Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard

Urgent: comments requested at Lee Man-hee

Page: Lee Man-hee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The article about the leader of the Shincheonji cult, Lee Man-hee, appears to have a lot of Wikipedia:SPA accounts editing in his favour. A friend from my church was duped into joining this cult, and tried to lure me in as well. Please take note of his article for non-neutral and COI editing. Thanks!

Comments are urgently requested at the afore mentioned page. We have a discussion which requires informed comments from those familiar with the topic of this discussion. Your help at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. Félix An (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

---

April newsletter?

Anyone have any specific ideas as to what they might like to see included in the April newsletter, if there is one? It might be a good idea to have it ready for Monday, maybe. John Carter (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, here's a first draft of a newsletter, anyway.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/April 2012

Opinions? John Carter (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you have done really well with it - and overall the whole idea of the newsletter it is progressing pretty well.

• I think the issue of putting the noticeboard on their watch list was good to point out, and I would probably make it a little more obvious.

• The mascot part was funny and well written, and that type of humor makes the newsletter more readable than a discussion of eschatology.

• Regarding Christianity in other wikis, I should say that Wikisource has turned out to be a great system now. It has many ancient texts that can be directly linked to and that makes Wikipedia more reliable, in that users can just check things. And Wikisource can be linked to for New Testament passages and should Biblegateway go off line tomorrow, there will be no WP:Linkrot. I suggest that in the next newsletter we recommend the use of Wikisource for Bible links because it is a Wiki-managed item and will be long lasting. Who knows what Biblegateway will do next.

• On that note, take a look at user Jbribeiro1's edits. He must have translated over 30 articles to Portuguese. So this project is making an impact on what people read in Brazil, etc. And the articles he translated are the "building block" articles such as the biblical pericopes (parables/miracles/etc.) That may make a good item for the next newsletter. Those articles are generally in good shape, and other Wikis such as Italian/French/etc. are now in worse shape than Portuguese. In many cases, the French Wikipedia is surprisingly sparse, while the German is doing well.

Anyway, overall I think you did great. History2007 (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Before my specific comments on John's great work, I'd like to make a point. Do you know how many pageviews the Jan issue received? A jaw-dropping 645. There is no full version: 645 editors actually clicked on the small footprint posted to their talk. How do we keep those 645 readers coming back for more Ichthus? We need to have at least 1 irresistable story per issue. Think DYK hook. Once the reader goes to the issue, they can read the regular WP:X stuff about FAs and contests and mascots. What kinds of stories might lure readers?

• "Is WP biased? A Christian and an Atheist Square Off"
• "Prolific Sockpuppet Master attacking Jesus articles"
• "Confessions of a Banned User"
• "Edit Warrior or Christian Soldier--when Faith Becomes Disruptive"
• something with "free" or "sex" in it

Re: April 2012, great work, John. My thoughts... perhaps trim From the Editor. Also, the black background around the egg is a little stark. Re: Other Wikis, maybe we should create a reference page at WP:X listing all of the resources on the other wikis so we have someplace to direct people for more info. Re: Spotlight, over half of the 10 or so spam complaints from the Jan issue were from WP:LDS members. (Only 10 complaints is not bad considering the list has over 1K usernames.) I strongly recommend we spotlight WP:LDS so they feel included.– Lionel ^(talk) 08:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I am more than happy to square off with some brand of non-theist or anti-theist for the "Is Wikipedia biased?" issue. Debate! St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 15:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

But the debates will take energy that could go into removing all the glaring errors that persist. And you are not ging to convince them by debate, you need to use sources. The amazing thing about Wikipedia is that in most cases those with better sources will win in the end - and the debates will be forgotten. And look at what we have to do everyday: remove mass schedules for specific churches! Or this one again today. No one watches these pages. We are seriously short of people who will maintain the integrity of the content we already have, let alone spend time elsewhere. History2007 (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

In response to St John C, I seem to remember that in the Wikipedia Signpost we occasionally had debates between someone taking the scientism/naturalism position and someone taking a perspective allowing for the "supernatural" to exist, and arguing in favor of supernatural interpretations of some events. Maybe, at some point in the future, we might be able to talk an agnostic or atheist (or two) into a civilized discussion/debate on the issue - I do think that might be useful to both projects. Maybe, just maybe, we might be able to hold some sort of debate between atheists and believers, or maybe between believers of different faiths, in the future, maybe in accord with an attempt to develop the most directly relevant articles. It might help develop that content to the point that some such disputes are resolved. Maybe. I might myself hold of on that for at least a few months, though. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do count me out on the debate front. With all these articles that have so many errors, I would not want to spend time in debate that will be forgotten in 6 months. History2007 (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Personally, I tend to agree that the debates might not be particularly useful in themselves, unless they were clearly tied to improvement of articles directly relating to the debate, either articles on the debate itself or new developments which would impact the debate. John Carter (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey User:John Carter! When are you planning on sending the newsletter out? I haven't received it yet! I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I have made three requests so far to have the April newsletter delivered, including one at the bot requests noticeboard and two at the user talk pages of individual operators of bots that do such things. So far, no response. Maybe soon? John Carter (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

