![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Hi! I am already a member of this group before any strange questions start getting asked. (I dont know what that was about either but you know I just had a feeling) Anyway I am proposing that a new Wikiproject be formed called WikiProject Abrahamic Religions. Christianity is of course one of the three Abrahamic Religions the others being Judaism and Islam. I don't know what people think about my proposal but for more information and/or to show your support, as the project cant start without consensus please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals and view the Abrahamic Religions Section. (that makes me sound like a dodgey TV advert doesn't it?). Once again any comments or support would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. The Quill ( talk) 11:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Because it is only for Abrahamic Religions and this would meen that other non-Abrahamic Religions would be compared. Also please could I request you place comments on the wikiproject talk page. Thanks The Quill ( talk) 15:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The proposed theology workgroup is now online, here. Any suggestions, improvements, and ideas are more than welcome - as are interested editors. Pastordavid ( talk) 19:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
A proposal to clean up the articles and sub-cats in Category:Christian theology can be found here. Any input would be greatly helpful. Pastordavid ( talk) 17:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The expertise of those knowledgeable in the subject of Natural theology would be very helpful both in that entry and on the possibly soon deleted Astrotheology entry. There is a content dispute that broke out on the second of the two entries, which has now spilled over to the first. Exactly what natural theology includes and how best to define it are at the heart of this dispute. Thanks for any help. (Note: I am cross posting this on WikiProject(s):Philosophy and Religion). PelleSmith ( talk) 21:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Miguel.mateo ( talk · contribs) insists on re-adding a paragraph about coin-design, perhaps as a coat-rack for a non-free image he wants to include, to the article Charity (virtue) about the theology of caritas.
In the context of the article, this material seems to me to be entirely marginal, non-notable and disproportionate. Which is why I believe it should be promptly removed, as it was when similar attempts were made to try to insert it into Christianity and Charity (practice).
But he won't take my word for it; so I'd appreciate if project members could lend a fresh pair of eyes, and say what they think on the talk page. Jheald ( talk) 09:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The project newsletter for the month of June 2008 is ready to take off at Template:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/June 2008. Please review ... -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 09:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I've been driving for the last 17 days to get all of the project tagged articles assessed for quality, thus emptying the top level of Category:Unassessed-Class Christianity articles. I'm asking now for a bit of help. When I started, we had more than 600 pages in the category. It is now down to 11 pages, and I'm hoping that you all can polish it off over the weekend while I take a break. GRBerry 20:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The current edition of the newsletter is available at {{ WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/June 2008}} and was delivered to the talk pages of the members -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 10:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Recently, new age pagans/atheists have added to the intro of Nazism article "Nazism, particularly its antisemitism, found strong ideological roots in Christianity." This is a clear attack on Christianity by claiming it is an "antisemitic" ideology.. this was added by User:Esimal who has made numerous controversial edits in regards to Christianity, and then re-added by hipster-neo-pagan User:Gnostrat. Why should such a blatant and brazen attack on Christianity be allowed on Wikipedia? Especially such a vicious and untrue claim. - Gennarous ( talk) 21:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The latest newsletter appears to leave all talk page contributions below it in small font. Johnbod ( talk)
An editor mentioned to me that User:Carlaude is embarking on a large-scale reorganization of the denominational category tree, which I don't believe has been discussed anywhere. I have asked him to bring it here first. In particular Category:Christian group structuring is being decimated. See [1]. Johnbod ( talk) 22:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I have meant to come here and summatize changes at Johnbod's request. I have mostly moved things to more specific cat's but have created a few when the seem needed. I didnot see any place for disscussion but think all changes are for the benift of Wikipedia and WikiProject Christianity.
Biggest change is creating Category:Christian groups and movements. The categories below all have overlap with each other and most were at the top level and they were not together in any one place. Christian groups and movements is a category to correct this.
Movements are not as defined as groups. The Category:Christian denominations was/is very full and I have also divided it with the creation of Category:Christian denominational families, both under Category:Christian groups and movements. These page describe the difference, as does Denominationalism, but basically a Christian denomination is something like the Southern Baptist Convention and a denominational family is something like Baptist. Of course you still find Category:Southern Baptist Convention under Category:Baptist-- (in this case under Baptist denominations). -- Carlaude ( talk) 22:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This Category has 422 pages and needs diffusion. It looks like most of them are people, but Category:Ancient Roman Christians was not used much. Anyone want to work on this?
I would suggest leaving the discussion here, and I will post a note at the category talk page. I would object to Category:God in Christianity as being too broad a short list of potential sub cats: Category:Trinitarianism, Category:Christology, Category:Jesus, Category:Pneumotology (not there yet, but fits the current scheme), Category:Arianism, etc. The further question is where to put it to produce a sensible category tree - under Category:Christianty, Category:Christian theology or Category:Trinitarianism. Pastordavid ( talk) 14:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I noticed some work being done on this one as well. One thought that I had was that a Category:Christian liturgical and sacramental theology would help to diffuse that category, and seperate the things themselves from the ideas about the things. Thoughts? Pastordavid ( talk) 16:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
An editor is making major changes to 'all the Christian navigational boxes pages and so far has not explained why. I have encouraged him wait until he discusses it here first. -- Carlaude ( talk) 20:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Could someone else take a look at this. It may need a prod as OR/synthesis, but I would like others to see if there is anything salvageable here first. Thanks. Pastordavid ( talk) 16:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Article under AFD (and deletion sorted). I think it requires a rewrite but is salvagable. Some sources I found are linked in my AFD opinion. Anyone want to lend a hand - especially anyone knowing more about the American black church than I do? GRBerry 19:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I added some entries for assessment on the assessment page. Thanks. Ottava Rima ( talk) 13:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
See the requested move proposal (to Catholic Reformation) at Talk:Counter-Reformation. Pastordavid ( talk) 15:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to request some help with this article, which is under the scope of this project. I fully sourced it over the past week, and I would like to help it get to GA or FA status. It would be great if any editors from this project could look it over, possibly do some copyediting, and give some feedback in the peer review. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 23:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to distract people from constructive work, but a couple of trouble-making editors have been playing games, interfering with work on an article and getting their way by slandering me and using forceful editing rather than addressing the content issues I raise. I'm afraid I think the only thing that will help is for a few people to come and help take the heat off me.
I'm afraid it will need a little time to do it properly, because these people make edits rather than talking. They've said enough to show they're trouble, but it's the edit style that proves it. They need to be confronted, but that requires a few people other than me to observe the evidence and join me in the confrontation. If a few people answer my request for assistance, I'll start providing links to the evidence. Otherwise, all this just sucks time away we could be using elsewhere.
From what I can see, one of the editors seems to have a "thing" about "God stuff". He already has been warned by others, but he's going to be even more trouble unless we help him realise it's a pointless waste of time. If personal attacks are tolerated, they are encouraged.
Please just sign below if you've got some time and patience, a cool head, and understand why this needs to be done. Hopin' for some help. Alastair Haines ( talk) 15:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I have listed Ravi Zacharias for peer review in hopes of getting some feedback to get it up to FA status. Any input is welcome. Thanks! Kristamaranatha ( talk) 20:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The Portal:Christianity still lacks a biography and a selected scripture for next month. Any suggestions? John Carter ( talk) 21:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I am fascinated to see that this project regards the Last Judgement as of "low importance"! Anyway the article is a terrible mess. Johnbod ( talk) 00:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I asked BCB to do this . The idea was to reduce the huge backlog we had once upon a time
Our project banner is {{ ChristianityWikiProject}} You need to 1) If "|importance=" is empty , replace it with "|importance=Low" . Make sure you dont overwrite if importance is assessed already. 2) If "|class=" tag is empty, replace it with the highest quality assesment from the other project banners on the same talk page. 3) If there are No other wikiproject banners / any assessment already, please use the general wiki guideline of no of characters for Stub/Start classes and then add the appropriate class tag for quality
I did this on the folllowing assumptions :-
1) The number of High/Top Importance artilces in unaccessesed articles may be less. On a second manual sweep, we should be able to identify the higher importance articles if any
2) We should not replace the orginal importance assessment if any.
3) The standards for assessment scale for most projects is the same. Hence if there is an already assessment done , we could just reuse the information .
4) Similar automated attempts were done in different Projects like WikiProject Africa -
see here.
5) This task for the Bot was an approved
task , hence I assumed it to work smoothtly
--
TinuCherian
(Wanna Talk?) - 14:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The articles Predestination and Types of religious predestination have been listed to be merged for over a year. A drive is on to clear out Category:Articles to be merged since April 2007 and this merger could use the attention of someone with expertise in the field, or at least someone who knows more than me. If anyone could take a look, it would be greatly appreciated. -- Gimme danger ( talk) 22:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Why does Perfectionist movement direct to an article about the Oneida Community (which already has its own article)? There is a lot more to perfection theology than this sect that believed "each to be married to every other member of the opposite sex"... Can this be fixed, and a new article about perfection theology be started? Thanks Kristamaranatha ( talk) 06:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
One thing we could definitely use would be any individuals who can read other languages, as I think we all know that there are a lot of items out there written in languages other than English. I can read German fairly well, but, unfortunately, not French. I say unfortunately because I was just informed of a site from the Burkina Faso government here which gives some biographical material on at least religious leaders there. Are there any of you out there that would be willing to help out in slogging through foreign material if one of the rest of us finds a source in a language we can't ourselves read? John Carter ( talk) 01:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Jerusalem has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. < eleland/ talk edits> 21:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Another editor has requested mediation on the Shituf page, so I looked up the mediation process. The first step is to ask for third party opinion -- which is the reason I'm here.
Shituf, briefly, is a Jewish term applied to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The definition of the concept, however, appears to be Arian: lesser beings (the son and spirit) worshipped in junior "partnership" with God. Accordingly, I included a short Christian view section which simply describes that Christianity has formally rejected multiple deities in junior partnership since Nicea.
The contention is whether or not the section should be included.
My argument is that an article describing Jews eating human blood on passover would require a short section describing that Jews actually FORBID such a practice. Accordingly, an article describing Christians in Arian ways would require a short section describing that Christianity actually FORBIDS such a belief.
In any case, since the other editor suggested mediation, I'm taking the first step and asking for third party review.
Thanks. Tim ( talk) 13:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys -- as I said -- a third party look is in order. In English, Lisa just said you were all polytheists, which is a legitimate Jewish view. My take is that it's nice to have a section saying that you forbid polytheism.
And as for the history of this, the entire concept was created in the Middle Ages in reference to the question of whether Jews could have business dealings with Christians, since they were forbidden to have business dealings with idolaters. The Jewish solution is that, "Yes, they have multiple deities, but they are like junior partners." Loosely defined, "shituf" is "partnership." The context and origin was directed toward Christianity. Christianity, therefore, cannot be excluded from the article without making it polemic.
Again, thanks. You should be honored -- two Jews are asking for YOUR third opinion! Tim ( talk) 14:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- in the past few days you've called Christians polytheists at least six times. Anyone can go through your contribs or just read the Shituf talk page. That kind of bias needs to at least be admitted. If it's your belief -- be proud of it.
As for the edits -- Lisa can't edit out all references to Christianity on the Shituf page because it's APPLIED to Christianity. When I removed any paragraph that used the word "Christian" or "Christianity" she reverted it as vandalism.
That being said, I no longer care. I have better things to do than to prevent a member of my own religion to promote falsehood to yours. You're welcome to chime in.
Best. Tim ( talk) 14:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
John -- BINGO. Thanks. Okay, I need to sign off now and spend some time with my family. I'll look back in Sunday. Best. Tim ( talk) 15:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Please move this all to talk:Shituf. It does not belong here once we have the idea-- we have the idea and those interested can follow it there. -- Carlaude ( talk) 13:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 22:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
In addition to trouble with the Shituf page, the user Lisaliel is also trying to eliminate references to "monotheism" regarding Christianity. Case in point, please see recent vandalism [2] of the Christian page. I cannot keep up this extended edit war, and only ask that you be aware that there is an effort to eliminate recognition on Wikipedia of Christianity's self identification as a monotheistic religion. The article of Shituf is equating Christianity with Arianism.
Please be aware of this activity.
