Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Hardon and Catholic Culture

@Horse Eye's Back and Red-tailed hawk: This is related to #Reliability of Catholic Culture.

• This entry is very different from its version in the original source.
• This other entry is is very different from its version in the original source at the end.

The end of the entry on the printed material reads: "Below this level are many grades of certainty, ranging from common teaching (sententia communis), when Catholic theologians responsive to the Church's authority agree on some position, to tolerated opinions that are weakly founded but are tolerated by the Church". On CC, it reads: "Below this level are many graces of certainty, ranging from common teaching (sententia communis), when Catholic theologians responsive to the Church's authority agree on some historical event as having occurred through the miraculous intervention of God".

This makes me think about reconsideing CC's reliability, and I now have some slight doubt about the fact CC is reproducing faithfully the entries. Maybe, as @Caeciliusinhorto-public and Caeciliusinhorto: had pointed out at the RSN discussion, the entries are not reproductions but own derivative work from CC. Veverve (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The first entry looks the same to me, but maybe I wasn't eagle-eyed enough to spot any differences. Have there been any revisions in the original source? — Archer1234 (t·c) 12:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Archer1234:

CC:

Doctrinal judgments of the church by which she stigmatizes certain teachings detrimental to faith or morals. The most severe censure is to have a proposition condemned as "heretical." Other censures include, "suspect of heresy, erroneous, scandalous, seditious, harmful to Christian morals, blasphemous."

vs

Original:

A judgment of the Church that characterizes a proposition touching on Catholic faith or morals as contrary to faith or at least doubtful. In the history of the Church's teaching there have been theological censures. A heretical proposition is opposed to a revealed dogma; proximate to heresy is opposed to a truth commonly held to be revealed; erroneous is opposed to conclusions derived from revelation; false is opposed to dogmatic facts; temerarious deviates from the accepted teaching of the Church; badly expressed is subject to misunderstanding; captious is reprehensible because of its intentional ambiguity; and scandalous because it gives rise to error among the faithful.

Veverve (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

That appears to be the definition of THEOLOGICAL CENSURE versus CENSURE, THEOLOGICAL. — Archer1234 (t·c) 13:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

You are right. I now see that the proper entry on CC is here. This entry on CC is the exact same as in the original.

But what about the discrepancy in the first entry? Veverve (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I see the difference for THEOLOGICAL NOTES, which is why I asked if there has been an update to the original source. Eternal Life published a paperback version in 2000 (Amazon link). Is it possible that the 2000 edition is revised or is it just an exact paperback copy of the edition on Internet Archive, which was published in 1980? — Archer1234 (t·c) 14:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Theological Notes on CC appears to have a transcription error, where the last few sentences of "Theological Notes" got cut off, and the first first lines of "Theological Truth" got cut off, and the two entries merged. See Page 537 of the 1980's dictionary here. I don't think this is indicative of CC being derivative; for instance, "Theological Truth", the rather short next entry from the 1980's copy, is missing from the CC index, showing that these lines from each entry being inadvertently deleted when coping into the web format to be the most likely cause of the omission. –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Merge in need to be done, but I do not know where exactly

Due to this AfD, an article is to be merged into Eastern Orthodox Church. However, I do not know where the content of the AfDed article should be put (in which section).

Could anyone give their opinion? Veverve (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Surprised there's not much of a spirituality or monastic section; I'd throw this stuff under "Christian life". ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Sanctus Real

Sanctus Real has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 02:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Template:Infallible declarations nominated for deletion

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 March 11#Template:Infallible declarations. Feel free to come and give your opinion. Veverve (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the lead of the article Psalms

Your comments and input on proposed changes to the lead section of the Psalms article would be appreciated at Talk:Psalms#Proposed_changes_to_the_Lead.