New bot which will help our project

I've built a bot to help out with odd jobs around the project. Check it out here: LioneltBot. (When you see its capabilities you'll see why it's probably best that we don't tell the anti-Christianity editors about this.) – Lionel ^(talk) 23:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Article outside scope of the project

Secular religion is in this wikiproject but it appears to be outside the scope of the project. Does anyone disagree with my removal of it? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right, given that sports and "free markets" are considered examples of that. I think these days the "love of iPad" is about to become a secular religion too. Apple has always had that type of appeal.... History2007 (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Edits that need attention

These series of edits may need attention. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

May newsletter

I think it might be a good idea to have a basic draft of the next month's newsletter early, in the event anyone thinks of things to add early this month. I in particular like History2007's proposal above about maybe putting in something about WikiSource. So, on that basis, I have copied the current newsletter (hoping to see it changed) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/May 2012. Everyone should feel free to maybe add some draft material, with the understanding that it might be edited prior to release. John Carter (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The key item about any newsletter is: "will people come back to read it again, after the fact?" If it is worth reading again, it has been done right. In fact if you follow the Wikipedia main page philosophy it is easy to do. The DYK is an obvious example, but it needs to tie into other items. I suggest:

• Church of the month: Feature a nice church every month. In May try File:Salt Lake Temple, Utah - Sept 2004-2.jpg and that will relate to the LDS project. You can rotate and show a church different denomination every month.

• Art for the month: Feature a different image/art every month, and let is be different from the church denomination.

• DYK: As usual. But this time, it can tie into the art piece. E.g. for the feast of the Transfiguration I would suggest: "Did you know that in earlier times, every Eastern Orthodox monk who took up iconogrophy had to start his craft by painting the icon of the Transfiguration..." Then as the art you can use File:Preobrazhenie.jpeg to relate it. After 6 months you can use File:Mtchoirandorchestra ConferenceCenter (cropped).jpg and say "Did you know that they won a Grammy and an Emmy..." etc. You can even leave messages at Wikiproject Calvinism, Lutheranism, etc. asking them for suggestions for a DYK. Another example would be "Did you know that Johann Sebastian Bach wrote the initials "SDG" ( Soli Deo gloria) at the beginning and end of all his church compositions..." and relate that to the Five solas. That may also help get the Five solas article get references, for now it has none - surprisingly. So you could get the Lutheran guys to add references there so it can be a DYK here, etc.

• This month N years ago: As in the Wiki-frontpage you can say: in May 1421 (or whenever) some specific even took place - and use a different denomination again.

Given that the feasts span the year, you will have a good 12 month cycle that way anyway. For April I do suggest a Saint George reference for sure. May is a Marian month so you can try that as a theme, and it is a Fatima month etc. And if you feature a LDS church in May it will balance it out. Then June another feast and another denomination, etc. But Saint George and April should certainly be tried now given that he is recognized by multiple denominations. History2007 (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Good ideas all. And maybe some sort of short piece about a specific denomination or belief per month as well, maybe along the lines of "Why I Believe." I note that there are a lot of notable Christian groups which have rather remarkably divergent beliefs, as well as non-Christian beliefs, and often articles that don't get a lot of attention, and such a section might help increase the awareness and tolerance of such beliefs, and, maybe, help bring more attention to the related content. John Carter (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added some of the proposals above into the "draft" of the May newsletter at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/May 2012. If anyone would like to add specific material to any of those sections a bit early, I think we could possibly live with it. And if there is a known adherent to a little known, or very controversial, notable Christian group, either in terms of denominations or controversial beliefs, who would want to add material to "I believe," I can't see any objections to asking them to add a little. We could always have the editorial team edit it down if required. Maybe Mormons, or Jehovah's Witnesses, or some other group frequently subject to contentious discussion might be a good choice for the first month. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Passing of User:Slrubenstein

I just noticed that the above editor who was a member of the Christianity project and an invaluable editor in social anthropology and religion has recently been indicated to have passed on. It is my sincerest hope that perhaps those of us who remain might maybe work to get an article he found important up to some sort of level of recognized quality in his memory. Those who have worked with him in the past are leaving notes of their feelings on his talk page, and I would encourage anyone so inclined to do so as well. I hope to post any word I might receive about any efforts for a memorial article here as I get them. John Carter (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

