Talk:The_Bible_and_violence#Rfc
At Pentecostalism, there is currently a discussion on whether it is appropriate to describe mainstream Christians/theology as "orthodox". Input would be appreciated. Ltwin ( talk)
It doesn't seem to be online, but a newspaper article written by a pastor says the Greek word used for wine in all instances where Jesus drank it refers to unfermented grape juice, and the Greek word used in all instances where the Bible warns against getting drunk refers to fermented wine. Nothing is said about this idea in Wikipedia, at least where I have looked so far. I don't know precisely how one would go about proving his statement or adding it to the related articles.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not about to tell this pastor anything. If you saw his photo, you'd probably be afraid of him too.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Don't see how debating how many angels can dance on a pinhead is productive. The New Testament is not a record. It is Church propaganda. [1] Sahansdal ( talk) 05:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
References
Should the experimental punk rock band who developed within the confines of the 1980s anarcho-punk scene in the UK really be top-article here? I would more expect to arrive at Apostle (disambiguation), Apostles or Apostle. Not sure which policies and guidelines apply, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
This seems to be notable but missing. I'm interested in seeing if this can be turned into a good page. Legacypac ( talk) 19:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Chicbyaccident on 30 March 2018 indiscriminately moved several articles on episcopal conferences to titles with the format 'Episcopal Conference of X'. This is in spite of the said user's proposal to standardise 'Episcopal Conference of X' being explicitly rejected. Moreover, the user has even cited this failed proposal as the reason for some of the page moves. I have reverted many of the page moves, but it would be good to have more eyes go over them. There was a relevant discussion at: Category talk:Episcopal conferences#Standardisation. The Discoverer ( talk) 18:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Just an FYI. Seems proper to notify the WikiProject that there's a lengthy back and forth on ANI about the project and your newsletter. GMG talk 20:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Questions have been raised about how best to format Brethren (religious group) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is essentially a dab page that also lists the "family trees" of various denominations known as Brethren. I'm inclined to leave it more or less the way it is, but that's a far cry from MOS:DAB. Given this irregularity, I welcome the opinion of other editors on that article talk page. Daask ( talk) 12:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion concerning the trustworthiness of websites NewAdvent and earlychristianwritings/jewishwritings as a source. Additional input on the matter would be greatly appreciated. The discussion is here: Talk:Ignatius_of_Antioch#Catholic_Encyclopedia_and_Ante-Nicene_Fathers. — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 01:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Editors at this project might be interested in the discussion concerning the proposed deletion of all Portals across Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Ending_the_system_of_portals. Bermicourt ( talk) 08:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I started a deletion discussion regarding Template:Yahwistic titles of Jesus in Greek on the basis of WP:NPOV. Please consider joining the discussion here. Daask ( talk) 00:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
They are very similar. Wouldn't it make sense to merge them? However, personally, I don't know anything about Coptic saints...-- Kohlscheid ( talk) 11:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The current rated importances of Christianity articles don't really make a whole lot of sense. For instance, our "top importance" articles include things like Flood geology, Charles Fillmore (Unity Church), and Letter from Cotton Mather to William Stoughton, September 2, 1692 that, while they're notable, aren't the highest-priority things, and probably aren't more important than Ascension of Jesus (currently High). Right now we have a very generic importance scale, and I think more appropriately ranking things will make it easier to see where we have gaps. Thus, this is my proposal for importance rankings:
Obviously this isn't a complete specification; please give feedback if you agree/disagree with the general idea or the specific examples. If consensus supports this, I plan to update the assessment guidelines, as well as re-assess some articles into more appropriate categories. — Vahurzpu ( talk) 20:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
An article that been involved with ( Passion Play) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article ( UK Passion Plays). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 19:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject Christianity currently shows "This article is supported by Canon law task force" and displays "/Canon Law" next to "WikiProject Christianity" if the parameter catholic-canon-law
is set to yes
. The hyperlinks send to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Canon law Task Force. Therefore, since it only concerns
Catholic canon law, I believe it should rather read "Catholic canon law task force" and display "/Catholic Canon Law".
Veverve (
talk)
18:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
) on
Template talk:WikiProject Christianity. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
21:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
{{
fyi}}
and {{
please see}}
are available for this. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
22:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)I have partially translated the article "divine filiation" in french, and I am wondering about its name whether it could be renamed into "children of God" ? "Divine filiation" is not a common expression for Christians, at least in France, while "children of God" is a very common term, employed in religious speechs. Furthermore, I have been really shoked to see that this lovely expression is linked with a sect in french Wikipedia. I mean, if you look after "enfants de Dieu" in this french Wikipedia, you find "enfants de Dieu (Secte), enfants de Dieu". What do you think about the idea to rename this article into "children of God" and do the same for the french translation, or instead, to add a new specific article about "children of god" (which is not the same thing that people of God, because effectively of the divine filiation concept it implies) ? -- Laurent Waraschitz ( talk) 06:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Greetings.
Pl. do visit, Page: Regensburg lecture ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion:
Talk:Regensburg lecture#Why no one pays attention ?
Comments are 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) 06:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Category:Anti-Catholicism seems to allow biographies. Category:Anti-Protestantism seems not to allow biographies, but contains biographies nevertheless. I suppose we should be consistent. But should we or shouldn't we allow biographies in these categories? Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly anti-Protestant.This cites a 2011 discussion about a number of bias categories which was concluded with "
Consensus for a unified approach to these categories; most support to ban individuals & organisations." There is therefore plenty of reason to enforce removing biographies and organizations from these categories, or to move them to dedicated subcategories with a more precise scope. Place Clichy ( talk) 10:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I found out this category, and it seems to me that those kind of categories were removed for they were subjective, if I remember correctly. What do you say, should it be RfD? Veverve ( talk) 10:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Category:Lutheran priests by nationality 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. TSventon ( talk) 16:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Discussion here. I fixed two of them and it is possible those are the only fixes needed, but the editor has been blocked in the past.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Ecclesiastical heraldry 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 Talk 01:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Please comment there. Johnbod ( talk) 01:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello! A CCI case just wrapped up that broadly pertains to this wikiproject (at least I think..). It can be found here if you are interested. Not many articles were affected, but at least one or two that I know of. Leaving here in case this is of interest! Sennecaster ( What now?) 21:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
If someone needs a project, this article really sucks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Members of this Project may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 07:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Category:Christian theology articles needing expert attention 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. Peaceray ( talk) 06:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of American saints and beatified people#Requested move 23 May 2021, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 17:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
See Talk:Caste system among Christians for the discussion. The article content only covers east Asia, but the move was made on the basis of this article. I'm not convinced the content of the source is sufficient for the move, nor am I sure the source meets RS. I don't want to appeal the move though without other eyes looking at it first. Doug Weller talk 16:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Easter Monday 141,452 4,715 Start-- Coin945 ( talk) 14:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that Catholicos of the East, which used to be a general article about that title, was recently turned into a redirect to Catholicos of the East (disambiguation). I hope that someone who is knowledgeable about this subject area (which I am not at all) can take a look to see if this was the proper thing to do, as an article was essentially deleted. If yes, then the disambiguation page should be moved to Catholicos of the East, and the large number of links to it should be disambiguated. Lennart97 ( talk) 13:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Page:
Page-multi error: no page detected.
Discussion: [[]]
I am angel of mercy. I am writing to inform you that wicked green eyes appeared on the face of an image of the divine mercy depiction of Jesus to me today. I am an apparition. This happened to me because I am going nuts trying to meet Taylor Swift and God whispered in my ear that divine mercy Sunday is a hoax. These eyes appear to people to believe. He warned me that this image was inspired by Baphomet. His slogan is, "As above, same as below." The two beams of light protruding from his chest represent heaven and hell.
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. 23.122.124.202 ( talk) 20:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Interdenominational. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 9#Interdenominational until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Place Clichy ( talk) 08:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, |
The article formerly at Christian Church has been moved to Christian Church (Protestant ecclesiology), and there is an open WP:RM discussion regarding the situation. It would be helpful if WikiProject members familiar with the concepts could comment at Talk:Christian Church (Protestant ecclesiology) on this topic. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
My particular concern is whether any of the cited sources are actually independent of the subject, but any opinions by someone more knowledgeable about the topic will be appreciated. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 15:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I have tried to harmonise the titles of articles containing a list of Catholic saints. I was met with reverts and a refusal; please see
Talk:List_of_American_saints_and_beatified_people#Requested_move_23_May_2021 for the list of pages I am referring to, as well as the arguments leading to the refusal.
I still believe those articles must be renamed, and that this renaming is important, in part to avoid confusion among the readers of said articles. Thus, I came here to start a discussion.
I feel there is three problems to the current names:
My proposal for a standard name for those articles is: "List of Roman Catholic saints, servants of God, blessed, venerable and beatified people from X". I also propose that the "List of X saints" and "List of saints from Y" redirects be deleted.
The first argument given against my renaming in the RM was that there would be no way to differenciate "saint who was a Catholic" and "person held to be a saint by Catholics"
. However, in mainstream Catholicism - i.e. not in traditional Catholicism -, saints, servants of God, blessed, venerable and beatified people are considered as all having been Catholics. The second argument was that such a title could create a confusion, i.e. does "Polish Catholic saints" equal "Catholic saints who are Polish" or "saints of Polish Catholicism"?
The adjective "Roman" I added compared to my previous renamings will hopefully dissipate this confusion.
Pinging @
Srnec: and @
Nyttend:/@
Nyttend backup: as they were the two users who opposed the renaming, and @
Compassionate727: who started the RM.
Veverve (
talk)
01:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
The problem can be illustrated by List of saints from Africa. A move to List of Catholic saints from Africa (or the longer proposed title) introduces an ambiguity. Is the reader to take Macarius of Egypt and Moses the Black to have been Catholics? They may be recognized by the Catholic church, but they are equally Orthodox, Coptic and Anglican saints in that sense. It would make more sense to me to have such a broad list encompass all the different Christian traditions. Other countries/regions may be handled differently. Srnec ( talk) 00:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
It's been more than a year since anyone has replied to a post on the project talk page. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 17:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes 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 Talk 03:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Dear all, Could i request a reassessment of my recently expanded article, formerly Stub-class, Low importance, etcetera? Swinburne's argument is popular at Dutch protestant institutions for higher education. Thank you, Hansmuller ( talk) 11:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, there is an ongoing RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Notability guide on the notability of catholic bishops, regards Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
At the suggestion of Geoffrey Lane I am addressing Wikipidia editors of early Christianity:
English version:
The scholarship, writing and editing of a large number of articles I read is outdated, and below the standards required for undergraduate teaching in the subject. Most of the texts reflect early 20th century and /or traditional-religious scholarship and seldom include current non-religious scholarship. The sections and structure of many of the articles is beyond repair. Many themes have a religious (not academic) orientation and most of the issues and themes engaged by current scholarship are not included. It is regrettable that such an important area of interest is in such disarray.
Spanish version:
Articles are much better edited, have a coherent structure and the scholarship sustaining them is more updated. Here the current incremental system seems to be working well, due to a later and better baseline.
I am aware of the Wikipedia philosophy of collaborative editing and contributions. My suggestions are aimed at salvaging articles so that the work of collaborative-incremental encyclopedia development can resume and proceed from a new and improved base line.
Suggestions
I would be willing to participate in an effort to upgrade and salvage the quality of those articles that require repair - provided wikipedia is willing to consider the following suggestions:
1- I can create a team of 2-3 individuals of high academic standing to identify and prioritize the articles that require improvement and to write/edit the material - using the worthwhile parts of existing articles. These new-improved articles would be a solid base on which the work of regular wikipedia contributors can proceed with their work. 2 - Wikipedia will assign a senior editor that will work with us and insert the upgraded articles. Current and ongoing commitments do not allow leading writters to become editors of wikipedia. However, a senior editor that would work with us and integrate the edited/improved texts may be a feasible cooperation.
I am a writer on the New Testament. My "Jewish-Christian relations - The First Centuries." is a study that articulates a new thesis on the evolution of Christianity and on the Jewish-Christian relationship in the New Testament. TOP 1% - 10000 views in Academia.edu (English and Spanish versions) - Endorsed by 16 leading academics.