Thanks. Tim ( talk) 04:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
A peer review of Peter Jones (missionary), an article about a Christian missionary who successfully evangelized what is now part of the greater Toronto area, has been requested. Please leave your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Peter Jones (missionary)/archive1. --Blanchardb- Me• MyEars• MyMouth-timed 12:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - , member of WikiProject Council. 15:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The current edition of the newsletter is available at {{ WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/July 2008}} .Full content Newsletter was delivered to 223 members and Link only content to 5 members by TinucherianBot automatically. To stop receiving this newsletter next time, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 09:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Within the last week, Pentateuch has been re-forked off from Torah and the latter massively rewritten to mostly exclude any Christian or Islamic perspective. From my brief reading both articles have significant POV issues as they stand, especially as Pentateuch seems to be written entirely from a Jewish perspective. Mangoe ( talk) 15:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey. There's been a bit of an edit war brewing over at Theories about the origin of the Eucharist, so I was hoping someone from here could go and take a look. Basically, this edit has been added and reverted. We've got an editor who's trying to push a POV of sorts with edits such as this. There's an RFC pending, but no one has responded to it thus far. If someone could swing by the article and take a look, that'd be great. The discussion starts here. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I tagged Knights of Saint Gabriel with the primarysources template, but I'm now wondering if this is a bona fide organisation. I looked at their supposed website: http://diplomaticsociety.tripod.com/ and it just does not look right. See Talk:Knights of Saint Gabriel where I added the project banner. - 84user ( talk) 23:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
There is discussion at Talk:Amended Christadelphians regarding what content regarding the largest Christadelphian group, the Amended Christadelphians, should be included in the article on that specific group, and what in the main Christadelphians article. All input is welcome. John Carter ( talk) 17:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
There is discussion on the talk page of the above article regarding how much weight should be given to traditional dating of Biblical works relative to modern academic conclusions at Talk:Dating the Bible#"but according to medieval sources...". All input is welcome. John Carter ( talk) 17:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Two editors have been engaged in an unhelpful and disruptive edit war concerning the name of a diocese in the United Kingdom. I have issued an RfC and fully-protected the page against page moves by anyone until the matter has been fully discussed and a consensus reached by more editors than just the two involved in the edit-warring. Anyone able to is invited to engage in the discussion to help wikipedia improve by reaching a better solution than the unstable edit warring that has previously happened. See Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle#What should the name of this article be?. The two names that were being used were "Roman Catholic Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle" and "Diocese of Newcastle and Hexham". Thank you. DDStretch (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Proposing an example explaining the appropriate use of religious sources in religion-related articles. The intention is to clarify and explain existing policy, not to change it. There have been a number of debates over the years, some of them heated, about whether and what kinds of religious sources should be used. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 21:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I just discovered this talk page this morning. On April 19, I discovered a Wikipedia article on me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier that has been here for over two years. Granted, the Administrator who created it knew only about my runs for Parliament as an Independent (referred to as a fringe candidate by local media) and nothing about the prophetic Christianity aspect of my being. The article itself does not reflect this, 95% of the information removed to the dustbin of history. The information there does read more like a mini novel than an encyclopedia entry, but the events and stories, I assure you, are true, factual and unembellished. An interested editor would have to read the discussions on the other user talk pages referenced in the section 'Let's build the article together" in the talk of the article. The section 'Favorite Bible Verses' removed to history as not being encyclopedic, were selected to give an general overview of my vision. There is more substantiating information I would like to add to the talk for discussion and inclusion to the article, but until what is already there is refined and restored, that would serve no purpose. I have recused myself, rightly so, of editing my own bio. Hopefully interested editors of Christianity topics will take a look to see what can be done. Peace DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 14:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Good morning Mr Ray: thank you for your mails. Sorry, but I am not able to answer directly all the correspondences, and when I have to do so it is by post. Please, do understand that you will not receive any further answer from me, but it is not for lack of respect. I am pleased for your love for the Church and for the Holy Father. Your thoughts have been duly noted. I reciprocate your best wishes of joy, peace and Goodwill
+ Luigi Ventura apostolic nuncio to Canada DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 14:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kingturtle#Images_Copyright_and_Free
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:East718/Archive_14#Article_under_attack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ground_Zero#Discussion_of_this_article_-_Other_User_Talk DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 16:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I saw that this article is within the scope of your project. So I decided to place my question here. Why does this article use the German transliteration? The article says: "The settlement is named after the Molochna River...", so why the river is translitered "Molochna" and the settlement "Molotschna"? Isn't the right spelling for the settlement also "Molochna"? Thanks in advance and kind regards Doma-w ( talk) 12:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I think I may have offered the use of this before, but I do not remember. If anybody requires any legitimate information on Christianity in general or the Catholic Church in particular, I have a list of them here Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam for anybody to use. I thank you. -- 209.244.30.237 ( talk) 12:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering whether any of the members of this project would be interested in maybe helping to develop some of the Christianity content in the Simple English Wikipedia. That wikipedia is of particular use to individuals who are less familiar with English in easier to understand language, although that doesn't mean the content is "dumbed down". Having reasonably high-quality content there would definitely be useful for English as a Second Language students, and probably increase the visibility of some of the content here as well, through additional links there. If anyone would be willing to devote some time to such a project, please indicate that below. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 18:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I find quickly that we cannot say much in Simple English without explaining your terms. For example, I have created Christianityfooter in Simple English Wikipedia and am looking for feedback on the glosses that will be need to use for all the common Christian terms in it. (Only "Father" and "Son" were already on the Basic English wordlist. All others need a gloss like (Payment for wrong action) for "Atonement" but many are harder to do than that one. See also [3] Please look at it and discuss/ give feadback, etc. I also hope this will lead us to use the same glosses for words in the articles.-- Carlaude ( talk) 15:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
is, we are told (with no evidence), the nation's largest coalition of Abrahamic faith groups dedicated to media production, distribution and promotion. Etc. Then why all the redlinks, and why does so very little link to it? There's something fishy about the article. Could somebody take a look? -- Hoary ( talk) 22:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Reading the article on the Second Council of Ephesus (AKA the Robber Synod) I see it needs to be rewritten badly. I have added it to the To Do List above under other. The article is long but relies largely or entirely upon a single source, a source with a favorable view of this council. -- Carlaude ( talk) 20:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Samuel Butler's novel The Way of All Flesh mentions a 19th-century sect known as the Simeonites. (Possibly named for someone on the list at Simeon and/or the Tribe of Simeon.) I'm unable to find much about them online, but they were apparently factual and not fictional - http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-ButFir-t1-g1-t2-g1-t13.html . Can anyone begin an article on them, or link to an existing article if appropriate? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand ( talk) 18:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Are there any Wikisource members in this project, if so would you like to help with the above project. I'm trying to revive this project, but the other two members haven't been near it since 2006. At the moment it consists of copying pages of Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897) If anyone's interested please reply on my talk page. Kathleen.wright5 02:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I wish to initiate a dispute on the neutrality of the articale found under Goa Inquisition, which discusses the inquistion in Goa, India under Portuguese rule. This article appears to present a biased view of the subject. Much of the body of the article uses loaded language extensively. The sourcing of this article appears questionable as well. For example, in paragraph four of the title page, some very broad allegations of atrocities are made using a quotation attributed to Voltaire (himself a radical opponent of the Roman Catholic) as its sole support without any other verification. Later on, a quote presumably taken from one of the artical's sources makes fierce allegations against the Portugues ("...in the name of the religion of peace and love, the tribunal(s) practiced cruelties to the extent that every word of theirs was a sentence of death") without any support or commentary on the validity of the statement. In fact, the opening statements of the article states that according to the surviving records, out of the 16,202 persons brought to trial over the inquistion's 251 year lifespan, 57 were executed. This hardly indicates that "every word of theirs [the Portuguese] was a sentence of death". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraken66 ( talk • contribs) 09:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed this template for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 30. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 14:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
A lot of the Emerging Church page has substance and badly referenced. I have therefore started adding in citations and references for some of the material there, so that it shifts out of the identified problems. It is an important movement that needs to be written up better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KerryDawkins ( talk • contribs) 12:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that there are pages which list Category:Churches_in_the_United_States_by_state with a random selection of churches in each state. Usually these churches refer to historic buildings but occasionally to congregations in a non-notable building. I also noticed that there is a section for deleting Christianity pages ( [4]), so before I consider creating a church page, what are the criterion for it being notable enough to deserve a page? Calebu2 ( talk) 12:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Is undergoing a Featured Article review, please feel free to come and help bring this article up to current Featured Article standards! :) Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 17:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Members of this project might be interested in the AfD for the above-named article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 07:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a few calm editors might look at the neutrality of Yahweh, which addresses the tension between Jehovah's Witnesses and Yahweh-related groups. Thank you. HG | Talk 14:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I have recently noticed that in the Article: Advent there are no relations to the people that the candles and the prayers said after lighting the Candle(s), Or to 'The holly and the Ivy' which after the candle(s) are lit certain verses are sung to correspond with the prayer and the particular sunday. hannah ( talk) 10:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Cathedral of Magdeburg has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Thank you, Cirt ( talk) 02:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought perhaps someone could perhaps do a prayer of the Season box on the Christianity portal hannah ( talk) 16:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Several of the Parables of Jesus require an expert's attention. The articles consist of the primary source text, no secondary sources and little to no interpretation. In their current state, they violate WP:NPS. I found the Parable of the Two Sons, the Parable of the Leaven, the Parable of the Wise and the Foolish Builders and The Master and Servant especially lacking, but unfortunately I lack the background and inclination to bring them into a proper shape myself. Huon ( talk) 15:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I recently came across this article, which is in serious need of work. Presently it is a collection of claims that do not seem to carry a neutral point of view, and its references are thin. I've placed your project's tag on its talk page and hopefully you are in a position to begin reviewing it soon. Accurizer ( talk) 19:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
This problem has been addressed at least temporarily by reverting to an early version. Accurizer ( talk) 23:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Portal:Christianity calls itself at the lowest part of the page.
Anyone know how to fix this?-- Carlaude ( talk) 17:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
You are cordially invited to join us at Purity Ball, to assist with its expansion. Please come. Whatever404 ( talk) 12:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I suggest new portal. I think that we have enought matrial for it and it can help to make this articles better. -- 91.150.78.197 ( talk) 14:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Since there is a form of Christian Kabbalah, I suspect some of you may be interested in the discussion at Talk:Kabbalah#Requested move. Bob ( QaBob) 14:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The featured list List of popes has been nominated for removal. You can comment here. -- Scorpion 0422 17:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Can someone tell me who gave this a B (rather than start) rating as part of your project? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
In a recent AfD a (snowball) decision was taken to merge this article into the article Judeo-Christian.
Unfortunately the merge proposal was never flagged at the article Judeo-Christian, nor was the AfD ever flagged at the project talk-pages which tend to be a clearing house for such discussions; which is unfortunate, because as far as I can see, as a result nobody familiar with the Judeo-Christian article appears to have participated at all.
Two points in particular I would like to make,
People seem to have particularly objected to is the statement in the lead of the Christianity and Judaism article that:
I would agree, if that were true, it would set up a completely deprecated WP:POVFORK. But the truth actually is that the Judeo-Christian article does not review the "continuities and convergences between the two religions". Instead, its hatnote says "For the relationships between the two religions, see Christianity and Judaism." -- which, per WP:ADJECTIVE is exactly where that discussion should be found.
Having contacted the closing admin, his advice was to open a new discussion at Talk:Christianity and Judaism, advertise the discussion widely, and if a new consensus can be reached in that discussion, then per WP:CCC the new consensus should be followed, rather than the AfD decision, without the need for a DRV or a new AfD.
Concerns about the proposed merge have also been expressed by Slrubenstein ( talk · contribs), LisaLiel ( talk · contribs) and SkyWriter ( talk · contribs).
So this post is to let people know that that discussion is underway, at Talk:Christianity and Judaism#Overly speedy deletion. People may also wish to review the problems with the article in its present form, as identified in the AfD. Jheald ( talk) 15:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The article
Damnation is very short and focuses largely on slang use of the word.
IMHO this article can and should have much more on theology of the concept of damnation.
(I will not be editing this myself.) --
201.53.7.16 (
talk) 12:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Your thoughts would be appreciated here: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Messianic Judaism/1 -- Avi ( talk) 22:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Would be nice if somebody could write up about Carlos Annacondia. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.162.56 ( talk) 12:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated this article for removal of it's featured list status. Feel free to comment, here. iMatthew ( talk) 20:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Recently, I created the page on the Japanese theologian Kosuke Koyama, as it surprised me that this celebrated theologian did not have an article in Wikipedia. I first learnt of this through reading a Lion Handbook of Christian theologians in 1985, but as it was a long time ago that I read this, I do not recall all the details. Does any one know of the book in question, or indeed, have any other book references for Kosuke Koyama? If you know some good references that would help to improve this article, you can leave a message on my userpage and I shall be grateful - I shall be happy to edit the Koyama article if any one leaves messages on my userpage. Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Please consider commenting at Wikiproject Christianity in Asia proposal. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 20:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The suggestions are there that this would probably be best served as a task force of this project group. Would it be too much to ask of you if you created task forces with names such as "Christianity in America" or "Christianity in Asia"? Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 22:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
A discussion has started at Talk:Francis Macnab about how to cover his announcement of a new faith, see here. The sections dealing with it are rather long, and further we have had a request from the Executive of his church that we remove some sourced information about the public response of another church. Your input is appreciated. Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 23:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Warning: There is no such thing as the "Assemblies of Yahweh (Michigan)". There is one Assemblies of Yahweh (Bethel) which has branches over the world. Just like to let you know. Apparently, the Assemblies of Yahweh have had copyright issues already with groups such as the Assembly of Yahweh, or House of Yahweh, calling themselves Assemblies of Yahweh. Kiddish.K ( talk) 12:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Can someone from this project run their eyes over Geevarghese Mar Ivanios, I've removed a lot of the gushing love letter like tone from the article but a lot of terminology is complete alien to me and it could do with an expert running their eyes over it. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 15:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Someone mentioned this article before, but they failed to mention how biased against the event it is. The article includes several quotes criticising the event but not a single positive comment to support it. Wikipedia articles are supposed to have a neutral point of view, this one clearly does not. 75.93.9.235 ( talk) 04:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I am a new user and I have noticed a lot of clever anti-missionary activity on many of the christian pages. One example:
Page in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_prophecies_(Christian_view)
CHARGE: The page has been attacked by an anti-christian opinion. I have a serious problem with the content and link references given but do not know all the Wikipedia rules yet.
REASONS: Link references 26, 28 to 32 do not exist on this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_prophecies_(Christian_view)
Also the content and additions that these links provide do not share the Christian View but is biased towards the anti-missionary opinion (Jewish opinion that opposes the Jewish Messianic or Christian position). In addition someone changed the alternate title code as it does not resemble the name of the page but the word "claimed is inserted". This was the reason why I tried to slowly create a new page. There are other charges I have against the content on this page that are dishonest but want mention this for the moment. I am seeking to work with someone who knows the laws of Wikipedia so we can destroy the enemies work. I am only a few days old with Wikipedia.
First Crusade has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. OpenSeven ( talk) 17:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if Samuel Johnson would qualify with WikiProject Anglicanism and the Anglicanism Portal because he ghost wrote many sermons. I have not yet had a chance to finish a page on it, but this and this can give you a sense about his contribution. Ottava Rima ( talk) 20:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I added a few comments to the DoC talk page about the article's style and content. Since it is under Wikiproject:Christianity I thought it would be good to mention it here so someone with a little more know-how and resources on this denomination could help out. In short, the article is sourced solely by primary sources, and it reads a bit more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic entry. It would be good if someone could fix it up a bit when it comes to tone and sourcing. Thanks. Kristamaranatha ( talk) 03:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
This article, and probably related ones, could use some expert help. The viewpoints of the Messianic Jews themselves and of mainstream Jews are represented but not that of mainstream Christianity. Also in Jews for Jesus, this mainstream group (like it or dislike it) is being confused with Messianic Judaism and some help is needed explaining the difference. Steve Dufour ( talk) 03:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
This may have been discussed previously, but I cannot find anything in the archive. In articles about churches, is it appropriate to include lists of priests, ministers, and the like? I seem to remember such a list being deleted from a church article, but cannot remember when or why. Is there a policy on this? Many thanks. Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 11:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I just put up Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos and am looking for suggestions on how the article can be improved. General comments or copy-edit are also appreciated. bamse ( talk) 12:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The article, Rick Warren, has been repeatedly vandalized by dozens of unestablished users over the past couple days and needs to have a partial lock added ASAP.
Manutdglory ( talk) 23:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
INRI ( King of the Jews) was inscribed on the cross on which Jesus Christ was crucified.. Why Jews?? Jews also worship him? Is regarded as a God by Jewish people too? Also was Christ born Jew? Are Judaism and Christaianity related? Didn't Jews reject Christ's newly created religion- Christianity? Then how come Jews were hated by the Christian world in the medieval times? Also were Jews in any way responsible for His crucifixion? Everyone please pardon me, but I am very ignorant about both Judaism and Christianity... a few questions which I may have posed could be totally unrelated and "plain stupid"... sorry again -- Sanguine learner talk 17:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've finished revising the proposed improved version of the template {{ Infobox church/sandbox}}. Your comments and feedback at the template's " talk page" are welcome. If there are no major objections to the improved template, it will be used to replace the existing template {{ Infobox church}}. — Cheers, JackLee – talk– 06:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. To centralize the discussion, I'm copying your comment over to " Template talk:Infobox church#Revised template ready; comments, please" and responding there. — Cheers, JackLee – talk– 12:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
As there were no other comments after revisions were made to the sandboxed template, the improved version of {{ Infobox church}} has gone live. In connection with this, {{ Parish church}} has been nominated for deletion. See " TfD nomination of Template:Parish church" below. — Cheers, JackLee – talk– 18:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
-- xposted to Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism --
I was looking for info on "Kings", as in the book(s) of the Tanakh/OT that come between Samuel and Chronicles.
Kings (a disamb page, though not designated as one) includes among other uses:
Book of Kings says:
Book of Kings may refer to:
- The Books of Kings in the Bible
- The Shahnama, an 11th century epic Persian poem
- The Morgan Bible, a French medieval picture bible
- The Pararaton, a 16th century Javanese history of southeast Asia
Books of Kings is apparently the actual content: "The Books of Kings (Hebrew: Sefer Melachim, ספר מלכים) are a part of Judaism's Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible. ... and were later included by Christianity as part of the Old Testament."
