Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rfc posted at Bible and violence, please comment[edit]

Talk:The_Bible_and_violence#Rfc

Input requested on use of "orthodox"[edit]

At Pentecostalism, there is currently a discussion on whether it is appropriate to describe mainstream Christians/theology as "orthodox". Input would be appreciated. Ltwin (talk)

Jesus did not turn water into wine, or drink it at the Last Supper[edit]

It doesn't seem to be online, but a newspaper article written by a pastor says the Greek word used for wine in all instances where Jesus drank it refers to unfermented grape juice, and the Greek word used in all instances where the Bible warns against getting drunk refers to fermented wine. Nothing is said about this idea in Wikipedia, at least where I have looked so far. I don't know precisely how one would go about proving his statement or adding it to the related articles.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial. See Purified Translation of the Bible and follow the links to the references. For an online article see [1]. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That one article says nothing about the two different Greek words. I have to admit if what the pastor said were true there would have been grape juice used for Communion long before Thomas Bramwell Welch made it possible.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found this which makes the same claim as the pastor. And although it is unreferenced, Alcohol in the Bible came up in my search and makes the claim that the word can mean alcoholic.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great. After the pastor claimed Jesus turned the water into tirosh, this says oinos.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia requires Reliables Sources. The sources given above fall far short of the required academic standard. The mere fact that information can be found on internet, or even in books published by little-known publishing houses, is not sufficient to justify its inclusion in an article. Even the possesion of degrees from a highly-respected university does not ensure that an author is always a reliable source (see John M. Allegro). In this case, a standard bible dictionary states that while some commentators argued that tirosh ("must" or "vino nuevo") was not alchoholic, it "takes away judgement" in Hosea 4:11 and its NT equivalent gléukos is used in Acts 2 when the apostles are accused of being drunk on new wine. It also points out that fermentation sets in very rapidly within six hours of pressing the grapes and concludes that the academic consensus is that the terms translated "wine" all refer to an alchoholic drink.(Diccionario Ilustrado de la Biblia - Ed. Caribe 1977) This theory is too far fetched to be worth mentioning in an article. — Jpacobb (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's because some Christians are so entirely invested in teetotalism (see Christian views on alcohol) as an outgrowth of the Temperance movement, that they want to impose that view on both scripture and Christ. See http://babylonbee.com/news/bottle-of-welchs-grape-juice-discovered-near-site-of-last-supper/ for a humorous view of that. Unless a reliable biblical studies expert weighs-in on it, I would simply avoid it in any articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The word in the Wedding at Cana narrative is wine (Strong's 3631, οἶνος).
The word given in the Last Supper narrative of all synoptical gospels (Matthew 26:27, Mark 14:23, Luke 22:17) is cup (Strong's 4221, ποτήριον), not wine. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In this instance, ποτήριον refers to the third cup of the Passover Seder. We can be assured that this Seder's four cups were not grape juice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not about to tell this pastor anything. If you saw his photo, you'd probably be afraid of him too.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see how debating how many angels can dance on a pinhead is productive. The New Testament is not a record. It is Church propaganda.[1] Sahansdal (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your post is unproductive. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.amazon.com/James-Brother-Jesus-Unlocking-Christianity/dp/014025773X/ref=pd_sim_b_2

The Apostles[edit]

Should the experimental punk rock band who developed within the confines of the 1980s anarcho-punk scene in the UK really be top-article here? I would more expect to arrive at Apostle (disambiguation), Apostles or Apostle. Not sure which policies and guidelines apply, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No — JudeccaXIII (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I moved the page and updated all incoming links. Daask (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missing topic Draft:New Testament theology[edit]

This seems to be notable but missing. I'm interested in seeing if this can be turned into a good page. Legacypac (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It will be a very tricky one: a fairly common question is whether there is A theology of the New Testament or only theologies of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John etc... (See for example Alan Richardson's justification of the title of his An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament (SCM - 1961, pp. 9ff) — Jpacobb (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mass page moves for episcopal conference articles[edit]

User:Chicbyaccident on 30 March 2018 indiscriminately moved several articles on episcopal conferences to titles with the format 'Episcopal Conference of X'. This is in spite of the said user's proposal to standardise 'Episcopal Conference of X' being explicitly rejected. Moreover, the user has even cited this failed proposal as the reason for some of the page moves. I have reverted many of the page moves, but it would be good to have more eyes go over them. There was a relevant discussion at: Category talk:Episcopal conferences#Standardisation. The Discoverer (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping to be look through the discussions to be better informed. However, at the moment I'm strongly inclined to stick to WP:COMMONNAME over WP:CONSISTENCY on these articles and suggest that we ask that we have an administrator revert all of these page moves. Do others agree? Daask (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree that WP:COMMONNAME is the common-sense choice over WP:CONSISTENCY in this case. However, it will not be necessary to ask for a mass reversion, because I've already moved many or most of the pages. What would be desirable is for other editors to go over those that haven't been reverted and take a call on whether reversion is needed. The Discoverer (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The log of page moves can be found at Special:Log/Chicbyaccident?offset=20180330011238 Daask (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Daask (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Thread Related to this WikiProject[edit]

Just an FYI. Seems proper to notify the WikiProject that there's a lengthy back and forth on ANI about the project and your newsletter. GMGtalk 20:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is closed now as resolved on the talk page of the article in question. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brethren dab page[edit]

Questions have been raised about how best to format Brethren (religious group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is essentially a dab page that also lists the "family trees" of various denominations known as Brethren. I'm inclined to leave it more or less the way it is, but that's a far cry from MOS:DAB. Given this irregularity, I welcome the opinion of other editors on that article talk page. Daask (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatius of Antioch[edit]

There is currently a discussion concerning the trustworthiness of websites NewAdvent and earlychristianwritings/jewishwritings as a source. Additional input on the matter would be greatly appreciated. The discussion is here: Talk:Ignatius_of_Antioch#Catholic_Encyclopedia_and_Ante-Nicene_Fathers. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Village Pump proposal to delete all Portals[edit]

Editors at this project might be interested in the discussion concerning the proposed deletion of all Portals across Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Ending_the_system_of_portals.Bermicourt (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yahwistic titles of Jesus[edit]

I started a deletion discussion regarding Template:Yahwistic titles of Jesus in Greek on the basis of WP:NPOV. Please consider joining the discussion here. Daask (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coptic saints vs. Template:Coptic orthodox saints[edit]

They are very similar. Wouldn't it make sense to merge them? However, personally, I don't know anything about Coptic saints...--Kohlscheid (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly merged them. This defect was the only difference of any note. tahc chat 13:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, tahc! Best regards--Kohlscheid (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reworking importance assessments[edit]

The current rated importances of Christianity articles don't really make a whole lot of sense. For instance, our "top importance" articles include things like Flood geology, Charles Fillmore (Unity Church), and Letter from Cotton Mather to William Stoughton, September 2, 1692 that, while they're notable, aren't the highest-priority things, and probably aren't more important than Ascension of Jesus (currently High). Right now we have a very generic importance scale, and I think more appropriately ranking things will make it easier to see where we have gaps. Thus, this is my proposal for importance rankings:

Obviously this isn't a complete specification; please give feedback if you agree/disagree with the general idea or the specific examples. If consensus supports this, I plan to update the assessment guidelines, as well as re-assess some articles into more appropriate categories. —Vahurzpu (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vahurzpu: Where do you fit church buildings into this? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vami IV:
This is my personal impression, and I'd welcome adjustment from you and other people who work more with church articles. Vahurzpu (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks agreeable to me. We may want to consider titular churches (Cardinal seats in Rome) as Mid-importance. There are also certain less iconic churches or monasteries that are UNESCO World Heritage Site, like Maulbronn Monastery or Saint Catherine's Monastery, that IMO have a good case for High-importance. Santiago de Compostela Cathedral and St. Thomas Cathedral Basilica, Chennai should be Top-importance, I think, as the resting places of the Apostles James and Thomas, respectively, and same for Mount Athos for its significance to the Eastern (but especially Greek) churches. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll keep that in mind when I go through. Thanks for pointing out Santiago de Compostela Cathedral and St. Thomas Cathedral Basilica, Chennai; I hadn't heard of those. Vahurzpu (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting discussion for Passion Play[edit]

An article that been involved with (Passion Play) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (UK Passion Plays). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - Changing "Canon law task force" to "Catholic canon law task force", and "/Canon Law" to /Catholic Canon Law in the WikiProject Christianity template[edit]

Template:WikiProject Christianity currently shows "This article is supported by Canon law task force" and displays "/Canon Law" next to "WikiProject Christianity" if the parameter catholic-canon-law is set to yes. The hyperlinks send to Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Canon law Task Force. Therefore, since it only concerns Catholic canon law, I believe it should rather read "Catholic canon law task force" and display "/Catholic Canon Law". Veverve (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This change sounds fine. However, I don't think this needs an RfC. There's no need to gather input from the entire Wikipedia community for a template change, only from the relevant WikiProject. Vahurzpu (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this is not a WP:RFC matter. Just put your proposed change into Template:WikiProject Christianity/sandbox, demonstrate it at Template:WikiProject Christianity/testcases and discuss it here. When you reach consensus, put a WP:TPER request (by using {{edit template-protected}}) on Template talk:WikiProject Christianity. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: @Vahurzpu: I understand your concern. I was told by @Izno: to have a consensus, who later told me, after I had started the RfC, that an RfC was not necessary. However, since there is almost no one active in the talk page of this WikiProject, I will maintain the RfC because it is currently the only way to gather opinions. Veverve (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This page has 334 watchers, that's quite respectable. But if you think that it's not active, you could post neutrally worded notes (respecting WP:CANVAS) at other talk pages, e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Canon law Task Force (14 watchers) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism (276 watchers), informing them of this discussion. Templates such as {{fyi}} and {{please see}} are available for this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issue about renaming "divine filiation" article into "children of God"[edit]

I have partially translated the article "divine filiation" in french, and I am wondering about its name whether it could be renamed into "children of God" ? "Divine filiation" is not a common expression for Christians, at least in France, while "children of God" is a very common term, employed in religious speechs. Furthermore, I have been really shoked to see that this lovely expression is linked with a sect in french Wikipedia. I mean, if you look after "enfants de Dieu" in this french Wikipedia, you find "enfants de Dieu (Secte), enfants de Dieu". What do you think about the idea to rename this article into "children of God" and do the same for the french translation, or instead, to add a new specific article about "children of god" (which is not the same thing that people of God, because effectively of the divine filiation concept it implies) ? --Laurent Waraschitz (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurent Waraschitz: I disagree, but if you show proofs that "children of god" and "enfants de Dieu" are the most common terms used to designate those concepts, then feel free to move those pages. Veverve (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regensburg lecture → AfD ?[edit]

Greetings.

Pl. do visit, Page: Regensburg lecture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


Discussion: Talk:Regensburg lecture#Why no one pays attention ?

Comments are requested at the afore mentioned page. We have a discussion which requires informed comments from those familiar with the topic of this discussion. Your help at your earliest convenience will be appreciated.

Bookku (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Catholicism and Category:Anti-Protestantism[edit]

Category:Anti-Catholicism seems to allow biographies. Category:Anti-Protestantism seems not to allow biographies, but contains biographies nevertheless. I suppose we should be consistent. But should we or shouldn't we allow biographies in these categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would be in favour of moving biographies to child Category:Anti-Catholic propagandists when appropriate, and removing the category from articles who could not be defined as such. Category:Anti-Protestantism includes a note that "It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly anti-Protestant. This cites a 2011 discussion about a number of bias categories which was concluded with "Consensus for a unified approach to these categories; most support to ban individuals & organisations." There is therefore plenty of reason to enforce removing biographies and organizations from these categories, or to move them to dedicated subcategories with a more precise scope. Place Clichy (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About the propagandist category, I guess that tangible activity such as the publication of texts establishing a strong Anti-Catholic (-Protestant or else) point of view would be necessary to establish someone as both an Anti-Catholic and a propagandist, while the absence of such activity would downgrade a person's Anti-Catholicism as mere opinion, therefore not defining per WP:OPINIONCAT. Place Clichy (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose including biographies (particularly of living people) in bias categories. We already have Category:Critics of religions and subcategories; I'd expect most anti-Catholic or anti-Protestant campaigners could be neutrally categorised as "critics". Cheers, gnu57 17:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Critic" is very close to merely expressing an opinion, while the articles in these categories are mostly about people who were way more active than just expressing an opinion. For example, Louis XIV issued the Edict of Fontainebleau causing a mass migration of Protestants fleeying from France. If someone is just expressing an opinion, the article should not even be kept in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By this standard, nearly every 17th- or 18th-century European Catholic leader, temporal or spiritual, can be described as anti-Protestant, and nearly every Protestant leader as anti-Catholic. That is, until freedom of thought became a thing. I seem to recall that the practice of Catholic religion was banned in the United-Provinces for much of their existence, however it would be probably overkill to categorize every Dutch statesman of the era as Anti-Catholic. Where would it be reasonable to draw the line? Place Clichy (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should be a matter of personal action. Being a statesman in a country that happens to support or allow only one religion is obviously not enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"By this standard, nearly every 17th- or 18th-century European Catholic leader, temporal or spiritual, can be described as anti-Protestant" I am curious whether this would include James II of England. His Declaration of Indulgence (1687) is considered a pioneering law for freedom of religion.:

What to do with Category:Dissident Roman Catholic theologians?[edit]

I found out this category, and it seems to me that those kind of categories were removed for they were subjective, if I remember correctly. What do you say, should it be RfD? Veverve (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • If anywhere, it should be nominated at WP:CFD. Are you sure that it is subjective though? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cannot remember or find any precedent discussions at CFD. This category looks fine to me, with clear inclusion criteria and appropriate parent categories. – Fayenatic London 10:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: @Marcocapelle: it seems to me very subjective to consider someone dissident. E.g. supporters of Marcel Lefebvre and Hans Küng will claim those two are not dissidents. On the other hand, why are not Antônio de Castro Mayer (who took part in the Écône consecrations) and all the priests and bishops of the SSPX on the list? Since there is no clear indication of what is a "Dissident" (unlike for e.g. Category:People temporarily excommunicated by the Catholic Church), it is a subjective category. Moreover, all the people in this category are 20th- and 21st-century people, is this a criterion for inclusion? Should Gregory II Youssef be added on this category? There is also the question of what is a theologian. Are all RC priests considered theologians? Also, I am pinging the author of the category, @Vaquero100:. Veverve (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although the criteria are not elaborated within the category name, they are clearly stated on the category page. – Fayenatic London 12:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The category scope is clear that this is for dissident theologians, which is explained as people who have authored one or more works that have been censured by the Church. Not all SSPX members are theologians or have authored theology books. Place Clichy (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lutheran priests by nationality has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Lutheran priests by nationality has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. TSventon (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problem edits to Passover[edit]

Discussion here. I fixed two of them and it is possible those are the only fixes needed, but the editor has been blocked in the past.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One more. Achayan made this change, replacing an old art work of Jesus' disciples with a more recent photo of a celebration. Is that okay?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAR notice[edit]

I have nominated Ecclesiastical heraldry for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 01:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move at "Icon"[edit]

Please comment there. Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CCI wrapup[edit]

Hello! A CCI case just wrapped up that broadly pertains to this wikiproject (at least I think..). It can be found here if you are interested. Not many articles were affected, but at least one or two that I know of. Leaving here in case this is of interest! Sennecaster (What now?) 21:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christian values[edit]

If someone needs a project, this article really sucks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Members of this Project may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian theology articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Christian theology articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about article "List of American saints and beatified people"[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of American saints and beatified people#Requested move 23 May 2021, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caste system among Indian Christians moved to Caste system among Christians[edit]

See Talk:Caste system among Christians for the discussion. The article content only covers east Asia, but the move was made on the basis of this article. I'm not convinced the content of the source is sufficient for the move, nor am I sure the source meets RS. I don't want to appeal the move though without other eyes looking at it first. Doug Weller talk 16:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most viewed start article in this Wikiproject[edit]

Easter Monday 141,452 4,715 Start--Coin945 (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catholicos of the East[edit]

Hi. I noticed that Catholicos of the East, which used to be a general article about that title, was recently turned into a redirect to Catholicos of the East (disambiguation). I hope that someone who is knowledgeable about this subject area (which I am not at all) can take a look to see if this was the proper thing to do, as an article was essentially deleted. If yes, then the disambiguation page should be moved to Catholicos of the East, and the large number of links to it should be disambiguated. Lennart97 (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lennart97, @Br Ibrahim john: should know something about this. I, too, am rather confused by all this juggling. Elizium23 (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Catholicose of the East or the Catholicos of the East is a title historically held by the Patriarch of the Church of the East. The descendants of the Church of the East in Iraq continue to use this historical title even today. However, since 628, this title has been used to denote distinct ecclesiastical entities of different denominations. For example, the Maphrian of the East in the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Catholicos of Irenoupolis in the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch, the Catholicos of the East and Malankara Metropolitan of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, the Catholicos of India of the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church etc. Hence it is proper to have separate articles for each of these and a common disambiguation page. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Br Ibrahim john, did you discuss this rearrangement with anyone, or did you just do it on your own volition? You've created quite a mess as it stands now; there are a bunch of pages linked to the disambiguation page that's been created, and the ambiguities will need to be resolved, hopefully by you, or you can put it back the way you found it and discuss the relative merits of an orderly transition. Elizium23 (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent: comments requested at [[]][edit]

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

I am angel of mercy. I am writing to inform you that wicked green eyes appeared on the face of an image of the divine mercy depiction of Jesus to me today. I am an apparition. This happened to me because I am going nuts trying to meet Taylor Swift and God whispered in my ear that divine mercy Sunday is a hoax. These eyes appear to people to believe. He warned me that this image was inspired by Baphomet. His slogan is, "As above, same as below." The two beams of light protruding from his chest represent heaven and hell.

