Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard/Archive 6

Economic history of Christianity

I'm working on a draft of an article on the economic history of Christianity (here). I would appreciate feedback on the article. I'm trying to figure out how to organize it (i.e. chronologically or by topic). Also, another user (User:Savidan) has suggested that Economic issues in Christian theology might be a more appropriate topic. He wrote " It does seem that by organizing it by topic, you are really talking about theology as it affects economic issues. " I'd like to hear more opinions before changing the title. Thanx. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Marriage at Cana

We are having non-WP:RS issues with User talk:Amanita caesarea on multiple pages, and I have warned, but suggestions on convincing the user will be appreciated given that it runs on multiple pages. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Christian views on poverty, wealth and business

Based on comments that I received regarding my draft article about Economic history of Christians, I have decided to restrict the scope and change the title to Christian views on money, wealth and business. In a nutshell, the new article scope is mostly around the problem of poverty vs. wealth as seen from the Christian perspective. Jesus tells us that we should not seek riches and that we should give up all that we have and follow him. However, Christians have struggled with this dictum for two millenia. Prosperity theology even tells us that God wants us to prosper rather than to be poor. I have taken a first whack at putting together an article on this topic. Now, I would like to get some input from other editors as to how ready this is for article mainspace and some suggestions for improvement.

I will comment that there is a section on Usury in my draft article. My thought was that the article could include Christian views on business ethics and practices including usury. I'd like to hear whether other editors think this scope makes sense or if I should pull out the section on usury.

Please make your comments at Christian views on money, wealth and business so that they will be kept with the page if and when it is moved into article mainspace. Thanx.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not fair Richard, you had us all waiting to see what there would be about the juicy details of Vatican bankers hanging from bridges, and now you have switched it poverty? At least you must include some section on "official views on poverty vs overflowing coffers". That would be only fair. History2007 (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You are jesting, right? Student7 (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Moi? Jest? The thought never crossed my mind... wink. But I do think the "official line" needs to be balanced with other sources. The numbers you referred to are official numbers, and those who question them may be excommunicated. But I do wonder what goes on at that bank, and within all the Televangelist organizations, etc. (e.g. see Peter Popoff who seems to think the best vehicle on the Freeway to Heaven is a Porsche). And I have never found a clear answer to that. I was hoping Richard would look into it, as he was doing the article. The point I was trying to make, sans jest, is that there are thousands and thousands of nuns and brothers who do follow the "poverty line" as Francis taught it with total belief in their hearts, but I am not sure how that ideal works up the chain. That should probably be discussed in that article. History2007 (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Point taken.

There are (as you say) religious pledged to poverty who genuinely "turn over", at least in principle, small gifts to their superior, for "redistribution" to others/the poor.

The church is a real world organization. To which are those wanting to serve drawn? To the order which require a vow of poverty, or to diocesan (Catholics only here) activities which allow "whatever" lifestyle?

It did strike me, that materialists don't have to put up with the equivalent of someone begging on tv, "to carry out the important work of extending pi to n digits, please send in your money to.." On the other hand, mathematicians don't have to do this either, since they are all sponsored by a university, government or corporation. They don't need to "plead" with the public to support their "important" mission. All they have to do is convince one person somewhere and with that person's support, get a grant. No taxpayer funded grants for religious! Student7 (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that mathematical physics is not a religion.... But it is, it is. Many in that crowd worship Einstein as a substitutionary archetype - he does have the look of God the Father after all, white hair and all. But that is another story. History2007 (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm.... concerning History2007's interest in the Vatican bankers, I think that is an encyclopedic topic but I think it really deserves treatment in a separate article as any attempt at a detailed exposition would swamp the rest of my new article. I think it is reasonable to point out in my article that, for nearly a millenium, the Catholic Church controlled an incredibly vast amount of land and wealth and thus wielded significant temporal power in addition to spiritual power. This temporal power was severely curtailed in the era starting with the Reformation and ending with the loss of the Papal States. This point is not adequately covered in my article and I would appreciate help in figuring out how to present it in an NPOV way. However, IMO, this topic is only worth a section in my article. Any further details belong in a separate article. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, ok, I see your point, I guess if we stop asking too many questions, none of us will hang from a bridge. So I will stop. History2007 (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I have placed the article in article mainspace at the title Christian views on poverty and wealth. I dropped "business" from the title because the focus of the current article is on "views of poverty and wealth" rather than on business issues such as usury. There is some treatment of social justice and liberation theology so I wonder if we shouldn't work the word "economics" into the title. I'd appreciate hearing the opinions of other editors on the title and scope of the article. Please respond at the [[Talk:Christian views on poverty and wealth]|article's Talk Page]]. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I looked at it and looks good. But I guess you continue to use the poorly designed Google Chrome browser as a vow of poverty... It keeps adding blank lines all over the place. History2007 (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Assembleias de Deus Africanas

I'm assuming that the name of the English translation of this denomination is "Assemblies of God Africa" or something similar. Is this affiliated with the World Assemblies of God Fellowship? If so, is this denomination the same as the Mozambique Assemblies of God? Please comment on Talk:Assembleias de Deus Africanas. Ltwin (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Assessment

It's somewhat strange that Heralds of the Gospel is claimed to be GA-class, but doesn't seem to have gone through the Good Article process... AnonMoos (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Not any more. I fixed and responded on the Catholicism page where you posted. History2007 (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Disputed article Mitsuo Fuchida

A dispute about Mitsuo Fuchida was entered on the talk page some months ago, but I have only just tagged the article. This man was the Japanese pilot who launched the attack on Pearl Harbor and later became a Christian evangelist. Sources related to Jacob DeShazer may help. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion needed

Hi there, We need some serious help in the Syriac Christianity article. I'm being accused of editing according to my political agenda, while an anonymous user insists on adding information that I find incorrect and non-relevant. Any help would be extremely appreciated. Thanks.--Rafy talk 12:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK

Hello, I've been looking down the list of the DYKs under the banner of Wikiproject Christianity and I've just noticed that Follow On (hymn) is not included in the list. It was on DYK on 6th of April 2011. Just letting you know so it could be included in the list. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That list was somewhat ancient, there must have been many more DYKs than that. I added that and 6 more from the last year, but there needs to be a bot that does that. Manual effort only goes that far. History2007 (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

When did Pius XII speak ex cathedra?

Hi,

I've noted what appears to be an inconsistency regarding the date that Pope Pius XII defined the assumption of Mary. I could be wrong; it happens all the time.

The page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility contains the following sentence: "The clearest example (though not the only one)[3] of the use of this power ex cathedra since the solemn declaration of Papal Infallibility by Vatican I on July 18, 1870, took place in 1954 when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as being an article of faith for Roman Catholics."

The page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary contains the following sentence: "This doctrine was dogmatically and infallibly defined by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950, in his Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus."

The page dedicated to Pius XII at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII indicates 1950, and a quick Google search indicates consensus around the date of November 1, 1950. It appears that the first page listed above, claiming 1954, is not correct.

Cheers, Lawfive (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is certainly 1950 and I fixed it. But the question probably belongs on the Proj Catholicism page. History2007 (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Should Ishmaelites be merged with Arabs?

Since the term "Ishmaelites" is a Biblically-based name on Ishmael is it correct to merge it with Arab people? See discussion at Talk:Arab people#Merger proposal from Ishmaelites. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Reassessment of Sehnsucht page.