Free download of my book: https://www.academia.edu/29628872/Jewish-Christian_Relations-The_First_Centuries_-_FULL_MANUSCRIPT_DOWNLOAD_
Abel M Bibliowicz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:C700:3AE0:ADFF:E9A4:6C8E:7F60 ( talk) 20:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedians Thank you for your comments. I am trying to assess the viability of my involvement. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to become fully engaged. However, If a senior editor would be interested in acting as an interface - liaison with the academic world, I would be interested to reconsider. BTW, the book I suggested is my second book, indeed a self-published version. The academic version was published by Palgrave in 2013 "Jews and Gentiles in the Early Jesus Movement:" https://www.academia.edu/29624526/Jews_and_Gentiles_in_the_Early_Jesus_Movement_Palgrave_2013_ My second book is an enhanced, updated and expanded version that is more accessible to non-academic readers. Congratulations on your dedication and enthusiasm. An amazing project. Abel M Bibliowicz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:A280:81F0:5420:E7D:50A5:E28B ( talk) 15:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject Christianity,
I'd appreciate it if you all would occasionally review this page and remove any works that aren't considerable notable. I don't want to just remove the titles where there is no Wikipedia article on the book because the authors might be considered notable. I'm hoping you have a better sense of works that have had an impact, whether or not they are considered mainstream apologetics. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 17:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
It is my understanding that angels are neither male nor female, that they have no gender. And yet the article Michael (archangel) uses male pronouns throughout. I propose that angels should be treated as non-binary and they/them pronouns should be used throughout Wikipedia for them. Skyerise ( talk) 23:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Are any of you responding women? I don't think so. As for what the Bible, other holy books, and their translations say, that's irrelevant as they are primary sources. Material written by theologians isn't really any better. We'd need to deal with sex, gender, and the Christian faith with the academic rigor and perspectives of various disciplines. We'd need to look at sources like the following:
I mean, information about the gender of angels should come from the relevant academic field, not from religious adherents, right? Skyerise ( talk) 12:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Skyrise, no women are harmed by referring to Archangel Michael with masculine pronouns.True, practical and to the point. I love that. Second, Skyerise in the primary texts, angels are spirits, so gender is a pointless discussion, but they are depicted as spirit beings using masculine terminology. They are always shown as appearing as human males wearing male attire. No angel ever appears in the biblical texts (or the apocrypha) dressed as a female. The Greek word for “angel” in the New Testament, angelos, is in the masculine form; a feminine form of angelos does not exist. Angels are never referred to in any gender other than masculine. In the many appearances of angels in the Bible, never is an angel referred to as “she” or “it.” This convention is continued in all the quality secondary sources. I suggest doing likewise and moving on. Happy editing! :-) Jenhawk777 ( talk) 05:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.' ( 1 Enoch 5:1-2). This is not surprising: God was originally conceived of as male as well, even though logically a unique spiritual being should not have gender. There certainly are secondary sources somewhere that discuss this, but that is an entirely different question than whether we have to start using gender-neutral pronouns to refer to angels.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 14:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Orthodox Church of Albania#Requested move 17 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 12:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello!
I plan to reassess
Marcel Lefebvre. To me, it does not meet the the GA criteria of using RS every time, as 80% of the refs are either primary sources (e.g. semons from Lefebvre), come from the SSPX (the organisation created by Lefebvre) and its media, or from people affiliated with the SSPX (e.g. Davies' Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre). Also, the part of the lede "In 1975, after a flare of tensions with the Holy See, Lefebvre was ordered to disband the society, but ignored the decision" does not seem to be in the article, not in the primary sources given at the end of the lede. As per
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, I warn this Wikiproject in case someone wants to fix the article before I reassess it.
Veverve (
talk)
21:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@
Bmclaughlin9: I see you have worked on the article for a few days. Are you done with it? I would not want to reassess the article whie you are working on improving it.
Veverve (
talk)
15:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Marcel Lefebvre has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Veverve ( talk) 15:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I have stumbled upon
Pious Association (Catholic canon law) a few days ago. I do not know what the article is supposed to be about.
At first, I thought the article was about the pre-1983 CCL structures whose successors are the
Association of the Christian faithful. However, the expression "pious association" or "pious union" seems to be still used to this day to describe an ongoing reality, cf.
here,
here and
here. I have
asked the creator of the article for more information (@
Dhpage:), but I have not received any answer.
Does anyone know what to do with these two articles? A merge? Keeping them separated? And does someone know what is the status of
Pious Association (Catholic canon law) in the current canon law? @
CanonLawJunkie: do you think you could help?
Veverve (
talk)
14:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I am writing about the List of Christmas Carols article which requires immediate attention. The article has since gone into disrepair and I and others have been trying to bring it back to the status others had achieved, however, there is one particular editor who has continually reverted any edits made and who is currently serving out a block due to this type of behaviour on another article and who insists popular Christmas songs such as The Christmas Song, Silver Bells and others are Christmas Carols (A better understanding will be got by observing the talk page in recent years), which contradicts the consensus many editors reached some years ago on the defining of which type of songs would be present on the list (carols related to the Nativity. I would be grateful if all could collaborate and return the article to its pristine state that others had achieved in the past. Also, I would be grateful if everyone could give the articles Christmas carol and Carol a look over too. I would like to see the articles achieve Wikipedia:Featured articles status in advance of the holiday. Thank you 37.18.134.184 ( talk) 16:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion on List of Christmas Carols on what constitutes as a Christmas carol. To participate [ here] 37.18.134.184 ( talk) 12:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Non-canonical, Non-canonical books and one other. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 26#Non-canonical until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are urged to contribute to the discussion. Johnbod ( talk) 16:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Christianization of the Roman Empire as caused by attractive appeal is just published. Hope you will stop by and take a look. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 19:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
On WP, as far as I know, we only have Conditional baptism. However, often I see articles with the expression "under condition" or "sub-conditiones" relating to any sacrament (ordination, confirmation, baptism, etc.), on WP articles, without any explanation of what it means. Therefore, I think an article about this practise of conditional sacraments practised by numerous Christian churches. Does anyone have some source I should look at? Veverve ( talk) 13:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I do not really understand why there are two separate articles when Old Calendarists is about the general movement and the narrower Greek Old Calendarists article is so short. I think a unified Old Calendarists would make things simpler. What do you say? Veverve ( talk) 00:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Even the start about naming conventions is radically biased against the largest branches (above denominations) of Christianity! "For people: John Calvin, unless others by that name exist, in which case the activity for which the individual is best known should be bracketed, e.g., John Calvin (reformer) (not John Calvin (scholar), John Calvin (theologian), etc.) "
Even today the British Museum spells his name "Jean Calvin". Historian09041965 ( talk) 20:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
And the Oxford University Press is also an outlier? https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198601753.001.0001/acref-9780198601753-e-640 Clearly there is American bias here. Both of these sources are among the highest in British academia and you reject them based on your own experience. Sounds biased to me. You even raise as an objection and standard your personal theological collection of books. Really! And that is not biased? It is the definition of bias. We need to come up with some solution to these issues, not just sweep them under the rug. Historian09041965 ( talk) 11:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Historian09041965 ( talk) 11:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)I cannot help it if your choice of theology books is so limited.
There is intense judgmentalism in calling him a reformer. It excludes the opposing views held among some of the largest branches of Christianity that he was a heretic. He did NOT reform the Church. Historically, he opposed in rebellion his own church, the Catholic Church. By his own church he was labeled a heretic. Only by his own estimation and those of his followers was he labeled a "reformer". It is historically inaccurate and biased. Also, he was not trying to "reform" the Catholic Church, but to reject it and to form a new church. That is not "reforming". So, from any angle you look at it the term is incorrect. The same goes for Martin Luther. Historian09041965 ( talk) 10:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
In the Alcohol in the Bible article there is an ongoing dispute about whether the word alcohol is derived from the Arabic word ghul and, regardless of whether it is actually derived from that word, is it germane to the question of how the Bible treats the use of alcohol. The latest diff showing the re-addition of that information is here. Most of the arguments pro and con are in the various edit summaries. Your thoughts on this would be welcome. Indyguy ( talk) 20:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I cannot find any source on the
Biblical harmony article, whether on its title or on its subject. Moreover,
as pointed out in 2014, the article seems to be redundant with other similar articles.
Does anyone know anything about this topic, or is it made up?
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Veverve (
talk •
contribs)
05:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
The name of Santa Claus parade ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Santa Claus parade -- 65.92.246.43 ( talk) 05:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Christmas parade. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 9#Christmas parade until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 65.92.246.43 ( talk) 03:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I found the article to be a bit overwhelming, however it does provide a lot of information. For someone who is new to Christianity or just wanting to learn more about it and its belief system this seems like a great place to start exploring the subject and faith.04:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amunoz04 ( talk • contribs)
The article Orthodox Church was recently changed from an article to a disambiguation page. A discussion is taking place about whether Orthodox Church should remain a disambig page, or be restored as an article. Your feedback would be very much appreciated at Talk:Orthodox Church. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 08:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Operation Auca 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. Bumbubookworm ( talk) 20:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 20#Orthodox Catholic, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. -- Heanor ( talk) 19:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I haven't got the time or expertise to comb through the bunch of sources plopped down by a new account, but my WP:FRINGE and WP:SYNTH alarm bells are going off.
Diff at Homoeroticism: [6]
An IP who I suspect is the same user later trimmed some of the wording between refs; a very similar IP seemingly in the same range added similar material previously, which I reverted due to some poor sources. Anyway, this needs attention from editors experienced with the topic. Crossroads -talk- 06:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Input and contributions will be appreciated at Draft:Jews and Christmas, where work is ongoing. Thank you! ezlev ( user/ tlk/ ctrbs) 17:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I have starded an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reformed Old Catholic Church. Please come and give your insight! Veverve ( talk) 14:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a topic at Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien#Catholic or Roman as to whether to use "Catholic Church" or a piped "Roman Catholic" specifically at this article. Participants in the project may be interested in commenting on the discussion. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 01:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I have made an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communion of Christ the Redeemer. If you have anything to say, please do! Veverve ( talk) 14:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Josquin des Prez 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) 22:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Christ Catholic Church (Pruter)#Requested move 14 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 19:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject,
This article is just a formatting disaster. If any content creator wants to do some work on Christianity and pop culture, this would be a great project to take on. The page gets several hundred page views per day so it's a bit of an embarrassment that is looks so bad, half of the content in tables and half in lists.
I was going to post this message at the Christian films task force but that noticeboard seems completely abandoned so here I am at this WikiProject. Thanks for any help you can offer. Liz Read! Talk! 01:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a merge proposal of Gallican Church into Gallicanism. Please come and give your opinion! Veverve ( talk) 02:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
There is currently an RfC to define the scope of the Biblical canon article. Veverve ( talk) 20:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I have opened an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King's Family of Churches (2nd nomination) for serious lack of notability. Feel free to come and give your opinion. Veverve ( talk) 20:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Ground of locality, currently a redirect to The Local Church (affiliation), has been nominated at RfD. Input from those with subject matter knowledge would be particularly welcome in the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 15#Ground of locality. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated George Fox 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. ( t · c) buidhe 21:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I have AfDed for lack of notability Holy Orthodox Metropolis of Australia & Oceania at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Orthodox Metropolis of Australia & Oceania. Feel free to come and give your opinion! Veverve ( talk) 19:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback would be appreciated, regarding the sourcing of megachurch attendance figures. Please see WT:Verifiability#INDEPENDENT vs. ABOUTSELF regarding megachurch attendance figures. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 00:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a RM for Apostle at Talk:Apostle#Requested move 29 January 2022. I proposed this RM due to more than a thousand wrong incoming links to this article which I had to fix. Please come and give your opinion. Veverve ( talk) 19:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
A new editor has modified the article associated with the following talk page to indicate that it includes Eastern Protestant churches. That is Talk:P'ent'ay#Pure nonsense. Does anyone have any insights? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 01:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Knights Templar 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 Talk 04:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Nefarious: Merchant of Souls for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 20:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Page:
Easter (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Discussion:
Talk:Easter#Primary Sources for Theological Significance
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.
Jaredscribe (
talk)
06:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a move request currently under discussion which needs input from experienced editors who may have some knowledge regarding the Church of the East. The discussion can be found here. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, |
The sin of omission article was moved, so that it would no longer be a Catholicism-only article (which was a correct choice, as theologically, it is broader than just Catholic). But, in followup to that move, no work was done to broaden it. I call on WikiProject Christianity to begin to address this. Note also, there is no corresponding article on sin of commission, and so a future of this article may be to rename and combine the two (or, to create a separate parallel article). But the combined in my view would be sufficient—no need for a superabundance of poor stubs (over fewer, better ones). 2601:246:C700:558:E8D7:8CA7:35D3:40B6 ( talk) 02:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Yesterday, there were a number of changes of the importance ranking for this WP at the Hagia Sophia article. I've restored the original top importance ranking, and opened a discussion at the talk page as to whether or not the ranking should be changed. Members of this WP are encouraged to make their views known there. Mjroots ( talk) 06:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Christ Catholic Church (Pruter)#Requested move 1 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 05:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a request for comment at Talk:Syro-Malabar Church § request for comment: 1663 vs 1923 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 15:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Saint Timothy#Requested move 13 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 19:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Is there anyone willing to do a review of Christianization of the Roman Empire? I am in need. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 03:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a new RfC open at Talk:Shroud of Turin#Request for comment on lead which is relevant to this project. Instaurare ( talk) 06:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Should the titles of either Apostolic Constitutions or Apostolic constitution be changed? As per WP:PLURAL, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME, I think Apostolic Constitutions should be renamed to something like "Apostolic Constitutions (4th century)". Apostolic constitution is sometimes written "Apostolic Constitution", and a capital letter and a hatnote is really inefficient at marking a difference of topic in this case. This page move would prevent any possible confusion and add some consistency. What do you think? Veverve ( talk) 21:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
More eyes are needed at the Homoeroticism article. An IP keeps re-adding text alleging that Jesus, several apostles, John the Baptist, and other Biblical figures had a homoerotic behavior pattern. They do cite sources, but they have cited sources previously that do not support the claim. I don't have time to examine this closely, but I strongly suspect there are WP:Fringe issues here. If those familiar with mainstream scholarship on this could help with this, it'd be much appreciated. Crossroads -talk- 22:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I have stumbled upon Heresy in Christianity in the modern era. This article is mostly unsourced and I do not see it as having an encyclopedical value. I do not see how it is something else than an arbitrarily chosen ( WP:OR) compilation or list of recent cases concerning Heresy in Christianity. What are your thoughts? Veverve ( talk) 17:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
A whole academically-published book on the Palmarian Christian Church has been published freely available online in its second edition in 2020. Currently, most of the information in this WP article are unsourced, and I suspect most of them are false. If someone wants to use the PDF book I linked to improve the page (using e.g. Template:Rp) and remove what cannot be confirmed by RSs, feel free to do so. Veverve ( talk) 01:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Greetings,
Hi, I am User:Bookku, I find information and knowledge gaps create Drafts, try to recruit draft expanding editors and promote drafts articles for further expansion.
