This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Judaizers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

File:Filename

is an article that really needs improvement. A new editor added some material that I reverted because it was dependent upon primary sources and was OR. They understand that but are concerned about the edits by yet a second new editor that don't seem to improve it either. I don't know if anyone here is interested, but if they are, as I said, the article needs work. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it Doug--it will give me something to do.  :-) Jenhawk777 ( talk) 20:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Doug Weller and thank you Jenhawk777. Please do also take a second look at my contributions there. I think that there was maybe something i oroduced which could be worked with. Cheers. Judaizers ( talk) 22:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

A suggestion for reorganization has been made on the talk page of the Bible and Violence [ [1]] at topic 15) Reorganization. I would like to ask anyone interested in helping this article to please take a look and make a comment--any comment will be helpful. Thank you. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 08:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I'd like members to have a look at these edits and the accompanying discussion at Talk:Great Apostasy. It seems to me that they alter the Overview section in a POV way, giving undue weight to fringe Protestant views of the Catholic Church such as idol-worship, worship of Mary, and the hybrid "pagan Mother-Son worship". And not only that, but these fringe views are copied to the lead, totally skewing it. The citations are a collection of far-out Christian websites: http://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception_end-time_paganism_Catholic_sun-worship, https://www.sabbathtruth.com/sabbath-history/how-the-sabbath-was-changed, https://www.gotquestions.org/worship-saints-Mary.html, http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/catholic_church_idolatry.html, https://bible.org/question/it-okay-worship-statues-jesus, and a self-published 1914 pamphlet, The Practice of Idolatry, none of which come anywhere near satisfying WP:RS. Any input into the discussion is welcome. I'm copying this to other Christian WikiProjects. Scolaire ( talk) 15:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Several new discussions and proposals were initiated recently on the page Talk:Catholicism (term). Unfortunately, there was no notification here. More participation would be welcomed. Sorabino ( talk) 16:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a serious problem. Not all uses of the word "catholic" mean "Roman Catholic", the common name in English, which is what the "Catholic Church" article is about. The discussion has become too involved. Any suggestions? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Since 18 August, the author of an article titled Practical Charismatic Theology has been redirecting the article Practical theology to this new Practical Charismatic Theology, which seems to be mostly original research and to have very little in common with what is described in the original Practical theology article. It caught my attention that an IP User and the author of Practical Charismatic Theology had been replacing each other's work, the one restoring the original text of Practical Theology and the other redirecting to Practical Charismatic Theology. The last time I noticed it redirected I decided to replace the redirect with the text of the last edit. Perhaps someone else should take a look at what's going on?

Thanks! Pastor rfg ( talk) 05:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's discuss at the talk page of the article. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's also make sure all the facts are disclosed in this conversation. I have provided a detailed response on the talk page of Practical Charismatic Theology.  Doctor^G  (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Walter Görlitz ( talk) 22:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Can we get some eyes on Sorted magazine (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? At the article, an IP is repeatedly removing sourced material and replacing it with unsourced material, promotional language, and spam. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

In the Interpretation section it states : The dialogues are generally concerned with the idea of the Savior as reminder to human beings of their bond with God and true identity, as well as the realization of the believer that redemption consists of the return to God and liberty from matter after death. The Gospel of Mary contains two of these discourses (7.1–9.4 and 10.10–17.7) including addresses to New Testament figures (Peter, Mary, Andrew and Levi) and an explanation of sin as adultery (encouragement toward an ascetic lifestyle) which also suit a Gnostic interpretation.

The extant text of The Gospel of Mary is missing all of Chapter 6 and 7 and the Gospel ends at Chapter 9. There is not a Chapter 10. Peter is mentioned in Chapter 4:25 and again in Chapter 9:3 and 9:4. Andrew in 9:2 and Levi in 9:6 through 9:9.

Discourses that may have a Gnostic interpretation take place in 4:21 - 4:31. Then again at 5:10-5:11, at this point pages 11 - 14 are missing from the manuscript, containing the remainder of Chapter 5, all of Chapter 6 and 7 and up to the last word (...it) of Chapter 8:9. The rest of Chapter 8, starting with verse 10 through 8:24 continue discourse.

Please, correct these errors.

It should also be mentioned that The Gospel of Mary is not mentioned in the DECRETUM GELASIANUM. ( http://www.tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm) This is unusual, that is was either unknown or not mentioned in section V : Likewise a list of apocryphal books in the DECRETUM GELASIANUM, considering 3 copies of The Gospel of Mary have been found. In a radio interview with Karen King ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IL4AZV6go5I) she concludes that having found 3 partly preserved copies of the gospel means it was at least moderately well circulated.

Thank you for review of these matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnosis1776 ( talk • contribs) 11:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello all! Just wanted to let you know that I have been adding a number of Irish churches as red links to a number of church disambiguation pages such as St. Mary's Church. All of these churches are notable, as they have been listed by the Irish National Inventory of Architectural Heritage. So I'm not spamming with an Irish bias ;) Thanks! Smirkybec ( talk) 07:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Smirkybec, please read MOS:DABRL. Do not add non-existent articles to disambiguation pages, even if you personally think the item is notable. If the item is notable, then WP:WTAF. -- Softlavender ( talk) 07:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:Infobox Christian leader#Propose new parameter. In the process of evaluating a {{ Edit template-protected}} request, I have some concerns about the specifics of the proposed change, and am not 100% certain that the Christianity biography editors are actually going to want some version of this parameter, though I think they might. Further input requested.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I've just added a template and a final paragraph for now but if anyone has time the article needs attention. Many people are scared the world will end tomorrow and I'm getting inundated by pm's from them which means I won't have time to give it attention by then.

It's notable as there are many articles about it, including debunked by the Washington Post and some Christian online journals too - and astronomers - and the only ones supporting this interpretation are a nobody (in the sense of no accreditation Christian or astronomical) with pen name "David Meade" who wrote a book that's been promoted all summer by the Daily Express a sensationalist red top tabloid in the UK.

For any who don't know, it claims that the Woman of the Apocalypse is the constellation Virgo and that an unknown planet Nibiru is about to fly past Earth and that it caused the recent earthquakes and hurricanes and that this is what the book of Revelation is all about, not just that passage but the whole thing, and that this is going to lead to the rapture of Christians lifted into the clouds by Jesus.

I.e. basically just nuts, not even evangelical Christian, but many people have fallen for it including some ordinary folk who are Christian and evangelical who have been lookign forward to the rapture. But not by the more educated Christians even in evangelical churches. And it is making many people suicidal which is why I felt it was urgent to at least add a template and I've added a final para to the lede about the usual interpretation of Rev 12 and saying that Virgo is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

I don't think it can be deleted as it is notable. But if anyone has a bit more time than me to get it in shape do please help. It's here Revelation 12 Sign.

Thanks! Robert Walker ( talk) 22:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

For details, please see Talk:List of Christian_denominations#Proposal to let List of Christian denominations by number of members merge with this list. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 19:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support It makes sense to include the numbers. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 19:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@ Walter Görlitz: Please note that the discussion is located at: Talk:List of Christian_denominations. Thank you! Chicbyaccident ( talk) 19:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

My very best wishes and I have been reverting back and forth about how to characterize Nikolai Berdyaev's relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church. I am reluctant to continue reverting without hearing opinions of other editors. Please review the page history and weigh in at Talk:Nikolai Berdyaev#Church. Sondra.kinsey ( talk) 21:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, it's good that you are not going to continue reverting. Note that my latest edit on the page [2] was not a revert. It was you who reverted. My very best wishes ( talk) 03:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

There is currently an RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Catholic_Church)#RfC:_should_this_page_be_made_a_naming_convention asking if the proposed naming convention for the Catholic Church should be made an official naming convention. All are welcomed to comment. TonyBallioni ( talk) 21:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a notice about Category:Christian theology articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. There might be as few as one page in the category, or zero if someone has removed the expert request tag from the page.  —  Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs)  03:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

If I could change the entire Wikipedia entry for 'Ark of the Covenant', I would. Nearly everything currently in this entry is straight out of the Bible, and written as if all were fact. If I wanted to familiarize myself with Jewish and Christian mythology, I would read the Bible. Where are the scholars, the scientists or archaeologists contributions? For instance, what is the tradition in the ancient middle east for such arks and such covenants? Considering that the story of Moses is considered myth, and in all probability is, then what is the probable origin for this story of the ark and covenant? We know the medieval Crusaders excavated under the Temple mount for artifacts such as the ark. What did they find? Why wouldn't the scribes of the Old testament mention the ark? Did they themselves even know the story, or was it a later creation of later scribes? Or perhaps the ark was actually of little importance to them and only achieved mythological greatness later. What do scholars know of these things? I came for scientific theory and got mythology straight out of the Bible. I guess I'll have to do my own research and return. -- 1937Tigers ( talk) 01:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

The Kiwix people are working on an offline version of several Wikipedia subsets (based on this Foundation report). It basically would be like the Wikimed App (see here for the Android light version; iOS is in beta, DM me if interested), and the readership would likely be in the Global South (if Wikimed is any indication): people with little to no access to a decent internet connexion but who still would greatly benefit from our content.

What we do is take a snapshot at day D of all articles tagged by the project (we'll also add texts from Wikisource) and package it into a compressed zim file that people can access anytime locally (ie once downloaded, no refresh needed). We also do a specific landing page that is more mobile-friendly, and that's when I need your quick input:

1. Would it be okay for you if it were hosted as a subpage of the Wikiproject (e.g. WikiProject Christianity/Offline)? Not that anyone should notice or care, but I'd rather notify & ask
2. Any breakdown of very top-level topics that you'd recommend? (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Open_Textbook_of_Medicine2 for what we're looking at in terms of simplicity) Usually people use the search function anyway, but a totally empty landing page isn't too useful either. Alternatively, if you guys use the Book: sorting, that can be helpful.

Thanks for your feedback! Stephane (Kiwix) ( talk) 12:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

This seems to need a good rinse. It doesn't seem to use sources that would normally meet WP:RS although such sources exist and I've added them to the talk page. Many of these mention Kenneth E. Hagin and having developed the doctrine although he isn't mentioned in the article. Doug Weller talk 12:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a discussion taking place at Talk:Catholic–Lutheran dialogue#Requested move 22 October 2017 that members of this Wikiproject might be interested in. All are invited to participate. – Zfish118^{⋉ talk} 13:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

(Not shown are ante-Nicene, nontrinitarian, and restorationist denominations.)

The widely-used template Template:Christian denomination tree (above) currently has text, added in January by User:Chicbyaccident, saying it is "according to branch theory". I'd suggest this isn't accurate or helpful; I've started a debate over at Template_talk:Christian_denomination_tree#.22Branch_Theory.22. TSP ( talk) 15:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not helpful and not true. Delete it. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

What part is not true? It's a generalisation so not all nodes can be displayed. Simplifications must be made to aid understanding. I don't think that any one branch above is obviously untrue. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 09:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The use of the term "according to branch theory" is not true. The chart itself is fine. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 02:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm hoping someone can come by and solve a content dispute between myself and Laurel Lodged on the Council of Chalcedon article. I inserted a brief explanation of what the Council did into the lead. Laurel Lodged reverted it, calling it a "simplification." I revised it somewhat with a direct quote from the Chalcedonian Definition, which is what came out of the Council. I was reverted again.

I subsequently went to the talk page, where I argued that the edit should not be reverted simply because it does not cover all the details that this editor thinks belong in the lead. Instead, the text should be expanded. The main problem, I said, was the fact that there was no explanation of the lead of the dogma that came out of the Council. Laurel Lodged responded by saying that it was unnecessary to "re-state the entire Definition in the lead," adding that this would undermine the purpose of the separate Chalcedonian Definition article.

I replied that this was a simple matter of following the MOS style for leads. Leads should contain an appropriate summary of the article, and failing to include even a few words or sentences on what the Chalcedonian Definition was seems to me like an obvious violation of this policy. Laurel Lodged responded that the Definition should be quoted "in its entirety" or not at all. To me, this is ridiculous, because the Definition is two paragraphs long. What I picked was the main part.

At this point, I figured we would not likely be getting anywhere soon, and that it was best to ask for intervention. I appreciate the willingness of any editor to look into this issue and determine a resolution. Display name 99 ( talk) 21:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Reply In the Greek, an iota made a huge difference. Learn from this. Not even the article on the Definition quotes the definition in the lead, so why would Chalcedon do so? It needs a full exposition for all nuances to be teased out. Partial quoting leads to error. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 09:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a debate, it's a discussion, so I modified your response format. If you want to revert that, feel free to, but you should follow correct MOS:LISTGAP formatting.

This also isn't Greek. It isn't even the post-Constantinian church, and the a simplified statement encapsulating what the Chalcedonian Definition is would be appropriate. You could even lift it directly from the start of the second paragraph of the article on the Chalcedonian Definition: "that Christ is 'acknowledged in two natures', which 'come together into one person and one hypostasis'."

And for the record, there is more extraneous information on what and where Chalcedon is than there is defining the Chalcedonian Definition. The council's location is not why people come to the article, the nature of the discussion and its outcome are. My advice is fix it and if an editor offers an improvement, attempt to make it better rather than simply reverting. I can only see reverting if it were completely wrong. In other words, if an editor wrote "the Chalcedonian Definition adopted the city Nicaean Creed as official Church doctrine", it would be acceptable to revert. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 02:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, thank you for your response. I added a quote from the Definition into the lead. Display name 99 ( talk) 16:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

That is a vast over-simplification of the Definition. What oyu are attempting is a merger with the Definition article. If that's what you want, then make the proper case. This is not the way to do it. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 23:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You don't understand what the purpose of the lead is or what the most important point of Council of Chalcedon is, for that matter. The Chalcedonian Definition was a crucial part of the Council and it should therefore receive some coverage in the lead, and more deeply down below and in a separate article, if there is one. That's basic MOS stuff. The Chalcedonian Definition's lead section should discuss almost nothing but what is in the Definition, per the title. I am simply astonished by your groundless accusation that a single sentence fragment on what the Council of Chalcedon actually decreed somehow constitutes a merger with a different article. As Walter Görlitz said, that's the main reason people come to the article. The charge that it's a "vast over-simplification" has yet to be backed up with solid evidence. Display name 99 ( talk) 02:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• For years, consensus has been at these too limit links to these ( Template:Christianity footer and Template:Christianity sidebar) templates to those agreed to at a third place: Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list.
• Is there consensus to add Saint Joseph to them? Please discuss at RfC on Joseph. tahc ^chat 04:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  The actual discussion which has already taken place is three sections above the RfC section at "Formal nomination:Joseph". Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 05:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• No, there is no need to limit the RFC only on the result of a past discussion-- since people would not do that anyway. We encourage people to discuss directly if Joseph is a core topic in Christianity at RFC on Joseph. tahc ^chat 21:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

For those interested, please join this discussion about categorisation of the Deuterocanonical books. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I shall be interested in joining this Wikiproject Group, so I shall ask here how one joins. Thank you in advance for co-operation. Vorbee ( talk) 16:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@ Vorbee: You don't have to join, you can just participate, but if you want to join, add your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Members Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

If anyone here can read ancient Greek, then User:The Blade of the Northern Lights is looking for some help in sorting out the list at User:Anomie/Neelix list/6#Greek. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventh-day Adventist historicist interpretations of Bible prophecy (2nd nomination). James ( ^talk/ _contribs) 05:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Christianity

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 12:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to comment at Talk:Josephine Butler#Request for comment on names where there's an issue about naming; the article (which is currently a FA) refers to its female subject by her first name throughout "for simplicity". Any input is welcome. -- John ( talk) 18:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I see the article on Harry Emerson Fosdick has been rated as start-class on the article's quality scale, but has not been assessed anywhere on the article's importance scale. Perhaps some one in this project group could remedy this. Vorbee ( talk) 16:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy new year! I've been building a tool to help WikiProjects identify and recruit new editors to join and contribute, and collaborated with some WikiProject organizers to make it better. We also wrote a Signpost article to introduce it to the entire Wikipedia community.

