Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard
|WikiProject Christianity was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 9 March 2009. If you wish to get involved with the Signpost, please visit the Newsroom.|
|Welcome to the noticeboard for Christianity-related topics|
Here you can find discussions, notices, and requests for articles that in some way deal with Christianity. If you would like to discuss, place a notice about, or if you have a request about, an article about Christianity, please do include it here.
|WikiProject Christianity||(Rated Project-class)|
Threads older than 90 days may be archived by .
- 1 Christianity
- 2 Featured article nomination for Almost There (album)
- 3 Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore)
- 4 Pontius Pilate rewrite
- 5 Theodore Edgar McCarrick RfC
- 6 Bizarre merge discussion at Talk:Holy See
- 7 List of churches in London
- 8 Trinity Ordinal use
- 9 Dispute over Pontius Pilate rewrite over historicity of Jesus
- 10 Saint Claudia in need of rewrite
- 11 Islamic view on Muhammad and the Bible
- 12 Differences between Christian denominational branches?
- 13 Template:Kings of Israel and Template:Kings of Judah
- 14 Jesus (Manichaeism)
- 15 Unusual new editor
- 16 Call for portal maintainers
- 17 Shaker task-force?
I’ve renominated Almost There (album), a mid-importance article in this project, for Wikipedia:Featured article. Any editors are welcome to add to the discussion at the nomination page. Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore) is an unusually long article and somewhat hard to follow, at least in my opinion. However, I realize that some may disagree about that.
Nevertheless, there is a passage at Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore)#Fundamentalist, Evangelical or In-Between? which seems to be editorializing in favor of a particular point of view in a non-neutral way. Specifically, it states:
- With credibility dented and God evidently not blessing them in their failed lawsuits after claiming that the blessing of God on the church for the past 52 years (1950-2002) was a reason for their wanting to take the old godly path, have they since reflected that what they did and thought to be the old path could be mistaken or wrong since they did not receive the blessing of God which they had expected when they commenced their lawsuit in September 2008 and had invoked His name in their daily prayer meetings for the duration of the court proceedings to help them annihilate FEBC?
It sounds as though this article is editorializing about a certain church not being blessed by God. In any event, it is inappropriate for Wikipedia to take a stand on that kind of issue.
- Will the article be better off being split into multiple articles for each church? Based on the section headings, there are details on 2 churches, which might be better off with their own articles. This article can be a stand along overview with information about the churches and their disputes. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Pontius Pilate rewriteEdit
I've drafted out a complete rewrite of the article on Pontius Pilate using reliable sources - there is very little in the current article that I think can be salvaged, as large portions of the article are unsourced, and what is sourced relies almost entirely on websites (which are often used to support claims not found there) and primary sources. The draft is currently in my sandbox (User:Ermenrich/sandbox), where I will continue working on it until I think it's ready to replace the current article (perhaps leaving the long list of places where Pilate appears in literature/film/music, as I have no idea how to fix that). I'd appreciate any input anyone here might have, particularly regarding Pilate in the Apocrypha and the historicity of the crucifixion/Jesus' trial before Pilate.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Theodore Edgar McCarrick RfCEdit
Hello. There is an RfC taking place at Talk:Theodore Edgar McCarrick regarding the possible restoration of three removed paragraphs if anyone is interested in participating. Display name 99 (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Bizarre merge discussion at Talk:Holy SeeEdit
Look I think need some eyes at Talk:Holy See, who are proposing the merger of Diocese of Rome and Holy See. I find arguments made such as
the two are the same thing, so it does not make sense for the two to have separate articles clearly wrong. Also one editor is currently blocked, and another made their first edit there (User:Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite). All said I find it a bit bizarre and suspicious. If anyone like to have a look it would be appreciated. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: With some merging by Onetwothreeip and splitting of the City section, the size is now down to 365k bytes. JohnThorne (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Trinity Ordinal useEdit