Our various links to "Kings", "Book of Kings", "Books of Kings" seem unnecessarily confusing. Can we clarify these references and redirects? Thanks. --
201.53.7.16 (
talk) 16:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
This isn't much to show for such a major figure in Christianity. This article needs work. -- Secisek ( talk) 16:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Template:Parish church has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Cheers,
JackLee –
talk– 18:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone in this wikiproject care that Nativity of Jesus is likely going to shortly be pushed into using CE instead of AD? Carl.bunderson ( talk) 08:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
When I tried to remove a section at the bottom of this article (on a different subject than the article - SIMULSUBSTANTIATION) and no I don't know what it means. When I tried to remove this section it said "no such section", and when I tried to edit from the top I found the text didn't exist. What should be done with this? Kathleen.wright5 08:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed in reviewing the TFC above that all of the church infobox templates include a place to record clergy. I think this should be suppressed, in the interests of Wikipedia is not a directory. Even cathedral canons are fairly transient, much less parish priests and ministers; and 99% of these people, if not more, are non-notable (and probably want to remain so). Keeping this stuff up to date is a hopeless project. Mangoe ( talk) 13:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The watchlist and its recent changes looks useful to have. But what are the conventions about deciding what articles should (and shouldn't) be on it? I have a particular live biography article in mind. But the person himself also seems, I think, to be editing it in an autobiographical and advertising fashion. Might it help if the article were on the watchlist? Then various other editors could help shape the article in a neutral manner. Feline Hymnic ( talk) 19:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Done. Feline Hymnic ( talk) 20:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
If any one has an interest, I am hoping to get some input about a dispute occurring at the faith article. I would be grateful for some feed back about the issue, so I can proceed to to produce a referenced article. Thanks. Hardyplants ( talk) 14:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I saw this article but noted that it fails to adequately describe the concept of a national church as distinct from an established church or state religion. Is anyone familiar with this concept who can add sources and improve the article? Or is this article worthy of being included in Wikipedia at all? -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it need to remove former featured articles from the list?-- Vojvodae ist 14:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The article on Koyama is under the watchlist of the Philosophy Wikiproject,but not this one. Why don't you add a tag to the article to state that it is under the WikiProject Christianity group's remit? I am sure that you could find people here who are interested in Asian theologians. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 00:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Thank you - I have now check the article on Kosuke Koyama, and see it is within your project group. Does this group have sub-groups, such as task forces, dealing with Christianity in different parts of the world? Wikipedia has an article on Christianity in Japan and such a task force could potentially help to improve this article. Again, thank you for looking at this one, ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 19:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The article God is currently under individual reassessment, which can be found here. Editors are encouraged to participate. Thank you. Diverse Mentality 22:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I want to start new subprojet Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbian Orthodox Church but I dont know how to do it. Can someone help me about procedure and templates?-- Vojvodae ist 12:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Would someone please comment on a content dispute surrounding a table comparing the infancy narratives in Luke and Matthew at Nativity of Jesus? Thanks. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I was just assessing articles for the Freemasonry WikiProject, and I came across Scottish Rite Cathedral (Indianapolis), which is also tagged as being of interest to you folks. Should I remove it, on the grounds that it was probably an error because of "Cathedral", or do you have a continuing interest in it? Thanks.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 21:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Project participants may be interested in contributing to the proposed policy Wikipedia:Religion. — Eustress talk 18:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the page on Kosuke Koyama, I see that the article has not yet had a rating on the importance rating scale. Having just read the importance rating for Christianity articles, I consider it appropriate if this goes in the "low importance" category. Although Kosuke Koyama is quite a big name in contemporary theology, he would not be as well-known a figure as, for example, Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, Martin Luther, John Calvin or Hans Kung.
The article on Emil Brunner has been rated as low-importance by the WikiProject group for Calvinism. Since Brunner is probably a more well-known name than Koyama, that rather makes me feel in support of my above suggestion that this should be rated as low-importance. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 17:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:X is in the latest signpost. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-03-09/WikiProject report. Thanks to User:Secisek. Good work ! -- Tinu Cherian - 12:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Any comments regarding the structure and function of Christianity related material are welcome at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum#Project organization. Be prepared for some rather lengthy comments, though. There is a lot of material to cover there. John Carter ( talk) 17:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, this article is currently near the top of the wp:featured articles/Cleanup listing as it is in 5 maintenace categories: Articles needing additional references (Dec 2008), Articles with unsourced statements (Jun 2008, Jul 2008, Aug 2008, Feb 2009). Anyone finding time to make improvements would be appreciated, thanks Tom B ( talk) 15:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
It looks to me that a lot of the articles in this category aren't about apologetics, but rather specific apologists. We don't yet have a Category:Christian apologists to hold such articles separately, but I think that it might make sense to create such a category for these articles. Would the rest of you agree? Also, would it be preferable to make the "apologetics" category the parent of the "apologists" category, or the other way around? John Carter ( talk) 14:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Please note that there are several students presently creating the article, " Christianity in Haiti" as a part of a school project. Any help you might give them or edits you might contribute to this page are graciously welcome. Also, please note that a couple of antagonistic editors have been interfering in these students' work, and so an assistance with this would also be appreciated. Thank you. Vote Cthulhu ( talk) 01:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Aramaic language for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that, as present, we don't have a navigation box to easily link the most important articles on that subject, like, for instance, Template:Roman Catholicism2, which is used for Roman Catholicism. Would anyone like to help create such a navbox, and what articles do you all think should be included in it? Ideally, the articles to be included would be those which give a broad, comprehensive look at the subject. Those articles would also likely be counted as the most important articles on the subject, as they are linked to from the main anabaptist page through the navbox. Thoughts? John Carter ( talk) 15:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Why are there so many religions under this category? Does the "Christianity Portals" box representing religions based off of Christianity and Judaism?(I don't really want to get in an argument about the origin of the different religions.)If it is why not put Islam, Mormonism, and all the other similar religions?
But if it is not, then I recommend relocating some of the religions, because some of them contradict the Bible as well as themselves, not mentioning being historically inaccurate.(I am not mentioning the names because I do not want to loose my head...) Please respond without threats or rage, but in a formal, dignified manner.
But if you strike me in rage...I will not back down. If it is war you want, it is war you shall have.(Sorry, for not following the whole "turn the other cheek example" but I will defend my faith to the bitter end. Again I wish peace but I will not leave my defenseless against an attacking rival.)
"I have never advocated war except as a means of peace." Ulysses S. Grant
(Again, sorry for all the commotion) Project Gnome ( talk) 21:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
In the article on lent, the author defines its orgin thus: "The forty days represent the time that, according to the Bible, Jesus spent in the desert before the beginning of his public ministry, where he endured temptation by Satan.[1]." This is ambiguous. The forty days refers the the forty days and forty nights of fasting, AFTER WHICH he was tempted by Satan. Omitting reference to the fasting during the forty days downplays the role of fasting in early Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.211.92 ( talk) 05:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I've created and or come across a number of articles on nonconformists and/or presbyterians such as Richard Frankland (tutor), Timothy Jollie, Thomas Jollie, Oliver Heywood (clergyman), Samuel Hammond (minister) ... there may be others to be taken into consideration ... all from the Dictionary of National Biography.
I'm uncertain if these people are Anglicans: could anyone confirm. And thus I'm uncertain about what categories to pop the articles into ... we have such things as Category:English Anglican priests, Category:Calvinist ministers and theologians, Category:Presbyterian ministers, but we do not seem to have Category:Nonconformist ministers ... I'm a little lost.
So. Any advice on the relationship of these people with Anglicanism, and on appropriate categories, much appreciated. thanks. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Hi. The article Religious ministry (Christian) is in need of some assistance. While wikilinking a new article today, I found that over a year ago it had been redirected to Minister (Christianity), which is, of course, the specific office. The redirect probably resulted from the fact that the article had been unsourced for about two years. I've added a couple of sources to the introductory paragraph of this article, but it can use quite a bit more work. I've tagged it for the project, but I wanted to mention it here in case anyone had time or interest. Thanks. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I intend to write an article from scratch about a church, with a 300 year old building, historically significant members of the congregation and ministers, and current activities that are documented in local and national press. Are there any guidelines for how to structure such an article? Thanks! BrainyBabe ( talk) 18:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Angel#Angels_.3C-.3E_Deceased_humans on whether or not it is appropriate to include in that article the popular notion that when good people die they become angels. Your thoughts on this question are welcome there. -- 201.37.230.43 ( talk) 12:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I would like to give you some heads up for Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 7 and User:Carlaude/Notes#List_C. I would like to know that everything is ok with the proposed categorisation. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 18:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The article on the Japanse theologian Kazoh Kitamori has been marked as an orphaned article, but I have now given it links from these articles:
This means that just one more link from an article could quite happily result in the removal of the orphan tag - does any one have any ideas where that should be from? By the way, I am not an expert on theologians in Japan, I am just interested (after my pleas for help with the piece on Koyama and now my plea regarding Kitamori, I thought I had better clarify that! ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 21:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Would the members of the project be in favor of establishing a more thorough review of an article for A-Class status, perhaps like that discussed at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/A-Class criteria? John Carter ( talk) 15:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I notice that a category has been created, but it appears to have been empty for over a month. -- Stepheng3 ( talk) 05:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted everybody to know that there is a new form of recognition for images which are particularly useful to wikipedia.
Oh, yeah, and that none of the valued pictures relate to Christianity yet. That too. I really only say this because
WikiProject Islam already has two valued pictures. If any of you have any images that you think would be successful nominees, please feel free to nominate them. Thank you.
John Carter (
talk) 13:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
There is discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#New Task Force: Christian Films regarding the possible creation of a Christian film task force there. Any interested parties are more than welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 22:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I noticed some LDS temple articles have Wikiproject Christianity templates on them. Should all LDS temples have this template? LDS-SPA1000 ( talk) 19:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Your input is welcome. -- Banjeboi 03:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, there is a problem regarding importance assessments and other declarations of importance which I haven't seen directly addressed anywhere yet, but which I think should be addressed, if for no other reason than to keep it from arising again.
As most of you know, the breakdown of Christian populations worldwide is roughly 50% Catholic, 10% Eastern Orthodox, and all the others fall within the remaining 40%. Should these population statistics affect "importance" at all? I acknowledge that I am a Roman Catholic, and have acknowledged that repeatedly to help identify any possible COI. Having said that, I do have to believe that it should have some effect, although I do not think that I myself am at all qualified to determine how. I don't think that this should necessarily affect the core topics list, which at present includes only 19 articles relating to the last 25% out of a proposed 100. But it is a factor which I think should be addressed, one way or another, so that we know how to proceed in the future.
An example, if one is needed, of where it might become a problem is a comparison of, for instance,
Philipp Melanchthon or
John Knox versus
Francis of Assisi or
Gregory Palamas. Which ones would be count as being a higher priority? While in no way denying the impact of Melanchthon and Knox, much of that impact on the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox populations was comparatively minimal, almost certainly less than the impact of Francis of Assisi on the Catholics or Gregory Palamas of the Eastern Orthodox. Add your own example if you have questions about any of mine. In any event, do any of you have any ideas how, if at all, to address this question, or would we be basically better off letting it lie and hoping nothing happens?
John Carter (
talk) 13:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I have to think the name of the above portal is a bit misleading. On that basis, I have proposed that it be renamed Portal:Vatican, or, potentially, Portal:Vatican City, to more accurately reflect the contents. The discussion for renaming can be found at Portal talk:Pope#Requested move. All interested parties are encouraged to take part in the discussion. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 21:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
After a recent request on my talk page, I added the Christianity project to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. I can also provide the full data for any project covered by the bot if requested, though I normally don't keep it for much longer than a week after the list is generated. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! (note that there is an encoding issue with some non-ascii titles, this will be fixed in the next update). Mr. Z-man 19:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
This appears to be an article with an identity crisis. It seems to want to focus on creeds from the Christian perspective, but has an article title that gives it a broader scope. As a result, it leans toward the Christian perspective on creeds, but not with enough detail to really be useful. I beleive it would be an appropriate fork to create Creed (Christianity); that would allow the original article to have a broader focus and the new article to cover a little more in depth on Christianity and creeds. Proposal is on article talk page, please comment there. Thanks. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The peer review page looked ... abandonded, so I thought I would just list this here. I have done some significant expansion on this article, and would like to get some more eyes to give it the once over. There's a little bit I have left to do, but any improvements to what is there would be appreciated. Thanks. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
There is evidently some serious discussion at Talk:Holy Spirit regarding how much space to give nontrinitarian views of the subject. This is definitely not my field, but I think informed opinions from reputable editors would probably be more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 18:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
We just got our first listing of the 1000 most often accessed articles relevant to this project. It can be seen here. Only a few are currently listed as being "Stub" class: Gary Cole, Brian McKnight, Millenium, Andy Richter, Evangelism, Via Dolorosa, Seven Archangels, Battle Cry: Worship from the Frontlines, Emerging church, Non-denominational Christianity, Kevin Sorbo, Ron Livingston, Chris Kirkpatrick, Gospel of Mary, Cosmological argument, Wake (ceremony), Aryan Nations, I am that I am, Effigy, and Millenarianism. Anyone wanting to do a little work on any of them, particularly those that are more directly related to the project, are more than welcome to do so though. I can definitely see maybe an award or barnstar of some kind going to anyone who can bring any of them up to Start by the time the list is next generated. Just ask to have them assessed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Contest, and we'll see how well you did. If that isn't an obvious hint, guys, I don't know what is. John Carter ( talk) 22:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Work has picked up again for me, but this is a great project and I will contribute as much as I can. I KNOW some of these I can really help with. -- Secisek ( talk) 01:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
According to this page, we're averaging, oh, only about 20 views per day on this page. My user page gets over twice that as per here, at least in part because of recent vandalism. Any ideas how to get more people to pay attention, barring vandalism of course? John Carter ( talk) 16:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
To Do? I am sure you noticed I quietly moved it to less obtrusive places in some projects. That may be a good idea all around. I check in here (and with all the work groups and many subprojects talk pages) almost every time I am on Wiki, so I am doing my part. -- Secisek ( talk) 01:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason that this is not a re-direct to either Tetragrammaton or Yahweh?? It did go to AfD a few years back, but that was a few years back. Now, it appears that Yahweh might be the best "parent" article for this little group of overlapping concepts. If it seems appropriate to you all, I'll post a note on the article talk. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt ( talk) 01:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I want to inform the community that I have done a GA Reassessment of Isaac and found the article lacking. Not very much will need to be done but enough that I could not keep it GA without some effort. I am notifying all interested projects that I have held this article for one week pending editing. The review can be found here. If you have any questions please feel free to contact my talk page. H1nkles ( talk) 23:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion regarding how much material regarding certain matters of the subject's private life should be included in the article above. A request for comment on the subject can be found at Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr.#Request for Comments. Any input is more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 14:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I have begun a draft of this page in my userspace. It is very much not ready for prime time - not references, I haven't followed up to check on my wikilinks, and it is very incomplete. I would welcome input and editing from others to help get it ready to move to the mainspace. Thanks so much. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 16:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm in the process of making a list of the various relevant categories, so that I may be able to ultimately try to make the existing structure a little more coherent. A few questions have come to mind regarding some already, however.
I don't like to create stubs for which I don't have the resources to expand to at least start-articles. However, Lutheran Church of the Redeemer, Jerusalem seemed to important to pass up, and I was astounded that we didn't have this article already. I would greatly appreciate any help in expanding this, if anyone has the references to do so. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The header on this page shows: WikiProject Christianity / Baptist [show](Rated Stub-Class), but Third Church of Christ, Scientist (Washington, D.C.) is not and never has been a Baptist or Anabaptist church. It is a Christian Science church and has no provision for physical baptism of any age or in any manner whatsoever. Perhaps it is being confused with Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. Anyway, I have tried to change it but cannot. It seems that the Baptist part is added automatically. Can someone correct this. clariosophic ( talk) 00:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 07:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I have recently finished a book by Michael Grant, arguably one of the world's top scholars regarding Greco-Roman history, entitled "Saint Peter: A Biography". In that book, he seriously calls into question the possibility that many of the details and events of the New Testament may be inaccurately stated. This includes questioning whether the Council of Jerusalem ever took place per se. Personally, I find the arguments used reasonable and if not convincing creditable. He also provides some material, generally not original to him, regarding his thoughts as to why there are so many disagreements between the Synoptic Gospels and John, and various other matters. What would the rest of you think of adding material from this source to the various relevant articles? For what it's worth, I am using the source extensively in my draft revision of Saint Peter, given the more objective and possibly more thorough consideration of the subject in this volume. I also have other sources, but this one, which seems to be among the most recent, seems on that basis, at least to me, perhaps the best source on the so-called "modern" view of the subject. John Carter ( talk) 01:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Please check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian cult (2nd nomination) if you like. I think it brings up some important issues. Borock ( talk) 17:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
This is the first time I have created a really substantial article, from scratch, and would appreciate feedback and improvements. (I have listed it as within the scope of this wikiproject, although some might find that contentious.) It is Newington Green Unitarian Church, so that makes it hard for me to find the appropriate categories or projects for it. It was important in the history of English Dissenters from the established church, but is not Protestant (or even Christian?) now. It is both a listed building, and a congregation with a 300-year history of political radicalism. (Most famous minister -- Richard Price, whose sermon stimulated the Revolution Controversy, and who knew and influenced several of the Founding Fathers of the United States. Most famous congregant -- Mary Wollstonecraft, who listened to this and extended liberte, egalite, fraternite to women's rights too.) I have a "Did You Know" factoid in the list, and would like to take this to GA, but thought I'd ask here first. BrainyBabe ( talk) 15:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Black church has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 00:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Pope Benedict XVI has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 00:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I see several problems with the above article. Not the least of these problems is the fact that the article's title seems perhaps strange, and possibly(?) linked to prewrathministries.com. The original creator of the article, User:Strongtowerpubs, seems perhaps too similarly named to Strong Tower Publications, owned I believe by H. L. Nigro, one of the other listed sources. I also believe most of the article is at best dubiously sourced. I can myself see only one source, the Rosenthal one, that might be considered reliable. The Frederick source is from Lulu Press, a self-publishing house. I have no doubt that the subject is notable, but have very serious questions regarding the reliability of the content. I would welcome any input on the article. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 15:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I have done a GA Reassessment of Roman Catholicism in Mongolia as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to need some work, there is a dead reference link and I feel that more could be added to the article. My review is here. I will hold the article for a week and I am notifying interested projects of the possibility that the article will be delisted if improvements are not made. Please address any questions to my talk page. H1nkles ( talk) 04:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I have done the GA Reassessment of Emanuel Swedenborg as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article does not meet current GA Criteria. As such I have placed the article on hold pending work that needs to be done to bring it up to current standards. My review is here. I am notifying all interested projects and editors of the possibility that the article will be delisted if work is not done in the next week. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. H1nkles ( talk) 15:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated the smallest of the categories of Roman Catholic popes for deletion. Of the group nominated, the largest of the categories contains six individuals. Please feel free to take part in the discussion here. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 21:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Please note a move discussion here at what used to be Christian cults Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Leadwind ( talk · contribs) and I have been in an ongoing edit war with Radu Comanescu ( talk · contribs) at Beatitudes. Radu claims he is adding cited text, while Leadwind and I contend his additions are OR. I'd like some input from uninvolved editors who likely have dealt with issues of this nature before. Thanks. KuyaBriBri Talk 15:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I just wrote an article on the United Methodist Hymnal. Would anyone care to help me expand this article with more third party sources and information? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedians at
Talk:Roman Catholic Church are discussing the merits of changing the article name as such.