An article has been started at Steven Rubenstein. I think any assistance with it, or perhaps some possible related articles as per the article talk page, would be very much appreciated. John Carter (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

List of pages that need watching

Should we have a list of pages that need watching. I have done 3 reverts today on Jesus in Christianity and can do no more. Can we have a list of pages that people think need watching, just to remove the "This is not true" type vandalisms? History2007 (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

We certainly could, if the material seems to be from multiple people, maybe in a short section at the top of the page about "Current problem articles"? Requesting short term page locks is another option, if such vandalism seems to be ongoing. John Carter (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

No, short term page blocks will not work - there are too many pages, and the changes are "all over the place". The pending changes RFC may help, however. As I said above people keep adding mass schedules (hello!) and directions from specific train stations to church pages, etc. We are just short handed, and need help, or stronger pending changes measures. History2007 (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Edits that need attention

These series of edits may also need attention, in case they spread to other pages. History2007 (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible debate on JWs in May newsletter regarding Jehovah's Witnesses?

I think most of us would recognize that the Jehovah's Witnesses are one of the more controversial major movements in modern Christianity. Many of us are aware of a few editors who have been engaged in some heated discussion there. I wonder what the rest of you might think of maybe having a moderated debate for the next newsletter between AuthorityTam and BlackCab regarding the JWs, with perhaps Jeffro serving as the moderator. John Carter (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

So this was not enough? I have not read it, but happened to notice it. History2007 (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I read it. I wish I hadn't. Please enough JW-vs-JWbasher for 2012 already. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I really do not know why these groups are angry with each other (and their issues are not relevant to me), but as you said, it is probably better not to know and not be in the cross fire anyway. The encyclopedia should have a content improvement agenda, and nothing else. History2007 (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking of a debate relating to the JWs as both insiders and outsiders see them, and also, possibly, including some material as to the question of possible POV regarding people who have left a religious movement. If there were to be a Wikibook on the JWs, I would think that such content might be useful there as well. But, maybe you're right. John Carter (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I am capable of objectively serving as a moderator for such a topic. However, because AuthorityTam has accused me of various things, I do not believe that my serving as a moderator would be perceived as neutral.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

In ictu oculi's crude reference to "JW-vs-JWbasher" is undeserved and inaccurate. In fact both AuthorityTam and I have stated repeatedly that our highest priority is improvement of JW articles. There has been frequent disagreement between us, however, over what should and should not be included in articles, what should and should not be accepted as RS, and also the interpretation of certain Watch Tower Society statements.

Here's some background. I was on the way out of the religion when I discovered the range of JW-related articles on Wikipedia. I was unimpressed with many of them because they were cheery, unbalanced pieces of propaganda. I began removing some of the excesses and injecting some critical comment that very clearly met the rules of WP:RS and WP:V. Some of my early edits probably suffered from a certain acidity because of my resentment at having been deceived by a high-control religion for more than two decades. But my goal, as I endeavoured to explain on my userpage, was aimed at presenting the public with a broader picture of the religion that is normally available to converts or prospective converts through official Watch Tower Society literature. The way I see it, people should have sufficient information to reach an informed decision. This approach is almost guaranteed to meet stiff resistance. JWs are unused to reading criticism of their religion. They are trained to treat criticism as the work of "apostates" and the devil. My self-identification as a former Witness – and one prepared to criticise the religion – marked me as an "apostate", which means I am regarded by JWs as entirely untrustworthy and devious. This is how they are trained, through Orwellian-like repetition, to view defectors. This alone sparks an almost instinctive revulsion of them towards me; the same revulsion has been expressed in talk pages about former JWs James Penton and Raymond Franz, the latter being the most important defector the religion has ever had.

My edits have tended to focus on critical material, though I have never blocked or removed favourable material if it meets normal WP standards of inclusion. I wrote the Watch Tower Society presidency dispute (1917) article, covering events that are still treated in a very one-sided and distorted fashion by WTS publications. I also substantially rewrote and expanded the Joseph Franklin Rutherford article, dealing with arguably the most significant figure in the religion's history. The fact that it has received only minor editing since then is testament to my ability to write fairly and accurately, and my reliance on reliable sources.

As others have done, I am more than happy to acknowledge the improvements AuthorityTam has made to JW articles. He has a great deal of intimate and probably high-level inside knowledge of the religion. I have always been ready to defend my edits and now attempt always to deal strictly with content on talk pages. My complaint is that he fails to do the same thing and seems more intent on picking at old scabs, accentuating divisions and inciting anger than addressing content in a reasoned way. I still want to improve articles, and I accept that he does as well. They have reached a level of stability for now, I think, though for how long I don't know. I certainly don't want to engage in any more wars.

