Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard/Archive 5

Category rename
Hi, I have requested a rename of Category:Evangelical Church in Germany dioceses; see the discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 15. Thanks! +Angr 17:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Clancularii
I have proposed the deletion of Clancularii. If anyone can find a verifiable source and additional information on this Anabaptist group, it may be salvageable. ✤ JonHarder talk 15:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

City of God (book) needs your help
I was surprised to see that our article on City of God (book) (De Civitate Dei) by Augustine of Hippo is basically just a stub (and has no cites.) It's marked as "supported by the Theology work group" and of mid-importance on the Project's importance scale. Can anybody do anything to improve this? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

FAR for Søren Kierkegaard
nominated Søren Kierkegaard 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Arsenikk (talk)  22:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at The_Secret_Gospel_of_Mark_and_the_Synoptic_Problem?
I'm not versed in the analysis of non-canonical Christian texts, so I'd appreciate it if someone could look at this new article and figure out if it is encyclopedic or even if the author is performing original research. Thanks! Clifflandis (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, at any rate it should be merged into Secret Gospel of Mark, what survives being considered WP:OR. Mangoe (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've left a message with User talk:Michaeles Nagoda inviting him to do the update himself. Mangoe (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Suspect category
Hello! The category Category:Josephite sects in the Latter Day Saint movement has a biased name, and a worse biased content:
 * Sects in the Latter Day Saint movement that
 * 1. recognize Joseph Smith III as the rightful successor to Joseph Smith, Jr., or
 * 2. formed as schismatic break-offs from the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints / Community of Christ.

The category seems too small to exist, and it is populated with opponents on an issue, so the reason for it seems to be confused. Opinions? ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 15:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I forgot: a) the name "sect" is bias-colored, b) the denotion "Josephite" for RLDS:ers is found in the disambiguation page Josephites only, linking to Community of Christ that doesn't contain the word "josephite". ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 15:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominate it for WP:CFD, saying what you said here and I would hope proposing an alterantive and why the alternate would be preferable. There seems to be some reasonable basis for such a category existing, but if you can suggest alternate names that would be acceptable as well. Also, unfortunately, the RLDS is apparently not the only group this applies to. If, and I acknowledge I don't know here, if the term "Josephite" is in fairly, broad-based regular usage in this context, it might be acceptable for the category, regardless of whether any particular group within that field, even the largest one, uses it specifically. John Carter (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Miraculous draught and catch of fish
RfC started at Talk:Miraculous_Draught_of_Fish All project members are invited and encouraged to participate. Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I've asked History2007 if we need two different articles on Miraculous draught of fishes ‎and Miraculous catch of 153 fish, with no response. Both articles are largely unreferenced with only links to primary sources. I can understand the argument for keeping separate miracles on different pages, but can someone look at both articles and decide what to do? There is, after all, significant overlap and a lack of citations. Viriditas (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a need to have two articles on the same, related subject? Shouldn't we have one article that includes all subjects rather than many that refers to one? Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, one of the miracles is early in the life of Jesus, the other after Resurrection. Articles say that, but obviously not clearly enough. Merry Christmas.History2007 (talk) 12:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is clear, and I've addressed that issue (and others) at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity. But, since the miracles of the fishes concern the same relevant topic, we should help the reader by keeping everything on one page. This is not necessary, but it is a good approach.  Right now, there is significant overlap between the two articles.  On Wikipedia, best practice is to merge whenever this occurs.  BTW, if you don't want to keep this discussion intact on your talk page, feel free to remove the entire thing and place it on my talk page, and we will continue it there.  I just want to keep the entire discussion in one place.  Otherwise, you can move it to the article or Wikiproject talk page.  No hurry on any of this.  Enjoy your Christmas. Viriditas (talk) 12:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I added full refs a few minutes ago. They are separate miracles. I am not going to agree to a merge since even in art they are represented differently. You should discuss it on the talk page for the miracles to see what others say. I am solid in my opposition, but other opinions should be sought. Another KEY issue is that Gospel Harmony based on the miracles needs separate these since they are temporally different events and can not be merged in a harmony. It doe snot make ANY sense to merge them for that reason alone in any case. History2007 (talk) 12:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We have precedent for merging separate miracles into one article. For one example, see feeding the multitude.  For the purposes of categorization, redirects can appear separately (for example Miracle of the first draught of fishes and Miracle of the second draught of fishes)  But, as far as I can tell, the primary article should be named, Miracle of the draught of fishes, which would include the first, Luke (5:1-11), and second miracle, John (21:1-14), on one page. Viriditas (talk) 12:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait to see what others say. History2007 (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's already established. Miraculous Draught of Fish was created on 29 April 2006, but you created two duplicate articles on 23 October 2009, so now instead of one article with all of the information in one place, we have three.  Please redirect the two articles you created to the original article created in 2006.  We do not need three articles.  Furthermore, I recommend moving Miraculous Draught of Fish to Miracle of the draught of fishes per naming conventions.  Please also remember, that regardless of our feelings, we write Wikipedia articles for the reader.  It is very unfair to have our readers scan through three articles to find information that belongs on one. Viriditas (talk) 13:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the rush? Is this causing an economic meltdown and needs to be discussed on Christmas day? Wait 4 days for response from others who watch those pages. They may be busy today. Wait. History2007 (talk) 13:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please look above to my comments at 12:32, where I said "no hurry on any of this". Do you see it?  For the record, you are the editor who split the one article into three which goes against best practices.  This is one, unified subject, and there isn't enough content right now to demand splitting it out.  It also does a great disservice to the reader seeking to understand the topic.  And, I would like to suggest that since the article was fairly stable from 2006-2009, that you should have waited for input before splitting it.  Now, we have three stubs instead of one comprehensive article.  Viriditas (talk) 13:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * More support for one article prior to the content forking:  Catch of 153 fish used to redirect to Miraculous Draught of Fish before History2007 removed it and created a duplicate article on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 07:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge tags added to all three articles. The two new articles created by History2007 should be merged into the original article, and if so desired, the old article can be moved to a new name. Viriditas (talk) 07:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dispite the nice irony in having this discussion and the one above on the same page, I agree that this is an out-of-place discussion. It is even open to deletion as such, if continued.
 * The discussion needs to be at the talk page of one of those, such as the one you want deleted-- and both articles need to be tagged on the page themselves. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 04:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any irony. These are two different subjects with related topics, hence their discussion on the project page.  Please try to follow the discussion a bit more closely, as nobody has claimed that this is "out-of-place".  In fact, the exact opposite was claimed.  This discussion originally took place on History2007's talk page, and he centralized it here at my suggestion.  Also, nobody is arguing for deletion of any kind, so again, I have no idea what you are talking about.  What we have is a simple problem with premature splitting.  In other words, the original article, Miraculous Draught of Fish was erroneously split up, and instead of one article on the subject, we now have three stubs.  My original notification here was on topic and asked for wider input on the problem.  Please try to focus on this issue, as it is highly appropriate for the project page. Viriditas (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of churches
This link points to copyrighted pictures NOT in the public domain unless you find out otherwise. We probably have legal pictures of many of these already. But some of these may need released pictures to Wikimedia. See http://www.boredpanda.com/50-most-extraordinary-churches-of-the-world. Student7 (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Biblical disambiguators
If you have a moment, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. Thank you! — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 07:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirects by Clinkophonist
I was doing some research on Christianity today, only to find that all of the information I was looking for was no longer available and was redirected by someone named User:Clinkophonist in 2006. That's a huge surprise to me, since the redirects did not contain the information that was in the original articles. I was going to contact Clinkophonist and ask what was going on, but the user hasn't been active since March. In my opinion, most of these so-called "merges" (actually redirects with no merge) were poorly conceived and should be reverted. For only one of many examples, I went looking for information about the phrase "fishers of men". There was once an article about it called Matthew 4:19, but Clinkophonist merged this information into Twelve Apostles (now called Apostle (Christian))in April 2006, but that content is no longer on Wikipedia. So to start with, could someone tell me why all the articles on biblical passages have disappeared? Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Before I propose and guess at this (not aware at the time so I do not know) let me ask what exactly about the phrase "fishers of men" were you hoping to learn? Or hope that other could learn if you already know said information? Could it be better put in Gospel of Matthew or Apostle (Christian)?User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 04:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We may be having trouble communicating, as that doesn't address the problem. Let me try again: Are you familiar with the redirects that User:Clinkophonist has created?  Many of them are no longer valid.  For example, Matthew 4:19 redirects to Apostle (Christian) instead of the Gospel of Matthew.  And even within that article, there are lots of problems.  For example, material related to Matthew 4:19 redirects to Disciple_(Christianity), which in turn, points to Mark 1.  I don't know who is responsible for this structure, but it doesn't work. Viriditas (talk) 09:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If we are having trouble communicating-- it seems to me that you do not want to give information that I asked for.
 * Rather than just talking about why that may be, let me point out that for there to be an article on Matthew 4:19, there needs to be something noteworthy to say about it-- or at least something Wikipedians find noteworthy. If you are unwilling or unable to affirm any such information that someone would come to Wikipedia to discover about Matthew 4:19, that is not a good sign that there is any such information. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 11:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that a discussion consisted of demanding answers to questions. I think I clearly explained the problem, but you either don't understand it or can't be bothered to look into it.  In any case, I tried here first, which may have been my mistake.  I assumed that people who followed this page would understand what's wrong.  Your subsequent comment confirms that you do not.  Your strange assumption that the example of the fishers of men is somehow not noteworthy, transcends the definition of strange.  The links to the previous versions of the content in question demonstrate their noteworthiness, so you are asking questions that have already been answered.  If this is just a game to you, then fine, but I would like a response from someone who knows what they are talking about.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 11:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That you still have not answered the question (but just talked as if it is an easy question-- and tossed out insults) still hinders whatever purpose you are trying to serve by posting here. Maybe if you give an answer I will be able to show you why I asked the question.
 * I personally do find the verse notworthy-- but I would not come to Wikipedia first to look at its meaning. There are just very few Bible verses with their own Wikipedia article. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 04:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry, Carl, but I have no idea what you are talking about. We seem to be talking about two different topics.  To recap, my concerns here are purely procedural.  That is to say, we have a set of redirects that are no longer accurate and need to be fixed.  We also have a set of topics that were once merged into related articles but appear to have been deleted.  Two different issues, neither of which require answering your "questions" to address.  As you can see below, I have attempted to solve one, and this discussion merely serves to notify the project of the problem.  As for your claim that "there are very few bible verses with their own Wikipedia article," that misses my point entirely.  Many of these verses have appropriate redirects where the relevant content can be found, hence my original observation about the 1) inaccurate redirect, and 2) the deleted content.  Also, I've pointed out that such redirects had no consensus in 2005 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew 1:verses) and I'm curious when a new consensus for redirects supplanted it.  Looking at User talk:Clinkophonist/Archive2 and other discussions on the subject seems to show that User:Clinkophonist acted unilaterally and without consensus by redirecting all of this material, much of which is sourced.  If for some reason you don't understand what I'm saying, that's fine, but let somebody who does deal with it.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 06:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Further questions

 * Have their been any recent updates regarding the outcome of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew 1:verses? If not, I'm going to temporarily redirect Matthew 4:19 to Disciple_(Christianity), per the links established in Content of Matthew.  If someone disagrees, then please redirect to Gospel of Matthew.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 11:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I would sure hate to see any or any more scripture verses being given redirects instead of deletion. The encyclopedia should not be that textually oriented. BTW, we would also have suras from the Koran, text from the Book of Mormon, vedas, etc. None of which is desirable IMO. Wikipedia is not intended for meditation. People interested in text have many other resources on the web. This shouldn't be one of them. Student7 (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD
I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Articles for deletion/List of former Jews.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Christ myth theory
Members of this WikiProject might be able to help out on some of the disputes at Christ myth theory. For those unfamiliar with the subject, the Christ myth theory is the claim that Jesus never existed, and the stories about him are fabricated myths. This is a fringe theory, and is called so by multiple scholarly sources. Current disputes on the article include the definition of the theory itself; whether scholars' comparisons of the theory to Holocaust denial should be included in the lead (or at all), and whether the article should be rolled back to the version of December 5, reverting a substantial number of edits. Of course, many of those edits were reverts--two editors have recently been blocked for edit warring on the article, and the page is currently fully protected. Some new voices might help resolve what have so far been unresolvable problems. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD
Please see:: Articles for deletion/Yahweh and Allah.Borock (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles on bishops
There are lots of articles on bishops which don't seem to give any assertion of notability other than them being a bishop (eg. all the recent Bishops of Kensington). Has there been a discussion anywhere about the notability requirements for clergy? Being a bishop doesn't seem like its enough to me... --Tango (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't point to a "finding" offhand, but I thought all bishops were notable, as the term is used by small-c catholic organizations. There are some denominations where the term is used essentially for local minister, and in my mind, they would not be automatically included. As a point of reference, in the US, an average Catholic bishop in the 21st century has a diocese of about 500,000 people. This seems notable to me of itself. Student7 (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project
This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