--Chefallen (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Methodism sources

Hi! Anyone know of any good sources for the Methodism article? — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ixtal: A great first place to look would be the Very Short Introductions volume on Methodism. I also know of useful resources on Methodist worship, such as Westerfield Tucker's wide body of work. Let me know if you have a particular portion of Methodism you want to zero-in on. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Pbritti, I thought the main article could improve its explanation of methodist theology so I'm mostly looking for sources on that, but I'll certainly take a look at the sources you've mentioned ^u^ — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 18:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ixtal: Oh, exciting! Let me know if you want help; I have a very nebulous start to a semi-related topic awaiting a time when I have more than a couple days free. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Pbritti, do you happen to know how I can find the VSI volume on methodism digitally? My university does not have access to it (unusually, as it does have access to other volumes) and I'm struggling to find a way to access it through the Wikipedia Library. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 12:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ixtal: Ah, darn, I don't. I own a physical copy from when I was in college. Is there any way you could do an interlibrary loan? If not, ping me on my talk page and I'll sort a solution. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Isaac of Nineveh#Requested move 27 March 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Isaac of Nineveh#Requested move 27 March 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 09:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Urgent: comments requested on mergers involving Hallow, Sacredness, Sanctification and Consecration

Discussion: Talk:Sacredness#Merge Hallow and Talk:Sanctification#Merge Sanctification and Consecration

Comments are urgently requested at the aforementioned pages. There are merge discussions underway at the discussion links above which require informed comments from those familiar with the topics of these discussions. Your help at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. Felix QW (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Scientific agnostic biblical group?

An IP's wall of text calling on WikiProject Christianity to establish a WikiProject tangential to their objectives. They can go to the Teahouse if they have more questions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

If we can’t present an encyclopedia with 100% fact-based histories, can we at least establish a group for agnostic science? I think an equal time approach would help. Can we at least provide some equal time posts for topics presented as history that allows non-Christianity group members to get through the wall and write history parts to present facts wrt what little is know of the historicity of biblical persons without clouding that fact-based copy with citations from dedicated believers and outright dismissal of fact-based skeptics. This is not just a take down request. Instead, i was searching Wikipedia for a historical review of the Bible that takes a step back and explores what we know about the history of the authors and what we know about the historical accuracy of the narratives. The historicity of Jesus topic fails to explore the historical reliability of narratives. I was hoping for a section by section evaluation of who the authors were and where they got their narrative (second hand storytelling, first hand letters written in the third person?, etc), and the record fails to do the type of parsing of unknowns and knows i was hoping to find. Can someone point to the topic for debunking mystical storytelling in favor of hard science of archeology or neutral eyewitness historical viewpoints? If such a group doesn’t exist what would it take to create such a group? I believe the religious history accounts in Wikipedia are not very neutral at all and suffer from biases such as confirmation bias, argumentum ad populum, absolute bias, etc. It is difficult for science informed agnostics to sort out known facts from shamanistic oral narratives. The reliable neutral history of Christ falls back to one ambiguous Josephus line. So, the low biased history of biblical sourcing becomes important to evaluating biblical narratives. The topic for the historicity of Jesus does not seriously evaluate where the Bible came from or carefully evaluate the reliability of gospel narratives in terms factual eyewitness accounts or explore sourcing of suspected non-eyewitness narratives. This kind of evaluation would be useful to all readers, but instead Wikipedia presents a historicity wall of argumentum ad populum citations citing divinity scholars that seem to take the gospels as gospel as a default position when evaluating historical reliability of these narratives. If even a small team of a few made Wikipedia writers could take a step back and explore exactly what is known about Mathew and Paul, this expert fact-based review could aid everyone interested in history. Generally, I’ve been supportive of Wikipedia over the years as a good factual starting point, but when i see such things presented as history without picking through the historicity of the Bible, i tend to discard this section. While in the past some encyclopedias did present biblical narratives as history, the Wikipedia presentation of bible as history seems antiquated and makes me question if my accepting Wikipedia histories as a neutral viewpoint on other subjects should be reconsidered if zealots can control a narrative without rebuttals or at least exploring biblical source material origins in earnest. This topic is the #1 google link on historicity, so it should do better as a history topic to delve into the historical accuracy of source material rather than cite outright dismissal opinions based on the consensus within divinity schools that produce biblical scholars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C46:6900:4510:44BB:EF7D:C0E2:5B4C (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Logical order of God's decrees

Hello, WikiProject Christianity,

I was looking at some hoax draft articles that were written in the fall and looked over the other edits of this new editor and found they were part of a group of new editors that apparently tried to vandalize this article or, at least, introduce some sources from a blog. I'm not well-read on theology but when I looked over this article, it seems like there is some original research or at least editor interpretation here. I'd welcome a knowledgeable editor to look it over and remove any content that isn't well-supported by the sources or just seems flakey or obtuse to you. Thanks for any assistance you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Subject is real, but subsidiary other theological concepts. I have doubts that it can stand on its own and will propose a merge if necessary. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Adding a parameter for "deacons" to Infobox diocese