Right now, we are ready to make it available to more WikiProjects that need it, and I’d like to introduce it to your project! If you are interested in trying out our tool, feel free to sign up. Bobo.03 ( talk) 19:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a proposal to add some religious events at WP:ITNR. If adopted some or all of the listed events could be added to ITNR and be automatically posted to the main page conditional on the overall quality of the relevant articles. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion here. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

If you're not familiar with the topic, This is an introduction. I'm not sure this qualifies as notable enough by Wikipedia standards for its own article, but would it at least be worthy of a mention in an existing article?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Not unless it gets a lot more general coverage. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 07:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The article Lawn sign may be an appropriate place to mention "Thank you Jesus" signs. I easily found other coverage: [3] (Fox, Nov 2016), [4] (Seven Lakes local news, April 2017), [5] ( WRAL-TV, Dec 2017). – Fayenatic London 09:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I doubt it. It's not like the article already has anything comparable.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Note for everyone interested in articles on Christianity and Orthodoxy: take a look at recent disruptive edits and reverts by some editors on several pages like Persecution of Christians and Anti-Orthodoxy. These things are obviously coordinated and highly problematic. Sorabino ( talk) 14:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks like we still have a fair number of articles on dubiously notable churches created and deleted here along with other dubiously notable topics. If there is any verifiable information on them, and there almost always is, it should be possible to add as least some of that data to wikidata.i think anyone doing a Google search these days sees wikidata at or near the top of the returns. Would anyone be interested in doing so? Also, I suppose, if there are any of you active at wikidata who know the basic ropes there, that might be useful for others here to know. John Carter ( talk) 21:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no category for people who have converted to or joined the Seventh-day Adventist church on English Wikipedia. But what should this category be called? Category:Converts to Seventh-day Adventism? Category:Converts to Adventism? Category:Converts to the Seventh-day Adventist Church? Please let me know what you think or if there are any better suggestions. Inter&anthro ( talk) 20:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Just add people who have joined the Seventh-day Adventist church to Category:Seventh-day Adventists, or better yet, to a sub-cats of Category:Seventh-day Adventists by nationality. tahc ^chat 21:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

If anyone wants to give feedback about my article, go to the peer review page and feel free to do so. -- LovelyGirl7 talk 22:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I think someone better informed than myself could add a short paragraph regarding the Bible Missionary Church to the subcategories of Evangelicalism, Wesleyanism and sanctification. They already have a separate entry, but I couldn't find their information cross-referenced with Evangelicalism Wesleyanism or sanctification. Thanks for any interest! FaerieShaman77 ( talk) 14:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)FaerieShaman77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FaerieShaman77 ( talk • contribs) 14:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

You should start discussions on the talk page of that article. Whatever the article is that you refer to, you have left no clue. tahc ^chat 16:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Anti-Orthodoxy that affects several topics on Christianity. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Sorabino ( talk) 19:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

There is something fishy going on at Biblical canon, but I'm not sure what. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The article David Meade (author) is currently a GA article nominee and I’m ready for it to be reviewed. If anybody would like to review it, feel free to do so. — LovelyGirl7 talk 16:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Here we go again. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

If anybody would like to give feedback on the article, feel free to do so at Wikipedia:Peer review/Heritage USA/archive1. — LovelyGirl7 talk 20:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Last year, due to increasing quality requirements, we were unable to feature many of the Christian holidays leading up to Easter on the Main Page via WP:Selected anniversaries. In the intervening period, it doesn't appear that the articles have improved much. To avoid having these omitted again, please improve the following articles

• Palm Sunday
• Good Friday
• Holy Saturday
• Easter
• Easter Monday
• Easter Saturday
• Divine Mercy Sunday

There may be others. As I am not Christian, I don't know what other days there are. (And preemptively, before someone replies with "SOFIXIT", I already saved Ash Wednesday; that's the one freebie you get.) Thank you. — howcheng { chat} 23:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians to be moved to Anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. Sorabino ( talk) 21:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I am working to improve this article for a frontpage Recent Death appearance, and would welcome copyediting for language and as well as other improvements. Iselilja ( talk) 19:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

A specific date or as specific as is known, cited, and or handmedowned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3026:20F:E400:E8D6:43D3:2B93:7A07 ( talk) 03:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking about creating a new infobox template, (potentially) called Infobox church office. While I have mainly Catholic offices in mind, I think it can be used for Anglican ones as well, and potentially others, such as Latter-day Saint ones. I envision it being something of a cross between {{ Infobox organization}} and {{ Infobox official post}}, except customized to allow parameter labels and template designs that are specific to a given church. I imagine it being used as the primary infobox on articles about specific positions, like Cardinal Vicar and Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Catholic), and Archdeacon of Westminster (Anglian). It would be able to accommodate offices held by individuals, such as Cardinal Vicar, as well as those that are collective bodies, such as the Congregations. It would not be used for general positions, like periodeutes or hierodeacon. What do people think of this? Ergo Sum 03:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

What I think of this is that you have created this thread without mentioning that you had already started similar threads elsewhere, contrary to WP:MULTI. The earliest that I can find is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Proposal for a new infobox. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 07:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I have long thought that guideline to be lacking in consideration and foresight. I'm sorry if my contravention of it disturbed you. Ergo Sum 11:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The Twelve Apostles of Ireland Challenge is an edition competition seeking to create and improve articles on the Twelve Apostles of Ireland. Anyone in any language can subscribe and collaborate on building or translating articles relating to the Twelve Apostles. Medals and real icons will be rewarded to the winners. To participate, one just needs to subscribe here and start collaborating. Dia Duit! Leefeni de Karik ( talk) 20:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I happened across User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV and would like to add a link to it somewhere on Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity. I wanted to check with others on three questions:

1. Do others support linking this from a WikiProject page?
2. Where should the link go?
3. Are there other essays similar in sentiment or relevance to this WikiProject that I should be aware of or might be linked to as well?

Thanks. Daask ( talk) 17:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it's a noble effort by Ian, but IMO it needs a lot of editing by project members to make it representative of the project.

If this essay gets promoted to wikiproject advice, then IMO it should become part of a "Christianity Manual of Style" or a "Christianity Editing Guideline" similar to MILHIST and WP Med.– Lionel^{( talk)} 04:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Project News: An admin is admonished
• Achievements: Ralph Abernathy promoted
• Featured article: Missionaries in the rainforest
• Did You Know: Ioan C. Filitti sentenced to death

* Read this Ichthus in full * Get Ichthus delivered to your Talkpage * – Lionel^{( talk)} 11:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I am posting this here as the article concerning David McAfee, a modern critic of Christianity, has been nominated for deletion. Any feedback would be appreciated, ~~

For convenience, David McAfee. Ltwin ( talk) 20:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Sky Blue Sapphire blue (Ancient Israeli pavement,) Lapis Lazuli blue (Ancient Babylonian pavement) British royal blue (British Empire's pavement) Russian blue American blue

Open for discussion Millennian ( talk) 16:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC) Millennian.

A Requested move discussion (rename article) has been initiated for United States pro-life movement. Please join the discussion here. Last month 6,600 people read this article!!! – Lionel^{( talk)} 10:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

There is an informal/unofficial RfC at the Liberty University talk page found here that members of this project might interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• NOTE Discussion has just been made into an official RfC. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at this Request For Comment on Is Genesis History?. – Lionel^{( talk)} 03:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Project News: Is Genesis History? See the RFC.
• Did You Know: Phineas Hodson’s wife dies
• Featured article: Jewish boy causes fall of Roman Catholic Papal States?

* Read this Ichthus in full * Get Ichthus delivered to your Talkpage * – Lionel^{( talk)} 04:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm writing here to bring attention to the Black Hebrew Israelites article, as there have been some recent disputes over content and sourcing, and additional input would be great. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 21:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I was looking for the Methodist Church that was formed in the US in 1939, typed in " Methodist Church", and got redirected to Methodism (disambiguation), which was no help. I think there should be a list of all Methodist Church denominations somewhere, and maybe there is, but it should either be at Methodism (disambiguation) or there should be a new dab page for it. Either way, typing in "Methodist Church" should quickly bring me to this list.

Actually it turns out there is such a list, at List of Methodist denominations. Two problems with this, one it's not easily findable from Methodism (disambiguation), and two it does not include the church I was looking for, which is at Methodist Church (USA). Apparently it only has current churches, not previous ones that are no longer in existence. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 23:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh my. A lot of links. We should usually break back-links by creating them with a colon ([[:List of Methodist denominations]]), but it was easy enough to add the list to the dab page. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Which helps but still doesn't solve my problem. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 00:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. I was only reading with half an eye. Does there seem to be an article maintainer or primary editor? If so, ping that editor on the article's talk page to suggest creating a section of historical denominations. If not, be WP:BOLD, and create such a section and add the denominations you think should be there. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Added to list. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 12:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Please see my post at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#List of Christian heresies. I think some people who watch this page might be interested. TonyBallioni ( talk) 02:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

For future reference, that's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 71#List of Christian heresies. Daask ( talk) 21:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I posted at request at WikiProject Lutheranism before seeing this centralized discussion space. I'm seeking help from a volunteer to review my request to add mention of David Trone's religion here, if a page watcher is wiling to take a look. Thanks! Inkian Jason ( talk) 20:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I am still seeking assistance with this request to add mention of David Trone's religion to his Wikipedia article. @ Kendall-K1, Martin of Sheffield, and Walter Görlitz: You've all contributed to this page recently. Might you be willing to take a look at the update I've proposed here? Inkian Jason ( talk) 20:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Never heard of the fellow before, nor his business. Can't see how his religion of otherwise is relevant to the article, but then I'm a Brit and I don't follow the ins and outs of low-level US Politics! Which is a long way of saying I don't think I can help. Regards, Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 21:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Thanks! Inkian Jason ( talk) 15:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• People of Praise (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Greetings! This article appears to require attention from non-involved editors interested in Christianity. I have addressed some of my concerns on its talk page. Any help welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 11:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

For a number of years we have been experiencing a steady decline in the number of administrators as a result of attrition and a declining number of editors willing to consider adminship. Things have reached a point where we are starting to experience chronic backlogs in important areas of the project including noticeboards, requests for closure, SPI, CSD & etc. If you are an experienced editor with around two years (or more) of tenure, 10k edits give or take and no record of seriously disruptive behavior, please consider if you might be willing to help out the community by becoming an administrator. The community can only function as well as we all are willing to participate. If you are interested start by reading WP:MOP and WP:RFAADVICE. Then go to WP:ORCP and open a discussion. Over the next few days experienced editors will take a look at your record and let you know what they think your chances are of passing RfA (the three most terrifying letters on Wikipedia) as well as provide you with feedback on areas that might be of concern and how to prepare yourself. Lastly you can find a list of experienced editors who may be willing to nominate you here. Thank you and happy editing... [Note:This page may not be on my watchlist so if you want to reply to me, please either ping me or drop me a line on my talk page.] - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• The Top 7 Report: The big news was the marriage of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle
• Did You Know: Sun of Unclouded Righteousness
• Our newest Featured list: List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events

* Read this Ichthus in full * Get Ichthus delivered to your Talkpage * – Lionel^{( talk)} 08:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

From where was this information researched?

125(+/-5)? 2 Peter written, widely accepted into canon by the early 4th century

Is it based on the lack of 2Peter fragments of the Alexandrian type around 125? Seems like a pretty big assumption if so. Please provide a citation for it.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.13.39 ( talk) 00:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Your question arrives without context. You seem to have gleaned this from the timeline of Christianity article. You'll find more complete answers in the article on the epistle itself: Second Epistle of Peter. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Tanakh, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The article Alexandrian school has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not Well Sourced/ To The Point Of Not Being Encyclopedic (All Valuable Content Here Could Be Merged Into Another Page With Maybe Three Sentences)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sleyece ( talk) 23:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I have proposed a change to Ethics in the Bible on its talk page involving restructuring the article topically to produce a more neutral pov and better content. I am looking for consensus on improving what everyone agrees is a poor quality article. Please come and comment. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 17:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Biblical criticism is up for peer review in preparation for Featured article review. Please come and comment. [6] Jenhawk777 ( talk) 15:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

LifeWay Christian Resources is in need of a major clean-up, if anyone is interested. The POV passages need to be trimmed and more referenced info needs to be added about its history. I also suggest we add a list of past presidents. Please ping me if you can/want to help. Thanks! Zigzig20s ( talk) 17:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Eyes are needed at The Book of Daniel (album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). IP edit warring, using words like "alleged," despite what WP:ALLEGED states, and going on about bad writing and neutrality. Article has been semi-protected as a result of the edit warring. But the IP is likely to continue editing the article in problematic ways, whether as an IP or or registered account. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 04:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

There is relisted discussion about renaming Category:Christianity of the Middle Ages. If you wish, please join this discussion. Based on the arguments in that discussion, we might also rename article History of Christianity during the Middle Ages. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:G-d has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Cabayi ( talk) 13:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

An editor is making changes on the article without delivering any proof. I like to see some more eyes on this article and more participation in the discussion at Talk:Pentarchy#Shouldn't Jerusalem status be compared with that of Alexandra?. An earlier round of this discussion took place at Template_talk:Pentarchy#Jerusalem. The Banner  talk 19:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I have proposed adding a number of parameters and re-ordering a section of Template:Infobox church. Input on the discussion is welcome here. Ergo Sum 01:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The Communion and Liberation article is having some issues. The root of the problem appears to be a content dispute, compounded by none of the involved editors having English as a first language. The article would benefit greatly by the attention of someone who understood the English-language terminology of the Catholic Church. Stuartyeates ( talk) 19:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear editors interested in Christianity articles:

I came across this article when I was fixing some dead links. It seems well developed and carefully written. I am concerned that the reference section seems to be being used to express opinion and to promote ideas instead of just to reference sources. Perhaps someone who is familiar with this topic could take a look and see if it meets Wikipedia's neutrality standards. I know it's difficult sometimes for writers who are used to expressing their own philosophy to switch to the encyclopedic style of just writing bare facts.— Anne Delong ( talk) 15:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The Ascension of Jesus article written by a single user is poorly written, suffering from WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:WEASEL, and WP:ASE. I have gone through the sources and rewritten parts of the article, but would appreciate an expansion on the theology and biblical account portions. Unfortunately, back in 2016 it appears the article was in good shape but has been eroded away since. Dr. Ryan E. ( talk) 09:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

So, a little while ago I created q:Category:American Anglicans. But, I'm not totally sure if that's correct. Are American Anglicans by definition Episcopalians? Or is that an institutional convention only, and not a doctrinal religious thing? GMG ^talk 12:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

That's correct. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Wait...which one? Should it simply be Category:Episcopalians or Category:American Anglicans? GMG ^talk 14:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry that I was not clear. It's correct that they are known as Episcopalians. While they are technically American Anglicans, that is not their common name. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Definitely Episcopalians if you want to cover only the Episcopal Church and not others who might call themselves Anglicans. It's the proper name of the church. Doug Weller talk 18:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, in part.

American Anglicans are mostly Episcopalians-- that is members of the Episcopal Church (United States), but American members of the Continuing Anglican movement are also American Anglicans.