One question
Does Listing of Christianity articles by quality include all subprojects or just main project (Wikiproject Christianity) --Vojvodae please be free to write :) 10:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for help
Howdy, could someone please look at Talk:Religious_response_to_ART. There's a new on the Church and IVF policy. I don't know enough and would appreciate if someone here could flip through the article and see if it jives with what is currently in Religious_response_to_ART. Thanks, Joe407 (talk) 09:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP deletions - Rubem Alves
In the current move to delete unsourced BLPs I came across the article on Rubem Alves, which had been tagged as a "non-notable theologian". Looking around a bit I discovered that he was one of the founders of liberation theology (which surprised me, because I didn't know that it Protestant roots, at least in part). I was able to add a few basic cites, but it strikes me as an important bio, and probably worthy of attention from someone who knows more than a little about the topic. Guettarda (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment request...
Hello WikiProject Christianity. I requested an assessment for the article Sergei Kourdakov about a month and a half ago but no one has assessed it unfortunately. Could someone qualified please do so soon? Thank you very much. Sorafune  +1  18:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people
Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:
 * 1) supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
 * 2) opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people
If you don't already have Cleanup listings,  Cleanup listings is a bot which collects all tagged unreferenced biographies of living people, plus other lists onto one page in your project.
 * List of cleanup articles for your project

It is very easy to add to your project: simply add a template to a page of your project! Instructions

A list of examples is here

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip
 * Moving unreferenced blp articles to special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
 * Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

Ikip 08:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Barely failed GA of Genealogy of Jesus
There are only a few issues that the reviewer felt should be addressed, but the main contributor that improved the aritcle hasn't been around for a while. I helped with a few small things, but it's not really my area of expertise. Can anyone address the issues raised on Talk:Genealogy of Jesus/GA1? Then the article could be renominated and achieve GA status. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz 06:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

New work group
I would like to start new work group: Serbian Orthodox Church but I dont know how to do that. Can someone help?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 08:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Getting close to edit warring on Christian Conventions article
I would appreciate uninvolved editors having a look at the intense editing at Christian Conventions. Blanking of referenced material and unsupported dispute tagging by one editor in particular has increased during the last days, with no references in support of the blanking/tagging being given by the editor when asked. This has been a problem in the past, is wearying to other editors, and doesn't move the article forward. Since I am involved in editing the article, uninvolved editors might again offer ways to get back on track. If there is a better venue for handling this, I'd appreciate a pointer, since I'm not sure how to categorize this sort of situation. &bull; Astynax talk 00:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If the edit conflicts are very active, then I would suggest sending a complaint to the requests for page protection area. I myself have sent complaints to that page a few times. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 00:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this editor will figure out that he shouldn't be blanking and dispute tagging without some solid rationale. Several editors have tried to explain this to him. Though I'm among the frustrated, still, I'd rather the editor "get it" soon. This is the only really contentious article I've edited, and the combination of unreferenced dispute tagging and blanking didn't seem to fit any of the descriptions of behavior I'd read on pages describing disruptions. I figured someone here would have encountered a similar situation, so thank you, I will check out the link.. &bull; Astynax talk 04:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm glad to be of service. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 04:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing that the editor you referred to was unregistered. I've requested page semi-protection. Student7 (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is an unregistered editor(s) who seem to pop in only to fan flames, so that will help. The other editor seems to have temporarily stepped back since being warned by third editor. We'll see whether they come back in a more constructive frame. Thank you for helping. &bull; Astynax talk 18:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Alfred Seiwert-Fleige
Could someone please take a look at Alfred Seiwert-Fleige? It is unclear whether this bishop is currently in communion with Rome, and I don't know enough about traditionalist Catholic churches to be able to evaluate the article. There is a speedy tag on the article; remove it if that is what you think you should do. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate the difficulty. Whew! Anyway, it seems to me that he is a bishop of some church. Not sure which one, and therefore deserves and article which, however needs to be referenced with WP:RELY sources. A lot of the stuff I glanced at didn't seems to be specifically referenced. In his case, it definitely needs to be! Good luck! Student7 (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC for Another Gospel
Please see Talk:Another_Gospel. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please look at Christian Ethics
I read the entry under "Christian Ethics" and found that it is not only weak and often historically incorrect, it also violates the Neutral Point of View rule. Rather than edit it, myself --because of time-constraints-- I wrote my critiques on the Discussion Page. There are two, one on the article in general, and the other on "Protestant Ethics." It is the second that concerned me the most, as it not only was biased against Protestantism, it was also lacking in any historical perspective. These problems (NPOV, factual errors and lack of historical perspective, in my judgement, weaken not just the Protestant section, but the entire article. As I am a Protestant and familiar with Protestant history and thought I felt comfortable criticizing that section. It would be good for others to examine the whole article. What do others think?--Comsources (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Seeking sources for the phrase "Another Gospel"
I'm looking for a Wikipedia-suitable source (or sources) substantiating a link between the title of the book Another Gospel and the Apostle Paul's use of this phrase (Galatians 1:6) to describe heresy in the first-century church. Failing that, I'd like to find a suitable source linking this phrase to the views and aims of the Christian countercult movement. In my opinion (and I'm sure I'm not alone), Galatians 1:6 is "obviously" the origin of the title of Ruth Tucker's book — but clearly that's not sufficient justification for saying so in a Wikipedia article, hence my quest for sources so this fact can legitimately be noted in Another Gospel and/or Christian countercult movement. Any help would be welcome. Thanks. Richwales (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Catholic social teaching
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Catholic social teaching/GA1. I have placed the article on hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson
Could someone explain why there is a wiki link about Michael Jackson on the main page? I would remove it myself, but I have no idea how to do that. --209.244.30.253 (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed it. -Pollinosisss (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Theology work group
Is there anyone interested to collaborate in Christian theology work group?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 17:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"Evangelcal Lutheran" not possible in English
A single user has changed the entries of the ELCA's German sister churches to their German names because he thinks the "concept" can't be translated. Most of the discussion takes place on the wikipedia article on the Evangelical Church in Germany, the roof organisation of the Evangelical (Lutheran) churches in Germany. Maybe you have a look? Because according to that user (and he really insists) the Church should not be called that way. Some of the member churches are outspoken Lutheran like the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria, some are "united" like the Evangelical Church in the Rhineland, 2 are Reformed like the Evangelical Reformed Church. Usually one member church covers a unique area (pretty much like a diocese). Maybe you want to take part in the discussion? --Mk4711 (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC - prefixes in article title of Eastern Orthodox officials
An RfC is currently open (Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(clergy)) regarding the appropriateness of having position titles in the article title of religious Eastern Orthodox officials. Commentary would be welcomed, as the WP:NCWC talk page has a low level of activity.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ammended: The proposal currently tables is to remove of all prefix religious titles, positions and/or honours from the article title.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ōura Cathedral
On Talk:Ōura Cathedral I proposed a move ... Ōura Catholic Church, which that religious community actually calls it, or its formal name. The current name could be kept as an redirect. Please give a look and input. Thanks. --Aphaia (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church reorganization proposal - comments welcome
A proposal has been made to restructure and shorten the article Catholic Church. Comments on whether or not the proposed changed should be implemented are welcome. Karanacs (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Jacob Frank now a mascot for Wikipedia sister project Wikiversity
Hi, I'm developing Jacob Frank (an 18th-century Jew who led his own religious movement called Frankism, and ultimately converted to Christianity) as a mascot for Wikipedia's sister project Wikiversity. Wikiversity aims to be an online open school and university, and was also created to host original research. Because of its nature, it's open to educational resources in almost any format. Wikiversity's mascots appear on User talk pages when new Users are welcomed. In my opinion, the Wikiversity mascots could be used more fully as an opportunity to teach. The previously developed Wikiversity mascots lack intrinsic educational value. For example, they include a jack-o-lantern, a goat and twin babies not noticeably tied to anything else. In contrast, Jacob Frank is tied to a chapter of history that is relatively little-known and is probably interesting to some people who might not have heard of him beforehand. I'm also hoping to use his professed ignorance in real life and the Frankist doctrine of "purification through transgression" to introduce the Wikiversity policies of "Be bold" and "Ignore all rules" (Wikipedia has very similar policies with the same names). I would appreciate your going over to Wikiversity to provide feedback on the pages about the mascot: v:User:JacobFrank and v:Template:JacobFrank. The Template is left on new Users' talk pages; the Userpage is linked from the template and provides more information about Jacob Frank. Also, any ideas for other Wikiversity mascots? Thanks. -- AFriedman  (talk)  04:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidate: Go review it!
St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao is a current FA candidate. So far nobody has supported or opposed the nomination. Please make your opinion known. Review Page Here ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 16:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested Move Of Genesis Creation Myth
here Thank you For you time Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Maggie Gallagher's bio - WikiProject Christianity
Maggie Gallagher's bio is part of WikiProject Christianity, however there is no indication of her faith or the connection. --DCX (talk) 06:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I viewed the profile, and, while she does hold beliefs that are in harmony with Christian religous belief, the article doesn't specifically point out that she is a Christian. She is in the Christian media category, though. Due to some of her opinions, I wouldn't doubt that she is a Christian, and chances are that it shouldn't be hard to find a source to confirm her Christian stance if these opinions of hers are openly broadcasted like it is. Those are my thughts. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 20:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church RfC
Requests for comment/Catholic Church has opened to decide which of several versions of the article has consensus, and how best to develop it. Input is welcome. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 00:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot
Okip  01:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Christian soldier
This article needs more input from people who know something about Christianity. Right now some people are trying to define a Christian soldier as a terrorist. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review of Our Lady of Europe
I have undertaken the review of this article against the Good Article criteria, per its nomination for Good Article status. A number of outstanding problems have been identified, however. The shortness of the lead is a particular concern and grounds for immediate failure. However, I have kept the review open to allow editors time to rectify the issues identified, which can be found here. If you have any questions or concerns please don't hesitate to contact me. ✽ Juniper§ Liege  (TALK)  07:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Need expert help on merging an article
User:Michaeles Nagoda has dropped a term paper, more or less, on us in the form of The Secret Gospel of Mark and the Synoptic Problem, and hasn't edited it or anything else since. I think this article is going to have to put up for deletion, but it would be useful to mine it for material in the article on the Secret Gospel of Mark. I'm probably not knowledgeable enough to evaluate this by myself, so I would ask anyone who can help to drop me a note or just have at it themselves. Mangoe (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I find that the sorting of stages and phases in the theories are not encyclopedic. That is one flaw of the article. It needs some major cleanup. I notice also that there are no categories in the article. At least the article has a fair list of references, though. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 04:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to move the references to the talk page of the relevant articles and put this one up for deletion then. Thanks. Mangoe (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Dispute witch-hunt being low importance for Christianity and suggest this categorisation is political
This was a major cause of loss of life and repression of women for hundreds of years and is a symbol of the backwardness of the middle ages in popular culture. It's a very important part of the history of Christianity, in fact I recently read a news article criticising extremist Islamists for drawing parallels between their beliefs and the past misdeeds of Christianity on the basis that Christianity has evolved and they are still mired in the dark ages. Surely it deserves to be of medium importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.31 (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I find myself missing the target goal of that post. Is there a specific article you are talking about? Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 00:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I suppose it's about witch-hunt, which is considered of low importance to this WikiProject. I agree; using the language of the importance scale, witch hunts have "a strong but not vital role in the history of Christianity", "[m]any readers will be familiar with the topic being discussed, but a larger majority of readers may have only cursory knowledge of the overall subject", and it's a subject which is "well known but not necessarily vital to understand Christianity", putting it squarely at mid-importance. I'll change the article's assessment. Huon (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "mid" works for me too. Johnbod (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as "very important" to Christianity per se, as much as it is relative to a societal characteristic reflecting history and culture. Societies dominated by both monotheistic and polytheistic religions have condemned or outlawed sorcery and spawned witch-hunts. That includes Judaism, Christianity and Islam in their various forms, but also pagan societies. So singling out Christianity seems odd, and I wonder why it included in the Christianity project at all? I don't see this article listing any projects for other religious traditions which have had a history with this issue, including those with ongoing persecution of people deemed witches. &bull; Astynax talk 06:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's a little odd to say that a subject that applies equally to every religion, and which predates the existence of Christianity by literally more than one thousand years, is really important to Christianity.
 * Additionally, the project's priority rating should reflect more about which articles this project's members want to improve first than some sort of abstract guess at a global or True™ importance.
 * (More information is at WP:WikiProject Council/Guide and WP:1.0 team pages.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing, for your interpretation of importance I suggest rewriting the WikiProject's importance scale. Nothing there suggests it's about "what the WikiProject members want to improve first".
 * Indeed the topic isn't very important to christianity, and it could be of significance to other religions. Yet all the most (in)famous witch hunts occurred in a Christian context, be it the Salem witch trials or persecution in Europe, with Christian clergy in a prominent role (and by the way, the religions with "ongoing persecution of people deemed witches" include Christianity, see for example here). The article is also covered by the more general Interfaith workgroup of WikiProject Religion and by WikiProject Anthropology, but I still don't see that it doesn't fall under this WikiProject's scope or how its importance is less than "mid". For comparison, other articles assessed at the same importance for this WikiProject include Latin, House of Habsburg, Louis XIV of France or, a better analogy, capital punishment, humility (!), Sol Invictus and demon. None of them are of importance exclusively or even primarily to Christianity. Huon (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it was Christianity's careful documentation of cases (for example, Joan of Arc, and the Salem witch trials, to name two) that led to Western nations' eventual realization that witches did not exist. Others killed witches and were not careful about documenting anything. Also wizards were affected as well. Note Salem cases involving men, for example. We didn't get to where we are today in one fell swoop. We had to "get through" witchcraft first. That had persisted for untold millenia. I doubt it's overall importance though. Student7 (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Next Level Church
I just did some updating of Next Level Church and thought I'd pop in here to see if I could get some people to drop by and spiff it up some more. Thanks! Huw Powell (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia secular?