There is a discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_diocese#Deacons regarding whether to add a |deacons= parameter to {{infobox diocese}}. Interested editors are invited and encouraged to share their views in that discussion.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 17:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Father vs Priest

I saw some edits where Father NAME was changed to Priest NAME. What is the consensus on naming priests? Should I say Father John Slattery or priest John Slattery? What is the convention? Ncwfl (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe it is neither "Father John Smith" or "Priest John Smith" but simply "John Smith, a priest." Ltwin (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Typically, I would expect "priest" to be used in contexts where an "occupation" is intended and not for use as a title. Can you provide an example where "Priest NAME" is being used?  — Archer1234 (t·c) 22:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I found it here [1]. Re reading the edit I realize that it makes more sense with Priest. The comment made me think i

was

a titular replacement of faIt actually makes more sense and is in line with what you both have said. Ncwfl (talk) 06:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC) off.

In US English, when citing the name of a priest, one normally uses "Rev." (Reverend) or "Fr." (Father). "Priest" would be quite odd. Here is the relevant section of the AP Style Guide.[2] Dcheney (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

History of early Christianity

Me and @SanctumRosarium have recently been working on the article History of early Christianity. It was previously titled Early centers of Christianity, but the title was changed in October 2022 at the request of @Privybst with no discussion. I was in the process of revising the article structure from a geographical listing of important Christian locations to a century by century organization. However, I discovered that there was already an article named "Early Christianity" (see Talk:Early Christianity) that was merged into other articles and turned into a redirect in February 2020.

I feel that more community input may be needed to determine what this article should be about. Should it remain essentially an article on "early centers of Christianity" or should it be changed to an overview or survey article of the first 3 centuries of Christianity? Please leave input on the talk page. Ltwin (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

This old version of the article was very good, then the structure was completely changed and finally when it was no more than a ruin it disappeared. Maybe we can start from this version. SanctumRosarium (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Gene Robinson

Gene Robinson has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Families in Mission article is too focused on the Neocatechumenal Way

The article Families in mission is primarily centered on the Neocatechumenal Way. Are there examples of other lay mission families that can be used to improve this article? I see Lay Mission-Helpers Association and Maryknoll Lay Missioners. I would like to collect some additional information so that it describes mission families in all the different contexts that exist. Ncwfl (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for David L. Cook

David L. Cook has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 18:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Confusing Pontificate Years

How is it possible that the Vatican lists 1891 as the 14th year of Leo XIII's pontificate but also lists 1901 as the 13th year of Leo XIII's pontificate. Somewhere the math is way off!!!! 2601:48:8100:12C0:A405:D9D8:1EEA:85EF (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Is this a Wikipedia article? If so, which one? ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

1901 would have been his 22nd or 23rd year as Pope (depending on when in the year). Dcheney (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to split the list at Christian liturgy into its own list article

– Scyrme (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Moloch

This discussion on whether/how to include an IP's addition to the article Moloch might be of interest to members of this project.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

FAR for William Wilberforce

User:Buidhe has nominated William Wilberforce for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Bible, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Sayings of Jesus on the cross

I think it's more than a little embarrassing that this vandalism to the opening sentence of the article lasted for three months. I've put it on my watchlist but I don't know much about this subject; I'd appreciate it if other people could keep an eye on it. Graham87 13:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I just requested a revdel of that edit summary. Incredible no one noticed.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's the administrators' noticeboard thread about the revdel request. Graham87 06:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Now archived. Graham87 10:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Zechariah/Zacharias

There is an RM at Zechariah (New Testament figure) of relevance here. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Grand Duchy of Moscow#Requested move 19 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Grand Duchy of Moscow#Requested move 19 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Heidegger's influence on Christian theology

Hello all!

I am working on the Martin Heidegger article with tentative intentions to bring it to GA status. One shortcoming of the article in its current state is the absence of discussion of his influence on Christian theology. He was an important influence on Paul Tillich, I know, and I am sure on others besides. (Heidegger was raised Catholic, and this upbringing, along with his study of scholastic philosophy/theology, had a life-long influence on his thought.)