Roman Catholic Church →
Catholic
Church. Please share your opinions
there. --
Carlaude
talk 12:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Old St Paul's Cathedral has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 02:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Would anyone care to create a page on this denomination? I don't know anything about it except it has 60,000 members in the US accoring to the Association of Religion Data Archives/ The Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches, and that is larger than many other denominations that do have articles. For example, the Friends United Meeting is the largest of the three main Quaker groups and it has only 42,600 members in the US. -- Carlaude talk 23:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
See Outline of Islam.
For instructions, see Wikipedia:Outlines.
Also see WP:WPOOK.
Thank you.
Good luck.
Have fun.
The Transhumanist 23:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Your help is needed to get it ready to move to the main namespace.
The Transhumanist 23:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Landover Baptist Church is a website parody of fundamentalist Baptists. Mikhailovich keeps removing an external link from the Landover Baptist Church article and says it isn't relevant. I say it is very relevant. (The only other external link is to the parody website). Would one or two folks mind going there and commenting. Thanks. Carlaude: Talk 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a current discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#One topic publishing house acceptable as RS.3F regarding whether and how sources from small publishers who deal primarily or only with a single church or movement may be cited in articles. E.g., can we cite a work published on Presbyterianism which is published by a house which only publishes books dealing with Presbyterianism? One editor has requested input from others, and since this might have implications for many articles beyond the case under discussion, anyone who cares to leave input there would help in forming consensus. • Astynax talk 16:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I was just at the talk page for the Catholic Wikiproject, and I suggested that we keep the current list of saints, but make more specific pages for each branch which can then be covered by the branch's respective Wikiproject. For instance, an article called "list of Roman Catholic saints" would be covered by WP:CATHOLIC. I think this would be more convenient for readers than the current chart being used to denote what religion the saint is praised by. 70.108.234.157 ( talk) 19:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone checked this one out recently? It is unencyclopedic and reads like a Dominican Tract. It is unworthy of Wikipdia and is bad for Wikipedia's reputation. It is made up largely of unverified statements and opinion masquerading as fact. Much the same can be said of the article Saint Dominic. What's going on here? Is the Order's PR department responsible for this hagiography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.99.74 ( talk) 00:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Johnbod ( talk) 22:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that should either be an article rather than a redlink, or at least a redirect to an appropriate section of another article. The phrases "suffering of Christ" and "sufferings of Christ" crop up in a lot of articles, with a fairly technical meaning (in the sense that the meaning would not be clear to a person without a background knowledge of Christianity). Any thoughts? TheGrappler ( talk) 22:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Done As to the issue of no current links to that name ("Suffering of Christ"), you are correct that there shouldn't be any links to it. However, it is a plausible search term. Redirects are cheap. Created.
Athanasius •
Quicumque vult 00:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Billy Sunday has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 06:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:
-- Mr. Z-man 23:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I am personally somewhat uncertain how to classify/categorize/regard some of the more recent religious groups which incorporate into them at least some of the aspects of Christianity, but whose beliefs, practices, or other aspects are at least sometimes "at odds" with Christianity. I'm thinking specifically of Santeria and a few other, related, groups. Do the rest of you think they should be regarded as "Christian"? Any responses are more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 17:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
This new image relates to the Apocalypse as related in the Revelation of John, and I have received a question about it. Does anyone who knows eschatology better than me know if there might be any objections to its being used? John Carter ( talk) 17:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I have notified
Drnhawkins of this discussion.
Lady
of
Shalott 02:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
(←)
File:Millennium1.gif. Another, in 8 articles.
Athanasius •
Quicumque vult 02:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
There is currently discussion about whether the name "Roman Catholic" or the name "Catholic" should be used on many of our articles and categories, as the result of a recent mediation regarding the topic. Input on the subject is more than welcome here. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 23:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
On the disamb page Orthodox, the first meaning given is:
"Correct belief such as Trinitarian, Ancient, and/or Creedal Christian Theology"
The first definition of the term Orthodox Christianity given on that page is:
" Correct theology or belief, such as the ancient, majority, or Trinitarian theologies of Christianity"
These would seem to have POV problems. Can we re-phrase these to reflect that understanding of "orthodoxy" (or its opposite) varies from denomination to denomination and from person to person? -- 201.37.230.43 ( talk) 13:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 05:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Please have a look at Christian Conventions. This article has been given a lot of effort by Astynax, and it deserves a better rating than start class.
Also have a look, if you have a chance, at the LENGTHY discussion with Tmtsoj who tagged the article first as NPOV and later as factually inaccurate. I got involved from a plea on the NPOV discussion board. I don't have much knowledge about this group, although I'm reasonably well informed about how to write a decent article about spiritual topics. I think the article has been adjusted adequately and should be untagged. I don't see a way to further satisfy Tmtsoj's objections, and this is becoming frustrating. I'm ready to do something rash...er I mean BOLD! Not Rash. Forget I said rash.
I would welcome any thoughts about how the matter might be better handled than way I'm doing, i.e., with a blunt instrument. -- nemonoman ( talk) 12:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Let me update this request on my own. The article has had past edit warring, wikilawyering, and that could easily begin again. I'm personally loosing patience and possibly objectivity. • Astynax talk 22:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The last 2 days have had a flurry of destructive edits. This involves at least one user who signed off and evidently immediately came back as one or more sockpuppets (self-refers to previous posts claims s/he made in Talk that were made under a different identity). Assistance/intervention needed please. • Astynax talk 19:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I would very much appreciate concerned editors having a look at the progressively intense editing at Christian Conventions. Edits, mostly blanking, by anonymous IPs have increased. Many of the recent editors seemed determined to remove passages -- even well-referenced passages -- based on personal interpretations of their faith, rather than reliable sources. A key example is the continuing blanking about the founder of the church: According to reliable sources, this was William Irvine, but (apparently) the members of this group believe the founder was Jesus, and are dead-set against any contradiction. That matter is simple and obvious, but a glance at this article's recent history will show the extent of the disputes. This is quickly turning into an edit war, and a few cooler heads might find a way to build a consensus and improve the article. -- nemonoman ( talk) 14:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
--Never mind. Too late. -- nemonoman ( talk) 02:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I've requested a peer review of Christian Conventions, and invite this group's participation in particular. I hope someone will also note that the article is nearing a Good Article nomination, is definitely a state higher than 'start class' as currently listed, and will adjust its class accordingly. -- Nemonoman ( talk) 21:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Related to the .gif discussion above, I noticed a user uploading copyrighted .gif most likely from his own, self published website. There appears to be 3 of them in the Tribulation article. I was wondering if more eyes could review the situation. I'm concerned that if this isn't a fringe, self-published, original research view, at the very least it is POV pushing of one POV, while ignoring others (as we know there is not just one interpretation). I just am short on time myself, and thought more eyes on the situation would be beneficial. I could also be mistaken about the notability of the views expressed in these images. Just wanted to through it out there that this issue is larger than the one .gif discussed above.- Andrew c [talk] 14:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unification Church and antisemitism Borock ( talk) 04:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Could other editors offer an opinion please? Articles Kyrie, Libera Me and Jubilate Deo are about particular songs (hymns, chants, liturgical texts) used throughout the world in hundreds of thousands of churches and schools. Someone (and some anon-IPs which may be his/her sockpuppets) keeps adding material about one school (amongst thousands) in one country (amongst hundreds). My own view is that we shouldn't start creating lists of the thousands of places where it is used. They also keep trying to add it to a category related to that school. I think it is time for the opinion of others to assist in resolution. Thanks in advance. Feline Hymnic ( talk) 23:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The Daily Word article has been flagged for deletion. Does anyone know of any reliable news sources that can be cited? Thanks! -- Trelawnie ( talk) 01:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Any parties interested in being one of the coordinators of WikiProject Christianity and its various related projects is encouraged to list themselves as a candidate at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 2. It would be particularly beneficial if we had individuals from as broad a range of areas of the project as possible, to help ensure that we have people knowledgable about the widest range of content possible. John Carter ( talk) 20:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I have done a GA Reassessment of the Alcohol in the Bible article as part of the GA Sweeps project. My reassessment can be found here. I have found that the article does not meet the current GA Criteria and as such I have placed it on hold for one week pending work. I am notifying all interested projects and editors of this in the hopes that an editor will come forth to work on the article. Should you have questions or concerns please contact me at my talk page. H1nkles ( talk) 20:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Eu.stefan, has done an amazing job on the Outline of Buddhism.
Please compare Outline of Christianity.
Is there someone here who is knowledgeable enough about Christianity to further develop its outline?
The Transhumanist 22:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. There is currently an RFC for the name of an article related to this project. Please see Talk:Southern_Baptist_Convention_Conservative_Resurgence/Fundamentalist_Takeover#RfC:_Neutral_name_for_this_article if you would like to opine. The issue is that this name violates our naming convention in a number of ways (no hierarchical names, no POV names) and the question is what would be an appropriate neutral name for this topic. Thank you. -- B ( talk) 14:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
There is a minor debate- -to-reach-consensus about the correct way to capitalize certain terms; as there are few people working on the article, it would really help if a few others could add their opinions, in Talk:Pentecostalism#Proper_names. Thanks, Chzz ► 09:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Someone (not me) has proposed a merge of Satan into Devil discuss at Talk:Satan#Satan_merged_into_Devil.3F. I am circulating this among relevant boards. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
In October 2008, I created the article on Kosuke Koyama - Koyama is now, with Kazoh Kitamori, one of only two theologians in the category of Japanese theologians. However, I think it would be nice if a third name could be added to this list - Masao Takenake. I do not know much about him myself, and certainly would not be able to start an article on him - I just know he is referred to in J. Taylor's chapter, "The Future of Christianity", in McManners, J. (ed.) (1992) The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity. I can give you this quote:
"Even the work of Kitamori, Takenake and Koyama of Japan, which technically belongs to the north, is generally ignored".
(Taylor, in McManners, 1992; p639).
This is Taylor's way of bemoaning how theologians in the northern hemisphere have generally ignored those in the south.
It would be nice if we could have another article on a Japanese theologian in Wikipedia! Many thanks for reading this, ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 15:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Second Crusade for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior4321 ( talk • contribs)
Hello! There is a backlog of Good Article nominations on religious topics here. Several of the pending articles relate to Christianity, so hopefully someone here is able to review them. (One of the article is mine, but please start on the older ones!) Thanks! -- Tango ( talk) 00:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I have rewritten Nazarene (title). Kauffner ( talk) 02:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Coordination of activity. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 19:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I will try in next few weeks to improve article Saint Sava but I need help because I am not native speaker of English language. If there is someone intersted to help write on my talk page. Best wishes,-- Vojvodae please be free to write :) 14:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, there is a new article Contradictions in the Gospels that really needs help from any of you who know the Gospel in detail. Cheers. History2007 ( talk) 11:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
You might want to read this huge article about the synoptic gospels in general (and the second and the third part - the third especially), this fairly hefty one about the Gospel of John, and this article about nativity in particular, and this one about the resurrection and ascension, all from the Encyclopaedia Biblica.
In particular, in this section ("Extent_of_discrepancies") of the last mentioned article has a table you might find useful/interesting. Newman Luke ( talk) 01:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The Christianity article is under fire from a group of editors who think that " Restorationism" deserves to be one of the major groupings of Christianity, alongside Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism, and deserves equal mention with them. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 15:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Out of interest, why does that list you've given here only include Trinitarian forms of Christianity, and not Arianism, Nestorianism, etc. ? The Assyrian Church of the East still exists after all these thousands of years, as do the Syrian Orthodox (who aren't the same at all as 'Eastern Orthodoxy'), neither of which are Chalcedonian, and both of which are major categories of Christianity. Newman Luke ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC).
Just thought it might be of some note that I have found an encyclopedia published in 1909 that has about 45 pages of fairly small print devoted to the subject of Baptism in general, also including separate articles on Ethnic baptism, Baptism in the New Testament, Early Christian baptism, Later Christian baptism, Hindu Baptism, Jewish Baptism, Islamic baptism, Polynesian baptism, Sikh baptism, and Teutonic baptism. It's the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings. I'm fairly sure, given the date of publication, it's in the public domain and can be pretty much copied into wikipedia, but I wanted to know if anyone thought there might be problems with trying to do so. John Carter ( talk) 18:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
There's also this article on "Baptism" in a 1903 Encyclopedia. Newman Luke ( talk) 01:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I've created An Evangelical Manifesto - expansion is welcome. Sidefall ( talk) 13:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The article List of religious organizations is in need of serious help. It was in an abandoned state and discussed for deletion, however I feel it has strong potential to become a useful list. But it needs lots of help and collaboration. Is someone of you interested? -- Cyclopia talk 23:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I've added the project template on the talk page of Johannes Maas (missionary), because I think it falls within the scope.
Please note that it is currently nominated for deletion, here. Chzz ► 23:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if this is a breach of etiquette. If so, feel free to delete. I would recommend interested parties check this encyclopaedia with a Biblical wordlview. Obviously those not interested need not check it. LowKey ( talk) 13:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm (VERY) new to the editing/editor concept, so please forgive me if I make a mistake or step over a line. I am willing to be corrected if need be.
That said, I've posted something on the talk page for Template:GenderChristianity about the use of the picture there. If you have a chance, please jump over there and read what I posted and comment. I won't repeat all of my arguments here, but I would appreciate your honest consideration. Thanks, Cajun tiger ( talk) 22:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi all! I would appreciate bored editors' help finding references for the general notability of the More-With-Less Cookboook. For the time being, the article exists here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JosiahHenderson/More-with-Less_Cookbook.