Comments are urgently requested at the afore mentioned page. We have a discussion which requires informed comments from those familiar with the topic of this discussion. Your help at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. 23.122.124.202 (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Interdenominational" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Interdenominational. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 9#Interdenominational until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Place Clichy (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement![edit]

Hello,
Please note that Christmas ham, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[reply]

Rename discussion in progress[edit]

The article formerly at Christian Church has been moved to Christian Church (Protestant ecclesiology), and there is an open WP:RM discussion regarding the situation. It would be helpful if WikiProject members familiar with the concepts could comment at Talk:Christian Church (Protestant ecclesiology) on this topic. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the RM has ended, but I would really appreciate if some could come and discuss what the future of the page should be here. Veverve (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please help evaluate Draft:Servants of Christ the King[edit]

My particular concern is whether any of the cited sources are actually independent of the subject, but any opinions by someone more knowledgeable about the topic will be appreciated. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name for lists of R. Catholic saints, servants of God, blessed, venerable and beatified people[edit]

I have tried to harmonise the titles of articles containing a list of Catholic saints. I was met with reverts and a refusal; please see Talk:List_of_American_saints_and_beatified_people#Requested_move_23_May_2021 for the list of pages I am referring to, as well as the arguments leading to the refusal.
I still believe those articles must be renamed, and that this renaming is important, in part to avoid confusion among the readers of said articles. Thus, I came here to start a discussion.
I feel there is three problems to the current names:

  1. The titles are not standardised.
  2. The titles are "List of X saints" or "List of saints from Y", but also concern people the Catholic Church has deemed servants of God, or blessed, or venerable or beatified.
  3. The articles are lists containing only people approved by the Catholic Church being titled List of Mexican saints, List of saints of Poland, or List of Scandinavian saints. Not all saints from those regions are Catholic, for example Sigfrid of Växjö is a Scandinavian E. Orthodox saint, and there is even a category for Polish saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Even if all the saints from a region were to be Catholic, I feel that for the sake of long-term maintainability and standardisation, the articles should still be renamed.

My proposal for a standard name for those articles is: "List of Roman Catholic saints, servants of God, blessed, venerable and beatified people from X". I also propose that the "List of X saints" and "List of saints from Y" redirects be deleted.
The first argument given against my renaming in the RM was that there would be no way to differenciate "saint who was a Catholic" and "person held to be a saint by Catholics". However, in mainstream Catholicism - i.e. not in traditional Catholicism -, saints, servants of God, blessed, venerable and beatified people are considered as all having been Catholics. The second argument was that such a title could create a confusion, i.e. does "Polish Catholic saints" equal "Catholic saints who are Polish" or "saints of Polish Catholicism"? The adjective "Roman" I added compared to my previous renamings will hopefully dissipate this confusion. Pinging @Srnec: and @Nyttend:/@Nyttend backup: as they were the two users who opposed the renaming, and @Compassionate727: who started the RM. Veverve (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that labelling, say, Jerome a "Catholic" is POV. He is a "Catholic saint" to both traditional and mainstream Catholics and, indeed, to everybody in the "person held to be a saint by Catholics" sense. It is not NPOV, however, to label Jerome himself a Catholic. That is the concern I have with adding "Catholic" to the titles. If "Scandinavian saints" means "saints from Scandinavia", I don't see why we can't just put all the Scandinavian saints in one article. Srnec (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Um, see Catholic (term)#Jerome. If you scroll up, you'll also see that the term was used, in an obviously including-the-writer sense, as early as AD 107, and by an eastern writer no less. And as Johnbod notes, it's simply ridiculous to see anyone from the Latin Church in the first half of the 11th century as anything but Catholic. Yes, it predates the East-West Schism by a little bit, but that doesn't somehow make him Orthodox, let alone Anglican. Nyttend backup (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't we have a cut-off date for when popes & others become "Catholic"? There has been lots of discussion of this & similar points, much of it at at WP:CFD I think; looking at the bottom of pages might be productive. I'd support a combined "Scandinavian saints", but I think the denominations of post-Reformation ones (or earlier Orthodox ones) should be clear. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, Veverve is very wrong to think Sigfrid of Växjö, aka Sigfrid of Sweden, was not a Catholic, even if he is recognised by the EOC (and the Anglicans). Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: do you have a better idea of title, then?
@Srnec: @Johnbod: I feel the expression "Roman Catholic saint" or "Eastern Orthodox saint" already conveys the idea of "according to the Roman Catholic Church" or "according to the Eastern Orthodox Church". Also, if you create an article with all saints, what will the titles of the sections be if not "Catholic Church", "Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church", etc.? It is instinctively the way to state it which comes to mind. Besides, I believe it is important to state the denomination which considers those people as saints, servants of God, blessed, venerable and beatified people as early in the title as possible.
Also, if we make an article with all saints from a region according to every church - I guess you implicitly want to drop the servants of God, blessed, venerable and beatified people -, the article will be too long, and we will have to discuss the names of acticles for every denomiation anyway.
@Johnbod: I am not aware of any consensus you are talking about. As a sidenote, the real religion of those people is off topic. Veverve (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You said "Not all saints from those regions are Catholic, for example Sigfrid of Växjö is a Scandinavian E. Orthodox saint, and there is even a category for Polish saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Even if all the saints from a region were to be Catholic, I feel that for the sake of long-term maintainability and standardisation, the articles should still be renamed." I absolutely don't think we should have different lists for each denomination that recognises a set of saints - that way madness lies. That you are "not aware of any consensus" is not the strongest evidence that it doesn't exist. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC) .[reply]
@Johnbod: are you suggesting to turn all those articles into a list of all saints, servants of God, blessed, venerable and beatified people from those regions for all denominations? If we put all saints etc. into a same list, the article will be too long. You do not seem to be aware of any consensus either, so we are even. Veverve (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem can be illustrated by List of saints from Africa. A move to List of Catholic saints from Africa (or the longer proposed title) introduces an ambiguity. Is the reader to take Macarius of Egypt and Moses the Black to have been Catholics? They may be recognized by the Catholic church, but they are equally Orthodox, Coptic and Anglican saints in that sense. It would make more sense to me to have such a broad list encompass all the different Christian traditions. Other countries/regions may be handled differently. Srnec (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: pleasep ping me next time you reply to me.
What would a pan-denominational page look like? The first section would be "Saints according to the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Anglican [+ maybe other denominations]", the others would be numerous combinations (e.g. "Saints according to the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox", then "Catholic Church and the Anglican communion", "Servant of gods according to...", etc.) and single denominations for saints etc. only considered so by one denomination. It will not be confortable for the reader to end up with such a quantity of information. Moreover, it will be much easier to make the current title fit the content of the article than filling the entire article with every single saint etc. from every single Christian denominations.
Besides, there is already List of Catholic saints and List of Eastern Orthodox saints; do those title mean that the WP contributors consider that those Christians, for the former believed in the filioque and papal supremacy, and for the latter were Palamists and believed in autocephaly for churches? No, the adjectives are widely understood as "according to X". However, if you prefer, I can settle for the title "List of saints, servants of God, blessed, venerable and beatified people according to the Roman Catholic Church". I feel saying according to whom those people are saints, etc. as the last words is quite counterintuitive, but I can agree on using this title. Veverve (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is WikiProject Anglicanism dead?[edit]

It's been more than a year since anyone has replied to a post on the project talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It could be. If there's a membership page, you could see if they have been active recently. If they have been, you could ask them to respond directly on their talk pages. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Featured Article Review[edit]

I have nominated Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 03:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swinburne's Is There a God?[edit]

Dear all, Could i request a reassessment of my recently expanded article, formerly Stub-class, Low importance, etcetera? Swinburne's argument is popular at Dutch protestant institutions for higher education. Thank you, Hansmuller (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Religion is one of my undergraduate majors, I write on it a lot here, and I have done articles on books, so I will take a look if you agree.Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done The things listed should be fixed before reassessment. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on notability of Bishops[edit]

Hi, there is an ongoing RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Notability guide on the notability of catholic bishops, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for the improvement of Wikipedia articles on early Christianity[edit]

At the suggestion of Geoffrey Lane I am addressing Wikipidia editors of early Christianity:


English version:

The scholarship, writing and editing of a large number of articles I read is outdated, and below the standards required for undergraduate teaching in the subject. Most of the texts reflect early 20th century and /or traditional-religious scholarship and seldom include current non-religious scholarship. The sections and structure of many of the articles is beyond repair. Many themes have a religious (not academic) orientation and most of the issues and themes engaged by current scholarship are not included. It is regrettable that such an important area of interest is in such disarray.

Spanish version:

Articles are much better edited, have a coherent structure and the scholarship sustaining them is more updated. Here the current incremental system seems to be working well, due to a later and better baseline.

I am aware of the Wikipedia philosophy of collaborative editing and contributions. My suggestions are aimed at salvaging articles so that the work of collaborative-incremental encyclopedia development can resume and proceed from a new and improved base line.

Suggestions

I would be willing to participate in an effort to upgrade and salvage the quality of those articles that require repair - provided wikipedia is willing to consider the following suggestions:

1- I can create a team of 2-3 individuals of high academic standing to identify and prioritize the articles that require improvement and to write/edit the material - using the worthwhile parts of existing articles. These new-improved articles would be a solid base on which the work of regular wikipedia contributors can proceed with their work. 2 - Wikipedia will assign a senior editor that will work with us and insert the upgraded articles. Current and ongoing commitments do not allow leading writters to become editors of wikipedia. However, a senior editor that would work with us and integrate the edited/improved texts may be a feasible cooperation.

I am a writer on the New Testament. My "Jewish-Christian relations - The First Centuries." is a study that articulates a new thesis on the evolution of Christianity and on the Jewish-Christian relationship in the New Testament. TOP 1% - 10000 views in Academia.edu (English and Spanish versions) - Endorsed by 16 leading academics.

Free download of my book: https://www.academia.edu/29628872/Jewish-Christian_Relations-The_First_Centuries_-_FULL_MANUSCRIPT_DOWNLOAD_

Abel M Bibliowicz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:C700:3AE0:ADFF:E9A4:6C8E:7F60 (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Bibliowicz, we always welcome expert input here! Be aware of WP:EXPERT though, and keep in mind that everything you add needs to be sourced to wp:RS and ideally follow the majority opinion (even if you think it's wrong). I would suggest that you and any collaborators register accounts.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid your mistake is in assuming there are "Wikipidia (sic) editors of early Christianity" in a regular way - really there aren't. Much of our material is probably still from EB 1911 or the Catholic Encyclopedia of similar date. But your approach is the correct one, and perhaps this will encourage some to take part. We don't have any "senior editor"s as such, or that's the theory, nor is "Wikipedia will assign a senior editor" really how we work. If you create a team I suggest creating a sub-page here, or somewhere, to coordinate the effort. Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abel M Bibliowicz - do you have a registered account and a screen name? I cannot ping you otherwise to answer and say, we do know this, and we do care, and we are working on it! I have been working as hard and fast as I can to update as many articles as I can cope with! (You are welcome to visit my user page and see what I personally have done so far.) I am not a PhD, but I do have a double undergraduate, one in religion and one in philosophy, and masters level work in religion (ethics) that provides me with a passion for the topic and not much else of use here. I still spend hours and hours researching single paragraphs, and all my background contributes is a familiarity with that level of effort. But you cannot reference your own book on WP, Mr.Bibliowicz, in anything you write here. It is self-published original work and neither of those things are allowed on WP. We only reference secondary sources published by quality, reliable, peer reviewed sources. This is an encyclopedia, and we welcome any and all who have a sincere desire to contribute quality work here. We often work together, and do what's possible to help each other out. If you are willing to do the necessary work for free, put up with squabbles and disagreements with a little grace, and don't require glory or recognition - and if you have a passion for the idea of a free quality encyclopedia - then this is the hobby for you. If not, you might be happier writing another book instead. Good luck! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedians Thank you for your comments. I am trying to assess the viability of my involvement. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to become fully engaged. However, If a senior editor would be interested in acting as an interface - liaison with the academic world, I would be interested to reconsider. BTW, the book I suggested is my second book, indeed a self-published version. The academic version was published by Palgrave in 2013 "Jews and Gentiles in the Early Jesus Movement:" https://www.academia.edu/29624526/Jews_and_Gentiles_in_the_Early_Jesus_Movement_Palgrave_2013_ My second book is an enhanced, updated and expanded version that is more accessible to non-academic readers. Congratulations on your dedication and enthusiasm. An amazing project. Abel M Bibliowicz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:A280:81F0:5420:E7D:50A5:E28B (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian apologetic works[edit]

Hello, WikiProject Christianity,

I'd appreciate it if you all would occasionally review this page and remove any works that aren't considerable notable. I don't want to just remove the titles where there is no Wikipedia article on the book because the authors might be considered notable. I'm hoping you have a better sense of works that have had an impact, whether or not they are considered mainstream apologetics. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 17:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angels and gender[edit]

It is my understanding that angels are neither male nor female, that they have no gender. And yet the article Michael (archangel) uses male pronouns throughout. I propose that angels should be treated as non-binary and they/them pronouns should be used throughout Wikipedia for them. Skyerise (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would run counter to established usage. While it may be true that someone somewhere has said that angels don't have gender (certainly not the bible), they are customarily male.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Skyerise, some articles have said that angels have "gendered forms", the angels in art page, cites a source (p. 10, "Catholic Questions, Wise Answers", Ed. Michael J. Daley, St. Anthony Messenger Press, 2001, ISBN 0867163984, 9780867163988) which says "Because angels are purely spiritual creatures without bodies, there is no sexual difference between them. There are no male or female angels; they are not distinguished by gender," while linking to Catholic.com which states "Angels are pure intellects that do not have physical forms and do not reproduce sexually. Indeed, angels do not reproduce at all; God created each of them out of nothing at the dawn of creation. They are numerous, immaterial, and immortal, so they don’t need to reproduce...since he designed angels not to reproduce, he didn’t design them to be male or female. Angels may appear to have gender in visions or in artwork, but that is just symbolism that makes it easier for us to think about them. If we were being strictly literal they couldn’t be seen in visions or depicted in artwork because, according to their immaterial nature, they have no visible or physical forms at all." The same is said on Christianity.com, islamqa, The Guardian, Jewish Telegraph Agency, Rijks Museum, The Cut, and HuffPost. So, I think that's pretty definitive at this point, that they are genderless, from those sources. If someone can provide other sources countering this, I'd love to see that, but there does seem to be evidence in favor of the fact that angels are genderless. Otherwise, I would say they/them pronouns should be used if it has been indicated that the angel is non-binary. For instance, Aziraphale in Good Omens was confirmed by the book's author, Neil Gaiman as sexless and genderless. Historyday01 (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not really RS for the gender of angels, and I found no mention of the issue at the Rijksmuseum at all. You need some scholarly work on the matter, not the Guardian or opinion pieces on Victoria’s Secret. Angels have historically been given male pronouns, just as God has. Moreover, as mythical beings, they can’t express any preference on the matter, so who exactly are we helping by calling them they?—Ermenrich (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can say that, but the first sources were and are used on the angels in art page. I would say that most of them are RS (like those used on the angels in art page, The Guardian, Jewish Telegraph Agency, Rijks Museum, The Cut, and HuffPost). Rijks Museum says when describing angels, "the names of these genderless, supernatural beings." I'm willing to say that we shouldn't jump to saying they should be referred to with they/them pronouns (unless otherwise indicated), but I also think we can still call them genderless. If you find any scholarly work on the matter, feel free to share it. I only added what I could find in a internet search yesterday. Historyday01 (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's been a "New Age" thing for quite some time to often re-gender or unisex-gender various angels whose official names can accommodate that (Gabriel → Gabrielle, etc.). But (A) we don't use New Age sources on Wikipedia; (B) Michael is clearly a male name, even if the very very very occasional human female receives that name; (C) we only use WP:RS on Wikipedia; (D) even the New Agers don't regender or unisex-gender Archangel Michael. Softlavender (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For heaven's sake, Ermenrich, just get a Catholic catechism. I agree on the pronouns though. Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod Do the catholic have a monopoly on angels? I’m not catholic and neither are angels. Where in the Bible does it say angels have no gender? The best we could say is some theologians say angels have no gender or the Catholic Church teaches so. Considering the stories of angels mating with human women in the Book of Enoch it’s fairly clear that angels were not conceived of as sexless in antiquity.—Ermenrich (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Protestant theology has not advanced Catholic teaching on the matter, & is generally less interested. Effectively all theologians say angels have no gender and all mainstream churches teach so. Find anyone saying anything else, if you can. I think Thomas Aquinas covers the matter in some detail, as do others. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The premise is entirely incorrect. Christian theology does not claim that "angels are neither male nor female". The only thing that we have to rely on is one statement attributed to Jesus "For in the resurrection {people} neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." The term there does not say people are neither male nor female, only that there is no marriage. And we have Gabriel as well. I cannot recall any mention of gender other than the names of the messengers. See also Christian angelology. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of you responding women? I don't think so. As for what the Bible, other holy books, and their translations say, that's irrelevant as they are primary sources. Material written by theologians isn't really any better. We'd need to deal with sex, gender, and the Christian faith with the academic rigor and perspectives of various disciplines. We'd need to look at sources like the following:

