Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum/Archive 1

This page is being created to allow easier discussion of ideas and proposals which might be of interest to all the projects relating to Christianity. For specific matters relating to individual articles and issues, please use the relevant project's or work group's talk page.

Christianity awards
I'm not sure if any of you have noticed, but the Military history project has a series of "graded" awards available to their members, as can be seen at WikiProject Military history/Awards. I think that we might have benefit from setting up the same sort of graded system. Given that our scope is rather different, we'd probably use different symbols, though. Would anyone objects to creating awards based on the "classes" of angel-themed awards, perhaps differing in terms of wing counts? I know it's only a vague idea, but it's the best one I can think of so far. John Carter (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Angel theme with wing counts... I guess it is a good idea! --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 04:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "WikiWings" is a name already used by the Aviation project, but these three WikiHalos were recently given as ideas:


 * I personally would support their use. Thoughts? John Carter (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I support it but would like it if has more Christian symbolism like a cross or a Chi Rho.  Beware  ofdog  00:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

New work groups and/or portals
Are there any particular new work groups or portals any of you would like to see? We currently have one such proposal for a Protestantism portal. John Carter (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Work group for Early Christianity.  Many stubs (or dumps from Eastons Bible dictionary/11th edition of Encyclopedia Brittanica/Catholic Encyclopedia) in this area, would combat a systemic bias of the wiki.
 * 2) Work group for Christian denominations.  Many stubs in this area, and denominations are relatively important topics. GRBerry 18:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean, a workgroup in name of each major denomination ? --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 04:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I mean a single work group to make sure that we have a B-class or better article on every denomination. There are too many low quality articles, stubs, and non-articles out there, e.g. Christian Israelite Church, Christian Connection, Christian Catholic Church of Switzerland, Christian Catholic Apostolic Church, and Russian True Orthodox Church are all denominational articles that I've touched in the past couple days and the work group could work on.  I'm sure there are plenty of completly omitted denominations from non-Western countries; but obviously I can't link to the articles on them.  GRBerry 14:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed with GRBerry. Granted, in several cases, there might not be that much information easily available, or possibly much to say about the subject. This is particularly true of some of the pentecostal "denominations", some of which are basically only a single church, like the Crystal Cathedral. But if there is interest in separate groups for each major denomination, I wouldn't have any objections to seeing them started. John Carter (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) A work group for Christian theology would also be nice, but we'll probably have to go looking for expert editors.  GRBerry 18:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) *Given wikipedia's past experience with theological "experts", I am a little hesitant. However, I would be willing to help get this one of the ground. Pastordavid (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I meant "go looking for expert editors" in the sense of going outside Wikipedia to recruit actual experts from seminaries and the like. That makes this idea a real stretch.  GRBerry 19:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I threw this together as a starting place. Check it out, make suggestions on the talk page, or feel free to make changes. I tried to set it up to address the specific needs of this area. Pastordavid (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) In general, we have an abundance of stubs and poorly sourced articles floating around - especially in terms of contemporary church life (for example, glance through some of these).  Some sort of noticeboard/clearing house to find and evaluate sources - whether print or external links - would be helpful.  We need a whole lot less "I know this to be true ..." and a whole lot more "X says that...".  Pastordavid (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) * I've been doing assessments and stub sorting lately, so I'd been seeing a lot of this problem. Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Christianity articles by quality statistics shows that almost 50% of the project tagged articles are stubs, and in assessing I've found a lot of articles with sourcing issues (ranging from none to poorly done).  GRBerry 19:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree regarding the stubs and poorly sourced articles. That's one of the reasons I started putting the "Todo" lists on the top of every related project's talk page, hoping that doing so might get some attention to the weak articles. Regarding evaluating of sources, oh, that would be interesting, because we've not only got to deal with sources that are reliable in general, or not fringe, but also which might be reliable as statements of the opinions of a fringe group. Regarding the denominations, we do need a lot of help in that area. I'm putting together a list of denominations of various religions now, and it's huge, with even 14 Jehovah's Witnesses denominations. Many of these have nothing at all yet. Some of them, I think, may not merit much because of either their minimal size or brief lifespan, but many of the others do. Regarding the theology work group, I think that would probably work best as a joint subproject with WikiProject Philosophy. I can set up the Christianity banner to do "double duty" and assess for the Philosophy project as well if requested. I do think a lot more emphasis to that subject, particularly considering how important many of the points are to the various churches, would be extremely valuable. John Carter (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Portals
Suggested new portals include
 * Portal:Protestantism
 * Portal:Christian Theology

I can well understand that some people would question the possible proliferation of portals. My best reason for thinking they would be useful is a statement I saw some time ago which indicated that, for the Video Games project anyway, their portal got more hits than anything else in the project. I think that might hold true for some groups within Christianity as well. If I'm right in that, then there would be use for separate portals for many of the extant groups.