As the Sign of the cross convention holds, father is the first person in the trinity, the son is the second person, and the Holy Spirit is the third person. The question is does the ordering matter. Could not the Father just as well be the second or third person and that goes for the son and the Holy Spirit as well. In my opinion, First, Second, Third are ordinal numbers that confuse readers on the prominence of one person over the other. I propose that if Ordinal numbers are used to describe the persons in the trinity, especially in the lede, that it is the ordering in the Sign of the Cross where the convention arises. Thoughts? Dislosure- I made this edit - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God_the_Son&oldid=906734921.Manabimasu (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- You're forgetting about the order of the Nicene Creed and Apostles Creed. Not to mention standard prayer formulas like "glory to the father and to the son and to the holy ghost." It's standard language when talking about the trinity and should be left as is.--Ermenrich (talk)
- WP:Verifiability Any sources that claim that explain or use Ordinal numbers to describe the Trinity? your interpretation is WP:OR. I need sources for the use of Ordinal numbers. If not, I would put it off. The reasoning of the use of ordinal numbers should be explained with a source as well.Manabimasu (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
This order does not imply inequality,
but rather it signifies the place that the Son and Spirit occupy in the formulations of liturgical prayer, in the doxology, and in the confession of faith: the Son is recognized at the second “place” and the
Spirit at the third “rank.”— Gilles Emery, The Trinity: An Introduction to Catholic Doctrine on the Triune God
- [edit conflict] See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, this apologetic website, this Evangelical Website, this article on the Orthodox doctrine of the trinity. I challenge you to find any source that describes the persons of the trinity in any other way.
- EDIT: So I take it you accept that this is the correct usage now?--Ermenrich (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Dispute over Pontius Pilate rewrite over historicity of JesusEdit
Paul Seibert is threatening to undo the extensive rewrite I have just performed of Pontius Pilate, entirely based on reliable sources, because "Otherwise, we have to admit Gospels are historical documents, and Jesus was a real person, not a Christian mythology character." See here Talk:Pontius Pilate#Recent changes. I would appreciate any support in preventing this from happening.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Saint Claudia in need of rewriteEdit
If anyone has just a little bit of time on their hands, I came across this gem of an article today: Saint Claudia. It unquestioningly amalgamates and presents several legends about her as facts and is sourced entirely to Catholic Online, which is either a Wikipedia mirror or the article is a copyright violation.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Islamic view on Muhammad and the BibleEdit
Differences between Christian denominational branches?Edit
Would a Differences between Christian denominational branches do, at the least, let's say, the 3 or 4 main ones? Cf. Differences between Sunni, Shia and Ibadi Islam. PPEMES (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- How would it be different that Christian denomination, and why wouldn't we include it there? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Template:Kings of Israel and Template:Kings of JudahEdit
There is a discussion @WP:BIBLE#Templates:Kings_of_Israel_(Samaria)_and_Kings_of_Judah to possibly remove Template:Kings of Israel and Template:Kings of Judah completely from articles. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
The information under the page Jesus - Perspectives - Other concerning Manichaeism is lacking. In addition to that religion accepting Jesus as a prophet, to them he was the person who freed Adam and advised him to eat from the Tree of knowledge to escape the prison of the supposed "Prince of Darkness". Manichaeism was the main rival to Christianity before the spread of Islam and the founder was a Iran prophet named Mani. This information can be also used on other Christian articles explaining that ever since an early age Arabic people have doubted the God of the Bible and have searched for an alternative to Christianity. The information can be found under Jesus the Splendour and Manichaeism. --Enzu44 (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- I believe it's because it was rejected, and your characterization as the "main rival to Christianity" is odd as until that time, the polytheistic religions of Rome were the primary religious rivals. All forms of Gnosticism were rejected as non-orthodox around the fourth century. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- What is the main reason why it was rejected? After all, it was one of the depictions of Jesus in a different religion? --Enzu44 (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Unusual new editorEdit
Any idea who might be a potential sockmaster for this account?
Call for portal maintainersEdit
Are there any editors from this WikiProject willing to maintain Portal:Christianity and the several other portals that fall within the scope of this WikiProject? The Portals guideline requires that portals be maintained, and as a result numerous portals have been recently been deleted via MfD largely because of lack of maintenance. Let me know either way, and thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)