Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Swiss evangelicals

{{ping|Horse Eye's Back|Red-tailed hawk}} This is related to #Reliability of Catholic Culture.

• [https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32406 This entry] is very different from its version in the original source.
• [https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36835 This other entry] is is very different from its version in the original source at the end.

:The end of the entry on the printed material reads: "Below this level are many grades of certainty, ranging from common teaching (sententia communis), when Catholic theologians responsive to the Church's authority agree on some position, to tolerated opinions that are weakly founded but are tolerated by the Church". On CC, it reads: "Below this level are many graces of certainty, ranging from common teaching (sententia communis), when Catholic theologians responsive to the Church's authority agree on some historical event as having occurred through the miraculous intervention of God".

This makes me think about reconsideing CC's reliability, and I now have some slight doubt about the fact CC is reproducing faithfully the entries. Maybe, as {{ping|Caeciliusinhorto-public|Caeciliusinhorto}} had pointed out at the RSN discussion, the entries are not reproductions but own derivative work from CC. Veverve (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

:The first entry looks the same to me, but maybe I wasn't eagle-eyed enough to spot any differences. Have there been any revisions in the original source? — Archer1234 (t·c) 12:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

::{{ping|Archer1234}}

::CC:

::{{talk quote block|Doctrinal judgments of the church by which she stigmatizes certain teachings detrimental to faith or morals. The most severe censure is to have a proposition condemned as "heretical." Other censures include, "suspect of heresy, erroneous, scandalous, seditious, harmful to Christian morals, blasphemous."}}

::vs

::Original:

::{{talk quote block|A judgment of the Church that characterizes a proposition touching on Catholic faith or morals as contrary to faith or at least doubtful. In the history of the Church's teaching there have been theological censures. A heretical proposition is opposed to a revealed dogma; proximate to heresy is opposed to a truth commonly held to be revealed; erroneous is opposed to conclusions derived from revelation; false is opposed to dogmatic facts; temerarious deviates from the accepted teaching of the Church; badly expressed is subject to misunderstanding; captious is reprehensible because of its intentional ambiguity; and scandalous because it gives rise to error among the faithful.}} Veverve (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

:::That appears to be the definition of {{tq|THEOLOGICAL CENSURE}} versus {{tq|CENSURE, THEOLOGICAL}}. — Archer1234 (t·c) 13:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

::::You are right. I now see that the proper entry on CC is [https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36832 here]. This entry on CC is the exact same as in the original.

::::But what about the discrepancy in the first entry? Veverve (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

:::::I see the difference for {{tq|THEOLOGICAL NOTES}}, which is why I asked if there has been an update to the original source. {{em|Eternal Life}} published a paperback version in 2000 ([https://www.amazon.com/modern-catholic-dictionary-john-hardon/dp/096729892x Amazon link]). Is it possible that the 2000 edition is revised or is it just an exact paperback copy of the edition on Internet Archive, which was published in 1980? — Archer1234 (t·c) 14:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

::::::Theological Notes on CC appears to have a transcription error, where the last few sentences of "Theological Notes" got cut off, and the first first lines of "Theological Truth" got cut off, and the two entries merged. See Page 537 of the 1980's dictionary [https://ibb.co/N6sVQ36 here]. I don't think this is indicative of CC being derivative; for instance, "Theological Truth", the rather short next entry from the 1980's copy, is missing from the CC index, showing that these lines from each entry being inadvertently deleted when coping into the web format to be the most likely cause of the omission. –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Due to this AfD, an article is to be merged into Eastern Orthodox Church. However, I do not know where the content of the AfDed article should be put (in which section).

Could anyone give their opinion? Veverve (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

:Surprised there's not much of a spirituality or monastic section; I'd throw this stuff under "Christian life". ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Sanctus Real has been nominated for a 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 02:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 March 11#Template:Infallible declarations. Feel free to come and give your opinion. Veverve (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Your comments and input on proposed changes to the lead section of the Psalms article would be appreciated at Talk:Psalms#Proposed_changes_to_the_Lead.

--Chefallen (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Anyone know of any good sources for the Methodism article? — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

:{{re|Ixtal}} A great first place to look would be the Very Short Introductions volume on Methodism. I also know of useful resources on Methodist worship, such as Westerfield Tucker's wide body of work. Let me know if you have a particular portion of Methodism you want to zero-in on. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

::{{U|Pbritti}}, I thought the main article could improve its explanation of methodist theology so I'm mostly looking for sources on that, but I'll certainly take a look at the sources you've mentioned ^u^ — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 18:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

:::{{re|Ixtal}} Oh, exciting! Let me know if you want help; I have a very nebulous start to a semi-related topic awaiting a time when I have more than a couple days free. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

::::{{u|Pbritti}}, do you happen to know how I can find the VSI volume on methodism digitally? My university does not have access to it (unusually, as it does have access to other volumes) and I'm struggling to find a way to access it through the Wikipedia Library. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 12:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

:::::{{re|Ixtal}} Ah, darn, I don't. I own a physical copy from when I was in college. Is there any way you could do an interlibrary loan? If not, ping me on my talk page and I'll sort a solution. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Isaac of Nineveh#Requested move 27 March 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 09:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning pn.svg

Discussion: Talk:Sacredness#Merge Hallow and Talk:Sanctification#Merge Sanctification and Consecration

Comments are urgently requested at the aforementioned pages. There are merge discussions underway at the discussion links above which require informed comments from those familiar with the topics of these discussions. Your help at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. Felix QW (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

{{Collapse top|1=An IP's wall of text calling on WikiProject Christianity to establish a WikiProject tangential to their objectives. They can go to the Teahouse if they have more questions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)}}

If we can’t present an encyclopedia with 100% fact-based histories, can we at least establish a group for agnostic science? I think an equal time approach would help. Can we at least provide some equal time posts for topics presented as history that allows non-Christianity group members to get through the wall and write history parts to present facts wrt what little is know of the historicity of biblical persons without clouding that fact-based copy with citations from dedicated believers and outright dismissal of fact-based skeptics.

