

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in commenting at Talk:Creation Museum#RfC: "Biblical" or "Mythical" and "museum" or "facility"?. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Pseudo-Gnostic apocrypha

Template:Pseudo-Gnostic apocrypha has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. SJK (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Should article Biblical apocrypha be renamed Apocrypha?

Discussion at the Project Bible talk page please. Evenssteven (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Further useful suggestions have been made at that page, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#Overall organization of articles on Canon and Apocrypha. – Fayenatic London 21:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Christian Life Assembly

Christian Life Assembly has been nominated for deletion. Any comments at the discussion would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Christianiation of Poland, Bohemia and Moravia

As part of my drive to improve Polish articles, I've brought christianization of Poland to GA, and started (DYKed) christianization of Bohemia and christianization of Moravia. Any comments on those articles would be welcome (on their talk, please, I may not visit here to check back on comments). And feel free to edit them directly, of course! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

St-john-church-dublin-1884.jpg

image:St-john-church-dublin-1884.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Foreign language church names

Is there a written Wiki convention for the naming of churches in non-English speaking countries? Most of them seem to be translated into their English equivalents, especially where named after saints (i.e. St. Paul's Church, Frankfurt am Main), but not all are. Does it vary from country to country? --Bermicourt (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The general guidance applies: WP:TITLE and in particular WP:UE. – Fayenatic London 18:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Teodosij.jpg

File:Teodosij.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Nestorian

The usage of "Nestorian" is up for discussion, see talk:Nestorian -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

GHeb peer review

A peer review for the Gospel of the Hebrews article has been opened at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews/archive1. Please contribute suggestions and constructive criticism to prepare the article for WP:GAN. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

GEbi FAR

A concern has been expressed (in intensely personal terms) about the comprehensiveness and neutrality of the recently promoted Gospel of the Ebionites feature article. Therefore, an internal review is in order. I have started a discussion on the talk page Talk:Gospel of the_Ebionites#WP:FAR. Please contribute suggestions, constructive criticism, etc., that will result in further improvements to the article, per WP:PRESERVE. The article is move protected until the day after it is featured on the main page, but I will address any comments/concerns asap after that. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Heresy In Christianity Page

I wanted people opinions on Heresy in Christianity page.

Specifically, I wanted to ask people opinion on whether denominations should be considered heresy or schisms? Another user(Federales) is trying to claim that denominations are part of heresy. Thank you. I invite you to edit. Please share your comments on the talk page. Thereandnot (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Move David Bawden to Pope Michael?

Pope Michael may refer to: Coptic Orthodox Popes of Alexandria:

• Pope Michael I of Alexandria (743–767)
• Pope Michael II of Alexandria (849–851)
• Pope Michael III of Alexandria (880–907)
• Pope Michael IV of Alexandria (1092–1102)
• Pope Michael V of Alexandria (1145–1146)
• Pope Michael VI of Alexandria (1475–1477)

Other:

• David Bawden, an American who claims the Roman Catholic papacy under the papal name Michael

Note, RM in progress at Talk:David Bawden In ictu oculi (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Massive changes at List of Christian denominations

An editor has made massive heading changes at List of Christian denominations. Are they constructive? 70.235.87.219 (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Apparently the same editor is now engaging in an edit war as Mathew harding. 75.0.192.102 (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Possible contests for upcoming months

Just a few ideas for contests for upcoming newsletters, the continued production of which by Gilderien is something I am very, very profoundly grateful for. The old Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics is so far as I can tell now entirely in the public domain, and it is generally considered one of the three best reference sources out there on the general topic of "religion," along with the more recent Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion and the German RGG. I think it might be very useful for us, in the development of some of our central content, to have ready access to the articles from the Hastings, like perhaps being included in WikiSource, to ease the development of the related articles here. I would be interested in seeing what the rest of you think about the possibility of maybe turning the transfer of articles from that old source to WikiSource into a short-term challenge to the members here. Also, I have recently started a page at User:John Carter/World Book articles, listing all the articles included in the topical outline for mythology/philosophy/religion of its new online edition, according to the number of articles, and named subsections, of the 2010 print edition. Not all of them are even remotely relevant to Christianity, of course, but I would be interested in finding out what the rest of you think of, maybe, making a bit of a second contest to ensure that the Simple English wikipedia has at least basic articles on those topics. I can try to arrange for the production of directly relevant barnstars for these contests, if there is any indicated interest in these ideas. John Carter (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

When God Writes Your Love Story

The article about the Christian devotional book When God Writes Your Love Story is a current featured article candidate. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide at the discussion would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Gospel of the Ebionites undergoing FAR