 * Wikipedia defines secularity as "the state of being separate from religion."
 * But is Wikipedia secular? If so, what does it mean for Wikipedia to have a Christianity project?
 * WikiProject Christianity is here because Wikipedia is not secular, it is neutral.
 * Technically speaking, Wikipedia is eclectic, not secular.
 * As the WP:NPOV states:
 * "Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."
 * It is "non-negotiable" and "expected of all articles and all editors" that all significant views are represented.
 * When Christianity has a significant point of view, Wiki needs us!
 * A rumour circulates that Wikipedia is secular, and is often used to try to silence Christian points of view. People who circulate the rumour often believe it in good faith (WP:AGF). Even Christians can want to avoid being seen to be "pushing a POV".
 * It is not POV pushing to provide reliable sources for a significant point of view.
 * Are Christian sources unreliable, simply because they're Christian? Certainly not!
 * Quite the opposite is the case, "reliabile source" for a POV means something like "authentic example of expert articulation" of a POV.
 * "Jesus is Lord" can be reliably sourced as a Christian POV, by finding expert Christians who've published it as a Christian POV.
 * Unfortunately, "Jesus is Lord" is a POV that is rarely significant in an eclectic context like Wikipedia.
 * However, sometimes it is a relevant POV, and when it is, WP:NPOV demands it be included.
 * At Wikipedia, "Jesus is Lord" is a Christian POV sourced on books in libraries, not "truth" referenced to the Bible by God.


 * Well, that's my opinion anyway. What am I getting wrong? Alastair Haines (talk) 06:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Certainly WP should report the views of Christians, along with other religions. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion here may pertain to your post. Your comments would be appreciated. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Help needed

 * Talk:Hutaree could use some help. Somehow there seems to be a problem getting the information across that terrorist attacks against police officers are not a feature of mainstream Christianity. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Talk:Robbie Mannheim could also use some help. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair_Haines_2. I could do with people to scrutinize Wikipedia processes here. From my perspective, this is the most recent in a long term campaign of attempting to silence my Christian-related contributions. It has involved successful attempts to discredit me and carry through intimidating threats to silence me. It's a little unpleasant in places, please only come if you are level-headed. Participation in discussion is welcome and part of the process. Feel free to ask me to answer for any errors you think I might have made, but likewise, errors you suspect in all other parties, including arbitrator errors. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Same information twice on the same page
Hello, I saw almost exactly the same information twice on Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am not experienced enough to decide what to keep and what to delete. I think the article will be better if it is in one place only. Look here please. Thanks a lot. The first is:
 * In addition to the Godhead, LDS theology recognizes at least the possibility of other divine entities; however, these other "gods" and "goddesses" are not considered to be objects of worship, and have no direct relevance to salvation. LDS Church President Lorenzo Snow expressed the nature of the Father in his couplet, "As man is, God once was—and as God is, man may become"—differing somewhat from the traditional Christian idea of theosis. Exaltation is a belief among members of the LDS Church that mankind, as spirit children of their Father in heaven, can become like Him.

Official church materials refer to "Heavenly Parents," implying to some the existence of a Heavenly Mother.[23] Belief in such a figure is common among members, and she has been mentioned in meetings by church officials[24][25] and alluded to in two of the hymns of the church.[26] However, very little on the subject of a Heavenly Mother has been taught by the church. See also: Exaltation (LDS Church), King Follett discourse, Mormonism and Christianity, Mormon cosmology, and Religious perspectives on Jesus#The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

The second is:
 * LDS President Lorenzo Snow has expressed some LDS teaching of God in his statement "As man is, God once was-- and as God is, man may become"-- differing somewhat from the traditional Christian idea of theosis. Exaltation or eternal progression is a belief among members of the LDS Church that mankind, as spirit children of their father in heaven, can become like him.

Official church materials refer to "Heavenly Parents," implying to some the existence of a Heavenly Mother.[41] Belief in such a figure is common among members, and she has been mentioned in meetings by church officials[42][43] and in some of the hymns of the church.[44] However, very little doctrine on the subject of a Heavenly Mother has been released by the church. See also: Exaltation (LDS Church), King Follett discourse, Mormonism and Christianity, Mormon cosmology, and Religious perspectives on Jesus#The_Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 90.231.11.211 (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The entire "other heavenly beings" subsection was redundant, I've removed it. Huon (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Great, it looks so much better. Thanks! 90.231.11.211 (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD
Please see: Articles for deletion/Islamic terrorism, Jewish religious terrorism and Christian terrorism included in AfD. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

What to do with good links?
Hello, I am new and I got the advice to come here and ask for help. I have not seen the links here that I am showing you, and I think it would be great if the information could be included in one way or the other. I don't know how to do it, so I hope that someone perhaps could give some help.

The LDS Church themselves think they belong to the Jewish-Christian tradition. There are non-LDS scholars that support that view too.

Also, even if the LDS Church members don't talk so much about Open Theism, they are probably the most (or one of the most) Open Theists because of the theology in the LDS Church.

Professor Emeritus W. D. Davies, a famous scholar in theology (and not a member in LDS) said: Mormonism is the Jewish-Christian tradition in an American key. He explained in "Israel, the Mormons and the Land" http://rsc.byu.edu/pubWDaviesIsraelMormonsLand.php

Also the famous lutheran theologian Krister Stendahl was active in Jewish-Christian dialogue and was a close friend of LDS and helped them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krister_Stendahl

Reflections on Mormonism : Judaeo-Christian parallels : papers delivered at the Religious Studies Center Symposium, Brigham Young University, March 10-11, 1978 http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/rsc&CISOPTR=36013

LDS are strictly Open Theists, says professor emeritus Louis Midgley at BYU.

http://www.fairblog.org/2010/01/20/lcm_open_theism/

Oh no, someone deleted my paragraph. Please help! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WBardwin#Why_deleting_the_paragraph.3F 90.231.11.211 (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC) 90.231.11.211 (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I suppose our Mormonism article would be the correct place for this kind of information, probably its section on theological foundations. If the information concerns only the LDS church and not all of mormonism, Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints may be more appropriate. My advice would be to add the relevant content of the pages you found and present the links as references for the new text instead of just adding the bare links. But please use your own words in order to avoid copyright violations. Huon (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, I already tried to answer this question at my talk page, but I'm not sure what exactly information they're trying to put in. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you think of this paragraph about Open Theism? I tried to use my own words. Thanks for your help and suggestions. "The church's approach to theology is strictly Open Theism. God does not know everything in our lives, only what is necessary. He does not know the finer details of our lives, even if he knows all the choices that we can do but not what we choose. God has given us humans a free will to choose according to our knowledge. Prayer is therefore meaningful to us humans, because God knows things about us that he did not know before. In Open Theism man cooperates with God so that things will happen. Prophecies then becomes a question of God with his superior knowledge makes a sophisticated calculation of what is likely to happen in the future, than the events that will happen no matter what humans do. Open Theism is in contrast to Classical Theism in which God knows everything and controls all events that will happen in the future." 90.231.11.211 (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I changed some sentences so everything looks better. "The church's approach to theology is strictly open theism. God does not know everything in our lives, only what is necessary. He does not know the finer details of our lives, even if he knows all the choices that we can do. God does not know what we choose. God has given us humans a free will to choose according to our knowledge and interest. Prayer is therefore meaningful to us humans, because God then will know more things about us than he did before. In open theism man cooperates with God so that things will happen. A prophecy is the event that is most likely to happen in the future, not necessarily the only option. Open theism is in contrast to classical theism, when God knows everything and controls all events that will happen in the future." 90.231.11.211 (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I included a paragraph about "open theism" in Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 90.231.11.211 (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I included a sentence about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Open theism because theu are that too. 90.231.11.211 (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, someone deleted my paragraph. Please help! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WBardwin#Why_deleting_the_paragraph.3F 90.231.11.211 (talk) 07:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably the source was deemed insufficient for the rather forceful statements you made. On the one hand, Louis Midgley was professor of political science - is he the best source for LDS theology? On the other hand, blogs are rather on the borderline of what Wikipedia accepts as reliable sources - this one might actually pass, but in general any user-submitted content (that includes other Wikipedia articles!) is frowned upon. Myself I see nothing wrong with including a section (or maybe a subsection of the God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost section) on open theism, but I'm not an expert on the subject; my advice would be to wait for WBardwin's reply and/or argue your case on the article talk page. Huon (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information and the link so I know where to look. 90.231.11.211 (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed the paragraph in question. This view of Dr. Midgeley may not be doctrinally accurate.  For example, in 1986, current LDS President Thomas S. Monson wrote that the Lord:  ".... is a resurrected, glorified, exalted, omniscient, omnipotent person and is omnipresent in spirit and power and influence, the ruler of the heavens and the earth and all things therein."  If LDS leaders assert that God is omnisceient and omnipotent, how can we also assert that He does not know everything?  Even in the "blog" used as a source, one of the commentators wrote:  "...I think (this topic) will remain in not safe for Sunday School territory for some time."  In my view, one LDS person's opinion, placed on the web, should not be asserted as church doctrine or perspective.  Best wishes.  WBardwin (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Segregation in churches
There doesn't seem to be an article on racial segregation in American Christianity. This has got to be an important historical topic. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How about black church? That covers at least half the topic. Huon (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That is a good article. I still think there's room for the other if someone wants to take it on. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a lot literature (many on internet) about black church, black theology and history of Afro-Americans. Many articles were written but there are space for a lot more. I am not familiar with these areas but I will be happy to help with edting those articles.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 15:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Black church is helpful but may not contain all the seeds of the split, such as Southern Methodist and Southern Baptist. I suspect there were others, but maybe not so regionally defined. As mentioned, many churches were merely following the law after the Civil War. I was in Norfolk in the 1950s but before extensive desegration. There was a black Catholic church, a neighborhood church, though segregation was always deplored by the Catholics. So proximity (and habit) entered into it as well in large areas. Student7 (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Especially if ya'll don't want to begin an whole new article— material on this topic can also be added to Christianity in the United States and/or History of Christianity in the United States. In see nothing in "Christianity in the United States" on the topic— except what is already in "Black church." "History of Christianity in the United States" has a section (maybe a bit much) on Abolitionism, but could discuss the spliting/joinging of denomanation over slavey, etc. I don't know where we would find WP:RSs on current racial segregation.User talk:Carlaude 19:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Helped needed at Talk:Christ myth theory
Input would be appreciated to settle a dispute at Talk:Christ myth theory

The Christ myth theory is the argument that Jesus did not exist as an historical figure. Some Wikipedians say it is a fringe view. Some Wikipedians say this is a small-minority view within academia. There is therefore a disagreement as to whether the lead should contain a dissenting voice, and if so, what it should say.