This is not just a take down request. Instead, i was searching Wikipedia for a historical review of the Bible that takes a step back and explores what we know about the history of the authors and what we know about the historical accuracy of the narratives. The historicity of Jesus topic fails to explore the historical reliability of narratives. I was hoping for a section by section evaluation of who the authors were and where they got their narrative (second hand storytelling, first hand letters written in the third person?, etc), and the record fails to do the type of parsing of unknowns and knows i was hoping to find.

Can someone point to the topic for debunking mystical storytelling in favor of hard science of archeology or neutral eyewitness historical viewpoints? If such a group doesn’t exist what would it take to create such a group? I believe the religious history accounts in Wikipedia are not very neutral at all and suffer from biases such as confirmation bias, argumentum ad populum, absolute bias, etc. It is difficult for science informed agnostics to sort out known facts from shamanistic oral narratives. The reliable neutral history of Christ falls back to one ambiguous Josephus line. So, the low biased history of biblical sourcing becomes important to evaluating biblical narratives. The topic for the historicity of Jesus does not seriously evaluate where the Bible came from or carefully evaluate the reliability of gospel narratives in terms factual eyewitness accounts or explore sourcing of suspected non-eyewitness narratives. This kind of evaluation would be useful to all readers, but instead Wikipedia presents a historicity wall of argumentum ad populum citations citing divinity scholars that seem to take the gospels as gospel as a default position when evaluating historical reliability of these narratives. If even a small team of a few made Wikipedia writers could take a step back and explore exactly what is known about Mathew and Paul, this expert fact-based review could aid everyone interested in history. Generally, I’ve been supportive of Wikipedia over the years as a good factual starting point, but when i see such things presented as history without picking through the historicity of the Bible, i tend to discard this section. While in the past some encyclopedias did present biblical narratives as history, the Wikipedia presentation of bible as history seems antiquated and makes me question if my accepting Wikipedia histories as a neutral viewpoint on other subjects should be reconsidered if zealots can control a narrative without rebuttals or at least exploring biblical source material origins in earnest. This topic is the #1 google link on historicity, so it should do better as a history topic to delve into the historical accuracy of source material rather than cite outright dismissal opinions based on the consensus within divinity schools that produce biblical scholars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C46:6900:4510:44BB:EF7D:C0E2:5B4C (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a {{para|class}} parameter to {{tl|WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{tl|WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{tl|WPBannerMeta}} a new {{para|QUALITY_CRITERIA|custom}} parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, WikiProject Christianity,

I was looking at some hoax draft articles that were written in the fall and looked over the other edits of this new editor and found they were part of a group of new editors that apparently tried to vandalize this article or, at least, introduce some sources from a blog. I'm not well-read on theology but when I looked over this article, it seems like there is some original research or at least editor interpretation here. I'd welcome a knowledgeable editor to look it over and remove any content that isn't well-supported by the sources or just seems flakey or obtuse to you. Thanks for any assistance you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

:Subject is real, but subsidiary other theological concepts. I have doubts that it can stand on its own and will propose a merge if necessary. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_diocese#Deacons regarding whether to add a {{para|deacons}} parameter to {{tl|infobox diocese}}. Interested editors are invited and encouraged to share their views in that discussion.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 17:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I saw some edits where Father NAME was changed to Priest NAME. What is the consensus on naming priests? Should I say Father John Slattery or priest John Slattery? What is the convention? Ncwfl (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

:I believe it is neither "Father John Smith" or "Priest John Smith" but simply "John Smith, a priest." Ltwin (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

:Typically, I would expect "priest" to be used in contexts where an "occupation" is intended and not for use as a title. Can you provide an example where "Priest NAME" is being used?  — Archer1234 (t·c) 22:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

::I found it here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1149285011?diffmode=source]. Re reading the edit I realize that it makes more sense with Priest. The comment made me think i

::was

:: a titular replacement of faIt actually makes more sense and is in line with what you both have said. Ncwfl (talk) 06:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC) off.

:In US English, when citing the name of a priest, one normally uses "Rev." (Reverend) or "Fr." (Father). "Priest" would be quite odd. Here is the relevant section of the AP Style Guide.[https://writingexplained.org/ap-style/ap-style-religious-titles] Dcheney (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Me and @SanctumRosarium have recently been working on the article History of early Christianity. It was previously titled Early centers of Christianity, but the title was changed in October 2022 at the request of @Privybst with no discussion. I was in the process of revising the article structure from a geographical listing of important Christian locations to a century by century organization. However, I discovered that there was already an article named "Early Christianity" (see Talk:Early Christianity) that was merged into other articles and turned into a redirect in February 2020.

I feel that more community input may be needed to determine what this article should be about. Should it remain essentially an article on "early centers of Christianity" or should it be changed to an overview or survey article of the first 3 centuries of Christianity? Please leave input on the talk page. Ltwin (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

:This [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_Christianity&oldid=888200291 old version of the article] was very good, then the structure was completely changed and finally when it was no more than a ruin it disappeared. Maybe we can start from this version. SanctumRosarium (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Gene Robinson has been nominated for a 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The article Families in mission is primarily centered on the Neocatechumenal Way. Are there examples of other lay mission families that can be used to improve this article? I see Lay Mission-Helpers Association and Maryknoll Lay Missioners. I would like to collect some additional information so that it describes mission families in all the different contexts that exist. Ncwfl (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

David L. Cook has been nominated for a 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 18:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

How is it possible that the Vatican lists 1891 as the 14th year of Leo XIII's pontificate but also lists 1901 as the 13th year of Leo XIII's pontificate. Somewhere the math is way off!!!! 2601:48:8100:12C0:A405:D9D8:1EEA:85EF (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

:Is this a Wikipedia article? If so, which one? ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

:1901 would have been his 22nd or 23rd year as Pope (depending on when in the year). Dcheney (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