Requesting your visit to following drafts and help expand the same if any of these interests you.
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 10:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Maximus the Confessor 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. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Through recent edits to the articles Perpetual virginity of Mary and Immaculate Conception, Octavius2 has introduced direct sourcing from Church Fathers/patristic texts. In of itself, directly sourcing from patristic texts does not violate any standard that I have encountered on Wikipedia. However, the manner in which the material is used has seen Veverve and myself engaged in a (very polite) discussion about how these sources might be used. This affords the community an opportunity to enumerate a standard by which the Christian Fathers can be used as a source in this project. I refer those interested to the graph and sourcing visible in this diff as an example of how patristics are being sourced per Octavius2's position. Initial discussion can be found on Veverve's talk page.
The TL;DR of the prior discussion: it is the opinion of Veverve and myself that patristic texts can be cited directly only when clear and explicit reference to the subject of an article is made, reference that leaves little to no room for interpretation and is itself not doing interpretation. Octavius2 holds that since this material is part of the body of (in this case) Catholic patristics, that it is admissible to present the material in a partial and logical interpreted fashion (for example: treating "sinlessness" as synonymous to "immaculately conceived," as it generally is in at least modern Catholic theology and lexicon). I think this comes down to a discussion of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and WP:RS. In the previous discussion, there were concerns raised regarding Octavius2 perhaps accidentally violating WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS; these have been discussed and I hope that this conversation will not be the forum for it. Thank you and please insert your opinion as you can. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 23:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I would characterize the Immaculate Conception as a topic proper to Catholic Theology.But it isn't—at least on this encyclopedia. If there are reliable sources dealing with the Immaculate Conception from the perspective of Protestant or Hindu or Muslim or [insert religion here] then those should receive due weight on Wikipedia.
Secondary Sources should be . .whatever is sources are considered reliable sources per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Some of these maybe Catholic sources, but many will not be.
Theologians' writings, including Augustine and Aquinas, and any others which display a systematic, academic character.No. These are primary sources. When Augustine writes something, that writing must be interpreted. The interpretation is now a secondary source. If what Augustine wrote on a topic is important to a WP article, then what we need is a secondary source on Augustine to provide a reliable published interpretation of that theologian's writings. Ltwin ( talk) 20:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
academic character (i.e. systematic and rational, not mysticism-based). There are two problems. First, there is the fact something at least older than 5 century is very likely to be considered a primary source whatever its content is. Second, who gets to define what is
systematic and rational, not mysticism-basedin the writings ( WP:OR)? By the way, who decides that those quotes support the Immaculate Conception dogma ( WP:OR)?
systematic and rationaland
mysticism-basedis also extremely biased: no EOrthodox would accept this distinction, especially to apply it to the CFs. Veverve ( talk) 00:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
literal signification of the wordsdoes not mean anything on subjects where people have been debating for what those words mean centuries; their meaning(s?) is controversed. All you have given is your own interpretation.
If a person was following all the academic conventions of their day, then, for us to reject them, and refuse to engage in conversation with them, on an equal footing, just because they're 'too old,' smacks of some sort of Historicist modern-bias: are you arguing against WP:AGE MATTERS? Of course those are too old.
The Catholic Church has long held that Mary never submitted to a sinful temptation, and therefore never had personal sin.<ref>Thomas Aquinas citing Augustine</ref><ref>John Paul II</ref>.
(I'm obviously paraphrasing your references.) This is an inappropriate use of the patristic/magisterial sources, because those sources don't directly back up your assertion that "The Catholic Church has long held..." Instead, try something like this: Augustine held that 'an abundance of grace was given her that she might be in every way the conqueror of sin.'<ref>Augustine</ref> Thomas Aquinas cited Augustine in making the same assertion.<ref>Thomas Aquinas citing Augustine</ref>
. Do you see the difference?
Jdcompguy (
talk)
15:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
"In significant world religious denominations with organized academies or recognized theological experts in religious doctrine and scholarship, the proceedings of official religious bodies and the journals or publications of recognized and well-regarded religious academies and experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject. . . .
"Secondary sources are not necessarily from recent years – or even centuries. The sacred or original text(s) of the religion will always be primary sources, but any other acceptable source may be a secondary source in some articles. For example, the works of
Thomas Aquinas are secondary sources for a
Roman Catholic perspective on many topics, but are primary sources for
Thomas Aquinas or
Summa Theologica.
Verse | Text | Church Father attestation |
---|---|---|
Songs of Songs 4:4 | Your neck is like the tower of David, built for an arsenal, whereon hang a thousand bucklers, all of them shields of warriors.. | Anne Catherine Emmerich [1] |
The Catholic Church has long held that Mary never submitted to a sinful temptation, and therefore never had personal sin.[76][77][78]
76.) Aquinas, Thomas (1275). "III.27.4.corpus.". Summa Theologiae. Torino: San Paolo. Retrieved April 28, 2022. "On the contrary, Augustine says (De Nat. et Grat. xxxvi): 'In the matter of sin, it is my wish to exclude absolutely all questions concerning the holy Virgin Mary, on account of the honor due to Christ. For since she conceived and brought forth Him who most certainly was guilty of no sin, we know that an abundance of grace was given her that she might be in every way the conqueror of sin.'"
77.) Ephrem, St. (350). "27:8". Nisibene Hymns (in Syriac). Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. p. 109. Retrieved April 26, 2022. “Only you and your Mother are more beautiful than everything. For on you, O Lord, there is no mark; neither is there any stain in your Mother.”
78.) John Paul II, Pope (1994). "§493". Catechism of the Catholic Church (2 ed.). Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Retrieved April 28, 2022. "The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God 'the All-Holy' (Panagia), and celebrate her as 'free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature'. By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long."
References
Editors of this WikiProject are encouraged to provide their input on a consensus-gathering survey at Talk:Seraphim_Rose#Consensus_seeking_on_the_inclusion_of_sexuality_material. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 18:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
What do you think about the article Continuing church? I have found nothing on it, apart from passing uses which seem to rather refer to the Continuing Anglican movement. [1] [2] [3] Already back in 2007, someone asked for sources on this term at the article talk page; none was given since then. What do you say? Does this concept exist? Should the WP article be deleted? Veverve ( talk) 13:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
References
In 1944, reunion opponents, rallied by the Southern Presbyterian Journal, called those agreeing with its aims to do everything possible to organize a 'continuing church' if and when the 'inevitable' union with the PCUSA should occur. By 1949 a Continuing Church Committee was raising funds. [..] All the while, predictions continued that whenever union of Southern Presbyterians with their sister Assembly came about, a 'continuing' Southern Church would result. [...] 'Continuing' assemblies of Presbyterians opposed to unions voted by their denominations are well known having been formed in Scotland, Canada, and Australia, and by Cumberland Presbyterians in the U.S. after the majority of their churches were received by the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. in 1906.
Basically, they [Forward in Faith] have their feet in both 'official' Anglican Communion and in the 'continuing' church.
'In September 1990, at around the time the first women priest were ordained, a group of lay members of the Church of Ireland formed a «continuing Church»; the Church of Ireland (Traditional Rite). [...]'
The Society of Mercy (an alleged Old Catholic group) has been nominated for AfD for lack of notability. The AfD is here; feel free to come and give your opinion. Veverve ( talk) 18:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I have nominated an article for what I believe to be lack of notability.
The AfD is here.
Pinging the regulars: @
Pbritti,
Johnbod,
Jdcompguy, and
Ltwin:.
Veverve (
talk)
19:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Nomination Catholic Life Church for lack of notability. High encourage you all enjoy a peak at what mysteries that article contains before we pull the plug. Discussion here. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 20:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to do with this. I heard a radio preacher yesterday say that when Jesus was on the cross and told John to take care of his mother, this was because his family wasn't responsible enough for anyone to do this on his own. His family thought he was crazy.
I haven't succeeded in finding sources that would verify anyone believed this about Jesus' family, and I wouldn't know what to do with the information on Wikipedia if I could find it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Integrity USA scandal in The Episcopal Church#Requested move 15 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 23:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello all, just a quick notice that there has been a heavy POV push in several articles regarding universal resurrection (inexistance of Hell). It was a fringe view held by maybe 4 or 5 Church Fathers (out of hundreds) but is depicted as the belief of the "majority of Early Church". See: Apocatastasis, Christian universalism, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and related articles. In fact the Apocatastasis article must be re-written almost in whole, I have left some comments on its talk page. Please take a look. -- El Huinca ( talk) 22:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#DEFAULTSORT for churches which may be of interest. Pam D 18:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Members says that there's an option to unsubscribe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach but I don't see anything. My best guess is that it's been a while since that wikiproject page was updated. But I'm not really interested with Christianity at large, I have more of an interest in Jehovah's Witnesses because I was raised as one. I am also interested in the LDS, catholicism and anglicanism to some extent, but those are minor interests and I'm still not really interested in automatically recieving a newsletter for this. I was wondering how I can remove myself from that list? Clovermoss (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a merge discussion open at Talk:Orthodox Anglican Communion#Merge discussion for merging these two related entities. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 16:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
What do you think should be done with the categories with names of congregations and the likes, which had their nameschanged, e.g.
Category:Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? Should they be moved, or should new categories with the new names be created?
@
Dcheney,
Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator,
Pbritti,
Rutsq, and
Jdcompguy:.
Veverve (
talk)
23:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Editor Vesuvio14 asks for input on a new parameter for {{ Infobox church}} and has opened a discussion at Template talk:Infobox church#Addition of ecclesiastical region. Please come and give your thoughts on the matter. Your input is welcome! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 11:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I saw this term for the first time in a newspaper article about Sexual abuse cases in Southern Baptist churches. I'm guessing it is a notable concept but it doesn't have a Wikipedia article or even a redirect. I found this source for a basic definition.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Today, the reforms of
Praedicate evangelium are taking effect.
This raises a question: since the the Dicastery for Evangelization, and the Dicastery for Culture and Education, are created by a merger of previous departments (Dicastery for Evangelization through the merger of the
Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization and the
Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples; Dicastery for Culture and Education through the merger of the
Pontifical Council for Culture with the
Congregation for Catholic Education). Should they have their own page or should we rename one of the merged departments to the new name?
Veverve (
talk)
14:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
@
Dcheney and
Jdcompguy: what do you think?
Veverve (
talk)
14:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
@
Pbritti:
Veverve (
talk)
19:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Members of this project may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Request for Comment on sorting of UK churches in categories in English Wikipedia Pam D 06:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Please take a look at this deletion discussion regarding the Southern Episcopal Church. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 23:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Please participate in this AfD discussion regarding the Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 15:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi editors, my name is KC and I work for Ascension. I've been trying to make some updates to the Ascension article and I've been looking for assistance at the various WikiProjects that the article is associated with but so far have had no luck. I'm hoping someone here might be interested as Ascension is the largest Catholic health system in the world. I'd love to start a dialogue on my latest request. I've got a COI so I won't make any changes but I hope I can offer some sources and wording suggestions. Please let me know what you think! KC at Ascension ( talk) 19:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I have an article Christianization of the Roman Empire as diffusion of innovation up for GAN. It has enough sociology in it that I listed it in the sociology category instead of in religion or history. I would deeply appreciate anyone who was willing to take a look at it, and would especially appreciate a reviewer! Thank you all for what you do here. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, everyone. Sorry to bother again so soon. Following a series of disruptive IP and sock accounts on key Indian Christianity articles over the last year, can we get some volunteers to monitor those pages? I've been playing wack-a-mole for the last three months and it's getting tiring. Can anyone tag in to at least cover some of pages? I can provide more details as the problems and tasks involved to editors who are interested. Can't offer any reward except a few more AfD discussions. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 04:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I have proposed merging the article Sexual orientation change efforts, an article of interest to this WikiProject, into Conversion therapy.
You are invited join the discussion at Talk:Sexual orientation change efforts § Proposed merge to Conversion therapy. Regards, RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ ( talk · contribs) 17:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I wonder if the article Filipino Cardinals is really useful and encyclopedic. We do not have Belgian Cardinals, US Cardinals, Italian Cardinals, etc. It seems to be redundant with categories such as Category:Italian cardinals. @ Pbritti, Jdcompguy, and Ltwin:. Veverve ( talk) 06:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I have been trying to create a Seventh Day Baptist World Federation article for months. However, 4 reviewers have already refused. The biggest problem is with references. They asked me for secondary sources, after a lot of research I got it, but the last reviewer didn't find it enough and still classified the article as not suitable for Wikipedia. I don't know what else to do. I have no connection with this federation, I'm just a member of the church who saw the lack of an English Wikipedia article about this federation that greatly influences Sabbathkeeping Baptists and could bring greater understanding of this church to other members of other churches. To further complicate matters, English is not my native language and I have difficulty with that. Who can help me by guiding or editing the draft I will be very grateful.