  • Classen, C. (1998). The Color of Angels: Cosmology, Gender, and the Aesthetic Imagination. United Kingdom: Routledge.
  • Dunning, B. H. (2019). The Oxford Handbook of New Testament, Gender, and Sexuality. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
  • Bordo, S. (1989). Gender/body/knowledge: Feminist Reconstructions of Being and Knowing. United Kingdom: Rutgers University Press.
  • Levison, J. R. (2012). Sex, Gender, and Christianity. United States: Cascade Books.
  • Religion, Transformation and Gender. (2017). (n.p.): V&R unipress GmbH.
  • Gender and Masculinities: Histories, Texts and Practices in India and Sri Lanka. (2017). (n.p.): Taylor & Francis.
  • Beyond Gender: An Advanced Introduction to Futures of Feminist and Sexuality Studies. (2018). United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis.
  • Gilchrist, R. (2012). Gender and Archaeology: Contesting the Past. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis.

I mean, information about the gender of angels should come from the relevant academic field, not from religious adherents, right? Skyerise (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being a woman isn’t a qualification to discuss the gender of angels (and a somewhat bizarre statement when you’re arguing that angels are non-binary anyway). You’ve failed to say what any of these sources say on the matter or how they say it: as far as scholarship is concerned angels don’t actually exist, so they can only be described as they are believed to exist. At any rate, using they/them to refer to them is certainly OR.
The first book you cite, "The Color of Angels" is about "the gender politics behind our attitude to the senses". Not about angels being genderless. The citation of the Oxford Handbook also appears mum on the subject, if the preview can be believed [2], as does the book by Levison [3]. I have no idea what the relevance of the book by Bord or a book about Sri Lanka, but my suspicion is that you've basically just listed random titles that tell us nothing about the matter.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I bring up being a woman, because it is women who are harmed by referring to all angels as if they were male, even though angels are neither male nor female. Strangely enough, Abrahamic religions have no problem making demons female. I'd also be fine with referring to angels (and demons) as 'it,' but I thought they/them would be more respectful. Skyerise (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Skyrise, no women are harmed by referring to Archangel Michael with masculine pronouns. If you can find a WP:RS that specifically does otherwise for Archangel Michael, you are free to present it for consideration, with the understanding that what you personally define as or believe is an RS may not hold water here or at WP:RSN. On the subject of "Are any of you responding women?", I suggest you check people's userpages. Softlavender (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Crossroads. It's totally circuitous to dig through a bunch of specialized sources to try to determine the gender of angels and then use that determination to decide what pronouns to use, when instead we could just... see what pronouns RS use and follow that. Colin M (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Colin M, I can agree with that. I think there is some indications from the above discussion that angels may be genderless, but... none of that automatically means that the angels would use they/them pronouns. Authors who do have their angels with they/them pronouns usually say as much, so RS is usually available in those cases. Historyday01 (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of agree, but if it were not the case that angels are genderless, and the gender they had was male or female, that would affect the question of what terms to use. But various editors above, while disputing that angels are genderless, don't say what gender or genders they have, let alone produce RS for this. Johnbod (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, you don't seem to have offered any RS for your claims "Protestant theology has not advanced Catholic teaching on the matter, & is generally less interested. Effectively all theologians say angels have no gender and all mainstream churches teach so." Even Catholics refer to Archangel Michael as "he/him": [4], and even Thomas Aquinas refers to angels as "he" (e.g., "It would seem that the angel guardian sometimes forsakes the man whom he is appointed to guard. ... Although an angel may forsake a man sometimes locally, he does not for that reason forsake him as to the effect of his guardianship: for even when he is in heaven he knows what is happening to man; nor does he need time for his local motion, for he can be with man in an instant. ... But the loss of the man whom he has guarded is against the guardian angel's will. ... And the same also applies to the inferior orders: for a lower angel is enlightened in some respects by one of the highest, and in other respects by the one immediately above him. Thus it is possible that some one angel enlightens a man immediately, and yet has other angels beneath him whom he enlightens."): [5]. The article Michael (archangel) has 146 citations; I don't believe any of them refer to Michael as genderless or female. Lastly, neither Archangel Michael nor angels in general are the purview solely of Catholics or Catholicism or even Christianity; the Michael (archangel) article includes the viewpoints of nearly a dozen religions and sects. Softlavender (talk) 05:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am a woman responding to this amusing discussion. First, Softlavender says Skyrise, no women are harmed by referring to Archangel Michael with masculine pronouns. True, practical and to the point. I love that. Second, Skyerise in the primary texts, angels are spirits, so gender is a pointless discussion, but they are depicted as spirit beings using masculine terminology. They are always shown as appearing as human males wearing male attire. No angel ever appears in the biblical texts (or the apocrypha) dressed as a female. The Greek word for “angel” in the New Testament, angelos, is in the masculine form; a feminine form of angelos does not exist. Angels are never referred to in any gender other than masculine. In the many appearances of angels in the Bible, never is an angel referred to as “she” or “it.” This convention is continued in all the quality secondary sources. I suggest doing likewise and moving on. Happy editing! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logically angels ought to be genderless. I concede that point. It's clear from Enochian literature, however, that they were originally conceived of as male: And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.' (1 Enoch 5:1-2). This is not surprising: God was originally conceived of as male as well, even though logically a unique spiritual being should not have gender. There certainly are secondary sources somewhere that discuss this, but that is an entirely different question than whether we have to start using gender-neutral pronouns to refer to angels.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to specific angels: in the absence of a clear statement of pronoun preference from the angel in question😉, and given that they're all mythological/fictional, I think it's best to generally go with whatever pronouns sources generally use. (Even if we were talking about real people, it would be necessary to point out that "is non-binary" does not always mean "uses they/them pronouns".) With regard to writing about angels in general, I suppose the same tips could be used as when writing about e.g. students in general, like casting sentences in the plural where possible to sidestep having to pick he vs she vs singular they. -sche (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Orthodox Church of Albania#Requested move 17 September 2021[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Orthodox Church of Albania#Requested move 17 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to reassess the GA Marcel Lefebvre[edit]

Hello!
I plan to reassess Marcel Lefebvre. To me, it does not meet the the GA criteria of using RS every time, as 80% of the refs are either primary sources (e.g. semons from Lefebvre), come from the SSPX (the organisation created by Lefebvre) and its media, or from people affiliated with the SSPX (e.g. Davies' Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre). Also, the part of the lede "In 1975, after a flare of tensions with the Holy See, Lefebvre was ordered to disband the society, but ignored the decision" does not seem to be in the article, not in the primary sources given at the end of the lede. As per Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, I warn this Wikiproject in case someone wants to fix the article before I reassess it. Veverve (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bmclaughlin9: I see you have worked on the article for a few days. Are you done with it? I would not want to reassess the article whie you are working on improving it. Veverve (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have one more piece to address, his "resignation" in 1968. I'll try to finish that in the next 24 hrs. Research is done but it's a writing challenge.
It's been fun doing cleanup, though it's still v far from GA by today's standards. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GAR of Marcel Lefebvre[edit]

Marcel Lefebvre has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Veverve (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with those two articles?[edit]

I have stumbled upon Pious Association (Catholic canon law) a few days ago. I do not know what the article is supposed to be about.
At first, I thought the article was about the pre-1983 CCL structures whose successors are the Association of the Christian faithful. However, the expression "pious association" or "pious union" seems to be still used to this day to describe an ongoing reality, cf. here, here and here. I have asked the creator of the article for more information (@Dhpage:), but I have not received any answer.
Does anyone know what to do with these two articles? A merge? Keeping them separated? And does someone know what is the status of Pious Association (Catholic canon law) in the current canon law? @CanonLawJunkie: do you think you could help? Veverve (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You raise valid questions, Veverve. If these questions can be resolved authoritatively, I have no objection to the article I created being merged if that is the logical conclusion. Thank you. 03:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhpage (talk • contribs) [reply]

Assistance on List of Christmas carols article[edit]

Hello, I am writing about the List of Christmas Carols article which requires immediate attention. The article has since gone into disrepair and I and others have been trying to bring it back to the status others had achieved, however, there is one particular editor who has continually reverted any edits made and who is currently serving out a block due to this type of behaviour on another article and who insists popular Christmas songs such as The Christmas Song, Silver Bells and others are Christmas Carols (A better understanding will be got by observing the talk page in recent years), which contradicts the consensus many editors reached some years ago on the defining of which type of songs would be present on the list (carols related to the Nativity. I would be grateful if all could collaborate and return the article to its pristine state that others had achieved in the past. Also, I would be grateful if everyone could give the articles Christmas carol and Carol a look over too. I would like to see the articles achieve Wikipedia:Featured articles status in advance of the holiday. Thank you 37.18.134.184 (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What Constitutes a Christmas carol discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion on List of Christmas Carols on what constitutes as a Christmas carol. To participate [here] 37.18.134.184 (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-canonical" and "non-canonical books" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Non-canonical, Non-canonical books and one other. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 26#Non-canonical until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are urged to contribute to the discussion. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New article up, please stop by![edit]

Christianization of the Roman Empire as caused by attractive appeal is just published. Hope you will stop by and take a look. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional sacraments[edit]

On WP, as far as I know, we only have Conditional baptism. However, often I see articles with the expression "under condition" or "sub-conditiones" relating to any sacrament (ordination, confirmation, baptism, etc.), on WP articles, without any explanation of what it means. Therefore, I think an article about this practise of conditional sacraments practised by numerous Christian churches. Does anyone have some source I should look at? Veverve (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is such a thing as conditional marriage/betrothal in the (Catholic) canon law (or at least there was, can't speak to it post-Trent). It should be discussed in Donahue, Law, marriage, and society in the later Middle Ages : arguments about marriage in five courts. The other sources I can think of are mostly in German.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ermenrich: I a page which looks more or less like what I was talking about at de:Sub conditione, unfortunately this version is only centered on the Catholic Church's opinion. Veverve (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ermenrich: @CanonLawJunkie: I have created Conditional sacrament, feel free to improve it with any source you see fit. Veverve (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Greek Old Calendarists into Old Calendarists[edit]

I do not really understand why there are two separate articles when Old Calendarists is about the general movement and the narrower Greek Old Calendarists article is so short. I think a unified Old Calendarists would make things simpler. What do you say? Veverve (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made the merge and greatlu improved the page. Veverve (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claim to Fairly Represent All Christian Denominations is False[edit]

Even the start about naming conventions is radically biased against the largest branches (above denominations) of Christianity! "For people: John Calvin, unless others by that name exist, in which case the activity for which the individual is best known should be bracketed, e.g., John Calvin (reformer) (not John Calvin (scholar), John Calvin (theologian), etc.) "

  1. But to the Catholics, Orthodox and other old world branches of Christianity Jean Calvin was NOT a reformer, but a heretic. So should we put John Calvin (heretic) to reflect your pretense to be fair toward all parts of Christianity?
  2. What about spelling? His name is literally "Jean Calvin", not "John Calvin". He was French, after all, and "Jean" is a name used in English as well. You will find his name transliterated often, especially in older materials in English.

Even today the British Museum spells his name "Jean Calvin". Historian09041965 (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Historian09041965: First off, I'll note that our article is titled John Calvin, as the namesake of Calvinism is in fact the most notable person by that name by a large margin, so we don't need a parenthetical disambiguator. If we did however, adding "(heretic)" is much more less neutral than "(reformer)", even if you believe that his views were heretical. "(reformer)" can be understood as "acting in the context of the Protestant Reformation", and therefore not making a moral judgment; "(heretic)" is unambiguously judgemental. There's not a single biography on Wikipedia that uses "(heretic)" as the disambiguator, even for views that are universally or near-universally held to be heresies today.
As for why it's "John Calvin" and not "Jean Calvin": because contemporary English-language sources overwhelmingly spell it "John". The British Museum is somewhat of an outlier; if you look at the bibliography of our current article, every single book title that gives his first name spells it John. Most readers are going to be looking for someone named John, so we give priority to the common name. Vahurzpu (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the Oxford University Press is also an outlier? https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198601753.001.0001/acref-9780198601753-e-640 Clearly there is American bias here. Both of these sources are among the highest in British academia and you reject them based on your own experience. Sounds biased to me. You even raise as an objection and standard your personal theological collection of books. Really! And that is not biased? It is the definition of bias. We need to come up with some solution to these issues, not just sweep them under the rug.Historian09041965 (talk) 11:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time understanding the problem Historian09041965 is raising, but COMMONNAME is applied, and unless a disambiguator is required, none should be used.
In short, his name in English is almost always John Calvin. I know of no theology books I own that use the French spelling of his name. https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Calvin and I could go on. The article itself demonstrates the French spelling.

Historian09041965 (talk) 11:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)I cannot help it if your choice of theology books is so limited.[reply]

In short, there is no judgmentalism or bias on our part. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is intense judgmentalism in calling him a reformer. It excludes the opposing views held among some of the largest branches of Christianity that he was a heretic. He did NOT reform the Church. Historically, he opposed in rebellion his own church, the Catholic Church. By his own church he was labeled a heretic. Only by his own estimation and those of his followers was he labeled a "reformer". It is historically inaccurate and biased. Also, he was not trying to "reform" the Catholic Church, but to reject it and to form a new church. That is not "reforming". So, from any angle you look at it the term is incorrect. The same goes for Martin Luther.Historian09041965 (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute on Alcohol in the Bible article[edit]

In the Alcohol in the Bible article there is an ongoing dispute about whether the word alcohol is derived from the Arabic word ghul and, regardless of whether it is actually derived from that word, is it germane to the question of how the Bible treats the use of alcohol. The latest diff showing the re-addition of that information is here. Most of the arguments pro and con are in the various edit summaries. Your thoughts on this would be welcome. Indyguy (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical harmony does not seem to exist[edit]

I cannot find any source on the Biblical harmony article, whether on its title or on its subject. Moreover, as pointed out in 2014, the article seems to be redundant with other similar articles.
Does anyone know anything about this topic, or is it made up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veverve (talk • contribs) 05:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Claus parade[edit]

The name of Santa Claus parade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Santa Claus parade -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Christmas parade" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Christmas parade. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 9#Christmas parade until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 65.92.246.43 (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found the article to be a bit overwhelming, however it does provide a lot of information. For someone who is new to Christianity or just wanting to learn more about it and its belief system this seems like a great place to start exploring the subject and faith.04:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amunoz04 (talk • contribs)

@Amunoz04: Which article do you mean? Peaceray (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback requested at Talk:Orthodox Church[edit]

The article Orthodox Church was recently changed from an article to a disambiguation page. A discussion is taking place about whether Orthodox Church should remain a disambig page, or be restored as an article. Your feedback would be very much appreciated at Talk:Orthodox Church. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Operation Auca[edit]

I have nominated Operation Auca for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about Orthodox Catholic Church[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 20#Orthodox Catholic, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. --Heanor (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edits claiming Jesus and others were gay or bisexual[edit]

I haven't got the time or expertise to comb through the bunch of sources plopped down by a new account, but my WP:FRINGE and WP:SYNTH alarm bells are going off.