Hi all. I just wanted to question whether the page on Sehnsucht is accurately classified as pertaining to Christianity or whether it is classified as such merely due to the abundance of C.S. Lewis quotes used on the page. Thanks Lohfal01 (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Not any more. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

First Council of Nicaea

Just a quick note to you all:

Back in 2005, I found an image of a nice old icon depicting the Council. I've just found a much better copy of the image [1]. As this image is used in *numerous* articles related to the Project (notably, it's in Template:Christian_History), I thought I'd alert you in case you find it useful. It's more than 4x the resolution of the old copy! --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Revert needed

A revert is needed here about a fellow who thinks Son of man is a computer. And I thought I had heard them all... History2007 (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Done, and watchlisted. Huon (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That article does need clean up, but this type of super-fringe item was a new low. Anyway, that is Wikipedia... History2007 (talk) 07:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Input requested on Latter Rain (1880s movement)

A proposal has been made at Talk:Latter Rain (1880s movement) to merge this article into Church of God (Cleveland) and rename Latter Rain (post–World War II movement) to simply "Latter Rain". Input from others would be appreciated. • Astynax ^talk 18:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Harold Sutthery

Hello. As part of a project I have going to create articles on all notable cricketers who played for Buckinghamshire County Cricket Club, I happened to come across Harold Sutthery here on CricketArchive. Sutthery made no first-class appearances as a cricketer, but did play Minor counties cricket - which is by WP:CRIN non-notable, therefore an article based soley on his cricket would fail notability. However, his biography on CricketArchive says he held a number of religious positions, which has led me to come here to find out if any of these would incur notability on him. If he is indeed notable, would it be possible for somebody on this project to create the article on him, then I can add a small section about his cricket. If he fails notability fullstop, if someone could let me know via here or my talk page so I can remove him from my list, that would be much appreciated. Thanks. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I think you just defined WP:Coatrack here. History2007 (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Sutthery, but if he were notable for his religious positions, adding something about his cricket career wouldn't necessarily be a WP:Coatrack violation as long as the cricket part of the article didn't overwhelm the religious part. Looking at the CricketArchive list of his positions, I don't expect any of them (or all of them together) to suffice to confer notability, though. Huon (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Huon, I'll remove him from my list of articles to create. User:History2007 - Large body of writing about his religious background, then a single sentence saying "he also played Minor counties cricket for Buckinghamshire". Coatrack? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I really do not care about this fellow and do not know who he is, so I will not say more after this, but to me it seemed that you "want him as a sports-type" and given that the sports angle would not fly, the Bible in his hand was noticed after the fact and the idea came about that the religious angle could be used as the basis for an article abut him. That is what it was. But I do not care anyway. This encyclopedia is floating on a sea of articles about 3 person bands formed in garages who are yet to sell a CD, so one more article will not matter. History2007 (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're writing an series of articles about cricketers, and if his cricket history is non-notable, then there's no reason to write an article about him. If his religious activities (not just his beliefs) have in some way been significant in their own right, then maybe he deserves an article. But we don't write articles on minor-league baseball players who go to church, so his religious activities would have to be more significant than that of most pastors and regional elders to be noteworthy here. Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

NIV Bible

Please visit the NIV Bible page and contribute to the section regarding the gender neutral changes currently being discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toverton28 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The relevant sections can be found at Talk:New International Version#Controversy over 2011 revision. Huon (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Duke University 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) 21:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Have checked the featured article review. I have made some improvements to the page but there are still many possibilities for other improvements laid out in the review. Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Selected article

I have noticed that the selected article consistently states that the page has not been created for the month. How do you create it, and why isn't it being done? In addition, can someone give me a few ideas of things I can help with in WikiProject Christianity? What pressing things need to be done? I have more of an interest in historical things than theological ideas. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not know how that works either - I had noticed it. But the fact is that there are 20 times as many things that need to be done as there are people to do them. So help will be appreciated. E.g. as in Talk:Augustine_of_Hippo#Too_long everyone knows that article needs help, no one (including myself) has the time to do it. There are many other things, e.g. Matthew 5 and Matthew 10 exist but Matthew 8 and Matthew 18 needs to be created by themselves. Matthew 10 needs WP:Secondary references. And Matthew 5 does not need the full text there, just needs a link to Wikisource. In general various people have done a great job of building those Matthew items but a few remain to be created and many need help. It would be nice to have those. History2007 (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The page Matthew 5 already includes a link to Wikisource; however, before I remove the full text I would like to point out that Matthew 1 also contains the full text. Which is the common practice? In addition, does each chapter of a book warrant a page? Should Genesis 1, 2, 3, etc. all have pages? Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not know of an exact policy for starting pages. But there is certainly no need to replicate Wikisource within Wikipedia articles. At the moment it has been somewhat haphazard, given that Luke does not have it. I think in time, they will all get a page. John 1:1 is a great example. It is such an important page that the material there is totally needed. Genesis 1:1 does have a page, and I think it fully deserves one. I think Matthew got pages because someone felt like doing it, perhaps because it is so well structured and full of discourses. A lot of it has been semi-random. But in time multiple editors end up working on things and all of a sudden there are 3 million articles. I think there is need for improving many of existing articles, that was why I suggested Matthew. Why start Luke when Matthew needs help? I think we should focus on quality now that there is plenty of quantity. History2007 (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I certainly agree quality is important here; however, I think a committee of sorts should be created to decide which chapters deserve articles. I wouldn't be totally against creating an chapter article for every verse chapter of the Bible; although, there are some chapters that I believe could be grouped together. It would be similar to Article Requests, but it would be a community effort and a plan should be made to create the pages. A drive of sorts would even be beneficial. I have modified my post to reflect what I thought I was writing. A kitchen in every pot maybe? Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The way it works in Christianity and physics is the same: articles get created without barriers, but can be subject to WP:Afd. If no one Afds it it survives. There are so many joke articles about obscure cricketers (see just above here) and obscure musical groups and small high schools that each chapter of the Bible deserves one, but not each verse. History2007 (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the criterion on whether an article could be created for a given chapter should be the existence of sufficient secondary sources to write that article. I somehow doubt anybody has bothered to write much about, say, 1 Chronicles 25 (a list of Temple musicians). Huon (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That is right. But for each chapter of Matthew such as 18 there are plenty of such sources, yet it has no article at the moment despite being a well defined and key discourse. It is just a matter of time and effort. History2007 (talk) 04:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of members from department lists