I have nominated A Song for Simeon 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) 01:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Samuel Merrill Woodbridge 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) 01:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Religious debates over the Harry Potter series 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) 01:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Hey gang! Two long-running AfDs I initiated are still getting resisted without further comment. Anyone who hasn't given their thoughts on AfD/Autobiography of Anthony Mary Claret or AfD/Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church is encouraged to do so! ~ Pbritti ( talk) 16:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I started the article Religious education in Kerala with hope like Islamic education I will get some citations for Christian religious education in Kerala being involved in organized educational activity but practically finding bit difficult to get citations; Idk if I am missing something in my searches. Requesting help for bibliographic info for religious education other than Islam. Religious education in Kerala
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (
talk)
09:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi team,
I am interested in modifying the Template:Christian denomination tree. I had a discussion with a user named Koavf two years ago about this topic. At the time, he redirected me to this project/team. I would like to revisit the topic now, and I would like the input of more experienced and knowledgeable editors.
The chart does not show Wesleyanism/Arminism/Methodism - a Protestant branch that is globally widely spread and holds great influence theologically. I will make the change from Anabaptists to Methodist myself. Methodist theology inspired/influenced the development Holiness movement which has greatly influenced the Evangelical movement in Western Christianity. Ideally, a revised chart would show that Methodism as a derivative of Anglicanism.
Also, I believe that it is questionable to not include the Pentecostals if one were to show the lineage/development of Christian theological though. This is important as there is a direct Pentecostal influence on the Charismatic movement and by extension the Evangelical movement which heavily draws upon if not outright embraces the Charismatic movement. A Christian denomination tree based upon theological influence should include the Pentecostals in some manner. Leiwang7 ( talk) 21:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Can this get some expansion? Peter Ormond 💬 20:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
There is currently an RfC on the "Implications for polygamy legalization" section at Talk:Respect for Marriage Act#RfC concerning polygamy.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 17:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I need help with the disambiguation page. Discussion here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I started the article Religious education in Kerala with hope like Islamic education I will get some citations for Christian religious education in Kerala being involved in organized educational activity but practically finding bit difficult to get citations; Idk if I am missing something in my searches.
Islamic education in Kerala has been already reasonably covered in the article. Requesting help for bibliographic info and article expansion for religious education other than Islam including Christian religious education in Kerala.
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 14:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion which you might want to participate in at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Epiphyllumlover additions of polygamist information, which especially concerns the Respect for Marriage Act and articles relating to it.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 20:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Project 86 has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 02:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, |
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:De Coelesti Hierarchia#Requested move 15 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky ( talk) 16:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi all, hope everyone is ok and well.
I’ve been going through the United Kingdom christian monastery stubs, and have noticed that there are a few of unreferenced one-lined stubs in there. I’ve been trying my best to tag as many as possible, and also to add these to my watchlist, but I’m still going through tagging them as unreferenced at the moment to get a scope of how many of these unreferenced stubs there are.
I’d appreciate if I could get some help with these unreferenced stubs that seem to have gone under the radar slightly. Some of these within the Dorest area have been improved and expanded, or redirected after being tagged.
Some of the stubs within this category are fine with references, but something needs to be done about those that are not. It’s going to take a while to sort all of these stubs out, so I’d appreciate all the help that users may like to give. Likewise, I don’t want to pressure anyone into thinking they must help. Fats40boy11 ( talk) 08:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this AFD will be of any interest but it wasn't put through any deletion sorting so I thought I'd alert you all: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children of Eber. The article is unsourced and needs a lot of work and so far, opinion on the AFD is mixed. Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
User:Buidhe has nominated Swedish emigration to the United States for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Vampire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 ( talk) 16:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I think this assessment is either a mistake or an act of vandalism: /info/en/?search=Talk:Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel. PatrickJWelsh ( talk) 18:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
What do you think about Special:Contributions/HIPPOCLIDES? tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I need some help expanding the Unofficial Meetings and Official Dialogues section of this draft page.
Also, I'm certain the references for the four official dialogues have a primary source, however I can only seem to find secondary sources online. Perhaps the original is offline and/or in Greek? Contagious Owl ( talk) 01:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, |
The article Wes Nolden has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
In its 13.86 years on the site, this article has had—at best— two reliable sources previously, and those were oft subject to blanking by SPAs. With this re-write, only thee sources presented themselves, and the weightiest one is dubious. This has failed the notability guideline for longer than some productive editors have been alive, and even now doesn't meet muster.
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. —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
19:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Crisis pregnancy center has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Please remember to adhere to WP:NPOV standards. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 23:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject,
I came across this draft as I was looking at expiring draft articles and I postponed deletion for another six months because it seems like it might be of interest to someone. It is supposedly translated from the Russian Wikipedia and it currently doesn't have sources so it's not an easy fix-up. I posted notices about it at the WikiProjects for Russia and Eastern Orthodoxy but they appear to be inactive so I thought I'd try here. It's kind of a long shot but maybe we have some religious history buffs who'd be willing to do a little research. Thank you! Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I've just written Guns into Plowshares, and it was approved and moved into the mainspace last night. Could someone do an assessment for this project, and let me know if there's anything in particular you think needs to be done to bring it to B class? (I know it needs a picture; I'll get one next time I'm in the area.) Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdhamilton ( talk • contribs) 13:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
As this family has ties to Christian history, editors may wish to comment here. All opinions are welcome. 4meter4 ( talk) 03:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Josquin des Prez/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
I have had a disagreement on whether the SSPX-affiliated religious orders can be called "Dominican", "Benedictine", etc. My opinion is that they are not, since they are not part of the Dominican order, Benedictine order, etc. since the SSPX is outside of the Catholic Church.
@
BohumilzBiliny:
has stated that They are Benedictines, because they live under the Rule.
What do you say? Veverve ( talk) 12:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
any SSPX-affiliated body identified as "Benedictine" in reliable sources is for our purposes Benedictine: the problem is that all the sources used in this article are primary sources from the SSPX itself. Veverve ( talk) 17:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Discussion moved to article talk page. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 17:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
From what I understand, there has been a debate at Talk:Philippine Independent Church#Violating WP:BURDEN, adding FICTREFs, OR, as to whether or not the unsourced content and FICTREFs present in the article should be kept. Feel free to come and give your opinion. Veverve ( talk) 20:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Just went round and round searching for the article on Status confessionis here and not finding it. But something so important *must* have an article? After googling a bit and reading various linked pages, up pops Status confessionis, but at German wikipedia. But note: no links to English wikipedia from there, it is found only at de/da/it. Isn't this rather rare, not having an article here that exists elsewhere? Shenme ( talk) 04:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
A long-standing editor stated at WP:ANI that WP:CHOPSY is an Anti-Christian WP:CABAL.
I get attacked by both sides, rather vigorously, and my personal view of it is that I'm not actually against Christianity at all, I'm against certain forms of fundamentalism and, and, so virtually everything I say in my book are things that Christian scholars of the New Testament readily agree with, it's just that they are not hard-core evangelicals who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. If you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible then I suppose I'd be the enemy, but there are lot of Christian forms of belief that have nothing to do with inerrancy.
— Bart Ehrman, Bart Ehrman vs Tim McGrew - Round 1 at YouTube
Is CHOPSY anti-inerrancy? Definitely. Is CHOPSY anti-fundamentalism? Definitely. Is CHOPSY Anti-Christian? Well, if you believe in biblical inerrancy, it is, otherwise the claim is risible. tgeorgescu ( talk) 09:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The recipe for getting past my "theological" objections is quite simple: don't challenge WP:RS/AC (if there happens to be one) and use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV for evangelical/traditionalist positions.tgeorgescu ( talk) 09:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Could you help to fix the links to the disambiguation page Apostolic Church? This list shows 85 articles with links to Apostolic Church which should probably be linked to more specific articles, but I am not expert enough to know which.— Rod talk 11:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
User:Buidhe has nominated Joseph W. Tkach for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism#Requested move 24 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Requested move 18 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. –– FormalDude (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism#Requested move 24 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – Zfish118⋉ talk 18:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— West Syriac liturgical rites—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Pbritti ( talk) 20:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Pbritti, Elizium23, Zfish118, Dcheney, Johnbod, and Ad Orientem: The website Catholic News Service is dead since yesterday, due do a decision of the USCCB taken months priors. The website also covered news related to Christianity in general, as long as it was in connection with the Catholic Church. All the links to CNS articles currently link to 404 errors. A new website, OSV News, currently has Catholic News Service's former URL. See this statement.
In a few days, once the situation is clearer, and if the 404 errors remain, I think all Catholic News Service links added prior to 30 December 2022 should be marked as dead and archive URLs be added. A bot request should be made for it to be done. What do you say? Veverve ( talk) 17:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I've just proposed a move of Christian angelology to Angels in Christianity. This would conform with the pattern set by Angels in Judaism and Angels in Islam, and would also in general better meet Wikipedia's criteria for naming articles. Please feel free to contribute to this discussion, though I can't imagine this would be a controversial move.
But on a larger level, this article is quite bad. It was originally titled "Christian angelic hierarchy", and concerned itself solely with the Pseudo-Dionysian hierarchy popular in Medieval Latin Christianity, and that is mostly what the article still is, despite the name change. More information about the theology, doctrines, and spirituality surrounding angels in Christianity would be much appreciated, especially information not relating to Pseudo-Dionysius.
If you think you can contribute at all to this article, please do so, it's in a pretty atrocious state at the moment. Garnet Moss ( talk) 02:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I stumbled upon this video from Ready to Harvest which I found interesting. It mentions numerous Wikipedia information and provides some valid criticism on how Wikipedia presents denominations, so I think it can be helpful to post it here. Feel free to share your thoughts on it! Veverve ( talk) 12:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I have a concern about an article created in August 2022 about a evangelical Christian family in Ireland that i believe (from what i read of it) was created to doxx and intimidate members of the family due to their religious views and which its creation date coincided with the beginning date of a court case that is still curently ongoing. The article in question is Burke family (Castlebar) . I believe, but I am not too sure, that the article violates a number of wiki policies but particularly Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons in the sections of WP:BLPGOSSIP , WP:AVOIDVICTIM , WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE , WP:BLP1E , and WP:BLPNAME (for some of the family named in the article). I believe this article is suitable for deletion according to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people but I am not sure how to go about this. I would be grateful if someone can review the article and also review its talk page where a dispute arose about the inclusion of a source from a newspaper article that has since been retracted and removed from the internet by the media agency but which an archival copy appears from internet archive. 79.154.24.42 ( talk) 22:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello! There is currently a RM at Talk:Greek Orthodox Church (disambiguation)#Requested move 20 January 2023 about whether to turn Greek Orthodox Church into a DAB or not. Feel free to come and give your opinion. Veverve ( talk) 10:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.
Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:
Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.
Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.
|
All received a
Million Award
|
But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):
and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:
... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Noting some minor differences in tallies:
|
But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.
Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.
More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.
If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I have just created an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Material heresy (2nd nomination). Feel free to come and give your opinion! Veverve ( talk) 14:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello!
I have opened a new AfD. Please feel free to come and give your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomistic sacramental theology. Veverve ( talk) 11:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Over the past few days, I have worked on Heresy in the Catholic Church. Could you give me their feedback on the article in its current state? Also, feel free to contribute if you feel like it.
Pinging the regulars: @ Zfish118, Johnbod, StAnselm, Dcheney, and Ad Orientem:. Veverve ( talk) 16:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Editor @ Horse Eye's Back: has stated that the website Catholic Culture along with everything hosted on it (be it electronic hosting of material already published somewhere else, or publications by Catholic Culture) are to be removed from Wikipedia, as the user claims this website is not a reliable source. The user has already begun removing the sources from the website (from 22:43, 26 January 2023 to 22:57, 26 January 2023).
I oppose such a jugement on Catholic Culture (CC). From experience, yes they are reliable; and they host electronic versions of previously published documents (journal papers, dictionary entries) which cannot be found anywhere else. The reproduction on CC appears to be faithful (e.g. compare this entry with its original paper publication p. 104).
Pinging the regulars: @ Zfish118, Johnbod, StAnselm, Dcheney, Ad Orientem, Pbritti, and Ltwin: Veverve ( talk) 06:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I created a merge proposal at Talk:Invincible ignorance (Catholic theology), proposing to merge in Invincible error. It is suffering from a lack of participation, so would be grateful if anyone interested could take a look. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 18:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Right now Evangelical Congregational Church redirects to Evangelical Association, the historic Albright Brethren German Methodist predecessor of the ECC. But the ECC is an active church with hundreds of congregations that is a direct continuation of the United Evangelical Church split which did not reunite with the larger body (into the Evangelical Church, which itself had subsequent splits and merges with the larger body ending up in the UMC).
This church needs an article, it is not a dead branch of the Evangelical Association but a vital regional church. Q4832554 ( talk) 05:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
In my journey across Wikipedia, I found the article God-man (Christianity).