I'd be most grateful if anyone from this WikiProject could swing by to create even just a stub section under Martin_Heidegger#Reception with appropriate sourcing. Suggestions on the talk page would also most welcome. I've got an anthologized article by John D. Caputo that I hope will provide some helpful content, but, on the whole, this part of Heidegger's influence is out of my wheelhouse.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Limpa#Requested move 13 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Limpa#Requested move 13 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Lightoil (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Roderick L. Evans

Would someone from this WikiProject please take a look at Roderick L. Evans and assess it per WP:BIO? It seems to have been pretty much unsourced since its creation and the few general sources cited don't really establish Evan's Wikipedia notability. it also looks like the article has been heavily edited over the years (most recently a few days ago) by an WP:SPA who might be somehow connected to Evans. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Renewal theologian#Requested move 25 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Renewal theologian#Requested move 25 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 19:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Nondenominational Christianity

I've raised what I believe are some significant issues about our article Nondenominational Christianity; my remarks are on the talk page. I made these remarks over three weeks ago, but no one has followed up.

I'd really rather the article be edited by someone more expert than myself, so I am leaving this note here and will lay off for a week. After that, if nothing happens, I'm likely to just begin by hacking out unsourced, poorly sourced, or unclearly worded content from the article. I think a much better solution would be for someone knowledgeable to engage the issues I've raised. - Jmabel | Talk 21:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire Featured article review

I have nominated Byzantine Empire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Erin Swenson

Hello all - I have created a new article on Erin Swenson, a trans woman Presbyterian Minister from the United States. If anyone has any more information or improvements to the article, please let me know. Thank you. GnocchiFan (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@GnocchiFan: Looks like a complete article with a variety of independent, reliable sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment, I appreciate it. I know some issues were raised over the LGBTQ Religious Archives source, but I don't think it's supporting anything particularly controversial (biographical info and the like) and seems to be used by others as a reference, so I think it's appropriate to use in this case. GnocchiFan (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Godhead

We have had a draft on the concept of the Godhead stewing for about seven years now. It's time to finish it. BD2412 T 13:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Godhead? –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Southern Adventist University

Southern Adventist University has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Bethlehem removal of Biblical and Christian Information

Page: Bethlehem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion: [[3]] [[4]] Since Bethlehem is a city important to Christianity I'm bringing to your attention important discussions that warrant the attention of well informed editors.

in attention is the removal of information relating to Biblical history and Christianity from the lead of Bethlehem as well as other removals over this timeframe[[5]]:

 as well as the city where he was anointed as the third monarch of the United Kingdom of Israel, and also states that it was built up as a fortified city by Rehoboam, the first monarch of the Kingdom of Judah. 

Regarding biblical history, king David, Also the following:

 Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke identify the city

The above is in reference to which gospels say Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem.

Furthermore, the removal of King David originating from Bethlehem in the body:

 David is considered to have originated from Bethlehem.

Furthermore another few edits [[6]] Removed the following from the lead:

 At the northern entrance of the city is Rachel's Tomb, the burial place of biblical matriarch Rachel. Movement around the city is limited due to the Israeli West Bank barrier.

More info from was removed regarding Roman era history, discrimination and more. Bringing this to your attention in order for more well informed editors to be involved in constructive approach and solution. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

best practices for characters/books in holy writ?

Hello Wikiproject Christianity, I'm starting a project with some students here at the Brigham Young University library to improve pages related to the Book of Mormon, in anticipation of next year's Sunday school curriculum in our church that will focus on it. I've been trying to develop best practices for sourcing and writing pages about characters in the Book of Mormon and books of the Book of Mormon. At first I thought that I should completely avoid apologetic sources, or sources that argue for the historicity of the Book of Mormon, in order to maintain NPOV. However, I'm interested in what editors outside of Mormon studies think of those rules of thumb (maybe an apologetic source, if clearly cited in-text, would be appropriate sometimes?).

I'm also not sure of the best way to present a character in holy writ in a way that makes it clear that this person is a character in a book (but considered a historical figure by most adherents). I recently edited the page for Aminadab, a very minor character in the Book of Mormon. Does anyone with experience writing pages for characters/people in the Bible have advice on that?