I have removed all members who have not made an edit since the beginning of the year 2011. I apologize if I have mistakenly deleted a wrong name. Soon, I will filter the project member list. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition, I solely viewed Wikipedia wide edits. I will later view contributions and will place editors who have not contributed to the project in an inactive project member list. These users will be given a notice and can place themselves back into the active member list if they choose. If they do not place themselves back into the member list, their name will be removed. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Jan 1/2011 is too short on the first action. Give them at least 12 months before executing them. Nothing gained by turning people off from the project. History2007 (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Editors are certainly allowed to add themselves back to the list, so they are not "executed". This is also the reason I only included members who have not made a single edit to Wikipedia in over six months, ignoring their contributions to WikiProject Christianity specifically. They have also not been removed from WikiProject Christianity as members, only as contributors to specific departments. This is important as new editors seeking assistance must be aware of the active project members who can help them. Most of these editors have been gone for a year or more anyways. In response to your concerns and the latter part of my post, I will not remove any editors from the member list unless they have gone a year or more without editing. I still think 6 months without an edit to WikiProject Christianity, or related articles, is grounds to be added to the inactive project member list. If you still have concerns after reading this, I will be happy to go through the removed editors and re-add editors who have not made an edit within 6 months but have made an edit in the past year, at least until formal consensus is reached. Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a big deal either way. Bu you are not going to get massive contributions by deleting people, or adding them back anyway. And many people like myself are not even members. So no big deal. History2007 (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I personally think that it might be best to perhaps do like some other projects do, and maybe send a note indicating that, for instance, they haven't been active in the topic for (x) months, and as a result their names have been moved to an "inactive" list, probably below the main list. They would be, of course, free to move their names back to the active list, if they wanted to remain active in the subject. Just a thought, anyway. John Carter (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Right now, I am ignoring whether or not the person seems to be active on WikiProject Christianity, I am only viewing their activity on Wikipedia. I could stop and do what I planned to do later and put a "potentially inactive members" heading over all of the members. Then I could send a bulk message asking all users who were active on Wikipedia to move their name to a new heading which would be the "Active member" list. Ryan Vesey (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

That would save me a lot of work as well. Thoughts? Ryan Vesey (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A bot could be requested to do such a delivery as well. Maybe what might work best would be to create some sort of statement a bot could deliver to the registered members could be delivered asking all editors to "confirm" their continued involvement in the related project, including all the "sub-projects" like Catholicism, Lutheranism, etc., as well, and request that any individuals who would like to significantly commit to spending time on this topic, either Christianity as a whole or subtopics thereof, to maybe nominate themselves for some sort of coordinator position. The nominations could, maybe, stay open till the end of the month, along with the "confirmation" notices, with maybe elections next month. John Carter (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Problem article

Collective salvation. I really don't know what to think about this article. I am considering nominating it for deletion. Does anyone know something about the topic? Borock (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

That article should be nominated for an award. Alas it will be "the worst article of the year" award. It is pure nonsense in my view, but my guess is that it will unfortunately survive an Afd and people will ask you to work to improve it without doing the work themselves. I tagged it as WP:OR anyway, but I suggest much of the inconsistent text should just be deleted via consensus - which again takes time. The diagrams need to go ASAP anyway since they are pure "user generated original research". The good news is that any sane reader will stop reading it after 17 seconds - so no worries there, it will not confuse anyone who is not already confused. History2007 (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No, plenty of people will keep going past 17 seconds. Don't underestimate the power of footnotes to make people accept OR as simple reporting. Go ahead and nominate it and see what happens.... Meanwhile, edit away on the crappy parts. I slapped the POV tag back on -- it's been on that article a lot over the past year! Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I said "sane readers" will stop. There are some who will still read of course. Anyway, let the Afd games begin and I will vote to delete, but not holding my breath that it will die. It is so easy to tell others to go clean it up. History2007 (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I really don't have enough knowledge of the topic to adequately AFD it; however, if someone can formulate a valid reason I will support the deletion. Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated it here. I did manage more than 17 seconds, but it was painful. Huon (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That was funny... well put. History2007 (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Aristophanes68 is currently improving it and may transform it into something actually worth keeping, though I wonder whether it would be easier to just delete it and rewrite it from scratch. Huon (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

From my point of view this article has taken up enough time, so what ever will be... will be... History2007 (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've stopped now that I've seen the deletion notice. If it does get "saved" (har har), maybe the users will notice the way my edits give the topic more neutrality and historical background. But it seems clear to me that they have doctrinal biases that prevent them from writing a neutral article. Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The editors are complaining about the changes and the AfD tag, so I reverted all my edits. It seems to me, now that I've looked more closely at the sources the editor was using, that the article is really about bashing liberation theology. And no matter how many published sources you have on a topic, you don't write an encyclopedia article for the sole purpose of bashing your topic. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It is just the lead author who complained, and that was to be expected. It will resolve one way or another. History2007 (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• The same editor posted similar material at Salvation#Liberal theology, and liberation theology. Is there any thing in that section that should remain in the article? Aristophanes68 (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Coordinator Election

It is time for a new coordinator election. WikiProject Christianity is a mess. Articles have sat at Peer Review for 3 years. The coordinators of WikiProject Christianity need to coordinate efforts of the project. I have checked the last 500 edits of all three coordinators and none of them have a single edit in the WikiProject Christianity space. Secisek, an assistant coordinator, is retired. Tinucherian has no Christianity related edits in his last 500. The lead coordinator, John Carter, has made no edits to WikiProject Christianity since December 22, 2010; although, he has made useful contributions such as this one. Being a coordinator of a project cannot rely solely on making contributions for the project. A coordinator must assist the members of the project and guide them in ways to get things done. I would like a new vote. Personally, I believe John Carter could continue to serve as an assistant coordinator, but not as the lead coordinator. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not even know what a coordinator is, but John Carter is a great guy in general - and is very knowledgeable. I assume a coordinator gets lots of work piled on them, so yours truly is immediately excluded. I see no reason why you could not become a coordinator (whatever it is) yourself Ryan. Go for it. History2007 (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I have skills at coordinating projects outside of Wikipedia; however, I have never coordinated a Wikipedia project. In addition, I am very new to WikiProject Christianity. Finally, I will probably not be the most active editor on pages that are part of WikiProject Christianity. I.e. I have the skills to coordinate efforts at creating/improving pages related to Christianity, but I do not have the skills to do all of the creating/improving. If, given these drawbacks, other editors believe I could coordinate the project, I would happily accept. Currently, I would just like to discuss the possibility of new elections. If we decide new elections are necessary, I will send a message out to all members of the project to allow them to participate. Here is the page describing the coordinators and their duties. Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Modesty is good, but I do not see what you said as an obstacle for you. I say go for it and do it. History2007 (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Elections were I think intended to take place regularly, anyway. I wouldn't mind seeing anyone take up an "active" coordinator role, and maybe call for candidates for the post. I myself would love to see a large number of assistants, maybe at least one for each of the major traditions within Christianity, and would hope that, maybe, we would get individuals willing to take on such duties. Then, perhaps an election to see how many positions there are, and who would hold them, would be held. Personally, at this point, I think one of the first priorities might be getting together lists of the best extent tertiary and overview sources for the various relevant topics, because there are several topics which have received substantial coverage of minority or even fringe theories. Bart Ehrman wrote an article 20 years ago about how Cephas and Simon Peter are separate people, for example, even though pretty much nobody takes that old proposal seriously anymore. Making it easier for interested editors to determine what weight to give the various opinions on a variety of topics in articles, and which topics are likely or definitely notable, would be I think a major benefit to those involved in these topics. John Carter (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Did Ehrman say that Cephas and Simon Peter are different people? Ehrman must be even crazier than I had thought... Interesting. History2007 (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