Peace of Christ,
-- JosiahHenderson ( talk) 21:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I rewrote this article and posted it yesterday, also tagging it with WP:Christianity. I would like to see if I can get the article to WP:FA. It is now at peer review and nominated for GA. If anyone would like to read it and make any suggestions, I would appreciate any input to improve its content. My library, formidable as it is, does not concentrate on theology. If I missed anything, I'll be happy to do whatever I can to cover it. I appreciate your help. -- Moni3 ( talk) 19:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Hi! I am already a member of this group before any strange questions start getting asked. (I dont know what that was about either but you know I just had a feeling) Anyway I am proposing that a new Wikiproject be formed called WikiProject Abrahamic Religions. Christianity is of course one of the three Abrahamic Religions the others being Judaism and Islam. I don't know what people think about my proposal but for more information and/or to show your support, as the project cant start without consensus please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals and view the Abrahamic Religions Section. (that makes me sound like a dodgey TV advert doesn't it?). Once again any comments or support would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. The Quill ( talk) 11:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Because it is only for Abrahamic Religions and this would meen that other non-Abrahamic Religions would be compared. Also please could I request you place comments on the wikiproject talk page. Thanks The Quill ( talk) 15:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The proposed theology workgroup is now online, here. Any suggestions, improvements, and ideas are more than welcome - as are interested editors. Pastordavid ( talk) 19:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
A proposal to clean up the articles and sub-cats in Category:Christian theology can be found here. Any input would be greatly helpful. Pastordavid ( talk) 17:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The expertise of those knowledgeable in the subject of Natural theology would be very helpful both in that entry and on the possibly soon deleted Astrotheology entry. There is a content dispute that broke out on the second of the two entries, which has now spilled over to the first. Exactly what natural theology includes and how best to define it are at the heart of this dispute. Thanks for any help. (Note: I am cross posting this on WikiProject(s):Philosophy and Religion). PelleSmith ( talk) 21:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Miguel.mateo ( talk · contribs) insists on re-adding a paragraph about coin-design, perhaps as a coat-rack for a non-free image he wants to include, to the article Charity (virtue) about the theology of caritas.
In the context of the article, this material seems to me to be entirely marginal, non-notable and disproportionate. Which is why I believe it should be promptly removed, as it was when similar attempts were made to try to insert it into Christianity and Charity (practice).
But he won't take my word for it; so I'd appreciate if project members could lend a fresh pair of eyes, and say what they think on the talk page. Jheald ( talk) 09:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The project newsletter for the month of June 2008 is ready to take off at Template:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/June 2008. Please review ... -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 09:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I've been driving for the last 17 days to get all of the project tagged articles assessed for quality, thus emptying the top level of Category:Unassessed-Class Christianity articles. I'm asking now for a bit of help. When I started, we had more than 600 pages in the category. It is now down to 11 pages, and I'm hoping that you all can polish it off over the weekend while I take a break. GRBerry 20:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The current edition of the newsletter is available at {{ WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/June 2008}} and was delivered to the talk pages of the members -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 10:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Recently, new age pagans/atheists have added to the intro of Nazism article "Nazism, particularly its antisemitism, found strong ideological roots in Christianity." This is a clear attack on Christianity by claiming it is an "antisemitic" ideology.. this was added by User:Esimal who has made numerous controversial edits in regards to Christianity, and then re-added by hipster-neo-pagan User:Gnostrat. Why should such a blatant and brazen attack on Christianity be allowed on Wikipedia? Especially such a vicious and untrue claim. - Gennarous ( talk) 21:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The latest newsletter appears to leave all talk page contributions below it in small font. Johnbod ( talk)
An editor mentioned to me that User:Carlaude is embarking on a large-scale reorganization of the denominational category tree, which I don't believe has been discussed anywhere. I have asked him to bring it here first. In particular Category:Christian group structuring is being decimated. See [1]. Johnbod ( talk) 22:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I have meant to come here and summatize changes at Johnbod's request. I have mostly moved things to more specific cat's but have created a few when the seem needed. I didnot see any place for disscussion but think all changes are for the benift of Wikipedia and WikiProject Christianity.
Biggest change is creating Category:Christian groups and movements. The categories below all have overlap with each other and most were at the top level and they were not together in any one place. Christian groups and movements is a category to correct this.
Movements are not as defined as groups. The Category:Christian denominations was/is very full and I have also divided it with the creation of Category:Christian denominational families, both under Category:Christian groups and movements. These page describe the difference, as does Denominationalism, but basically a Christian denomination is something like the Southern Baptist Convention and a denominational family is something like Baptist. Of course you still find Category:Southern Baptist Convention under Category:Baptist-- (in this case under Baptist denominations). -- Carlaude ( talk) 22:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This Category has 422 pages and needs diffusion. It looks like most of them are people, but Category:Ancient Roman Christians was not used much. Anyone want to work on this?
I would suggest leaving the discussion here, and I will post a note at the category talk page. I would object to Category:God in Christianity as being too broad a short list of potential sub cats: Category:Trinitarianism, Category:Christology, Category:Jesus, Category:Pneumotology (not there yet, but fits the current scheme), Category:Arianism, etc. The further question is where to put it to produce a sensible category tree - under Category:Christianty, Category:Christian theology or Category:Trinitarianism. Pastordavid ( talk) 14:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I noticed some work being done on this one as well. One thought that I had was that a Category:Christian liturgical and sacramental theology would help to diffuse that category, and seperate the things themselves from the ideas about the things. Thoughts? Pastordavid ( talk) 16:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
An editor is making major changes to 'all the Christian navigational boxes pages and so far has not explained why. I have encouraged him wait until he discusses it here first. -- Carlaude ( talk) 20:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Could someone else take a look at this. It may need a prod as OR/synthesis, but I would like others to see if there is anything salvageable here first. Thanks. Pastordavid ( talk) 16:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Article under AFD (and deletion sorted). I think it requires a rewrite but is salvagable. Some sources I found are linked in my AFD opinion. Anyone want to lend a hand - especially anyone knowing more about the American black church than I do? GRBerry 19:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I added some entries for assessment on the assessment page. Thanks. Ottava Rima ( talk) 13:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
See the requested move proposal (to Catholic Reformation) at Talk:Counter-Reformation. Pastordavid ( talk) 15:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to request some help with this article, which is under the scope of this project. I fully sourced it over the past week, and I would like to help it get to GA or FA status. It would be great if any editors from this project could look it over, possibly do some copyediting, and give some feedback in the peer review. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 23:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to distract people from constructive work, but a couple of trouble-making editors have been playing games, interfering with work on an article and getting their way by slandering me and using forceful editing rather than addressing the content issues I raise. I'm afraid I think the only thing that will help is for a few people to come and help take the heat off me.
I'm afraid it will need a little time to do it properly, because these people make edits rather than talking. They've said enough to show they're trouble, but it's the edit style that proves it. They need to be confronted, but that requires a few people other than me to observe the evidence and join me in the confrontation. If a few people answer my request for assistance, I'll start providing links to the evidence. Otherwise, all this just sucks time away we could be using elsewhere.
From what I can see, one of the editors seems to have a "thing" about "God stuff". He already has been warned by others, but he's going to be even more trouble unless we help him realise it's a pointless waste of time. If personal attacks are tolerated, they are encouraged.
Please just sign below if you've got some time and patience, a cool head, and understand why this needs to be done. Hopin' for some help. Alastair Haines ( talk) 15:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I have listed Ravi Zacharias for peer review in hopes of getting some feedback to get it up to FA status. Any input is welcome. Thanks! Kristamaranatha ( talk) 20:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The Portal:Christianity still lacks a biography and a selected scripture for next month. Any suggestions? John Carter ( talk) 21:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I am fascinated to see that this project regards the Last Judgement as of "low importance"! Anyway the article is a terrible mess. Johnbod ( talk) 00:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I asked BCB to do this . The idea was to reduce the huge backlog we had once upon a time
Our project banner is {{ ChristianityWikiProject}} You need to 1) If "|importance=" is empty , replace it with "|importance=Low" . Make sure you dont overwrite if importance is assessed already. 2) If "|class=" tag is empty, replace it with the highest quality assesment from the other project banners on the same talk page. 3) If there are No other wikiproject banners / any assessment already, please use the general wiki guideline of no of characters for Stub/Start classes and then add the appropriate class tag for quality
I did this on the folllowing assumptions :-
1) The number of High/Top Importance artilces in unaccessesed articles may be less. On a second manual sweep, we should be able to identify the higher importance articles if any
2) We should not replace the orginal importance assessment if any.
3) The standards for assessment scale for most projects is the same. Hence if there is an already assessment done , we could just reuse the information .
4) Similar automated attempts were done in different Projects like WikiProject Africa -
see here.
5) This task for the Bot was an approved
task , hence I assumed it to work smoothtly
--
TinuCherian
(Wanna Talk?) - 14:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The articles Predestination and Types of religious predestination have been listed to be merged for over a year. A drive is on to clear out Category:Articles to be merged since April 2007 and this merger could use the attention of someone with expertise in the field, or at least someone who knows more than me. If anyone could take a look, it would be greatly appreciated. -- Gimme danger ( talk) 22:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Why does Perfectionist movement direct to an article about the Oneida Community (which already has its own article)? There is a lot more to perfection theology than this sect that believed "each to be married to every other member of the opposite sex"... Can this be fixed, and a new article about perfection theology be started? Thanks Kristamaranatha ( talk) 06:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
One thing we could definitely use would be any individuals who can read other languages, as I think we all know that there are a lot of items out there written in languages other than English. I can read German fairly well, but, unfortunately, not French. I say unfortunately because I was just informed of a site from the Burkina Faso government here which gives some biographical material on at least religious leaders there. Are there any of you out there that would be willing to help out in slogging through foreign material if one of the rest of us finds a source in a language we can't ourselves read? John Carter ( talk) 01:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Jerusalem has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. < eleland/ talk edits> 21:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Another editor has requested mediation on the Shituf page, so I looked up the mediation process. The first step is to ask for third party opinion -- which is the reason I'm here.
Shituf, briefly, is a Jewish term applied to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The definition of the concept, however, appears to be Arian: lesser beings (the son and spirit) worshipped in junior "partnership" with God. Accordingly, I included a short Christian view section which simply describes that Christianity has formally rejected multiple deities in junior partnership since Nicea.
The contention is whether or not the section should be included.
My argument is that an article describing Jews eating human blood on passover would require a short section describing that Jews actually FORBID such a practice. Accordingly, an article describing Christians in Arian ways would require a short section describing that Christianity actually FORBIDS such a belief.
In any case, since the other editor suggested mediation, I'm taking the first step and asking for third party review.
Thanks. Tim ( talk) 13:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys -- as I said -- a third party look is in order. In English, Lisa just said you were all polytheists, which is a legitimate Jewish view. My take is that it's nice to have a section saying that you forbid polytheism.
And as for the history of this, the entire concept was created in the Middle Ages in reference to the question of whether Jews could have business dealings with Christians, since they were forbidden to have business dealings with idolaters. The Jewish solution is that, "Yes, they have multiple deities, but they are like junior partners." Loosely defined, "shituf" is "partnership." The context and origin was directed toward Christianity. Christianity, therefore, cannot be excluded from the article without making it polemic.
Again, thanks. You should be honored -- two Jews are asking for YOUR third opinion! Tim ( talk) 14:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Lisa -- in the past few days you've called Christians polytheists at least six times. Anyone can go through your contribs or just read the Shituf talk page. That kind of bias needs to at least be admitted. If it's your belief -- be proud of it.
As for the edits -- Lisa can't edit out all references to Christianity on the Shituf page because it's APPLIED to Christianity. When I removed any paragraph that used the word "Christian" or "Christianity" she reverted it as vandalism.
That being said, I no longer care. I have better things to do than to prevent a member of my own religion to promote falsehood to yours. You're welcome to chime in.
Best. Tim ( talk) 14:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
John -- BINGO. Thanks. Okay, I need to sign off now and spend some time with my family. I'll look back in Sunday. Best. Tim ( talk) 15:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Please move this all to talk:Shituf. It does not belong here once we have the idea-- we have the idea and those interested can follow it there. -- Carlaude ( talk) 13:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 22:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
In addition to trouble with the Shituf page, the user Lisaliel is also trying to eliminate references to "monotheism" regarding Christianity. Case in point, please see recent vandalism [2] of the Christian page. I cannot keep up this extended edit war, and only ask that you be aware that there is an effort to eliminate recognition on Wikipedia of Christianity's self identification as a monotheistic religion. The article of Shituf is equating Christianity with Arianism.
Please be aware of this activity.