{{Notice|There's an ongoing discussion to split the list at Christian liturgy into its own list article. If you support or object to the proposal or you have questions about what it is intended, please comment here. For the rationale, see the discussion there.}} – Scyrme (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

This discussion on whether/how to include an IP's addition to the article Moloch might be of interest to members of this project.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Buidhe has nominated William Wilberforce 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) 05:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it's more than a little embarrassing that this vandalism to the opening sentence of the article lasted for three months. I've put it on my watchlist but I don't know much about this subject; I'd appreciate it if other people could keep an eye on it. Graham87 13:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

:I just requested a revdel of that edit summary. Incredible no one noticed.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

::Here's the administrators' noticeboard thread about the revdel request. Graham87 06:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

:::Now archived. Graham87 10:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

There is an RM at Zechariah (New Testament figure) of relevance here. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Grand Duchy of Moscow#Requested move 19 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello all!

I am working on the Martin Heidegger article with tentative intentions to bring it to GA status. One shortcoming of the article in its current state is the absence of discussion of his influence on Christian theology. He was an important influence on Paul Tillich, I know, and I am sure on others besides. (Heidegger was raised Catholic, and this upbringing, along with his study of scholastic philosophy/theology, had a life-long influence on his thought.)

I'd be most grateful if anyone from this WikiProject could swing by to create even just a stub section under Martin_Heidegger#Reception with appropriate sourcing. Suggestions on the talk page would also most welcome. I've got an anthologized article by John D. Caputo that I hope will provide some helpful content, but, on the whole, this part of Heidegger's influence is out of my wheelhouse.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Limpa#Requested move 13 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Lightoil (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Would someone from this WikiProject please take a look at :Roderick L. Evans and assess it per :WP:BIO? It seems to have been pretty much unsourced since its creation and the few general sources cited don't really establish Evan's Wikipedia notability. it also looks like the article has been heavily edited over the years (most recently a few days ago) by an :WP:SPA who might be somehow connected to Evans. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Renewal theologian#Requested move 25 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 19:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I've raised what I believe are some significant issues about our article Nondenominational Christianity; my remarks are on the talk page. I made these remarks over three weeks ago, but no one has followed up.

I'd really rather the article be edited by someone more expert than myself, so I am leaving this note here and will lay off for a week. After that, if nothing happens, I'm likely to just begin by hacking out unsourced, poorly sourced, or unclearly worded content from the article. I think a much better solution would be for someone knowledgeable to engage the issues I've raised. - Jmabel | Talk 21:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I have nominated Byzantine Empire 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) 22:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello all - I have created a new article on Erin Swenson, a trans woman Presbyterian Minister from the United States. If anyone has any more information or improvements to the article, please let me know. Thank you. GnocchiFan (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

:{{re|GnocchiFan}} Looks like a complete article with a variety of independent, reliable sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

::Thank you for the compliment, I appreciate it. I know some issues were raised over the LGBTQ Religious Archives source, but I don't think it's supporting anything particularly controversial (biographical info and the like) and seems to be used by others as a reference, so I think it's appropriate to use in this case. GnocchiFan (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

We have had a draft on the concept of the Godhead stewing for about seven years now. It's time to finish it. BD2412 T 13:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

:Draft:Godhead? –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Southern Adventist University has been nominated for a 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Page: {{pagelinks|Bethlehem}}

Discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bethlehem#%22Abrahamic_traditions%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bethlehem#last_revert

Since Bethlehem is a city important to Christianity I'm bringing to your attention important discussions that warrant the attention of well informed editors.

in attention is the removal of information relating to Biblical history and Christianity from the lead of Bethlehem as well as other removals over this timeframehttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bethlehem&diff=1189408742&oldid=1189366670:

as well as the city where he was anointed as the third monarch of the United Kingdom of Israel, and also states that it was built up as a fortified city by Rehoboam, the first monarch of the Kingdom of Judah.

Regarding biblical history, king David, Also the following:

Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke identify the city

The above is in reference to which gospels say Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem.

Furthermore, the removal of King David originating from Bethlehem in the body:

David is considered to have originated from Bethlehem.

Furthermore another few edits https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bethlehem&diff=1189408742&oldid=1189408110

Removed the following from the lead:

At the northern entrance of the city is Rachel's Tomb, the burial place of biblical matriarch Rachel. Movement around the city is limited due to the Israeli West Bank barrier.

More info from was removed regarding Roman era history, discrimination and more.

Bringing this to your attention in order for more well informed editors to be involved in constructive approach and solution.

Homerethegreat (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello Wikiproject Christianity, I'm starting a project with some students here at the Brigham Young University library to improve pages related to the Book of Mormon, in anticipation of next year's Sunday school curriculum in our church that will focus on it. I've been trying to develop best practices for sourcing and writing pages about characters in the Book of Mormon and books of the Book of Mormon. At first I thought that I should completely avoid apologetic sources, or sources that argue for the historicity of the Book of Mormon, in order to maintain NPOV. However, I'm interested in what editors outside of Mormon studies think of those rules of thumb (maybe an apologetic source, if clearly cited in-text, would be appropriate sometimes?).

I'm also not sure of the best way to present a character in holy writ in a way that makes it clear that this person is a character in a book (but considered a historical figure by most adherents). I recently edited the page for Aminadab, a very minor character in the Book of Mormon. Does anyone with experience writing pages for characters/people in the Bible have advice on that?

Lastly, I am looking for good examples of Biblical, encyclopedic writing for my students to emulate. I noticed that the quality of pages about books in the Bible can be a bit uneven. Are there pages you often refer back to as a good example to emulate? Much thanks, Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

:In my opinion, using sources that expressly support the view that the Book of Mormon is a historically accurate account is acceptable—Wikipedia relies on similar sources for its coverage of Catholicism, Hinduism, and many other major world religions. However, in-text attribution may be necessary for certain claims and to distinguish between different interpretations (both academic-secular and academic-believer) of the same passages from the Book of Mormon.