Diff at Homoeroticism: [6]

An IP who I suspect is the same user later trimmed some of the wording between refs; a very similar IP seemingly in the same range added similar material previously, which I reverted due to some poor sources. Anyway, this needs attention from editors experienced with the topic. Crossroads -talk- 06:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jews and Christmas[edit]

Input and contributions will be appreciated at Draft:Jews and Christmas, where work is ongoing. Thank you! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 17:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Reformed Old Catholic Church[edit]

I have starded an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reformed Old Catholic Church. Please come and give your insight! Veverve (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J. R. R. Tolkien Catholic edit war[edit]

There is a topic at Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien#Catholic or Roman as to whether to use "Catholic Church" or a piped "Roman Catholic" specifically at this article. Participants in the project may be interested in commenting on the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Communion of Christ the Redeemer[edit]

I have made an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communion of Christ the Redeemer. If you have anything to say, please do! Veverve (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Josquin des Prez Featured article review[edit]

I have nominated Josquin des Prez for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Christ Catholic Church (Pruter)#Requested move 14 December 2021[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Christ Catholic Church (Pruter)#Requested move 14 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 19:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian films[edit]

Hello, WikiProject,

This article is just a formatting disaster. If any content creator wants to do some work on Christianity and pop culture, this would be a great project to take on. The page gets several hundred page views per day so it's a bit of an embarrassment that is looks so bad, half of the content in tables and half in lists.

I was going to post this message at the Christian films task force but that noticeboard seems completely abandoned so here I am at this WikiProject. Thanks for any help you can offer. Liz Read! Talk! 01:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, but there seems to be a lot of WP:OR. Why is Ben Hur (2003 film) listed while Ben Hur (1907 film), Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ (1925 film), Ben-Hur (1959 film) and Ben-Hur (2016 film) are not? It would work better as a category anyhow. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal of Gallican Church into Gallicanism[edit]

There is currently a merge proposal of Gallican Church into Gallicanism. Please come and give your opinion! Veverve (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on the scope of the Biblical canon article[edit]

There is currently an RfC to define the scope of the Biblical canon article. Veverve (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for King's Family of Churches[edit]

Hello! I have opened an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King's Family of Churches (2nd nomination) for serious lack of notability. Feel free to come and give your opinion. Veverve (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ground of locality[edit]

Ground of locality, currently a redirect to The Local Church (affiliation), has been nominated at RfD. Input from those with subject matter knowledge would be particularly welcome in the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 15#Ground of locality. Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for George Fox[edit]

I have nominated George Fox for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 21:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Holy Orthodox Metropolis of Australia & Oceania[edit]

Hello! I have AfDed for lack of notability Holy Orthodox Metropolis of Australia & Oceania at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Orthodox Metropolis of Australia & Oceania. Feel free to come and give your opinion! Veverve (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback requested re sourcing megachurch attendance figures[edit]

Your feedback would be appreciated, regarding the sourcing of megachurch attendance figures. Please see WT:Verifiability#INDEPENDENT vs. ABOUTSELF regarding megachurch attendance figures. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RM for Apostle[edit]

There is currently a RM for Apostle at Talk:Apostle#Requested move 29 January 2022. I proposed this RM due to more than a thousand wrong incoming links to this article which I had to fix. Please come and give your opinion. Veverve (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how this works[edit]

A new editor has modified the article associated with the following talk page to indicate that it includes Eastern Protestant churches. That is Talk:P'ent'ay#Pure nonsense. Does anyone have any insights? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Knights Templar[edit]

I have nominated Knights Templar for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 04:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nefarious: Merchant of Souls FAR[edit]

I have nominated Nefarious: Merchant of Souls for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 20:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent: comments requested at Easter[edit]

Page: Easter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion: Talk:Easter#Primary Sources for Theological Significance


Comments are urgently requested at the afore mentioned page. We have a discussion which requires informed comments from those familiar with the topic of this discussion. Your help at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. Jaredscribe (talk) 06:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Input needed at Talk:List of patriarchs of the East[edit]

There is a move request currently under discussion which needs input from experienced editors who may have some knowledge regarding the Church of the East. The discussion can be found here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement![edit]

Hello,
Please note that Pumpkin pie, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[reply]

Need for followthrough for earlier move[edit]

The sin of omission article was moved, so that it would no longer be a Catholicism-only article (which was a correct choice, as theologically, it is broader than just Catholic). But, in followup to that move, no work was done to broaden it. I call on WikiProject Christianity to begin to address this. Note also, there is no corresponding article on sin of commission, and so a future of this article may be to rename and combine the two (or, to create a separate parallel article). But the combined in my view would be sufficient—no need for a superabundance of poor stubs (over fewer, better ones). 2601:246:C700:558:E8D7:8CA7:35D3:40B6 (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP, I have broadened the scope of the article and trimmed it. Veverve (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hagia Sophia[edit]

Yesterday, there were a number of changes of the importance ranking for this WP at the Hagia Sophia article. I've restored the original top importance ranking, and opened a discussion at the talk page as to whether or not the ranking should be changed. Members of this WP are encouraged to make their views known there. Mjroots (talk) 06:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Christ Catholic Church (Pruter)#Requested move 1 April 2022[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Christ Catholic Church (Pruter)#Requested move 1 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 05:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Syro-Malabar Church - when current hierarchy was established[edit]

There is a request for comment at Talk:Syro-Malabar Church § request for comment: 1663 vs 1923 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Saint Timothy#Requested move 13 April 2022[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Saint Timothy#Requested move 13 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 19:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Is there anyone willing to do a review of Christianization of the Roman Empire? I am in need. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment at Shroud of Turin[edit]

There is a new RfC open at Talk:Shroud of Turin#Request for comment on lead which is relevant to this project. Instaurare (talk) 06:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apostolic Constitutions and Apostolic constitution[edit]

Should the titles of either Apostolic Constitutions or Apostolic constitution be changed? As per WP:PLURAL, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME, I think Apostolic Constitutions should be renamed to something like "Apostolic Constitutions (4th century)". Apostolic constitution is sometimes written "Apostolic Constitution", and a capital letter and a hatnote is really inefficient at marking a difference of topic in this case. This page move would prevent any possible confusion and add some consistency. What do you think? Veverve (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any change is necessary. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books) seems to me to support the current title for the Apostolic Constitutions article. The hatnotes adequately handle any confusion. Changing it to "Apostolic Constitutions (4th century)" implies the article is about papal apostolic constitutions issued in that century, so a hatnote would still be needed, and the issue of capitalization would still exist. Indyguy (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Homoeroticism article[edit]

More eyes are needed at the Homoeroticism article. An IP keeps re-adding text alleging that Jesus, several apostles, John the Baptist, and other Biblical figures had a homoerotic behavior pattern. They do cite sources, but they have cited sources previously that do not support the claim. I don't have time to examine this closely, but I strongly suspect there are WP:Fringe issues here. If those familiar with mainstream scholarship on this could help with this, it'd be much appreciated. Crossroads -talk- 22:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads: There was a lot wrong there. Good catch. Dealt with some of it, but someone more versed in such material should demonstrate that the views expressed are indeed notions that very much come under WP:FRINGE. Sources that demonstrate that views of Christ as "homoerotic" were marginalized even before the decline of Gnostic Gospels and only recently revived in texts that are intentionally revisionist should be prioritized, but inserted in typical NPOV fashion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources[edit]

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heresy in Christianity in the modern era - AfD?[edit]

I have stumbled upon Heresy in Christianity in the modern era. This article is mostly unsourced and I do not see it as having an encyclopedical value. I do not see how it is something else than an arbitrarily chosen (WP:OR) compilation or list of recent cases concerning Heresy in Christianity. What are your thoughts? Veverve (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The start date seems arbitrary. What constitutes the modern era?
If a concept is reliably sourced as having gone through a heresy trial, then it seems reasonable to include, but there are only 18 references, so the list seems a bit large. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After taking a quick look, many of these cases are not sourced. That is a problem in and of itself. However, a related issue is how is heresy being defined. The section "Walter Kenyon (Presbyterian, United States, 1974)" is about a man barred from ordination in a Presbyterian church because he refused to ordain women. I'm not sure I would describe that as "heresy". I'm also not sure if reliable sources would either, but we don't know because the entire section is unsourced. Ltwin (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, if some of these people are still alive, wouldn't we need to adhere to WP: BLP? Ltwin (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Campolo went through "an informal heresy hearing" and that is sourced four times over in both his bio and this but his claim was not found to be heretical. So is that heresy or not? Why is it even listed in this article? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea, the article seem like an arbitrary list made with arbitrary criteria (was notability of individuals among those?). Also, I fail to see where the classification of "modern" and "non-modern" treatment of heretics among the whole Christendom is done (what changed in 1893? who made this classification?).
The two answers I get tell me I was right: this article should be AfDed. Veverve (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ltwin and Walter Görlitz: see the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heresy in Christianity in the modern era. Veverve (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Palmarian Christian Church - in need of a good rework[edit]

A whole academically-published book on the Palmarian Christian Church has been published freely available online in its second edition in 2020. Currently, most of the information in this WP article are unsourced, and I suspect most of them are false. If someone wants to use the PDF book I linked to improve the page (using e.g. Template:Rp) and remove what cannot be confirmed by RSs, feel free to do so. Veverve (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting some article expansion help[edit]

Greetings,

Hi, I am User:Bookku, I find information and knowledge gaps create Drafts, try to recruit draft expanding editors and promote drafts articles for further expansion.

Requesting your visit to following drafts and help expand the same if any of these interests you.



Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAR notice[edit]

I have nominated Maximus the Confessor for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Establishing a patristics and exegesis standard[edit]

Through recent edits to the articles Perpetual virginity of Mary and Immaculate Conception, Octavius2 has introduced direct sourcing from Church Fathers/patristic texts. In of itself, directly sourcing from patristic texts does not violate any standard that I have encountered on Wikipedia. However, the manner in which the material is used has seen Veverve and myself engaged in a (very polite) discussion about how these sources might be used. This affords the community an opportunity to enumerate a standard by which the Christian Fathers can be used as a source in this project. I refer those interested to the graph and sourcing visible in this diff as an example of how patristics are being sourced per Octavius2's position. Initial discussion can be found on Veverve's talk page.