Should the lead contain the following sentence? "The philosopher Michael Martin of Boston University writes that, while the historicity of Jesus is taken for granted by Christians and assumed by the majority of non-Christians and anti-Christians&mdash;and anyone arguing against it may be seen as a crank&mdash;a strong prima facie case can be constructed that challenges it." The source is Martin's The Case Against Christianity 1991, pp. 36–37. Eugene (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Replacement of the word "Christians" in Wikipedia Categories
There is currently a proposal to change the category: Category:Christians to Category:Christian people, which is part of the batch of changes being proposed in this discussion. If successful, it will probably be followed by moves to replace the word "Christians" through the Wikipedia categories by the words "Christian people". Davshul (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Cessationism
It is said that Cessationism is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity. I have not seen that there was work on the article from November 2009, although the article suffered many shortcomings, such as not many references and NPOV concerns. I have made a major change to the article and I am wondering who is responsible for reviewing changes on the article, so that the article can get a new rating. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You should open a request for peer review to get comments from other editors. The instructions for doing this are on WP:PR (under the "Nomination procedure" section). &bull; Astynax talk 06:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Significant conflict of interest?
Am I correct in thinking that a major contributor to the Cessationism article is User:Theophil789 whose signature on Talk:Cessationism appears as "Aleksandar Katanovic"? And also that a lot of the cited references are to the writings of "Aleksandar Katanovic"? If so, and if my logic is correct, is this not a significant WP:COI? Probably also WP:OR? Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether it's a conflict of interest or not, but most of the sources cited in the article need to be verified. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

David, request
Hi,

Please can someone check the 'semiprotected edit request' Talk:David which I was unable to perform myself, as it needs someone with some knowledge of the Bible. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  06:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Gospel of the Hebrews Dispute
Dear Project Editors, Sorry to intrude, but I am having an incipient dispute in the above article. An editor (using an IP, but acting in good faith it seems), has been adding an extensive section detailing the theories of James Edwards in his 2009 book The Hebrew Gospel & the Development of the Synoptic Tradition (which I have not read). I have been unable to locate any academic reviews of this work but based on the additions, the author (1) displaces Marcan in favour of Matthean priority (via a proto-Matthean Hebrew Gospel) and (2) relatedly refutes the existence of Q and the two-source theory. I assume this is some kind of variation on Griesbach. At any event, I am arguing that Edward's theory not be afforded prominence in the Hebrew Gospel article since it remains so far without any academic comment that I can find. Further views would of course be welcome before this dispute goes any further. Thanks, Eusebeus (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Virgin Martyrs
Hi. I don't edit in the religion area at all, but I noticed that there are a lot of bio articles, especially about saints, where the women are described as "virgin martyrs", but there is no article about the. I see that here is a book about them, or at least about English legends about them. I hope someone will start an article about them. Best regards! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the best thing to do might be to create a "virgin" section of the Christian martyrs article, and then turn "Virgin martyrs" into a redirect to it. John Carter (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons
The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 32,665 as of May 16. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at WikiProject Christianity/Unreferenced BLPs. As of May 17 you have approximately 84 articles to be referenced, a 3.4% reduction from last week. The list of all other WikiProject UBLPs can be found at WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity/Sorted Unreferenced BLPs
Please look at this Sorted list of Unreferenced Christianity BLPs and consider assisting on a couple. User talk:Carlaude 22:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed changes in scope of projects
I have made proposals regarding possibly expanding the scope of both WikiProject Messianic Judaism and WikiProject Church of the Nazarene, on the talk pages of those projects. Comments about these proposals, positive or negative, are welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Church of England dioceses
nominated List of Church of England dioceses for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Christian terms
Anyone want to help clean up Category:Christian terms? An anonymous editor has been slowly adding more and more articles to this category over the years, and it now has over 1000+ items. Some clearly are relevant, while others clearly not, with a lot of gray area. Anyone want to discuss some inclusion criteria, to figure out more objectively what belongs and what doesn't, or should we all just take a wack at removing what we don't feel is right ;) Any help or comments would be appreciated! -Andrew c [talk] 20:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Andrew! I wonder if it has any useful role at all? Has it come up at Cfd? I have some vague memory. The way it is going it will soon include everything except biographies, & books etc. I can't promise to help with a clear-out I'm afraid, but let me know if a Cfd begins etc. I would suggest deciding on one or more more precisely titled categories for this area, if the need is felt, and then populating these & deleting the main category. Johnbod (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Not knowing the backstory or anything, I presume it was created in contrast to Category:Judaism terms and Category:Islamic terms and Category:Buddhist terms and so on from the parent cat Category:Religious terminology. If we delete the Christian terms category outright, I'm sure it will cause problems, such as accusations of bias/favoritism and the need for parity of religions. However, it seems like those other categories are "anglicized Hebrew words used in Judaism" or "anglicized Arabic words used in Islam" or "anglicized Sanskrit, Chinese, Japanese, Tibetian, etc....". Like Saṃsāra (Buddhism) is a Buddhist term and Halal is a Islamic term. Actually, now that I look at Category:Judaism terms, I'm surprised it isn't filled with stuff like dreidel and torah, and that it has subcategories. Maybe we could try to locate some subcategories that would fit in the Christian category, and set some guidelines. Hmm.. I guess I'm just rambling on now. I'll thinking about it more and report back. -Andrew c [talk] 21:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Input needed at Talk:Jesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus#.22one_of_the_most_influential_persons.22_sentence

There is a discussion on whether to include a sentence about Jesus' influence in the lead, and if so, how it should be phrased. Flash 17:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Expert help needed
A few sections in Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences have a seemingly inferior logic that perhaps affects a larger selection of subsections. Those interested who are proficient in theology, philosophy and logic, might give a helping hand by assessing relevant subsections and giving comment at the talk page HERE! Thank you for your attention, and otherwise happy editing! Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 09:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Dating the Book of Daniel
According to modern scholars, the Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC. I would argue that this is a relevant information to put in the introduction of the article, but another user thinks otherwise. The "third opinion" agreed with my position, but the other user still opposes to this settlement.

Those who would be so kind to give their informed opinion are invited at Talk:Book of Daniel. Thanks --TakenakaN (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Self policing
Hi

I came across an editor who seems to be adding "Roman Catholic" wherever they can as well as removing "atheist"

In the interests of accuracy (as I am not that informed on overly religious topics) and self-policing could someone examine the contributions the editor has made and try and limit the damage they are causing and to name but a few

contributions

I have already dealt with some, such as their trying to reverse history on the Cuba and Fidel Castro pages

Things such as changing several Orthodox Catholic to Roman Catholic may not really be acceptable

thanks

Chaosdruid (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Howdy need opinions at Talk:East–West Schism,
Yesterday I was invited to a Discusion at Talk:East–West Schism as part of a WP:3O,

I am now posting this to get wider opinion on the Dispute in Question from Relevant WikiProjects

Thank you for your time Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Help requested at Joseph Smith, Jr.
Some believing wikipedians have declared that the Joseph Smith, Jr. article is unduly biased and negative. Your outside opinions would be useful...especially if you have found yourself in a comparable situation. ...comments? ~B F izz 03:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

East-West schism reverting
Would someone please respond to the question raised at Talk:East–West Schism‎ about the legitimacy of the repeated complete edit-reversions. Esoglou (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I responded to the third opinion request, suggesting that what is really needed here is active participation by more editors, and proposing WP:RFC as a possible means of finding more people if appealing to the WikiProject fails to help. Richwales (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem that gave rise to my above request seems to have been solved. But I would warmly welcome interventions by others on the article in question.  Esoglou (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Roman imperial church
Comments invited at the talk page of this new article, which seems to me to have an ill-defined scope and focus, and overlaps at a lower level of quality numerous other articles (mentioned there) which it doesn't even link to. First para of lead: "The Roman imperial church, the official Christian church of the Roman Empire, was formally established during the 4th century CE though it was descended from the earlier Christian fellowships that had existed since the foundation of the Christian religion.[1] The Church was officially sanctioned by and closely linked with the Roman state.[2]  The emperor came to be seen as the Church's defender and leader along with the bishops.[3]  The Church existed, at least in theory, as a unified entity until the Great Schism of the 11th century. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church have both claimed to be the legal and spiritual continuation of this Church. Additionally many other Christian sects, including the Anglican Church and the Lutheran Church, claim to be descendants of this Church alongside Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy." Johnbod (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It has now changed its name, & I have put it up for AFD at Articles for deletion/State church of the Roman Empire. Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Info boxes on denomination pages
I am interested in helping to see that articles on various denominations feature overview info boxes that are consistent in format. Is anyone already working on this? Is anyone interested in working on this with me? Scoopczar (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

FEASTS Of The LORD PROPHECY
A new article which is clearly promoting a website and a pov, but I think might redirect somewhere more appropriate? It seems to relate to the topic here Seven Feasts of Israel. My inclination is to take both to AfD but I'd like other input. I've reverted the creator of the first article at Prewrath where he also seems to be promoting his website. Dougweller (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Distinguishing Oriental Orthodoxy from Non-Chalcedonianism
I notice that some articles link "non-Chalcedonian" to Non-Chalcedonianism whereas others link to Oriental Orthodoxy. But I'm wondering if those two are different enough to be separate articles? If they are significantly different, what criteria could we develop to determine when to link to each? Case in point: I created a redirect page for "non-Chalcedonian Christianity" and linked it towards "Oriental Orthodoxy" only because that's where "non-Chalcedonian Churches" links--but I wondered if both those should be redirected to "non-Chalcedonianism" instead. Or if the two existing articles should be merged. Help, please? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest bundling the debate at Talk:Oriental Orthodoxy; that article is the larger one. Huon (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

National Association of Evangelicals
Is anyone interested in creating and expanding pages for the Presidents of the National Association of Evangelicals? Please see the box at the bottom of Hudson Armerding's page for example. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to move Latter Rain Movement
Having come across the Latter Rain Movement article in List of new religious movements, I found that the article describes a post-WWII movement which doesn't include information on the movement of that name which traces to the late-1800s. I've proposed an article move with "Latter Rain Movement" becoming a disambiguation page. Interested editors are invited to comment on the article's Talk page. &bull; Astynax talk 20:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Igreja Pentecostal e Apostólica Missao Jesus
Hi

The article Igreja Pentecostal e Apostólica Missao Jesus is just a set of three quotes. It really needs some substance about the Church or else maybe change the title ? Can someone have a look please.