:As for characters from scriptures/traditions, Wikipedia generally presents the religiously accepted account of their life and person as discussed in reliable sourcing while also providing the academic appraisal of said persons. I've been involved in trying to improve Massacre of the Innocents, a biblical event of disputed veracity; there, I've tried to ensure that the traditional majority scholarly opinion of "it probably didn't happen" is mitigated by modern reexamination without giving undue weight to any revisionist or pious views that may lack general scholarly acceptance. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

::Note that we have been moving away from such pseudoscientific/fringe sources for years now across all of the religious topic areas you just named. There is a difference between noting that an ahistorical view is ahistorical and treating that religious fiction as a historical fact. If reliable independent sources can't be found to describe a religious view or belief then in all likelihood that religious view or belief isn't notable and/or isn't due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

:I echo Pbritti's view that {{tq|using sources that expressly support the view that the Book of Mormon is a historically accurate account is acceptable}} since Wikipedia does similarly for coverage of other faith traditions. I have cited sources like that for Book of Mormon studies pages that I've contributed. Though I don't state the non-consensus claims of historicity in Wikipedia's voice, there's other secondary source material in such sources that does function without issue within the broad consensus that the Book of Mormon is a book containing narrative content including events, situations, and named figures. Such unproblematic secondary source content includes, for example, descriptions of the narrative content of the book itself, assessments of literary function and meaning, and documentation of cultural reception, etc. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

::Thank you for your advice, and the example of Massacre of the Innocents! I will pass it on to my students and we will try to clarify in-text who is doing the commentary in our commentary sections and whenever else it seems important.Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

{{Collapse top}}

:::Hello again, Pbritti (and/or P-Makoto), would you be willing to look at the work of one of my students in Amalickiah? He really wanted to include apologetic sources, which I told him he could do if he introduced them as such. Is this kind of summary of apologetic arguments appropriate for Wikipedia? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk)

::::{{re|Rachel Helps (BYU)}} I hope I didn't step on yours or {{u|BenBeckstromBYU}}'s toes by making a couple tweaks to the article. Generally, I think this is a very good approach taken with a good deal of caution towards the apologetic character of these sources. I very much am not an expert on the Book of Mormon nor the theology surround its interpretation, but I would consider this a thorough account of LDS views on this subject. Obviously, if possible, additional non-LDS academic views should be added, but I don't know if any actually exist for this particular subject. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

::::Thank you for the feedback! That was the major issue that I was running into. Also, your tweaks were very helpful, particularly your work on the intro. I'll keep this in mind going forward. BenBeckstromBYU (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

:::::@Pbritti I forgot to tag you in the above. Pleasure collaborating!BenBeckstromBYU (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

::::::{{re|BenBeckstromBYU}} oh don't worry—I see every edit to this page anyway. Next week, I should have time to go more thoroughly through things and maybe make a couple more specific suggestions. For now, though, I'd consider your work a credit to the project! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

:::::::Hi, @BenBeckstromBYU. Sorry about the relative tardiness of my comments. Your expansion of the Amalickiah page is overall great to see. I have a few thoughts, which I'll preface by acknowledging that I tend to have a very reserved take on secondary sources which is more exacting than that of some editors.

:::::::- If memory serves that "artist's interpretation of Amalackiah" was already on the page, so that's not on you, but I am uncomfortable with that and similar examples from the same artist. These 3D models seem to have been created by a Wikipedian, rather than have been found "naturally" created by adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement. Although the illustrative goal is understandable, I worry it veers too far into interpretation. The interpretation is an interpretation, involving supposition about what aesthetics appropriately illustrate the themes Amalickiah's narrative invokes or what clothes his hypothetical context appropriately includes, and that seems to me to drift beyond the mission of Wikipedia to summarize content already existing.

:::::::- You use chapter headings as sources in the summary portion. While I see how those headings are in a sense a commentary on the text of the Book of Mormon itself, that content believed to be "sacred text" by the Latter Day Saint movement, since the content is produced and published directly by a denomination (without the additional distance that universities and publishing houses create), it still strikes me as being like a primary source. As the template message often used in these cases describe, the chapter headings are also "texts from within a religion or faith system" rather than secondary sources that critically analyze them. I would consider the ideal scenario to be citing this content using secondary sources that describe the narrative, such as in commentaries or summaries like The Book of Mormon for the Least of These, Second Witness, or A Pentecostal Reads the Book of Mormon. I acknowledge that maybe I'm asking for something that's not there, though, since I don't have any of those particular books on hand. It's also the case that pages describing works of literature or content therefrom sometimes consider it tolerable to depend on the primary source itself for pure summary, so this isn't a do-or-die problem; I just think it would elevate the page and make it more defensible and less prone to clipping by overzealous editors in the future.

:::::::- You write that "There appears to be a consensus among Latter-day Saint apologists that the timing of Amalickiah's assassination was religiously significant". Is there a source which says there is such a consensus, or is that an observation you yourself make? The latter veers toward original research, as it's your interpretation of the existing literature, rather than a straightforward citation of it. Additionally, this paragraph does a lot of describing how Merrill and Sorensen think the timing was religiously significant, but it's not clear to a reader why that is. I think the paragraph would read better if instead of trying to make an interpretation of the literature, you cite what it says. If it doesn't violate existing academic consensus, then I think it can be validly stated on the page. It seems like what's being hinted at is that Sorensen and Merrill observe that warfare usually happens within a certain range of months on the implied Nephite calendar year, and that Amalickiah's assassination takes place during a certain time in that. If you cite it as an observation about the Book of Mormon's content, that sounds literarily valid and interesting and worth having on the page.

:::::::- "Leadership studies" continues this, where you describe that authors have said things about Amalickiah but it's not always clear what it is that they're saying.