As it seems clear that a new coordinator system will be needed, I will be sending out a message today, tomorrow, or the next day (depending on how quickly I can draft it). Unless anybody opposes I will create a subpage for the process of selecting coordinators. First, we can discuss the new roles of the coordinators. Second, nominations can be made and discussions on the nominees can be made (I will create a list of questions for each nominee). Finally, elections can take place if they are needed. It might be necessary for me to finish my essay on my proposed changes to revitalize WikiProject Christianity and discuss the aspects of the essay first, as it may change the role and need of certain coordinators. Ryan Vesey (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope that, through my proposal for elections, I have not appeared to be talking poorly of any of John Carter's contributions. I believe his contributions to the articles within the scope of WikiProject Christianity have been very important to the project and Wikipedia. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I am more involved with real life Wikimedia outreach programs in my country now. My contributions to WikiProject Christianity as such is now minimal. You may remove me from the list of coordinator, if that you seek. Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 11:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: coordinator elections - I appreciate Ryan Vesey's willingness to address this issue but I think his proposal involves way too much process; let's try streamlining this. Let's determine what needs to be coordinated and ask for volunteers. If we get more than one volunteer for a coordinator position, only then should we hold an election. It seems a coordinator has more work than power. So, if there is little power to be abused, then we don't need all the extra process. Just get the yoke on those who are willing to shoulder the burden as soon as possible and be done with it. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have become much busier in my real life world and have accepted an administrative officer position with WikiProject Wikify, so I will be unable to be lead coordinator here. I will continue working on my essay, and hopefully we can make some beneficial changes here. Can someone create a list of members with the usernames only without the User: prefix? If that list can be created I can run a bot to send the message out. Ryan Vesey (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

need help for checking references

Can somebody help with Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Paul_Hoste_(1652-1700) and check if the references are correct? mabdul 19:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:57, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute at Jesus

I initiated a NPOV disucussion at the discussion page of Jesus.

Input is appreciated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus#NPOV_in_lede_section
— Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs) 10:01, 26 June 2010

Request for input in discussion forum

Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk)

_{Automated message by Project Messenger Bot from John Carter at 15:44, 5 April 2011}

Blaise Pascal at FAR

I have nominated Blaise Pascal 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.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Page watch

Can I talk some of you guys into watching some of the basic pages for this project, e.g. Baptism, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ministry, Parables, Miracles, etc. please? I have over 1,000 pages on my watch list now and I do not know how many times I have explained WP:Primary to IPs on those talk pages. As I was explaining it again today on the Resurrection talk page, I wished there were others who would repeat that tutorial. So help will be appreciated in watching the top 20 pages about the life of Jesus. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 09:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Pas(s)agians

Re my proposal to amalgamate the articles Pasagians and Passagianism, I presume that Pasagians and Passagians are the same, but do not know which is the correct spelling. Hugo999 (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Defining "Fundamentalist Christianity" as "militant"

There's a discussion occurring on Talk:Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement) concerning the use of "militant" to define "Fundamentalist Christianity". Feel free to participate. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 21:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Saint Paul name usage

Please view my comment here DBD 12:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Angel of the Presence

I have nominated the article for deletion here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Prosperity and Health and Wealth Gospel articles merge

It has been proposed to merge Health and Wealth Gospel into Prosperity theology. Please comment and take part in the discussion at Talk:Prosperity theology#Merge article?. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Assemblies of God USA

Please review General Council of the Assemblies of God in the United States of America and leave comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/General Council of the Assemblies of God in the United States of America/archive1. Thanks Ltwin (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Another Gospel (Ruth Tucker book)

I've had some long-standing concerns about the article on Another Gospel (the book on cults by Ruth Tucker). I'm hoping some people here might be able to improve the article, especially with regard to the following issues:

• I think it's clear to just about everyone with any familiarity with the subject that the title of this book is a reference to the Apostle Paul's denunciation of first-century heresies as being "another gospel" (2 Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:6). But I haven't been able to find any citable source to substantiate this connection. A year and a half ago, I tried to add this fact (referencing it to sources dealing generally with the Christian countercult movement), but my attempt was opposed by others who insisted that any such effort violated WP:SYNTH unless I could find a single source which specifically talked about Tucker's book and specifically said that this was the origin of the title thereof. By any chance, does anyone know of such a source? Or, alternatively, is there a consensus that this interpretation of policy may be unreasonably narrow?

• This article, IMO, suffers from a subtle NPOV problem. Essentially all of the cited sources come from within the conservative / evangelical Protestant community — but as best I can tell, there simply aren't any sources at all discussing or even mentioning this book from any other viewpoint. So, while the article technically satisfies WP:NPOV because it does represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources", it isn't really neutral because (apparently) no one outside the conservative / evangelical Protestant community has considered the book worth commenting on at all. I tried a Google search just now, hoping to find at least one source discussing Another Gospel from any sort of different perspective, but I was unsuccessful. Does anyone know of any sources of this type that could properly be used to give the article a bit more neutrality?

Thanks for any help. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Search in Google Books for another gospel: I have found at least 2 books which describe the phrase "another Gospel" (in relation to Christianity) by searching in Google Books:

• search Google-Books for "another gospel".

Those books can be cited as sources in a footnote or background section "Phrase: another Gospel" which could explain the prior notability of the phrase. The inclusion of text does not mean the phrase inspired the title, just that the phrase pre-existed as noted in those books, similar to a book with the title "The Theory of Relativity" could be described with a note about Einstein's theories or other notable uses of the same phrase.
The WP:SYNTH vio would only occur when concluding the title was chosen specifically to parrot the phrase. Otherwise, the fact that sources noted the individual phrase "another Gospel" is all that is needed to establish notability, inside the article text. A similar case would be the title phrase, "To be or not to be" traced to sources which note the phrase separate from the whole text of Hamlet, unlike a rare quote, "arrows of outrageous [fortune]" which might be difficult to source as being so notable). Plus, there is no danger of a "novel conclusion that advances a cause" because the unstated conclusion that the title "Another Gospel" refers to non-Christian teachings is hardly a novel conclusion. Many book titles have used phrases from quotes: "O brave new world that has such people in it" (from The Tempest). Again, the WP:SYNTH vio would only occur when stating, unsourced, that the title was chosen for that meaning. However, bear in mind, reasoning with others only works when they are reasonable, so be prepared to walk away from unbalanced reactions to text. If people continue to argue such an obvious connection, then let it go. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. In discussion on the "new religious movements" project talk page, I was referred to two new sources which do allow me to illustrate Tucker's "decidedly conservative Christian perspective". Now that I have that fact established in the article via suitable sources, I think I now have a place where I can put something along the lines of what you've suggested. Thanks again. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And additionally, now that I have some material establishing Tucker's "decidedly conservative Christian perspective", I have someplace where I can legitimately mention that many Christian writers quote Paul's use of the phrase "another gospel". I don't explicitly say that this is where Tucker got her title, but I don't think I need to. See here — and, of course, I'm open to further suggestions (or disagreements). Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And another editor rearranged my edits, and found an even better source for the book's title, so the result is (hopefully) even less likely to be questioned per WP:SYNTH now. Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Atonement in Christianity

I do not have time to work on it, but a major deletion on Atonement in Christianity done today by an editor may need attention and discussion/review from people here. History2007 (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

AFD notice

Hindu gods and goddesses and Abrahamic religions has been nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu gods and goddesses and Abrahamic religions here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Judaism

Discussions as to what the article should and should not contain have restarted on Talk:Criticism of Judaism, and outside comments would be helpful. Please see the archives and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Discretionary sanctions for history and active sanctions. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Edith Schaeffer and Francis Schaeffer

An editor has proposed merging the Edith Schaeffer and Francis Schaeffer articles. See Talk:Francis_Schaeffer#Merger_proposal. -- 202.124.72.236 (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Effort to decimate or delete William Lane Craig BLP