Furthermore, the Anglican Communion in Scotland is the Scottish Episcopal Church, and so these Anglicans are also be called Episcopalians. As a result, not all American Anglicans are Episcopalians, and globally, not all Episcopalians are American Anglicans. tahc ^chat 18:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm...Well I don't think there's enough content on WQ to really get to that level of granularity (many considerable sized cities don't even have their own categories yet). So it looks like the solution is to keep American Anglicans, and then potentially split that off into sub-categories if the category becomes cluttered. GMG ^talk 18:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I presumed you didn't want to include those churches that don't belong to the Anglican Communion. The Scottish Episcopalians are irrelevant as I thought the category would be American Episcopalians. We don't call members of the Old Catholic Church Catholics so far as I know. See Warren Prall Watters Franz Heinrich Reusch Gerard Shelley. So members of American Anglican churches not part of the AC shouldn't be called Anglicans, but that's solved by the category being American Episcopalians I think. Doug Weller talk 07:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Biggest problem is scale and granularity. Wikiquote is so comparatively small, that there may not actually be a single page on a member of a comparatively small sect. I've not even made a category for American Evangelicals yet, because at this point, it makes more sense to just lump them in with American protestants. I believe so far I've categorized...maybe three or four Evangelicals, having gone through and re-categorized about ~350 pages in q:Category:Americans. GMG ^talk 13:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Page:   Page-multi error: no page detected.
Discussion: [[]]

Comments are urgently requested at the afore mentioned page. We have a discussion which requires informed comments from those familiar with the topic of this discussion. Your help at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. 41.210.147.239 ( talk) 17:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

It's been suggested that Denial of the virgin birth of Jesus should be merged with Virgin birth of Jesus. PopSci ( talk) 15:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The number "forty" is used in a great many places in the bible. Here are some examples:

OT Forty Days

• Gen 7.12 The first flood story says it rained for 40 days and 40 nights (J version).
• Gen 50.3 the physicians spent 40 days embalming Jacob.
• Ex 24.18 “Moses was on the mountain for 40 days and 40 nights.”
• Ex 34.28 “He [Moses] was there with the Lord 40 days and 40 nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water.” (the carving of the new tablets).
• Nu 14.34 40 days, for every day a year.
• 1Sam 17.16 “For forty days the Philistine [Goliath] came forward and took his stand, morning and evening.”
• Deut 25.3 “Forty lashes may be given but not more”

NT Forty Days

• After the birth of Jesus, Luke says that Mary waited for purification according to the laws of Moses, which would make it 40 days.
• Mark 1.13. After his baptism, “He [Jesus] was in the wilderness 40 days, tempted by Satan”
• Matt. 4.2 “He fasted 40 days and 40 nights, and afterwards he was famished.” also Luke 4.2
• Acts 1.3 forty days between Christ’s resurrection and ascension
• Lent is approximately 40 days (Sundays are excluded in the count)
  

OT Forty Years

• Moses led his people through the wilderness for 40 years Num 14.33 Deut 2.7 Deut 29.5
• Several judges have terms of 40 years Judg 3.11, 5.31, 8.28, 1Sam 4.18
• 1King 4.11 David reigns for 40 years
• 1King 11.42 Solomon reigns for 40 years
• Jud 13.1 “The Israelites again did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord gave them into the hand of the Philistines 40 years.”
• 
  

What is the source of this common number, 40?
What is its significance?

Thanks for any answers. Dahill3973 ( talk) 18:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

This page is for discussing how to improve the project, not as a forum. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 19:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

As Walter says. If you are interested try reading 40 (number) and its talk page which deals with the number and its significance. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 21:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a strange leap in Wikipedia's numbering of the Shimun line of patriarchs of the Assyrian Church of the East that is surely a mistake. The succession indicated includes Shimun XVII Abraham (1820–1861), Shimun XVIII Rubil (1861–1903), then the surely mistaken numbering, perhaps due to a mistyping of XIX as XXI, by which the immediate successor of Shimun XVIII is given as Shimun XXI: Shimun XXI Benyamin (1903–1918), Shimun XXII Paulos (1918–1920), Shimun XXIII Eshai (1920–1975).

I have mentioned this anomaly also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Bealtainemí ( talk) 09:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Since a week has gone by with no comments from others, I will correct the numbering if, after a few more days, there are still no comments. Bealtainemí ( talk) 19:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not too happy with them but I think someone with more knowledge of the subject should look at them. There seems to be quite a bit of original research based on biblical passages, and I'm not sure that the deletions are warranted. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Doug, if you are referring to the two edits on 3 October by Citizen Canine, they appear perfectly in order to me. Repeating the page title in headings is inadvisable, one can assume the reader knows the page is about the temptations of Christ. Other changes (" and view) are technical and correct. Regards, Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 08:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Template talk:Coord#"display=inline". Can this be regarded as an error in "Infobox church", considering the different result obtained using "venue" and "building"? (I posted this on the "infobox church" talk page and got no reply. The Help Desk suggested I post it here.) Jmar67 ( talk) 10:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, Today I updated 10 Christianity WP pages, removing "bible" from the christianity WP because the talk page already contains WP Bible line. The duplication is causing issues with daily assessment WP 1.0 bot.

• Talk:400th anniversary of the King James Version
• Talk:Bible in Basic English
• Talk:Farrer hypothesis
• Talk:Historicity and origin of the Resurrection of Jesus
• Talk:King James Version
• Talk:Mary Magdalene
• Talk:Pauline epistles
• Talk:Synoptic Gospels
• Talk:Textual variants in the New Testament
• Category talk:Historicity and origin of the Resurrection of Jesus

Going forward, whenever this type of conflict is discovered in other articles, please update to remove the conflict. Regards, JoeHebda ( talk) 18:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

There has been some contentious and possibly POV editing going on. Thanks... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

In November 2018, Women in Red is focusing on Religion.-- Ipigott ( talk) 12:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I have remarked that Bible scholarship articles are trolled by an editor who:

• in all his Wikipedic incarnations claims that he is a complete newbie;
• he says that despite being a newbie, he has detailed knowledge of WP:PAGs, which he studied in advance (oh, yes, sometimes he quoted essays even I did not know they are there—I have registered my account in 2002);
• he badly misinterprets the WP:PAGs he cites;
• he accuses respected editors of pushing POVs and violating WP:NPOV and other WP:RULES, which they would fail to understand despite having edited successfully for a long time;
• he has a marked preference for WP:PRIMARY religious sources, upon which he performs WP:OR which ends supporting a fundamentalist POV;
• when he does not engage in WP:OR or WP:SYNTH he quotes lots of WP:SPS sources written by fundamentalist Christians (their authors often hiding behind anonymity), such sources are often in defense of biblical inerrancy, NT Gospels written by eyewitnesses, KJV/TR being supreme or some WP:FRINGE historical hypothesis;
• despite that, he claims that he would be an unbeliever (or perhaps a very liberal Christian);
• he claims that he is a scholar;
• he claims that Wikipedia articles upon Bible scholarship are in an appalling state (e.g. very biased, though he can never make quite clear to others how WP:RNPOV has been violated);
• all his Wikipedic incarnations are short-lived, edits come in bursts and they either end with a topic ban, being indeffed or he simply quits editing.

Possible matches:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ralphellis/Archive;
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LittleDipper/Archive;
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Korvex/Archive (Korvex was banned meanwhile);
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bdub2018/Archive.

I guess these leave out:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Til Eulenspiegel/Archive

... since it is rather unlikely that he would pretend to be an unbeliever, he is unapologetically fundamentalist, although he is rather shy of saying what precisely he believes in. But it could be this one:

• User:Cancina5645: therein he overtly advocates the sacking of WP:NOR policy and has also edited the Gospel of Matthew, see [7] pushing therein sheer WP:OR. Or could be the clones army of:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wittgenstein123/Archive, he edits cooperatively for a while, then he edits tendentiously and finally he ends his edits with slurs, curses and death threats. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 10:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The use Dr. Ryan E. fits that profile. PiCo ( talk) 02:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow. I don't know, but I've responded to your Talks, which have produced nothing. PiCo, your edits are honestly unfounded and you still fail to come up with a reason why Origen in Gospel should not have added information. I neither claim to be a believer or not, or claim to be a newbie. I will state that the article is in an appalling state, because it is. Misquoting academics does not improve the article and is in fact biased. Misquoting academics and not assuming WP:Good Faith is a problem. I have been WP:CIVIL you have not, almost having set out on a witchhunt against me by evidence of posting my name here, and constantly reverting my edits without trying to improve them Dr. Ryan E. ( talk) 20:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

As told on your talk page:

• Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello to all. I posted a question about trying to post an article about the law of jealousies. I gladly stated my faith and that God had showed me this.

I received two very helpful comments in "teahouse" I think it was. But it seems that any interpretation even if it uses bible is not something Wikipedia deals with. Yet when I searched internet, the meaning of law of jealousies is nowhere I saw. So obviously wanted to share what God has shown me.

If anyone think might be able to post it with more quotes let me know. Obviously it is more important to use bible verses as reference so that's what I quoted. But the commmentors recommended other sources but obviously that would actually lessen the page as bible stands on its own. If can't post it then I encourage anyone who is interested to check it out before Wikipedia cleans out draft. The law of jealousies in Numbers 5. Thanks everyone! God bless you! Michael A. Christian ( talk) 22:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC).

Well, there are detailed summaries of various Jewish views on that chapter – ancient, medieval, and modern – in the article Naso (parsha).

You might be interested to look at the article Strange Woman (Book of Proverbs), which is currently being discussed at Articles for deletion. It is not a particularly good article, but it and the one above do show how Wikipedia content must be based on secondary and tertiary sources, not just on bible verses or personal views (which we call WP:Original research). So, for sharing your own insights, please use a blog or social media, not Wikipedia. – Fayenatic London 22:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno Repeat ( talk) 21:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Participation is welcome at Talk:Christian persecution complex#Merge into Persecution of Christians. Excelse ( talk) 19:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Participation to the discussion is welcome at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories#Church_buildings_by_region_and_province_in_Italy. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

An editor has decided to remove "Roman" from "Roman Catholic" links. A discussion was started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Catholic Church, but since it is larger than just the one denomination, it should be had here. I propose that in all topics related to the denomination whose leader is The Pope, that the term "Catholic" is unambiguous and should be used. In all other articles, whether demographic, national, economic, or BLP or otherwise, the term "Roman Catholic" be used. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• No, we use it on a case-by-case basis in part taking into account the geography of the article. For example, in the UK and Eastern Europe, Roman is almost always appropriate due to the existence of Anglo-Catholics and other sui iuris particular churches where the use of Roman as a disambiguator is needed [Edit after reply: when referring to the Latin Church]. In the Americas, this is less the case and whether or not Roman should be used is a matter of style should be left up to the individual author and it should be maintained unless there is a valid reason to change it (such as a page move away from Roman).
  This is the longest running naming dispute in Wikipedia's history, and I really don't think we're going to come up with a solution right now. The case-by-case approach has worked for a while, and reopening it at this point is much more likely to result in a year or more of followup RfCs with little to show for. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

What about when it reads "Roman Catholic" and an editor removes it without discussion? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

My rule of thumb here is that the article should generally be consistent in usage of the term and should stay with the first stable usage. Geography also plays a roll: in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and South Asia, unless it is known which sui iuris particular church is being referred to the Roman term should likely be avoided, but it should be used when the sourcing says it because it would add extra clarity to readers (ex. in India, there are three sui iuris churches in communion with the Holy See, all of which are Catholic but only one of which is Roman.) I hope this clarifies my bit about geography above, which I recognized was ambiguous. In these situations I would remove if the term caused confusion, and open a talk page discussion if there was objections. If it aided in understanding, which it often can, I would keep it.

Basically, the complexities of the situation here with the Catholic naming dispute are deep enough that no amount of talking by random people on a website are going to be able to find the perfect answer in every case. Usage within an article should be stable and consistent and should not be changed without good reason. In regions where the historical development of Christianity makes the Roman term complex, use it when it aids in clarity and sourcing justifies it, but otherwise avoid it.

Sorry for the long answers, but the situation has a lot of nuance and I find it easiest to use examples. TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a great rule of thumb. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Not so great, unless perhaps rewritten: "in India, there are three sui iuris churches in communion with the Holy See, all of which are Catholic but only one of which is Roman" Latin. Do you need Indian (or other) sources to prove this? Bealtainemí ( talk) 06:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

And is that an article that was changed? What's the common name in India? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised that it was thought necessary. Is this enough? Bealtainemí ( talk) 06:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Both are used in reliable sourcing. The bishops conference appears to use Latin, but that’s also not particularly relevant as we follow standard English usage, where Roman Catholic is a completely valid synonym for Latin Catholic and is used as such in sourcing (and in all honesty, is more natural English.)

Beltainemí is also proving my point here: I picked a random region with multiple sui iuris churches where I know through past discussion on this dispute that Roman is used to mean Latin in some sourcing, and a 254 edit account with 5 total edits to any project page decides to aggressively come in insisting that their understanding of the Roman question in a certain region is the only understanding and that anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong, and I wasn’t even advocating doing anything particular with those articles, just noting an area where the adjective can be tricky. There is literally no way a discussion for a uniform guideline will produce any usable result as these issues are very emotional at all levels. In these cases, case-by-case following the rule of thumb I mentioned above is best. TonyBallioni ( talk) 07:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad I chose not to answer TonyBallioni's first response here, but I now find he wishes to continue the discussion by adding further comment here and also on my Talk page. First of all, I am very sorry that my first comment here (or was it my second?) seemed aggressive. I have not objected to TonyBallioni's rule of thumb. I have only recommended avoidance on Wikipedia of the imprecise use of "Roman Catholic" to refer to the sui iuris Latin Church instead of the Catholic Church. I don't think that is standard English usage. I don't think that "'Roman Catholic' is a completely valid synonym for 'Latin Catholic'". It is certainly not standard English usage even among Anglican and Evangelical writers about the divisions among Christians in India: English Scottish Stephen Neill and American (?) Prema A. Kurien are examples of writers who do not merely "appear to use 'Latin'" for what Wikipedia calls Latin Church. I do not think it is standard English anywhere: careful writers, on the whole, may say "Roman Catholic" to distinguish from "Protestant", "Anglican", "Mormon", "Orthodox", etc., but not to distinguish from "Byzantine Catholic" and the like. Yes, there may be some (very few, I think) exceptions. Yes, TonyBallioni certainly thinks otherwise. I am not out to "convert" him. Bealtainemí ( talk) 09:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

It is impercise but it is standard English in some areas and is used in reliable sources. No one is contesting that Latin is more precise: of course it is. That’s not the point. The point is that Roman Catholic is a fairly widely used way of distinguishing Latin and Eastern Catholics both within Catholic and secular sourcing (and annecdotally, is almost universally used by Eastern Catholic diaspora in conversational English in some regions, but you can’t cite that.) This adds an additional layer of complexity to an already complex situation. My point being: creating a hard and fast rule for when to use the Roman modifier isn’t that simple and it’s better handled in the context of each specific article looking at both the sourcing and form of English used in the region. In most areas, RC == C, and they can be used in prose to mean the same thing, so they shouldn’t be changed once a stable form exists in an article. In others, there might be a reason to change because of the geography. That’s okay: we handle it as it comes along and looking at the context of a specific article. TonyBallioni ( talk) 11:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Precision is not the issue. Common use is. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The question raised here was about changing "Catholic" to "Roman Catholic" (or vice versa) in Wikipedia. TonyBallioni's rule of thumb is that the article should generally be consistent in usage of the term and should stay with the first stable usage. Isn't that enough? Isn't it obvious that those who don't want to see the unqualified term "Catholic" reserved for those who look to the Pope as head (excluding Old Catholics, "Independent" Catholics, Anglicans, etc.) use "Roman Catholic" for that purpose? In spite of unsourced declarations that have been made, it is not obvious that in publications of the level desired for Wikipedia "Roman Catholic" is generally used to mean exclusively "Latin Catholic". Even if it is so used, declaring it in this context is an altogether unnecessary precision-making that is irrelevant for the question raised here, which was: "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic"; not "Roman Catholic" or "Latin Catholic". What is the point of discussing it and trying to make converts? Have I misunderstood the question? Bealtainemí ( talk) 15:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I have no clue why you think I'm trying to convert people to uses: I was saying there are contexts where the usage of Roman can mean Latin and in these cases, extreme care should be used on the RC vs. C issue to the point where having a uniform guideline would be very difficult, and that the existing status quo of not changing the stable version and discussing changes when there is a reason to change is best.