:::::::- Likewise in the literary role. You use verbage where you describe that Joseph Spencer "found that the structure of the Book of Alma sets Amalickiah up as a narrative mirror to Ammon", but it would be more straightforward to state, for example, "According to Joseph Spencer, the structure of the Book of Alma sets Amalickiah up as a narrative mirror to Ammon". Does that difference make sense? Instead of saying that people write things, cite what they wrote and acknowledge it's according to this or that author.

:::::::- The observation that the "-iah" suffix appears throughout the Book of Mormon and Bible seems wholly valid. I am rather sketchy on the citation to Hugh Nibley saying that "Amaleki" means "my king." In what language?

:::::::I hope these do not seem excessively needling. You've done a lot of the hard work already in finding sources that thoughtfully and seriously examine this Book of Mormon figure. Consider my comments not condemnations, but rather suggestions for refinement and improvement. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

{{Collapse bottom}}

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Christian head covering#Requested move 5 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Anglican Diocese of Manchester#Requested move 5 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sagrestia Nuova (New Sacristy)#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Syro-Malabar Catholic Church#Requested move 10 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Carl XVI Gustaf#Requested move 13 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I have requested that two additional parameters be created for Template:Infobox church: sui_iuris_church and former_sui_iuris_church. Modeled on sui_iuris_church parameter of Template:Infobox diocese, the sui_iuris_church parameter would be located below the denomination parameter, the former_sui_iuris_church parameter below the former_denomination parameter. This would be broadly useful for current or former Eastern Catholic church buildings, as well as church buildings in countries where the Latin Church can not be assumed as the operator of a Catholic building. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Towson United Methodist Church has been nominated for a 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. Schierbecker (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at the talk page for the template {{tl|Infobox Christian leader}} regarding a proposal to add an {{para|eparchy}} parameter to the template. You are invited to review and join the discussion. Thank you.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 17:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Anglican eucharistic theology#Requested move 1 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Angels in Christianity is a bit of a mess. It used to be more explicitly about the Pseudo-Dionysian hierarchy of angels, but despite expanding in scope (and the existence of De Coelesti Hierarchia) it still wildly overstates the importance of this hierarchy. In the past I tried to restructure it, but received strong pushback and gave up. I started a conversation on the talk page about how to restructure it a bit more proportionally. Comment welcome.

Side note, this page could use a bit more TLC in general. --Garnet Moss (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Catholic Church has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_3#Priests_by_nationality. – Fayenatic London 16:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Shrovetide#Requested move 5 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning pn.svg

Page: {{pagelinks|Lee Man-hee}}

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

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

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Crosier#Requested move 18 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Your input is welcome in this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

What was a poor article[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Classical_theism&oldid=1191652531] is now an odd article[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Classical_theism&oldid=1213118983#] mainly about Hinduism. Some decent sources although I don't know if they are being used properly, some not so good sources such as letter from an ISKCON leader.[https://vanisource.org/w/index.php?title=581100_-_Letter_to_Brother_written_from_Jhansi&hl=Eternal+Father]. I'm not familiar with the subject so hope others can look at at. Doug Weller talk 08:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Isaac has been nominated for a 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. Spinixster (chat!) 09:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I have nominated his passing for the main page at In the News Recent Deaths. Unfortunately, his article is not in good shape. Memory eternal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I am reaching out to see if anyone is interested in offering their opinions at Wikipedia:Peer review/Free and Candid Disquisitions/archive1. It's a book primarily about English religion and liturgy that had pretty significant consequences for a multitude of later efforts to revise the Book of Common Prayer. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Protestantism, Pentecostalism etc. are denominational families or traditions within Christianity as the relevant articles Christian denomination and List of Christian denominations imply. {{tq|Christianity can be taxonomically divided into six main groups: the Church of the East, Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and Restorationism. Within these six main traditions are various Christian denominations (for example, the Coptic Orthodox Church is an Oriental Orthodox denomination).}} The Catholic Church is a denominational family and each of the sui juris churches are distinct denominations with distinct liturgical rites, doctrines, culture, organisation and history. All the Eastern Catholic Church articles currently employ the infobox Template:Infobox Christian denomination. For example see List of Christian denominations, wherein the Syro-Malabar Church is listed along with the Roman/Latin and other Eastern Catholic Churches as denominations under the subheading 'Catholic Church' (denominational family).
The [https://www.syromalabarchurch.in/ official website] of the SMC says: {{tq|The Syro-Malabar Catholic Church is one of the 23 Eastern (Oriental) Catholic Churches in full communion with Rome. It is the largest Eastern Catholic Church after the Ukrainian Church and the largest of the Saint Thomas Christian (Nazrani) denominations with 5 million believers.}}
Quoting the state census, KC ZACHARIAH (2016) says: {{tq|Among the denominations in the Christian community, the Syro-. Malabar Catholics are the most dispersed denomination}} (Religious Denominations of Kerala). Logosx127 (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

:The conversation is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Is the Catholic Church a single denomination or a communion of 24?. Editors are encouraged to reply there. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I've started an article on the Iwerne camps. They held an important and sometimes controversial role in post-war Evangelicalism in the UK, particularly in the Church of England, before closing in 2020 following abuse scandals.

Existing coverage of the camps was in two articles - a rather fawning one on their founder E. J. H. Nash, and a sparser and rather controversy-heavy one on their parent body the Titus Trust. I've tried to balance both and fill in the gaps in the new article, but more eyes would be very much welcomed. TSP (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Crusading movement has been nominated for a 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. Borsoka (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Another artist created an article on George the Hungarian (an Orthodox saint), which has been moved to Draft:George the Hungarian. Anyone who can add references from reliable sources and resubmit the article is welcome to do so. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Capital punishment#Requested move 1 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion concerning the question of religion and whether or not it is an appropriate subject for the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Experienced editors are encouraged to join the conversation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pronomian&redirect=no Pronomian] to the article antinomianism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#Pronomian}} until a consensus is reached.

Bwrs (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pronomianism&redirect=no Pronomianism] to the article antinomianism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#Pronomian}} until a consensus is reached.