The TL;DR of the prior discussion: it is the opinion of Veverve and myself that patristic texts can be cited directly only when clear and explicit reference to the subject of an article is made, reference that leaves little to no room for interpretation and is itself not doing interpretation. Octavius2 holds that since this material is part of the body of (in this case) Catholic patristics, that it is admissible to present the material in a partial and logical interpreted fashion (for example: treating "sinlessness" as synonymous to "immaculately conceived," as it generally is in at least modern Catholic theology and lexicon). I think this comes down to a discussion of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and WP:RS. In the previous discussion, there were concerns raised regarding Octavius2 perhaps accidentally violating WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS; these have been discussed and I hope that this conversation will not be the forum for it. Thank you and please insert your opinion as you can. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would characterize the Immaculate Conception as a topic proper to Catholic Theology.
It's my belief that, within topics-or-interpretations proper to Catholic theology, . . .
  • Primary Sources should be . . .
    • Scripture, and
    • The Church Fathers (as the earliest evidence for oral Sacred Tradition),
    . . . because of their acknowledgment by Catholic Magesterium, as being the 2 co-equal parts of the Deposit of the Faith.
    • Devotional Mysticism - Also a primary source, for purposes of Theology, but not Dogma.
  • Secondary Sources should be . . .
    • The Magesterium itself because of . . .
      • its non-source but 2ndary, after-the-fact character; and
      • its systematicness, namely, as a centuries-old, ongoing academic-level consensus by the leading --not so much churchmen, per se, as-- scholars in the field of Catholic Theology.
      Indeed, the Magesterium explicitly claims to be such a research program, limited to its particular primary-source-material (Scripture & the Fathers), as seen in its frequent citation of St. Vincent of Lerins' famous quote, on the Development of Dogma.
    • Theologians' writings, including Augustine and Aquinas, and any others which display a systematic, academic character.
Octavius2 (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Octavius2: I would characterize the Immaculate Conception as a topic proper to Catholic Theology. But it isn't—at least on this encyclopedia. If there are reliable sources dealing with the Immaculate Conception from the perspective of Protestant or Hindu or Muslim or [insert religion here] then those should receive due weight on Wikipedia.
Secondary Sources should be . . whatever is sources are considered reliable sources per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Some of these maybe Catholic sources, but many will not be.
Theologians' writings, including Augustine and Aquinas, and any others which display a systematic, academic character. No. These are primary sources. When Augustine writes something, that writing must be interpreted. The interpretation is now a secondary source. If what Augustine wrote on a topic is important to a WP article, then what we need is a secondary source on Augustine to provide a reliable published interpretation of that theologian's writings. Ltwin (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Octavius2: You cannot speak of academic character before the 18th century (at least), and certainly not for people who have lived during Antiquity and the Middle Ages. You cannot quote Aquina's Catena Aurea as if it was an academic work. The claim the Magisterium is an academic source is completely ridiculous; if it was an academic source (which it is not), it would be a WP:FRINGE or a predatory one. The fact you talk about "the earliest evidence for oral Sacred Tradition" shows your heavy Catholic/EOrthodox POV. What's next, the alleged apostolic succession to prove whether or not an author is reliable? Something must be made clear: Wikipedia operates through a scientific methodology for its sources, not the tailor-made outlandish methodology used in some fields of studies. Veverve (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Magisterium certainly isn't a WP:FRINGE, since, within a topic-or-interpretation proper to Catholic theology (like the Immaculate Conception), it is the MAIN theory, while in other Christianity-wide topics, it's a "significant-minority view," or, at worst, a completely legitimate WP:FRINGE/ALT. What you mean to say is that the Magesterium is a ✅WP:NIS Non-Independent sources, but it says there that such non-independent sources may still be used. Octavius2 (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rebase: This sub-thread has been subsumed into the big heading below, "New Guidelines Discovered," which I posted to answer Veverve's particular objection here. Octavius2 (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Octavius2, you have proposed as a criteria to include CFs as secondary sources academic character (i.e. systematic and rational, not mysticism-based). There are two problems. First, there is the fact something at least older than 5 century is very likely to be considered a primary source whatever its content is. Second, who gets to define what is systematic and rational, not mysticism-based in the writings (WP:OR)? By the way, who decides that those quotes support the Immaculate Conception dogma (WP:OR)?
I had proposed that you use Jurgen's compilation, with proper mention that it is Catholic apologetic from William Jurgen. If you really want to insist on adding Patristical sentences considered by some Christians as proof of the Immaculate Conception dogma, I think it is one of the the best, quickest and most effortless solutions. Veverve (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, to make a difference between systematic and rational and mysticism-based is also extremely biased: no EOrthodox would accept this distinction, especially to apply it to the CFs. Veverve (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the distinction between "systematic and rational" -vs- "mysticism-based" is pretty obvious from a quick perusal of the nature of the work. You can instantly tell when someone is going verse-by-verse thru scripture, employing rational equanimity (e.g, Augustine's De Genesi ad Litteram), from when they are using inspirational flights-of-fancy (e.g, his Confessions).
  • Thanks for the Jurgen Suggestion, but in those entire 3 volumes, there is only 1 single citation of anything from the Song of Songs, so it won't help me here.
  • Usually, my cited quotes OBVIOUSLY support the Immaculate Conception, just by the literal signification of the words. Why is it that, while we have both Church Fathers' writings, and Roman historians' writings, from the same era, people get to cite the latter directly - Livy, Tacitus, Plutarch, & Pliny, but not the former? To claim that Aquinas doesn't constitute "Academic character," is really sad for modern academia, IMO. If a person was following all the academic conventions of their day, then, for us to reject them, and refuse to engage in conversation with them, on an equal footing, just because they're 'too old,' smacks of some sort of Historicist modern-bias -- maybe a Hegelian, or Whig dialectic-of-history. I think the secret and real reason Academia doesn't want to engage directly with past authors like Aquinas, is because they don't know Latin well enough, to be able to sight-read things before 1700 AD. But we pre-Cartesian Medievalists DO have a hammered-out, competing view of what a science should be, and it is that each "Science" has its own separate subject matter (the "Material Object Quid") and methods (the "Formal Object Quo"), and that by merely conforming to those, it constitutes a legitimate 'Science,' capable, like Philosophy or Theology, of exposing new truths within its line-of-approach, and as legitimate therefore as what we moderns mean by 'Science,' namely, Empirical Science. You can thank Descartes and the empiricist, physical-matter-minded-English for coming along and saying, "No-no-no, only what WE can reproduce before our eyes with lab-experimentation ought to be called a science." And then we got stupid things like scientific attempts at Mesmerism, LOL. Technically, Wikipedia is what you moderns call an 'Art' not "Scientific" at all.
Octavius2 (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the sources you used are pure OR of primay sources (be it from the Denzinger or directly the works of CFs), they are your own interpretation of the Church Fathers. No EOrthodox would accept that the CFs are sometimes 'not mystical' when talking about God (maybe @Ad Orientem: can confirm [and can of course comment on the discussion if he wants]). Besides, there is no obvious markers as to what this dichotomy is even according the Western standards.
The literal signification of the words does not mean anything on subjects where people have been debating for what those words mean centuries; their meaning(s?) is controversed. All you have given is your own interpretation.
  • The History of Rome example you have given is indeed a problem: most of the use of those WP:PRIMARY sources should be replaced by secondary or tertiary sources. Primary sources can sometimes be used (WP:PRIMARYCARE), but not in those cases.
  • If a person was following all the academic conventions of their day, then, for us to reject them, and refuse to engage in conversation with them, on an equal footing, just because they're 'too old,' smacks of some sort of Historicist modern-bias: are you arguing against WP:AGE MATTERS? Of course those are too old.
  • I am not going to argue with you on whether defining an object makes something a science: it is not the topic and it will not change WP's methodology.
- Veverve (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I don't agree that I'm doing WP:OR of primary sources, because I just argued in [the next sub-thread] that the sources I'm using — Church Fathers, Magisterium, and Theological Compendia, — are secondary sources. Octavius2 (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, the link to that is broken, but just search for the comment below with a big black oval about Primary and Secondary sources being "RELATIVE." Octavius2 (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, @Veverve, there is no old-age time-limit for secondary sources, as is evident from this sentence within the primary sources page . . .
"Primary" and "secondary" should be understood as RELATIVE terms, with sources categorized according to specific historical contexts and what is being studied."
. . . as well as a similar sentence on the Secondary Sources page, which also mentions their "relative" character.
Furthermore, the How to Classify a Source page [as Primary or Secondary] describes an example of a "book written 150 years" after the event as a secondary source, in contra-distinction to a journal written only 2 years ago.
WP:AGE MATTERS says nothing to contradict this, but only encourages newer stuff, if it's better, which it isn't, as nothing modern even remotely compares to the old theological compendia such as Aquinas' Summa Theologiae, or Cornelius A Lapide's Great Commentary.
------------THEREFORE--------------
✅Magisterium counts as a secondary source.
✅Church Fathers count as a secondary source, WHEN they are commenting on something else, such as scripture, as Wikipedia acknowledges that a source may sometimes be primary, and secondary at the same time.
✅11th-19th century Theological Compendia count as legit secondary (Aquinas' Summa) or tertiary (Lapide's Commentary) sources.
[Tagging @Pbritti, & @Jdcompguy, too.] Octavius2 (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Age does matter. You can say the Gesta Danorum is a secondary source for the story of the Danish people, and that anyone writing about the emu war on their blog is a secondary source on it. This does not make the Gesta Danorum useable as a source about the story of the Danish outside of mentions such as 'In the Gesta Danorum it was once written X '.
  • The magisterium is a primary source, it cannot be used to state things about the world as if they were objective (WP:ALLPRIMARY), and the magisterium is 100% WP:SPONSORED. The magisterium is the Catholic Church's content about itself. Same goes for the Denzinger which is on top of that a compilation of primary sources without any thematical organisation or comments (unlike Jurgen's books).
You have been told by three users by now that your train of thought is erroneous. "Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." (WP:PSTS). Even if you want to use technicalities to argue the CFs are secondary sources, from what I see users use them with WP:PRIMARYCARE as they consider them as being far from self-explanatory and as being prone to various contradictory interpretation (see also WP:ONUS related to this). Doing an OR interpretation of the texts of the CFs on a debated point of theological doctrine is not acceptable. Veverve (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SLOW DOWN., @Veverve. You threw three irrelevant curve-balls, and then tried to close the deal with an ad hominem, as if I'm flouting the very 3 users whom I literally just tagged in the very post that you're responding to(!). Not so fast. . . .
  • Yes, the Gesta Danorum . . . (just like the Magisterium, Church Fathers, and medieval Theological Compendia) . . . would be a secondary source, based on this WP sentence: "Generally, accounts written after the fact with the benefit (and possible distortions) of hindsight are secondary."
  • No, Magisterium isn't at all  WP:SPONSORED , which is for paid advertisements. The Magisterium doesn't pay anything to put their own content, into their own Acta Sanctae Sedis, which has so many volumes as to fill a wall. Once again, in topics-or-interpretations proper to Catholic theology, the Magisterium is, by its own centuries-old definitions, THE MAIN/MAJORITY VIEW; while in general Christian topics, it's a "significant-minority view", not a  WP:FRINGE , as you earlier alleged, and not a  WP:SPONSORED .
  • Even though I need not use  WP:PRIMARY CARE , which only applies to Primary sources, not secondary ones, actually I was already employing the secondary equivalent of that, because, as a matter of policy, I was including every single quote, every single time, down in the footnotes' "quote" fields.
So yes, I have a right, for the good of public knowledge, to include as secondary sources, the Magisterium, Church Fathers, and pre-20th-century Theological Compendia, whenever they are commenting on older primary sources. Octavius2 (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: Actually, judging by both time-duration, and numbers of adherents, Magesterium is the ✅MAIN/MAJORITY view, even in general Christian topics. [Catholics comprise 50 percent of all Christians worldwide and 16 percent of the world's total population]. Octavius2 (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does your silence bespeak consent, or at least unwillingness to further contest, @Veverve, @Pbritti, & @Jdcompguy? Octavius2 (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Octavius2: This isn't a contest, nor is goading a good tactic in discussion. A consensus has developed with regards to the pages you've edited in opposition to your edits, which is a frustrating experience but one I hope you understand. The lack of response is out of the recognition that at least three parties are in agreement regarding this issue, with only one dissenting. Please reach out on my talk page or those attached to the articles if you have further questions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll continue it there on your talk page. . . . Octavius2 (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Octavius2: What you're doing is presenting your own original thought and citing the Church Fathers to back it up, which is problematic. This is different than presenting what the Church Fathers believed and citing them for it. At least for me, the issue is not the fact that you're using patristic/magisterial sources; it's how you're using them. For example, in one of your Immaculate Conception article renditions, you say: The Catholic Church has long held that Mary never submitted to a sinful temptation, and therefore never had personal sin.<ref>Thomas Aquinas citing Augustine</ref><ref>John Paul II</ref>. (I'm obviously paraphrasing your references.) This is an inappropriate use of the patristic/magisterial sources, because those sources don't directly back up your assertion that "The Catholic Church has long held..." Instead, try something like this: Augustine held that 'an abundance of grace was given her that she might be in every way the conqueror of sin.'<ref>Augustine</ref> Thomas Aquinas cited Augustine in making the same assertion.<ref>Thomas Aquinas citing Augustine</ref>. Do you see the difference? Jdcompguy (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So support from (1) the greatest Catholic theologian in history, who has been endorsed by 10 popes, (2) while quoting the 2nd greatest Catholic theologian in history, + (3) the most widely used modern Catechism . . . all of that . . . DOESN'T prove that the Catholic Church "has long held" said belief? . . . Please. That kind of captiousness isn't required on normal Roman history articles, which often appear with a single footnote, for some generic general source. And I don't even understand why you would raise this as some sort of significant theological bone-of-contention, since you yourself already said that her Sinlessness is a "subset" of her Immaculatness, which means that all those Church Fathers . . . (Theodotus of Ancyra, Epiphanius, Ephrem, Justus of Urgell, Augustine, Ambrose, Maximus of Turin, Pseudo-Athanasius) . . . in my giant 6-row chart, who professed her immaculateness, can also be used to demonstrate her sinlessness. Besides, I could add even more evidence:
  • The 630 AD epistle "Scripta fraternitatis vestrae"
  • The 675 AD Council of Toledo
    • Indeed, I'm happy to keep on adding to ANY FOOTNOTE that you find lacking, but, in general, I don't find this behavior here of mine in the slightest bit "inappropriate." So what OTHER footnotes would you like me to embellish? Octavius2 (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Octavius2: The answer to your first question is yes, because your sources do not even make the claim, much less prove the claim, that the Catholic Church has long held the belief. Where do they say that? They don't. That's what you are saying. If you want to make that claim on Wikipedia, you need to find a source that says it, which shouldn't be that hard! There are lots of sources that say that, so find one and use it!! I'm not sure what you mean by "theological bone of contention." I'm not saying your theology is bad; I'm saying that you're not putting in the work to find the types of sources that you need to contribute to Wikipedia. There's a place for patristic, magisterial, and academic sources on Wikipedia, but you're not matching up assertions and sources correctly. I've been trying to give you pointers on how to do this. In the one example that I gave, Augustine professed her sinlessness, not her immaculate conception. Because belief in her sinlessness is a subset of belief in her immaculate conception (as I already said), assertion of the former does not necessarily imply assertion of the latter. I'm not asking you to embellish footnotes; I'm asking you to stop embellishing footnotes with wording that goes beyond what they claim. Instead, find a reliable source that actually says what you're trying to say. Jdcompguy (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My sources "do not even make the claim"? . . . What?? . . . When Aquinas cites a Church Father in his famous "On the contrary," he is implicitly making that very claim. You sound like you never studied St. Thomas Aquinas. HAVE YOU EVER STUDIED THEOLOGY AT ALL? (I have a B.A. in Theology, and a B.A. in Classics--Greek & Latin--with a minor in Classical Philosophy). I sight-read Aquinas in the Latin. I know very well EXACTLY what he means to imply, at all times.
    As usual, you too are falling into the hole of wrongly thinking Aquinas is a Primary Source, as if I need some other secondary source to clarify what he said. Noooo. He is a secondary source, by the guidelines here. Let him speak for himself. He has a LOT more to say, than modern books or papers can cover.
    No, I do not embellish footnotes with wording that goes beyond what they claim. I include just the literal quote. Jbritti even praised the accuracy of my translations. Octavius2 (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Octavius2: Just because Aquinas quotes Augustine does not mean that "the Catholic Church has long held the belief." Even if the latter is true, it does not follow logically from your sources. If your education makes you so capable of interpreting Aquinas, try getting your thought published in a peer-reviewed theological journal; then you can cite it here on Wikipedia. Jdcompguy (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Aquinas is so highly praised by so many popes, that I think it does establish it, in the absence of any contradiction. When the church holds ecumenical councils, between East and West, they each argue from their libraries of Church Fathers' writings, which shows that Church Fathers effectively function in the same way that English Common Law, or American Constitutional Law does: As precedent. Aquinas was using that precedent (from Augustine), and that cements it even more. Octavius2 (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I still oppose you proposal and the CFs, the magisterium, etc. being used the way you proposed. I think nothing substantial can be added to this discussion; we all made our positions and arguments in this discussion. I have asked Ad Orientem and Achar Sva if they could comment; if they come here, maybe their comments will be of any help. Veverve (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well of course you would, @Veverve but you still have given no answer to my ample demonstration above that citing the CFs, Magesterium, Theological Compendia, etc. as Secondary Sources is completely consistent with the spirit of WP, so I intend to do just that. Octavius2 (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Octavius2: you intend to force your changes by violating both WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS (and also WP:QUO)? This would be WP:DISRUPTIVE and worthy of sanctions or, more likely in your case, of a formal warning. I do not wish to go to that extend, but reluctantly will if needed.
    On the one hand, I see some problems in your way of thinking in general as I have already mentioned. To those problems I noted, I add your defence of holding, on Wikipedia-level, Aquina with the same authority he once had in some exalted apologetic books of the 19th century (in your 19:16, 4 May 2022 message); Wikipedia - at leat this WProject as you can see - does not operate by the standards you use.
    On the other hand, I see you could add a lot to Wikipedia on the field of Christianity, if you were to work using WP's standards. Veverve (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ❌No Consensus❌, @Veverve on whether CFs, Magesterium, Theological Compendia, etc. count as Secondary Sources. 4 times now (here, here, here, and right here), I have pointed out to you that this is the original issue you cited for removing my 80,000 bytes, and the central issue, and not a single 1 of you 3 editors ever responded to my contention that you completely violated the instructions for Identifying Primary [and secondary] sources. YOU CANNOT CLAIM CONSENSUS IF YOU NEVER RESPOND TO YOUR OPPONENT'S CENTRAL ARGUMENT.
    Also, ❌you violated WP:BRD❌, not me, because you completely reverted all 80,000 bytes of my edit, twice, without incorporating even a a single byte of it, something that @Pbritti at least honestly attempted.
    Now ✅I've shown good faith engagement✅, by
  • Showing willingness to alter footnotes as needed;
  • Not contesting 13 minor edits of my content by @Pbritti.
    • You have done NOTHING, but just insisted over and over that everything I ever posted here must go. I have no more faith in your genuine openness to anything. All you ever do is accuse. Therefore, I'll be seeking outside opinions on whether you violated WP policy in reverting my post. Octavius2 (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Veverve, @Pbritti, and @Jdcompguy, I've opened up a dispute here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Immaculate_Conception Octavius2 (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, Octavius2, the fundamental issue for me is not the distinction between primary/secondary sources (although other editors may disagree); as far as I'm concerned, the issue is your mismatching of assertions and sources. The fact that editors find multiple issues with your edits, and not just one issue, only makes for more consensus, not less! Issues notwithstanding, your contributions are usable if you're willing to do the work to make your sources match your content. Jdcompguy (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I just responded to that. Regardless of what your issue is, the issue with Veverve, who pulled down all 7 sections of my entire 80,000 byte contribution, and reintegrated none of it was . . .
    Veverve: "No, I disagree. This table is purely OR from the user. Church Fathers are a primary source, the same way Herodotus, Ernoul or Abu'l-Fath are.")
    Veverve: Stop pushing your OR;
    I deny that CFs are a primary source, and think that is OR-charge is based upon that error. Octavius2 (talk) 06:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jdcompguy: while you are here, could you give your thought on this? Veverve (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Three thoughts: (1) Belief in Mary's sinlessness is a subset of belief in her Immaculate Conception. Catholic/Orthodox traditions believe John the Baptist, for example, to be sinless, but not immaculately conceived. (2) Discussion of patristic belief in Mary's sinlessness is certainly relevant for a page on the Immaculate Conception, but patristic quotes should not be shoehorned into later terminology. (3) I think it's ridiculous to debate whether patristic sources can be used by themselves in this context, because literal volumes have been written on the patristic background of Mary's Immaculate Conception and perpetual virginity. There is no way that a legitimate application of a patristic quote on these topics has not already been done in an academic source. @Octavius2: My recommendation to you would be to: (1) if a Church father is asserting "sinlessness," don't present this as a synonym for "immaculate conception," even though the former is obviously a part of the latter; (2) look for secondary sources to back up your use of patristic sources. Jdcompguy (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the 2 suggestions; @Jdcompguy!   But, yes, I DID present 'sinlessness' as a subset, and not a synonym for 'Immaculately Conceived.'   In fact, I had added an entire "Theological Implications" section, in order to expicitly categorize all these partially overlapping subset-terms. The only reason you missed it was because Veverve undid all my changes, but if you look again, now, it should be there. Octavius2 (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Part 2[edit]

    New Guidelines Discovered - @Veverve, @Pbritti, @Jdcompguy
    • On your side - Your proposed 18th-century-or-so old-age-cut-off-date for Secondary Sources, is admittedly in the spirit of acceptable practices within the field of General History, as you can see at WP:HSC and (the next paragraph after it) WP:HISTRH.
  • However, on my side is the paragraph on Examples of Reliable Sources in Religion, which explicitly states my position:

    • "In significant world religious denominations with organized academies or recognized theological experts in religious doctrine and scholarship, the proceedings of official religious bodies and the journals or publications of recognized and well-regarded religious academies and experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject. . . .
    "Secondary sources are not necessarily from recent years – or even centuries. The sacred or original text(s) of the religion will always be primary sources, but any other acceptable source may be a secondary source in some articles. For example, the works of Thomas Aquinas are secondary sources for a Roman Catholic perspective on many topics, but are primary sources for Thomas Aquinas or Summa Theologica.