An example where Walter Görlitz original proposal of Roman Catholic being used in BLPs would be someone from Ukraine who was Ukrainian Greek Catholic, but the sourcing just says Catholic. Classifying that person as Roman Catholic without sourcing saying it in this context would be giving a false impression on a BLP. In this case, even if the individual was not a cleric, Catholic would be the more cautious option to take. You can find many examples of this in areas where Eastern Catholicism and the Latin Church co-exist in large numbers, and in these circumstances, a lot of thought needs to be given whether or not Roman should be used. On the flip side: in the UK, Roman should almost always be used because of the existence of Anglo-Catholics, making Catholic ambiguous. These terms are loaded with a lot of geographic and cultural baggage, and that needs to be taken into account when making a choice for an article. TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for narrowing down to matters such as the mention of an individual's religion the context that you have in mind. You are not really suggesting that "Roman Catholic" should be used to mean "Latin Catholic", the idea that I mistakenly thought you were trying to convert me to, when, to my surprise, you insisted on the correctness of the phrase "in India, there are three sui iuris churches in communion with the Holy See, all of which are Catholic but only one of which is Roman". You were saying that, where possible, the precise sui iuris church of a Catholic should be specified, as "Ruthenian Catholic" in the case of Andy Warhol. You were not insisting, I now think, that, when the Latin sui iuris church is distinguished from the other sui iuris churches that together with it compose the (Roman) Catholic Church, it is properly called the Roman Church. That is the idea I thought you were trying to convert me to. Since you weren't, I see nothing to discuss between us, still less to quarrel about. Bealtainemí ( talk) 18:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it’s a valid usage that reputable sources, including government and academic ones, use, but I have no interest in forcing that over Latin on anyone. My point was that in regions where there are multiple sui iuris particular churches the use of Roman Catholic to generically refer to all groups in communion with the Holy See can be problematic and confusing, so efforts should be taken to avoid it unless sourcing specifies the Latin Church, which goes to my larger point that when a change is made in the prose of an article, it needs to be discussed in the specific context, not in generalities like we are here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@ Bealtainemí: If someone were to ask, "do you know any Roman Catholics?", would you answer in the affirmative or with a negative? I have never had anyone ask me if I know of anyone who follows the Latin rite or declare that they are a Latin Catholic. So, in an article on the various time-frames of history of England, or a general article on the nation, I would not expect a discussion of what is generally a technical term, when there is a common term. If you think India needs an exception, that's fine. Focus on the rule and agree to that before you start adding exceptions hoping to make them the rule. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 19:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Right, and in England adding Roman to mean “in communion with the Holy See” is very much useful given the history of Christianty’s development in that country. In others, it would be less useful (i.e. Pietro Campori, Roman adds no extra value, and not having it doesn’t hurt anything, so people should just let it be.) TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Walter, in response to your ping: Yes, I know many Roman Catholics, and a few of them are not of Latin Rite. When living elsewhere I knew many more of the latter type. I have even been where they are the majority.

Tony, I agree. Non-Latin Catholics, too, are in communion with the Holy See, but of course they may like a mention of the distinctive character of their being in communion. Bealtainemí ( talk) 06:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The lack of response gives me confidence to believe that the fuss was due to a misunderstanding. Was it imagined that I had denied that individuals can be described as Roman Catholics? Of course I did not. That would be nonsense. Individuals can be and are rightly described as Roman Catholics. All I said was that the sui iuris particular church that is on the same level as the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church as one of the three with a significant presence in India is the Latin Church. It is not the "Roman Church". Each of the other two is part of the (Roman) Catholic Church just as much as are the Latin Church and the dozen or so other sui iuris particular churches "in which and from which the one and only Catholic Church exists". Bealtainemí ( talk) 14:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

You've gone straight to the nub of the problem. Lets first look at the definition in the lead to sui iuris where it states that "the autonomy of these churches is relative in the sense that it is under the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff". If nothing else this justifies the "Roman" tag. Moving on now to your final sentence: Each of the other two is part of the (Roman) Catholic Church just as much as are the Latin Church and the dozen or so other sui iuris particular churches "in which and from which the one and only Catholic Church exists". The problem is that all churches who use the AD 381 version of the Nicene Creed consider themselves part of "one holy catholic and apostolic Church". In a very literal sense not just Anglo-Catholics, but also all Anglicans, Methodists and so forth are part of the "catholic church". Relying on the significance of a "C" versus a "c" in a general encyclopaedia is liable to confuse readers, indeed how does one explain Catholics burning Protestants (and vice versa) when both claim to be catholic churches? Possibly a poor example, but in an encyclopaedia history is included.

Just as Wiki insists on a house style of "US" for the "USA" so I feel that in the spirit of WP:RF "Roman Catholic" should always be used for the churches headed ultimately by the Pope unless there is a very specific and obvious need to WP:IAR. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 15:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous amount of synthesis. Our question is not what is the right answer here: the question is if there are reasons in certain circumstances to omit Roman, and the answer there is decidedly yes: they range from the fact that we strive to follow common usage (outside of academic theology circles and those interested in it, Catholic Church and Catholic are generally understood in conversation to be referring to the institution headed by the Pope. This is why our article is at that title.) to the sui iuris issue where Roman can be used to mean Latin (examples from RS using it that way: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]). This can cause extreme confusion as in some areas (particularly North America) when used in the context of Eastern Catholic churches, people will understand Roman to mean Latin because it is used this way. Whether or not it logically should doesn’t matter one bit: what matters is actual usage, and both exist.

All this to get back to my point: the case by case method has been working for years and we only have issues when someone who isn’t familiar with the dispute decides to go on a rampage to enforce their POV one way or another. This appears to have stopped for now, so we should focus our energies elsewhere rather than trying to solve a naming dispute that goes back centuries. People should be free to use either in articles they are writing, taking into account the entire context, and we shouldn’t change the stable choice without good reason: essentially the ENGVAR principle. TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to revert all of the changes of "Roman Catholic" to simply "Catholic" because you're missing the point entirely. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, do that. I’d support it. My point is that a uniform guideline here isn’t ideal and was responding to the idea that we should enforce Roman: we shouldn’t, but we also shouldn’t change it when it is stable, nor should we add it where it doesn’t exist: both pro and anti Roman POV pushing is disruptive. TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't want to get involved in this. All I wanted to do was to correct the misuse here of "Roman" in relation not to the (Roman) Catholic Church as a whole, but instead with regard to that portion that is the sui iuris particular church known only as the Latin Church. Someone misinterpreted this and attacked me harshly. So I wish to state unmistakably that I think: both names, "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church", are permissible and neither should be enforced here (if you ask for directions to a town's Catholic church or a town's Roman Catholic church, you will be sent to the same building); nobody should embark on a campaign of "correcting" in either direction to suit that person's taste, and if someone does, there are good grounds for reverting every step of the campaign. It is usually unnecessary to specify which sui iuris particular church someone belongs to, but sometimes it can be useful or perhaps even necessary, as when it is stated that a Latin-Church bishop has been put in charge of an Eastern-Catholic=Church eparchy or vice versa (as has happened). Please continue without me. Bealtainemí ( talk) 18:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

We differ at the point where you claim that both names, "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church", are permissible. Only one is used in common parlance. That should be determined on a per-domain basis. Intentionally changing "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic" without opening a discussion and achieving consensus on the change is provocative at best. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 19:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

As is changing “Catholic” to “Roman Catholic”. Both are equally disruptive, and the claim that only one is used in common parlance is wrong: in the overwhelming majority of cases the two terms are synonyms in common parlance (see where Roman Catholic Church redirects to.) The case against “Catholic” has always been an NPOV one, not a common use one, and I think the NPOV claims are pretty weak since what we’re looking at here is a style issue mainly and there we follow common usage, which generally does not have a preference. Either term may be used, but it should be consistent within an article, and should not be changed once established. TonyBallioni ( talk) 06:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Reverting a series of disruptive edits is not disruptive. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

And when the editor claims there's a manual of style that supports it, but doesn't link to it as one does not exist, that's a bigger problem. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

No, of course it isn’t disruptive to revert mass edits pushing one style preference. I have been clear that I support that. I was responding to your comment above where you said that both were not permissible: they both quite clearly are as reliable sourcing uses them as synonyms even within the same news articles ( [14], [15], [16]) and attempting to enforce either a pro or anti-Roman POV would be disruptive. On Wikipedia, our house style tends to prefer consistency within articles if only to avoid fights like the RC vs. C one, but except in very specialized circumstances, the choice of term really is up to whomever gets there first.

I don’t oppose dealing with the disruption you’ve pointed out. I do oppose pretending there is a right choice of diction. Common usage in reliable sourcing simply doesn’t support that. TonyBallioni ( talk) 06:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

No. Changing back to an established style is not disruptive. Common usage goes beyond cherry-picked sources. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I’ve supported reverting these changes at every instance: the stable form should be preserved and should not be changed without consensus.

My sources weren’t cherry picked: they were the first three non-local sources that Google News turned up for “Roman Catholic” when I ran that search. Here are the first results of a site search from major international news organizations: The Daily Telegraph: [17], The Washington Post: [18], The Guardian: [19], the BBC: [20]. These are all purely secular sources that use both Roman Catholic and Catholic within the same article, sometimes even the same paragraph (US sources tend to use Catholic more, while U.K. tend to use Roman more. I suspect US sourcing has to deal with AP Style as I couldn’t find anything in the NYT that used “Roman” outside of comment sections on blogs.) These are all highly reliable and respected international publications that use the terms interchangeably within the same article. All the first google hit. Sourcing does not bare out that common usage is only one term: sourcing clearly shows they are used as synonyms. In these cases, it is completely up to editorial discretion what to use. The most important thing is that people don’t go around changing it to their preferred version in existing articles without consensus. That is disruptive and should be reverted, regardless of what direction the change was in. TonyBallioni ( talk) 07:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

In spite of TonyBallioni's personal attack on me, I agree that he is right on common parlance. It's rubbish to say that "Catholic" is not common parlance, as asking the way to the Catholic church will show. In an episode of a British TV series, the police inspector asks his assistant, "Are you Catholic?"; the reply is: "No. I'm just ... normal"! :) Bealtainemí ( talk) 07:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

As you see from the comments below, the ony way such a proposal seems to have any chance is strictly limiting it to "Catholic" for things pertaining to " Catholic Church". In fact, such a proposal would not only be normative but actually also descriptive of the preexisting status throughout Catholic Church-pertainging articles and categories, if you look around (except 1) Latin Church-entries, and 2) a few unmaintained articles from old days). Chicbyaccident ( talk) 20:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I moved your comment to the bottom because that's how we are to discuss things.

As you can see from what's written above, we have come to a moderate agreement, and in fact, "Catholic" is not the common name in most cases and so it will not be used and "Roman Catholic" will be. Consensus may change over time, as I have seen usage change over time. The NGram doesn't include "catholic" alone since it would catch both of the earlier terms as well as the other denominations. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There is no such agreement here. Catholic and Roman Catholic are equally common and either can be used. If you wanted to go by numbers, it’d be 3-2 against what you just said: that’s hardly consensus, but claiming there is an agreement when it was split even before Chicbyaccident commented and now that position is in the minority is just false, and the “use either” side actually has sourcing to back it up. TonyBallioni ( talk) 21:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with TonyBallioni right down the line here. I think that consistency within a given article is all that we need enforce, and that we should not try to resolve this issue in general but allow that there are reasons for diversity. I prefer leaving out the "Roman" but would not countenance changing articles to meet this preference. Jzsj ( talk) 21:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the conversation. Please read MOS:TALK

TonyBallioni, you wrote, "we use it on a case-by-case basis in part taking into account the geography of the article". I agreed to that that, and is what I reiterated. If I'm mistaken, feel free to show me where.

As it stands, there is also no consensus to change "Roman Catholic" in non-Catholic articles to "Catholic" nor changing "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church". Walter Görlitz ( talk) 22:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed on that statement. I was responding to in fact, "Catholic" is not the common name in most cases and so it will not be used and "Roman Catholic" will be. which isn’t true. Both are common, and we evaluate in each case which is best to use. I typically prefer “Catholic” while others typically prefer “Roman Catholic”. Usually either is fine. We shouldn’t change that initial choice in an article without consensus. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That what I was writing, or at least that's what I was trying to write, above. I clearly failed. If the article has evolved with one usage, it should remain using that unless there is a local consensus to change, or a topic-wide consensus to change. Here the topic may be "African history" or "demographics of Scotland". I doubt we will reach consensus for use at this level. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for clarifying. TonyBallioni ( talk) 00:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

A much bigger problem than this is when someone goes through Protestant pages to remove the word "church" and replace it with Vatican approved terms. Even though none of them willingly go by ecclesial community, etc. To solve this, we'd need a Vatican representative for an RfC. As a side note, historical articles prior to the official reconciliation with the Eastern Rites are even more justifiably left as "Roman." -- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 06:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

If they do that (the Protestant churches thing) after continued warnings, report them to ANI. That’s clear POV pushing with no justification. If I weren’t involved in the area it’s something I’d block over. As an aside more than anything else, some of the Eastern Catholic Churches (definitely the Maronites, and I believe one other), claim to have never been in schism with the Holy See. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads up - Christian is now a disambiguation page. Please pipe all links intending the general adjective sense to Christianity, or relevant specific subtopics (e.g., Christian theology, Christian ethics, Christian music, Christian radio, Christian martyrs); please pipe all links intending the person who is Christian (whether in the individual context, or in the context of populations or demographics) to Christians. Thanks. bd2412 T 02:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Was there an RfC or another decision thread which made Bible Gateway the link for all in-text bible quotes? They occur throughout the major bible related articles, and are used extensively as in-line outside links. One problem is advertising, every time I click on the site ads are evident on the page. Is there another comprehensive bible source site to link to without ads? Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 15:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikisource has KJV (eg {{bible verse|Genesis|1:1|KJV}} -> Genesis 1:1), but you'll find some people will immediately revert it as "old-fashioned". By the way, don't use {{ KJV}}, it is a redirect to {{ bible verse}} and will default to "oremus Bible Browser" which displays the NRSV (US version). Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 17:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

It's used because it has a variety of translations. KJV is not a good option, but linking to the NET bible might be a good option. It's a modern translation and can be found at https://netbible.org/bible/Genesis+1 , https://bible.org/netbible/index.htm?gen1.htm or other locations. There is also an open English bible: https://openenglishbible.org/ , but it's incomplete. And I don't see ads because I use an ad blocker, so I don't know whether the sites I linked to contain ads or not. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a requested move request at Talk:Gothic Christianity that would benefit from your input. Please come and help. Paine Ellsworth, ed.   ^put'r there  21:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support as Christianity in Anglo-Saxon England already exists, and it parallels this article in several ways. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The article on Ernst Troeltsch has been rated as stub class by various WikiProjects (including this one), but I am wondering whether it is long enough to be rated as start class now. Vorbee ( talk) 21:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi guys,

I want to bring to your notice a list article I recently created. While I think the article is fairly accurate, since I doubt western countries will have as many church goers like African countries. But I still can't rule out the chance of missing out some megachurches in the US and similar climes. I know Joel Osteen church is pretty populated in the US. But the Wikipedia article says the auditorium has a capacity of about 17k. The minimum entry value in the article is 30k, which must satisfy => weekly attendance && auditorium sitting capacity >= 30k. If anyone is aware of any church that meets the criteria listed in the article and is not on the list, please feel free to add (with reliable sources of course). Thanks. HandsomeBoy ( talk) 23:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, Sharing with Christianity WP about article Methodist Protestant Church was tagged in 2006 as having no references. Hoping members of Christianity wikiproject may be able to improve this article. Thanks. JoeHebda ( talk) 20:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I have started an RfC for this list. I would like ideas how to limit it somewhat, see tag on list and my comment on talk page for more information about what I'm trying to do. thanks. Aurornisxui ( talk) 17:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

After discovering an error, I propose a change in Talk:Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible#Request for Comment on "Manuscripts" section. Please comment so the error can be corrected. Peace. JohnThorne ( talk) 21:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Please can anyone with expertise in 15th–18th century the topic of New Christians share some insight at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 24#Category:New_Christians?