Bwrs (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism#Requested move 21 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Limitarianism (ethical)#Requested move 4 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Protestant Church in Germany#Requested move 25 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello!

I started Split of Christianity and Judaism in February. It is more than a one-person job, and I haven't been able to contribute significantly to it in months. This is an important article, and I'd love to see it improved.

Thanks! Zanahary (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Russian Orthodoxy#Requested move 6 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 22:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Madonna#Requested move 1 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

This was a redirect to catechesis, but that didn't really seem appropriate as catechesis is not a term used by many Christians who are evangelical or non-liturgical protestants. Additionally catechesis typically ends with baptism, and many Christians perceive Christian education as a life long endeavor that has no ending point. For the time being I turned it into a disambiguation page.

If asked many Christians would connect Christian education to Bible Study in various forms such as cell groups or Sunday School. Additionally Christian education, would also include seminaries, Christian education institutions such as Christian universities, etc. There are undergraduate and graduate degrees in Christian Education, and various journals devoted to Christian education such as the Journal of Research on Christian Education and Christian Education Journal (both SAGE journals) among others. This is a topic that deserves a wide scope treatment, and should be a core high priority article of this WikiProject. I hope someone will take the time to create a broad view article that encompasses the full scope of Christian education across diverse Christian denominations. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Your view is welcome at Talk:Cain_and_Abel#Should_Cain_and_Abel_be_merged_into_this_article?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_21#Category%3AChristian_universalists_by_nationality. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I am working on an article for The Signpost, set to be published on the 28th, that covers a topic on Wikipedia which involves Christianity. Once it's finished, could someone review it briefly? I'm not seeking assistance with the content itself. However, I would like to ensure it doesn't unintentionally contain any offensive material, such as tropes or dog whistles which I'm unaware of. So far, I don't think it has the potential to cause offense, but I would appreciate a specialist perspective on it in case I've missed anything. Please reply to this and I will send the final draft through EmailUser when I'm finished. Svampesky (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

:{{re|Svampesky}} Sure! ~ 21:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there any reason that any of the following can not be moved to their currently redlinked base page titles? Cheers! BD2412 T 02:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Catedral Santiago Apóstol → Catedral Santiago Apóstol (Fajardo, Puerto Rico)
• Cathedral Basilica of St. James → Cathedral Basilica of St. James (Brooklyn)
• Cathedral Church of St. James → Cathedral Church of St. James (Toronto)
• Cathedral of Mary of the Assumption → Cathedral of Mary of the Assumption (Saginaw, Michigan)
• Cathedral of Our Lady of Walsingham → Cathedral of Our Lady of Walsingham (Houston)
• Cathedral of the Holy Angels → Cathedral of the Holy Angels (Gary, Indiana)
• Cathedral of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus → Cathedral of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus (Knoxville, Tennessee)
• Catherine Called Birdy → Catherine Called Birdy (film)
• Catholic Church of Our Lady → Catholic Church of Our Lady (Aarhus)
• Christ's Church Cathedral → Christ's Church Cathedral (Hamilton, Ontario)
• Church of Prophet Elijah → Church of Prophet Elijah (Thessaloniki)
• Church of St. Mary of the Spring → Church of St. Mary of the Spring (Istanbul)
• Church of the Transfiguration, Episcopal → Church of the Transfiguration, Episcopal (Manhattan)
• City Methodist Church → City Methodist Church (Gary, Indiana)
• Conwal Parish Church → Conwal Parish Church (Church of Ireland)
• Episcopal Cathedral of Saint Philip → Episcopal Cathedral of Saint Philip (Atlanta)
• Evangelical Church of Egypt → Evangelical Church of Egypt (Synod of the Nile)
• Gillfield Baptist Church → Gillfield Baptist Church (Petersburg, Virginia)
• Holy Family Old Cathedral → Holy Family Old Cathedral (Anchorage, Alaska)
• Holy Name of Mary Pro-Cathedral → Holy Name of Mary Pro-Cathedral (Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan)
• Holy Rosary Parish Church → Holy Rosary Parish Church (Angeles City)
• Lutheran Church of the Ascension → Lutheran Church of the Ascension (Savannah, Georgia)
• New South Church → New South Church (Boston, Massachusetts)
• Nineteenth Street Baptist Church → Nineteenth Street Baptist Church (Washington, D.C.)
• North Strand Church → North Strand Church (Church of Ireland)
• Old Whaler's Church → Old Whaler's Church (Sag Harbor)
• Saint Andrews African Methodist Episcopal Church → Saint Andrews African Methodist Episcopal Church (Sacramento, California)
• Saint Francis de Sales Cathedral → Saint Francis de Sales Cathedral (Baker City, Oregon)
• St. Augustine's Episcopal Church → St. Augustine's Episcopal Church (Gary, Indiana)
• St. Augustine's Monastery → St. Augustine's Monastery (Erfurt)
• St. Benedict Cathedral → St. Benedict Cathedral (Evansville, Indiana)
• St. Benedict the Moor Church → St. Benedict the Moor Church (New York City)
• St. Columba Cathedral → St. Columba Cathedral (Youngstown, Ohio)
• St. Eugenia's Church → St. Eugenia's Church (Stockholm)
• St. John Cantius Church → St. John Cantius Church (Chicago)
• St. John's Wilmot Church → St. John's Wilmot Church (New Rochelle, New York)
• St. Joseph Co-Cathedral → St. Joseph Co-Cathedral (Thibodaux, Louisiana)
• St. Mary of Blachernae Church → St. Mary of Blachernae Church (Berat)
• St. Matthew's United Church → St. Matthew's United Church (Halifax, Nova Scotia)
• St. Mary, Our Lady of Mount Carmel Cathedral → St. Mary, Our Lady of Mount Carmel Cathedral (Gaylord, Michigan)
• St. Michael's Cathedral Basilica → St. Michael's Cathedral Basilica (Toronto)
• St. Monica Catholic Church → St. Monica Catholic Church (Santa Monica, California)
• St. Nicholas of Myra Church → St. Nicholas of Myra Church (Manhattan)
• St. Takla Haymanot's Church → St. Takla Haymanot's Church (Alexandria)
• St. Thomas's Anglican Church → St. Thomas's Anglican Church (Toronto)
• Ste. Marie Church → Ste. Marie Church (Manchester, New Hampshire)