    That guideline was posted in 2008. If you want to see the discussion that led to its formulation, it's here over at that standard's talk page. However, in light of this, I'd ask you either to either cease contesting the admissibility of CFs, Aquinas, and Theological Compendia, as secondary sources, or tag me that you're contesting this very issue somewhere else, such as over there.
    Octavius2 (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They are both essays, not guidelines (by the way I disagree with Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Religious source to consider Aquina a RS, but I admit it can technically sometimes be a secondary source). WP:CONSENSUS trumps essays by far. Veverve (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And yes I contest @Octavius2:. For the same reasons I have already given. Again, the discussion as ran its (long) course and I do not see what can be added. Again, the use of those sources should be discussed on a case-by-case basis; using those sources the way you did is not acceptable as I and others have already explained. Veverve (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Octavius2: I'm not advocating for a "proposed 18th-century-or-so old-age-cut-off-date for Secondary Sources" so please stop referring to that as my position. I've told you repeatedly that I consider the primary/secondary distinction to be largely irrelevant here. My issue is with your original research and your mismatching of assertions and sources, an issue which you haven't addressed. Jdcompguy (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not your position, @Jdcompguy, but it is @Veverve's. But since he's kind of the 'main spokesmen' among you 3, for opposition to my posts, I sometimes speak of his arguments as if they belong to you all; sorry, I'll try not to. Octavius2 (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't read the whole thing, but wouldn't an objection to using the Church Fathers as a secondary source be that often people disagree on how the Church Fathers' writings should be interpreted in the first place? It's not Wikipedia's job to interpret historical documents. We publish what reliable sources say about those historical documents. Ltwin (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I second what Ltwin and Veverve say: consensus says that this is not an exception, and the reason it is not an exception to ancient source usage is because it is the interpretation of the sources that are being inserted, not just the sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, @Ltwin, but what would you think of St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae (1250 A.D.), or Cornelius A Lapide's 26-volume Great Commentary on Sacred Scripture (1640 A.D.)? . . . Just based on "Citation Counts" (See WP:SCHOLARSHIP), these have 1000s of mentions on major academic websites like Academia.edu. Should these count as Secondary sources? Should they count as Reliable sources? Or, as they say, are only modern books-&-journals secondary and/or reliable? I contend that the people here want to just totally disregard these 2 essays below, thereby deprecating our entire Christian Patrimony, the authentic voices of the past, into a dusty coffin of academic inferiority & antiquatedness.
    Octavius2 (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I responded to this above (I finally read the whole discussion) but it may have been overlooked. These are primary sources in regards to their own beliefs. When Aquinas writes something, that writing must be interpreted. The interpretation is now a secondary source. If what Aquinas wrote on a topic is important to a WP article, then what we need is a secondary source on Aquinas to provide a reliable published interpretation of that theologian's writings. Yes, lots of people cite Church Fathers and important theologians to interpret them or bolster their own arguments. That is original research, and we don’t do that here on Wikipedia. What we do is this: “According to scholar [insert name], Aquinas believed . . .” That is how we typically handle content like this. We allow reliable, published sources to do the interpretation. Ltwin (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, fine, @Ltwin, but then you just contradicted these sentences from those 2 essays:
    So what, @Ltwin, if Aquinas himself writes, "Augustine believed . . ."?
    (Because that's what's usually going on, here: Aquinas never just states something, but always cites his main source for saying it, which is usually a verse of Scripture, or a Church Father (CF).) Octavius2 (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Octavius2:, if it's very straightforward and any reasonable person could see that then you could write, "According to Aquinas, Augustine believed . . ." However, judging by your chart, you are not making plain, straightforward claims. You are making more complex claims that are straight up original research unless you provide a reliable source that explicitly states the interpretation in question.
    For example, the first row of your chart states:
    Verses cited by Church Fathers that Support Mary's Immaculate Conception
    Verse Text Church Father attestation
    Songs of Songs 4:4 Your neck is like the tower of David, built for an arsenal, whereon hang a thousand bucklers, all of them shields of warriors.. Anne Catherine Emmerich[1]
    You are claiming that Emmerich is citing Songs of Songs 4:4 to support the immaculate conception. And your footnote is a qoutation from her which does not actually prove anything. Maybe she is saying something about the immaculate conception, but I can't figure it out. There is nothing straightforward or clear about this at all to a lay reader. This needs a citation from a published expert that can offer an interpretation that is not original research. At this point, that is all this is — original research. Ltwin (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides, Anne Catherine Emmerich is not a CF. Only EOrthodox have Church Fathers after the 8th century (e.g. sometimes Justin Popović), and it is their POV; and Emmerich is not a Church Father in the eyes of any denomination. Veverve (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, @Ltwin, that table-row, which is my least supported sentence anywhere, may well be WP:OR, but is this line: okay?

    The Catholic Church has long held that Mary never submitted to a sinful temptation, and therefore never had personal sin.[76][77][78]

    76.) Aquinas, Thomas (1275). "III.27.4.corpus.". Summa Theologiae. Torino: San Paolo. Retrieved April 28, 2022. "On the contrary, Augustine says (De Nat. et Grat. xxxvi): 'In the matter of sin, it is my wish to exclude absolutely all questions concerning the holy Virgin Mary, on account of the honor due to Christ. For since she conceived and brought forth Him who most certainly was guilty of no sin, we know that an abundance of grace was given her that she might be in every way the conqueror of sin.'"

    77.) Ephrem, St. (350). "27:8". Nisibene Hymns (in Syriac). Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. p. 109. Retrieved April 26, 2022. “Only you and your Mother are more beautiful than everything. For on you, O Lord, there is no mark; neither is there any stain in your Mother.”

    78.) John Paul II, Pope (1994). "§493". Catechism of the Catholic Church (2 ed.). Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Retrieved April 28, 2022. "The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God 'the All-Holy' (Panagia), and celebrate her as 'free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature'. By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long."

    Octavius2 (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Octavius2: Yes, that is an example of WP:OR–but only when including the first two sources. Just using the last source, a sentence along the lines of "The Catholic Church maintains that it has long held the belief Mary never submitted to a sinful temptation, and therefore never had personal sin" would be perfectly acceptable. The others presuppose that 1.) Ss. Aquinas and Ephrem spoke on behalf of the Catholic Church doctrinally and 2.) that Ephrem's prose is what is referenced by the later catechism (perhaps yes, but the citation is unclear). ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Emmerich, Anne Catherine (2006). Michael, Sir; Dickerson, Donald R. (eds.). The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary (
      I saw pictures of great cities, towers, palaces, thrones, gates, gardens, and flowers, all strangely woven together as it were by bridges of light; and all were being attacked and assaulted by fierce beasts and other figures of might. These pictures all signified how Our Blessed Lady's ancestral family, from which God was to take Flesh and be made Man, had been led, like all that is holy, by God's grace through many assaults and struggles. I remember, too, having seen at a certain point in this series of pictures a garden surrounded by a thick hedge of thorns, which a host of serpents and other loathsome creatures attempted in vain to penetrate. I also saw a strong tower assaulted on all sides by men-at-arms, who were falling down from it. I saw many pictures of this kind, relating to the history of the ancestry of the Blessed Virgin; and the bridges and passages which joined all together signified the victory over all attempts to disturb, hinder, or interrupt the work of salvation.)      . Charlotte, NC: St. Benedict Press. p. 38. Retrieved 26 April 2022.

    Survey on Seraphim Rose page[edit]

    Editors of this WikiProject are encouraged to provide their input on a consensus-gathering survey at Talk:Seraphim_Rose#Consensus_seeking_on_the_inclusion_of_sexuality_material. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuing church - does this expression exist?[edit]

    What do you think about the article Continuing church? I have found nothing on it, apart from passing uses which seem to rather refer to the Continuing Anglican movement.[1][2][3] Already back in 2007, someone asked for sources on this term at the article talk page; none was given since then. What do you say? Does this concept exist? Should the WP article be deleted? Veverve (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I've heard the phrase, mainly in regards to Episcopal schisms. However, I want to say that I've also seen it used for other mainline Protestant church schisms. However, I have no sources. Ltwin (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me just normal English, rather than some special term. I don't know if it deserves an article. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now checked the reference given: it is about the Continuing Anglican movement and not a general phenomenon. Veverve (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnbod, Ltwin, and Pbritti: does any of you oppose turning Continuing church into a redirect targetting Continuing Anglican movement? It seems to be there has been a quiproquo, in that the creator likely either a) thought "continuing church" was a common and universal name, or b) was not aware the page Continuing Anglican movement already existed. Veverve (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it might be better just to delete it. I'd associate more with the "continuing" post-Henrician CofE for example. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Haven't heard it used in any context except Continuing Anglicans or in comparing the new Global Methodists to Continuing Anglicans. A search yielded no other mentions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ltwin, Johnbod, and Pbritti: the AfD is here. Feel free to come and give your opinion there. Veverve (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Winter, R. Milton (2000). "Division & Reunion in the Presbyterian Church, U.S.: A Mississippi Retrospective". The Journal of Presbyterian History (1997-). 78 (1): 67–86. ISSN 1521-9216. In 1944, reunion opponents, rallied by the Southern Presbyterian Journal, called those agreeing with its aims to do everything possible to organize a 'continuing church' if and when the 'inevitable' union with the PCUSA should occur. By 1949 a Continuing Church Committee was raising funds. [..] All the while, predictions continued that whenever union of Southern Presbyterians with their sister Assembly came about, a 'continuing' Southern Church would result. [...] 'Continuing' assemblies of Presbyterians opposed to unions voted by their denominations are well known having been formed in Scotland, Canada, and Australia, and by Cumberland Presbyterians in the U.S. after the majority of their churches were received by the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. in 1906.
    2. ^ Burt, C. David (2011-01-01). "Chapter 4: An Anglican Uniate Rite?". In Cavanaugh, Stephen E. (ed.). Anglicans and the Roman Catholic Church: Reflections on Recent Developments. Ignatius Press. ISBN 978-1-68149-039-7. Basically, they [Forward in Faith] have their feet in both 'official' Anglican Communion and in the 'continuing' church.
    3. ^ Watts, Michael (1993). Through a Glass Darkly: A Crisis Considered. Gracewing Publishing. p. 44. ISBN 978-0-85244-240-1. 'In September 1990, at around the time the first women priest were ordained, a group of lay members of the Church of Ireland formed a «continuing Church»; the Church of Ireland (Traditional Rite). [...]'

    The Society of Mercy nominated for AfD[edit]

    The Society of Mercy (an alleged Old Catholic group) has been nominated for AfD for lack of notability. The AfD is here; feel free to come and give your opinion. Veverve (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Pbritti, Johnbod, and Jdcompguy:. Veverve (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD of Old (Roman) Catholic Church of America for lack of notability[edit]

    Hello. I have nominated an article for what I believe to be lack of notability. The AfD is here.
    Pinging the regulars: @Pbritti, Johnbod, Jdcompguy, and Ltwin:. Veverve (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD of Catholic Life Church for lack of notability[edit]

    Nomination Catholic Life Church for lack of notability. High encourage you all enjoy a peak at what mysteries that article contains before we pull the plug. Discussion here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The dysfunctional family of Jesus[edit]

    I'm not sure what to do with this. I heard a radio preacher yesterday say that when Jesus was on the cross and told John to take care of his mother, this was because his family wasn't responsible enough for anyone to do this on his own. His family thought he was crazy.

    I haven't succeeded in finding sources that would verify anyone believed this about Jesus' family, and I wouldn't know what to do with the information on Wikipedia if I could find it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    One time early in Jesus' ministry, he was preaching and his mother and brothers came and wanted to take him home because they feared he was crazy - that is, they did not believe in what he was saying. Whether the term "brothers" means full brothers (sons of Mary and Joseph), or half brothers (sons of Joseph by another wife), or just cousins is a matter of debate. The answer to that question affects the analysis of why Jesus told John to take care of Mary. If Jesus had no full brothers, then it could just be that his half brothers or cousins would not feel a specific need to take care of his mother. In any event, it's clear that these "brothers" did not believe in him at the time of his crucifixion, although at least one, James, did come to faith, ostensibly writing the Epistle of James. I would think that commentaries aimed at pastors and theologians would have something on all this. Indyguy (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Does Wikipedia say any of this? I certainly never thought the "brother" had to be told to take care of Mary. Although knowing who would was a possible problem.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vchimpanzee: While not necessarily a Wikipedia matter, my catechesis always drew a line between John being called "beloved" and his charge with tending to Mary in the time following the Crucifixion. With Jesus's rejection in His hometown and the impending martyrdom of all the other apostles over the next few decades, perhaps Jesus sought someone who was faithful that would be able to live long enough to care to His mother. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see this as important enough to mention somewhere. Also, the pastor said Jesus had to say this because no one could be bothered to take the responsibility.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vchimpanzee: I have a handful of rather intensive Gospel commentaries; I'll see what I dig up and ping you if I end up adding anything. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:Integrity USA scandal in The Episcopal Church#Requested move 15 May 2022[edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Integrity USA scandal in The Episcopal Church#Requested move 15 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 23:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Inexistance of Hell POV pushing[edit]

    Hello all, just a quick notice that there has been a heavy POV push in several articles regarding universal resurrection (inexistance of Hell). It was a fringe view held by maybe 4 or 5 Church Fathers (out of hundreds) but is depicted as the belief of the "majority of Early Church". See: Apocatastasis, Christian universalism, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and related articles. In fact the Apocatastasis article must be re-written almost in whole, I have left some comments on its talk page. Please take a look. --El Huinca (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @El Huinca: As someone who subscribes to the "doctrinal infernalist" school on all matters damnation, I was somewhat hard-pressed to find actual NPOV violations. Certainly, there is a great number of sources regarding universalism that describe it as a common belief among early Christians, but none of them are deployed in a wrong manner. One source on the article Christian Universalism did strike me as perhaps a little shaky due to both its age and generalization of numerous theologians over several centuries; I have tagged it for further review. If you are concerned about these articles lacking in WP:BALANCE, I would encourage you to do the research and edits yourself that can improve this project's coverage of universalism. Thank you for posting here, though, as this is absolutely the correct channel to go through. Other editors might give these pages the once-over and disagree with my conclusions. I am glad you brought this up. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    DEFAULTSORT for churches - by location, or not?[edit]

    There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#DEFAULTSORT for churches which may be of interest. PamD 18:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    How to remove myself from automatically recieving the newsletter?[edit]

    Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Members says that there's an option to unsubscribe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach but I don't see anything. My best guess is that it's been a while since that wikiproject page was updated. But I'm not really interested with Christianity at large, I have more of an interest in Jehovah's Witnesses because I was raised as one. I am also interested in the LDS, catholicism and anglicanism to some extent, but those are minor interests and I'm still not really interested in automatically recieving a newsletter for this. I was wondering how I can remove myself from that list? Clovermoss (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you received a newsletter recently? As far as I know, we haven't published a new one since 2020. Ltwin (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But to answer your question, if you Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/Newsletter and scroll to the bottom there is an option for you to unsubscribe. Ltwin (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ltwin: Thank you. No, I haven't recieved a newsletter. Thanks for clarifying though, I missed the tiny unsubscribe button near the bottom. It doesn't seem like I'm on the list to begin with so it seems like there's no point in worrying about any of this. Clovermoss (talk) 04:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge discussion Orthodox Anglican Church ––> Orthodox Anglican Communion[edit]

    There is a merge discussion open at Talk:Orthodox Anglican Communion#Merge discussion for merging these two related entities. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Praedicate evangelium and Holy See departments categories[edit]

    What do you think should be done with the categories with names of congregations and the likes, which had their nameschanged, e.g. Category:Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? Should they be moved, or should new categories with the new names be created?
    @Dcheney, Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator, Pbritti, Rutsq, and Jdcompguy:. Veverve (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd rename the category - the elements in the list still apply. (For those of us familiar with the matter, it will be hard to break the "CDF" nickname that we've all used for so many years!) Dcheney (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that renaming the category is the best route. But also add a little explanatory text st the top of the category page, following the text that says "The main article for this category is..." Rutsq (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Infobox church[edit]

    Editor Vesuvio14 asks for input on a new parameter for {{Infobox church}} and has opened a discussion at Template talk:Infobox church#Addition of ecclesiastical region. Please come and give your thoughts on the matter. Your input is welcome! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 11:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    #ChurchToo[edit]

    I saw this term for the first time in a newspaper article about Sexual abuse cases in Southern Baptist churches. I'm guessing it is a notable concept but it doesn't have a Wikipedia article or even a redirect. I found this source for a basic definition.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll take a look. Do not have time for article creation right now, but will most certainly ping back if I can find enough reliable sources for a more-than-stub article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have time either. I was thinking about creating a stub if I could so we would have something, but there are higher expectations.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like it's notable enough. I think we could dovetail it into other articles, but the concept seems to span both mainline and other Protestant denoms (not seeing much about it in relation to Catholic abuse). I'll make the stub tonight (U.S. time). Working towards autopatrolled status, anyway. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I started User:Vchimpanzee/ChurchToo but all that really does is show how the term originated. The second article I used as a source has several examples of pastors or men telling women to just "submit to their husbands" or otherwise follow what they believe the Bible says. The first source shows it's far more than that, and it's not just women.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Should the Dicastery for Evangelization and the Dicastery for Culture and Education have their own separate articles?[edit]