Lastly, I am looking for good examples of Biblical, encyclopedic writing for my students to emulate. I noticed that the quality of pages about books in the Bible can be a bit uneven. Are there pages you often refer back to as a good example to emulate? Much thanks, Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, using sources that expressly support the view that the Book of Mormon is a historically accurate account is acceptable—Wikipedia relies on similar sources for its coverage of Catholicism, Hinduism, and many other major world religions. However, in-text attribution may be necessary for certain claims and to distinguish between different interpretations (both academic-secular and academic-believer) of the same passages from the Book of Mormon.

As for characters from scriptures/traditions, Wikipedia generally presents the religiously accepted account of their life and person as discussed in reliable sourcing while also providing the academic appraisal of said persons. I've been involved in trying to improve Massacre of the Innocents, a biblical event of disputed veracity; there, I've tried to ensure that the traditional majority scholarly opinion of "it probably didn't happen" is mitigated by modern reexamination without giving undue weight to any revisionist or pious views that may lack general scholarly acceptance. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Note that we have been moving away from such pseudoscientific/fringe sources for years now across all of the religious topic areas you just named. There is a difference between noting that an ahistorical view is ahistorical and treating that religious fiction as a historical fact. If reliable independent sources can't be found to describe a religious view or belief then in all likelihood that religious view or belief isn't notable and/or isn't due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I echo Pbritti's view that using sources that expressly support the view that the Book of Mormon is a historically accurate account is acceptable since Wikipedia does similarly for coverage of other faith traditions. I have cited sources like that for Book of Mormon studies pages that I've contributed. Though I don't state the non-consensus claims of historicity in Wikipedia's voice, there's other secondary source material in such sources that does function without issue within the broad consensus that the Book of Mormon is a book containing narrative content including events, situations, and named figures. Such unproblematic secondary source content includes, for example, descriptions of the narrative content of the book itself, assessments of literary function and meaning, and documentation of cultural reception, etc. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, and the example of Massacre of the Innocents! I will pass it on to my students and we will try to clarify in-text who is doing the commentary in our commentary sections and whenever else it seems important.Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended content