Thanks. Tim ( talk) 04:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
A peer review of Peter Jones (missionary), an article about a Christian missionary who successfully evangelized what is now part of the greater Toronto area, has been requested. Please leave your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Peter Jones (missionary)/archive1. --Blanchardb- Me• MyEars• MyMouth-timed 12:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - , member of WikiProject Council. 15:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The current edition of the newsletter is available at {{ WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/July 2008}} .Full content Newsletter was delivered to 223 members and Link only content to 5 members by TinucherianBot automatically. To stop receiving this newsletter next time, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 09:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Within the last week, Pentateuch has been re-forked off from Torah and the latter massively rewritten to mostly exclude any Christian or Islamic perspective. From my brief reading both articles have significant POV issues as they stand, especially as Pentateuch seems to be written entirely from a Jewish perspective. Mangoe ( talk) 15:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey. There's been a bit of an edit war brewing over at Theories about the origin of the Eucharist, so I was hoping someone from here could go and take a look. Basically, this edit has been added and reverted. We've got an editor who's trying to push a POV of sorts with edits such as this. There's an RFC pending, but no one has responded to it thus far. If someone could swing by the article and take a look, that'd be great. The discussion starts here. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I tagged Knights of Saint Gabriel with the primarysources template, but I'm now wondering if this is a bona fide organisation. I looked at their supposed website: http://diplomaticsociety.tripod.com/ and it just does not look right. See Talk:Knights of Saint Gabriel where I added the project banner. - 84user ( talk) 23:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
There is discussion at Talk:Amended Christadelphians regarding what content regarding the largest Christadelphian group, the Amended Christadelphians, should be included in the article on that specific group, and what in the main Christadelphians article. All input is welcome. John Carter ( talk) 17:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
There is discussion on the talk page of the above article regarding how much weight should be given to traditional dating of Biblical works relative to modern academic conclusions at Talk:Dating the Bible#"but according to medieval sources...". All input is welcome. John Carter ( talk) 17:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Two editors have been engaged in an unhelpful and disruptive edit war concerning the name of a diocese in the United Kingdom. I have issued an RfC and fully-protected the page against page moves by anyone until the matter has been fully discussed and a consensus reached by more editors than just the two involved in the edit-warring. Anyone able to is invited to engage in the discussion to help wikipedia improve by reaching a better solution than the unstable edit warring that has previously happened. See Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle#What should the name of this article be?. The two names that were being used were "Roman Catholic Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle" and "Diocese of Newcastle and Hexham". Thank you. DDStretch (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Proposing an example explaining the appropriate use of religious sources in religion-related articles. The intention is to clarify and explain existing policy, not to change it. There have been a number of debates over the years, some of them heated, about whether and what kinds of religious sources should be used. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 21:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I just discovered this talk page this morning. On April 19, I discovered a Wikipedia article on me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier that has been here for over two years. Granted, the Administrator who created it knew only about my runs for Parliament as an Independent (referred to as a fringe candidate by local media) and nothing about the prophetic Christianity aspect of my being. The article itself does not reflect this, 95% of the information removed to the dustbin of history. The information there does read more like a mini novel than an encyclopedia entry, but the events and stories, I assure you, are true, factual and unembellished. An interested editor would have to read the discussions on the other user talk pages referenced in the section 'Let's build the article together" in the talk of the article. The section 'Favorite Bible Verses' removed to history as not being encyclopedic, were selected to give an general overview of my vision. There is more substantiating information I would like to add to the talk for discussion and inclusion to the article, but until what is already there is refined and restored, that would serve no purpose. I have recused myself, rightly so, of editing my own bio. Hopefully interested editors of Christianity topics will take a look to see what can be done. Peace DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 14:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Good morning Mr Ray: thank you for your mails. Sorry, but I am not able to answer directly all the correspondences, and when I have to do so it is by post. Please, do understand that you will not receive any further answer from me, but it is not for lack of respect. I am pleased for your love for the Church and for the Holy Father. Your thoughts have been duly noted. I reciprocate your best wishes of joy, peace and Goodwill
+ Luigi Ventura apostolic nuncio to Canada DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 14:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kingturtle#Images_Copyright_and_Free
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:East718/Archive_14#Article_under_attack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ground_Zero#Discussion_of_this_article_-_Other_User_Talk DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 16:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I saw that this article is within the scope of your project. So I decided to place my question here. Why does this article use the German transliteration? The article says: "The settlement is named after the Molochna River...", so why the river is translitered "Molochna" and the settlement "Molotschna"? Isn't the right spelling for the settlement also "Molochna"? Thanks in advance and kind regards Doma-w ( talk) 12:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I think I may have offered the use of this before, but I do not remember. If anybody requires any legitimate information on Christianity in general or the Catholic Church in particular, I have a list of them here Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam for anybody to use. I thank you. -- 209.244.30.237 ( talk) 12:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering whether any of the members of this project would be interested in maybe helping to develop some of the Christianity content in the Simple English Wikipedia. That wikipedia is of particular use to individuals who are less familiar with English in easier to understand language, although that doesn't mean the content is "dumbed down". Having reasonably high-quality content there would definitely be useful for English as a Second Language students, and probably increase the visibility of some of the content here as well, through additional links there. If anyone would be willing to devote some time to such a project, please indicate that below. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 18:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I find quickly that we cannot say much in Simple English without explaining your terms. For example, I have created Christianityfooter in Simple English Wikipedia and am looking for feedback on the glosses that will be need to use for all the common Christian terms in it. (Only "Father" and "Son" were already on the Basic English wordlist. All others need a gloss like (Payment for wrong action) for "Atonement" but many are harder to do than that one. See also [3] Please look at it and discuss/ give feadback, etc. I also hope this will lead us to use the same glosses for words in the articles.-- Carlaude ( talk) 15:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
is, we are told (with no evidence), the nation's largest coalition of Abrahamic faith groups dedicated to media production, distribution and promotion. Etc. Then why all the redlinks, and why does so very little link to it? There's something fishy about the article. Could somebody take a look? -- Hoary ( talk) 22:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Reading the article on the Second Council of Ephesus (AKA the Robber Synod) I see it needs to be rewritten badly. I have added it to the To Do List above under other. The article is long but relies largely or entirely upon a single source, a source with a favorable view of this council. -- Carlaude ( talk) 20:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Samuel Butler's novel The Way of All Flesh mentions a 19th-century sect known as the Simeonites. (Possibly named for someone on the list at Simeon and/or the Tribe of Simeon.) I'm unable to find much about them online, but they were apparently factual and not fictional - http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-ButFir-t1-g1-t2-g1-t13.html . Can anyone begin an article on them, or link to an existing article if appropriate? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand ( talk) 18:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Are there any Wikisource members in this project, if so would you like to help with the above project. I'm trying to revive this project, but the other two members haven't been near it since 2006. At the moment it consists of copying pages of Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897) If anyone's interested please reply on my talk page. Kathleen.wright5 02:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I wish to initiate a dispute on the neutrality of the articale found under Goa Inquisition, which discusses the inquistion in Goa, India under Portuguese rule. This article appears to present a biased view of the subject. Much of the body of the article uses loaded language extensively. The sourcing of this article appears questionable as well. For example, in paragraph four of the title page, some very broad allegations of atrocities are made using a quotation attributed to Voltaire (himself a radical opponent of the Roman Catholic) as its sole support without any other verification. Later on, a quote presumably taken from one of the artical's sources makes fierce allegations against the Portugues ("...in the name of the religion of peace and love, the tribunal(s) practiced cruelties to the extent that every word of theirs was a sentence of death") without any support or commentary on the validity of the statement. In fact, the opening statements of the article states that according to the surviving records, out of the 16,202 persons brought to trial over the inquistion's 251 year lifespan, 57 were executed. This hardly indicates that "every word of theirs [the Portuguese] was a sentence of death". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraken66 ( talk • contribs) 09:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed this template for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 30. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 14:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
A lot of the Emerging Church page has substance and badly referenced. I have therefore started adding in citations and references for some of the material there, so that it shifts out of the identified problems. It is an important movement that needs to be written up better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KerryDawkins ( talk • contribs) 12:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that there are pages which list Category:Churches_in_the_United_States_by_state with a random selection of churches in each state. Usually these churches refer to historic buildings but occasionally to congregations in a non-notable building. I also noticed that there is a section for deleting Christianity pages ( [4]), so before I consider creating a church page, what are the criterion for it being notable enough to deserve a page? Calebu2 ( talk) 12:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Is undergoing a Featured Article review, please feel free to come and help bring this article up to current Featured Article standards! :) Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 17:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Members of this project might be interested in the AfD for the above-named article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 07:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a few calm editors might look at the neutrality of Yahweh, which addresses the tension between Jehovah's Witnesses and Yahweh-related groups. Thank you. HG | Talk 14:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I have recently noticed that in the Article: Advent there are no relations to the people that the candles and the prayers said after lighting the Candle(s), Or to 'The holly and the Ivy' which after the candle(s) are lit certain verses are sung to correspond with the prayer and the particular sunday. hannah ( talk) 10:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Cathedral of Magdeburg has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Thank you, Cirt ( talk) 02:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought perhaps someone could perhaps do a prayer of the Season box on the Christianity portal hannah ( talk) 16:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Several of the Parables of Jesus require an expert's attention. The articles consist of the primary source text, no secondary sources and little to no interpretation. In their current state, they violate WP:NPS. I found the Parable of the Two Sons, the Parable of the Leaven, the Parable of the Wise and the Foolish Builders and The Master and Servant especially lacking, but unfortunately I lack the background and inclination to bring them into a proper shape myself. Huon ( talk) 15:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I recently came across this article, which is in serious need of work. Presently it is a collection of claims that do not seem to carry a neutral point of view, and its references are thin. I've placed your project's tag on its talk page and hopefully you are in a position to begin reviewing it soon. Accurizer ( talk) 19:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
This problem has been addressed at least temporarily by reverting to an early version. Accurizer ( talk) 23:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Portal:Christianity calls itself at the lowest part of the page.
Anyone know how to fix this?-- Carlaude ( talk) 17:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
You are cordially invited to join us at Purity Ball, to assist with its expansion. Please come. Whatever404 ( talk) 12:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I suggest new portal. I think that we have enought matrial for it and it can help to make this articles better. -- 91.150.78.197 ( talk) 14:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Since there is a form of Christian Kabbalah, I suspect some of you may be interested in the discussion at Talk:Kabbalah#Requested move. Bob ( QaBob) 14:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The featured list List of popes has been nominated for removal. You can comment here. -- Scorpion 0422 17:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Can someone tell me who gave this a B (rather than start) rating as part of your project? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
In a recent AfD a (snowball) decision was taken to merge this article into the article Judeo-Christian.
Unfortunately the merge proposal was never flagged at the article Judeo-Christian, nor was the AfD ever flagged at the project talk-pages which tend to be a clearing house for such discussions; which is unfortunate, because as far as I can see, as a result nobody familiar with the Judeo-Christian article appears to have participated at all.
Two points in particular I would like to make,
People seem to have particularly objected to is the statement in the lead of the Christianity and Judaism article that:
I would agree, if that were true, it would set up a completely deprecated WP:POVFORK. But the truth actually is that the Judeo-Christian article does not review the "continuities and convergences between the two religions". Instead, its hatnote says "For the relationships between the two religions, see Christianity and Judaism." -- which, per WP:ADJECTIVE is exactly where that discussion should be found.
Having contacted the closing admin, his advice was to open a new discussion at Talk:Christianity and Judaism, advertise the discussion widely, and if a new consensus can be reached in that discussion, then per WP:CCC the new consensus should be followed, rather than the AfD decision, without the need for a DRV or a new AfD.
Concerns about the proposed merge have also been expressed by Slrubenstein ( talk · contribs), LisaLiel ( talk · contribs) and SkyWriter ( talk · contribs).
So this post is to let people know that that discussion is underway, at Talk:Christianity and Judaism#Overly speedy deletion. People may also wish to review the problems with the article in its present form, as identified in the AfD. Jheald ( talk) 15:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The article
Damnation is very short and focuses largely on slang use of the word.
IMHO this article can and should have much more on theology of the concept of damnation.
(I will not be editing this myself.) --
201.53.7.16 (
talk) 12:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Your thoughts would be appreciated here: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Messianic Judaism/1 -- Avi ( talk) 22:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Would be nice if somebody could write up about Carlos Annacondia. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.162.56 ( talk) 12:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated this article for removal of it's featured list status. Feel free to comment, here. iMatthew ( talk) 20:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Recently, I created the page on the Japanese theologian Kosuke Koyama, as it surprised me that this celebrated theologian did not have an article in Wikipedia. I first learnt of this through reading a Lion Handbook of Christian theologians in 1985, but as it was a long time ago that I read this, I do not recall all the details. Does any one know of the book in question, or indeed, have any other book references for Kosuke Koyama? If you know some good references that would help to improve this article, you can leave a message on my userpage and I shall be grateful - I shall be happy to edit the Koyama article if any one leaves messages on my userpage. Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Please consider commenting at Wikiproject Christianity in Asia proposal. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 20:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The suggestions are there that this would probably be best served as a task force of this project group. Would it be too much to ask of you if you created task forces with names such as "Christianity in America" or "Christianity in Asia"? Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 22:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
A discussion has started at Talk:Francis Macnab about how to cover his announcement of a new faith, see here. The sections dealing with it are rather long, and further we have had a request from the Executive of his church that we remove some sourced information about the public response of another church. Your input is appreciated. Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 23:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Warning: There is no such thing as the "Assemblies of Yahweh (Michigan)". There is one Assemblies of Yahweh (Bethel) which has branches over the world. Just like to let you know. Apparently, the Assemblies of Yahweh have had copyright issues already with groups such as the Assembly of Yahweh, or House of Yahweh, calling themselves Assemblies of Yahweh. Kiddish.K ( talk) 12:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Can someone from this project run their eyes over Geevarghese Mar Ivanios, I've removed a lot of the gushing love letter like tone from the article but a lot of terminology is complete alien to me and it could do with an expert running their eyes over it. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 15:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Someone mentioned this article before, but they failed to mention how biased against the event it is. The article includes several quotes criticising the event but not a single positive comment to support it. Wikipedia articles are supposed to have a neutral point of view, this one clearly does not. 75.93.9.235 ( talk) 04:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I am a new user and I have noticed a lot of clever anti-missionary activity on many of the christian pages. One example:
Page in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_prophecies_(Christian_view)
CHARGE: The page has been attacked by an anti-christian opinion. I have a serious problem with the content and link references given but do not know all the Wikipedia rules yet.
REASONS: Link references 26, 28 to 32 do not exist on this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_prophecies_(Christian_view)
Also the content and additions that these links provide do not share the Christian View but is biased towards the anti-missionary opinion (Jewish opinion that opposes the Jewish Messianic or Christian position). In addition someone changed the alternate title code as it does not resemble the name of the page but the word "claimed is inserted". This was the reason why I tried to slowly create a new page. There are other charges I have against the content on this page that are dishonest but want mention this for the moment. I am seeking to work with someone who knows the laws of Wikipedia so we can destroy the enemies work. I am only a few days old with Wikipedia.
First Crusade has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. OpenSeven ( talk) 17:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if Samuel Johnson would qualify with WikiProject Anglicanism and the Anglicanism Portal because he ghost wrote many sermons. I have not yet had a chance to finish a page on it, but this and this can give you a sense about his contribution. Ottava Rima ( talk) 20:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I added a few comments to the DoC talk page about the article's style and content. Since it is under Wikiproject:Christianity I thought it would be good to mention it here so someone with a little more know-how and resources on this denomination could help out. In short, the article is sourced solely by primary sources, and it reads a bit more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic entry. It would be good if someone could fix it up a bit when it comes to tone and sourcing. Thanks. Kristamaranatha ( talk) 03:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
This article, and probably related ones, could use some expert help. The viewpoints of the Messianic Jews themselves and of mainstream Jews are represented but not that of mainstream Christianity. Also in Jews for Jesus, this mainstream group (like it or dislike it) is being confused with Messianic Judaism and some help is needed explaining the difference. Steve Dufour ( talk) 03:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
This may have been discussed previously, but I cannot find anything in the archive. In articles about churches, is it appropriate to include lists of priests, ministers, and the like? I seem to remember such a list being deleted from a church article, but cannot remember when or why. Is there a policy on this? Many thanks. Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 11:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I just put up Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos and am looking for suggestions on how the article can be improved. General comments or copy-edit are also appreciated. bamse ( talk) 12:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The article, Rick Warren, has been repeatedly vandalized by dozens of unestablished users over the past couple days and needs to have a partial lock added ASAP.
Manutdglory ( talk) 23:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
INRI ( King of the Jews) was inscribed on the cross on which Jesus Christ was crucified.. Why Jews?? Jews also worship him? Is regarded as a God by Jewish people too? Also was Christ born Jew? Are Judaism and Christaianity related? Didn't Jews reject Christ's newly created religion- Christianity? Then how come Jews were hated by the Christian world in the medieval times? Also were Jews in any way responsible for His crucifixion? Everyone please pardon me, but I am very ignorant about both Judaism and Christianity... a few questions which I may have posed could be totally unrelated and "plain stupid"... sorry again -- Sanguine learner talk 17:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've finished revising the proposed improved version of the template {{ Infobox church/sandbox}}. Your comments and feedback at the template's " talk page" are welcome. If there are no major objections to the improved template, it will be used to replace the existing template {{ Infobox church}}. — Cheers, JackLee – talk– 06:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. To centralize the discussion, I'm copying your comment over to " Template talk:Infobox church#Revised template ready; comments, please" and responding there. — Cheers, JackLee – talk– 12:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
As there were no other comments after revisions were made to the sandboxed template, the improved version of {{ Infobox church}} has gone live. In connection with this, {{ Parish church}} has been nominated for deletion. See " TfD nomination of Template:Parish church" below. — Cheers, JackLee – talk– 18:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
-- xposted to Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism --
I was looking for info on "Kings", as in the book(s) of the Tanakh/OT that come between Samuel and Chronicles.
Kings (a disamb page, though not designated as one) includes among other uses:
Book of Kings says:
Book of Kings may refer to:
- The Books of Kings in the Bible
- The Shahnama, an 11th century epic Persian poem
- The Morgan Bible, a French medieval picture bible
- The Pararaton, a 16th century Javanese history of southeast Asia
Books of Kings is apparently the actual content: "The Books of Kings (Hebrew: Sefer Melachim, ספר מלכים) are a part of Judaism's Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible. ... and were later included by Christianity as part of the Old Testament."