I'm unsure of the nature of the "debate" John Carter suggests or what it hopes to achieve. I agree that Jeffro would not be the best candidate as a moderator. He is intelligent, articulate and well informed, but he has also been targeted by AuthorityTam. As the endless "can we wrap this up" skirmish showed, neither is prepared to let the other have the last word. As I have said several times at the ANI, all I want is for AuthorityTam's inflammatory behaviour to cease. That would be enough to settle things down. BlackCab (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this could be quite valuable, if the purpose of the "debate" was to illustrate how differences in perception of a topic can be resolved through applying policy. This could include: how to avoid injecting personal experience, and instead stick to what references say; how sources self-published by a group may be used in an article; the necessity, when differing opinions from references are included, to have the article reflect the weight given each position; how policy deals with fringe views/sources; etc. I don't think John Carter is suggesting a simple rehashing of an old debate, but rather to turn it into something instructive. • Astynax ^talk 20:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Astynax and I take your point. Thinking more about this, I think there is room to discuss the issues that do cause conflict. I am compiling a short list of the main challenges encountered on JW article pages (as opposed to talk pages) and I think there could be some benefit from airing them. I'll return with that list in a dot-point form. BlackCab (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

In response to BlackCab, would there be any individuals whom both he and AuthorityTam would perceive as neutral and as unbiased as realistically possible? I do assume that if there were any such debate, the moderator might initially store the debate in his own userspace, and then perform any editors for space concerns, stray comments, and other matters as required by the format, but would try to leave the substance of the relevant content in place. John Carter (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that such a "debate" would be ill advised at best and a fast track to another ANI in all probability. Wikipedia should encourage working together in an attempt to make the articles more accurate and not make an attempt to elicit a controversial "debate" from two editors who have been engaged in heated discussion already. Willietell (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Not a good idea. Blackcab has expressly asked several times just to be given the peace to edit, I think he deserves that. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the last two comments, I have begun a dot-point list of the main causes of conflict with content of JW pages. The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Christianity_noticeboard/JW_discussion. It's just a quick start and I'll return to tidy it up and perhaps get it on to a more formal basis when I get a moment. All comments welcome. BlackCab (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

John 20:13

Looks like pure OR. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

go ahead, zap it :) In ictu oculi (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem notable as a distinct topic. I've prodded it. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion (or more) at Criswell College

Hello,

I recently ran across an edit war at Criswell College. I'm pretty much clueless when it comes to the subject matter of the underlying dispute. Could a neutral editor or two take a look and comment on Talk:Criswell College? I think they could use an outside opinion. It evidently concerns whether or not the college is dispensationalist. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I am one of the Editors of the Criswell College page and just to clarify a bit: the point of dispute is not if the school is solely dispensational, as it is not (both parties would agree in this issue). The issue is weither it should be listed as Premillenial and Dispensational or just Premillenial. Just Premillennial, I believe adds to the confusion, since there is Historic Premillennialism and Dispensationalism Premillennialism both. The School requires that faculty adhere to either position, but does not accept Amillennial or Postmillennial positions. It is thus my position that it is of historic and practical note to express this on the schools page. I welcome any assistance in this issue as well as cleanup for the article (of which I have been the primary contributor for about 5 years.) More information is available upon request. Hungus (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed manual of style for religion articles

Please make any comments you deem appropriate at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said there, those seemed like policy-exemptions dressed up as MOS, but that is another story. Yet, I think it would make sense to have a MOS for Wikiproject Christianity that actually talks about style rather than other issues. I will discuss that below. History2007 (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Manual of style for WikiProject Christianity

At the moment there is no MOS for this project. I think one is needed. Example items include:

• Bible references: At the moment these have multiple chaotic forms and refer to various Bible versions on various external sites without any uniformity. And should some of those sites shut down tomorrow, chaos will ensue.

• Naming conventions: Terms such as Mormons, Latter day Saints, Moonies, Unification Church etc. are used all over the place and some type of naming convention is needed.

• Self-published sites to avoid: This has come up again and again, and at the moment many articles refer to self-published websites that are far from WP:RS. A list of the no-no self-published sites will be essential, and will help avoid debate. a list of self-publishers e.g. Xulon Press will also help. It is used all over the place now.