Thanks! -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I see that Wikipedia: WikiProject Calvinism is believed to be inactive. I wonder whether any members of this WikiProject group would be interested in helping to re-vitalise it. Vorbee ( talk) 16:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

These 2 articles looks similar to me and seems to be a WP:CONTENTFORK. If any project member can do the merging, it will be great! Thanks -- Xaiver0510 ( talk) 02:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

A few days ago an edit request was made at 2008 California Proposition 8 involving the last claim being made in the lede which had no source. The wording needed a slight change so it did not sound like the New York Times was making the claims in a paid "ad" which was a full page with accusations against the LGBT community for violent backlash after the November election. The information was corrected, sourced and I checked to make sure it was in the body of the article (which it was) but also checked another article linked entitled; Protests against Proposition 8 supporters. I noticed that while some sources called the New York Times piece and ad and others called it an opinion piece, I decided to be clear with the wording in the Wikipedia Article, that only referred to the newspaper having an advertisement. Attempts to use neutral wording like "piece" instead of either "ad" or "opinion" piece have been met with edit warring. More eyes could help form a consensus.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 00:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The article on the Lent Talks will need to be updated. I created this article back in 2008, and I see it does not refer to the Lent Talks of this year (2019) and how they are on the theme of uncertainty. I am sure the article will be of interest to this WikiProject. Vorbee ( talk) 20:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the reliability of Sunstone magazine on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Sunstone (magazine). —  Newslinger  talk 22:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Almost There (album) is up for featured article status. As a significant (high-importance) article in WikiProject Christian Music, a sister WikiProject to WikiProject Christianity, any and all project members are invited to comment on or review the nomination and help see if it fits the featured article criteria. Toa Nidhiki05 22:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Christian democracy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Christian democracy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I recently moved and expanded Christian children's prayer and song. I am posting this here so that other users can review my changes and possibly change or improve them.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 23:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't too happy about that move. You've changed the meaning from "Prayers a child could use" into "Prayers that children generally use". The quoted guideline isn't really applicable:

1. -en is a regular, if old-fashioned, plural.
2. Any evidence that the usage of children "far exceeds" that of "child", other than when forming a plural. The examples the guideline gives are instances when the plural is used in a singular context: "I saw a bacteria under the microscope".
3. Is "children" less astonishing than "child"?

What's done is done, but perhaps a notification before the change would allow other viewpoints to be expressed. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 10:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I will move it to the original name. This may reflect regional vernacular, I am not sure.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 20:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Well I wasn't expecting that! Whilst I did disagree with you; "What's done is done" was meant to imply that I was accepting a fait accompli. Regards, Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 20:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me so much what the name was, only that it is stable. I thought I should broach the name-change subject prior to wikilinking more articles to it. After I knew there is a reason to keep the name what it is I was able to wikilink some articles to it.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 23:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Can someone add to the Chola, Chera, Pandya, and Kalabhra dynasties? The maps seem to cover Malabar region which by AD 52 had Judaism and Christianity. These attributes are lacking in the religion side of the articles because there is no interest. All thoughts and comments are welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manabimasu ( talk • contribs) 23:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I have corresponded with a fellow Wikipedian and agreed to not add Christianity as a minority religion due to WP:VER. See Talk:Chola_dynasty#Religion Manabimasu ( talk) 16:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

This edit by User:Anomalous+0, adding Category:Anti-abortion violence in the United States back in the tree of Category:Christian terrorism, may not comply with WP:TERRORIST. After all, not all violence is terrorism. Feel free to share your opinion in this discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

A user has suggested splitting Criticism of the Catholic Church; you are invited to discuss at Talk:Criticism_of_the_Catholic_Church#Revert,_damage_too_much_to_fix. Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 02:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It's too large and should be split. If the sections make sense, it will be easy to create larger sections again. Keep the existing article as a summary of the sub-articles. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Going off the April 12th version ::I can see separate articles being taken from the following sections. I'm putting this out here specifically to solicit your opinion:

• "Corruption" could become "Corruption in the Catholic Church"
• "Modern concerns" could become "Catholicism and the present age"
• "Recent criticisms by other religions or churches" could become "Catholicism and interfaith relations"
• "Criticisms by or of Catholic operations, organizations, or communities" could become "Controversies involving Catholic organizations"
• "Criticism of Catholic actions in history" could become "Criticism of the historical Catholic Church"-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 20:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Those titles are all too neutral-sounding for the topic (criticism of the Catholic Church). If you're going to create an article about a particular type of criticism of the Catholic Church, call it what it is. -- PluniaZ ( talk) 00:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try again

• Corruption in the Catholic Church could be "Alleged corruption in the Catholic Church"
• "Modern concerns" could be "Modern criticisms of the Catholic Church"
• "Catholicism and interfaith relations" could be "Interfaith controversies involving Catholicism" OR "Interfaith controversies involving the Catholic Church", not sure which is better.
• "Controversies involving Catholic organizations" sounds about right as it is, as does "Criticism of the historical Catholic Church".-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 01:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• "Catholic Church" should probably be not used while "Roman Catholic Church" should in the interfaith article. The others appear to be good article titles. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I would do that except that one of the controversies involves Eastern Rite Catholics ignoring a commitment of the papacy not to proselytize the Eastern Orthodox. Eastern Rite Catholics are technically not completely Roman (and, more importantly, they don't self-identify as Roman) because although they are under the canonical authority of the Roman pontiff, they do not use the Roman Rite. This detail is often ignored due to their vast numerical inferiority to Roman Catholics, and as such are they are called Roman Catholics when speaking of the Catholic Church in general, but due to the distinction over Roman vs. Eastern Rites I think it would be inappropriate to label the article Roman Catholic. Granted that this solution is offensive to Old Catholics, but this is the lesser of two evils.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 23:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

There is established Wikipedia community consensus to refer to the Catholic Church as the "Catholic Church" and not the "Roman Catholic Church", as one can see just by looking at that article that is the subject of this dispute, and by the main article on the Catholic Church: Criticism of the Catholic Church, Catholic Church, Category: Catholic Church. -- PluniaZ ( talk) 02:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The five suggested articles have been published:

• Interfaith controversies involving the Catholic Church
• Controversies involving Catholic organizations
• Criticism of the historical Catholic Church
• Alleged corruption in the Catholic Church
• Modern criticism of the Catholic Church

However, there is an ongoing discussion about axing them at Talk:Criticism of the Catholic Church.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 03:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

There is not a discussion about "axing them"; please remember I was the one who suggested splitting for size. You did not split. You created six new articles by extensively transcluding text from other articles, when most of the text you transcluded has no relevance to the articles created. So, you took 15,000 words and turned it into about 30,000, with content largely unrelated to any criticism of the Catholic church, so that any reader actually seeking to find any relevant criticism will find an off-topic wall of text instead. You made the same mess that you were asked to fix from your earlier mess, only twice as large. Please remove all of the off-topic transcluded text, and I again suggest that it might be necessary for you to edit in other areas if you continue to create these kinds of cleanup problems in your enthusiasm for criticism. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem there just got considerably worse, and needs more eyes. Splitting the article was fine (I believe it was my suggestion). Splitting 15,000 words into 30,000 words by transcluding huge chunks of text from other articles-- text that is unrelated to actual criticism of the Catholic church-- has created an ever larger unreadable mess from which a reader cannot glean actual criticism, since thousands of transcluded words have been added that don't include criticism. See talk page, and please have a look at the transclusions in the five new articles. I am concerned whether epiphyllumover should continue editing this suite of articles. SandyGeorgia ( Talk)

The article on Mennonite Church USA has received what appears to be substantial deletions due to purported copyright violations. It made me suspicious, but this sort of stuff is above my pay grade. Is there an administrator who would be willing to investigate? Thanks -- Jsniessen ( talk) 04:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Why not start with the deleting admin: @ Diannaa:? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyright content was added on May 3 and discovered by a bot. Here's a copy of the bot report. The person who added it cited the source https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Statement_on_Abortion_(Mennonite_Church_USA,_2003), which is not released under a compatible licence. Also, that's not a reliable source, because it's a wiki. While cleaning that up, I noticed an older violation of the copyright policy, material which appeared at several places online, including http://www.mennonitechurch.ca/files/events/calgary2010/2010AssemblyReportBook-GeneralBoard.pdf, so I removed that as well. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 12:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. @ Diannaa: That response is somewhat satisfactory. The content was deleted back to 2011-02-10T01:17:42‎ not May 3. It's not clear what was removed, and the content between the two sections may have been based on publicly available documents. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The content from https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Statement_on_Abortion_(Mennonite_Church_USA,_2003) was added on May 3, and a bot report was created shortly afterwards. While checking the bot report on May 4, I noticed other material that appeared to me to be another violation of the copyright policy. Investigating, I discovered that identical material appeared in this annual report dated 2010 as well as at other locations online. The material was added to Wikipedia at 01:17, February 10, 2011‎, so I have to assume that it was copied from there (or from elsewhere). "Publicly available" and "public domain" are not the same thing; under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. What was removed? The material from AnabaptistWiki was the eight-point stance on abortion, and the material from the Annual Report was Vision statement (from page 13), Purpose (from page 13), and Priorities (also from page 13. The bullet points under "missional church vision") — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 18:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Jerusalem is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jerusalem until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Faith and Philosophy, one of the top theological journals (12th in SCImago Journal Rank for religious studies), goes open access. You can find all issues on their website. –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Just a reminder to anyone interested: the article for Almost There (album) is up for featured article status. As a high-importance article in the sister Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian Music and one of the best-selling Christian records of all time so, any and all project members are invited to comment on or review the nomination and help see if it fits the featured article criteria. The nomination is starting to lose attention and might be archived soon, so any comments are appreciated! Toa Nidhiki05 16:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is currently taking place at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_LifeSiteNews regarding the reliability of LifeSiteNews as a source for Wikipedia articles. -- PluniaZ ( talk) 04:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I've just retargeted Five fundamentals to Fundamentalist–Modernist controversy#The Doctrinal Deliverance of 1910 (The Five Fundamentals) (it previously pointed to Christian Fundamentalism (disambiguation) as the result of a move and "fixed" double redirect, which was obviously not very useful to anybody). I know nothing about the topic though, so I'm not sure if this is the right target – perhaps The Fundamentals or Christian fundamentalism#The Fundamentals and modernism would be preferable? As such I'd appreciate any input from anyone more knowledgeable on the topic. –  Arms & Hearts ( talk) 23:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Christian music is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Christian music until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Father God, I pray to you that you can save all of the people in the Bahamas getting Lashed by Dorian. Help all of those that need it, and help all people live through it and help all of them be safe. Send down angels to protect all of them. In Jesus name I pray, Amen.

Please pray this prayer for the people in the Bahamas. -- Wyatt2049 | ^{(Talk) or (Stalk)} 17:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion concerning the requested move of "Mary, mother of Jesus" to "Virgin Mary", which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. 142.160.89.97 ( talk) 05:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a two-sentence section, John Stott#Annihilationism. Stott was not an annihilationist, he simply argued that it can be supported when reading scripture. An editor has been trying to fan the flames and add content that makes it seem as though he was an annihilationist and supported the position. Could we please get some input in the article's talk page? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Help is needed to add secondary sources to the William Lane Craig article. Some editors have proposed to WP:TNT the article, essentially due to lack of inline citations to secondary sources (there are WP:GENREFs but the challenges have been quite extensive). I suspect the Apologetics section could be very adequately sourced from book reviews and other works in the fields of academic theology and philosophy. I suspect many of the best sources may be chiefly available on paper or through research websites that are difficult for nonspecialists to access. If there are any specialists in those fields here, their help would be greatly appreciated. - GretLomborg ( talk) 21:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I’ve renominated Almost There (album), a mid-importance article in this project, for Wikipedia:Featured article. Any editors are welcome to add to the discussion at the nomination page. Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello. There is an RfC taking place at Talk:Theodore Edgar McCarrick regarding the possible restoration of three removed paragraphs if anyone is interested in participating. Display name 99 ( talk) 19:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore) is an unusually long article and somewhat hard to follow, at least in my opinion. However, I realize that some may disagree about that.

Nevertheless, there is a passage at Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore)#Fundamentalist, Evangelical or In-Between? which seems to be editorializing in favor of a particular point of view in a non-neutral way. Specifically, it states:

With credibility dented and God evidently not blessing them in their failed lawsuits after claiming that the blessing of God on the church for the past 52 years (1950-2002) was a reason for their wanting to take the old godly path, ^[1] have they since reflected that what they did and thought to be the old path could be mistaken or wrong since they did not receive the blessing of God which they had expected when they commenced their lawsuit in September 2008 and had invoked His name in their daily prayer meetings for the duration of the court proceedings to help them annihilate FEBC? ^[2]

It sounds as though this article is editorializing about a certain church not being blessed by God. In any event, it is inappropriate for Wikipedia to take a stand on that kind of issue.

If anyone would be willing to improve the article, I think that would be very helpful. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Will the article be better off being split into multiple articles for each church? Based on the section headings, there are details on 2 churches, which might be better off with their own articles. This article can be a stand along overview with information about the churches and their disputes. -- Xaiver0510 ( talk) 09:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Look I think need some eyes at Talk:Holy See, who are proposing the merger of Diocese of Rome and Holy See. I find arguments made such as the two are the same thing, so it does not make sense for the two to have separate articles clearly wrong. Also one editor is currently blocked, and another made their first edit there (User:Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite). All said I find it a bit bizarre and suspicious. If anyone like to have a look it would be appreciated. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 20:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I've drafted out a complete rewrite of the article on Pontius Pilate using reliable sources - there is very little in the current article that I think can be salvaged, as large portions of the article are unsourced, and what is sourced relies almost entirely on websites (which are often used to support claims not found there) and primary sources. The draft is currently in my sandbox ( User:Ermenrich/sandbox), where I will continue working on it until I think it's ready to replace the current article (perhaps leaving the long list of places where Pilate appears in literature/film/music, as I have no idea how to fix that). I'd appreciate any input anyone here might have, particularly regarding Pilate in the Apocrypha and the historicity of the crucifixion/Jesus' trial before Pilate.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 16:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Ermenrich, I'll take a look at the "pop-cult" section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I've found some sources to make something decent about art and literature in a non-list format I think.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 18:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments invited as to how best to divide up Wikipedia's 9th biggest article, at 445k bytes. Please comment here. Thanks, Johnbod ( talk) 02:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@ Johnbod: With some merging by Onetwothreeip and splitting of the City section, the size is now down to 365k bytes. JohnThorne ( talk) 19:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Which obviously is still waaaaay too large! It would have been nice to get some agreement before starting this. Johnbod ( talk) 21:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

As the Sign of the cross convention holds, father is the first person in the trinity, the son is the second person, and the Holy Spirit is the third person. The question is does the ordering matter. Could not the Father just as well be the second or third person and that goes for the son and the Holy Spirit as well. In my opinion, First, Second, Third are ordinal numbers that confuse readers on the prominence of one person over the other. I propose that if Ordinal numbers are used to describe the persons in the trinity, especially in the lede, that it is the ordering in the Sign of the Cross where the convention arises. Thoughts? Dislosure- I made this edit - https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=God_the_Son&oldid=906734921. Manabimasu ( talk) 21:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

You're forgetting about the order of the Nicene Creed and Apostles Creed. Not to mention standard prayer formulas like "glory to the father and to the son and to the holy ghost." It's standard language when talking about the trinity and should be left as is.-- Ermenrich ( talk)

WP:Verifiability Any sources that claim that explain or use Ordinal numbers to describe the Trinity? your interpretation is WP:OR. I need sources for the use of Ordinal numbers. If not, I would put it off. The reasoning of the use of ordinal numbers should be explained with a source as well. Manabimasu ( talk) 22:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Ermenrich ( talk · contribs) I will WP:DROPTHESTICK.

This order does not imply inequality,

but rather it signifies the place that the Son and Spirit occupy in the formulations of liturgical prayer, in the doxology, and in the confession of faith: the Son is recognized at the second “place” and the

Spirit at the third “rank.”

— Gilles Emery, The Trinity: An Introduction to Catholic Doctrine on the Triune God

^[1] Manabimasu ( talk) 22:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

[edit conflict] See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, this apologetic website, this Evangelical Website, this article on the Orthodox doctrine of the trinity. I challenge you to find any source that describes the persons of the trinity in any other way.