Multiple editors at the William Lane Craig BLP are working to pare down his article to almost nothing, possibly in preparation to have the article deleted entirely. One editor, after personally deleting much material from the article added a notability tag to the BLP. Other editors are also working to further reduce the article. Currently, the BLP consists of 10 sentences. One of the editors there is proposing removing 6 of those sentences, leaving the article with just 4 sentences. One justification for the removal of a lot of the material is the declaration that certain sources aren't good enough. That includes an article by the Fox News religion reporter and Craig's website www.reasonablefaith.org (despite meeting requirements of WP:ABOUTSELF). A quick look for sources show numerous articles in Christianity Today, ABC News 20/20, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Chicago Sun-Times, The Atlanta Constitution, and The Dallas Morning News. Drrll (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Craig is just over the notability threshold, so I doubt if an Afd will succeed on him. His writings are way off in the cosmos, however. So I think he will survive an Afd, but will rightly have a short page. History2007 (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you base your opinion of his notability on how often he is cited by others, or on your own views of him? Clearly the sourcing about him in the evangelical Christian press and general press is sufficient to deserve more than a handful of sentences in his BLP. Drrll (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Look at it this way, I see him as such a small blip on a large screen that I will not bother get involved on his page. History2007 (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If you have found numerous reliable third-party sources about Craig, please add them to the relevant parts of the article, or at the very least list them on the article's talk page. Also, links help; I couldn't find a version of the article which had a Fox News religion reporter as a source, but maybe I was not thorough enough. Huon (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll round up some of the links to articles which have links and put them here. I'm trying to avoid crossing paths for a few weeks with a certain editor working on that article. Drrll (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Besides multiple articles in Christianity Today, here are sources that give more than a passing mention to Craig:

• Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/19/christian-pastor-atheists-debates/
• Library Journal: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-119849926/copan-paul-william-lane.html
• Whittier Daily News: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-20108981.html
• The Times Higher Education Supplement: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=169242&sectioncode=39
• The Wilmington Star News: http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20100323/ARTICLES/100329873
• The Deseret News: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/515036244/God-2-philosophers-debate-age-old-issue.html
• The Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2030575/Ledbury-Herefordshire-Shall-compare-thee-unlovely-Tesco.html
• The Daily Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1544447/The-return-of-God.html

Articles without free links:

• Ottawa Citizen, April 15, 1995
• Dallas Morning News, February 28, 1998

Drrll (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm one of the editors mentioned above... so, let me say that no one is trying to decimate or delete anything. I agree that Craig is notable (if only barely). My concern is that Craig's own press machine should not affect the article. Ultimately, I think only a few sentences are entirely appropriately. I have books on Christian apologetics. If they weren't written by Craig or his circle, Craig is hardly mentioned. Remember, the point of the article is explain why's notable... why he matters. It's not to document everything we possibly can. And we should be careful not to let Craig's self-promotion (not that self-promotion is bad) be the author of the page. Also, the third-party sources listed above are hardly convincing. I haven't checked each one but most seem to be about Craig's debates which are obviously articles about promoting an event. Craig submits press releases in those cases. But, anyway... we should take those on in a case-by-case basis... until then, we chop away at the article until someone adds something. We'll examine what they add when they do. Theowarner (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, both you and Hrafn have expressed an interest on the Talk page in seeing the article deleted and what better way to ultimately achieve that goal than by reducing the article text to next to nothing and adding the notability tag? You wouldn't call an effort to reduce the article to 4 sentences decimating? Can you name many other BLPs that are sourced in numerous third-party sources with only a few sentences? You really believe that Craig's press machine is so masterful that it can convince numerous independent sources across the globe to assist him in self-promotion? WP:BLP calls for inclusion of both criticism and praise for the BLP subject. WP articles are supposed to be based on what reliable sources say about the subject, not whether a source may cast a subject in a positive light. Drrll (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple instances of similarly short articles - for example, many less notable musicians have a similar combination of lots of passing mentions in reliable third-party sources and extensive self-published sources. Like Theowarner, I am not all that impressed by the sources given above. Three are book reviews (one of them a book just edited by Craig, not authored), two are editorials, another two amount to local coverage of events in which Craig participated. Apparently people write about parts of Craig's work, but I don't see them writing about Craig himself. Huon (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, when you say "decimate," you make it sound like it's an effort to make the article short rather than good. I'm saying that it should be good which, in this case, means making it short. "Decimate" is a loaded term. So, no, I'm not trying to decimate it. I'm trying to make it good. And, yes, I do believe that Craig's press machine is so masterful that i can convince numerous independent sources across the globe to assist him in self-promotion. In fact, I think that that's exactly what a press machine does. It creates provocative news copy and e-mails it news outlets. It's not mysterious or difficult. The lastest story of the UK speaking tour is a great example. Dozens of articles appeared all over the internet and almost all of them made reference to Craig's press release and offered up the same several quotes from Craig. And they all more or less said the same thing, too. So, I think this is a good example of thinking a little more critically about what a reliable source is. Just because it's third party doesn't mean they've done anything to make themselves reliable. I'll respond to the articles you posted above.

1) the Fox News article is entirely derived from Dr. Craig's press release 2) the article from the Library Journal seems to be a summary of a book. These journals are prepared for the sake of librarians so they can make decisions about which books to buy. Few of Craig's books end up in library, btw. And, in this case, the summary doesn't seem to say anything new. These sorts of journals receive books from publishers so, it's not like it's a measure of anything except that Craig's publisher mailed the book to the journal. 3) The article from the Whittier News is a promotional piece for the Craig/Hitchens debate. I can't reconstruct it but it sounds very much like a press release from Biola. 4) The Times Higher Ed. Supplement is also a book reivew. Craig is mentioned as a contributor. Beyond that, it almost does nothing to describe him. Thatmay be a source you can use to establish his 'beliefs.' 5) The Wilmington Star News is clearly a review of a debate. It seems fair and objective. It says very little, though. It might be useful if you want to write a sentence about Craig's debating. 6) The article from the Desert News is a book review and seems fair. Use it if you can. 7) The Daily Mail article does not mention Craig. 8) The Daily Telegraph is interesting, but, actually makes the point the Craig is not well-known. And again, it includes the same press release quotes.

So, again... I think the point is to use reliable third-party sources to describe Craig's notability. We've cleaned up a lot of the problems and I think it's time to start building the article up. Good luck! Theowarner (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

One of you guys must be using Google Chrome. It left blank lines here and will probably leave a trail of blank lines elsewhere, and others have to clean them up, but you may not see it. Time to go back to FireFox, etc. History2007 (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Huon: "There are multiple instances of similarly short articles": for some perspective, consider the BLP for fellow academic Karl Giberson. It consists of a lead, 4 sections, and about 25 sentences. And what are the sources for that BLP?:

• a newsletter of his former primary employer, Eastern Nazarene College
• a website of an organization he used to help lead, BioLogos
• a newsletter of an association he belongs to, the American Scientific Affiliation
• a Salon.com opinion piece he wrote
• a book he wrote
• another book that he cowrote
• a web page promoting his book on his publisher's website
• an photo image file showing the cover of a Polish translation of one of his books
• a complete non-source simply stating that Giberson is "in fact, the first scholar associated with the Church of the Nazarene to publish with the Oxford University Press."
• another book that he cowrote
• one clearly reliable source, The Washington Post, listing one of his books as a best book of 2008
• another web page promoting one of his books on the publisher of that book's website
• a CV of one of his colleagues as Eastern Nazarene, on ENC's website
• a promotional page of something called "The Biographer's Club"

Now how do those sources compare to the ones I have above and below?