I have addressed my concerns on the talk page Chaosdruid (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Books
As many of you will know, we currently have the option of creating "books" which are collections of articles relating to specific subjects which are basically too big to be reasonably discussed in one of our comparatively short articles here. Having reviewed Britannica's Macropedia, I see that they include in their "in-depth" articles several topics relavant to Christianity, and that we, at present, don't have similar "books" on many of those topics. Would anyone be interested in helping to get together such "books"? They would probably best include, based on Britannica's Macropedia, each of the following:

Book:Augustine, Book:Bible, Book:Calvinism, Book:Christianity, Book:Crusades, Book:Dante Alighieri, Book:Eastern Orthodoxy, Book:Erasmus, Book:Jesus, Book:Joan of Arc, Book:Martin Luther, Book:Saint Paul, Book:Protestantism, Book:Catholicism, and Book:Thomas Aquinas.

There would also, of course, be considerable room for additional "books", particularly taking into account that Britannica's article on Christianity is over a hundred pages long. If anyone is willing to work on developing these books, if they don't already exist, that would be extremely welcome. Also, if anyone wants additional wikipedia books, please feel free to list the suggestions below. Other relevant extant books include Book:Abrahamic religions, Book:Mary and Mariology, Book:Parables of Jesus, Book:Testaments of the Bible, Book:The Old Testament of the Bible, and Book:The New Testament of the Bible. John Carter (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * An interesting concept. Looks fairly simple to put together the list of "chapters", but I can't find an explanation of what should go into the "introduction". If I get a chunk of uninterrupted time, I'll at give one a try. &bull; Astynax talk 19:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think in general the "introduction" is more or less the main article on a topic, if there is one. "Overview" might be an alternate title, which would be a bit easier to deal with. And the material at WP:WBOOKS might help a little. John Carter (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't made very many edits in wikipedia books. However, it is something that I may be interested in. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 19:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you would want any help with any particular books, let me know and I can see what if anything I can do to help. John Carter (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Create a page for the history of Christian spirituality?
Please see my post at Talk:Christianity about the prospect of creating a page that focuses on the key figures in Christian spiritual/devotional history. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussions of proper names for the articles discussing the three Temples of Judaism
The recent move of the articles below has engendered concern on WP:ANI if the consensus reached was representative of the wider wikipedia project. Therefore, three RfCs have been opened to fully discuss the proper names of the articles, so consensus can be reched. Please visit and opine at the sections listed below. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Talk:First_Temple
 * 2) Talk:Second_Temple
 * 3) Talk:Third_Temple

RfC on Christ myth theory page name
Comments would be appreciated at an RfC about the best title for the Christ myth theory. See the discussion here. The article is about the theory that Jesus of Nazareth did not, or probably did not, exist as an historical being. Should it be moved from Christ myth theory to, for example, Jesus myth theory? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for First Crusade now open
The peer review for First Crusade is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  18:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

RFC
I think people here should have been notified about this RfC. The underlying issue: if we know the religion of a book or article on religion, can we infer from that that the person is expressing the "POV" of his or her own religion? My answer is of course sometimes but not always and we cannot assume. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wanna add a link please? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Requests for comment/Slrubenstein. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for a quick NPoV check
The dismbiguation page for Latter Rain Movement has had a recent edit which seems to be pushing a faith-based personal PoV or experience. I'm unsure whether the edit should be simply reverted or amended/expanded and spun off into a separate article. A look from another editor would be appreciated. &bull; Astynax talk 18:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've reverted it. It stated a belief as fact, using primary sources. But that's not the main reason (oops, I didn't put this in the edit summary). That's a dab page,all we should have is the brief explanation and the links, the edit however turned the page into part unsourced article, part dab. There are two articles linked there which amplify the term, so there's no need to spin anything off that I can see. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My brain isn't working 100% today, so I thank you for taking a look. &bull; Astynax talk 22:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. Dougweller (talk) 04:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Logos
An editor has proposed a complete rewrite of Logos, an article of interest to this project. Please see Talk:Logos. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC on in-text attribution
Fresh eyes would be appreciated on an RfC about whether, in using in-text attribution for sources on the Historicity of Jesus, we should include whether that source is an ordained minister or similar. See Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus. Many thanks, SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Atonement
Please comment on: Talk:Substitutionary_atonement. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Request most urgent
We need help at Robbie_Mannheim. There is a problem with an editor who is attempting to override the other editors in every improvement. The article is a mess and structured badly. I have posted an RFC on the talk page too.75.21.154.247 (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Tel Dan
An article that you have been involved in editing, Tel Dan, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sreifa (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

AFD
Articles for deletion/The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (3rd nomination) Sumbuddi (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Jehovah's Witnesses
There is currently a request for comment regarding statements made by members of this group in the past regarding expected future events (such as the end of the world) which have apparently not proven accurate. Input is requested on how if at all material regarding those alleged "prophecies" as well as about whether they qualify those who made them as "false prophets" at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. Any and all input is more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AFD discussion page - The Most Hated Family in America
There is an AFD for The Most Hated Family in America, which is a television documentary film that was written and presented by the BBC's Louis Theroux about the family at the core of the Westboro Baptist Church (info from lede of article). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * AFD is located at: Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America.

Christianity articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Christianity articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Bible dispute
I am having a dispute on authors of the bible. Can anyone weigh in on this? I am using two mainstream books as sources ( and ) and two editors are just reverting the changes I am making because they think it is extreme to claim that not all scholars agree that, for example, Mark's gospel was written by Mark.RomanHistorian (talk) 04:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the page-- you both fail to cite books and you claim more that "not all scholars agree that Mark's gospel was written by Mark." The chart indicates something more like all scholars agreeing on it not being Mark. Maybe you should discuss on the talk page just what these books say. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ 06:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately on this topic almost every given point of view is supported by "some scholar", so there is really nothing that "all scholars" agree on, except the fact that there is disagreement on every issue - except the existence of the disagreement itself. And what you have on that page is not just a dispute, but a full fledged edit war. So both sides need to cool down. History2007 (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * One side has become the "correct" side (whose view is in line with the Jesus Seminar) and the other side which is "fringe". If some people from here could go over there and comment, you could help create a consensus for moderating the views on that list somewhat.RomanHistorian (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not even vaguely accurate. I suggest that people ignore RomanHistorian's summary and go see the changes for themselves. Their faults are self-evident, but I will be glad to explain to anyone who wants to follow up. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I responded on the talk page there. As a start, the table colors make things so hard t read, there is no danger of anyone reading that table too carefully, so no need to get worked up on that page. And the whole idea of expressing the authorship "decision" in a one sentence telegram is not wise. Tweeting is popular now, but tweeting scholarly opinions in a table should be avoided. History2007 (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As I recall, all gospels say, "according to..." not "written by". The epistles, on the other hand, often clearly state that they were written (or dictated by) Paul. There is little or no mention of "according to Paul" (for example). My point being, that no gospel claims to be personally authored by their named source.Student7 (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How would you know, anyway? It's not like there were government-issued photo id cards back then.
 * Put another way: Did "Student7" write the comment above?  If we all agree to call that person "Student7", then isn't it reasonable to say that the comment was written by Student7, even if Student7 is not his or her birth name? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ormulum's FAR
nominated Ormulum 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. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Article class of Catholic Church
User:Afterwriting has reverted my rerating of Catholic Church to "Start" class for its projects. I have said before there that "B" was probably untenable in the current state of the article, and seeing what has become of the lead section recently this is now clearly the case. Apart from the history and doctrine sections, the other parts of the article are, apart from anything else, much too short to be anything but "start" for a subject this size, and, as people are constantly complaining, many important aspects of the church are simply not mentioned. I'm happy to see what others think, especially those not involved in recent editing, but a start rating seems inevitable at present. Please comment at Talk:Catholic_Church. Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Christianity-related portals
I am currently trying to get together some lists of articles relevant to each Christianity-related portal which could be used, at least potentially, to help bring all the extant portals up to Featured Portal status. The current, admittedly incomplete, list of articles, images, etc., relevant to each portal can be found at User:John Carter/Christianity portals. I also think that, at least in theory, we would probably best use a single article only in a single portal, and that we probably have enough articles to do that, although there might be a few exceptions. I would welcome input from anyone on the associated talk page regarding which articles and other materials they would like to see associated with which portal(s), any suggestions for additional portals or changes to existing portals, etc. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Story of Mankind - Letters from A Roman Physician to his nephew
Hi there, I am reading a book called 'The Story of Mankind' by Hendrik Willem Van Loon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_Mankind

In this book there is a chapter called Joshua of Nazareth. This chapter is devoted to 2 letters that tell of a captain in the Roman Army, Gladius Ensa, who was asked by his uncle to travel to Jerusalam and do discover the truth of what happened to a man called Jesus who was crucified. The uncle, a physician called Aesculapius Cultellus, first heard of this man from a patient called Paul whom he was treating. These letters are quite remarkable and I have not read them before. They were apparently written about 62 AD. I wonder if anyone else has come across these letters out side of this book. I imagine they must be very well known through out history. Can anyone authenticate the origin of these letters? Kind regards Mylesarkell (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Myles
 * The letters are an epistolary literary device used to convey the author's view of history. Although it was listed as non-fiction at the time, it's mix of history and historical fiction blurs the line. The same technique is used in other fiction such as The Screwtape Letters and I, Claudius. The letters have never existed, except in the imagination of the author and readers. &bull; Astynax talk 07:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

AfD
Please see Articles for deletion/Bible study (Christian).Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Episcopal category issues
Please see Category talk:Bishops by city for discussion of whether this is a well-formed category. Mangoe (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please come to Category talk:Bishops by city for discussion of a major reorganization of the bishop/diocese categories. Mangoe (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem
There is currently a discussion taking place at Talk:Jerusalem over how the article should word certain issues. Some editors want the word "proclaimed" to be added to the first sentence of the article to describe it as the "proclaimed capital" of Israel as the international community does not recognise it as the capital of Israel, others disagree and think the status quo which has existed for about 3 years should remain (something that has been debated many times over the years but retained), and several compromises have also been suggested. The issue has now also spread to other matters, with some editors wanting it to say "proclaimed flag", "proclaimed mayor", "proclaimed coat of arms" etc, to also highlight the fact the international community does not recognise the status of Jerusalem. This matter could have implications for other articles if changes are made and a similar pattern followed. So input from other editors would be helpful. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Vassula Ryden
Vassula Ryden is a shocking article constructed from awful sources (mainly self-published) - if anyone has 30 minutes to spare... --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Father Peter Whelan
Could anyone help improve this new article a little? Thanks,  Chzz  ► 10:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Evangelical Mysticism
Can anyone please help look at this proposed article; please feel free to edit it, and to let the author know what would need changing, if it can be made acceptable. If it is acceptable, feel free to move it to a live article. Many thanks,  Chzz  ► 08:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Longevity myths
Looking for more opinions on the above article. In its current form it includes discussion of long-lived people in the Old Testament. There is disagreement about whether that should be covered in the article, whether under its current name or another name, or perhaps it should be in a related article, or perhaps not at all in the longevity-related articles. Some input on sources would also be very much appreciated. The article has also been discussed on the fringe theories noticeboard. I am going to make a similar post on WikiProject Taoism (longevity in Taoism is also covered in the article). Please do come over and comment. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Potential changes in subprojects
Several of the more specific projects related to various Christian groupings are not particularly active. Taking that level of inactivity into account, and a few other issues as well, I propose that the following changes be made in the scope and perhaps names of some of the subprojects, and, perhaps, the creation of a few more, in an effort to see that as much of.