Our various links to "Kings", "Book of Kings", "Books of Kings" seem unnecessarily confusing. Can we clarify these references and redirects? Thanks. --
201.53.7.16 (
talk) 16:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
This isn't much to show for such a major figure in Christianity. This article needs work. -- Secisek ( talk) 16:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Template:Parish church has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Cheers,
JackLee –
talk– 18:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone in this wikiproject care that Nativity of Jesus is likely going to shortly be pushed into using CE instead of AD? Carl.bunderson ( talk) 08:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
When I tried to remove a section at the bottom of this article (on a different subject than the article - SIMULSUBSTANTIATION) and no I don't know what it means. When I tried to remove this section it said "no such section", and when I tried to edit from the top I found the text didn't exist. What should be done with this? Kathleen.wright5 08:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed in reviewing the TFC above that all of the church infobox templates include a place to record clergy. I think this should be suppressed, in the interests of Wikipedia is not a directory. Even cathedral canons are fairly transient, much less parish priests and ministers; and 99% of these people, if not more, are non-notable (and probably want to remain so). Keeping this stuff up to date is a hopeless project. Mangoe ( talk) 13:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The watchlist and its recent changes looks useful to have. But what are the conventions about deciding what articles should (and shouldn't) be on it? I have a particular live biography article in mind. But the person himself also seems, I think, to be editing it in an autobiographical and advertising fashion. Might it help if the article were on the watchlist? Then various other editors could help shape the article in a neutral manner. Feline Hymnic ( talk) 19:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Done. Feline Hymnic ( talk) 20:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
If any one has an interest, I am hoping to get some input about a dispute occurring at the faith article. I would be grateful for some feed back about the issue, so I can proceed to to produce a referenced article. Thanks. Hardyplants ( talk) 14:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I saw this article but noted that it fails to adequately describe the concept of a national church as distinct from an established church or state religion. Is anyone familiar with this concept who can add sources and improve the article? Or is this article worthy of being included in Wikipedia at all? -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it need to remove former featured articles from the list?-- Vojvodae ist 14:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The article on Koyama is under the watchlist of the Philosophy Wikiproject,but not this one. Why don't you add a tag to the article to state that it is under the WikiProject Christianity group's remit? I am sure that you could find people here who are interested in Asian theologians. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 00:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Thank you - I have now check the article on Kosuke Koyama, and see it is within your project group. Does this group have sub-groups, such as task forces, dealing with Christianity in different parts of the world? Wikipedia has an article on Christianity in Japan and such a task force could potentially help to improve this article. Again, thank you for looking at this one, ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 19:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The article God is currently under individual reassessment, which can be found here. Editors are encouraged to participate. Thank you. Diverse Mentality 22:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I want to start new subprojet Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbian Orthodox Church but I dont know how to do it. Can someone help me about procedure and templates?-- Vojvodae ist 12:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Would someone please comment on a content dispute surrounding a table comparing the infancy narratives in Luke and Matthew at Nativity of Jesus? Thanks. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I was just assessing articles for the Freemasonry WikiProject, and I came across Scottish Rite Cathedral (Indianapolis), which is also tagged as being of interest to you folks. Should I remove it, on the grounds that it was probably an error because of "Cathedral", or do you have a continuing interest in it? Thanks.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 21:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Project participants may be interested in contributing to the proposed policy Wikipedia:Religion. — Eustress talk 18:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the page on Kosuke Koyama, I see that the article has not yet had a rating on the importance rating scale. Having just read the importance rating for Christianity articles, I consider it appropriate if this goes in the "low importance" category. Although Kosuke Koyama is quite a big name in contemporary theology, he would not be as well-known a figure as, for example, Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, Martin Luther, John Calvin or Hans Kung.
The article on Emil Brunner has been rated as low-importance by the WikiProject group for Calvinism. Since Brunner is probably a more well-known name than Koyama, that rather makes me feel in support of my above suggestion that this should be rated as low-importance. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 17:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:X is in the latest signpost. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-03-09/WikiProject report. Thanks to User:Secisek. Good work ! -- Tinu Cherian - 12:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Any comments regarding the structure and function of Christianity related material are welcome at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum#Project organization. Be prepared for some rather lengthy comments, though. There is a lot of material to cover there. John Carter ( talk) 17:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, this article is currently near the top of the wp:featured articles/Cleanup listing as it is in 5 maintenace categories: Articles needing additional references (Dec 2008), Articles with unsourced statements (Jun 2008, Jul 2008, Aug 2008, Feb 2009). Anyone finding time to make improvements would be appreciated, thanks Tom B ( talk) 15:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
It looks to me that a lot of the articles in this category aren't about apologetics, but rather specific apologists. We don't yet have a Category:Christian apologists to hold such articles separately, but I think that it might make sense to create such a category for these articles. Would the rest of you agree? Also, would it be preferable to make the "apologetics" category the parent of the "apologists" category, or the other way around? John Carter ( talk) 14:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Please note that there are several students presently creating the article, " Christianity in Haiti" as a part of a school project. Any help you might give them or edits you might contribute to this page are graciously welcome. Also, please note that a couple of antagonistic editors have been interfering in these students' work, and so an assistance with this would also be appreciated. Thank you. Vote Cthulhu ( talk) 01:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Aramaic language for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that, as present, we don't have a navigation box to easily link the most important articles on that subject, like, for instance, Template:Roman Catholicism2, which is used for Roman Catholicism. Would anyone like to help create such a navbox, and what articles do you all think should be included in it? Ideally, the articles to be included would be those which give a broad, comprehensive look at the subject. Those articles would also likely be counted as the most important articles on the subject, as they are linked to from the main anabaptist page through the navbox. Thoughts? John Carter ( talk) 15:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Why are there so many religions under this category? Does the "Christianity Portals" box representing religions based off of Christianity and Judaism?(I don't really want to get in an argument about the origin of the different religions.)If it is why not put Islam, Mormonism, and all the other similar religions?
But if it is not, then I recommend relocating some of the religions, because some of them contradict the Bible as well as themselves, not mentioning being historically inaccurate.(I am not mentioning the names because I do not want to loose my head...) Please respond without threats or rage, but in a formal, dignified manner.
But if you strike me in rage...I will not back down. If it is war you want, it is war you shall have.(Sorry, for not following the whole "turn the other cheek example" but I will defend my faith to the bitter end. Again I wish peace but I will not leave my defenseless against an attacking rival.)
"I have never advocated war except as a means of peace." Ulysses S. Grant
(Again, sorry for all the commotion) Project Gnome ( talk) 21:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
In the article on lent, the author defines its orgin thus: "The forty days represent the time that, according to the Bible, Jesus spent in the desert before the beginning of his public ministry, where he endured temptation by Satan.[1]." This is ambiguous. The forty days refers the the forty days and forty nights of fasting, AFTER WHICH he was tempted by Satan. Omitting reference to the fasting during the forty days downplays the role of fasting in early Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.211.92 ( talk) 05:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I've created and or come across a number of articles on nonconformists and/or presbyterians such as Richard Frankland (tutor), Timothy Jollie, Thomas Jollie, Oliver Heywood (clergyman), Samuel Hammond (minister) ... there may be others to be taken into consideration ... all from the Dictionary of National Biography.
I'm uncertain if these people are Anglicans: could anyone confirm. And thus I'm uncertain about what categories to pop the articles into ... we have such things as Category:English Anglican priests, Category:Calvinist ministers and theologians, Category:Presbyterian ministers, but we do not seem to have Category:Nonconformist ministers ... I'm a little lost.
So. Any advice on the relationship of these people with Anglicanism, and on appropriate categories, much appreciated. thanks. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Hi. The article Religious ministry (Christian) is in need of some assistance. While wikilinking a new article today, I found that over a year ago it had been redirected to Minister (Christianity), which is, of course, the specific office. The redirect probably resulted from the fact that the article had been unsourced for about two years. I've added a couple of sources to the introductory paragraph of this article, but it can use quite a bit more work. I've tagged it for the project, but I wanted to mention it here in case anyone had time or interest. Thanks. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I intend to write an article from scratch about a church, with a 300 year old building, historically significant members of the congregation and ministers, and current activities that are documented in local and national press. Are there any guidelines for how to structure such an article? Thanks! BrainyBabe ( talk) 18:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Angel#Angels_.3C-.3E_Deceased_humans on whether or not it is appropriate to include in that article the popular notion that when good people die they become angels. Your thoughts on this question are welcome there. -- 201.37.230.43 ( talk) 12:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I would like to give you some heads up for Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 7 and User:Carlaude/Notes#List_C. I would like to know that everything is ok with the proposed categorisation. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 18:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The article on the Japanse theologian Kazoh Kitamori has been marked as an orphaned article, but I have now given it links from these articles:
This means that just one more link from an article could quite happily result in the removal of the orphan tag - does any one have any ideas where that should be from? By the way, I am not an expert on theologians in Japan, I am just interested (after my pleas for help with the piece on Koyama and now my plea regarding Kitamori, I thought I had better clarify that! ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 21:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Would the members of the project be in favor of establishing a more thorough review of an article for A-Class status, perhaps like that discussed at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/A-Class criteria? John Carter ( talk) 15:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I notice that a category has been created, but it appears to have been empty for over a month. -- Stepheng3 ( talk) 05:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted everybody to know that there is a new form of recognition for images which are particularly useful to wikipedia.
Oh, yeah, and that none of the valued pictures relate to Christianity yet. That too. I really only say this because
WikiProject Islam already has two valued pictures. If any of you have any images that you think would be successful nominees, please feel free to nominate them. Thank you.
John Carter (
talk) 13:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
There is discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#New Task Force: Christian Films regarding the possible creation of a Christian film task force there. Any interested parties are more than welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 22:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I noticed some LDS temple articles have Wikiproject Christianity templates on them. Should all LDS temples have this template? LDS-SPA1000 ( talk) 19:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Your input is welcome. -- Banjeboi 03:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, there is a problem regarding importance assessments and other declarations of importance which I haven't seen directly addressed anywhere yet, but which I think should be addressed, if for no other reason than to keep it from arising again.
As most of you know, the breakdown of Christian populations worldwide is roughly 50% Catholic, 10% Eastern Orthodox, and all the others fall within the remaining 40%. Should these population statistics affect "importance" at all? I acknowledge that I am a Roman Catholic, and have acknowledged that repeatedly to help identify any possible COI. Having said that, I do have to believe that it should have some effect, although I do not think that I myself am at all qualified to determine how. I don't think that this should necessarily affect the core topics list, which at present includes only 19 articles relating to the last 25% out of a proposed 100. But it is a factor which I think should be addressed, one way or another, so that we know how to proceed in the future.
An example, if one is needed, of where it might become a problem is a comparison of, for instance,
Philipp Melanchthon or
John Knox versus
Francis of Assisi or
Gregory Palamas. Which ones would be count as being a higher priority? While in no way denying the impact of Melanchthon and Knox, much of that impact on the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox populations was comparatively minimal, almost certainly less than the impact of Francis of Assisi on the Catholics or Gregory Palamas of the Eastern Orthodox. Add your own example if you have questions about any of mine. In any event, do any of you have any ideas how, if at all, to address this question, or would we be basically better off letting it lie and hoping nothing happens?
John Carter (
talk) 13:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I have to think the name of the above portal is a bit misleading. On that basis, I have proposed that it be renamed Portal:Vatican, or, potentially, Portal:Vatican City, to more accurately reflect the contents. The discussion for renaming can be found at Portal talk:Pope#Requested move. All interested parties are encouraged to take part in the discussion. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 21:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
After a recent request on my talk page, I added the Christianity project to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. I can also provide the full data for any project covered by the bot if requested, though I normally don't keep it for much longer than a week after the list is generated. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! (note that there is an encoding issue with some non-ascii titles, this will be fixed in the next update). Mr. Z-man 19:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
This appears to be an article with an identity crisis. It seems to want to focus on creeds from the Christian perspective, but has an article title that gives it a broader scope. As a result, it leans toward the Christian perspective on creeds, but not with enough detail to really be useful. I beleive it would be an appropriate fork to create Creed (Christianity); that would allow the original article to have a broader focus and the new article to cover a little more in depth on Christianity and creeds. Proposal is on article talk page, please comment there. Thanks. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The peer review page looked ... abandonded, so I thought I would just list this here. I have done some significant expansion on this article, and would like to get some more eyes to give it the once over. There's a little bit I have left to do, but any improvements to what is there would be appreciated. Thanks. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
There is evidently some serious discussion at Talk:Holy Spirit regarding how much space to give nontrinitarian views of the subject. This is definitely not my field, but I think informed opinions from reputable editors would probably be more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 18:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
We just got our first listing of the 1000 most often accessed articles relevant to this project. It can be seen here. Only a few are currently listed as being "Stub" class: Gary Cole, Brian McKnight, Millenium, Andy Richter, Evangelism, Via Dolorosa, Seven Archangels, Battle Cry: Worship from the Frontlines, Emerging church, Non-denominational Christianity, Kevin Sorbo, Ron Livingston, Chris Kirkpatrick, Gospel of Mary, Cosmological argument, Wake (ceremony), Aryan Nations, I am that I am, Effigy, and Millenarianism. Anyone wanting to do a little work on any of them, particularly those that are more directly related to the project, are more than welcome to do so though. I can definitely see maybe an award or barnstar of some kind going to anyone who can bring any of them up to Start by the time the list is next generated. Just ask to have them assessed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Contest, and we'll see how well you did. If that isn't an obvious hint, guys, I don't know what is. John Carter ( talk) 22:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Work has picked up again for me, but this is a great project and I will contribute as much as I can. I KNOW some of these I can really help with. -- Secisek ( talk) 01:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
According to this page, we're averaging, oh, only about 20 views per day on this page. My user page gets over twice that as per here, at least in part because of recent vandalism. Any ideas how to get more people to pay attention, barring vandalism of course? John Carter ( talk) 16:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
To Do? I am sure you noticed I quietly moved it to less obtrusive places in some projects. That may be a good idea all around. I check in here (and with all the work groups and many subprojects talk pages) almost every time I am on Wiki, so I am doing my part. -- Secisek ( talk) 01:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason that this is not a re-direct to either Tetragrammaton or Yahweh?? It did go to AfD a few years back, but that was a few years back. Now, it appears that Yahweh might be the best "parent" article for this little group of overlapping concepts. If it seems appropriate to you all, I'll post a note on the article talk. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt ( talk) 01:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I want to inform the community that I have done a GA Reassessment of Isaac and found the article lacking. Not very much will need to be done but enough that I could not keep it GA without some effort. I am notifying all interested projects that I have held this article for one week pending editing. The review can be found here. If you have any questions please feel free to contact my talk page. H1nkles ( talk) 23:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion regarding how much material regarding certain matters of the subject's private life should be included in the article above. A request for comment on the subject can be found at Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr.#Request for Comments. Any input is more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 14:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I have begun a draft of this page in my userspace. It is very much not ready for prime time - not references, I haven't followed up to check on my wikilinks, and it is very incomplete. I would welcome input and editing from others to help get it ready to move to the mainspace. Thanks so much. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 16:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm in the process of making a list of the various relevant categories, so that I may be able to ultimately try to make the existing structure a little more coherent. A few questions have come to mind regarding some already, however.
I don't like to create stubs for which I don't have the resources to expand to at least start-articles. However, Lutheran Church of the Redeemer, Jerusalem seemed to important to pass up, and I was astounded that we didn't have this article already. I would greatly appreciate any help in expanding this, if anyone has the references to do so. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The header on this page shows: WikiProject Christianity / Baptist [show](Rated Stub-Class), but Third Church of Christ, Scientist (Washington, D.C.) is not and never has been a Baptist or Anabaptist church. It is a Christian Science church and has no provision for physical baptism of any age or in any manner whatsoever. Perhaps it is being confused with Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. Anyway, I have tried to change it but cannot. It seems that the Baptist part is added automatically. Can someone correct this. clariosophic ( talk) 00:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 07:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I have recently finished a book by Michael Grant, arguably one of the world's top scholars regarding Greco-Roman history, entitled "Saint Peter: A Biography". In that book, he seriously calls into question the possibility that many of the details and events of the New Testament may be inaccurately stated. This includes questioning whether the Council of Jerusalem ever took place per se. Personally, I find the arguments used reasonable and if not convincing creditable. He also provides some material, generally not original to him, regarding his thoughts as to why there are so many disagreements between the Synoptic Gospels and John, and various other matters. What would the rest of you think of adding material from this source to the various relevant articles? For what it's worth, I am using the source extensively in my draft revision of Saint Peter, given the more objective and possibly more thorough consideration of the subject in this volume. I also have other sources, but this one, which seems to be among the most recent, seems on that basis, at least to me, perhaps the best source on the so-called "modern" view of the subject. John Carter ( talk) 01:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Please check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian cult (2nd nomination) if you like. I think it brings up some important issues. Borock ( talk) 17:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
This is the first time I have created a really substantial article, from scratch, and would appreciate feedback and improvements. (I have listed it as within the scope of this wikiproject, although some might find that contentious.) It is Newington Green Unitarian Church, so that makes it hard for me to find the appropriate categories or projects for it. It was important in the history of English Dissenters from the established church, but is not Protestant (or even Christian?) now. It is both a listed building, and a congregation with a 300-year history of political radicalism. (Most famous minister -- Richard Price, whose sermon stimulated the Revolution Controversy, and who knew and influenced several of the Founding Fathers of the United States. Most famous congregant -- Mary Wollstonecraft, who listened to this and extended liberte, egalite, fraternite to women's rights too.) I have a "Did You Know" factoid in the list, and would like to take this to GA, but thought I'd ask here first. BrainyBabe ( talk) 15:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Black church has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 00:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Pope Benedict XVI has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 00:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I see several problems with the above article. Not the least of these problems is the fact that the article's title seems perhaps strange, and possibly(?) linked to prewrathministries.com. The original creator of the article, User:Strongtowerpubs, seems perhaps too similarly named to Strong Tower Publications, owned I believe by H. L. Nigro, one of the other listed sources. I also believe most of the article is at best dubiously sourced. I can myself see only one source, the Rosenthal one, that might be considered reliable. The Frederick source is from Lulu Press, a self-publishing house. I have no doubt that the subject is notable, but have very serious questions regarding the reliability of the content. I would welcome any input on the article. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 15:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I have done a GA Reassessment of Roman Catholicism in Mongolia as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to need some work, there is a dead reference link and I feel that more could be added to the article. My review is here. I will hold the article for a week and I am notifying interested projects of the possibility that the article will be delisted if improvements are not made. Please address any questions to my talk page. H1nkles ( talk) 04:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I have done the GA Reassessment of Emanuel Swedenborg as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article does not meet current GA Criteria. As such I have placed the article on hold pending work that needs to be done to bring it up to current standards. My review is here. I am notifying all interested projects and editors of the possibility that the article will be delisted if work is not done in the next week. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. H1nkles ( talk) 15:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated the smallest of the categories of Roman Catholic popes for deletion. Of the group nominated, the largest of the categories contains six individuals. Please feel free to take part in the discussion here. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 21:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Please note a move discussion here at what used to be Christian cults Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Leadwind ( talk · contribs) and I have been in an ongoing edit war with Radu Comanescu ( talk · contribs) at Beatitudes. Radu claims he is adding cited text, while Leadwind and I contend his additions are OR. I'd like some input from uninvolved editors who likely have dealt with issues of this nature before. Thanks. KuyaBriBri Talk 15:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I just wrote an article on the United Methodist Hymnal. Would anyone care to help me expand this article with more third party sources and information? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedians at
Talk:Roman Catholic Church are discussing the merits of changing the article name as such.