John, given that you know this project so well, would you like to draw up a rough draft? Your help will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I tend to think that Christianity probably wouldn't have any particularly different MOS requirements than religion in general. And Biblical references are probably more in the range of Religion rather than Chrstianity as well. John Carter (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then should these get added to the religion MOS item, so it will actually be an MOS rather than a policy exemption ticket? History2007 (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. I'll go over the other two existing MOS related to religion and add any material I think relevant from them, or other material which I think should be included but isn't. John Carter (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Article request

Is anyone interested in writing an article on the Paradox of the Cross, an important theological concept in Christianity? I am surprised to find that no such article exists as of now. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

At some future point, yes. That would be a good topic. But right now, an article such as Messiah is in need of an ambulance really and Salvation (Christianity) has tags all over it. So I see a greater need for cleaning up all the existing problems first. We are seriously shorthanded. History2007 (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone here familiar with Oneness Pentecostalism?

The article God the Father had a few unsourced tags and I posted on the Hinduism and LDS project pages and people came in and helped. I am not really familiar with Oneness Pentecostalism, but they seem to have many denominations, and I am not sure how to represent their views, given that they have no central teaching authority. There is a discussion there on Talk:God the Father and suggestions will be appreciated. That article is a key building block article and the Christianity section in it (including the subsections) really needs to get cleaned up. So suggestions will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The original term for the Oneness teaching is Modalism or Sabellianism it was rejected as a trinitarian heresy in or around the 3rd century, but continues to come back periodically. Hungus (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Hungus, this is wrong opinion which is repeatedly claimed by unfamiliar theologians from mainstream churches. Oneness Pentecostalism is not the same as Arianism. Modalism and Sabellianism are teachings which were rejected by the Roman Catholic Church (Western Rite). And thus, it is only opinion (aka Roman Catholic's POV). Should I be burned at stake? Go to hell with me? In any case, Oneness Pentecostalism' view differ from other Nontrinitarians (Not Arians) in their view on Jesus, which they call as the Supreme God himself. Their view in this specific is very similar to the Swedenborgian's New Jerusalem Church. Problem of Oneness Pentecostal churches is that there are thousands of denominations inside the Pentecostals movement and they have usually also different believe as History2007 mentioned. --FaktneviM (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

User:FaktneviM I said nothing about Arianism. As for Modalism and Sabellianism being rejected only by "Western rite" churches that is patently false. There was no division of east and west at the time and the 'Orthodox' churches reject both of those heresies the same as the western churches. You might want to go back and read the church fathers again. If you cannot sign off on the nicene creed, I know of no christian denomination that will accept you as a christian, but that is neither here nor there. Monarchism/Modalism/sabellianism is an old heresy. Hungus (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Hungus, I am sure that God himself is only one who could say if he is the trinity or not. The Bible is the key on this matter. Are you ever think about that there is no single verse in which God said ... "I am the Triune" and later he added "Worship me as the Triune God" ... And. There is not even at least single verse of such kind. But think about. Only God can say what he wants from us. Men are not allowed to reveal their own philosophical theories about him. Trinitarian doctrine was established some 300 years after death and resurrection of the Christ. Trinity doctrine started in 4th Century and firmly established in hearts of people in about 12th Century after Christ. Do you really thinks that it was by God's will? (I am not Oneness Pentecostal, I find that only Jehovah's witnesses teach the truth what 1st Century apostles believed). Ask them for free Bible study. I only write this because you already ask for that. My knowledge of other Nontrinitarian churches is limited to the core doctrines from which could be found true or false. Have a nice day in any case. --FaktneviM (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it is certainly the case that Christians differ on a wide range of theological issues, starting from the theology of the pre-existence of Christ to the end times, etc. So debate among Christians has existed for about 2,000 years and although ecumenical councils are still held once in a while, many of the participants have a hard time seeing eye to eye at said meetings. So all we can really do here is try to explain what these different Christian groups teach, and acknowledge that they do have different beliefs. And I think in our presentations in Wikipedia we should try and show respect for the beliefs of all groups, for the last thing we will need will creating friction among the members of different denominations. History2007 (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Without question I agree with all you wrote. Explaining various belief systems is good goal for Wikipedia, which aim should be inform readers without prejudice, misleading statements and inaccuracies. Respect to each other' viewpoints and express love to your neighbors are also good ways and good motives to apply for each of us. I only disagree with relativism. Clearly saying - All opinions can not be truthful. The key how to distinguish among various Christianity teachings actually exist. Relativism is big danger for all Christians. --FaktneviM (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes relativism is a danger so much so that Christianity established the ecumenical creeds which were agreed upon. Those 3 creeds define the minimum core belief for christianity and part of those creeds is Trinitarianism. If you switch to dualism, monarchism or quadrianism (neo logism for 4 gods in one) then you are not talking about christianity instead you are talking about something else. Now in religions the word that is used to describe claiming to be part of a religion and teaching things contrary to that religion is heresy. Now if one espouses something contrary to a religion but does not claim to be part of that religion, they are not a heretic, they are hetrodox. --Hungus (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read [1] again. All is mentioned there. YOU are my friends if YOU do what I am commanding YOU. (John 15:14). If someone believe that some councils (man's word) have higher authority than the God's Word, then after no chance for him/her to enter into God's Kingdom. --FaktneviM (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be the case that a) they have many denominations and b) they are growing rapidly. In fact as new denominations appear, I am not sure how their teachings are similar or different from each other on specific points. The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements does have information about the movement at the top level and many denominations may adhere to those but I am not sure if there is a formal requirement for that. Most denominations seem to hand out literature, tapes etc. They are clearly non-Trinatarian, and the roots go back to a 1913 gathering, but as they grow, I am not sure if there is total uniformity in the teachings. History2007 (talk) 08:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I am also lost in bush of their large number of denominations. Perhaps some literature up-to-date is needed. Many of them I realized that they worship Jesus and they view him as God, what is in fact very similar to Trinity or Binitarianism, while in the same time, they believe that only one person exist as manifestations of those two. In article "God the Father" they have place as one 'major group' inside 'Oneness Pentecostalism movement' which is also part of much larger belief system called 'Pentecostalism'. --FaktneviM (talk) 08:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I am actually not happy with the presentations on several subsections (not just this one) on the God the Father page, but have not had time to work on them immediately. I posted on the LDS page and people came out and helped on that, but various other sections need help yet. But the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholicism subsections etc. have been quickly thrown together, are still fluid and far less than adequate or representative. And Anglicans, etc. are not even present. That is a key building block page for this project and should be in far better shape. History2007 (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a problem with all of the 'Folk Theologies' they do not have originating creeds or documents and it makes it very difficult to trace their theological genetics. Hungus (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the many denomination issue, yes, but the presentations in Wikipedia articles should somehow make a note of that issue. E.g. that the statements made are from in books written by one specific denomination, etc. and not necessarily representative of all teachings. Regarding the overall quality of that article, even sections such as Eastern Orthodox and Catholic have problems, and those teachings are well documented. And there are empty sections there. History2007 (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you still refer to the article God the Father or to various articles across Wikiproject Christianity? Which one? Could you specify the worst covered examples? Maybe I could help a little with it. --FaktneviM (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