Portal Needed
We should have a Christian History portal. There is lots of material but is at an uneven level. A Christian History work group may also be what is needed.--Carlaude (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Portal:Christian history


 * I suggest portals about some protestant denominations. --Vojvodaeist 09:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We have portals about some protestant denominations.-- Carlaude (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I didnt see it before. I support portal Christian History with specific article about influence of christianity in some important historical events (like Hundred years war and similar). --Vojvodaeist 10:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration?
One of the reasons why I think there may not have been a particularly successful collaboration for Christianity in general in the past is because many times the most important topics are covered by more than one article, and we have generally thought of collaborations as being basically single-article affairs. But Pastordavid's comments about the numerous Baptism articles suggested to me the possibility that maybe whjat we might try to do is collaborate on a topic of relevance to all of Christianity, like maybe baptism, and try to get input from as many projects and individuals as possible on the articles relating to that topic, if not to any particular article. Any opinions on whether such a collaboration might work? John Carter (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Christianity in general should strive to embrace the concept of generic Christianity, without labels and/or prejudices. This could and would distinguish it from traditional Christianity which is being represented by Catholic/Protestant and fundamentalist movements which has seemed to hold a monopology over the concepts of what Christianity is and should be. (talk)

WikiBooks and other sister projects
I have noticed that there are absolutely zero books in Wikibooks relating to Christianity in any way. Considering the rather less limited nature of that site, maybe it would be one of the better places to try to generate content on some of the harder subjects which may not really fit as encyclopedia articles. Also, from what little I can see, i think Wikiquote could probably use some help as well in the Christianity content. If any of you are interested in maybe helping in these areas, please indicate as much below. I would be willing to help as I can, which really ain't necessarily much, unfortunately, in either effort. If we were to start one or more WikiBooks on Chrsitianity, which topics do the rest of you think would be the best ones to write about? John Carter (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say there isn't any book about Christianity on Wikibooks, but I would have to agree that the content that is on Wikibooks is highly disorganized and in desperate need of somebody with strong editorial skills to try and improve what is there. FYI, the original title of that Wikibook was Christianity and I don't really understand its merger with "Bibical Studies" or pounding in the commentary on the Book of John.  Some horrible editorial decisions were made to that content from perhaps some well meaning contributors to Wikibooks, but it isn't something that is impossible to fix either.  The general topic of Christianity above and beyond just simple Bibical Studies is IMHO a valid topic for Wikibooks, and something that deserves its own space for development.  --Robert Horning (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Page-locking admin has determined: Vatican document on human rights is NOT to be mentioned in article human rights, but gay / pedophile groups' documents ARE...
Help needed, this is one-sidedness, violation of neutrality, and admin abuse at its worst!!

See Talk:Human_rights

70.105.20.126 (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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