Gospel of the Ebionites is currently undergoing featured article review. Anyone who has any interest in helping to make this article at FA status is more than welcome to do so. John Carter (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Project Academy pages

I have noticed that the Military History project has an "academy" which contains material which would be useful for individuals seeking to develop content at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy. It seems to me that there might be sufficient basis for either the Christianity or possibly the Religion project to develop a similar group of pages to assist editors in dealing with content related to those topics. Would anyone have any interest in maybe helping to develop such material? John Carter (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join a discussion

Through this way, I inform there is a discussion about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D affects articles in this WikiProject, some examples can be found at WP:NCCL. There you can give ideas or thoughts about what to do with this guideline. Note this discussion is not to modify any aspect of NCCL. Thanks. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Found the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#WP:PDAB. – Fayenatic London 01:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Gary North RfC

Question: Regarding two of the subsections in Gary North (economist) -- which describe his views, but contain original rather than secondary sources – are they proper? Please see the discussion here. 06:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Slightly off project

This has already been notified at WP Judaism and WP Video Games, but Talk:Sephiroth (Final Fantasy)#Requested Move 2013, but belated it seems worth notifying here too. Why notify? since though personally one might consider the intersections between Sephiroth and Christianity fringey, theres no shortage of attempts to link or compare them. Given that some of this project's editors may wish to be informed even though the subject is wholly Jewish. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Some help is needed in fixing some problems with citations

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Unacknowledged internal copying and problems with citations. Some help is needed in fixing some problems to do with citations that have existed in some articles for more than five years. -- PBS (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

EYES NEEDED: New Scholarship and the Gospel of Matthew

The discussion has moved to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Over the past seven years the thinking of Biblical scholars has undergone a radical transformation. There is now a growing number of historians that believe:

1. The historical data is both "striking and incontestable". Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship of the Gospels concurs that Matthew composed a Gospel in a Hebrew dialect. The widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is truly remarkable and "cannot be brushed aside, particularly since the discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another." William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland (Eds), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. p 602 In total there are more than 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that this Hebrew Gospel was in wide circulation. Twelve of the Early Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenged these facts. James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 259, p 102 & p 117
2. It is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew 'compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language, but each (person) translated/ interpreted them as he was able. Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 87-88
3. The Gospel of Matthew found in the Bible is not a translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. Rather the evidence from the Second Temple Judaism indicates that the Gospel of Matthew is of composite authorship; Matthew's Hebrew Gospel being the fountainhead.

In addition to the Blackwell Companion series, such noted scholars as Bart Ehrman Did Jesus Exist?, HarperCollins, 2012. pp 98-101, Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. p 86-92, James Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 43 have supported this position.

There are several editors who feel so very strongly that the above scholars are wrong, that they will never allow such scholarship into any article at Wikipedia...ever! There are others who take the position that such scholarship is an important development in the field of Biblical scholarship. Eyes are needed to help us work through this new scholarship. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I would be very interested in seeing some real evidence of the last statement above. If it cannot be presented, then I believe that certain editors should seriously read WP:POV, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:RS, and other policies and guidelines, and very definitely refrain from making unsupported allegations which might in themselves clearly violate WP:AGF. The best sort of evidence for this sort of subject, which is very widely written about in academic literature, are the reference sources, many or most of which cover major topics like this one at some depth. They would include among others the online Encyclopedia Britannica and the very recent 2012 Coogan Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible. Those and similar recent highly regarded reference sources would probably be the best indicators of weight and other matters for the main articles on topics like the gospels. This is not to necessarily say that the content might not be very clearly relevant to perhaps other articles, and there is probably sufficient evidence for there to exist several spinout articles on the major Biblical works. But that is another matter entirely. John Carter (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course you are correct and we must assume both sides of the debate are operating in good faith. As Ignocrates pointed out, this NEW SCHOLARSHIP is "rocking the foundation of certain people's deeply-held beliefs." I think that standard reference sources such as the Encyclopedia Britannica are helpful in establishing weight etc. The "scope of an article" is the topic or subject matter, and is defined by reliable sources. WP:SCOPE Therefore, the Papias tradition is important to our topic. See List The reliable sources on the Canonical Gospel of Matthew devote a section to Papias. In addition to online Encyclopedia Britannica were The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church 2013, Encyclopaedia of the historical Jesus 2008, New Catholic Encyclopedia and Blackwells. It is also important to note, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Tertiary sources may be used but with care. Encyclopedias etc. cost a great deal to produce. At Wikipedia we are producing our own encyclopedia based on secondary sources, not copy editing the costly work of others. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Having to assume good faith does not, however, necessarily mean that this noticeboard should be misused in the way it clearly has been misused in this instance. If editors wish to engage in soapboxing like the comment above seems to be doing, then I would suggest that they read WP:SOAPBOX first. Also, regarding the woefully illogical and in some cases completely irrelevant comments about other encyclopedias above, it seems to me that, somehow, there seems to be an irrational and unfounded assumption in that comment that in some way a group of non-professionals who have been basically self-selected can somehow, in their arrogance, come to the conclusion that they are still more qualified than those professionals working in the field who have, in many cases, been specifically chosen among all those active in the field to write the articles on a specific topic. I have to admit I honestly cannot see any rational basis for such a wild jump to conclusions. There very definitely does seem to be at least a bit of self-aggrandizement involved in the thinking of any individual who would even consider such ideas, and I urge the above editors in the strongest possible terms to perhaps give a bit more attention than he has perhaps to date already given to the various policies and conduct guidelines of wikipedia, so that he can conform his conduct more closely to them. John Carter (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion has moved to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Tony Anthony (evangelist)