There are many articles in the Christianity project that need help, e.g. John the Baptist has tags on it and needs clean up, Salvation in Christianity is not much better, etc. In this case, however, I was referring to the God the Father article which has empty sections, and sections that overlap and need work, etc. In fact I think the Christianity material in that article is so large now that deserves to move out to a separate article with a Main, for it now overwhelms the Jewish and Islamic sections. And there is another article God in Christianity which is really unkempt and deserves much attention. In fact I think "God the Father in Christianity" should become a separate article and then God in Christianity should refer to it.

Here is the irony: God the Father in Christianity gets viewed about 12,000 times a month and is really unkempt. On there other hand, Johnny Depp's page gets 600,000 views a month an is in very good shape. Needless to say, that is a key page for WikiProject Christianity and should be in much better shape. I started a discussion on the talk page there a few days ago, and comments will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Request for Comment: Removing "Handling of sexual abuse cases" from critic section

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Request for Comment: Removing "Handling of sexual abuse cases" from critic section. Somebody familiar with the topic may please give opinion/suggestion. Fazilfazil (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48

Disastrous article list

There was talk some time ago of making a list of lowest quality articles. I think we should start it sooner or later, and generally a somewhat central article that has multiple problem tags on it should be included. But minor articles will clutter it.

Please add to the list below, so we can begin to have a list of articles that really need ER-help. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Does this refer to articles of even lower than Stub-status quality? If so, on what basis would they be classified as such? No objections to the idea per se, but I think we would need the information. John Carter (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I find the page ratings to be often out of date, if not haphazrad. Theoretically, some arithmetic function of (Importance / Rating) could be used where high importance and low quality items would be noticed. But in practice I see no practical way of using that. Yet articles such as Christian cross or God in Christianity are central to this project, yet far less than perfect. As you may have noticed, we recently liberated this project from one disaster article. But there are others that can not just be redirected and need to be cleaned up. I cleaned up Sermon on the Mount and Beatitudes some time ago, but I am getting tired of cleaning up for ever. Hence the list. History2007 (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

List of low quality articles

• Jesus is Lord: Needs serious help

See article talk-page for a first proposal and possible new ledeJpacobb (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Christian cross Not a total disaster, but really unkempt, mostly unsourced and disorganized.
• Salvation in Christianity

Why has April Fools' Day been added to the Christianity project?