The article is not used in many places on Wikipedia, and I suspect few know of its existence. Therefore, I bring this article to your attention, in case you want to improve its presence on Wikipedia by including it in other WP articles (maybe at Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament if it fits). Veverve ( talk) 13:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Talk:The_Bible_and_violence#Rfc
At Pentecostalism, there is currently a discussion on whether it is appropriate to describe mainstream Christians/theology as "orthodox". Input would be appreciated. Ltwin ( talk)
It doesn't seem to be online, but a newspaper article written by a pastor says the Greek word used for wine in all instances where Jesus drank it refers to unfermented grape juice, and the Greek word used in all instances where the Bible warns against getting drunk refers to fermented wine. Nothing is said about this idea in Wikipedia, at least where I have looked so far. I don't know precisely how one would go about proving his statement or adding it to the related articles.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not about to tell this pastor anything. If you saw his photo, you'd probably be afraid of him too.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Don't see how debating how many angels can dance on a pinhead is productive. The New Testament is not a record. It is Church propaganda. [1] Sahansdal ( talk) 05:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
References
Should the experimental punk rock band who developed within the confines of the 1980s anarcho-punk scene in the UK really be top-article here? I would more expect to arrive at Apostle (disambiguation), Apostles or Apostle. Not sure which policies and guidelines apply, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
This seems to be notable but missing. I'm interested in seeing if this can be turned into a good page. Legacypac ( talk) 19:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Chicbyaccident on 30 March 2018 indiscriminately moved several articles on episcopal conferences to titles with the format 'Episcopal Conference of X'. This is in spite of the said user's proposal to standardise 'Episcopal Conference of X' being explicitly rejected. Moreover, the user has even cited this failed proposal as the reason for some of the page moves. I have reverted many of the page moves, but it would be good to have more eyes go over them. There was a relevant discussion at: Category talk:Episcopal conferences#Standardisation. The Discoverer ( talk) 18:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Just an FYI. Seems proper to notify the WikiProject that there's a lengthy back and forth on ANI about the project and your newsletter. GMG talk 20:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Questions have been raised about how best to format Brethren (religious group) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is essentially a dab page that also lists the "family trees" of various denominations known as Brethren. I'm inclined to leave it more or less the way it is, but that's a far cry from MOS:DAB. Given this irregularity, I welcome the opinion of other editors on that article talk page. Daask ( talk) 12:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion concerning the trustworthiness of websites NewAdvent and earlychristianwritings/jewishwritings as a source. Additional input on the matter would be greatly appreciated. The discussion is here: Talk:Ignatius_of_Antioch#Catholic_Encyclopedia_and_Ante-Nicene_Fathers. — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 01:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Editors at this project might be interested in the discussion concerning the proposed deletion of all Portals across Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Ending_the_system_of_portals. Bermicourt ( talk) 08:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I started a deletion discussion regarding Template:Yahwistic titles of Jesus in Greek on the basis of WP:NPOV. Please consider joining the discussion here. Daask ( talk) 00:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
They are very similar. Wouldn't it make sense to merge them? However, personally, I don't know anything about Coptic saints...-- Kohlscheid ( talk) 11:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The current rated importances of Christianity articles don't really make a whole lot of sense. For instance, our "top importance" articles include things like Flood geology, Charles Fillmore (Unity Church), and Letter from Cotton Mather to William Stoughton, September 2, 1692 that, while they're notable, aren't the highest-priority things, and probably aren't more important than Ascension of Jesus (currently High). Right now we have a very generic importance scale, and I think more appropriately ranking things will make it easier to see where we have gaps. Thus, this is my proposal for importance rankings:
Obviously this isn't a complete specification; please give feedback if you agree/disagree with the general idea or the specific examples. If consensus supports this, I plan to update the assessment guidelines, as well as re-assess some articles into more appropriate categories. — Vahurzpu ( talk) 20:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
An article that been involved with ( Passion Play) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article ( UK Passion Plays). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 19:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject Christianity currently shows "This article is supported by Canon law task force" and displays "/Canon Law" next to "WikiProject Christianity" if the parameter catholic-canon-law
is set to yes
. The hyperlinks send to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Canon law Task Force. Therefore, since it only concerns
Catholic canon law, I believe it should rather read "Catholic canon law task force" and display "/Catholic Canon Law".
Veverve (
talk)
18:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
) on
Template talk:WikiProject Christianity. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
21:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
{{
fyi}}
and {{
please see}}
are available for this. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
22:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)I have partially translated the article "divine filiation" in french, and I am wondering about its name whether it could be renamed into "children of God" ? "Divine filiation" is not a common expression for Christians, at least in France, while "children of God" is a very common term, employed in religious speechs. Furthermore, I have been really shoked to see that this lovely expression is linked with a sect in french Wikipedia. I mean, if you look after "enfants de Dieu" in this french Wikipedia, you find "enfants de Dieu (Secte), enfants de Dieu". What do you think about the idea to rename this article into "children of God" and do the same for the french translation, or instead, to add a new specific article about "children of god" (which is not the same thing that people of God, because effectively of the divine filiation concept it implies) ? -- Laurent Waraschitz ( talk) 06:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Greetings.
Pl. do visit, Page: Regensburg lecture ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion:
Talk:Regensburg lecture#Why no one pays attention ?
Comments are 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) 06:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Category:Anti-Catholicism seems to allow biographies. Category:Anti-Protestantism seems not to allow biographies, but contains biographies nevertheless. I suppose we should be consistent. But should we or shouldn't we allow biographies in these categories? Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly anti-Protestant.This cites a 2011 discussion about a number of bias categories which was concluded with "
Consensus for a unified approach to these categories; most support to ban individuals & organisations." There is therefore plenty of reason to enforce removing biographies and organizations from these categories, or to move them to dedicated subcategories with a more precise scope. Place Clichy ( talk) 10:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I found out this category, and it seems to me that those kind of categories were removed for they were subjective, if I remember correctly. What do you say, should it be RfD? Veverve ( talk) 10:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Category:Lutheran priests by nationality 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. TSventon ( talk) 16:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Discussion here. I fixed two of them and it is possible those are the only fixes needed, but the editor has been blocked in the past.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Ecclesiastical heraldry 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 Talk 01:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Please comment there. Johnbod ( talk) 01:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello! A CCI case just wrapped up that broadly pertains to this wikiproject (at least I think..). It can be found here if you are interested. Not many articles were affected, but at least one or two that I know of. Leaving here in case this is of interest! Sennecaster ( What now?) 21:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
If someone needs a project, this article really sucks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Members of this Project may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 07:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Category:Christian theology articles needing expert attention 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. Peaceray ( talk) 06:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of American saints and beatified people#Requested move 23 May 2021, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 17:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
See Talk:Caste system among Christians for the discussion. The article content only covers east Asia, but the move was made on the basis of this article. I'm not convinced the content of the source is sufficient for the move, nor am I sure the source meets RS. I don't want to appeal the move though without other eyes looking at it first. Doug Weller talk 16:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Easter Monday 141,452 4,715 Start-- Coin945 ( talk) 14:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that Catholicos of the East, which used to be a general article about that title, was recently turned into a redirect to Catholicos of the East (disambiguation). I hope that someone who is knowledgeable about this subject area (which I am not at all) can take a look to see if this was the proper thing to do, as an article was essentially deleted. If yes, then the disambiguation page should be moved to Catholicos of the East, and the large number of links to it should be disambiguated. Lennart97 ( talk) 13:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Page:
Page-multi error: no page detected.
Discussion: [[]]
I am angel of mercy. I am writing to inform you that wicked green eyes appeared on the face of an image of the divine mercy depiction of Jesus to me today. I am an apparition. This happened to me because I am going nuts trying to meet Taylor Swift and God whispered in my ear that divine mercy Sunday is a hoax. These eyes appear to people to believe. He warned me that this image was inspired by Baphomet. His slogan is, "As above, same as below." The two beams of light protruding from his chest represent heaven and hell.
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. 23.122.124.202 ( talk) 20:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Interdenominational. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 9#Interdenominational until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Place Clichy ( talk) 08:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, |
The article formerly at Christian Church has been moved to Christian Church (Protestant ecclesiology), and there is an open WP:RM discussion regarding the situation. It would be helpful if WikiProject members familiar with the concepts could comment at Talk:Christian Church (Protestant ecclesiology) on this topic. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
My particular concern is whether any of the cited sources are actually independent of the subject, but any opinions by someone more knowledgeable about the topic will be appreciated. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 15:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I have tried to harmonise the titles of articles containing a list of Catholic saints. I was met with reverts and a refusal; please see
Talk:List_of_American_saints_and_beatified_people#Requested_move_23_May_2021 for the list of pages I am referring to, as well as the arguments leading to the refusal.
I still believe those articles must be renamed, and that this renaming is important, in part to avoid confusion among the readers of said articles. Thus, I came here to start a discussion.
I feel there is three problems to the current names:
My proposal for a standard name for those articles is: "List of Roman Catholic saints, servants of God, blessed, venerable and beatified people from X". I also propose that the "List of X saints" and "List of saints from Y" redirects be deleted.
The first argument given against my renaming in the RM was that there would be no way to differenciate "saint who was a Catholic" and "person held to be a saint by Catholics"
. However, in mainstream Catholicism - i.e. not in traditional Catholicism -, saints, servants of God, blessed, venerable and beatified people are considered as all having been Catholics. The second argument was that such a title could create a confusion, i.e. does "Polish Catholic saints" equal "Catholic saints who are Polish" or "saints of Polish Catholicism"?
The adjective "Roman" I added compared to my previous renamings will hopefully dissipate this confusion.
Pinging @
Srnec: and @
Nyttend:/@
Nyttend backup: as they were the two users who opposed the renaming, and @
Compassionate727: who started the RM.
Veverve (
talk)
01:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
The problem can be illustrated by List of saints from Africa. A move to List of Catholic saints from Africa (or the longer proposed title) introduces an ambiguity. Is the reader to take Macarius of Egypt and Moses the Black to have been Catholics? They may be recognized by the Catholic church, but they are equally Orthodox, Coptic and Anglican saints in that sense. It would make more sense to me to have such a broad list encompass all the different Christian traditions. Other countries/regions may be handled differently. Srnec ( talk) 00:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
It's been more than a year since anyone has replied to a post on the project talk page. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 17:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes 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 Talk 03:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Dear all, Could i request a reassessment of my recently expanded article, formerly Stub-class, Low importance, etcetera? Swinburne's argument is popular at Dutch protestant institutions for higher education. Thank you, Hansmuller ( talk) 11:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, there is an ongoing RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Notability guide on the notability of catholic bishops, regards Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
At the suggestion of Geoffrey Lane I am addressing Wikipidia editors of early Christianity:
English version:
The scholarship, writing and editing of a large number of articles I read is outdated, and below the standards required for undergraduate teaching in the subject. Most of the texts reflect early 20th century and /or traditional-religious scholarship and seldom include current non-religious scholarship. The sections and structure of many of the articles is beyond repair. Many themes have a religious (not academic) orientation and most of the issues and themes engaged by current scholarship are not included. It is regrettable that such an important area of interest is in such disarray.
Spanish version:
Articles are much better edited, have a coherent structure and the scholarship sustaining them is more updated. Here the current incremental system seems to be working well, due to a later and better baseline.
I am aware of the Wikipedia philosophy of collaborative editing and contributions. My suggestions are aimed at salvaging articles so that the work of collaborative-incremental encyclopedia development can resume and proceed from a new and improved base line.
Suggestions
I would be willing to participate in an effort to upgrade and salvage the quality of those articles that require repair - provided wikipedia is willing to consider the following suggestions:
1- I can create a team of 2-3 individuals of high academic standing to identify and prioritize the articles that require improvement and to write/edit the material - using the worthwhile parts of existing articles. These new-improved articles would be a solid base on which the work of regular wikipedia contributors can proceed with their work. 2 - Wikipedia will assign a senior editor that will work with us and insert the upgraded articles. Current and ongoing commitments do not allow leading writters to become editors of wikipedia. However, a senior editor that would work with us and integrate the edited/improved texts may be a feasible cooperation.
I am a writer on the New Testament. My "Jewish-Christian relations - The First Centuries." is a study that articulates a new thesis on the evolution of Christianity and on the Jewish-Christian relationship in the New Testament. TOP 1% - 10000 views in Academia.edu (English and Spanish versions) - Endorsed by 16 leading academics.