:Yes! I'm sure many of these are highly ambiguous, especially allowing for different languages and styles (Saint vs St. etc)! For example the Church of St. Mary of Blachernae was a very important historical church in Constantinople (not so much left now). As the article says, the Albanian St. Mary of Blachernae Church (Berat) was named after it. We have a disam page for Cathedral Basilica of St James the Apostle, which stupidly doesn't mention what is by far the most famous one - Santiago de Compostela Cathedral. That alone makes Catedral Santiago Apóstol, Catedral Santiago Apóstol, Cathedral Basilica of St. James also ambiguous. Please DON'T make any changes without careful research. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

:: {{re|Johnbod}} That's why I'm asking the question. BD2412 T 02:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

:::Well, you have your answer. Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

::St Augustine's Abbey (disambiguation) is another long page, to which St. Augustine's Monastery should redirect. Most of these, outside North America at least, should be using "Saint" not the American "St.", & if you want something useful to do there's are lots of redirects & disam work needed. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

:::I agree that there should be more standardisation to "Saint" in the names of churches which don't have WP:STRONGTIES to a particular English-speaking country. It would also be helpful if the titles of disambiguation pages had "Saint" as the default, with the "St." and "St" variants redirecting there as a matter of course.

:::Regarding the base page titles in the list above, I think the following ones should redirect to disambiguation pages (not all of which may have the best titles at the moment):

:::* Catedral Santiago Apóstol and Cathedral Church of St. James – redirect to Cathedral of Saint James

:::* Cathedral Basilica of St. James – redirect to Cathedral Basilica of Saint James

:::* Cathedral of Mary of the Assumption – redirect to Cathedral of Saint Mary of the Assumption

:::* Cathedral of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus – redirect to Sacred Heart Cathedral

:::* Catholic Church of Our Lady – redirect to Church of Our Lady

:::* Christ's Church Cathedral – possibly redirect to Christ Church Cathedral

:::* Holy Rosary Parish Church – redirect to Holy Rosary Church

:::* Saint Francis de Sales Cathedral – redirect to Cathedral of Saint Francis de Sales

:::* St. Benedict the Moor Church – redirect to Church of Saint Benedict the Moor

:::* St. John Cantius Church – possibly create a new Church of Saint John Cantius disambiguation page, as there are two of these with articles

:::* St. Mary, Our Lady of Mount Carmel Cathedral – redirect to Our Lady of Mount Carmel Cathedral

:::* St. Michael's Cathedral Basilica – possibly redirect to Cathedral of Saint Michael

:::* St. Monica Catholic Church – redirect to Saint Monica's Church

:::* St. Nicholas of Myra Church – redirect to Saint Nicholas Church

:::* St. Thomas's Anglican Church – possibly redirect to Saint Thomas Church

:::* Ste. Marie Church – possibly redirect to Saint Mary's Church

:::Ham II (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

::::Thanks - this all seems sensible. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

::::: I would certainly encourage the creation of redirects to disambiguation pages wherever appropriate, so that these redlinks are not mistaken by other editors for unoccupied base page names to which disambiguated titles should be moved. BD2412 T 23:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

::There appear to be multiple cathedrals of St. James, cathedrals of St. Mary, etc, in this list. The full names for the articles (with city/country addre) are appropriate to avoid ambiguity as to which cathedral/basilica is being referenced in an article. –Zfish118^⋉talk 15:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

HI Team,

We have been trying to update on OneHope Wiki Pages but have received pushback because of the Evangelical nature of the business. Do you have any advice on how to get the updates made and approved?

Here is the current page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneHope

I have currently put in a request for a portion to be edited via the talk page but the notice I received said it could take 160+ days. We are hoping that someone can help us move this forward quicker. Aimeeluongo (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Philippine Senate hearing on the Kingdom of Jesus Christ#Requested move 25 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. HueMan1 (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Article probably needs some substantial copyediting for encyclopedic tone and more modern sources if anyone has access to any. The subject, a 19th century Baptist minister, is almost certainly notable if for no other reason due to his authorship of one of the more widely read and quoted polemically anti-Catholic works from that era. However much of the sourcing is dated, and in at least one instance of doubtful reliability. The language sounds like it was taken directly from one or more of those old sources and seems less than nuetral in its tone. I have tagged the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

:A quick followup, we don't have an article on his principal work, The History of Romanism: from the Earliest Corruptions of Christianity to the Present Time([https://ia802209.us.archive.org/20/items/historyofromanis00dowl/historyofromanis00dowl.pdf 1]), but we probably should. It was a very prominent and widely quoted book in its time and I would be surprised if it did not meet our guidelines for notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of New Testament minuscules (2001–)#Requested move 22 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading of Beans 06:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion going on at :Genesis creation narrative about the inclusion of 'traditional' views in the text; additional input would be most welcome. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kingdom of Jesus Christ compound standoff#Requested move 1 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. HueMan1 (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Currently the article Anti-Christian sentiment largely just a less comprehensive duplicate of the article Persecution of Christians.

The two articles would likely be improved if they were rewritten into the format used in similar article pairs such as Islamophobia and Persecution of Muslims or Antisemitism and Persecution of Jews where the former article covers concepts of discrimination against the group broadly with some discussion of example events, whilst the latter article serves as a compendium of specific historical and modern acts of discrimination.