Hello again, Pbritti (and/or P-Makoto), would you be willing to look at the work of one of my students in Amalickiah? He really wanted to include apologetic sources, which I told him he could do if he introduced them as such. Is this kind of summary of apologetic arguments appropriate for Wikipedia? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) @Rachel Helps (BYU): I hope I didn't step on yours or BenBeckstromBYU's toes by making a couple tweaks to the article. Generally, I think this is a very good approach taken with a good deal of caution towards the apologetic character of these sources. I very much am not an expert on the Book of Mormon nor the theology surround its interpretation, but I would consider this a thorough account of LDS views on this subject. Obviously, if possible, additional non-LDS academic views should be added, but I don't know if any actually exist for this particular subject. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC) Thank you for the feedback! That was the major issue that I was running into. Also, your tweaks were very helpful, particularly your work on the intro. I'll keep this in mind going forward. BenBeckstromBYU (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC) @Pbritti I forgot to tag you in the above. Pleasure collaborating!BenBeckstromBYU (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC) @BenBeckstromBYU: oh don't worry—I see every edit to this page anyway. Next week, I should have time to go more thoroughly through things and maybe make a couple more specific suggestions. For now, though, I'd consider your work a credit to the project! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC) Hi, @BenBeckstromBYU. Sorry about the relative tardiness of my comments. Your expansion of the Amalickiah page is overall great to see. I have a few thoughts, which I'll preface by acknowledging that I tend to have a very reserved take on secondary sources which is more exacting than that of some editors. - If memory serves that "artist's interpretation of Amalackiah" was already on the page, so that's not on you, but I am uncomfortable with that and similar examples from the same artist. These 3D models seem to have been created by a Wikipedian, rather than have been found "naturally" created by adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement. Although the illustrative goal is understandable, I worry it veers too far into interpretation. The interpretation is an interpretation, involving supposition about what aesthetics appropriately illustrate the themes Amalickiah's narrative invokes or what clothes his hypothetical context appropriately includes, and that seems to me to drift beyond the mission of Wikipedia to summarize content already existing. - You use chapter headings as sources in the summary portion. While I see how those headings are in a sense a commentary on the text of the Book of Mormon itself, that content believed to be "sacred text" by the Latter Day Saint movement, since the content is produced and published directly by a denomination (without the additional distance that universities and publishing houses create), it still strikes me as being like a primary source. As the template message often used in these cases describe, the chapter headings are also "texts from within a religion or faith system" rather than secondary sources that critically analyze them. I would consider the ideal scenario to be citing this content using secondary sources that describe the narrative, such as in commentaries or summaries like The Book of Mormon for the Least of These, Second Witness, or A Pentecostal Reads the Book of Mormon. I acknowledge that maybe I'm asking for something that's not there, though, since I don't have any of those particular books on hand. It's also the case that pages describing works of literature or content therefrom sometimes consider it tolerable to depend on the primary source itself for pure summary, so this isn't a do-or-die problem; I just think it would elevate the page and make it more defensible and less prone to clipping by overzealous editors in the future. - You write that "There appears to be a consensus among Latter-day Saint apologists that the timing of Amalickiah's assassination was religiously significant". Is there a source which says there is such a consensus, or is that an observation you yourself make? The latter veers toward original research, as it's your interpretation of the existing literature, rather than a straightforward citation of it. Additionally, this paragraph does a lot of describing how Merrill and Sorensen think the timing was religiously significant, but it's not clear to a reader why that is. I think the paragraph would read better if instead of trying to make an interpretation of the literature, you cite what it says. If it doesn't violate existing academic consensus, then I think it can be validly stated on the page. It seems like what's being hinted at is that Sorensen and Merrill observe that warfare usually happens within a certain range of months on the implied Nephite calendar year, and that Amalickiah's assassination takes place during a certain time in that. If you cite it as an observation about the Book of Mormon's content, that sounds literarily valid and interesting and worth having on the page. - "Leadership studies" continues this, where you describe that authors have said things about Amalickiah but it's not always clear what it is that they're saying. - Likewise in the literary role. You use verbage where you describe that Joseph Spencer "found that the structure of the Book of Alma sets Amalickiah up as a narrative mirror to Ammon", but it would be more straightforward to state, for example, "According to Joseph Spencer, the structure of the Book of Alma sets Amalickiah up as a narrative mirror to Ammon". Does that difference make sense? Instead of saying that people write things, cite what they wrote and acknowledge it's according to this or that author. - The observation that the "-iah" suffix appears throughout the Book of Mormon and Bible seems wholly valid. I am rather sketchy on the citation to Hugh Nibley saying that "Amaleki" means "my king." In what language? I hope these do not seem excessively needling. You've done a lot of the hard work already in finding sources that thoughtfully and seriously examine this Book of Mormon figure. Consider my comments not condemnations, but rather suggestions for refinement and improvement. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Christian head covering#Requested move 5 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Christian head covering#Requested move 5 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Anglican Diocese of Manchester#Requested move 5 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Anglican Diocese of Manchester#Requested move 5 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sagrestia Nuova (New Sacristy)#Requested move 6 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sagrestia Nuova (New Sacristy)#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Syro-Malabar Catholic Church#Requested move 10 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Syro-Malabar Catholic Church#Requested move 10 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Carl XVI Gustaf#Requested move 13 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Carl XVI Gustaf#Requested move 13 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Additional parameters for Infobox church

I have requested that two additional parameters be created for Template:Infobox church: sui_iuris_church and former_sui_iuris_church. Modeled on sui_iuris_church parameter of Template:Infobox diocese, the sui_iuris_church parameter would be located below the denomination parameter, the former_sui_iuris_church parameter below the former_denomination parameter. This would be broadly useful for current or former Eastern Catholic church buildings, as well as church buildings in countries where the Latin Church can not be assumed as the operator of a Catholic building. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Towson United Methodist Church

Towson United Methodist Church has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Schierbecker (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to add an "eparchy" parameter to Infobox Christian leader

There is currently a discussion at the talk page for the template {{Infobox Christian leader}} regarding a proposal to add an |eparchy= parameter to the template. You are invited to review and join the discussion. Thank you.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 17:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Anglican eucharistic theology#Requested move 1 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Anglican eucharistic theology#Requested move 1 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Structure of Angels in Christianity

Angels in Christianity is a bit of a mess. It used to be more explicitly about the Pseudo-Dionysian hierarchy of angels, but despite expanding in scope (and the existence of De Coelesti Hierarchia) it still wildly overstates the importance of this hierarchy. In the past I tried to restructure it, but received strong pushback and gave up. I started a conversation on the talk page about how to restructure it a bit more proportionally. Comment welcome.

Side note, this page could use a bit more TLC in general. --Garnet Moss (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Catholic Church

Catholic Church has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)