Free download of my book: https://www.academia.edu/29628872/Jewish-Christian_Relations-The_First_Centuries_-_FULL_MANUSCRIPT_DOWNLOAD_
Abel M Bibliowicz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:C700:3AE0:ADFF:E9A4:6C8E:7F60 ( talk) 20:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedians Thank you for your comments. I am trying to assess the viability of my involvement. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to become fully engaged. However, If a senior editor would be interested in acting as an interface - liaison with the academic world, I would be interested to reconsider. BTW, the book I suggested is my second book, indeed a self-published version. The academic version was published by Palgrave in 2013 "Jews and Gentiles in the Early Jesus Movement:" https://www.academia.edu/29624526/Jews_and_Gentiles_in_the_Early_Jesus_Movement_Palgrave_2013_ My second book is an enhanced, updated and expanded version that is more accessible to non-academic readers. Congratulations on your dedication and enthusiasm. An amazing project. Abel M Bibliowicz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:A280:81F0:5420:E7D:50A5:E28B ( talk) 15:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject Christianity,
I'd appreciate it if you all would occasionally review this page and remove any works that aren't considerable notable. I don't want to just remove the titles where there is no Wikipedia article on the book because the authors might be considered notable. I'm hoping you have a better sense of works that have had an impact, whether or not they are considered mainstream apologetics. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 17:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
It is my understanding that angels are neither male nor female, that they have no gender. And yet the article Michael (archangel) uses male pronouns throughout. I propose that angels should be treated as non-binary and they/them pronouns should be used throughout Wikipedia for them. Skyerise ( talk) 23:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Are any of you responding women? I don't think so. As for what the Bible, other holy books, and their translations say, that's irrelevant as they are primary sources. Material written by theologians isn't really any better. We'd need to deal with sex, gender, and the Christian faith with the academic rigor and perspectives of various disciplines. We'd need to look at sources like the following:
I mean, information about the gender of angels should come from the relevant academic field, not from religious adherents, right? Skyerise ( talk) 12:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Skyrise, no women are harmed by referring to Archangel Michael with masculine pronouns.True, practical and to the point. I love that. Second, Skyerise in the primary texts, angels are spirits, so gender is a pointless discussion, but they are depicted as spirit beings using masculine terminology. They are always shown as appearing as human males wearing male attire. No angel ever appears in the biblical texts (or the apocrypha) dressed as a female. The Greek word for “angel” in the New Testament, angelos, is in the masculine form; a feminine form of angelos does not exist. Angels are never referred to in any gender other than masculine. In the many appearances of angels in the Bible, never is an angel referred to as “she” or “it.” This convention is continued in all the quality secondary sources. I suggest doing likewise and moving on. Happy editing! :-) Jenhawk777 ( talk) 05:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.' ( 1 Enoch 5:1-2). This is not surprising: God was originally conceived of as male as well, even though logically a unique spiritual being should not have gender. There certainly are secondary sources somewhere that discuss this, but that is an entirely different question than whether we have to start using gender-neutral pronouns to refer to angels.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 14:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Orthodox Church of Albania#Requested move 17 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 12:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello!
I plan to reassess
Marcel Lefebvre. To me, it does not meet the the GA criteria of using RS every time, as 80% of the refs are either primary sources (e.g. semons from Lefebvre), come from the SSPX (the organisation created by Lefebvre) and its media, or from people affiliated with the SSPX (e.g. Davies' Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre). Also, the part of the lede "In 1975, after a flare of tensions with the Holy See, Lefebvre was ordered to disband the society, but ignored the decision" does not seem to be in the article, not in the primary sources given at the end of the lede. As per
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, I warn this Wikiproject in case someone wants to fix the article before I reassess it.
Veverve (
talk)
21:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@
Bmclaughlin9: I see you have worked on the article for a few days. Are you done with it? I would not want to reassess the article whie you are working on improving it.
Veverve (
talk)
15:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Marcel Lefebvre has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Veverve ( talk) 15:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I have stumbled upon
Pious Association (Catholic canon law) a few days ago. I do not know what the article is supposed to be about.
At first, I thought the article was about the pre-1983 CCL structures whose successors are the
Association of the Christian faithful. However, the expression "pious association" or "pious union" seems to be still used to this day to describe an ongoing reality, cf.
here,
here and
here. I have
asked the creator of the article for more information (@
Dhpage:), but I have not received any answer.
Does anyone know what to do with these two articles? A merge? Keeping them separated? And does someone know what is the status of
Pious Association (Catholic canon law) in the current canon law? @
CanonLawJunkie: do you think you could help?
Veverve (
talk)
14:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I am writing about the List of Christmas Carols article which requires immediate attention. The article has since gone into disrepair and I and others have been trying to bring it back to the status others had achieved, however, there is one particular editor who has continually reverted any edits made and who is currently serving out a block due to this type of behaviour on another article and who insists popular Christmas songs such as The Christmas Song, Silver Bells and others are Christmas Carols (A better understanding will be got by observing the talk page in recent years), which contradicts the consensus many editors reached some years ago on the defining of which type of songs would be present on the list (carols related to the Nativity. I would be grateful if all could collaborate and return the article to its pristine state that others had achieved in the past. Also, I would be grateful if everyone could give the articles Christmas carol and Carol a look over too. I would like to see the articles achieve Wikipedia:Featured articles status in advance of the holiday. Thank you 37.18.134.184 ( talk) 16:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion on List of Christmas Carols on what constitutes as a Christmas carol. To participate [ here] 37.18.134.184 ( talk) 12:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Non-canonical, Non-canonical books and one other. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 26#Non-canonical until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are urged to contribute to the discussion. Johnbod ( talk) 16:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Christianization of the Roman Empire as caused by attractive appeal is just published. Hope you will stop by and take a look. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 19:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
On WP, as far as I know, we only have Conditional baptism. However, often I see articles with the expression "under condition" or "sub-conditiones" relating to any sacrament (ordination, confirmation, baptism, etc.), on WP articles, without any explanation of what it means. Therefore, I think an article about this practise of conditional sacraments practised by numerous Christian churches. Does anyone have some source I should look at? Veverve ( talk) 13:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I do not really understand why there are two separate articles when Old Calendarists is about the general movement and the narrower Greek Old Calendarists article is so short. I think a unified Old Calendarists would make things simpler. What do you say? Veverve ( talk) 00:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Even the start about naming conventions is radically biased against the largest branches (above denominations) of Christianity! "For people: John Calvin, unless others by that name exist, in which case the activity for which the individual is best known should be bracketed, e.g., John Calvin (reformer) (not John Calvin (scholar), John Calvin (theologian), etc.) "
Even today the British Museum spells his name "Jean Calvin". Historian09041965 ( talk) 20:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
And the Oxford University Press is also an outlier? https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198601753.001.0001/acref-9780198601753-e-640 Clearly there is American bias here. Both of these sources are among the highest in British academia and you reject them based on your own experience. Sounds biased to me. You even raise as an objection and standard your personal theological collection of books. Really! And that is not biased? It is the definition of bias. We need to come up with some solution to these issues, not just sweep them under the rug. Historian09041965 ( talk) 11:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Historian09041965 ( talk) 11:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)I cannot help it if your choice of theology books is so limited.
There is intense judgmentalism in calling him a reformer. It excludes the opposing views held among some of the largest branches of Christianity that he was a heretic. He did NOT reform the Church. Historically, he opposed in rebellion his own church, the Catholic Church. By his own church he was labeled a heretic. Only by his own estimation and those of his followers was he labeled a "reformer". It is historically inaccurate and biased. Also, he was not trying to "reform" the Catholic Church, but to reject it and to form a new church. That is not "reforming". So, from any angle you look at it the term is incorrect. The same goes for Martin Luther. Historian09041965 ( talk) 10:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
In the Alcohol in the Bible article there is an ongoing dispute about whether the word alcohol is derived from the Arabic word ghul and, regardless of whether it is actually derived from that word, is it germane to the question of how the Bible treats the use of alcohol. The latest diff showing the re-addition of that information is here. Most of the arguments pro and con are in the various edit summaries. Your thoughts on this would be welcome. Indyguy ( talk) 20:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I cannot find any source on the
Biblical harmony article, whether on its title or on its subject. Moreover,
as pointed out in 2014, the article seems to be redundant with other similar articles.
Does anyone know anything about this topic, or is it made up?
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Veverve (
talk •
contribs)
05:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
The name of Santa Claus parade ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Santa Claus parade -- 65.92.246.43 ( talk) 05:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Christmas parade. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 9#Christmas parade until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 65.92.246.43 ( talk) 03:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I found the article to be a bit overwhelming, however it does provide a lot of information. For someone who is new to Christianity or just wanting to learn more about it and its belief system this seems like a great place to start exploring the subject and faith.04:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amunoz04 ( talk • contribs)
The article Orthodox Church was recently changed from an article to a disambiguation page. A discussion is taking place about whether Orthodox Church should remain a disambig page, or be restored as an article. Your feedback would be very much appreciated at Talk:Orthodox Church. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 08:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Operation Auca 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. Bumbubookworm ( talk) 20:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 20#Orthodox Catholic, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. -- Heanor ( talk) 19:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I haven't got the time or expertise to comb through the bunch of sources plopped down by a new account, but my WP:FRINGE and WP:SYNTH alarm bells are going off.
Diff at Homoeroticism: [6]
An IP who I suspect is the same user later trimmed some of the wording between refs; a very similar IP seemingly in the same range added similar material previously, which I reverted due to some poor sources. Anyway, this needs attention from editors experienced with the topic. Crossroads -talk- 06:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Input and contributions will be appreciated at Draft:Jews and Christmas, where work is ongoing. Thank you! ezlev ( user/ tlk/ ctrbs) 17:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I have starded an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reformed Old Catholic Church. Please come and give your insight! Veverve ( talk) 14:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a topic at Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien#Catholic or Roman as to whether to use "Catholic Church" or a piped "Roman Catholic" specifically at this article. Participants in the project may be interested in commenting on the discussion. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 01:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I have made an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communion of Christ the Redeemer. If you have anything to say, please do! Veverve ( talk) 14:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Josquin des Prez 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) 22:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Christ Catholic Church (Pruter)#Requested move 14 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 19:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject,
This article is just a formatting disaster. If any content creator wants to do some work on Christianity and pop culture, this would be a great project to take on. The page gets several hundred page views per day so it's a bit of an embarrassment that is looks so bad, half of the content in tables and half in lists.
I was going to post this message at the Christian films task force but that noticeboard seems completely abandoned so here I am at this WikiProject. Thanks for any help you can offer. Liz Read! Talk! 01:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a merge proposal of Gallican Church into Gallicanism. Please come and give your opinion! Veverve ( talk) 02:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
There is currently an RfC to define the scope of the Biblical canon article. Veverve ( talk) 20:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I have opened an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King's Family of Churches (2nd nomination) for serious lack of notability. Feel free to come and give your opinion. Veverve ( talk) 20:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Ground of locality, currently a redirect to The Local Church (affiliation), has been nominated at RfD. Input from those with subject matter knowledge would be particularly welcome in the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 15#Ground of locality. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated George Fox 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. ( t · c) buidhe 21:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I have AfDed for lack of notability Holy Orthodox Metropolis of Australia & Oceania at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Orthodox Metropolis of Australia & Oceania. Feel free to come and give your opinion! Veverve ( talk) 19:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback would be appreciated, regarding the sourcing of megachurch attendance figures. Please see WT:Verifiability#INDEPENDENT vs. ABOUTSELF regarding megachurch attendance figures. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 00:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a RM for Apostle at Talk:Apostle#Requested move 29 January 2022. I proposed this RM due to more than a thousand wrong incoming links to this article which I had to fix. Please come and give your opinion. Veverve ( talk) 19:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
A new editor has modified the article associated with the following talk page to indicate that it includes Eastern Protestant churches. That is Talk:P'ent'ay#Pure nonsense. Does anyone have any insights? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 01:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Knights Templar 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 Talk 04:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Nefarious: Merchant of Souls for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 20:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Page:
Easter (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Discussion:
Talk:Easter#Primary Sources for Theological Significance
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.
Jaredscribe (
talk)
06:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a move request currently under discussion which needs input from experienced editors who may have some knowledge regarding the Church of the East. The discussion can be found here. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, |
The sin of omission article was moved, so that it would no longer be a Catholicism-only article (which was a correct choice, as theologically, it is broader than just Catholic). But, in followup to that move, no work was done to broaden it. I call on WikiProject Christianity to begin to address this. Note also, there is no corresponding article on sin of commission, and so a future of this article may be to rename and combine the two (or, to create a separate parallel article). But the combined in my view would be sufficient—no need for a superabundance of poor stubs (over fewer, better ones). 2601:246:C700:558:E8D7:8CA7:35D3:40B6 ( talk) 02:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Yesterday, there were a number of changes of the importance ranking for this WP at the Hagia Sophia article. I've restored the original top importance ranking, and opened a discussion at the talk page as to whether or not the ranking should be changed. Members of this WP are encouraged to make their views known there. Mjroots ( talk) 06:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Christ Catholic Church (Pruter)#Requested move 1 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 05:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a request for comment at Talk:Syro-Malabar Church § request for comment: 1663 vs 1923 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 15:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Saint Timothy#Requested move 13 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 19:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Is there anyone willing to do a review of Christianization of the Roman Empire? I am in need. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 03:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a new RfC open at Talk:Shroud of Turin#Request for comment on lead which is relevant to this project. Instaurare ( talk) 06:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Should the titles of either Apostolic Constitutions or Apostolic constitution be changed? As per WP:PLURAL, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME, I think Apostolic Constitutions should be renamed to something like "Apostolic Constitutions (4th century)". Apostolic constitution is sometimes written "Apostolic Constitution", and a capital letter and a hatnote is really inefficient at marking a difference of topic in this case. This page move would prevent any possible confusion and add some consistency. What do you think? Veverve ( talk) 21:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
More eyes are needed at the Homoeroticism article. An IP keeps re-adding text alleging that Jesus, several apostles, John the Baptist, and other Biblical figures had a homoerotic behavior pattern. They do cite sources, but they have cited sources previously that do not support the claim. I don't have time to examine this closely, but I strongly suspect there are WP:Fringe issues here. If those familiar with mainstream scholarship on this could help with this, it'd be much appreciated. Crossroads -talk- 22:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I have stumbled upon Heresy in Christianity in the modern era. This article is mostly unsourced and I do not see it as having an encyclopedical value. I do not see how it is something else than an arbitrarily chosen ( WP:OR) compilation or list of recent cases concerning Heresy in Christianity. What are your thoughts? Veverve ( talk) 17:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
A whole academically-published book on the Palmarian Christian Church has been published freely available online in its second edition in 2020. Currently, most of the information in this WP article are unsourced, and I suspect most of them are false. If someone wants to use the PDF book I linked to improve the page (using e.g. Template:Rp) and remove what cannot be confirmed by RSs, feel free to do so. Veverve ( talk) 01:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Greetings,
Hi, I am User:Bookku, I find information and knowledge gaps create Drafts, try to recruit draft expanding editors and promote drafts articles for further expansion.