 * The WikiProject Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) is right now basically inactive. The Melton Encyclopedia of American Religions includes the Quakers in the major Christian subgrouping of the European Free-Church movement, along with several other groups. I think that project might be best expanded to include those other groups as well.
 * The WikiProject Spirituality is also more or less inactive. It is possible, although not certain, that the group may have been intended to cover the Spiritualism movement. If that is the case, then that group is described by Melton ias being in the Spiritualism/Psychic/New Age group of churches, and it might make sense to perhaps rename the group WikiProject New Age and alter the scope accordingly.
 * Melton also includes Pietism in a larger Pietist-Methodist family. I think it would probably make sense to alter the scope of the Methodism work group a bit to more clearly include Pietist groupings.
 * The remainder of the Christian churches in Melton's book are included in the Adventist family, the Communal family, the Christian Science-Metaphysical family, the independent Fundamentalist family, and the Ancient Wisdom family. The last, however, also includes several groups which are not clearly Christian, and would probably be best fitted elsewhere.
 * These alterations may or may not actually increase the activity of groups, but they would make it easier for people to create bibliographies and other lists of content directly related to them as well as more easily focus on related articles. Also, I have seen that the WP:1.0 group does use some project importance ratings in their own selection process, and such a break-up might make it easier for them to find articles to include or develop. Anyway, I would welcome any feedback, positive or negative. John Carter (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * err... just as an obvious point, WkiProject Christianity is technically a subproject of WikiProject Spirituality, not the other way around. -- Ludwigs 2  16:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is now, after the project was first named. However, the scope of that project is also, basically, redundant to a degree to WikiProject Religion, which covers virtually the identical material. And, looking over the history of the project, I did get the impression, possibly mistakenly, that it was initially intended to deal with the topic of Spiritualism. John Carter (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Anything which imposes some logical order on the subprojects would be welcome. Many articles currently are difficult to categorize and find/navigate to an appropriate subproject home. The current subprojects list (not to mention categories) is intimidating—at least I get confused when I try to find an appropriate subproject and/or category on the list. &bull; Astynax talk 17:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I forgot to mention that there is a separate section for "Homosexually-oriented" Christian groups in Melton as well. Also, there are a few groups, including Iglesia ni Cristo, which are listed as uncategorized, although that number is comparatively few. Also, just as a suggestion, I note that some of the roads projects alter the level of subprojects/groups depending on activity. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, maybe if some groups directly relevant to Christianity in particular become inactive, we might keep the existing project/group page as is, and just turn the group-related talk page into a redirect to the main WikiProject Christianity talk page. Then, if the groups do become more active again later, the redirect can be turned back into a separate page. John Carter (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of having an Unclassified area. The literature categorizing NRMs seems to significantly lag their appearance in the press and other references. And some NRM descriptions I find in references such as Melton do not corelate with groups having the same names that pop up in other references (such as Followers of Christ). So a catchall for those for which haven't been fully researched and categorized is good. Using a redirect as a placeholder is a clever idea! &bull; Astynax talk 18:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For Christian NRMs, we very easily could create a subgroup which deals specifically with that subject. The one difficulty is the degree of overlap it might have with other existing groups, many of which have some of the larger relevant groups which qualify as NRMs. But, if it were to devote the bulk of its attention to content which isn't of particular importance to other groups, that could easily be workable. The only other real potential weakness I can see is in dealing with some of the groups which have ceased to exist, like the Arian Church, for instance. But at this point I don't know how much directly relevant content there is to a lot of them, so that might not be much of an issue. John Carter (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Imorthodox23 discuss
I think that Mariology article is still very important. If the template includes all the informations about Christianity & It's called Parts of the series in Christianity and features every important articles about Christianity, it has to include Mariology too. If this article doesn't have any full information about Mary, than someone must edit it. We can't just ignore it, you can remove the article if it isn't done yet, but after the reconstruction, we can put it back, just like it was. Imorthodox23 (talk) 6:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe this discussion is about the inclusion of the article in the Template:Christianity. There are a lot of articles which are very important to Christianity which are not included in that template, which is intended only for the core topics as per . That template is, as I think has been said, more or less reserved for the articles which are counted as "core" as per WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list. No one said the template is to include every important article about Christianity, just the core articles as per the list linked to above. Mariology is not included in that list, although Mary (mother of Jesus) is. On that basis, I would have to oppose adding the article to that template until and unless there is a consensus that the article is one of the core articles. John Carter (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree here with John Carter on each point.
 * For example-- even if we look at just theology articles-- I would consider each of these articles more important than Mariology: Absolution, Adoption, Assurance, Atonement, Biblical inspiration, Sin, Divine providence, Ecclesiology, Eschatology, Faith, Glorification, God the Father, God the Son, Grace, Hamartiology, Hypostatic union, Incarnation, Justification, Logos, Original sin, Pneumatology, Predestination, Reconciliation, Redemption, Regeneration, Repentance, Resurrection of the dead, Revelation, Sacraments, Sanctification, Soteriology
 * I might also add that, if you feel it needs it, you can look at adding to the Mariology section of the Mary (mother of Jesus) article. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ 21:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Input needed re new sidebar template
Please see Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_27. --Noleander (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move of Mary (mother of Jesus)
It has been proposed that the article currently titled Mary (mother of Jesus) be renamed Virgin Mary. Your views and vote will be appreciated. Thank you.  Xan  dar  23:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Mariology top importance?
On Template:Christianity, which only includes links to "top" importance articles in the project, various people often add Mariology to the template. Various different people revert these additions, since the article is rated as "mid" priority. Should it be top priority? Note that Mary (mother of Jesus) is ranked as top priority. ...comments? ~B F izz 22:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that while I think it ill-advised to add or replace these articles-- there are many more deserving articles and that it is narrower than Mary (mother of Jesus)-- discussion on such changes needs to take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list. Please watch that page and contrbute if you are interested in the templates Template:Christianity and Template:Christianityfooter. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ 23:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Carl & John, but I think it is not just a question of "what we think" but need to rely on references. Hence as discussed in "Hillerbrand, Hans Joachim. Encyclopedia of Protestantism, Volume 3 2003. ISBN 0415924723 page 1174" there are many Christians whose main reaction to Mariology is to ignore it, so this means that the entry about Mariology is not supported in general Christianity, while it is fully supported within Catholic and Orthodox templates. History2007 (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Pope of Alexandria into Patriarch of Alexandria
It has been proposed that the new article currently titled Pope of Alexandria be merged back into Patriarch of Alexandria from which it was seemingly made. Your views and vote will be appreciated. Thank you. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 00:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Template Christianity
More comments on Template talk:Christianity will be appreciated. The current image seems like an Andy Warhol-like rendition of the Leaning Cross of Calvary and I am sure we can do better than that. So further opinions should be sought. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Christianity core topics work group articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Christianity core topics work group articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry this note was delayed; the note higher up was delivered as intended. Thanks again, &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

FAR for Gunpowder Plot
nominated Gunpowder Plot 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.) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

POV pushing
I have noticed that on articles like Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke, and Gospel of John, some editors are pushing a POV. They define a set universe of "mainstream scholarship" and used that to define what the "scholarly consensus" is. No evidence is ever given that this is what the "mainstream" is, it is just assumed and requests for evidence are ignored. Not only that, but this fake-mainstream is even often described as the "consensus". This universe just so happens to include and be personified by skeptics and atheists like Bart Ehrman or the ultra-controversial Jesus Seminar. Actually Ehrman and Jesus Seminar members are often the most heavily cited sources. Any scholars who deviate from this view are labeled "fringe" and their views dismissed. Most scholars actually deviate from what is defined by certain editors as "mainstream", but this nice little definition allows the majority to be dismissed as "fringe". Evidence that these people represent the "mainstream" is never given, editors just demand that one accepts it because "that's what everyone knows". With this, direct quoted evidence that they don't represent the mainstream is dismissed and never taken seriously. If they make claims that are well cited, these claims are deleted outright for no reason other than they don't fit in with this artificially defined universe of what is "mainstream". Wikipedia is ruled by what the majority of editors on a given article think about a topic, not what the "correct" or "mainstream" view is. These edits don't represent the "mainstream" view, but a heavily skewed POV. As such, these articles are badly biased on certain points, especially authorship.

I would like some non-involved editors to take a look at these pages and the talk pages to see what they think. RomanHistorian(talk) 20:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Leadwind is pushing neutrality, and you're pushing back with theologically conservative fringe views. Worse, you're editing against consensus to insert weasel words. This is not good. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was about to agree with a blast against RomanHistorian, but I glanced at Luke and there does seem to be liberal pov pushing that Luke is a bunch of baloney. Having said that, I don't know that Leadwind is always wrong either. It takes a balance. I suggest others watch these pages if they haven't been . Student7 (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If I may make a suggestion to RomanHistorian, fewer changes over time make be more productive and cause less anguish than many in a short period of time. These are fairly old (robust) articles. They shouldn't require a lot of changes all at once. Skipping editing these article for a day or two tends to allow things to quiet down. Student7 (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Following up on my "we all should watch remark", maybe we shouldn't! I just did and flooded my watchlist. RH, you are not going to get any help if you continue to make so many edits. I can only watch so many articles. I can't limit myself to 4!  :) Student7 (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a flood of edits a couple days ago when Leadwind made his changes, and some of them were altered. Normally they aren't that busy.RomanHistorian (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't agree with that summary. Truth is, you make a huge number of edits, sometimes improving article, but just as often harming them. I have repeatedly asked you to slow down, to first seek consensus and to generally be more moderate. So far, all I've seen is more canvassing and forum shopping. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * We have attracted several formerly uninvolved editors to Luke. Those who would like to help out might put one of the other gospels on their watchlist for a few months. Or Luke. Never can have too many! :)  Student7 (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bible as a story book
Please see WP:ANI. Please see Solomon's temple for more background. -- Avi (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Help requested: Articles on Muhammad and Ali in the Bible
Could I have some help please, on the articles Muhammad in the Bible and Ali in the scriptures? English is not the first language of the articles' creator, and he has asked for help on what appear to be good-faith articles. I've tried copyediting a bit, but it's difficult to tell which of the claims the articles make of references pointing to the arrival of Muhammad and Ali in the Bible are mainstream Shi'a theology as he claims, and which are original research per WP:NOR. Muhammad in the Bible in particular contained a line beginning "I have found...", which points to WP:NOR, if I'm reading his English correctly. All help and advice will be gratefully received. Thanks, Top Jim (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Help needed at Christianity and violence
Fresh eyes are needed for an RfC at Talk:Christianity and violence. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Problems with article
Started really reading New Covenant Theology. To avoid the appearance of recruiting, let me just say that "I believe that it needs some help." I hope that was neutral enough. :) Student7 (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Help requested at Book of Daniel, Son of perdition, and Historicism (Christianity)
We are currently discussing ways to improve Book of Daniel and Son of perdition. Any help from participants in this project would be appreciated. See discussions on Talk:Book of Daniel and Talk:Son of perdition. Elizium23 (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Help would also be appreciated at Historicism (Christianity) since the editor has moved on to place his mark on this article as well. Elizium23 (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Advent
Hi I wanted to wish everybody a Happy New Year. Etineskid (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

New article
(Notice cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity)

I just created Circumcision of Jesus. The scope of the article is both art-historical and theological/historical. Any help you guys can give would be greatly appreciated. I'd love to get this one on the main page by Christmas. Raul654 (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you add it to the DYK nominations. It appears to fit the criteria of being expanded more than 5x, and the expansion has taken place within the last 5 days. You need to nominate by 3 December. This is the only way of which I am aware to get a short article on the main page this month. &bull; Astynax talk 08:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

There might be enough time to get it up to FA status between now and then. And I think I might know one of the FA people who can put it on the main page for me (grin) Raul654 (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you might, though its not something mere mortals could get through that quickly (grinning back). &bull; Astynax talk 23:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you did pretty well Raul. I was about to DYK it, but it was done. Just add links to it and it is done. I did not checked all the art parts, because it looks like John did that, but overall much better than the typical article start. The only comment I would have would be to suggest a format similar to Road to Emmaus appearance where the biblical account comes first, then an art history discussion, then a gallery. The same format as Flight into Egypt, Adoration of the Magi and many others. Easy to reshuffle, without content change. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

TfD: Religious text primary
Regarding Template:Religious text primary, please see Templates for discussion. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

33,000
There have been approximately 33,000 new "churches" founded since the "big break" with Catholicism way back when. Are we intending to catalog all 33,000 if they are still around? Is there, or should there be a cutoff based on number of followers? And how to count them accurately anyway?

I had this thought while attempting to edit New Covenant Theology, a church (or maybe just "belief") of unknown and maybe unknowable size.

One of the problems is getting them to define their differences with other Christians. Most churches seem to have a pretty good grasp of the differences between them and the church they broke with, if it was in recent history. But may be unable to articulate their differences with the other 32,998!! :) Which I don't really expect. But some coherence would be appreciated.