Theowarner, I have no reason to believe that would rather have the article short over good (although you did express an interest in actually seeing the article deleted entirely). On the other hand, the fellow editor you're working with has made his Wikipedia career working to stub or delete numerous articles that in some way touch on religion (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns0=1&redirs=0&search=hrafn+prefix%3AWikipedia%3AArticles+for+deletion&limit=500&offset=0). As you can see, ones that in some way touch on intelligent design or creationism are especially vulnerable for targeting by him.

It does appear that Craig works at promoting himself, but that is hardly unique amongst individuals with WP BLPs, including academics. Yet those individuals don't get the stub treatment (see, for example, the Giberson BLP that I mentioned above). You think that reliable sources about them don't rely upon such things as quotes of them from interviews, quotes of them apart from interviews, and press releases? Also, keep in mind also that as a whole, the press is hardly sympathetic to Craig's religious or philosophical views.

1)Please put excerpts from the Fox News article and his press release side-by-side to demonstrate that it is "entirely derived from Dr. Craig's press release." That piece was written by a journalist with a Master's Degree from Northwestern's school of journalism and was a correspondent at the CBS TV station in Chicago, after being a reporter at the ABC TV station in Minneapolis/St. Paul.

2)The Library Journal views the book positively ("the work provides a fascinating insight into Christian thinking and is sure to stimulate both debate and dialog for a long time to come. Highly recommended for upper-level academic collections, especially those that specialize in philosophy, theology, Christianity, and Christian apologetics").

4)The Times Higher Ed. Supplement also views Lane's editing of the book positively ("acts as a superb survey of some of the best work being done in the philosophy of religion, and many of its central figures are included").

7)That article does mention Craig ("Secularists are heading for the hills rather than square up to fizzy theologian William Lane Craig at Westminster Central Hall in October. Polly Toynbee had her doubts, so to speak. AC Grayling collected three points for a refusal. Richard Dawkins did a Gaddafi and went into hiding. Craig clearly puts the fear of God into them. Finally, a University of London philosopher, Stephen Law, has said he will speak up for the non-believers").

In addition, here are excerpts from the 2 articles I mentioned above that don't have free links:

• Dallas Morning News, February 28, 1998

Unbelieving philosopher Bertrand Russell and believing philosopher F.C. Copleston debated the perennial question in a famous debate 50 year ago on a BBC broadcast. Last week two prominent philosophers took up the question before an audience of 4,000 here to commemorate the 1948 event. Unbelieving philosopher Anthony Flew and Christian philosopher William Lane Craig drew a diverse crowd from across the United States and England for the event, sponsored by the Veritas Forum, made up of local church organizations, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Madison-based national atheist organization.

At the end of the evening, audience members - believing and unbelieving alike - seemed to agree that the Christian, Dr. Craig, had the more eloquent debating form and clearer, if not mind-changing, arguments.

• Ottawa Citizen, April 15, 1995

As scholar William Lane Craig writes in Jesus Under Fire, it makes more sense to believe in the resurrection than to believe "that a psychological miracle occurred, causing normal men and women to become conspirators and liars who would be willingly martyred for their subterfuge (lying about what they saw)."

Craig and the other conservative scholars maintain that Christianity is not just a matter of faith. It's a rational, logical belief, solidly based on an accurate reporting of history by New Testament writers as well as non-Christian historians.

And here are two Christianity Today articles that give significant mention to Craig:

• http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/article_print.html?id=9029
• http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/february/1.28.html (2010 books of the year)

Theowarner, I'm glad to hear that you want to "start building the article up," rather than leaving it at next to nothing or deleting it entirely. Drrll (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an excuse; each article should stand on its own merits. Maybe the Giberson article should similarly be shortened; I haven't looked at it. I'm still not really impressed by the sources you offer. Another piece of local news, two more book reviews, one of which is for a book Craig didn't author. The fourth, discussing Biola's philosophy department, might actually be useful. But shouldn't the sources be discussed at Talk:William Lane Craig instead of here? Huon (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I referenced the Giberson BLP to illustrate that many BLPs don't demand that such a high bar be set for BLP subjects who are not at the highest levels of notability. Sources are just required to mention the subject. Even for WP:NOTABILITY of a BLP, the requirements are that there "is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The fact is, Craig is well-known for his debates and published material, so articles on those topics are very relevant.

Actually, the Dallas Morning News article is one that ran nationally from a news service, datelined Madison, WI, so it is not "another piece of local news." And the debate was a very high-profile debate, with Flew, to commenorate the 50th anniversary of a famous BBC debate. It was so high-profile that Oxford University Press secured the rights to publish the debate transcript. Drrll (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the article is no longer at this time at risk for deletion or limiting to a handful of sentences. The notability tag is no longer there and the editors earlier seeking to trim it way back are not working to do so now. It could still use a little expansion with such sources as the ones I provided here, and I plan to do so myself later if no one else does. Drrll (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There never was a risk of deletion. It would not pass an Afd. The risk was keyboard wear and tear, but it is good that it is over. History2007 (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

When two of the article's primary editors openly express an interest in seeing the article deleted, remove a bunch of material and sources, contend that few if any legitimate third-party sources exist, and add a notability tag, there is a small chance that it would pass AfD--if few other editors were watching. Maybe you think that Hrafn devotes hundreds and hundreds of hours to stubbing certain articles and then putting them up for deletion simply because he thinks it's fun to do so. I tend to think that he wouldn't work so long and hard at it if it didn't occasionally pay off. Drrll (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no way to tell now, it will be speculation. But from what I have seen, when there are enough refs (as in this case) a rescue flag will go up quickly, and chances of deletion are below 5%. In some cases, WP:Rescue people will show up and rescue them. But anyway, better this way. History2007 (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the chances of deletion for an article like this were below 5% (if there enough refs). Good to know. Drrll (talk)

Ex-gay movement

Included in the article Ex-gay movement is a list of individuals that consider themselves ex-gay and/or part of the ex-gay movement. Many of those included are of no or minimal notability, with extremely little or no coverage in reliable secondary sources. There is currently a heated debate about whether mention of these individuals should be deleted or retained. See [[2]]. I've started an RfC on the article talk page, and your input would be highly appreciated. The RfC is located here. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Heave offering

Last week I put in a page move to have heave offering restored from terumah (the Hebrew noun for something raised up) it was inconclusive and relisted at Wikipedia:requested moves. In the absence of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bible, I note it here. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move related to this project

This requested move of the page Korban Olah to "Burnt offering (Bible)" may be of interest to those participating here. Comments are welcome.Griswaldo (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Help sought regarding Eternal Life

We are having a 3 way discussion on the issue of Eternal Life in Christianity.

The specific issue at hand is that of eternal life being only "here and now" vs having a component "in the future" as well.