I have re-created the above page in view of recent reports that suggest he is now notable. Hopefully others will expand and improve it. SmilingFace (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Broken (unclosed) formatting in your newsletter

It seems the latest edition of your newsletter is missing a div or span closing tag. It changes the font (to serif) an text justification (to centered) for the remainder of a user's talk page. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

 Doing... - Someone not using his real name, I'm fixing this with AWB at the moment.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done, Someone not using his real name. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Antisemitism in early Christianity

The article Antisemitism in early Christianity has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Initially a WP:CFORK from Christianity and antisemitism[11] and has been tagged since its very first edit (?) as WP:OR. After removing all un-sourced content, it fails to prove its thesis in any way, and its content is already covered by the original article as well as the article on Anti-Judaism.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kendrick7^talk 03:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Someone removed the prod tag, so I started an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antisemitism in early Christianity--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Paul the Apostle

I'm not reverting again, but we need more eyes on recent edits here as soon as possible. Thanks. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Carolina Graduate School of Divinity

Hello, Christians! The article Carolina Graduate School of Divinity has been tagged because it doesn't have much in the way of independent sources to establish the notability of the school. On the other hand, this article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carolina Graduate School of Divinity is an abandoned Afc submission that will soon be deleted. Would someone here be interested in rescuing any useful content and references and using them to improve the main article? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Phoedelia?

There's a long-standing unsourced stub at Phoedelia, as a glass stopper for a cruet holding communion wine or water. But the Oxford English Dictionary doesn't know the word, and Googling doesn't find anything relevant beyond a flickr photo. I'd have expected to find it on antique dealers' websites, museums, etc, as well as liturgical mentions. I wonder if it's a typo, but OED doesn't recognise phoedelium (possible singular), phedelia, or one or two other variants I tried. If you're familiar with the term, please help out, especially if you can cite a source. PamD 07:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps another hoax page? Newjerseyliz (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The same information had made it into the cruet article. According to this website "phoedelia" is the singular, with the plural "phoedeliae". It cites Wikipedia as a source fot the description, though. Google Scholar doesn't give anything, and Google Books produced a single result that was Wikipedia-based. I've removed that stuff from the cruet article and proposed phoedelia for deletion. Huon (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

PamD, I asked two Anglo-Catholic priests and one seminary professor (I was a former seminarian, so I knew who to ask) and none of them have heard of the word. Looking at it linguistically, the obviously Greek origins of the name phoedelia doesn't seem to work for me as I can't find any mention of it in concordances, lexicons, or dictionaries. I am almost certain this is a hoax.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought I should mention that the original revision of the article spells it differently: "phodelia" so perhaps one is a misspelling? Elizium23 (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• That doesn't work in Greek either. And I checked possible variant spellings, misspellings, etc.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Never heard the word before and can't trace it to any reliable source or find a reasonable etymology. Jpacobb (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I removed mention of the phoedelia from cruet and bung as well, did a little research on how far the made-up term had spread, and archived it in hoax space at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Phoedelia. It was added to cruet the very day after phoedelia was created, which is powerful evidence that it is a hoax. Dcoetzee 10:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Kellie Loder

The article about Christian musician Kellie Loder has an ongoing featured article candidacy here. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 03:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Gospel of the Hebrews

The above named article is currently being considered for GA status. A disagreement has arisen regarding the scope of the article. Please offer your opinions regarding the matter of the scope of the article at Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews#Scope of this article. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

confusing overlap of articles

Hello, I wonder if anyone has the patience or expertise to try to sort out this little mare's nest.