A better statement would be: we believe everything the X church does except Y. That would make sense. Unfortunately, they usually "develop" their "theology", such as it is, over time, and come up with "new" (to them, anyway) ideas. Student7 (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: We can cover as many as fall under WP:Notability standards. As for the beliefs, policy demands that we summarize what references say. If a group's differences with other Christians is vague or changing, following policy eliminates at least some of the pitfalls when writing simply by making sure you cite sources and that your text summarizes what the sources say. You are correct that it would be wonderful to have some sort of matrix to use to categorize differences to show where groups overlap and differ, and if various churches would make clear statements that could be tested in that way. However for Wikipedia purposes, we are compelled to just summarize what outside sources have already published about them. &bull; Astynax talk 03:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If we are talking the count of churches from Barrett at al. and the World Christian Encyclopedia, that number has severe methodological issues. Mangoe (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen details of a method from any source which would inspire confidence in a figure. If, however, what is being addressed is categorization for the purposes of the Christianity project itself, there are various frameworks that have been used over the years, though those also are constantly changing. Looking at how other encyclopedias and dictionaries of Christian-related movements handle this might provide some examples. That might even form the basis of an interesting article in and of itself. &bull; Astynax talk 03:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Christianity and violence
The Christianity and violence article has undergone substantial expansion and rewriting within the last month. Any suggestions for further improvement would be much appreciated. --Richard S (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

New articles
I have created a New article - Christianity and colonialism. Please take a look and provide your suggestions for further improvement on the Talk Page. Or be bold and just edit the page directly. Thanx. --Richard S (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have created two more articles - Sectarian violence among Christians and Bible and violence. These are subsidiary articles that have been spun off from Christianity and violence which, at 150kb, is getting way too long. Please take a look at these new articles and provide your suggestions for improvement. Or be bold and just edit the page directly. Thanx. --Richard S (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Christian leader
Hullo all. I've been systematically updating/adding the infoboxes of historic bishops in England. In the field "church" I have been consistently writing "Church of England" because that has been the church since even before the Reformation — it was a national church of the Church of Rome, but it was nonetheless the Church of England. With the Reformation, it simply became independent of Papery, reform and yet catholic (rather than Catholic and Papist as it had been before). Same church, but changed a bit. Now, some have removed that field from the infobox in-article, some have changed it to "Catholic". Now, we note the man's "religion" (Roman Catholic or Anglican) in a later field, so it will always be obvious that he was a Catholic. I propose that we use "Church of England" in the church field (as I have been) consistently. You views, please, ladies and gents DBD 11:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It would seem better to use, at the very least, "Catholic Church of England" (Catholic Church of England) when a church leader is both pre-Reformation and English. Many people would misunderstand or be confused by "Church of England" for pre-Reformation leaders. BTW, many consider "Papist" a derogatory term. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 14:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (Aside) Terribly sorry — I certainly didn't mean offence — I meant the term in its accurate sense meaning a follower of the Pope, rather than in any derogatory sense. My humblest apologies DBD 16:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the Church of England consider itself Catholic? Our article says it does, with this reference, and as I understand it, that is correct. Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So writing "Roman Catholic Church of England" would perhaps be more suitable then? Quite long-winded, but certainly accurate as an adjective-noun phrase... DBD 16:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We should only use "Catholic" here. We have a long established policy in this area, affecting categories etc etc, & there is no reason to change it. The reasons why a pre-Reformation English bishop is Catholic are simple, uncontroversial & easy to understand. The reasons why he might also be considered a member of the Church of England are none of these things. As so often, attempts to convey complicated issues in infobox headers lead straight to misinformation. DBD seems remarkably unconcerned that there might be those - Catholics (sorry Papists), historians, in fact anyone who isn't a particular kind of Anglican - who take issue with his line. The Catholic Church of France was prone to make similar claims for some sort of independent status before and after the Reformation, and if we start adding this and other claims to infoboxes, where will it end? On the other hand, if you take the Anglican/Gallican view that national churches within the Catholic Church were/are to some degree distinct, then the term Catholic or Roman Catholic still embraces these distinctions, whatever they were, and there is no need for further naming, least of all in infoboxes. We should not be using two different boxes for "church" and "religion" in these infoboxes, still less trying to make subtle distinctions by giving different information in them that will simply be regarded as contradictory by the vast majority of readers.  You will find that historians of all backgrounds carefully avoid "Church of England" when discussing the medieval church, using "English church" instead.  Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Johnbod here. As an example - Frank Barlow's works on the late Anglo-Saxon Church and the early Norman Church just call it the "English Church", not the Church of England. Similarly, Martin Brett's work is The English Church under Henry I, not the Church of England under Henry I. I think it best to just leave the whole church field off for pre-Reformation bishops, as this eliminates the concern and the need to explicate a complicated situation where competing claims are made and might confuse. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So perhaps we should be writing "English Roman Catholic church" then? DBD 17:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with leaving it blank? Most pre-Reformation bishops would have seen themselves as part of Christendom, not of particular national churches. This is especially true of those bishops prior to about 1200 or so, when "nationalities" as we understand them weren't considered. Just because a field exists in an infobox, doesn't mean we need to fill it. (As an aside, this is why I prefer the infobox specific to bishops, rather than the christian leader box, as it has less fields and thus fights the urge to "it has a field, we need to fill it".) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to go with Johnbod for medieval bishops. Pre-1054 naming the church is going to be a problem, and it may make more sense for those cases to omit the affiliation except for non-Chalcedonians/orientals. Mangoe (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Writing "English Catholic C/church" seems better to me, or "English Catholic Church" for post-1054 (pre-Henry VIII) leaders. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ 00:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And do we do the same for the French church or German church, and if not, why not? If somebody was Bishop of London, the Englishness should be fairly clear I think. Johnbod (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And if a leader is before the 8th-9th century, they may be part of Celtic Christianity.
 * To Johnbod, sure, do the same with the French church or German church. Why not? I guess we shouldn't if the leader is so early as to be part of Gaul instead of France, etc. Maybe we can reference them by their city if there is not a nation-type name to use.  şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ 01:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is crazy, & does not follow what historians do, as well as being POV. What about the Low Countries then? It just causes confusion among readers, as infoboxes usually do when they are allowed to become over-elaborate. This is a solution without a problem. Maybe we should just remove the infoboxes altogether. BTW, that signature of yours is illegible on my system. Johnbod (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty much one (Latin) Church prior to Henry's break, wasn't it? Why confuse things? And, as one editor has pointed out, nationalities didn't mean much when (for example) the much applauded Richard I didn't even speak English and was seldom in England. If asked, he might have said he was "Angevin" or "Norman" or something, so maybe not even English. So it might be similarly difficult to label his "subjects/co-residents". Student7 (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty much have to agree with Johnbod and others that the box should have "Catholic" or maybe "Roman Catholic." "Catholic Church of England" or "Roman Catholic Church of England" sounds too much to me like the names some new splinter group might take, and would lead to unnecessary confusion. The fact that the Anglican Church considers the pre-Reformation dioceses of England to be continued in their own post-Reformation dioceses is, basically, an opinion, and I don't think it is necessarily held by all outsiders. The "Church of England", prior to the Reformation, had no particularly distinct existence, and it is in effect asserting a minority POV to say it does. John Carter (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I now agree that just Catholic Church is better-- for those leaders after 1054 that is. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ 19:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible annual meeting for religious topics
I have proposed a possible "Wikipedia Council of Churches" annual meeting to maybe provide a form of regular central discussion for religious content at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. Any response, positive or negative, to the proposal would be welcome. 19:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Move of "Baptism" to "Baptism in Christianity"
I think it would be useful if more editors expressed views for or against the very recent move whereby the main body of the article formerly called Baptism has been made an article called Baptism in Christianity. See Talk:Baptism in Christianity. Thanks. Esoglou (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Christian eschatology
The article is obviously written with a particular point of view in mind. It is filled with original research. It needs to attention of a few savvy editors with good sources. Due to the current POV and structure, it may be necessary to rewrite entire chunks and make some drastic changes to the current structure. Any assistance and improvement would be appreciated! Vassyana (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Dictionary of Burning Words of Brilliant Writers
I have put together a list of authors referenced in this collection needing articles. Since the collection is primarily focused on Christian authors and quotes relating to Christianity, I hope some in this project will be interested in helping to flesh out the more obscure names. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the list and the quotes need serious help. Some items are obviously a little bit off (e.g. de Sales was not that Swiss, Newman's death is missing etc.) Is that list to be edited by whoever feels like it? I can look at it over the next month or two, but many of the names on there are not that notable really, and many far more notable names are missing. And I am not really sure what the goal here is. I do know that, sadly, sadly we are becoming a planet that lives on tweets and not paragraphs, but it might be better to encourage a higher quality approach to this. Let me offer apologies first, but I must say that the quotes there leave a lot to be desired, e.g.: "When you read the sacred Scriptures, or any other book, never think how you read, but what you read." I am sorry, but this is far from what one might call knowledge or wisdom. I would suggest setting up a "vote of 3" system where 3 people vote to keep or delete a quote and 2 votes delete it. As is, the quotes are somewhat like a rummage sale now, and Wikipedia can do better than these. So a 3 vote system may be a good approach to getting rid of the more banal ones, and the more obscure authors. I can add more notable authors after January, but let us wait for further ideas/opinions anyway. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The list is very specifically a list of authors whose works are quoted in the Dictionary of Burning Words of Brilliant Writers, an 1895 compilation of Christian quotations. The identifying material regarding countries and dates is what is contained in the index of that book, which may or may not be accurate. We don't include quotes in Wikipedia at all, which is why we have Wikiquote, where the quotes themselves will reside while Wikipedia provides substantive articles on the authors themselves. Although Wikiquote judges contemporary quotes for quotability, the inclusion of a quote in an edited public domain compilation is usually cause enough to maintain our own record that this was said. Please note also that most of the more prominent authors on the list have already had separate Wikiquote articles created using the quotes from the work, such as Frederick William Robertson, Frances Ridley Havergal, and Gardiner Spring. Cheers! bd2412  T 18:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Now I understand. Then my feeling is that I am not a fan of that specific book. I do not find the quotes therein burning, let us say, but perhaps not bad enough to burn the book. But I personally do not see this book as a "source of value" for Wikiquote etc. But that is just my feeling. So we will just have to let it be I guess. History2007 (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The Salvation Army
Is there a way to make The Salvation Army which has alot of linking articles, a wiki-project, or sub-project or something? Because there is alot of stuff (books, doco's websites) on TSA and its people and that around, and I think it would be good to co-ordinate with others interested in writing about the TSA in
 * 1) Getting current articles up to scratch
 * 2) Creating new articles, because alot of notable TSA people and events aren't mentioned &
 * 3) Doing the above 2 to improve the quality of the Christianity wiki-project as a whole.