A few informed comments based on suitable sources will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Militant atheism RfC

There is a raging RfC at Militant atheism. Don't miss out on the discussion of the year! Click here. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

POV at Mother Theresa

See note. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Offensive to Christians

When I first noticed the shortcut "WP:JESUS" I thought now that's a handy shortcut. However upon reflection it occurs to me that this is potentially offensive to Christians. It violates the 3rd Commandment, the prohibition on takling the Lord's name in vain. We should delete and salt the shortcut.– Lionel ^(talk) 01:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I just thought it was kind of dumb. If there were a (sub-)project specifically about Jesus, rather than Christianity in general, it would make sense as a shortcut. LadyofShalott 01:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Not dumb or offensive to me. Elizium23 (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing offensive about it. It is in no way taking the Lord's name in vain unless you assume every usage of the word Jesus is taking the Lord's name in vain (there are the people who will not type the word God and instead type G*d). It is useful in that Jesus is who sets Christianity apart from Judaism. Even if it was a violation of the 3rd Commandment, Wikipedia is not censored so it doesn't matter. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my cmt. is more of a "meh" <shrug> than anything. --LadyofShalott 02:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I subscribe to Christianity, but I don't get why that redirect would be considered using Jesus's name in vain. I'm fine with the redirect existing. However, would this page be a more appropriate place to redirect WP:JESUS, since Wikipedia:WikiProject Jesus redirects there? Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 05:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The shortcut aside, I think there are offensive items (often of neglect) that need attention, e.g. the sad state of the multi-tagged article Jesus in Christianity which lists 9 miracles in random order, etc. So let me try and push the guilt button here to see if we can get some help on that.... History2007 (talk) 06:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would, Backtable. That's certainly the most logical place for WP:JESUS to point. LadyofShalott 01:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't see how the shortcut violates the commandment, or how it can be construed as offensive. I doubt that it was conceived with blasphemous intent. Vague misgivings are hardly sufficient grounds for an accusation of a grievous sin like blasphemy. That's quite a jump. Actually, it can be argued that seeking offense where none was intended violates the commandment not to bear false witness. This complaint reminds me of the stoning scene in Life of Brian. Backtable's proposal for a redirect seems logical. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree there's nothing wrong with the shortcut but its target; I have boldly changed it to point to the Jesus work group. Huon (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Baptist beliefs

Hi. I left a note for this on the sub-project but I can't tell if it is active: An editor has suggested deleting (redirecting) the article Baptist beliefs on its talk page. It is a pretty poorly sourced article but I doubt you want to lose it all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If it gets Afded you can just put a Rescue tag on it and it will be very unlikely to get deleted. I wish it would get cleaned up, for that way I could trust to read it. As is I will not even try to read it for I may get wrong info. There is no evidence that there is correct info there. History2007 (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Adherents.com is out of date, use of Pew and ARIS numbers and the people polled were adults over 18 which are 225 million people in the USA as of 2008

'This Christian geography and statistics web page is copyright © 2000 by Adherents.com. Please address send comments, questions, etc. to webmaster@adherents.com. Webpage created 10 August 1999. Last updated 24 January 2000. '

It hasn't been updated since 2000 and the data is from 1990 studies. It is now unreliable compared to Pew study of 2009 and ARIS study from Trinity College of 2008 for matters relating to the USA religious demographics.

Also, people are calculating totals from percentages found in the study off of the total USA population but the Pew study makes it very clear on page 3 that the results are based off of an adult population, over 18, of 225 million people. There is now way there are 243m Christians in the US when the total adult population is 225 million. The research makes NO claims about people under 18 so we can say nothing about the under 18 crowd. If you want to list the under 18 then you will have to find another study that polled non-adults. I don't know of a study out there. The best two are the ARIS and Pew studies from 2008 and 2009. Alatari (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Jesuism

A bit surprised to see also Jesuism appear on Ebionites, even more surprised to see it on Essenes, Therapeutae (who were Jewish). Not sure what the article is meant to be about, doesn't appear supported in Google Scholar, yet has been rated by this project. Que pasa? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Those links (and the ones at Cynicism, Cathars, Francis of Assisi, Ignatius of Loyola, Charles Fox (scientist) and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin) are probably due to Tom O'Golo who, according to the Jesuism article, "acknowledges the importance of the Therapeutae, Essenes, Ebionites and Cynics in the development of Jesuism" and says the others are examples of people who "returned to Jesuan values". But I'd say that this kind of name-dropping does not merit a "see also" link to the 19th century philosophy of which most of those movements and people would not have been aware. I also have grave doubts about O'Golo's status as a reliable source. According to the Amazon book review, O'Golo claims that Jesus may have traveled to Britain to study with the druids - that seems WP:FRINGE to me. Our article on Paul the Apostle states that O'Golo is a "professor who writes under a pen name", and his publisher Zimbo Press seems to be located in St Andrews, but I could not find a single reliable source for either of those claims. I'd advocate getting rid of all O'Golo citations until we can show that he is indeed reliable. Huon (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The theory of Jesus possibly travelling to Britain to study with the Druids has been proposed by academics such as Gordon Strachan (minister). His book Jesus the Master Builder: Druid Mysteries and the Dawn of Christianity was the basis of a documentary called And Did Those Feet (2009). Professor O'Golo and Strachan are probably one of the same as it seems too much of a coincidence that there are two Edinburgh-based academics with unorthodox religious theories such as this one. Nirvana2013 (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Since O'Golo published a book a year after Strachan's death, I doubt they're the same person. I also see no evidence that O'Golo is Edinburgh-based or that he is an academic. Are there reliable sources for any of the information about O'Golo, or is this pure speculation? Even if Strachan's book were a reliable source, I see no reason why O'Golo's book should be considered one. Huon (talk) 08:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Christ? No! Jesus? Yes!: A radical reappraisal of a very important life (2011) by Tom O'Golo is a revised and retitled version of Jesus, Antichrist, Anarchist, Economist and a Theist (1998) by the same author. The publisher describes the author as "Writing under a pseudonym to avoid academic brickbats, this respected (but now passed-on) professor researched, contemplated and finally wrote a text which is both radical and cheering." O'Golo declares he wrote sections of the book in the David Hume Tower, Edinburgh University (Christ? No! Jesus? Yes!, p.95). Nirvana2013 (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So there are no reliable secondary sources for any of this information? The more I learn about O'Golo, the more it seems as if he went to great lengths to avoid peer review - even if he wanted to publish under a pen name, he could still have chose a reputable publisher, but he didn't. That does not bode well for the reliability of the book. Huon (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi and I have removed all the "see also" links that were based on O'Golo. If there's no reliable source for a connection to Jesuism (and O'Golo isn't one), there's no reason to have the link. I still think we should prune the criticism of Paul the Apostle that's based on O'Golo's book per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Huon (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Dispute over "Controversie" at Elevation Church and Steven Furtick articles

I am stepping back from the articles Elevation Church and Steven Furtick after trying to engage in discussion and consensus with an editor whom, in my opinion, is over aggressive on including controversial material on each subject. I do not want to engage in an edit war and believe I have done all I can do. I would appreciate other comments and perspectives. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Worst page of the year contest

How about having a "Worst page of the year contest" before Christmas, to see what really needs fixing. I will start by nominating Second Coming of Christ. I think it is hard to beat that.