There is a newly created article Free Christians - it appears to be translated, and doesn't make a lot of sense. It begins: "Free Christians denotes believing Christians that are not members of an established Christian denomination. The churches are all independent, self governing, local congregations and there are no central headquarters or formal affiliation with any denomination." But we have a long-standing article about a British and Irish denomination with FC in the name, the umbrella body known as the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches. I believe there is also a connection to the Non-subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland - I think "non-subscribing" (not signing up to a set of beliefs) has the same meaning here as "free" (not tied). Then there is the article entitled Liberal Christians, which talks mostly about Free Christians, and doesn't make any reference to Liberal Christianity. A few days ago I added cross-references (see also) to these articles, so that a reader would at least be aware that the whole story was a bit more complicated. Can anyone take on the challenge of rewriting, merging, redirecting, renaming, clarifying? I'm not sure if this is the best place to post this request; feel free to move it if that would bring it to better attention. Many thanks. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

CSI Immanuel Church, Ernakulam

Dear Christianity experts:

The above article has a lot of problems. It's more like an advertisement for the church and a promotional piece for the people listed in it. I would like to edit it and remove the times of service, and the names of the lay workers. Is this okay? I'm not sure if a list of past Reverends is appropriate. What do you think? It has also been sitting unreferenced for a year; it would be a shame to see it nominated for deletion, because it contains interesting historical data that probably could be supported. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, without any real evidence of notability, and there doesn't seem to be any, I think it might make more sense to just nominate it for deletion. If it can ever be found to meet notability criteria, the material could be restored, but, as is, I don't see any real evidence that it meets basic notability requirements. John Carter (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

@ User:Anne Delong: I generally would agree with User:John Carter on this topic, but I am usually a little more forgiving (initially) with topics that aren't familiar to the English-speaking world. This is a church in Kerala which if I recall (with my limited knowledge of the region) that there is a community of Christians long persecuted by their Hindu neighbors that might be connected to the accounts/legends of St. Thomas preaching in India in the first century. So, before you rush to pull the trigger on this, have you considered reaching out to any of the editors from India, or perhaps shoot an email to the church leaders, for their attention to the article who might be able to establish notability with reliable sources in one of their native languages? There might be a notability that is not immediately apparent to us because we're looking from an English-only or similarly limited perspective. Food for thought. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

My two pence: I'd not heard of this church (or denomination?) but from looking at the photo, if it were in Britain, it would meet notability standards on its architecture alone. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• @User:BrainyBabe...Excellent observation, I agree, it would be unique in the UK and is definitely not typical of Anglican congregations...in the US, my first thought was that it resembles be a Mormon temple.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

My point is not that it looks un-Anglican, or that it would be out of place in England, but that it is architecturally impressive anywhere. That may or may not be enough for WP notability. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It would be if there was significant coverage in unconnected reliable sources...discussing that architecture.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Missing topics page

I have updated Missing topics about Christianity - Skysmith (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Are others free to edit this? It has Albert Ritschl, when clearly Albrecht Ritschl is meant. StAnselm (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

And Friedrich Schleiermacher under some other name. StAnselm (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course - that's the idea. Most are easy redirects like that - just create the redirect & turn the link blue. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think the Ritschl one should be a redirect, but the Schleiermacher one was a typo: "Scheliermachen". StAnselm (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I usually just redirect those too, in case they are commonly made. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I rather like the idea of that page, and would very much welcome maybe having it moved to something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Missing encyclopedic articles, possibly consulting the page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Encyclopedic articles (which I hope to be upgrading soon with additional information) and adding any topics which are included in those reference sources which don't yet exist here as well. John Carter (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It's one of a large set and shouldn't be moved. Just link to it. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Catholicism

I noticed that Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles contains by far the largest number of articles. Just wondering if this part of the project is active? Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Not very, and I think less so than a few years ago. Bear in mind that vast numbers of these are articles on churches/schools/tiny orders/societies/minor devotions etc, and also that assessing articles is little use if no one follows up to improve, and these days the expectation that this will happen has to be low. I tend to think that bulk article assessing is no longer a very productive activity in nearly all areas of the pedia. The CC is the biggest church, and one might expect it to have the largest number. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, 1 out of every 7 people in this world is Catholic. For a church of a billion people in every country on the globe for 2000 years, it's bound to have a significant number of articles...and likely a huge number of stub-class or start-class to boot.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