Just askin :) TimGirling (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Salvation Army is already included in the recently-expanded scope of WikiProject Holiness Movement. That might be the best venue to use at present. John Carter (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Wisdom Christianity
Notifying people to vote on Articles for deletion/Wisdom Christianity (2nd nomination). Thanks (: BE——Critical __Talk 03:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Need some attention at WP:CFD
Please take a look at Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 29. Mangoe (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Article on Christ
Hi, I happened to look at the article Christ and was surprised how many problems it has. I commented on Talk:Christ about it. Obviously, this a a KEY article for Wikiproject Christianity, but seems to need much help. It does not really tell a first time reader what Christians teach about Christ, but digresses to esoteric thought pretty quickly. Suggestions for how to fix it and reduce the totally obscure items, and expand the mainstream Christian views will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article has major problems and have left some comments. I do wonder if it changing the article to redirect to Christology would make an easier fix (and cut down on maintaining). If it is going to continue as a stand-alone article, then more focus on the term itself and less emphasis on individual theologies might help. &bull; Astynax talk 18:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agreed with most of your suggestions there and also said that I see Christ and Christology as being inherently different topics in that one is the study of the other. So just as there are distinct articles on mineral and minerology and cosmetics and cosmetology and cosmos and cosmology, these two articles should be distinct. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC:Template talk:Jesus
Should a link be included in this template or is it Undue weight? şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 20:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD
Articles for deletion/Christian republic -Steve Dufour (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Young People's Society of Christian Endeavour
Young People's Society of Christian Endeavour is quite a mess. The article might better belong at the group's present-day name (I believe that's International Christian Endeavor) but right now it reads like poorly written promo rather than an encyclopedia article. Someone with some knowledge of the topic would do well to take this one on. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 06:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to rename Christian Mysticism template Christian Meditation
I posted a call for discussion at Template talk:Christian Mysticism. The template was removed from the Christian Mysticism article, and since it doesn't actually use the word mysticism, I wonder if it should be renamed to reflect its own contents. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cancel that--someone went ahead and boldly renamed it. Thanks. Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree strongly with this move and have requested that it be moved back due to no consensus. All the mystics listed in the template are mystics - not just meditators. Please discuss on Template talk:Christian meditation. Elizium23 (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I left a message and also commented on the template talk page as to why the rename should be reversed. It is a pretty clear cut case actually, as discussed there. No big deal to restore it I think. However, let me take this opportunity to ask for free work on Christian mysticism which needs much help. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Question re: overlapping WikiProjects
Is it okay to tag articles with this project, the Spirituality project and the Religion project? Or is that too much overlap? Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You may want to read WikiProject Council/Guide. The most important question is:  Are the members of that project willing to help support that article?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Partly I was confused because I couldn't find any information stating if the Christianity Project is already a part of either of the others. I find these Project pages hard to navigate sometimes, since they all are designed in ways that are kinda similar and yet not exactly alike. Cheers, Aristophanes68 (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC).
 * The Christianity WikiProject is a daughter project of the Religion WikiProject. In the vast majority of cases, if it fits into the former, it is redundant to tag it with both. Lady  of  Shalott  03:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There is way to much project overlap here. I am guessing that things are considered "Spirituality" if someone on that team thinks it is "Spirituality". Religion would cover all of that and much more. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ 23:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Christian denomination disambiguation pages with links.
Greetings! This month, we have a large number of links to disambiguation pages about Christian denominations. We at the Disambiguation pages with links project would deeply appreciate any help you could give us in fixing ambiguous links to the following pages: Cheers! bd2412 T 21:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ukrainian Orthodox Church: 90 links
 * Church of God: 62 links
 * Armenian Church: 53 links
 * Estonian Orthodox Church: 52 links

Comments needed on Aelred/Ailred
Please weigh in over at Talk:Ailred of Rievaulx. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Work needed on Spiritual warfare
The article Spiritual warfare is a real mess. It looks like it could particularly use some editing with regard to what are the more orthodox views on the subject. Mamalujo (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikiproject Conservatism
Check out the proposed wikiproject Conservatism here.


 * I wish this project will not happen, given that it was positioned against project liberalism. In my view, it will in the end lead to even a further polarization of editors and may encourage an unfortunate WP:Battleground mentality with them. The end result may be 90% talk page discussion and 10% good content. Then both groups will end up getting backlash from the larger community and there will be no real winners. I just hope it will not fly. I hope to see more cooperation and less polarization of editors. History2007 (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

An appeal re. "Big Church Day Out" event
Hi all. Could I make an appeal to any project members who may be going to the "BigChurchDayOut" event on 28th and 29th May 2011 at Wiston House, West Sussex, UK? (Stick a .com on the end of the name to see the website.) The grounds of Wiston House are now private property and are only rarely opened to the public—this event is one such occasion. The former St Mary's Church (declared redundant in 2007) stands next to Wiston House within these private grounds. It is not possible to photograph the church with any degree of success from surrounding public footpaths etc., unfortunately. I will soon be starting to compile an illustrated list of places of worship in the district, similar in style to this, and will ultimately write an article on the former church itself. It would be great if any visitors to the event could take, and upload with an appropriate licence, some photos of this ancient and attractive church for use in these articles. Many thanks! Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!)  20:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:LDSproject
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC) (Using )

Family Research Council
Hello, there is a discussion relevant to this WikiProject going on here which involves some users who wish to state that the Christian group, Family Research Council, is in fact a "hate group" in the introduction of the article. Please see the discussion and consider the arguments for or against this inclusion there. Thanks, AnupamTalk 06:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A source: Bible and homosexuality
Hi! I found:
 * Knust, Jennifer Wright. "My Take: The Bible’s surprisingly mixed messages on sexuality." CNN. February 9, 2011. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nilgiri Christian Guest Homes Association


The article Nilgiri Christian Guest Homes Association has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * A search for references found no published (gBooks) mentions and mostly/only mirrors online. No mention of notability, fails WP:V and WP:N

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Chick-fil-A
It appears that a Wikipedian who is not a member of this WikiProject has claimed the Talk:Chick-fil-A page for WikiProject Christianity with an apparent political intent. What response if any is appropriate? PeRshGo (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a political intent, however the article already links to the Christianity portal, and talks about Christianity a lot in the article... --  Admr Boltz  16:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Although the timing of the banner does seem to imply a political intent (without the editor's own statement of intent, which we now have), Chick-fil-A has always been open about its connections to Christianity—being closed on Sundays, etc. We should perhaps focus on precedent: are there other businesses that warrant the Christianity project banner? Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * CNN has a list of 10 other Christian companies, such as Forever 21, ServiceMaster, etc. --  Admr Boltz  16:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * While the CNN has posted a list of religious (not necessarily Christian) companies I can’t say it makes sense to put those companies under a WikiProject what covers the Christian religion as a whole. Do we put Whole Foods into WikiProject Buddisim? Should all companies that aren’t entirely secular be covered by the WikiProject that handles the religion the owners ascribe to? Do we start categorizing individuals by their religious beliefs as well? But more than anything I see this tagging as a part a broader effort to portray the owners of Chick-fil-A as religious zealots. Such POV issues are being fought in the article space so I don’t why they shouldn’t be fought in the talk space as well. PeRshGo (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll also mention that the majority of the information relating to the company's association with Christianity has been added very recently, the afore mentioned Christianity portal box being added just last week. PeRshGo (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Besides, I doubt that this WikiProject is a good place to collaborate on improving the Chick-fil-A article. What would experts on Christianity have to add to that article? Probably very little. Huon (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * How far do we want to carry this? Banks in the Near East, under Muslim rules, cannot charge interest. Are they then "Muslim banks" and under Project Islam? Are we looking to label all banks. Some Hollywood and other media tend to be aggressively anti-religious ("secular" in polite terms). Do they then come under that project? It seems to me that some LDS-owned companies can be construed as "religious" though their intent is to make money for their owner, just like any business.
 * I would like to see this sort of thing limited. It can go on too far IMO to the point where if someone says he is a "Methodist" and works as a CEO someplace, the company suddenly gets "labeled" and unlabeled in banner wars. Student7 (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Huon is right, of course.
 * We get into this with categories all the time, with someone trying to annoy someone else with a label deliberately chosen for this purpose. I think we have a easier time of it here. Project members can decide that it is not in the interest of the Project to label that article. (Categories aren't so lucky. No "owners" there!  :)  Student7 (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the categorization should be removed. Someone conducting an academic study of Christianity is probably not going to think, "oh, let me study Chick-fil-A".  The focus of the project could easily be diluted through attempting to label everyone and everything that has a connection to Christianity.  That would include open the flood gates were we to attempt to tag every bio of a Christian as relating to this project. --B (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a lack of necessity for the Chick-Fil-A page to be tagged under WikiProject Christianity. While the retaurant does have Christian associations, said associations are not the most notable aspect of Chick-Fil-A. The restaurant's most notable aspect is the fact that they are a restaurant which is known for their chicken, as suggested by the restaurant's name. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 01:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Christian terrorism
Calling for your urgent attention to matters discussed on Christian terrorism's talk page, thank you. Eli +  20:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Rm link to non-licensed copy of copyright material per WP:LINKVIO
We seem to have a problem with links to copyright violations in articles about the Catholic sex abuse scandal. If you work on these articles, please see Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases for more information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Article Tahash Timeline
Please look at the article Tahash, and on the Discussion Page: "Consensus on Timeline" give your opinion about the Timeline. Thank you. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as citation, cite journal, cite web...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place id (or worse http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use 0123.4567, likewise for id and http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → 0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):



Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Getting more eyes on an ongoing RfC
Hello there! Replies to an ongoing RfC at Talk:Crisis pregnancy center have been sparser than might be helpful, so since the RfC concerns Christianity, I thought I should mention it over here. We're trying to decide whether, based on our sources' description of CPCs' religious affiliation, personnel, and behavior, it is best to describe them as "Christian," "run by Christians," or "affiliated with a Christian organization." Thanks! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Question about Christian holidays
Hi, I'm in the process of arranging the distribution of 400 free Credo Reference accounts to Wikipedians, generously donated by the company and organized by Erik Moeller of the Wikimedia Foundation. See WP:CREDO for more details. The accounts will be distributed on a first-come, first-served basis, plus some eligibility requirements, and the application list will open on March 23 at 22:00. I want to make sure that this day doesn't clash with any religious Christian, Jewish, or Muslim holidays that would make it less likely, or impossible, for observant Wikipedians to be online. Could you please let me know if there's any such issue with March 23? The list will remain open for a week, but the first day is likely to be the busiest. Many thanks, SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Naw-Rúz (Zoroastrian and Bahá'í), Holi and Lent will be in progress, but should not prevent anyone observing them from signing up. I am unaware of anything else during this period which would impact the date you've chosen. &bull; Astynax talk 21:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. And on a lighter note, from a Catholic perspective, the special observance period after St. Patrick's day should be over by the 23rd for most participants and they should be able to type their passwords. History2007 (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. :) See Credo accounts if you're interested and sober-ish, March 23, 22:00 UTC. Cheers, SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 22:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

American Social Conservatism is up for deletion
This nav box American Social Conservatism is up for deletion. Is a nav box for important articles where Christianity and politics intersect such as Judeo-Christian values, Pro-life, School prayer, National Right to Life Committee, Christian Right. You can join the discussion here. Lionel (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments needed on scope of Christian mysticism article
What should be included and what should be left out? Please weigh in at Talk:Christian mysticism. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Economic histories of religions and ethnicities
Please see the central discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews, regarding:


 * 1) Economic history of the Christians and its related Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Christians.
 * 2) Economic history of the Jews and its related Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews.
 * 3) Economic history of the Muslims and its related Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Muslims.

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Mormons
Please join the discussion about the open issue whether the Church of Jesus Christ LDS (mormons) should be defined as a christian religion or not here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Argument_against_Christianity. Currently the article defines them to be so, but scholarly works and general references show that we should not be to keen on calling them christian, since there has ever been an ongoing dispute in the academic world, and we should not argue against Britannica or Oxford English Dictionary, as long as we have not come to a reasonable conclusion. --217.5.199.242 (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither the OED or Britannica support the IP's claims. The OED entry is as follows: "Mormon - A member or adherent of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, a millenary Christian sect founded in 1830 at Manchester, New York, by Joseph Smith."  That Christians of various ilks do not consider Mormonism to be part of their family is undisputed, but the IP appears only to arguing that religious perspective, which is not the mainstream perspective of scholars who study religion (as opposed to the faithful).  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As for any disputed claim, the LDS articles should say "Christian" since that is what they believe. This label should not be used without qualification in general articles since no Christian group accepts that claim. There are many disputed claims in Wikipedia. This is how they are generally treated. The only overwhelming problem is someone claims that it is "overwhelming." It is a routine matter. Student7 (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment on Christian Lit category
Please visit Category talk:Christian narrative and offer your input. Thanks, Aristophanes 68   (talk)  17:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Redundant templates
Do we need all of Infobox cardinal, Infobox Christian leader, Infobox LDS biography,  and Infobox minister of religion? What's the best way to merge some or all of them? Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Help Requested at Gospel of Matthew
Does anyone have the time to review the ongoing dispute at this (important) article? The issues can be found at Talk:Gospel of Matthew. I have tried to foster a brief presentation of the issues at the bottom of the talk page in a way that hopefully makes the issues clear. Outside help, comment, and opinions would be highly salutary. Thanks. Eusebeus (talk) 06:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)