Requesting your visit to following drafts and help expand the same if any of these interests you.
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 10:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Maximus the Confessor 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. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Through recent edits to the articles Perpetual virginity of Mary and Immaculate Conception, Octavius2 has introduced direct sourcing from Church Fathers/patristic texts. In of itself, directly sourcing from patristic texts does not violate any standard that I have encountered on Wikipedia. However, the manner in which the material is used has seen Veverve and myself engaged in a (very polite) discussion about how these sources might be used. This affords the community an opportunity to enumerate a standard by which the Christian Fathers can be used as a source in this project. I refer those interested to the graph and sourcing visible in this diff as an example of how patristics are being sourced per Octavius2's position. Initial discussion can be found on Veverve's talk page.
The TL;DR of the prior discussion: it is the opinion of Veverve and myself that patristic texts can be cited directly only when clear and explicit reference to the subject of an article is made, reference that leaves little to no room for interpretation and is itself not doing interpretation. Octavius2 holds that since this material is part of the body of (in this case) Catholic patristics, that it is admissible to present the material in a partial and logical interpreted fashion (for example: treating "sinlessness" as synonymous to "immaculately conceived," as it generally is in at least modern Catholic theology and lexicon). I think this comes down to a discussion of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and WP:RS. In the previous discussion, there were concerns raised regarding Octavius2 perhaps accidentally violating WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS; these have been discussed and I hope that this conversation will not be the forum for it. Thank you and please insert your opinion as you can. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 23:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I would characterize the Immaculate Conception as a topic proper to Catholic Theology.But it isn't—at least on this encyclopedia. If there are reliable sources dealing with the Immaculate Conception from the perspective of Protestant or Hindu or Muslim or [insert religion here] then those should receive due weight on Wikipedia.
Secondary Sources should be . .whatever is sources are considered reliable sources per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Some of these maybe Catholic sources, but many will not be.
Theologians' writings, including Augustine and Aquinas, and any others which display a systematic, academic character.No. These are primary sources. When Augustine writes something, that writing must be interpreted. The interpretation is now a secondary source. If what Augustine wrote on a topic is important to a WP article, then what we need is a secondary source on Augustine to provide a reliable published interpretation of that theologian's writings. Ltwin ( talk) 20:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
academic character (i.e. systematic and rational, not mysticism-based). There are two problems. First, there is the fact something at least older than 5 century is very likely to be considered a primary source whatever its content is. Second, who gets to define what is
systematic and rational, not mysticism-basedin the writings ( WP:OR)? By the way, who decides that those quotes support the Immaculate Conception dogma ( WP:OR)?
systematic and rationaland
mysticism-basedis also extremely biased: no EOrthodox would accept this distinction, especially to apply it to the CFs. Veverve ( talk) 00:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
literal signification of the wordsdoes not mean anything on subjects where people have been debating for what those words mean centuries; their meaning(s?) is controversed. All you have given is your own interpretation.
If a person was following all the academic conventions of their day, then, for us to reject them, and refuse to engage in conversation with them, on an equal footing, just because they're 'too old,' smacks of some sort of Historicist modern-bias: are you arguing against WP:AGE MATTERS? Of course those are too old.
The Catholic Church has long held that Mary never submitted to a sinful temptation, and therefore never had personal sin.<ref>Thomas Aquinas citing Augustine</ref><ref>John Paul II</ref>.
(I'm obviously paraphrasing your references.) This is an inappropriate use of the patristic/magisterial sources, because those sources don't directly back up your assertion that "The Catholic Church has long held..." Instead, try something like this: Augustine held that 'an abundance of grace was given her that she might be in every way the conqueror of sin.'<ref>Augustine</ref> Thomas Aquinas cited Augustine in making the same assertion.<ref>Thomas Aquinas citing Augustine</ref>
. Do you see the difference?
Jdcompguy (
talk)
15:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
"In significant world religious denominations with organized academies or recognized theological experts in religious doctrine and scholarship, the proceedings of official religious bodies and the journals or publications of recognized and well-regarded religious academies and experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject. . . .
"Secondary sources are not necessarily from recent years – or even centuries. The sacred or original text(s) of the religion will always be primary sources, but any other acceptable source may be a secondary source in some articles. For example, the works of
Thomas Aquinas are secondary sources for a
Roman Catholic perspective on many topics, but are primary sources for
Thomas Aquinas or
Summa Theologica.
Verse | Text | Church Father attestation |
---|---|---|
Songs of Songs 4:4 | Your neck is like the tower of David, built for an arsenal, whereon hang a thousand bucklers, all of them shields of warriors.. | Anne Catherine Emmerich [1] |
The Catholic Church has long held that Mary never submitted to a sinful temptation, and therefore never had personal sin.[76][77][78]
76.) Aquinas, Thomas (1275). "III.27.4.corpus.". Summa Theologiae. Torino: San Paolo. Retrieved April 28, 2022. "On the contrary, Augustine says (De Nat. et Grat. xxxvi): 'In the matter of sin, it is my wish to exclude absolutely all questions concerning the holy Virgin Mary, on account of the honor due to Christ. For since she conceived and brought forth Him who most certainly was guilty of no sin, we know that an abundance of grace was given her that she might be in every way the conqueror of sin.'"
77.) Ephrem, St. (350). "27:8". Nisibene Hymns (in Syriac). Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. p. 109. Retrieved April 26, 2022. “Only you and your Mother are more beautiful than everything. For on you, O Lord, there is no mark; neither is there any stain in your Mother.”
78.) John Paul II, Pope (1994). "§493". Catechism of the Catholic Church (2 ed.). Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Retrieved April 28, 2022. "The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God 'the All-Holy' (Panagia), and celebrate her as 'free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature'. By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long."
References
Editors of this WikiProject are encouraged to provide their input on a consensus-gathering survey at Talk:Seraphim_Rose#Consensus_seeking_on_the_inclusion_of_sexuality_material. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 18:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
What do you think about the article Continuing church? I have found nothing on it, apart from passing uses which seem to rather refer to the Continuing Anglican movement. [1] [2] [3] Already back in 2007, someone asked for sources on this term at the article talk page; none was given since then. What do you say? Does this concept exist? Should the WP article be deleted? Veverve ( talk) 13:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
References
In 1944, reunion opponents, rallied by the Southern Presbyterian Journal, called those agreeing with its aims to do everything possible to organize a 'continuing church' if and when the 'inevitable' union with the PCUSA should occur. By 1949 a Continuing Church Committee was raising funds. [..] All the while, predictions continued that whenever union of Southern Presbyterians with their sister Assembly came about, a 'continuing' Southern Church would result. [...] 'Continuing' assemblies of Presbyterians opposed to unions voted by their denominations are well known having been formed in Scotland, Canada, and Australia, and by Cumberland Presbyterians in the U.S. after the majority of their churches were received by the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. in 1906.
Basically, they [Forward in Faith] have their feet in both 'official' Anglican Communion and in the 'continuing' church.
'In September 1990, at around the time the first women priest were ordained, a group of lay members of the Church of Ireland formed a «continuing Church»; the Church of Ireland (Traditional Rite). [...]'
The Society of Mercy (an alleged Old Catholic group) has been nominated for AfD for lack of notability. The AfD is here; feel free to come and give your opinion. Veverve ( talk) 18:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I have nominated an article for what I believe to be lack of notability.
The AfD is here.
Pinging the regulars: @
Pbritti,
Johnbod,
Jdcompguy, and
Ltwin:.
Veverve (
talk)
19:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Nomination Catholic Life Church for lack of notability. High encourage you all enjoy a peak at what mysteries that article contains before we pull the plug. Discussion here. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 20:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to do with this. I heard a radio preacher yesterday say that when Jesus was on the cross and told John to take care of his mother, this was because his family wasn't responsible enough for anyone to do this on his own. His family thought he was crazy.
I haven't succeeded in finding sources that would verify anyone believed this about Jesus' family, and I wouldn't know what to do with the information on Wikipedia if I could find it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Integrity USA scandal in The Episcopal Church#Requested move 15 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 23:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello all, just a quick notice that there has been a heavy POV push in several articles regarding universal resurrection (inexistance of Hell). It was a fringe view held by maybe 4 or 5 Church Fathers (out of hundreds) but is depicted as the belief of the "majority of Early Church". See: Apocatastasis, Christian universalism, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and related articles. In fact the Apocatastasis article must be re-written almost in whole, I have left some comments on its talk page. Please take a look. -- El Huinca ( talk) 22:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#DEFAULTSORT for churches which may be of interest. Pam D 18:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Members says that there's an option to unsubscribe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach but I don't see anything. My best guess is that it's been a while since that wikiproject page was updated. But I'm not really interested with Christianity at large, I have more of an interest in Jehovah's Witnesses because I was raised as one. I am also interested in the LDS, catholicism and anglicanism to some extent, but those are minor interests and I'm still not really interested in automatically recieving a newsletter for this. I was wondering how I can remove myself from that list? Clovermoss (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a merge discussion open at Talk:Orthodox Anglican Communion#Merge discussion for merging these two related entities. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 16:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
What do you think should be done with the categories with names of congregations and the likes, which had their nameschanged, e.g.
Category:Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? Should they be moved, or should new categories with the new names be created?
@
Dcheney,
Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator,
Pbritti,
Rutsq, and
Jdcompguy:.
Veverve (
talk)
23:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Editor Vesuvio14 asks for input on a new parameter for {{ Infobox church}} and has opened a discussion at Template talk:Infobox church#Addition of ecclesiastical region. Please come and give your thoughts on the matter. Your input is welcome! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 11:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I saw this term for the first time in a newspaper article about Sexual abuse cases in Southern Baptist churches. I'm guessing it is a notable concept but it doesn't have a Wikipedia article or even a redirect. I found this source for a basic definition.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Today, the reforms of
Praedicate evangelium are taking effect.
This raises a question: since the the Dicastery for Evangelization, and the Dicastery for Culture and Education, are created by a merger of previous departments (Dicastery for Evangelization through the merger of the
Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization and the
Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples; Dicastery for Culture and Education through the merger of the
Pontifical Council for Culture with the
Congregation for Catholic Education). Should they have their own page or should we rename one of the merged departments to the new name?
Veverve (
talk)
14:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
@
Dcheney and
Jdcompguy: what do you think?
Veverve (
talk)
14:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
@
Pbritti:
Veverve (
talk)
19:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Members of this project may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Request for Comment on sorting of UK churches in categories in English Wikipedia Pam D 06:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Please take a look at this deletion discussion regarding the Southern Episcopal Church. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 23:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Please participate in this AfD discussion regarding the Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 15:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi editors, my name is KC and I work for Ascension. I've been trying to make some updates to the Ascension article and I've been looking for assistance at the various WikiProjects that the article is associated with but so far have had no luck. I'm hoping someone here might be interested as Ascension is the largest Catholic health system in the world. I'd love to start a dialogue on my latest request. I've got a COI so I won't make any changes but I hope I can offer some sources and wording suggestions. Please let me know what you think! KC at Ascension ( talk) 19:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I have an article Christianization of the Roman Empire as diffusion of innovation up for GAN. It has enough sociology in it that I listed it in the sociology category instead of in religion or history. I would deeply appreciate anyone who was willing to take a look at it, and would especially appreciate a reviewer! Thank you all for what you do here. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 04:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, everyone. Sorry to bother again so soon. Following a series of disruptive IP and sock accounts on key Indian Christianity articles over the last year, can we get some volunteers to monitor those pages? I've been playing wack-a-mole for the last three months and it's getting tiring. Can anyone tag in to at least cover some of pages? I can provide more details as the problems and tasks involved to editors who are interested. Can't offer any reward except a few more AfD discussions. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 04:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I have proposed merging the article Sexual orientation change efforts, an article of interest to this WikiProject, into Conversion therapy.
You are invited join the discussion at Talk:Sexual orientation change efforts § Proposed merge to Conversion therapy. Regards, RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ ( talk · contribs) 17:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I wonder if the article Filipino Cardinals is really useful and encyclopedic. We do not have Belgian Cardinals, US Cardinals, Italian Cardinals, etc. It seems to be redundant with categories such as Category:Italian cardinals. @ Pbritti, Jdcompguy, and Ltwin:. Veverve ( talk) 06:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I have been trying to create a Seventh Day Baptist World Federation article for months. However, 4 reviewers have already refused. The biggest problem is with references. They asked me for secondary sources, after a lot of research I got it, but the last reviewer didn't find it enough and still classified the article as not suitable for Wikipedia. I don't know what else to do. I have no connection with this federation, I'm just a member of the church who saw the lack of an English Wikipedia article about this federation that greatly influences Sabbathkeeping Baptists and could bring greater understanding of this church to other members of other churches. To further complicate matters, English is not my native language and I have difficulty with that. Who can help me by guiding or editing the draft I will be very grateful.