I have just noticed that April Fools' Day has been added to the Christianity project, but surely this is a purely secular event. I know 1st April is dedicated to St Hugh, Bishop of Grenoble, St Gilbert, Bishop of Caithness, and St Melito, Bishop of Sardes, plus, no doubt, several others, but that page is about the Fools' Day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MidlandLinda (talk • contribs) 15:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree and have removed the WikiProject banner. There's very little in the article about Christianity (nor should there be), and it's certainly not top-importance. Probably a mistake on John Carter's part. (Being included in the scope of a WikiProject doesn't hurt, of course, but in this case I don't see how it helps.) Huon (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't object to WikiProjects in general, and as a Christian I'm in favour of this one, but I don't think any project should gather in irrelevant pages. It could divert editors from important work on other relevant pages having to check the extras. Sorry I forgot to sign my last post. MidlandLinda (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Basically, that article is the redirect destination of All Fools Day, which is included in the Lindsay Jones' Encyclopedia of Religion as a separate article included in the Synoptic Outline of the Christianity content. But inclusion in that highly regarded and comprehensive source is, to my eyes, basis for project inclusion. Having said that, there are at least a few redirects and other pages which I myself find questionable. I'll get together a list of them for community review later. John Carter (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with your source but is it not more likely that it is referring to the Feast of Fools at the beginning of January rather than April Fools' Day? MidlandLinda (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, at this point, I don't know myself. I may well have made a mistake. :( I just copied the list of articles from the Synoptic Outline's Christianity section. Give me a chance to go over the other problem articles, and then I'll check the content. But, FWIW, it is the second "edition" of Mircea Eliade's earlier "Encyclopedia of Religion," and the two of them are in general counted among, if not the, most comprehensive and authoritative reference sources on the general subject of religion, which is why I chose it. John Carter (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave it in your hands then. I wasn't aware of there being two similar pages (Feast of Fools and April Fools' Day) Rather than the redirect that sent you there in the first place, there seems to be need of a disambiguation page. MidlandLinda (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Top priority articles

I've gone through and tagged all the Christianity related articles included in the Jones encyclopedia as being of top priority, based on their inclusion in that work, which is both rather comprehensive and academically very highly regarded. I am now going through the same list and tagging them as Top priority for Religion. Doing so might help draw some attention to them, and should also help in setting up a bit of an "outline" of high importance articles, which might help editors determining which articles to link to in the event of perhaps having some doubts. Yes, I know it is basically mindless busy work as well, but I think it probably needs to be done.

I was wondering whether anyone else might agree that Pope John Paul II and maybe Billy Graham might qualify for inclusion there as well. Personally, I have no doubt the former qualifies, based on the amount he did over his remarkably lengthy pontificate, and I think the latter's remarkable popular appeal and the public attention he received may well qualify him as well, although I am less certain of that. John Carter (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Both personalities should be included as top priority. Interestingly, the two individuals you named had good relations with one another :) Best wishes, Anupam^Talk 01:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That seems to disagree with our current assessment scale: "The article is one of the core topics about Christianity. Generally, this is limited to those articles that are included as sections of the main Christianity article." According to the current scale, I doubt either John Paul II or Billy Graham qualify as anything higher than mid-importance. Personally I don't care much about the importance scale, but we should try to be consistent. Is a change of the assessment page in order to reflect whatever is now assessed? Huon (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I tend to think we probably should alter those terms in the existing assessment scale. Those terms were, I think, first developed with other topics in mind, which tend to be rather more, well, focused than Christianity, like maybe South Africa, Physics, and other more tightly focused topics. Also, we already have about 100 core articles already included, many of which already do not qualify. From what I remember, the general, the terms at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Importance of topic more generally indicate that the subject is a "must have" for a print encyclopedia, and I would think that maybe the topics actually included in the best print encyclopedia are probably, in some way, considered "must haves" by the editors. I do think that Brill's encyclopedia Religion Past and Present should probably be consulted for the matter as well, but I haven't yet gotten to it. Anyway, would there be any objection to altering the existing phrasing of our importance criteria to more closely match those of the 1.0 criteria? John Carter (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Big Bang RfC (Part II)

The latest RfC (administratively closed on 18 March) confirmed that there should be a presence of a brief "religious and philosophical implications" section in the Big Bang article. Which draft should be selected to appear in the section? Please participate in the RfC if you feel called to do so. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

American Catholic Church in the United States

Needs attention, and editor needs help, see Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#article "American Catholic Church in the United States". Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Uniformalizing the Template we use to reference Scripture