    Today, the reforms of Praedicate evangelium are taking effect.
    This raises a question: since the the Dicastery for Evangelization, and the Dicastery for Culture and Education, are created by a merger of previous departments (Dicastery for Evangelization through the merger of the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization and the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples; Dicastery for Culture and Education through the merger of the Pontifical Council for Culture with the Congregation for Catholic Education). Should they have their own page or should we rename one of the merged departments to the new name? Veverve (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dcheney and Jdcompguy: what do you think? Veverve (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pbritti: Veverve (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd suggest new articles for these new dicasteries. Just neater overall. Rutsq (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Second the new article route with obvious linking in predecessor org ledes. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to agree with the new article route as well.
    My only hesitation is that I suspect people and sources will carry over the nickname "Prop/Propaganda Fide" to the new "Dicastery for Evangelization." The current Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples page contains the history for the even earlier iteration from which the nickname is derived. Not sure how redirects/disambiguation will work if this is the case. Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples could redirect to the new instance, while the content of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples article could be moved to Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples (1622-2022).
    The thing is, the whole "established since 1622", the continuity of the different iterations for both the Dicastery for Evangelization and the Dicastery for Culture, bothers me a bit. The crux is: is it really the very same department (institution) which has existed since 400 years or whatever under different names, or is it historiography? Veverve (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with a new article for these two new dicasteries. In the case of Evangelization, it is split into two "sections" - one with its roots in the former Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples and the other section based on the much newer Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization. So the new article could refer to the two preceding entities in the text describing those. Dcheney (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Dicastery for Culture and Education has been created. And I have personally created Dicastery for Evangelization since the opinion here was unanimous. Veverve (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I state this here for the records. Another user, Norm1979, supported this decision and explained their train of thought at the discussion held at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Praedicate Evangelium - what to do with merging dicasteries?. Veverve (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed my name being pinged (but thank you for doing so Veverve), and it looks like a decision has been made, but I would have renamed Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples (CEP) to Dicastery for Evangelization (DE), and retained Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization (PCPNE) as a historical article. I do not understand the "merger" to be a joining of two equal departments, but rather, as the subsuming of PCPNE into the centuries-old Propaganda Fidei/CEP, which now bears the name "Dicastery for Evangelization." Dcheney asserted above that the DE has two sections—one for the CEP and one for the PCPNE—but based on my cursory understanding, this doesn't seem to be an accurate description. One section is for "evangelization in general" (much broader than "new evangelization") and the other is "first evangelization" (which is, in fact, the opposite concept of new evangelization: "first evangelization" refers to Christianizing new territory, whereas "new evangelization" refers to re-Christianizing old territory). Both of these sections seem to be angles of CEP's former work. In other words, the PCPNE seems to have been "merged out of existence," with its work being taken over as a subset of the DE's first section. It seems clear to me that DE is the new name for the CEP/Propaganda Fidei, so I would have moved the CEP article to DE accordingly. As for the second issue: because Dicastery for Culture and Education has two sections that, on the other hand, neatly correspond to its two merged dicasteries—with the merger therefore being treated as a joining of "equals"—creating a new article makes sense. Jdcompguy (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC on sorting churches[edit]

    Members of this project may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Request for Comment on sorting of UK churches in categories in English Wikipedia PamD 06:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD for Southern Episcopal Church[edit]

    Please take a look at this deletion discussion regarding the Southern Episcopal Church. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Throwing up the batsignal for some usuals: @Ltwin, StAnselm, Dcheney, and Jdcompguy: Thanks. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD for Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church[edit]

    Please participate in this AfD discussion regarding the Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Ascension article request[edit]

    Hi editors, my name is KC and I work for Ascension. I've been trying to make some updates to the Ascension article and I've been looking for assistance at the various WikiProjects that the article is associated with but so far have had no luck. I'm hoping someone here might be interested as Ascension is the largest Catholic health system in the world. I'd love to start a dialogue on my latest request. I've got a COI so I won't make any changes but I hope I can offer some sources and wording suggestions. Please let me know what you think! KC at Ascension (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Does anyone know sociology?[edit]

    I have an article Christianization of the Roman Empire as diffusion of innovation up for GAN. It has enough sociology in it that I listed it in the sociology category instead of in religion or history. I would deeply appreciate anyone who was willing to take a look at it, and would especially appreciate a reviewer! Thank you all for what you do here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Indian Christianity articles[edit]

    Hi, everyone. Sorry to bother again so soon. Following a series of disruptive IP and sock accounts on key Indian Christianity articles over the last year, can we get some volunteers to monitor those pages? I've been playing wack-a-mole for the last three months and it's getting tiring. Can anyone tag in to at least cover some of pages? I can provide more details as the problems and tasks involved to editors who are interested. Can't offer any reward except a few more AfD discussions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed merge at Talk:Sexual orientation change efforts[edit]

    I have proposed merging the article Sexual orientation change efforts, an article of interest to this WikiProject, into Conversion therapy.

    You are invited join the discussion at Talk:Sexual orientation change efforts § Proposed merge to Conversion therapy. Regards, RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 17:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Filipino Cardinals - is it really useful and encyclopedic?[edit]

    I wonder if the article Filipino Cardinals is really useful and encyclopedic. We do not have Belgian Cardinals, US Cardinals, Italian Cardinals, etc. It seems to be redundant with categories such as Category:Italian cardinals. @Pbritti, Jdcompguy, and Ltwin:. Veverve (talk) 06:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    We do have similar lists for other countries (see Category:Lists of cardinals by country), and category redundancy isn't a problem in itself (see WP:NOTDUPE). Jdcompguy (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I need help - Draft:Seventh Day Baptist World Federation[edit]

    Hi, I have been trying to create a Seventh Day Baptist World Federation article for months. However, 4 reviewers have already refused. The biggest problem is with references. They asked me for secondary sources, after a lot of research I got it, but the last reviewer didn't find it enough and still classified the article as not suitable for Wikipedia. I don't know what else to do. I have no connection with this federation, I'm just a member of the church who saw the lack of an English Wikipedia article about this federation that greatly influences Sabbathkeeping Baptists and could bring greater understanding of this church to other members of other churches. To further complicate matters, English is not my native language and I have difficulty with that. Who can help me by guiding or editing the draft I will be very grateful.

    I was going to offer to help, but I see this draft has been deleted, and this request is unsigned, so I have no way of pinging you and letting you know. If you ever check back here, you can ping me. The draft is retrievable if you are still interested. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jenhawk777: The history of this talk page shows this diff. @RenanIL96: Here's your offer of help. PamD 06:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pam Thank you so much! I have now contacted them on their talk page. They may now longer have time - or interest - as their user page says they are currently in grad school, but at least we are trying. We'll see what they say. Thanx again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jenhawk777: They were actively editing 10 days ago - and I read their user page as meaning they're doing their grad school in the "university of life" - so let's hope they take up your offer. Remember that "Page history" of a talk page, and "Contributions history" of a user, shed useful light on activities! PamD 07:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why, but I almost never check those! Should have! Glad someone is awake! Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jenhawk777 I visited the term "Seventh Day Baptist World Federation" @ Google scholar and google books, google books searches seem more promising.
    But rather than creating draft again, choice is no doubt yours , you may contemplate whether it would be preferable to create and redirect Seventh Day Baptist World Federation to Seventh Day Baptists#Seventh Day Baptist World Federation expand the section first and then split.
    Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much for this. It looks like part of the help they need is in knowing how to work on WP, and I appreciate the suggestion of making the article a section. That's probably a good idea. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No reply so far. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Jenhawk777, Sorry, I was absent from Wikipedia these days, I replied to one of your messages in private. Thank you immensely for your help, I also thank @PamD. RenanIL96 (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    A Song for Simeon Featured article review[edit]

    I have nominated A Song for Simeon for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Samuel Merrill Woodbridge Featured article review[edit]

    I have nominated Samuel Merrill Woodbridge for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Religious debates over the Harry Potter series Featured article review[edit]

    I have nominated Religious debates over the Harry Potter series for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Help close two AfDs[edit]

    Hey gang! Two long-running AfDs I initiated are still getting resisted without further comment. Anyone who hasn't given their thoughts on AfD/Autobiography of Anthony Mary Claret‎ or AfD/Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church is encouraged to do so! ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Religious education in Kerala[edit]

    I started the article Religious education in Kerala with hope like Islamic education I will get some citations for Christian religious education in Kerala being involved in organized educational activity but practically finding bit difficult to get citations; Idk if I am missing something in my searches. Requesting help for bibliographic info for religious education other than Islam. Religious education in Kerala


    Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Christian denomination tree[edit]

    Hi team,

    I am interested in modifying the Template:Christian denomination tree. I had a discussion with a user named Koavf two years ago about this topic. At the time, he redirected me to this project/team. I would like to revisit the topic now, and I would like the input of more experienced and knowledgeable editors.

    The chart does not show Wesleyanism/Arminism/Methodism - a Protestant branch that is globally widely spread and holds great influence theologically. I will make the change from Anabaptists to Methodist myself. Methodist theology inspired/influenced the development Holiness movement which has greatly influenced the Evangelical movement in Western Christianity. Ideally, a revised chart would show that Methodism as a derivative of Anglicanism.

    Also, I believe that it is questionable to not include the Pentecostals if one were to show the lineage/development of Christian theological though. This is important as there is a direct Pentecostal influence on the Charismatic movement and by extension the Evangelical movement which heavily draws upon if not outright embraces the Charismatic movement. A Christian denomination tree based upon theological influence should include the Pentecostals in some manner. Leiwang7 (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    2022 visit by Pope Francis to Canada[edit]

    Can this get some expansion? Peter Ormond 💬 20:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC on the "Implications for polygamy legalization" section of the Respect for Marriage Act article[edit]

    There is currently an RfC on the "Implications for polygamy legalization" section at Talk:Respect for Marriage Act#RfC concerning polygamy.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Were Mary and Martha also the sisters of Lazarus?[edit]

    I need help with the disambiguation page. Discussion here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Religious education in Kerala[edit]

    I started the article Religious education in Kerala with hope like Islamic education I will get some citations for Christian religious education in Kerala being involved in organized educational activity but practically finding bit difficult to get citations; Idk if I am missing something in my searches.

    Islamic education in Kerala has been already reasonably covered in the article. Requesting help for bibliographic info and article expansion for religious education other than Islam including Christian religious education in Kerala.

    Thanks and warm regards

    Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Respect for Marriage Act, polygamy, & WP:AN[edit]

    There is currently a discussion which you might want to participate in at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Epiphyllumlover additions of polygamist information, which especially concerns the Respect for Marriage Act and articles relating to it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Good article reassessment for Project 86[edit]

    Project 86 has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 02:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement![edit]

    Hello,
    Please note that Christmas in Russia, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
    Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:De Coelesti Hierarchia#Requested move 15 August 2022[edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:De Coelesti Hierarchia#Requested move 15 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Unreferenced stubs[edit]

    Hi all, hope everyone is ok and well.

    I’ve been going through the United Kingdom christian monastery stubs, and have noticed that there are a few of unreferenced one-lined stubs in there. I’ve been trying my best to tag as many as possible, and also to add these to my watchlist, but I’m still going through tagging them as unreferenced at the moment to get a scope of how many of these unreferenced stubs there are.

    I’d appreciate if I could get some help with these unreferenced stubs that seem to have gone under the radar slightly. Some of these within the Dorest area have been improved and expanded, or redirected after being tagged.

    Some of the stubs within this category are fine with references, but something needs to be done about those that are not. It’s going to take a while to sort all of these stubs out, so I’d appreciate all the help that users may like to give. Likewise, I don’t want to pressure anyone into thinking they must help. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    In hand - I like monasteries. Ingratis (talk) 10:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Are they categorized? That would help in finding them. Secondly, do these go back to 2006 or before? In those days, verifiability requirements were pretty lax, and maybe a lot of them are notable and worth working on. If they are recent, they should never have made it through WP:AFC, and if experienced editors are releasing them that way, there is a problem. Ingratis, thanks for stepping up. Mathglot (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fats40boy11 is referring specifically to UK monastery stubs created by a mass creator of unreferenced stubs (not only on monasteries), who was blocked in 2010. So there is no AFC problem! Most of his/her monastery stubs have already been referenced/expanded over the course of the years. The ones remaining are either pretty obscure or have titles slightly out of focus. They are nearly all turning out to be notable, in which case, I'm adding refs, or if not, are redirectable. As I say, I like monasteries. Ingratis (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    AFD[edit]

    I'm not sure if this AFD will be of any interest but it wasn't put through any deletion sorting so I thought I'd alert you all: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children of Eber. The article is unsourced and needs a lot of work and so far, opinion on the AFD is mixed. Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    FAR for Swedish emigration to the United States[edit]

    User:Buidhe has nominated Swedish emigration to the United States for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    FAR for Vampire[edit]

    I have nominated Vampire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Top-level Importance of Hegel page?[edit]

    I think this assessment is either a mistake or an act of vandalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Concur that it's inflated; suggest a downgrade to "High". ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Odd edits[edit]

    What do you think about Special:Contributions/HIPPOCLIDES? tgeorgescu (talk) 07:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It's interesting that the editor is changing birth and death dates in the infoboxes that have no support in the articles themselves. That is, neither the original dates nor the changed ones have any reliable sources. If tradition has handed down any dates or ages at the time of death, then that information should be included in the articles; otherwise, the infobox should show only approximate dates. Indyguy (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Assistance needed for Draft:Joint Commission Of The Theological Dialogue Between The Orthodox Church And The Oriental Orthodox Churches[edit]

    I need some help expanding the Unofficial Meetings and Official Dialogues section of this draft page.

    Also, I'm certain the references for the four official dialogues have a primary source, however I can only seem to find secondary sources online. Perhaps the original is offline and/or in Greek? Contagious Owl (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Contagious Owl: I'll see what I can do but I have a concern that, outside of a few blogs and that PAGE source you relied heavily on, there isn't a formal body with that name. Maybe flesh that out a bit with any sources you may have? I'll check my ecumenical reference texts for anything that isn't already included. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement![edit]

    Hello,
    Please note that Convent, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
    Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[reply]

    Proposed deletion of Wes Nolden[edit]

    Notice

    The article Wes Nolden has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

    In its 13.86 years on the site, this article has had—at best— two reliable sources previously, and those were oft subject to blanking by SPAs. With this re-write, only thee sources presented themselves, and the weightiest one is dubious. This has failed the notability guideline for longer than some productive editors have been alive, and even now doesn't meet muster.

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

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

    Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Fourthords: I've lodged an oppose on the PROD on WP:BISHOP grounds following a semi-productive BEFORE search. I think an AfD might still be appropriate, but I'll be in the weak keep camp. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Crisis pregnancy center has an RFC[edit]

    Crisis pregnancy center has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Please remember to adhere to WP:NPOV standards. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see the RFC? –Zfish118⋉talk
    Link has been fixed. Good eye. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Joanik Basilovich[edit]

    Hello, WikiProject,

    I came across this draft as I was looking at expiring draft articles and I postponed deletion for another six months because it seems like it might be of interest to someone. It is supposedly translated from the Russian Wikipedia and it currently doesn't have sources so it's not an easy fix-up. I posted notices about it at the WikiProjects for Russia and Eastern Orthodoxy but they appear to be inactive so I thought I'd try here. It's kind of a long shot but maybe we have some religious history buffs who'd be willing to do a little research. Thank you! Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for postponing. I'll take it on as I should have the relevant sourcing to bring this article to a state worth review. I will have time to actually do so this weekend. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: It's been two weeks and even historians in the church this guy was a part of couldn't find anything. I think we can delete. Thanks for the hold. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for review[edit]

    I've just written Guns into Plowshares, and it was approved and moved into the mainspace last night. Could someone do an assessment for this project, and let me know if there's anything in particular you think needs to be done to bring it to B class? (I know it needs a picture; I'll get one next time I'm in the area.) Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdhamilton (talk • contribs) 13:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: this has been done! Thanks. Brian (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakalomattam family[edit]

    As this family has ties to Christian history, editors may wish to comment here. All opinions are welcome.4meter4 (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Added keep vote. Brian (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Featured Article Save Award for Josquin des Prez[edit]

    There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Josquin des Prez/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    SSPX-affiliated religious orders: are they "Benedictine" etc., or an imitation?[edit]

    I have had a disagreement on whether the SSPX-affiliated religious orders can be called "Dominican", "Benedictine", etc. My opinion is that they are not, since they are not part of the Dominican order, Benedictine order, etc. since the SSPX is outside of the Catholic Church.