LiturgicalBookCase.jpg

File:LiturgicalBookCase.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like the uploader lifted it from website (http://www.manastir-lepavina.org/vijest_en.php?id=4019) of the Lepavina Monastery in Serbia.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Rupintojas.jpg

File:Rupintojas.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Requesting editor assistance on the Alpha course article

Hi there, I'm just posting here to hopefully get some help updating an article. I'm not familiar with posting on Wikipedia noticeboards so my apologies if I'm doing this incorrectly. I have posted a section to the Talk page for the Alpha course article called 'Alpha logo updated as of September 2013'. In that section on that Talk page I state that I am a current employee of Alpha and wish to avoid any conflict of interest by editing the article myself. I have outlined the update to the article I believe should be made under fair use rationale. Would an editor from this noticeboard be able to review my proposed update, and if you agree with the proposed change, update the article for me? Thanks. DaveAtAlpha (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

punctuation

Please: Look at this edit. We ostensibly settled all this in 2005. Why has this simple point not yet reached this particular WikiProject? 174.53.163.11 (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

What simple point? That there are MOS errors in articles? Certainly most of these could be fixed by WP:AWB or something. Thanks for fixing the one article, anyway. Elizium23 (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The simple point is that ranges of pages or years or verses require an en-dash, not a hyphen, and parenthetical offsets require an en-dash, not a hyphen, and so do certain other things. And at this rate, 85 years from now, everyone on Wikipedia EXCEPT this one particular WikiProject will have conformed fully to this standard, and no one here will suspect. 174.53.163.11 (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

....and this edit and the one after it. 174.53.163.11 (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't blame the WikiProject. Get off your high fucking horse. Jesus H. Christ, it's a problem endemic throughout Wikipedia, not just here. Settled or not, the problem is that most standard keyboards don't have keys for en-dashes and em-dashes. They have one key for either a hyphen and an underscore. Older fucks like me who know what typewriter is and grew up using them, were taught to use -- (two hyphens) for an em-dash in the old days. Appropriately, Microsoft word processing products (and most of their competitors) translates that -- into an emdash automatically. Wikipedia doesn't...it requires you to stop your writing briefly, click on a special character (above), or on the shortcut bar below...some editors simply don't take the time to do it. I admit, I'm frequently one of them. I'd rather focus on the sentence I'm writing and return to it later...and the older fuck that I am tends to forget it later. BTW... parenthetical offsets are generally em-dashes. While Wikipedia allows the use of a spaced en-dash for this purpose, using spaced en-dashes for this has fallen out of vogue with most style guides.--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

For anyone who wishes to help, there is also a user script that you can add to your toolbox: GregU's dashes script. People will continue to edit using hyphens, so it is a continuing problem as well as being a backlog issue. This hardly affects only this particular project, and this is something that would better be posted over on WP:VILLAGEPUMP's technical board. IMO, such cleanup should be automated rather than relying on editors to constantly patrol new edits looking at whether dashes or hyphens were misused (not with my old eyes). In reality, the misuse of hyphens is an issue that currently gets attention chiefly in GA-level and FA-level articles. If a proposal to automate hyphenation and other common cleanup is again raised at the Village Pump, please post an alert here and some of us will be pleased to support such a move. • Astynax ^talk 16:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

"essential articles"? and wikimedia commons and wikiSource

Because acting in this way, without any sort of consultation from anyone else, is kind of a habit of mine ;), I have started a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Essential articles, which I hope to eventually more fully complete with a listing of all those topics which receive at least two pages of coverage in one of the more significant reference books related to Christianity, or in reference books on religion which specifically indicate the topic to be important to Christianity. The list also includes named sections of articles which are themselves over two pages in length. Yeah, it is still incomplete, unfortunately, and I have some more work to do, but we could at least maybe possibly start some sort of contest or challenge to develop articles on those topics, creating those that don't yet exist and maybe developing those that are at a poor level.

Also, I have recently been adding some of the public domain reference books which have in recent years still received high regard from the academic community to wikimedia commons, primarily in [Category:Religious encyclopedias] and the broader [Category:Religious books]. Some of those should be at least a little helpful in developing some of our content.

Lastly, I was wondering what any of you might think of perhaps taking some of the PD books, generally of a historical or at least non-encyclopedic nature, and maybe turning them into texts at wikisource, where they might be more easily available for use in the English and other wikipedias. Some of the works on church history might be most useful in this regards. If I were to choose any, I might myself start with Adrian Fortescue's "The Lesser Eastern Churches," which is still highly regarded and a good source for a lot of the often not particularly well developed content on those churches here. Any opinions? John Carter (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)