I am proposing switching the template used on Wikiproject:Christianity pages to be {{bibleref2}} instead of other templates that are out there

I am proposing this for three primary reasons

1. This template has the ability to include various variables that produce a broader range of options. {{bibleref2|BOOKNAME|c:v-c:v|Optional_Bible_Version|Optional_Display}} It allows you to remove the book name, use an abbreviation, superscript the reference, add an option display, or display it in a variety of translations.Luke 16:19–31Luke 16:19–31 16:19–31 16:19–31The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man
2. The template utilizes the standard Chapter:Verse syntax rather than Chapter|OpenVerse|CloseVerse that some other templates use which is alien to how most Christians think of the text (easier to use)
3. This template is most commonly used among articles on Wikipedia, and as we all know... redundancy and inconsistency is something that all editors are trying to reduce

(unsigned) (..... this was by ReformedArsenal I think - Yes, it was me. Sorry I forgot to sign it.)

• Oppose This is a very bad idea, and goes against the usual way we handle such matters, leaving things to the discrtion of local editors. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose But for a different reason in any case. What Wikipedia is trying to reduce is WP:Linkrot, not dependence on external items. Exactly who determines if Biblegateway is going to be there next week at all? And indeed exactly who determines that it should be Biblegateway and not another website that is best? It is totally against the philosophy of Wikipedia to standardize on an external website over which it has no control. I have, for long been replacing Biblegateway with Wikisource links which will not die if Biblegateway dies next week. Wikisource is now a rich component of Wikipedia and should be used as a stable "Wiki-asset". In fact, the overall direction of Wikipedia is "self-reliance" via Wikisource and per WP:Linkrot those are the best links to use. History2007 (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• • Those are valid points. Can we create a template that mimics the functionality of bibleref2 (the ability to do superscript, drop book name, or provide an alternate title for the text) that utilizes wikisource, or is there an existing template that does this?ReformedArsenal: ὁ δὲ θεὸς 19:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for being understanding. The way to use Wikisource now is via links, because it also links to many, many other valuable ancient works, say Origen, Jerome, etc. The link Mark 1:1 as used here is just a wikilink and is similar to the link to Jerome Letter 46. One could certainly write a little template to make that easier, it just takes time to do it, but for now Wikisource can be used anyway. History2007 (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no experience writing templates, but would like to be able to mimic the functionality listed above, how would we do that?ReformedArsenal: ὁ δὲ θεὸς 15:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There is probably a place to ask for "requested templates". I am just too busy to do it now and do it right, but in the meantime if you ask on WP:Helpdesk they may do it. And I recall User:Afaprof01 writing a few of those, but he is not that active any more - a sad symptom of our losing good editors right and left. So for now, a Helpdesk question may be the best option and someone may just write it. History2007 (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed moves

There are discussion underway at the talk pages of Books of Chronicles, Books of Kings, and Books of Samuel as to whether or not to move those pages to article titles reflecting the singular nature of each of the works in the Masoretic text, rather than the current Septuagint-based titles. The input of any interested editor would be greatly appreciated. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 05:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I haveproposed Joses be merged to Desposyni. Discussion can be found at Talk:Joses#Proposed merger. Any informed input, for or against, would be more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Isaiah 7:14

PiCo has made a lot of questionable edits to Isaiah 7:14, which includes deleting most of the material in the article. Given his tendency to edit-war, I can't fix the problems with it by myself, so can anyone here take a look at the edits and tell me what you think?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but will probably wait till he has finished before intervening. Jpacobb (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

User attrition

I just noticed this: User:Carlaude walked away. It seems that he asked for a WP:Third opinion and decided that he had had enough of Wikipedia. For a user to make 40,000 edits then quit after one incident, means that there was gradual dissatisfaction with the process. Something needs to be done to stop this from happening again. He was a pretty good editor. The whole WP:3O process seems frustrating for people because those who provide opinions may not be familiar with the topic.

I think the newsletter needs to have some type of suicide prevention hotline, where users can be helped before they walk. Ideas? History2007 (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Start saying your goodbye's to Anupam. The resignation of this veteran editor who has never been blocked is only a formality at this point. He hasn't made many friends editing atheistic articles from a Christian perspective and defending articles from anti-Christian vandals and the wolves are circling. 15,000 edits and 7 years of positive contributions coming to an end. His most recent project will be the one he will forever be remembered for: resurrecting our newsletter Ichthus. I don't know how we can survive by driving away losing people like this.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Joanna, wife of Chuza

I proposed Talk:Saint Joanna for move to Joanna, wife of Chuza based on Google Books. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)