 * How about Portal:Christian Literature and Art instead.
 * For one thing, comics and manga are a legitimate and increasingly popular art form that is both Literature and Art.
 * This would also give the poral a wider array of articles to "draw" on. -- Carlaude (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Patriarch of Serbia
Can anyone help me to improve this article to FA list status? I have literature and resources but I need help about criteria. Give answer on my talk page pleas.--Vojvodaeist 19:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Project Organization questions
A few ideas regarding how to maybe use the benefit of having such a large project available to improve articles. For those of you who don't already know this, WikiProject Military history, arguably one of the most successful Projects out there, has a contest department which some editors use as a way of getting a bit more attention to some articles. Maybe this group, and all the other associated Christianity projects, could try to set up something similar. One proposal, which I acknowledge up front still needs a lot of work, might have some of these characteristics: Why go through all the effort of setting up such a complicated structure? Well, basically, because we've got a lot of material to deal with, and it might be one of the few ways to get attention of several editors to the more important content. I do note that having an "article of the month" proposal did seem to at least get those articles started earlier. Possibly we could include specific "thank you"'s to those individuals who have contributed the most to the Christianity projects the prior month, and maybe (maybe) grant greater point awards to specific articles at specific times, helping encourage real-time collaboration on those articles. Sorry for the length of the comments above. Anyone who has any opinions on these ideas, one way or another, is welcome to offer them below. Thanks for your attention. John Carter (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Award points to be given to editors who substantially improve articles
 * This might use something similar to the existing system Military history uses, giving points on the basis of improving articles.
 * Possibly allocating additional points based on the comparative importance of an article to Christianity as a whole, and possibly one or more groups within Christianity. These might be allocated on the basis of "importance" rankings of given articles to the greater "Christianity" project, as well as conceivably to their importance to any of the subprojects/work groups. As examples, maybe X points (5?) could be given over and above the other points for improving an article of High mportance to Christianity, and maybe 5 more for articles of "Top" importance to the Christianity project. Lesser totals (3, maybe?) could be given to articles relating to subjects important to one or more denominations/groupings within Christianity which are of Top or High importance to those groups, but maybe not to the broader area of Christianity. I acknowledge up front that doing something like this would seem to often favor the larger groups within Christianity, as they are more likely to have more articles of "Top" or "High" importance than smaller groups, but it could be argued that would make sense anyway.
 * Other point totals for adding content which isn't substantially repetitive of other existing content to an article of broad interest within greater Christianity. Example: Maybe X points to be given to an editor who adds content relative to the unusual (Group X) baptism tradition to the Baptism article. If the content is already substantially there regarding another group, however, maybe just adding a clause naming the group; maybe, in some cases, not even that much if such an addition would look too much like a list. It might also be possible to generate lists of articles seeking input relative to individual faith traditions for the various subprojects, to help ensure that those more central articles get broader attention.
 * Possibly granting points for removing quality tags from articles, possibly with other points for "importance" rankings as per the above as well. DYKs, GAs, and FAs, maybe other grades as well, might get greater awards given the difficulties of achieving those levels.
 * Also, with the new function of "logging in" to sister projects in other languages automatically, maybe we could also extend "points" for improving articles in other wikipedias, and maybe in other WikiMedia entities as well. For foreign language articles, we could probably use the same "point" system indicated above, although it might be harder to find people fluent in those languages. Possibly a separate department for Other Languages could be developed as well, to help find such editors. We already have nine "sister" projects in other languages, so something of the type might not be a bad idea. Articles selected for the various release editions of wikipedia might get similarly "higher" point totals to encourage attention to them as well. WikiBooks and the like would require separate point awards, but might still be possible.
 * Finally, we might be able to generate lists of missing articles for the various groups, to encourage development of them.
 * This wouldn't necessarily be easy, however. We would definitely need at least a few editors being willing to help out regularly in peer review and assessment, to establish the "base lines" for various articles. Beyond that, simply setting up a "contest" page where people keep track of the totals might be enough to maybe help this take off.

Myth Terminology
There are several WK articles in which religious beliefs are labeled as “myth”. One current discussion in on the talk page of Creation myth. To many readers (not all) of Wikipedia, a myth has a conotation of a story that is mere fairytale: It is often a perjorative term and has a “loaded” meaning. Is this a correct judgement of theological beliefs by some WK editors or is this an NPOV violation? Is there more neutral terminology which does not cast judgement: creation stories, creation beliefs, creation accounts, etc? Grantmidnight (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically, myth as the term is used academically isn't perjorative, just a descriptive term. Generally, that is. It generally is used for stories which are held to be true but whose objective factuality is perhaps open to question. Part of the reason for such description, and possibly categorization, is to make a bit more obvious the presumed linkage of certain myths (like Judeo-Christian angels) with earlier stories, like the Zoroastrian Amesha Spentas. Officially, use of the term does not "cast judgement" on the veracity of the story in question, although I acknowledge that often is the popular perception. That basically leaves open the question whether we should be influenced by popular, but academically incorrect, opinion or not. That is a good question, and I would appreciate other responses as well. John Carter (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)