I have nominated A Song for Simeon 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) 01:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Samuel Merrill Woodbridge 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) 01:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Religious debates over the Harry Potter series 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) 01:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Hey gang! Two long-running AfDs I initiated are still getting resisted without further comment. Anyone who hasn't given their thoughts on AfD/Autobiography of Anthony Mary Claret or AfD/Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church is encouraged to do so! ~ Pbritti ( talk) 16:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I started the article Religious education in Kerala with hope like Islamic education I will get some citations for Christian religious education in Kerala being involved in organized educational activity but practically finding bit difficult to get citations; Idk if I am missing something in my searches. Requesting help for bibliographic info for religious education other than Islam. Religious education in Kerala
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (
talk)
09:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi team,
I am interested in modifying the Template:Christian denomination tree. I had a discussion with a user named Koavf two years ago about this topic. At the time, he redirected me to this project/team. I would like to revisit the topic now, and I would like the input of more experienced and knowledgeable editors.
The chart does not show Wesleyanism/Arminism/Methodism - a Protestant branch that is globally widely spread and holds great influence theologically. I will make the change from Anabaptists to Methodist myself. Methodist theology inspired/influenced the development Holiness movement which has greatly influenced the Evangelical movement in Western Christianity. Ideally, a revised chart would show that Methodism as a derivative of Anglicanism.
Also, I believe that it is questionable to not include the Pentecostals if one were to show the lineage/development of Christian theological though. This is important as there is a direct Pentecostal influence on the Charismatic movement and by extension the Evangelical movement which heavily draws upon if not outright embraces the Charismatic movement. A Christian denomination tree based upon theological influence should include the Pentecostals in some manner. Leiwang7 ( talk) 21:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Can this get some expansion? Peter Ormond 💬 20:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
There is currently an RfC on the "Implications for polygamy legalization" section at Talk:Respect for Marriage Act#RfC concerning polygamy.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 17:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I need help with the disambiguation page. Discussion here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I started the article Religious education in Kerala with hope like Islamic education I will get some citations for Christian religious education in Kerala being involved in organized educational activity but practically finding bit difficult to get citations; Idk if I am missing something in my searches.
Islamic education in Kerala has been already reasonably covered in the article. Requesting help for bibliographic info and article expansion for religious education other than Islam including Christian religious education in Kerala.
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 14:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion which you might want to participate in at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Epiphyllumlover additions of polygamist information, which especially concerns the Respect for Marriage Act and articles relating to it.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 20:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Project 86 has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 02:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, |
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:De Coelesti Hierarchia#Requested move 15 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky ( talk) 16:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi all, hope everyone is ok and well.
I’ve been going through the United Kingdom christian monastery stubs, and have noticed that there are a few of unreferenced one-lined stubs in there. I’ve been trying my best to tag as many as possible, and also to add these to my watchlist, but I’m still going through tagging them as unreferenced at the moment to get a scope of how many of these unreferenced stubs there are.
I’d appreciate if I could get some help with these unreferenced stubs that seem to have gone under the radar slightly. Some of these within the Dorest area have been improved and expanded, or redirected after being tagged.
Some of the stubs within this category are fine with references, but something needs to be done about those that are not. It’s going to take a while to sort all of these stubs out, so I’d appreciate all the help that users may like to give. Likewise, I don’t want to pressure anyone into thinking they must help. Fats40boy11 ( talk) 08:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this AFD will be of any interest but it wasn't put through any deletion sorting so I thought I'd alert you all: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children of Eber. The article is unsourced and needs a lot of work and so far, opinion on the AFD is mixed. Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
User:Buidhe has nominated Swedish emigration to the United States for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Vampire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 ( talk) 16:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I think this assessment is either a mistake or an act of vandalism: /info/en/?search=Talk:Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel. PatrickJWelsh ( talk) 18:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
What do you think about Special:Contributions/HIPPOCLIDES? tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I need some help expanding the Unofficial Meetings and Official Dialogues section of this draft page.
Also, I'm certain the references for the four official dialogues have a primary source, however I can only seem to find secondary sources online. Perhaps the original is offline and/or in Greek? Contagious Owl ( talk) 01:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, |
The article Wes Nolden has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
In its 13.86 years on the site, this article has had—at best— two reliable sources previously, and those were oft subject to blanking by SPAs. With this re-write, only thee sources presented themselves, and the weightiest one is dubious. This has failed the notability guideline for longer than some productive editors have been alive, and even now doesn't meet muster.
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. —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
19:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Crisis pregnancy center has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Please remember to adhere to WP:NPOV standards. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 23:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject,
I came across this draft as I was looking at expiring draft articles and I postponed deletion for another six months because it seems like it might be of interest to someone. It is supposedly translated from the Russian Wikipedia and it currently doesn't have sources so it's not an easy fix-up. I posted notices about it at the WikiProjects for Russia and Eastern Orthodoxy but they appear to be inactive so I thought I'd try here. It's kind of a long shot but maybe we have some religious history buffs who'd be willing to do a little research. Thank you! Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I've just written Guns into Plowshares, and it was approved and moved into the mainspace last night. Could someone do an assessment for this project, and let me know if there's anything in particular you think needs to be done to bring it to B class? (I know it needs a picture; I'll get one next time I'm in the area.) Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdhamilton ( talk • contribs) 13:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
As this family has ties to Christian history, editors may wish to comment here. All opinions are welcome. 4meter4 ( talk) 03:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Josquin des Prez/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
I have had a disagreement on whether the SSPX-affiliated religious orders can be called "Dominican", "Benedictine", etc. My opinion is that they are not, since they are not part of the Dominican order, Benedictine order, etc. since the SSPX is outside of the Catholic Church.
@
BohumilzBiliny:
has stated that They are Benedictines, because they live under the Rule.
What do you say? Veverve ( talk) 12:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
any SSPX-affiliated body identified as "Benedictine" in reliable sources is for our purposes Benedictine: the problem is that all the sources used in this article are primary sources from the SSPX itself. Veverve ( talk) 17:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Discussion moved to article talk page. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 17:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
From what I understand, there has been a debate at Talk:Philippine Independent Church#Violating WP:BURDEN, adding FICTREFs, OR, as to whether or not the unsourced content and FICTREFs present in the article should be kept. Feel free to come and give your opinion. Veverve ( talk) 20:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Just went round and round searching for the article on Status confessionis here and not finding it. But something so important *must* have an article? After googling a bit and reading various linked pages, up pops Status confessionis, but at German wikipedia. But note: no links to English wikipedia from there, it is found only at de/da/it. Isn't this rather rare, not having an article here that exists elsewhere? Shenme ( talk) 04:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
A long-standing editor stated at WP:ANI that WP:CHOPSY is an Anti-Christian WP:CABAL.
I get attacked by both sides, rather vigorously, and my personal view of it is that I'm not actually against Christianity at all, I'm against certain forms of fundamentalism and, and, so virtually everything I say in my book are things that Christian scholars of the New Testament readily agree with, it's just that they are not hard-core evangelicals who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. If you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible then I suppose I'd be the enemy, but there are lot of Christian forms of belief that have nothing to do with inerrancy.
— Bart Ehrman, Bart Ehrman vs Tim McGrew - Round 1 at YouTube
Is CHOPSY anti-inerrancy? Definitely. Is CHOPSY anti-fundamentalism? Definitely. Is CHOPSY Anti-Christian? Well, if you believe in biblical inerrancy, it is, otherwise the claim is risible. tgeorgescu ( talk) 09:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The recipe for getting past my "theological" objections is quite simple: don't challenge WP:RS/AC (if there happens to be one) and use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV for evangelical/traditionalist positions.tgeorgescu ( talk) 09:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Could you help to fix the links to the disambiguation page Apostolic Church? This list shows 85 articles with links to Apostolic Church which should probably be linked to more specific articles, but I am not expert enough to know which.— Rod talk 11:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
User:Buidhe has nominated Joseph W. Tkach for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism#Requested move 24 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Requested move 18 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. –– FormalDude (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism#Requested move 24 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – Zfish118⋉ talk 18:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— West Syriac liturgical rites—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Pbritti ( talk) 20:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Pbritti, Elizium23, Zfish118, Dcheney, Johnbod, and Ad Orientem: The website Catholic News Service is dead since yesterday, due do a decision of the USCCB taken months priors. The website also covered news related to Christianity in general, as long as it was in connection with the Catholic Church. All the links to CNS articles currently link to 404 errors. A new website, OSV News, currently has Catholic News Service's former URL. See this statement.
In a few days, once the situation is clearer, and if the 404 errors remain, I think all Catholic News Service links added prior to 30 December 2022 should be marked as dead and archive URLs be added. A bot request should be made for it to be done. What do you say? Veverve ( talk) 17:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I've just proposed a move of Christian angelology to Angels in Christianity. This would conform with the pattern set by Angels in Judaism and Angels in Islam, and would also in general better meet Wikipedia's criteria for naming articles. Please feel free to contribute to this discussion, though I can't imagine this would be a controversial move.
But on a larger level, this article is quite bad. It was originally titled "Christian angelic hierarchy", and concerned itself solely with the Pseudo-Dionysian hierarchy popular in Medieval Latin Christianity, and that is mostly what the article still is, despite the name change. More information about the theology, doctrines, and spirituality surrounding angels in Christianity would be much appreciated, especially information not relating to Pseudo-Dionysius.
If you think you can contribute at all to this article, please do so, it's in a pretty atrocious state at the moment. Garnet Moss ( talk) 02:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I stumbled upon this video from Ready to Harvest which I found interesting. It mentions numerous Wikipedia information and provides some valid criticism on how Wikipedia presents denominations, so I think it can be helpful to post it here. Feel free to share your thoughts on it! Veverve ( talk) 12:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I have a concern about an article created in August 2022 about a evangelical Christian family in Ireland that i believe (from what i read of it) was created to doxx and intimidate members of the family due to their religious views and which its creation date coincided with the beginning date of a court case that is still curently ongoing. The article in question is Burke family (Castlebar) . I believe, but I am not too sure, that the article violates a number of wiki policies but particularly Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons in the sections of WP:BLPGOSSIP , WP:AVOIDVICTIM , WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE , WP:BLP1E , and WP:BLPNAME (for some of the family named in the article). I believe this article is suitable for deletion according to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people but I am not sure how to go about this. I would be grateful if someone can review the article and also review its talk page where a dispute arose about the inclusion of a source from a newspaper article that has since been retracted and removed from the internet by the media agency but which an archival copy appears from internet archive. 79.154.24.42 ( talk) 22:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello! There is currently a RM at Talk:Greek Orthodox Church (disambiguation)#Requested move 20 January 2023 about whether to turn Greek Orthodox Church into a DAB or not. Feel free to come and give your opinion. Veverve ( talk) 10:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.
Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:
Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.
Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.
|
All received a
Million Award
|
But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):
and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:
... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Noting some minor differences in tallies:
|
But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.
Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.
More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.
If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I have just created an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Material heresy (2nd nomination). Feel free to come and give your opinion! Veverve ( talk) 14:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello!
I have opened a new AfD. Please feel free to come and give your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomistic sacramental theology. Veverve ( talk) 11:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Over the past few days, I have worked on Heresy in the Catholic Church. Could you give me their feedback on the article in its current state? Also, feel free to contribute if you feel like it.
Pinging the regulars: @ Zfish118, Johnbod, StAnselm, Dcheney, and Ad Orientem:. Veverve ( talk) 16:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Editor @ Horse Eye's Back: has stated that the website Catholic Culture along with everything hosted on it (be it electronic hosting of material already published somewhere else, or publications by Catholic Culture) are to be removed from Wikipedia, as the user claims this website is not a reliable source. The user has already begun removing the sources from the website (from 22:43, 26 January 2023 to 22:57, 26 January 2023).
I oppose such a jugement on Catholic Culture (CC). From experience, yes they are reliable; and they host electronic versions of previously published documents (journal papers, dictionary entries) which cannot be found anywhere else. The reproduction on CC appears to be faithful (e.g. compare this entry with its original paper publication p. 104).
Pinging the regulars: @ Zfish118, Johnbod, StAnselm, Dcheney, Ad Orientem, Pbritti, and Ltwin: Veverve ( talk) 06:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I created a merge proposal at Talk:Invincible ignorance (Catholic theology), proposing to merge in Invincible error. It is suffering from a lack of participation, so would be grateful if anyone interested could take a look. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 18:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Right now Evangelical Congregational Church redirects to Evangelical Association, the historic Albright Brethren German Methodist predecessor of the ECC. But the ECC is an active church with hundreds of congregations that is a direct continuation of the United Evangelical Church split which did not reunite with the larger body (into the Evangelical Church, which itself had subsequent splits and merges with the larger body ending up in the UMC).
This church needs an article, it is not a dead branch of the Evangelical Association but a vital regional church. Q4832554 ( talk) 05:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
In my journey across Wikipedia, I found the article God-man (Christianity).
The article is not used in many places on Wikipedia, and I suspect few know of its existence. Therefore, I bring this article to your attention, in case you want to improve its presence on Wikipedia by including it in other WP articles (maybe at Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament if it fits). Veverve ( talk) 13:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)