EDIT: So I take it you accept that this is the correct usage now?-- Ermenrich ( talk) 22:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I will add this to sources that mention ordinate numbers and would help if you garnered more sources to add to support as well. All in a days burden to verify claims. Manabimasu ( talk) 22:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Paul Seibert is threatening to undo the extensive rewrite I have just performed of Pontius Pilate, entirely based on reliable sources, because "Otherwise, we have to admit Gospels are historical documents, and Jesus was a real person, not a Christian mythology character." See here Talk:Pontius Pilate#Recent changes. I would appreciate any support in preventing this from happening.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 20:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

If anyone has just a little bit of time on their hands, I came across this gem of an article today: Saint Claudia. It unquestioningly amalgamates and presents several legends about her as facts and is sourced entirely to Catholic Online, which is either a Wikipedia mirror or the article is a copyright violation.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 13:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Have a look on Talk:Islamic view on Muhammad and the Bible - Pagemove and Gospel of Barnabas -- Antan O 15:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Would a Differences between Christian denominational branches do, at the least, let's say, the 3 or 4 main ones? Cf. Differences between Sunni, Shia and Ibadi Islam. PPEMES ( talk) 13:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

How would it be different that Christian denomination, and why wouldn't we include it there? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

That could also be a solution to include some chart there. Feel free. PPEMES ( talk) 14:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I just reviewed the chart (and cleaned it up) and found it lacking citations. That would have to b addressed in this article. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion @ WP:BIBLE#Templates:Kings_of_Israel_(Samaria)_and_Kings_of_Judah to possibly remove Template:Kings of Israel and Template:Kings of Judah completely from articles. — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 18:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The information under the page Jesus - Perspectives - Other concerning Manichaeism is lacking. In addition to that religion accepting Jesus as a prophet, to them he was the person who freed Adam and advised him to eat from the Tree of knowledge to escape the prison of the supposed "Prince of Darkness". Manichaeism was the main rival to Christianity before the spread of Islam and the founder was a Iran prophet named Mani. This information can be also used on other Christian articles explaining that ever since an early age Arabic people have doubted the God of the Bible and have searched for an alternative to Christianity. The information can be found under Jesus the Splendour and Manichaeism. -- Enzu44 ( talk) 19:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe it's because it was rejected, and your characterization as the "main rival to Christianity" is odd as until that time, the polytheistic religions of Rome were the primary religious rivals. All forms of Gnosticism were rejected as non-orthodox around the fourth century. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

What is the main reason why it was rejected? After all, it was one of the depictions of Jesus in a different religion? -- Enzu44 ( talk) 05:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. This space is not a location for general discussion. It is a place to discuss the improvement of the article. In short, the followers of Jesus rejected the depictions that this group claimed. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Any idea who might be a potential sockmaster for this account?

Discussion here.

-Crossroads- ( talk) 18:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Are there any editors from this WikiProject willing to maintain Portal:Christianity and the several other portals that fall within the scope of this WikiProject? The Portals guideline requires that portals be maintained, and as a result numerous portals have been recently been deleted via MfD largely because of lack of maintenance. Let me know either way, and thanks, UnitedStatesian ( talk) 20:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Anyone interested in starting a task-force or work group on the Shakers?-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 22#Laicization regarding a number of redirects within the scope of this WikiProject. Interested editors are invited to participate. Wug· a·po·des​ 05:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

User:PopesTouch seems to be having a go at adding rather ad-hoc pronunciation guides to article on popes. Is this...normal? I'm not sure that we do this type of thing on any other class of article. GMG ^talk 06:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I would like to join your project BigRed606 ( talk) 01:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@ BigRed606: Welcome! Walter Görlitz ( talk) 19:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

So how do I join? BigRed606 ( talk) 05:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Members. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not convinced Pee Dee Missionary Baptist Church in Marlboro County, South Carolina is notable because it is not on the NRHP, but the building is the oldest church building still standing in that county, close to 200 years old. Unfortunately, it is falling down. I asked about news coverage but the person representing the local historic society seemed to think that was a strange question. I guess where I live newspapers cover historic buildings better. Maybe I'm not looking in the right place.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

And this is all I have so far, which isn't enough to move to mainspace.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why Wimber is mentioned so much in this article. Vos and Ladd certainly expanded the "already/Not yet" view and a quote from Wimber is understandable. But as he is a leader of a somewhat limited group and not a theologian of Ladd and Vos' level it's odd. This article could use more objective input. Does anyone have the time? Also, why is this listed under Charismatic? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clakrd52 ( talk • contribs) 19:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking it might be a good idea to subcat the "denominational" templates and leave only the general templates here. What say you? 🖖 ChristTrekker 🗣 13:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Expanding a bit, my primary rationale is simply the large number to scroll through, more than a page full currently. Category:Catholic user templates already exists. Category:Orthodox Christian user templates (as I can foresee other things labelled “Orthodox” that users may want to create someday) and Category:Protestant user templates seem like natural additions. Protestantism (and Orthodoxy to a lesser degree) has myriad denominations, none of which currently have more than a few userboxes, so I don't think we need to go further. My experience is limited mainly to Protestant traditions, so I wanted to get input before jumping in on this. 🖖 ChristTrekker 🗣 14:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's necessary. I suspect that if someone comes to the page—and I don't think it's a high-traffic page—they will use the find feature in their browser to search for a term that they identify with. However, if you would like to do the work, I wouldn't revert the changes. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

There has been a few odd edits to Old Testament where one author has been insisting on claiming that a covenant is a contract and using some sources to support. I don't have access to my textbooks, but they all made it clear that they are not synonymous. Assistance? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I took heed of WP:ENEMY and did the job for you. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 08:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you did. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Is the Marth Mariam Cathedral and the Marth Mariyam Church really just one and the same church? The similarity between the two articles look too close to be coincidence. I was thinking about starting a merging discussion but want to bring it up here first. Inter&anthro ( talk) 16:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I am confident that it is the same, being how small the ACOE is. Also, I am not entirely sure, but I think I smell a WP:HONORIFIC: "Marth" may be a feminine form of "Mar", the latter of which we've been carefully excising from articles on bishops. We may want to consider whether "Marth" is appropriate for article titles, etc. Elizium23 ( talk) 16:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@ Elizium23: Since the latter article is so small, I just redirected it to the former, although if you feel a merger discussion should have taken place feel free to undue my edit. I could very well be wrong, but I think "Marth" is the feminine version of honorific "Mar" so that "Marth Mariam" (or Mariyam) could translate to "Saint Mary" in Syriac. Given how many churches in Kerala alone are named Saint Mary (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 etc.) perhaps maybe the title should be kept to avoid confusion, although that is only my suggestion. Thanks Inter&anthro ( talk) 17:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Those two seem indeed to be the same, but distinct from the linked article Basilica of Our Lady of Dolours, Thrissur. That is a better article and refers to the older one as Mart Mariam Big Church, so I would not change the honorific. – Fayenatic London 17:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The Book of Daniel page, as well as all of the Daniel chapter pages, are very very biased. It seems that they are written by Seventh Day Adventists and showcase the theology of Judaism, SDA, and Mormonism, but completely ignore Christian theology.

For example, in Daniel 7, there is absolutely no mention that "Son of Man" refers to Jesus and is the title that Jesus took (from Daniel) whenever he referred to himself.

Instead it says "The identity of the "one like a son of man" who approaches God on his throne has been much discussed. The usual suggestion is that this figure represents the triumph of the Jewish people over their oppressor; the main alternative view is that he is the angelic leader of God's heavenly host" It completely ignores Daniel 7:14 which refers to the Son of Man as God: "13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed." Lehasa ( talk) 20:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Why "fictional" but not "folkloristic" for example? Surely Chriskind and Ježíšek should be there? Word "fictional" rather should be reffered to something what was created by one author, for example in literary work or film. Maybe there is no perfect solution here but as we have article Jesus child I would also suggest create new category Category:Child Jesus. Would be it possible if Child Jesus connect to Nativity of Jesus but Chriskind to this category? Dawid2009 ( talk) 19:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{ infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{ starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!

Sent on behalf of Trialpears ( talk) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Participants in this WikiProject may be interested to discuss the main usage of Christ at Talk:Christ (disambiguation)#Main usage. Cnilep ( talk) 02:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ελ Γκρέκο

If anyone is familiar with Orthodox iconography, more input would be appreciated in this deletion discussion on Commons. I'm afraid I simply have no idea how to date these images, but they are very likely very old and public domain. GMG ^talk 22:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I am having troubles establishing WP:NPOV in "Origin" variable of infobox for Syriac Orthodox Church (mirroring its lead section). Please see: Talk:Syriac Orthodox Church. Thank you. PPEMES ( talk) 07:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I've been trying to help with this editorial dispute at Syriac Orthodox Church and have launched an RFC about the issue. Any input would be greatly appreciated. At issue is the question of correctly dating the origin of a church which is in schism from another church in an NPOV way (i.e not adopting one side's view of which party to the schism represents the true church). There seems to be inconsistency among the denominations, for example see the infoboxes for the five churches claiming the Patriarchate of Antioch. I suspect that the problem goes wider than just this case. FrankP ( talk) 17:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

There are comments at Talk:Jane Addams#Article issues that might be of interest to members. Otr500 ( talk) 13:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

- Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I have just drafted Draft:Responsorial psalmody. Assistance would be welcome in preparing it as a full article. Note that there is a long-standing redirect (link) page Responsorial Psalm but this only goes to a small, denominational-specific subsection within the overall Psalm page. This new article is intended to be a fuller, more general and non-denominational description, and I propose that the pre-existing link then be redirected to it with associated tweaks to the original target of that link. (History: I am also the originator of the Gelineau psalmody page.) Feline Hymnic ( talk) 22:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This is now in place at Responsorial psalmody. Feline Hymnic ( talk) 20:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

There are three AfDs on topics that editors here may be interested in: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist Churches in Leicester, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester. — MarkH₂₁ ^talk 20:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This discussion on whether or not it is appropriate to cite the fringe figure Richard Carrier to establish that there are problem with methods used in persuing the historical Jesus at Historicity of Jesus may be of interest to the project: Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Richard Carrier -- Ermenrich ( talk) 16:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion of interest to this project on rewriting the section historical value at Talk:Tacitus on Christ#Authenticity and historical value.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 23:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Can some editors cleanup this article? It was determined at AfD that this is a significant topic, but this article needs a lot of work. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, would anyone be interested in improving this article by adding more sources?, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

During discussions of Coropuna, the question was raised about whether the content currently in that article that refers to St. Francis of Assisi is accurate. Does anyone editing this page have the expertise to judge? Please reply at Talk:Coropuna if possible. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Some users do not want to include a reliable source published last year in an Oxford journal, showing that the issue of the carbon dating of the shroud of Turin is not at all settled. I have introduced a Request for comments on the talk page. Thank you. Frezase ( talk) 19:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't get your hopes too high, they know damn well they haven't refuted the Medieval age of the shroud, they just moved it some decades away. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

This user does not even try to explain why the Oxford article should not be included!... The question is not "should we move the age some decades away" but "are the results still valid?" as well explained in Phys.org. The researchers "claimed that the raw data from the 1988 tests showed that the test samples were heterogeneous, invalidating the results." see here. Frezase ( talk) 20:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Also reading scientific papers requires WP:COMPETENCE, sometimes quote mining can be quite misleading: their statistical analysis does not match the claims they made. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

(Self-deleted a slightly earlier comment as I want to change). Frezase, I believe it is tendentious to say that this study invalidates the medieval dating of the shroud. It's also far too long. If this paper is to be mentioned at all, it should be along the lines that "a 2019 analysis of the raw data confirmed a medieval origin while questioning the exact range of dates" Achar Sva ( talk) 00:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Yup, a dating between the Great Schism and Martin Luther is consistent with their statistics. Wikipedia is not against religious belief, it is against the misuse of science. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Still 0 reason not to mention the study in the article, and no reason to rely on the dubious reinterpretation of non specialized users, self professed atheists. According to real experts, published in respected peer reviewed journal, this study casts "serious doubts on the reliability of the 1988 dating of the Turin Shroud". Bruni et al., Radiation Physics and Chemistry, 2020 Frezase ( talk) 18:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

First, the authors have an axe to grind against the Medieval origin. It would be ludicrous to deny that, their POV is known for decades. Second, their statistics do not refute a post-Great Schism origin of the shroud. Third, we have WP:RULES like WP:FRINGE and WP:EXTRAORDINARY, we do not render everything that is published with peer-review, especially for fringe topics. Fourth, if people want to believe, why do they need scientific proof? Science can only refute their religious beliefs, it can never prove those. E.g. the shroud does not have half non-human DNA in its human genome (were it preserved). Fifth, musings about atheist editors fail WP:NPA. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Religious text, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Hi, my name is Keli and I'm an employee of Lyon College. When I started working for the college last year, I saw this article was missing information and was flagged about the need for additional citations. I've been working on a new draft to improve the page and add the necessary citations.

You can see my entire post with details about my draft here, on the Lyon College talk page.

I've requested editor assistance at WikiProject Universities and WikiProject Arkansas but have not yet received a response. Since the college is affiliated with the Christian religion, I hope someone at this WikiProject will have an interest in working on the article to make fair changes. You can find my full draft here. Can someone please take a look and offer any feedback, or if you agree that it significantly improves the article, copy my version over?

Since I am employed by the college and here in that official capacity, I will only post on designated talk pages and I will not directly edit the Lyon College article or related articles where I may have a conflict of interest. Please do not hesitate to leave me a message if you have questions or feedback. Thanks! LyonCollegeKeli ( talk) 22:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done by User:Danielklotz. TSventon ( talk) 13:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at the above article that may be relevant to the subject of this project. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion here. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Abune Mathias#Requested move 21 February 2020. Elizium23 ( talk) 05:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

There is a suggestion to merge the templates for the "clergy" and "Christian leader" infoboxes. To know more or take part, go to Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_19#Template:Infobox_clergy. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 23:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Please see: Talk:Baba (honorific). PPEMES ( talk) 16:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gospel Music Association. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Toa Nidhiki05 13:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Now once again at AfD.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Mosaic church had some problems. I thought I fixed them, but a WP:SPA has been reverting many of the changes. I have now opened a discussion on the article's talk page Talk:Mosaic (church)#Layout order but expect the editor will return to restore the article to the previous state. Could someone please check that I'm not applying an odd layout to the article and check to see if my opinion about the short sections is problematic? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I would very much like an outside opinion there soon. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Do we think we should add a prayer for Wikipedians? SpinnerLaserz ( talk) 06:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. @ Jzsj: want to compose one for us?

"The other" Father Z composed a prayer before connecting to the Internet:

A prayer before logging onto the internet:

Almighty and eternal God, who created us in Thine image and bade us to seek after all that is good, true and beautiful, especially in the divine person of Thine Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, grant, we beseech Thee, that, through the intercession of Saint Isidore, Bishop and Doctor, during our journeys through the internet we will direct our hands and eyes only to that which is pleasing to Thee and treat with charity and patience all those souls whom we encounter. Through Christ our Lord. Amen. Elizium23 ( talk) 06:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a fine prayer, I see no need for another. Also, in the spirit of Pope Francis it doesn't take a cleric to compose a prayer. Jzsj ( talk) 06:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I simply viewed it as a shortcut to obtaining ecclesastical approval for it. Thanks. Elizium23 ( talk) 07:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I created a new userbox with the Greek work "gnosis" as the icon, use this code, {{User WikiProject Christianity2}}, if anyone is interested here's the page: Template:User WikiProject Christianity2 DivineReality ( talk) 18:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

An RfC on whether it is appropriate to use the disputed 2011 census in the lede of Religion in Albania may be of interest to project participants. [21]. Khirurg ( talk) 00:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

This draft seems like an interesting subject. Not sure if it's covered under another name? Seems worth including but needs.some work. FloridaArmy ( talk) 02:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I complained about this article at Wikipedia. Not that the information was wrong. I argued that these were two different stand-alone topics. The beginner of this article/topic/nonsense is a Muslim who has an agenda. That agenda is to muddy the waters between both religions. The only thing they have in common is that both are religions. The response was that I was kicked out of the discussions because my view was unpopular with the originators.

So the article is still there, and I do not care at all if Wikipedia goes broke. The "information" of Wikipedia is "maintained" by the general population, and the general population has trouble with intelligence and the truth.

What is popular is not always truth and what is truth is not always popular. At Wikipedia, it is paramount to be popular — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.118.161.59 ( talk) 23:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

This was left on my talk page and I'm not sure why. The article is Christianity and Islam. Perhaps someone can respond. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand the need for this article, but I take a neutral stance: if you want it deleted, begin a deletion request. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The user who started it, User:Stevertigo, doesn't actually seem to be a Muslim, though he may have had certain biases, as does every editor (read up on Journalistic objectivity for example). It's basically a page for comparative religion. Whether or not it should be deleted, rather than simply revised and improved, is up for debate. Nowadays with the globalization of humanity one could argue that comparative religion in order to understand and coexist peacefully is an important endeavor. I will certainly agree that the article could be improved, though just about every article about religion on Wikipedia could be improved. For a reference, take a look at the original article which is very different from its current form: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Christianity_and_Islam&oldid=692619 DivineReality ( talk) 22:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The article seems to be a valid encyclopedic topic at the intersection of Christianity and other religions and Islam and other religions.