    @BohumilzBiliny: has stated that They are Benedictines, because they live under the Rule.

    What do you say? Veverve (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Most religious orders adhere to some version of an ancient Rule. If this person says that SSPX lives by the Benedictine rule then they probably do. They live by whatever Rule was chartered for them originally when Rome approved their erection. SSPX is not "Benedictine" because they have a separate charism and do not live as a Benedictine family, but they live daily life according to that tradition. SSPX is not monastic, do not typically live in communities large enough to be considered monastic, and so they would necessarily need to modify that monastic Benedictine rule to their unique circumstances. Elizium23 (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And just because an order is outside the Catholic Church does not mean they cease to be such-and-such. I know of plenty of Dominicans who are outside the Church because of LGBT issues, women's ordination, etc. They live as Dominicans and self-identify as such; they are every bit as Dominican as the Catholic ones except without communion. Elizium23 (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To amplify what Elizium said: there's a long history of referring to orders by their spiritual tradition/rule regardless of whether or not they are part of the church said tradition or rule originated in. For example, the Church of England has maintained a revived Benedictine order for some time and there's a history of Benedictine monasticism in Eastern Orthodoxy. As such, any SSPX-affiliated body identified as "Benedictine" in reliable sources is for our purposes Benedictine. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but best to link it to Rule of Saint Benedict, not Benedictine, which says it is about the Catholic order, though with a long hatnote on others. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Johnbod. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pbritti: any SSPX-affiliated body identified as "Benedictine" in reliable sources is for our purposes Benedictine: the problem is that all the sources used in this article are primary sources from the SSPX itself. Veverve (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are also variations among the Anglicans and other branches of Christianity, see, for example: Order of St Benedict (Anglican). Dcheney (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion moved to article talk page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Philippine Independent Church - a debate on unsourced and FICTREFed content[edit]

    From what I understand, there has been a debate at Talk:Philippine Independent Church#Violating WP:BURDEN, adding FICTREFs, OR, as to whether or not the unsourced content and FICTREFs present in the article should be kept. Feel free to come and give your opinion. Veverve (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging the regulars: @Pbritti, Dcheney, Johnbod, and Elizium23:. Veverve (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggested new articles (how to?)[edit]

    Just went round and round searching for the article on Status confessionis here and not finding it. But something so important *must* have an article? After googling a bit and reading various linked pages, up pops Status confessionis, but at German wikipedia. But note: no links to English wikipedia from there, it is found only at de/da/it. Isn't this rather rare, not having an article here that exists elsewhere? Shenme (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Shenme: I think Reformed confessions of faith us meant to encompass this topic; feel free to update and expand that article so that we can connect it with the German and Italian articles. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:CHOPSY as Anti-Christian conspiracy[edit]

    A long-standing editor stated at WP:ANI that WP:CHOPSY is an Anti-Christian WP:CABAL.

    I get attacked by both sides, rather vigorously, and my personal view of it is that I'm not actually against Christianity at all, I'm against certain forms of fundamentalism and, and, so virtually everything I say in my book are things that Christian scholars of the New Testament readily agree with, it's just that they are not hard-core evangelicals who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. If you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible then I suppose I'd be the enemy, but there are lot of Christian forms of belief that have nothing to do with inerrancy.

    — Bart Ehrman, Bart Ehrman vs Tim McGrew - Round 1 at YouTube

    Is CHOPSY anti-inerrancy? Definitely. Is CHOPSY anti-fundamentalism? Definitely. Is CHOPSY Anti-Christian? Well, if you believe in biblical inerrancy, it is, otherwise the claim is risible. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure it's productive to put CHOPSY on trial here, per se, but perhaps more so to posit whether tgeorgescu holds to the Sola CHOPSY heresy that no other forms of Biblical scholarship should be accepted on Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense, I don't support Sola CHOPSY. As it is written large upon my talk page, The recipe for getting past my "theological" objections is quite simple: don't challenge WP:RS/AC (if there happens to be one) and use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV for evangelical/traditionalist positions. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Links to disambiguation page Apostolic Church[edit]

    Could you help to fix the links to the disambiguation page Apostolic Church? This list shows 85 articles with links to Apostolic Church which should probably be linked to more specific articles, but I am not expert enough to know which.— Rod talk 11:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, all the incoming links are to Apostolic Church (denomination), which was recently moved to Apostolic Church (1911 denomination), so most of the disambiguation should be to that. StAnselm (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The other issue is the new name of the page: it says Apostolic Church (1911 denomination) but it was really founded in 1916. StAnselm (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for info & thanks to all those who have already dealt with some of these.— Rod talk 17:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    FAR for Joseph W. Tkach[edit]

    User:Buidhe has nominated Joseph W. Tkach for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism#Requested move 24 November 2022[edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism#Requested move 24 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Requested move 18 December 2022[edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Requested move 18 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism#Requested move 24 December 2022[edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism#Requested move 24 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. –Zfish118⋉talk 18:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Merger discussion for West Syriac liturgical rites[edit]

    An article that you have been involved in editing—West Syriac liturgical rites—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Pbritti (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Catholic News Service is dead; no redirect[edit]

    @Pbritti, Elizium23, Zfish118, Dcheney, Johnbod, and Ad Orientem: The website Catholic News Service is dead since yesterday, due do a decision of the USCCB taken months priors. The website also covered news related to Christianity in general, as long as it was in connection with the Catholic Church. All the links to CNS articles currently link to 404 errors. A new website, OSV News, currently has Catholic News Service's former URL. See this statement.

    In a few days, once the situation is clearer, and if the 404 errors remain, I think all Catholic News Service links added prior to 30 December 2022 should be marked as dead and archive URLs be added. A bot request should be made for it to be done. What do you say? Veverve (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah pretty clear a bot request is appropriate if you can get that to work. A shame, but fortunately a ton was archived pre-404ing. A shame the USCCB has retired so many of its services in the last two years. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the above (send in the bots) - sad they killed off the old content so quickly. Dcheney (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    agree Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Veverve (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Angels in Christianity - SOS[edit]

    I've just proposed a move of Christian angelology to Angels in Christianity. This would conform with the pattern set by Angels in Judaism and Angels in Islam, and would also in general better meet Wikipedia's criteria for naming articles. Please feel free to contribute to this discussion, though I can't imagine this would be a controversial move.

    But on a larger level, this article is quite bad. It was originally titled "Christian angelic hierarchy", and concerned itself solely with the Pseudo-Dionysian hierarchy popular in Medieval Latin Christianity, and that is mostly what the article still is, despite the name change. More information about the theology, doctrines, and spirituality surrounding angels in Christianity would be much appreciated, especially information not relating to Pseudo-Dionysius.

    If you think you can contribute at all to this article, please do so, it's in a pretty atrocious state at the moment. Garnet Moss (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Garnet Moss: I have made some changes to make the article more general, but I have not added any information. Veverve (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's better than what was there, but with all due respect I still think this structure places way too much emphasis on the Pseudo-Dionysian hierarchy, which is completely irrelevant to all Protestants and (imo) not taken seriously by most modern Catholics/Orthodox. I think the whole Pseudo-Dionysian hierarchy should be under a single primary heading, and room allotted for other understandings of angels in Christianity. User Yeshua's proposed structure on the talk page would be a good basis, and I'm happy to implement it if there's no objections. In the meanwhile I guess I'll do some reading about Protestant views of angels. Garnet Moss (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    A very interesting video[edit]

    I stumbled upon this video from Ready to Harvest which I found interesting. It mentions numerous Wikipedia information and provides some valid criticism on how Wikipedia presents denominations, so I think it can be helpful to post it here. Feel free to share your thoughts on it! Veverve (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If it uses WP as a source (I've not watched the video fully), then that would be WP:CIRCULAR so bears no meaning here as a reference. Perhaps WP:YOUTUBE might also be helpful here. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not use it as a source, it criticises some aspects of it. It is not to be used as a reference, but rather as a food for thoughts for us users. Veverve (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support a campaign to remove all "denominational flowcharts" from Wikipedia articles, they're just more misleading than helpful to laypeople. At most, it should be restricted to those churches which maintain ecclesiologies of apostolic succession. Garnet Moss (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly fascinating, but fundamentally there's little that can be done in the infoboxes. A favorite example that comes to my mind is the United Methodists, which is essentially just a continuation of the Methodist Episcopal Church with Southern Methodist Episcopal and some others tossed in. Even though we trace the history back to the origin of these earlier groups, the infobox somewhat necessarily lists the more recent unification date. Infoboxes, while useful, aren't perfect. ~ 17:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbritti (talk • contribs) 17:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible proposed deletion of article about evangelical christian family in Ireland[edit]

    I have a concern about an article created in August 2022 about a evangelical Christian family in Ireland that i believe (from what i read of it) was created to doxx and intimidate members of the family due to their religious views and which its creation date coincided with the beginning date of a court case that is still curently ongoing. The article in question is Burke family (Castlebar) . I believe, but I am not too sure, that the article violates a number of wiki policies but particularly Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons in the sections of WP:BLPGOSSIP , WP:AVOIDVICTIM , WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE , WP:BLP1E , and WP:BLPNAME (for some of the family named in the article). I believe this article is suitable for deletion according to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people but I am not sure how to go about this. I would be grateful if someone can review the article and also review its talk page where a dispute arose about the inclusion of a source from a newspaper article that has since been retracted and removed from the internet by the media agency but which an archival copy appears from internet archive. 79.154.24.42 (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    A preliminary check suggests the article's existence is ok, but I'll look into the concerns about any policy violations. This is the correct place to ask for input, but if you haven't already, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography is another good place to ask for input. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your reply. I guess one of the other things I believe this article is designed to intimidate and therefore violating wiki policies is that it names all the family members, even those that have have not been involved in actions listed in media reports. I don't see any justification for this. Surely if the article is about various protests by various members of the family, then why involve and list family members that have not been involved. Surely the article should just list those that their sources list and make reference to the actions as listed in their said sources. All the same thank you for responding and agreeing to look into concerns about plolicy violations. 79.154.24.42 (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed some names from the lede as they appear to not have any major involvement in most of the notable events associated with the family. While the article is atypical in structure, it seems to be in alignment with both WP:BLP and WP:RS standards. The policies and guidelines mentioned in the above comments seem to not apply, but I welcome the IP editor to raise concerns with specific passages and sources here, on the article's talk page, and at WP:TEAHOUSE. If they want the best response, the IP editor is encouraged to use direct quotes from the article with details of what changes might be made. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest that's bad advice, and if the editor has problems with specific passages and sources, they discuss them on the article's talk page rather than WP:FORUMSHOPPING. (The original post in this section has been added to no less than seven different noticeboards!) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is a BLP violation, an obscure talkpage may not get any attention. Notifying other boards of that there are specific concerns raised on the talkpage would be appropriate. –Zfish118⋉talk 16:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    RM in progress for Greek Orthodox Church[edit]

    Hello! There is currently a RM at Talk:Greek Orthodox Church (disambiguation)#Requested move 20 January 2023 about whether to turn Greek Orthodox Church into a DAB or not. Feel free to come and give your opinion. Veverve (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary[edit]

    Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
    year-end 2022 summary

    Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

    Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

    • 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
    • 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
    • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

    Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

    Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

    Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles
    All received a Million Award

    But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

    • Biology
    • Physics and astronomy
    • Warfare
    • Video gaming

    and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

    • Literature and theatre
    • Engineering and technology
    • Religion, mysticism and mythology
    • Media
    • Geology and geophysics

    ... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

    FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
    FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
    Topic area Delisted Kept Total
    Reviewed     		Ratio
    Kept to
    Delisted
    (overall 0.62)     		Remaining to review
    for
    2004–7 promotions
    Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19
    Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67
    Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2
    Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7
    Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
    Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8
    Education 22 1 23 0.05 3
    Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5
    Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
    Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22
    Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
    Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5
    Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
    History 27 14 41 0.52 38
    Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3
    Law 11 1 12 0.09 3
    Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24
    Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
    Media 14 10 24 0.71 40
    Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31
    Music 27 8 35 0.30 55
    Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2
    Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24
    Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9
    Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
    Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44
    Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39
    Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11
    Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23
    Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31
    Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536

    Noting some minor differences in tallies:

    • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
    • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

    But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

    Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

    • Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
    • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
    • Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
    • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
    • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

    More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

    FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject[edit]

    If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Asser
    2. Cardinal-nephew
    3. Ganesha
    4. Henry (bishop of Finland)
    5. Jocelin of Glasgow
    6. John Knox
    7. The Age of Reason

    New AfD: Material heresy[edit]

    Hello. I have just created an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Material heresy (2nd nomination). Feel free to come and give your opinion! Veverve (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD for Thomistic sacramental theology[edit]

    Hello!

    I have opened a new AfD. Please feel free to come and give your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomistic sacramental theology. Veverve (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    In need of feedback for Heresy in the Catholic Church[edit]

    Hello. Over the past few days, I have worked on Heresy in the Catholic Church. Could you give me their feedback on the article in its current state? Also, feel free to contribute if you feel like it.

    Pinging the regulars: @Zfish118, Johnbod, StAnselm, Dcheney, and Ad Orientem:. Veverve (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliability of Catholic Culture[edit]

    Editor @Horse Eye's Back: has stated that the website Catholic Culture along with everything hosted on it (be it electronic hosting of material already published somewhere else, or publications by Catholic Culture) are to be removed from Wikipedia, as the user claims this website is not a reliable source. The user has already begun removing the sources from the website (from 22:43, 26 January 2023 to 22:57, 26 January 2023).

    I oppose such a jugement on Catholic Culture (CC). From experience, yes they are reliable; and they host electronic versions of previously published documents (journal papers, dictionary entries) which cannot be found anywhere else. The reproduction on CC appears to be faithful (e.g. compare this entry with its original paper publication p. 104).

    Pinging the regulars: @Zfish118, Johnbod, StAnselm, Dcheney, Ad Orientem, Pbritti, and Ltwin: Veverve (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not the place to have the discussion. That would be the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for notifying me of this. Debate moved to: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of the Catholic Culture website. Veverve (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge Proposal - Invincible ignorance[edit]

    I created a merge proposal at Talk:Invincible ignorance (Catholic theology), proposing to merge in Invincible error. It is suffering from a lack of participation, so would be grateful if anyone interested could take a look. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I obviously hope this takes, @Sirfurboy, but in any case I'll try to make time sometime soon to clean up both articles! —Brian (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Evangelical Congregational Church needs an article[edit]

    Right now Evangelical Congregational Church redirects to Evangelical Association, the historic Albright Brethren German Methodist predecessor of the ECC. But the ECC is an active church with hundreds of congregations that is a direct continuation of the United Evangelical Church split which did not reunite with the larger body (into the Evangelical Church, which itself had subsequent splits and merges with the larger body ending up in the UMC).

    This church needs an article, it is not a dead branch of the Evangelical Association but a vital regional church. Q4832554 (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Q4832554: I'll look into it. Do you mind perhaps forwarding some independent reliable sourcing on the denomination? Generally, a requests for an article to be created are expedited if the request is accompanies with supporting information. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pbritti: I'm an anonymous throwaway account not a Wikipedian.
    https://eccenter.com/
    https://bing.com/?q=%22evangelical+congregational+church%22
    https://www.newspapers.com/search/?query=%22evangelical%20congregational%20church%22 (199,345 matches)
    https://archive.org/details/historyofevangel0000wils/
    https://www.google.com/maps/search/%22evangelical+congregational%22/@40.4316302,-76.6282399,10z/
    Q4832554 (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Q4832554: Unfortunately, the links above are either search results (which we can not reference) or not independent sources. Please feel welcome to search for additional sources from independent bodies/groups that can help us establish notability. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pbritti: That was plenty to point you in the right direction. I don't intend to research and write this article myself. You seem to be lawyering the notability of a major Methodist denomination, and I have no intention to engage with that silliness.
    Here's some more random independent sources, if 200,000 newspapers wasn't enough:
    There are plenty more sources that can easily be found, and that's already much more than Evangelical Association has as far as independent sources. 21:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC) Q4832554 (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    God-man (Christianity): this article exists[edit]

    In my journey across Wikipedia, I found the article God-man (Christianity).

    The article is not used in many places on Wikipedia, and I suspect few know of its existence. Therefore, I bring this article to your attention, in case you want to improve its presence on Wikipedia by including it in other WP articles (maybe at Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament if it fits). Veverve (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity/Noticeboard/Archive_12&oldid=1158603732"