• Second Coming of Christ (about 20,000 views a month, rock bottom quality)

Just for fun, feel free to nominate others, that way they may get some attention in 2012. Perhaps in 2012 a few people can cooperate to rescue the top 3 worst ones. History2007 (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Bunch of Christian articles nominated for deletion

The Christian film Second Glance (film) is up for deletion now. The same nominator has also nominated has also nominated a variety of other Christian articles. Someone who has Christian magazines or other reliable sources might want to have a look at that. Dream Focus 16:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems like a case of WP:Tag bombing to me. There are just so many Afds by this nominator, it is hard to count them. Time to stop. This user seems to be causing huge wastes of time. History2007 (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

A low number of the nominator's prods, csd, and AfD seem to actually be valid. Several of the Rebecca St. James singles are unsourced, and one Prod2 has claimed "Discography entry masquerading as an article", which in that case, I agree with. Sources have been found for many, if not most of the nominated articles, but it's arguable if they meet GNG. I do agree with the OP's call for folks with magazine collections... --Lexein (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

A shotgun approach will eventually hit something valid, but will also hit other items that do not need to be hit. I saw no indications of research performed before the flags were plastered all over. History2007 (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I enthusiastically agree! --Lexein (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Article which could be improved

Please check out Christian values. Obviously an important topic, but the article should be a lot better. Borock (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It is certainly notable, but pretty low quality as you noted. I used a better tag for now. History2007 (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Homeless article

I've just written a stub, feather tights. I don't know if you feel that your project would want to be associated with it, or if you can suggest a more appropriate project? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This group is dormant?

But if not see Talk:Historical Jesus. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to wake anyone up now.... We were enjoying a good nap. But seriously, we could use more editors here... I do not know where to find them. History2007 (talk) 08:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Featured article review for Templon

I have nominated Templon 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. Brad (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Protestantism in Mexico

Hi! If anybody wants to contribute to Religion in Mexico I found:

• The Expansion of Protestantism in Mexico: An Anthropological View
• James W. Dow Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 78, No. 4 (Autumn, 2005), pp. 827-851
• http://www.jstor.org/stable/4150963

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Input required at Talk:Textual variants in the New Testament

A discussion has been started at Talk:Textual variants in the New Testament about a link to biblical inerrancy. Please discuss. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone working on this project?

It seems no one is selecting feature articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

We have been asking for free parking, health insurance and a better cafeteria. The WMF has not provided. So most people are on strike. I think it is time to "occupy Wikipedia". But seriously, I see that many editors are getting disheartened by the lax Wikipedia policies, the never ending edit wars, too many IP vandal edits, arbitrary admin actions, etc. and just stop. What you see is the manifestation of deep rooted problems that stem from policy defects, and are not just based on coincidences. Policies that used to work 5 years ago, no longer apply, but they are cast in stone now. I see trouble due to shortages of editors ahead of us. History2007 (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried to fix it, but I don't know how to change the code so that it doesn't use random articles. I entered one for November if you can fix it. InTheAM (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Terms for religious doctrine should be in lower case

According to the Manual of Style, section "Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents",

"Doctrinal topics or canonical religious ideas that may be traditionally capitalized within a faith are given in lower case in Wikipedia, such as virgin birth (as a common noun), original sin or transubstantiation."

Does this project support the style guide? Jojalozzo 14:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't need to if capitalizing seems more like the proper thing to do in a context. I have no opinion myself, having never considered the issue at all. BigJim707 (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

3rd opinion request

A third opinion is needed at Talk:John_of_Damascus#Strange_conclusions regarding John of Damascus' ancestry.--Rafy talk 00:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

AfD of article in project

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Christianity BigJim707 (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"St" vs "St." vs "Saint"

Hello all, I was wondering if there is any standard for church and cathedral names on Wikipedia. For instance, I've come across Old St Mary's Church, West Bergholt (St), Old Saint Mary's Cathedral (Saint), and Old St. Mary's Church (Milwaukee, Wisconsin) (St.). The St vs St. particularly bothers me as it looks (at least to me) like a mistake without the period. There seem to be plenty of church articles where it's spelled this way though: Old St Mary's, Walmer is another example. Thoughts? I'm cross-posting to Wikiproject Catholicism. Thanks, Lithoderm 19:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

UK English doesn't use periods after abbreviations like Mr, Mrs, Dr, etc., and I presume that "St" is the same. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The standard is WP:ENGVAR, which means that churches located in the USA have "strong national ties" to American English, which uses a period, and churches located in, e.g., England, have strong national ties to British English, which does not use a period. Usage of "Saint" spelled out can apply to either variety of English and there is no standard that says we must use one or the other. Elizium23 (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I learn something new every day... What about in the case of a disambiguation? The reason I asked in the first place was that I just created Old St. Mary's to disambiguate churches and cathedrals of that name. Currently Old St Mary's (no period) redirects there. Thanks, Lithoderm 20:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess I would use one as a redirect and the other as the main dab page, and decide which would be which depending on what region has the most Old Saint Marys. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Is what is written on the door of the building, or the church stationary secondary? History2007 (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm assuming that the article names are based on how each church officially names itself. My church uses "St." on its signage and bulletins. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Potentially malicious acts at Wilhelm Busch (pastor)

I'd like to ask for 3rd party opinion, in the article on Wilhelm Busch (pastor) there been performed deletions that I personally regard for strange. The claim is that edits are removed because "material not relevant to articles subject. (TW)" but I regard the text for absolutely OK as it correctly states from sourced information that pastor Busch influenced Ulrich Parzany, who continued after Billy Graham in ProChrist evangelic international campaigns. Moreover, the book by Busch has been removed from article sections dedicated to Bibliography (* Busch, Wilhelm (2009). Plaudereien in meinem Studierzimmer (in German) (11 ed.). p. 299. ISBN 978-3761557044. {{cite book}}: Text "publisher Aussaat" ignored (help)) under the same flag which sounds absolutely irrational to me. Please advise. --Stephfo (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The book seemed to be part of a section of books about Busch; maybe we should have a separate section on books Busch authored, but there it seemed out of place. Still, it might have been an error on behalf of the user who removed it; my advice would be to ask him for his reasoning on the talk page. Huon (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, I'd also like to point to WP:AGF. I see no indication of malice. Huon (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, Thanks.--Stephfo (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Julian the Apostate

The Church Martyrs section on Julian the Apostate is entirely unreferenced. I've asked the Classical Greece and Rome project for help, but maybe this project could also source some of these events? It'd be a shame to have to just throw out a whole section, but right now it's just a list of people with no references or citations. ----Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. That section currently tells us nothing about Julian, which should be the focus of that article, and I don't see how a list of people martyred during his reign could ever do so. Covering his persecution of Christians in more detail seems preferable to listing those of the victims who were killed - listing only those who after their deaths were recognized as martyrs and/or saints seems even less relevant to Julian. Thus, removal of that section seems appropriate. Huon (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I kind of want to remove it as well, but I wanted to be fair and see if there are sources that indicate if any of them were actually martyred by Julian, and not just during his reign, or killed for other reasons, before I just dump the whole session as unreferenced and irrelevant. If there aren't sources that indicate both the facts of their deaths, and their relevance to Julian, then I'll go ahead and dump it, but I don't know enough Church history to make that judgement unilaterally. ----Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Protestantism

Would a topic expert be able to resolve the NPOV issues? - RoyBoy 04:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The whole section Anti-Protestantism#Hostility to Evangelicals has only two sources. If it is going to describe hostility from Liberal bloggers, journalists, etc there should be scholars that have written about it and can be sourced from. Primary source examples of actual journalist bias means we are doing the research and inserting our own analysis so you pick scholars and use their sources they directly point at. I don't think gay marriage is the only issue either. This section would jibe with Anti-Christian sentiment. Would Anti-Christian sentiment be the parent article? Alatari (talk) 10:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)