I cannot trace what complaint the editor is referring to. There was a recent edit request by Captdeys ( talk · contribs) which was initially declined but was then accepted after he provided citations, so I don't think that's the issue. I suspect the complaint is about a different article, but all we have to go on is his heading "Islam and Christianity". – Fayenatic London 09:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The all-female band BarlowGirl is on my watchlist and I saw an anon remove what looked to be an off-topic sentence and one of the page maintainers (who I assume added it) restored the content. I have had unpleasant interactions with the editor but would like an extra set of eyes on the edit to see if my intuition is correct or not. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I think the removal is correct, because the removed part is off-topic. JohnThorne ( talk) 00:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Another editor thought the same and stepped-in after I posted. It seems resolved. I'm glad that 1) I could trust my intuition, 2) that I avoided confrontation over the issue, and 3) the issue resolved itself amicably. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Christianity and colonialism has become the focus of a multiple-IP address user that has been making disruptive edits on other articles to promote the Christianity and colonialism article.

There isn't an edit war going on and it's hard to say there's even a "dispute" as the user has only responded once to my comments on the Talk page. The user continues to add uncited material to Christianity and colonialism and out-of-context links to Christianity and colonialism on other pages.

The article itself struggles with WP:UNSOURCED (many sections with few, if any citations), WP:NPOV, and WP:Out of scope (eg, equating post-colonial foreign missionary activity with colonialism, conflating imperialism with colonialism).

I am not sure what the correct protocol is at this point. Would love advice.

GottaShowMe ( talk) 16:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to mark the article with any concerns you may have. I suspect that {{ More citations needed}} or the section version of it might be a start. Be WP:BOLD and remove content that you think is off-fopic or out of scope, or start an WP:RFC for external support. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 18:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Please see: Template:Christian denominations. A discussion about the new contents has been initaited at the bottom of Template talk:Christian denominations. Welcome! PPEMES ( talk) 09:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

There are currently two open discussions on whether templates Template:Kings of Israel & Template:Kings of Judah should be deleted or not. Both discussions can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 April 27. Jerm ( talk) 05:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This RfC may be of interest to the members of this group. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 18:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Basilica#RFC. Elizium23 ( talk) 08:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Since the Christian faith has produced many great mystics, I wonder whether any one in this WikiProject would be interested in a proposal for a "WikiProject Mysticism" I have made at Wikipedia: WikiProject Council. Vorbee ( talk) 18:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I would be interested, via my professional interest in the Shakers.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I would be interested. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 21:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated Mortara case 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. b uidh e 07:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Catholicity#Proposed wording for dispute. Elizium23 ( talk) 04:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Why is there a template on Islamophobia but not one for Christianophobia or even the persecution of Christians? According to Open Doors, Christians are the most persecuted religion in the world. Am I a missing something or is that the double standard it looks like? Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 10:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

1) That source is extremely biased; 2) where does it say that?; 3) it lists countries like North Korea and China, where every religion is persecuted, and Mexico, which is majority Catholic, Russia, where the Russian Orthodox Church is essentially an arm of the state, and Ethiopia, where the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is dominant. It's clear they're talking specifically about Evangelical Christianity and the problems this missionary organization sees for its converts to Evangelicalism.

Furthermore, the fact that it lists "Islamic oppression" for a number of countries - as though there were a single "Islam" that was deciding to oppress people who convert from Islam to Christianity, is a sign of Islamophobia itself. For Myanmar, which is majority Buddhist, India, which is majority Hindu, and Sri Lanka, which is which is majority Buddhist, it doesn't list "Buddhist oppression" or "Hindu oppression", it lists "Religious nationalism". Is this what a double standard looks like?-- Ermenrich ( talk) 14:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming my suspicions. Are you suggesting that oppression of Christians does not exist on earth? Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 14:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying it isn't the most persecuted religion on earth and there is no such thing as "Christianophobe" that competes with Islamophobia. Please take your desire to wp:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:SOAPBOXING elsewhere.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 18:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Gun Powder Ma: Did you read or understand what Ermenrich wrote? Instead of addressing the valid points that Ermenrich provided, you went into an evangelical persecution shell motif. Let me summarize Ermenrich's statement: the places where Christians are persecuted are either places where all religious groups are persecuted or are places that are where one group of Christians are persecuting another group, and in the cases from the source you provided that other group is evangelicals. So to answer your question, Ermenrich made it clear that Christians are being persecuted, but it's not the same as Islamophobia which is primarily carried out by another religious group. Do you understand the difference? Yes, there are locations where Christians are persecuted by Muslims, but that isn't called Christianophobia, it's called religious persecution. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Walter Görlitz: I fully understand what is going on here... Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 23:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Gun Powder Ma: Then please explain what your understanding of what is going on here, recognizing that all of the members of this project make a profession of faith in Christ. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, all of the members of this project make a profession of faith in Christ. {{ citation needed}} Elizium23 ( talk) 06:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Elizium23: Check the user pages of the editors who commented here. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, no, that's not what you said. You led us to believe that by signing the member roll of this project, editors are required to make some profession of faith, or they are not project members. That's false. Elizium23 ( talk) 18:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

That's not what I meant when I wrote it, I meant that they have made one. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to a template on the persecution of Christians, since there are plenty of historically demonstrable examples and it could be helpful to have a navbox or sidebar for that. I agree with Walter and Elizium23 re: Christianophobia. If you can show some peer-reviewed scholarship on this, or some academic books, or something similar, than sure, but what you've provided here is basically evangelical propaganda. I won't reveal what my own beliefs are because that isn't relevant for here. This project doesn't require a particular belief from anybody - anyone who is interested in editing Christianity articles based on reliable independent sources, and is willing to abide by Wikipedia consensus, is welcome here.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

In the Catholic Lawyer, Giacomo Cardinal Lercaro claims there is such a thing as a secularist view that is derogatory toward religion. [22] New studies in cognitive science indicate there are four kinds of atheism and that at least one is antagonistic to religion. The full text is worth a read. [23] These might be seen as a kind of general phobia toward religion though not specifically anti-Christian. However, there doesn't seem to be any real doubt that anti-religious, and specifically anti-Christian sentiment, has grown regionally in the last few decades alongside anti-western sentiments. Persecuted: The Global Assault on Christians By Paul Marshall, Lela Gilbert, and Nina Shea is worth a look.

The Institute for Economics and Peace puts out a global terrorism index every year: [24]. One of the "pillars" it connects peace to is the acceptance of the rights of others including the right to religious freedom. The denial of those rights is connected to violence and war. The denial of those rights has been rising around the world. Pew says, "Over the decade from 2007 to 2017, government restrictions on religion... increased markedly around the world. And social hostilities involving religion – including violence and harassment – also have risen since 2007... the number of countries where people are experiencing the highest levels of social hostilities involving religion has risen from 39 to 56 over the course of the study." The Middle East and North Africa have the highest numbers. This is connected to government supported religious favoritism: "...19 of the 20 countries in the Middle East (all except Lebanon) favor a religion — 17 have an official state religion, and two have a preferred or favored religion. In all of these countries except Israel, the favored religion is Islam..."

"Most countries with the highest scores in government favoritism as of 2017 (including Afghanistan, Bahrain and Bangladesh) have Islam as their official state religion. This dovetails with an earlier finding that, as of 2015, Islam is the most common state religion around the world; in 27 of the 43 countries that enshrine an official religion (63%), that religion is Islam... But not all the countries on this list favor Islam. In Greece, Iceland and the United Kingdom, different Christian denominations are the official state religions."

The countries with the highest scores in restricting religious freedom are spread across Asia, the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa. Many are communist or formerly communist. Among the countries with the highest levels of limits on religious freedom, the top ten are: China:communist; the Maldives:Islamic. There are no other religions or sects present or permitted in the country; Kazakhstan:formerly communist now 70% Muslim, Saudi Arabia:requires all citizens to be Muslim; Singapore:33% Buddhist; Turkmenistan:89% Muslim; Algeria:99% Muslim; Azerbaijan:99.2% Muslim; Laos:50% Theravada Buddhism; Sudan:97% Muslim; Uzbekistan:93% Muslim. What's up with Singapore?

One genuinely interesting tidbit in all this is that there has been a bigger increase in government limits on religious activities – such as restrictions on religious dress, public or private worship, or religious literature – in Europe more than in any other region during the course of the study. "In 2007, just four European countries were reported to have individuals or groups who used violence, or threat of violence, to try to force others to accept their own religious practices and beliefs; by 2017, it had risen to 15 countries." These kinds of religious restrictions are increasing in America as well.

This could go on long enough to become an article, but I won't bore you. You can read the rest for yourself if you actually want some scholarship on this. My main purpose in writing this is just to say that, perhaps, cutting Gun Powder Ma a little slack might be appropriate. She was imprecise and one sided, but not completely wrong. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 05:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for not boring us. I won't read any of it as it's written from a misguided position. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You're right of course. I have the misguided position of gathering data before making up my mind. Silly me. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 08:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Please cite some of the facts here so we can see them rather than the paranoid fringe opinions you've supplied to date. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 All of what you've cited there would be relevant to either Persecution of Christians and Criticism of Christianity, which currently have the respective Template:Discrimination sidebar and Template:Criticism of religion sidebar, or Antireligion, which is part of the Irreligion series. I've above voiced support for a more specific template on Persecution of Christians if there are enough articles to support a more specific sidebar like that.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

3family6 Hi! Thanx for such a reasonable response. For what it's worth, I don't really care one way or the other about the sidebar. Whatever consensus decides, I support. A more specific sidebar could be a good idea. I mostly agreed with what Ermenrich said--there was marked POV in the original request--but it seemed to me like everyone was kind of ganging up on Gun Powder Ma. Scholarship was requested, which is the proper focus, so I thought that perhaps offering a sampling would calm that down, put the discussion back onto the topic raised, and include less commenting about someone else's mental health. There's actually a lot out there on this topic. Spain does a conflict seminar annually, and Germany has a program a lot like Britain's IEP where they track conflict, and everyone seems to agree with PEW's assessment. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 22:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@ Walter Görlitz:@ 3family6:@ Ermenrich: I took the challenge to heart and wrote a few paragraphs to put into the existing article on religious persecution addressing the question of whether or not Christians are more persecuted and how much etc. I have invited comment there, but it is currently in my sandbox [ [25]] where I invite you to read and comment. Don't be afraid to criticize, but please be sure you have valid sources to support alternate or missing facts. For example, I can find no source tracking Islamic, Hindu or Buddhist martyrdoms in the same manner in which Christian martyrdoms are being tracked. Suggestions on how to find that additional data would be welcome. Thank you. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 05:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

thank you! My only complaint so far is that it seems a bit essay like. I’ll comment with specific problems later— Ermenrich ( talk)

Jenhawk777, I was going to list problems point by point, but I think the essay-ness results more from structure. I'd like to suggest first laying out the evidence for/against persecution, then laying out interpretations and problems with the data. At the moment it sort of meanders back and forth between positions. Something more like "x number of incidents are registered as occurring" should probably go before the debate about what it means, if that makes sense.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 13:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich Thanx! It does meander a bit doesn't it? Your suggestion is good I think. I was focused on the disagreement and validating sources up front before including any of their data, but the other way round may be more encyclopedic. I'll give it a go. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 17:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I think I followed your good advice, and it is now rewritten, and I think genuinely improved. I hope you agree! Jenhawk777 ( talk) 19:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC). I forgot to include--it's here: [26] Jenhawk777 ( talk) 22:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Please share your opinions in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breast Tax. It is related to christianity. 42.106.178.60 ( talk) 12:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I have recently completed an overhaul of the article History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance. I would like to invite others to please give it a quick look and make suggestions, criticisms, and edits. I am genuinely in need of additional input on this article. Thank you to any kind hearted editor who shows up. I will return the favor. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 03:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi! What an extensive piece, great job! I haven't had time to read through the whole page, but I would suggest that the introduction—specifically the first paragraph—could use more of a contextual summary. Definitions of "Persection" and "Tolerance", while relevant and important, didn't help me to understand what the scope of the page was. I'd love a paragraph that started with a sentence about the how concepts of persecution and tolerance in Christian thought have evolved over the last 2000 years. Using various scriptures and religious traditions, Christian academics and theologians have expressed views ranging from _____ to _____, regarding what constitutes an unbeliever outside the church, or a heretic within the church.

I will read through this more later, and will add comments or make edits. I may even take a stab at an intro paragraph once I've read the page! But again great job and thanks for putting it together! Noersark ( talk) 17:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@ Noersark: Thank you so much for responding! You're right, good comment, and I have now removed the first paragraph of unnecessary definitions altogether. I will attempt to add that sentence--if I can think of how!! :-) I am working on it! I am trying your suggestion here--the problem I am having is things have never gone from A to B, they have gone from A and B in an early form, to A and B in a later form with different emphasis, then a sort of lesser form of "a" with emphasis on BBBB, and so on and then AAA and b. Christianity has always had both inclusivity and exclusivity and different groups have emphasized them differently--always have and still do. Only the emphasis has shifted. Maybe I should say that? It's incorrect to say Christian thought moved from tolerance to intolerance and back again--though that is a popular concept--but it oversimplifies and misleads. Christian thought has and does include both. The pivotal section of the entire article is the High middle ages when all of European society made the shift to persecution. I added that to the lead because it's so important. Noersark have you ever participated in an FA nomination? I never have, and I would like to see this article go FA, and since I have never done one before, it is recommended that I find a mentor. Would you be willing? I would sure appreciate any help you could give. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 22:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh! I meant to ask if you wouldn't mind, please ping me--I missed that this was here for a whole week! Jenhawk777 ( talk) 22:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@ Noersark: I gave it a go! Please take a look. It seems a little awkward to me, but I can't see how to fix that right now. Perhaps I just need a break! :-) Jenhawk777 ( talk) 22:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I am interested in seeing History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance [27] become an FA article if it's in any way possible. I have never done one and am told I need a mentor. Is there anyone here who knows the ropes and would be willing to help? Please? Anyone who would take a look and tell me what they think will be appreciated. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 23:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to propose a top-down rewrite of the Insider movements page, as its current contents illustrate the author's comprehensive and persistent bias toward one side of the ongoing controversy.

The page's most neutral statements are written in pro-IM language, and it grossly misrepresents the views of the most prominent academics who oppose IM practices and hermaneutics. In essence, the author asserts the positive side and positions it against a straw-man opposition argument, which precludes addressing the theological and practical issues underlying this debate in the missiological world. Also, in listing critics of IM, the author fails even to mention the approach's most prominent and outspoken critics! To top it all off, the page's Further Reading and External Links sections list exclusively pro-IM resources.

That being the case, I don't want to waste time trying to "fix" this article... revisions would be so comprehensive and numerous that a rewrite would better serve to avoid endless edit wars and foster cooperation.

Do any of you here have an interest in this subject? I will put some content together on my workspace in the next few weeks so you can see the direction I'm going with this, but I would love to craft a page that can convey the depth and ramifications of this controversy, in a way that would make proponents of either side of the debate feel that their position has been neutrally represented. Noersark ( talk) 21:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I went and looked at it and I believe your assessment is correct. It does need an entire rewrite--which is kind of what I am famous (infamous?) for. I even got a 'Precious' for it. Ha ha! :-)

A year ago ...