Roman Catholic Church →
Catholic
Church. Please share your opinions
there. --
Carlaude
talk 12:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Old St Paul's Cathedral has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 02:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Would anyone care to create a page on this denomination? I don't know anything about it except it has 60,000 members in the US accoring to the Association of Religion Data Archives/ The Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches, and that is larger than many other denominations that do have articles. For example, the Friends United Meeting is the largest of the three main Quaker groups and it has only 42,600 members in the US. -- Carlaude talk 23:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
See Outline of Islam.
For instructions, see Wikipedia:Outlines.
Also see WP:WPOOK.
Thank you.
Good luck.
Have fun.
The Transhumanist 23:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Your help is needed to get it ready to move to the main namespace.
The Transhumanist 23:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Landover Baptist Church is a website parody of fundamentalist Baptists. Mikhailovich keeps removing an external link from the Landover Baptist Church article and says it isn't relevant. I say it is very relevant. (The only other external link is to the parody website). Would one or two folks mind going there and commenting. Thanks. Carlaude: Talk 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a current discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#One topic publishing house acceptable as RS.3F regarding whether and how sources from small publishers who deal primarily or only with a single church or movement may be cited in articles. E.g., can we cite a work published on Presbyterianism which is published by a house which only publishes books dealing with Presbyterianism? One editor has requested input from others, and since this might have implications for many articles beyond the case under discussion, anyone who cares to leave input there would help in forming consensus. • Astynax talk 16:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I was just at the talk page for the Catholic Wikiproject, and I suggested that we keep the current list of saints, but make more specific pages for each branch which can then be covered by the branch's respective Wikiproject. For instance, an article called "list of Roman Catholic saints" would be covered by WP:CATHOLIC. I think this would be more convenient for readers than the current chart being used to denote what religion the saint is praised by. 70.108.234.157 ( talk) 19:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone checked this one out recently? It is unencyclopedic and reads like a Dominican Tract. It is unworthy of Wikipdia and is bad for Wikipedia's reputation. It is made up largely of unverified statements and opinion masquerading as fact. Much the same can be said of the article Saint Dominic. What's going on here? Is the Order's PR department responsible for this hagiography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.99.74 ( talk) 00:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Johnbod ( talk) 22:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that should either be an article rather than a redlink, or at least a redirect to an appropriate section of another article. The phrases "suffering of Christ" and "sufferings of Christ" crop up in a lot of articles, with a fairly technical meaning (in the sense that the meaning would not be clear to a person without a background knowledge of Christianity). Any thoughts? TheGrappler ( talk) 22:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Done As to the issue of no current links to that name ("Suffering of Christ"), you are correct that there shouldn't be any links to it. However, it is a plausible search term. Redirects are cheap. Created.
Athanasius •
Quicumque vult 00:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Billy Sunday has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 06:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:
-- Mr. Z-man 23:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I am personally somewhat uncertain how to classify/categorize/regard some of the more recent religious groups which incorporate into them at least some of the aspects of Christianity, but whose beliefs, practices, or other aspects are at least sometimes "at odds" with Christianity. I'm thinking specifically of Santeria and a few other, related, groups. Do the rest of you think they should be regarded as "Christian"? Any responses are more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 17:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
This new image relates to the Apocalypse as related in the Revelation of John, and I have received a question about it. Does anyone who knows eschatology better than me know if there might be any objections to its being used? John Carter ( talk) 17:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I have notified
Drnhawkins of this discussion.
Lady
of
Shalott 02:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
(←)
File:Millennium1.gif. Another, in 8 articles.
Athanasius •
Quicumque vult 02:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
There is currently discussion about whether the name "Roman Catholic" or the name "Catholic" should be used on many of our articles and categories, as the result of a recent mediation regarding the topic. Input on the subject is more than welcome here. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 23:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
On the disamb page Orthodox, the first meaning given is:
"Correct belief such as Trinitarian, Ancient, and/or Creedal Christian Theology"
The first definition of the term Orthodox Christianity given on that page is:
" Correct theology or belief, such as the ancient, majority, or Trinitarian theologies of Christianity"
These would seem to have POV problems. Can we re-phrase these to reflect that understanding of "orthodoxy" (or its opposite) varies from denomination to denomination and from person to person? -- 201.37.230.43 ( talk) 13:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 05:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Please have a look at Christian Conventions. This article has been given a lot of effort by Astynax, and it deserves a better rating than start class.
Also have a look, if you have a chance, at the LENGTHY discussion with Tmtsoj who tagged the article first as NPOV and later as factually inaccurate. I got involved from a plea on the NPOV discussion board. I don't have much knowledge about this group, although I'm reasonably well informed about how to write a decent article about spiritual topics. I think the article has been adjusted adequately and should be untagged. I don't see a way to further satisfy Tmtsoj's objections, and this is becoming frustrating. I'm ready to do something rash...er I mean BOLD! Not Rash. Forget I said rash.
I would welcome any thoughts about how the matter might be better handled than way I'm doing, i.e., with a blunt instrument. -- nemonoman ( talk) 12:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Let me update this request on my own. The article has had past edit warring, wikilawyering, and that could easily begin again. I'm personally loosing patience and possibly objectivity. • Astynax talk 22:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The last 2 days have had a flurry of destructive edits. This involves at least one user who signed off and evidently immediately came back as one or more sockpuppets (self-refers to previous posts claims s/he made in Talk that were made under a different identity). Assistance/intervention needed please. • Astynax talk 19:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I would very much appreciate concerned editors having a look at the progressively intense editing at Christian Conventions. Edits, mostly blanking, by anonymous IPs have increased. Many of the recent editors seemed determined to remove passages -- even well-referenced passages -- based on personal interpretations of their faith, rather than reliable sources. A key example is the continuing blanking about the founder of the church: According to reliable sources, this was William Irvine, but (apparently) the members of this group believe the founder was Jesus, and are dead-set against any contradiction. That matter is simple and obvious, but a glance at this article's recent history will show the extent of the disputes. This is quickly turning into an edit war, and a few cooler heads might find a way to build a consensus and improve the article. -- nemonoman ( talk) 14:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
--Never mind. Too late. -- nemonoman ( talk) 02:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I've requested a peer review of Christian Conventions, and invite this group's participation in particular. I hope someone will also note that the article is nearing a Good Article nomination, is definitely a state higher than 'start class' as currently listed, and will adjust its class accordingly. -- Nemonoman ( talk) 21:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Related to the .gif discussion above, I noticed a user uploading copyrighted .gif most likely from his own, self published website. There appears to be 3 of them in the Tribulation article. I was wondering if more eyes could review the situation. I'm concerned that if this isn't a fringe, self-published, original research view, at the very least it is POV pushing of one POV, while ignoring others (as we know there is not just one interpretation). I just am short on time myself, and thought more eyes on the situation would be beneficial. I could also be mistaken about the notability of the views expressed in these images. Just wanted to through it out there that this issue is larger than the one .gif discussed above.- Andrew c [talk] 14:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unification Church and antisemitism Borock ( talk) 04:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Could other editors offer an opinion please? Articles Kyrie, Libera Me and Jubilate Deo are about particular songs (hymns, chants, liturgical texts) used throughout the world in hundreds of thousands of churches and schools. Someone (and some anon-IPs which may be his/her sockpuppets) keeps adding material about one school (amongst thousands) in one country (amongst hundreds). My own view is that we shouldn't start creating lists of the thousands of places where it is used. They also keep trying to add it to a category related to that school. I think it is time for the opinion of others to assist in resolution. Thanks in advance. Feline Hymnic ( talk) 23:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The Daily Word article has been flagged for deletion. Does anyone know of any reliable news sources that can be cited? Thanks! -- Trelawnie ( talk) 01:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Any parties interested in being one of the coordinators of WikiProject Christianity and its various related projects is encouraged to list themselves as a candidate at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 2. It would be particularly beneficial if we had individuals from as broad a range of areas of the project as possible, to help ensure that we have people knowledgable about the widest range of content possible. John Carter ( talk) 20:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I have done a GA Reassessment of the Alcohol in the Bible article as part of the GA Sweeps project. My reassessment can be found here. I have found that the article does not meet the current GA Criteria and as such I have placed it on hold for one week pending work. I am notifying all interested projects and editors of this in the hopes that an editor will come forth to work on the article. Should you have questions or concerns please contact me at my talk page. H1nkles ( talk) 20:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Eu.stefan, has done an amazing job on the Outline of Buddhism.
Please compare Outline of Christianity.
Is there someone here who is knowledgeable enough about Christianity to further develop its outline?
The Transhumanist 22:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. There is currently an RFC for the name of an article related to this project. Please see Talk:Southern_Baptist_Convention_Conservative_Resurgence/Fundamentalist_Takeover#RfC:_Neutral_name_for_this_article if you would like to opine. The issue is that this name violates our naming convention in a number of ways (no hierarchical names, no POV names) and the question is what would be an appropriate neutral name for this topic. Thank you. -- B ( talk) 14:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
There is a minor debate- -to-reach-consensus about the correct way to capitalize certain terms; as there are few people working on the article, it would really help if a few others could add their opinions, in Talk:Pentecostalism#Proper_names. Thanks, Chzz ► 09:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Someone (not me) has proposed a merge of Satan into Devil discuss at Talk:Satan#Satan_merged_into_Devil.3F. I am circulating this among relevant boards. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
In October 2008, I created the article on Kosuke Koyama - Koyama is now, with Kazoh Kitamori, one of only two theologians in the category of Japanese theologians. However, I think it would be nice if a third name could be added to this list - Masao Takenake. I do not know much about him myself, and certainly would not be able to start an article on him - I just know he is referred to in J. Taylor's chapter, "The Future of Christianity", in McManners, J. (ed.) (1992) The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity. I can give you this quote:
"Even the work of Kitamori, Takenake and Koyama of Japan, which technically belongs to the north, is generally ignored".
(Taylor, in McManners, 1992; p639).
This is Taylor's way of bemoaning how theologians in the northern hemisphere have generally ignored those in the south.
It would be nice if we could have another article on a Japanese theologian in Wikipedia! Many thanks for reading this, ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 15:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Second Crusade for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior4321 ( talk • contribs)
Hello! There is a backlog of Good Article nominations on religious topics here. Several of the pending articles relate to Christianity, so hopefully someone here is able to review them. (One of the article is mine, but please start on the older ones!) Thanks! -- Tango ( talk) 00:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I have rewritten Nazarene (title). Kauffner ( talk) 02:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Coordination of activity. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 19:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I will try in next few weeks to improve article Saint Sava but I need help because I am not native speaker of English language. If there is someone intersted to help write on my talk page. Best wishes,-- Vojvodae please be free to write :) 14:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, there is a new article Contradictions in the Gospels that really needs help from any of you who know the Gospel in detail. Cheers. History2007 ( talk) 11:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
You might want to read this huge article about the synoptic gospels in general (and the second and the third part - the third especially), this fairly hefty one about the Gospel of John, and this article about nativity in particular, and this one about the resurrection and ascension, all from the Encyclopaedia Biblica.
In particular, in this section ("Extent_of_discrepancies") of the last mentioned article has a table you might find useful/interesting. Newman Luke ( talk) 01:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The Christianity article is under fire from a group of editors who think that " Restorationism" deserves to be one of the major groupings of Christianity, alongside Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism, and deserves equal mention with them. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 15:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Out of interest, why does that list you've given here only include Trinitarian forms of Christianity, and not Arianism, Nestorianism, etc. ? The Assyrian Church of the East still exists after all these thousands of years, as do the Syrian Orthodox (who aren't the same at all as 'Eastern Orthodoxy'), neither of which are Chalcedonian, and both of which are major categories of Christianity. Newman Luke ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC).
Just thought it might be of some note that I have found an encyclopedia published in 1909 that has about 45 pages of fairly small print devoted to the subject of Baptism in general, also including separate articles on Ethnic baptism, Baptism in the New Testament, Early Christian baptism, Later Christian baptism, Hindu Baptism, Jewish Baptism, Islamic baptism, Polynesian baptism, Sikh baptism, and Teutonic baptism. It's the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings. I'm fairly sure, given the date of publication, it's in the public domain and can be pretty much copied into wikipedia, but I wanted to know if anyone thought there might be problems with trying to do so. John Carter ( talk) 18:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
There's also this article on "Baptism" in a 1903 Encyclopedia. Newman Luke ( talk) 01:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I've created An Evangelical Manifesto - expansion is welcome. Sidefall ( talk) 13:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The article List of religious organizations is in need of serious help. It was in an abandoned state and discussed for deletion, however I feel it has strong potential to become a useful list. But it needs lots of help and collaboration. Is someone of you interested? -- Cyclopia talk 23:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I've added the project template on the talk page of Johannes Maas (missionary), because I think it falls within the scope.
Please note that it is currently nominated for deletion, here. Chzz ► 23:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if this is a breach of etiquette. If so, feel free to delete. I would recommend interested parties check this encyclopaedia with a Biblical wordlview. Obviously those not interested need not check it. LowKey ( talk) 13:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm (VERY) new to the editing/editor concept, so please forgive me if I make a mistake or step over a line. I am willing to be corrected if need be.
That said, I've posted something on the talk page for Template:GenderChristianity about the use of the picture there. If you have a chance, please jump over there and read what I posted and comment. I won't repeat all of my arguments here, but I would appreciate your honest consideration. Thanks, Cajun tiger ( talk) 22:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi all! I would appreciate bored editors' help finding references for the general notability of the More-With-Less Cookboook. For the time being, the article exists here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JosiahHenderson/More-with-Less_Cookbook.
Peace of Christ,
-- JosiahHenderson ( talk) 21:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I rewrote this article and posted it yesterday, also tagging it with WP:Christianity. I would like to see if I can get the article to WP:FA. It is now at peer review and nominated for GA. If anyone would like to read it and make any suggestions, I would appreciate any input to improve its content. My library, formidable as it is, does not concentrate on theology. If I missed anything, I'll be happy to do whatever I can to cover it. I appreciate your help. -- Moni3 ( talk) 19:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)