"What do you mean, I can´t rewrite the entire article!?"
... you were recipient no. 1915 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

But I am still finishing up one, so can't take on another yet. In the meantime, I suggest tagging this one as needing improvement for non-neutral-POV. If you would list your objections/suggestions for improvement on the talk page, it would greatly facilitate anyone who might want to take this on. Any ideas you have. I promise I'll look at it again, and if no one else has done anything, I will. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 22:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, thanks a lot! I did post to the talk page, but I will tag it also. I sent the page link to a couple academics on the opposing side of the issue, and they said it's hopelessly skewed... can't even begin to try to improve it, as the language in nearly every sentence conflates issues, relies upon faulty premises, asserts opinion as fact, and misrepresents opposition. I've already worked up a skeleton of what I'm intending to put together, but I'd love your help once I've made a little more headway. Thanks so much... and I'm right now reading through Persecution and Tolerance :)

One other question, though... how do I tag the article? I looked through some Wiki pages but I can't find a simple instruction on how to add a tag. Noersark ( talk) 17:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

My pings aren't reaching you I am told because you don't have a user page. Just click edit source, come here and copy any or all of these templates: {{ systemic bias}} {{ partisan sources}} {{ disputed}} {{ POV}} and {{ unbalanced}} then place them at the top of the article and they will show up as they look when you read here. They are all applicable, but redundancy is not generally beneficial--use as you see fit. These tags and others are all available at [28]

My bad! Thanx Elizium23 for cleaning that up. Noersark when you use them, don't include the tl|. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much needs rebuilding from scratch. Doug Weller talk 14:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion of merging The Exodus to The Book of Exodus that may be interest to members of this project at Talk:Book of Exodus#Merger proposal.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 01:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion is nearing its end unless its relisted. Randy Kryn ( talk) 03:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Can we get some eyes on this? It's a bit of a mess and EXTREMELY long. Thanks, Calliopejen1 ( talk) 17:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a requested move at Talk:Behnam, Sarah, and the Forty Martyrs. Jerm ( talk) 20:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi there is an RfC on the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe that may be of interest to this project. See: Talk:Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe#Request for comment: on the notability of the CTMU in 2020 with sources published after 2006 and "unredirect" of this page to Christopher_Langan - Scarpy ( talk) 06:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia ads	file info – #275

ias: postb□x 14:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a proposal for a new subsection on ecclesiastical titles being conducted at MOS:BIO. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 20:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion of interest to members of this project at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Scriptural texts (WP:RSPSCRIPTURE) concerning whether the Bible can be used as a source for its own content.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 23:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@ Ermenrich: Wouldn't doing that qualify as original research? Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

My argument was per MOS:PLOT, Jenhawk777, in the same way I'm allowed to summarize the plot of the Aeneid or War and Peace, but the discussion was not in favor of changing WP:RSPSCRIPTURE, so it's a dead issue now.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 19:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, that sort of two-steps around the issue though doesn't it? I can see why you raised the question. I feel your pain. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 20:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I have some small insight into the belief of those with The Church Of The Lord Jesus Christ Of The Apostolic Faith. I am new at this, likely will dabble a little first , text only, in a few page context, because it is much safer for a beginner.

In the case of both Wikipedians and members with The Church Of The Lord Jesus Christ Of The Apostolic Faith both are equally right which can immediately cause more trouble then manageable. "Contradiction with Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith" Much of the truth concerning all this comes to mind though I doubt I can ever find enough source. Chances are any differences will be settled when members with The Church Of The Lord Jesus Christ Of The Apostolic Faith accept enough read.

The bold move to restore the old version of the page /info/en/?search=Church_of_the_Lord_Jesus_Christ#:~:text=The%20Church%20of%20the%20Lord,the%20late%20Bishop%20Sherrod%20C was a wise choice. There could be, by my research, two or three split from The Church Of The Lord Jesus Christ Of The Apostolic Faith ( "Related/Split organizations" ) not included on the page. One such I remember in my research is a church who took seriously the printed papers that were distributed during the time of Apostle Shelton's father. called "The Whole Truth". When he took charge of the church as Apostle, all to include all member neglected relaying the truth to these members of the Church who dearly loved the earlier Apostle. to the extent they were left out. It is sad such neglect exists.

I, if it is allowed, will like to collaborate with a more experienced Wikipedian, able to enjoy this choice of page. All I can do at the moment is try my best to communicate differences missed by editors up to this point. and please let me decide yes or no who I collaborate with. I will like to see a black Wikipedian step up to bat.

( Note: should this page time out, no harm done. )

Leroy 11-28-1952 ( talk) 23:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The article in question is Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Not sure what the issue is though. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 07:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Augustine on coercion is up for review as a new article. Any and all input would be appreciated. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind! Added it to Augustine of Hippo instead. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 08:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholics has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Manabimasu ( talk) 21:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic prayers has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Manabimasu ( talk) 01:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Jv811 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm very concerned by the poor sourcing of edits made by Jv811. I have AfD'd two of their articles, and they have continued creating poorly-sourced articles. Pontius Pilate's account to Emperor Claudius has one reference which is too vague to verify.

Can someone with some domain experience review these articles? power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@ Power~enwiki: It's actually called or should be titled the "Letter of Pilate to Claudius". There are academic sources that discuss it, but I would go ahead and send it to AfD. Early Christian Writings is not an academic source but a personal encyclopedia typed up by Peter Kirby who's background is virtually unknown. Jerm ( talk) 04:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Page: Biblical criticism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Biblical criticism/archive2 Biblical criticism is in FA review and has received little enough interest the coordinator is considering archiving it. This is its second attempt and I'm afraid this will sink it permanently if that happens. It needs someone willing to do a random source check, making sure references say what the text claims. There are too many for any one person to do alone, but even one would help. This is an important topic that should be amongst WP's best. Please help if you can.

Comments are urgently requested at the afore mentioned page. We have a discussion which requires informed comments from those familiar with the topic of this discussion. Your help at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 19:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I am in the process of creating a draft for a megachurch (as one source describes it) which hasn't established notability at this point. One of my objectives is to describe the specifics of their worship style. Many churches have similar worship and this would probably be a better fit for the Contemporary worship article, except I'm sure each church does things slightly differently, and having very specific details for several different churches doesn't seem like it would work. I'm not entirely sure these exact details have a place in either article, and yet somehow it seems like Wikipedia needs this information.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The introductory sentence in Lists of Christians gives 6 sources, all to the same website. But as far as I can see, the urls are all invalid, because apparently the domain name now belongs to a commercial firm. Can someone fix this? Thanks. NightHeron ( talk) 21:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not well versed in the myriad of Christian denominations, but Melkite Catholic Territory Dependent on the Patriarch of Egypt, Sudan and South Sudan and Greek-Melkite Territory Dependent on the Patriarch of Egypt, Sudan and South Sudan appear very similar in topic to me. Are they? -- HyperGaruda ( talk) 14:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Could someone examine that article and see what needs to be done to bring it into compliance with WP:NPOV? Much of it seems overly promotional. For example, the lead says in wikivoice that the movement "features such gifts as...," and it uses the verb "argue" for traditional Catholics who criticize the movement and the verb "testify" for the opinions of adherents. The article has been getting thousands of pageviews lately because of Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the US Supreme Court. Because of the article's sudden importance, I think it deserves a close look by editors who are knowledgeable about Catholicism. Thanks. NightHeron ( talk) 00:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I have made a proposal for the lead at Talk:Catholic charismatic renewal#Proposal for making the lead NPOV-compliant. NightHeron ( talk) 13:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Could somebody please look at Draft:Alvaston parish church. It's a draft that's going nowhere for lack of sources. If somebody could find some good sources, that would save it from the dust bin. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Lord's Prayer § NRSV. Elizium23 ( talk) 00:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a requested move at Talk:Kingdom_of_Israel_(united_monarchy)#Requested_move_15_October_2020. Jerm ( talk) 15:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated Kellie Loder 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. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Please help by joining the discussion at Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje. -- Governor Sheng ( talk) 16:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I've looked at a number of denominational articles and it seems that many of them have ==Notable churches== sections which tend to include a list that keeps getting longer and longer, I would guess, as everyone wants to add their own church or one that they know about. Some of these lists are quite long. I think that this project would benefit from some sort of policy, perhaps something like this:

• The "Notable churches" section in denominational articles should not include any redlinks
• The "Notable churches" section should ideally have no more than XX entries and never more than YY entires
• The "Notable churches" section should include a link to the category that includes all churches in that denomination

A few questions

1. Do other folks think something like this would be a good idea? (Or maybe others don't think this is a problem)
2. Has anything like this been considered in this project before?
3. Is there any WP-wide policy that might help, either because it directly applies, or because it might be applied by analogy?

Thoughts? YBG ( talk) 23:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami 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. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

If you have an opinion to spare, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

This statement: The term is derived from the Koine Greek word Ἰουδαΐζειν (Ioudaizein), used once in the Greek New Testament (Galatians 2:14),[1] when Paul publicly challenges Peter for compelling gentile converts to Early Christianity to "judaize". It is misleading as Strongs concordance states the word "Jews" does mean; G2452

Ἰουδαΐκώς Ioudaikōs ee-oo-dah-ee-koce' Adverb from G2451; Judaically or in a manner resembling a Judaean: - as do the Jews. Total KJV occurrences: 1

Granted the scripture does imply the thought of the word Judaizer; however, the term is uniquely devised to express one who mixes the law with Christianity.

( Praise and Prayer Ministry ( talk) 02:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC))

I have nominated When God Writes Your Love Story 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. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi members, if anyone interested please have a look at this GA nomination Sidney Hill for review. It was submitted on 30 May 2020. I have also notified about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Thank you — Amkgp 💬 18:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2020/51/1, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Page: Regensburg lecture ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion: Talk:Regensburg lecture#Why no one pays attention ?

Comments are urgently requested at the afore mentioned page. We have a discussion which requires informed comments from those familiar with the topic of this discussion. Your help at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. Bookku ( talk) 08:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Reginald Bachus. You might want to participate in the deletion review. Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 02:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I would really appreciate it if someone wants to have a look at and contribute to this discussion concering my proposal to merge Protestantism in Qatar into Christianity in Qatar, two articles which are within the scope of this project. Thanks in advance! Lennart97 ( talk) 15:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear colleagues,
Veverve and I recently reached agreement that it would be helpful to create a uniform template table that gives a concise overview of the scholarly consensus on the dating, authorship, geographical and linguistic origins of the deuterocanonical books, to be used on the pages Deuterocanonical books#Overview, Dating the Bible#Table III: Deuterocanonical Old Testament and Authorship of the Bible#Table III: Deuterocanonical Old Testament, and perhaps others such as Biblical languages. We think all three articles could benefit from a uniform template that gives readers the exact same information on the status of scholarly consensus on the dating, original language and authorship of all deuterocanonical books. That way Wikipedia doesn't contradict itself, provides a comprehensive simultaneous overview to the 3 origins questions of all these books combined, and any correction immediately corrects an error in all these pages simultaneously. We are just not yet sure how to merge the information in all three pages into a single template in a way that is still concise and doesn't create a messy layout. We agree that it should be concise, and that full sentences on why scholars have come to certain conclusions about certain aspects of the origins of these books are probably too elaborate to be mentioned in this template table.

Do you think it would be a good idea, then, to employ the columns model (as I have proposed on the talk page), and merge all information on dating, authorship, language and location into a single table, to be used on all those pages? And would a similar template for books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and New Testament also be a good idea at some later point? Or is this all not a good idea? After all, wouldn't that eventually mean that especially the articles Authorship of the Bible and Dating the Bible would have the exact same content and thus better merge? I do think it's very difficult and arguably even undesirable to discuss dating, authorship, language and location completely separately; these aspects are strongly connected to each other, and together provide the historical context of the writings. Neither the Authorship nor the Dating article is exclusively concerned with who wrote these books and when, respectively; there is already some overlap. The question is how far this overlap should go, and whether this will ultimately lead to a merger, or whether these aspects should remain somewhat concentrated in separate articles, with overlap between them? The result may be that we opt for creating/maintaining different tables, customised for each article on Authorship (+location where the author wrote it), Dating and languages, rather than a uniform template table embedded in all. Ultimately, what matters most is how we can best present this information to the readers of Wikipedia. Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 17:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Elizium23:@ Editor2020:@ Omnipaedista:@ Achar Sva: what do you think? Veverve ( talk) 05:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I was hoping to get some input for my draft For the Martyrs as it has been in limbo for some time now. If this not the appropriate forum to request help apologies in advance.Thank you IntermezzoMan ( talk) 18:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello ! Sorry for my bad English, I’m French. There’s a disambiguation page at Cloyne Cathedral (disambiguation), that allows to link two cathedrals, one in Cloyne and one in Cobh. While that’s working, it looks a bit weird from my point of view. In the French Wikipedia, we have a “St Colman Cathedral” page ( cathédrale Saint-Colman), that is doing the same job (because, if I’m not mistaken, both cathedrals are dedicated to the same saint), and would be more easily interwiki-able. Wouldn’t it be better to align this way? Happy 2021. 37.165.76.71 ( talk) 21:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It has been proposed to add a sortkey to articles found under Category:Churches by century. Please see Talk:Old St. Peter's Basilica#Defaultsort for the initial conversation.

1. Should a sortkey be added? If so, should the sortkey be...
2. The city of the location of the church?
3. The diocese of the location of the church?
4. The name of the patron of the church? (In English? In its native language?)
5. Another sortkey?
6. Should the sortkey be the DEFAULTSORT for these articles, or should it only apply to children of the above category? Elizium23 ( talk) 05:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Sort keys should generally be added, but often they need customising. In most cases the city will be the most appropriate, but DEFAULTSORT may not be right. For example, Old St. Peter's Basilica is in all these categories, for many of which sorting on "Rome" is clearly wrong (especially categories just for the city):

  4th-century churches|Rome, Old Saint Peter]]

  Buildings and structures demolished in the 16th century]]

  Sites of papal elections]]

  Constantine the Great and Christianity]]

  St. Peter's Basilica|Old Saint Peter]]

  Palaeo-Christian architecture in Italy]]

  Destroyed Roman Catholic churches in Rome]]

  Basilica churches in Rome]]

  Basilica churches in Vatican City]]

In this case, "Old" may be best for most of the others, but the dedicatee will often be right. Fortunately, the first few letters are normally the same in English and the local language, which is enough for sorting. I don't see much of a role for the diocese, & for heavens sake let's avoid more splitting into sub-categories. Each case needs careful checking. Johnbod ( talk) 05:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Saint Isidore, pray for us.

The approach shown by Johnbod above is the one I took for my work with sortkeys, which I copied from church articles in the United Kingdom, and had been using until Old Saint Peter's. It is thus the approach I recommend. My reasoning for this is the fact that usually the name of the town/city the church is located in is already in the title of the article. Not so for the diocese. As an aside - not that it would have been too too much work to discern this - many, many of the church articles I've edited this month are in such a poor state that do not listen their diocese. As for the language of the patron's name, that has kept me up at night as I have travelled around the UK, Spain, France, Germany, and Italy. I usually operate under the motto "English Wikipedia, English Name", but I suspect this wouldn't fly with, for example, Notre Dame de Paris (ex. Paris, Our Lady). That said, I advocate for English Wikipedia, English Name in the sort keys (ex. Florence, San Lorezno -> Florence, Saint Lawrence/Laurence). Finally, I would not be opposed to categories for tracking churches in a diocese. However, categories are already an incomplete nightmare of unknowable depth, so it may be better to avoid this. – ♠Vami _IV†♠ 06:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello ! My undersanding of English practices may be bad (I’m French !), but I think the page Cathedral of the Holy Saviour of Congo is misnamed. The Portuguese article from which it has (probably) been translated is called Catedral de São Salvador do Congo, because that’s the (old) cathedral of the city previously knowned as São Salvador do Congo, that is now named M'banza-Kongo. I’m not sure what the best name is using your conventions. Regards, 37.166.112.112 ( talk) 16:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see proposal here to merge God in Catholicism into God in Christianity. Any feedback is welcome. -- Hazhk ( talk) 19:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Since those fall within the scope of this project and need improvements I thought I'd list them here in case interested editors would like to work on them (the problems are highlighted either in tags and/or on their talk page):

• Rutherford Institute (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Christian Legal Society (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Charles LiMandri (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund redirects there)

Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 03:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I just added Cross International to this project as a Christian-based charity org. I'm trying to clean up articles in the Guyana Project, and this article is poor quality: the extremely generic name makes it more difficult to determine notability and find sources (Google search results in unrelated phrases like "cross international borders" etc.) Anyone here have any input for improving this? Cheers, Estheim ( talk) 22:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Estheim: It does not seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). You should attempt to find sources to improve the article. Thanks. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 07:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The Edict of Torda was an early and almost exceptional example of religious tolerance in early modern Europe. It sanctioned the existence of an antitrinitarian church in the eastern Hungarian kingdom. The article is a FAC and all comments are welcome on the review page. Borsoka ( talk) 06:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:IX to the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity in India. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 12#Wikipedia:IX until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)