This would allow them to be more distinct from eachother and provide better coverage of the topic. TaqPCR (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking over some of the articles for books of the Bible, I notice that when summarizing the contents of the books, some articles cite to the passages in the books themselves, while other articles cite to secondary sources. For example, the article for the Third Epistle of John, when summarizing the books contents, cites repeatedly to The Johannine Epistles by C. H. Dodd. Whereas, the article on the Epistle to the Philippians cites only to the actual book. And the article on the Epistle to the Romans uses both.

My question is, which is the preferred source for summarizing the books on Wikipedia? The Bible, or Bible commentaries? SCOTUS Operandi (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Civilian Public Service has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Article Deletion Discussion - Robert Heisner Article

An article deletion discussion is ongoing about Robert Heisner, a Chrisitan minister who was also a martial arts expert who developed a new karate style.

If you are interested in this deletion discussion, you can find it here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Heisner#Robert_Heisner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bushido77 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Strong viewpoint pushing from a self-proclaimed expert. Mangoe (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

:I second this request! Not just that article, but a vast number of articles related to Trinitarian theology, Arianism, and Early Church History have been rewritten in an argumentative/polemical style by AndriesvN, an Arian apologist who often copies/cites from their personal blog [https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/ revelationbyjesuschrist.com] in edits. There's currently an ANI open on them recommending a topic ban: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AndriesvN_and_Christian_theology_articles

:Given how prolific the user in question has been, it's going to be a huge task going through it all and bringing it up to Wikipedia standards (see user's contributions). All help is appreciated! HieronymusNatalis (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

:UPDATE: AndriesvN has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents#AndriesvN_and_Christian_theology_articles indef blocked] as of today for being WP:NOTHERE. However, their numerous edits remain in serious need of review. See Special:Contributions/AndriesvN for a sense of what pages need work. It's a pretty hefty task. Thanks for any help! -HieronymusNatalis (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

:: Depending on how many other editors have added positive content that is not just a modification of content added by AndriesvN, you might consider opening a discussion on whether it would be easier to roll the article all the way back to a point before they started editing. It might be easier to reinstate the good edits by other editors since that time, than to undo all the bad edits by AndriesvN. This would require discussion and consensus by editors, but is definitely an option; I was involved in reverting about 800 edits by someone doing the same thing to one of the Indian art history articles, I forget which one. We had strong consensus, and the rollback was successfully carried out, with a minimum of stress or strife. The key is take your time, and gain a strong consensus for it. I would not jump straight to Rfc; a discussion section may be sufficient. Mathglot (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Following are some of the edits by AndriesvN that may need attention:

1. Acacians: {{lne|Acacians|38|202311170459|disp=these 31 edits}}
2. Arian creeds: {{lne|Arian creeds|47|202403171726|disp=these 38}} and {{lne|Arian creeds|16|202109100612|disp=these 15}}
3. Arius: {{lne|Arius|29|202312020228|disp=these 28}} and {{lne|Arius|42|202307100708|disp=these 26}}
4. Council of Constantinople (360): {{lne|Council of Constantinople (360)|3|202210102251|disp=these 2}} {{done|Attended}}
5. Council of Serdica: {{lne|Council of Serdica|27|202401170738|disp=these 23}}
6. Councils of Sirmium: {{lne|Councils of Sirmium|7|202403191348|disp=these 6}} {{done}} Mathglot (talk)
7. Edict of Thessalonica: {{lne|Edict of Thessalonica|13|202109251117|disp=these 11}} {{done}} Mathglot (talk)
8. First Council of Nicaea: {{lne|First Council of Nicaea|19|202401101552|disp=these 14}} and {{lne|First Council of Nicaea|7|202109290445|disp=these 6}}
9. Homoiousian: {{lne|Homoiousian|40|202310141504|disp=these 30}}
10. Hypostasis (philosophy and religion): {{lne|Hypostasis (philosophy and religion)|6|202405251451|disp=these 5}} and {{lne|Hypostasis (philosophy and religion)|8|202312031640|disp=these 6}}
11. John 1:1: {{lne|John 1:1|17|202201301713|disp=these 16}} {{done}} HieronymusNatalis (talk)
12. Logos (Christianity): {{lne|Logos (Christianity)|10|202202091410|disp=these 9}} and {{lne|Logos (Christianity)|4|202202041603|disp=these 3}}
13. Meletius of Antioch: {{lne|Meletius of Antioch|11|202405041259|disp=these 7}} {{done}} HieronymusNatalis (talk)
14. Melitians: {{lne|Melitians|12|202403031039|disp=these 11}}
15. Prophecy of Seventy Weeks: {{lne|Prophecy of Seventy Weeks|4|202204011518|disp=these 2}} {{done}} (previously; by: {{u|tgeorgescu}})
16. Sabellius: {{lne|Sabellius|5|202112090831|disp=these 3}}{{done}} -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t°
17. Subordinationism: {{lne|Subordinationism|46|202201021334|disp=these 43}}
18. Synods of Antioch: {{lne|Synods of Antioch|4|202401190453|disp=these 3}} {{done}} Mathglot (talk)
19. The Beast (Revelation): {{lne|The Beast (Revelation)|8|2024021014|disp=these 7}}

Given the extent of the potential damage, this may need assistance from additional editors. If you can help, please mark ones you have repaired with {{tl|done}} in the list above (I waive WP:TPO) and your 3-tilde sig (~~~). If a link appears broken or does not represent a run of edits by AndriesvN, please add a comment below and I will fix it. Hopefully adding {{ping|Mangoe|HieronymusNatalis|Girth Summit|Hemiauchenia|ActivelyDisinterested|Folly_Mox}}. Mathglot (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

: I'm not familiar enough with Christian theology to really know what's worth keeping/discarding in AndriesvN's edits, but if there's consensus to essentially completely rollback their edits to the relevant articles I'm very happy to implement that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

:: Thanks. Is that even possible? Some of the edits are not recent; John 1:1 and a couple others are from 2022, for example. Mathglot (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

:::Equally unfamiliar with the subject, but the one I checked added content based on their website that was in turn referencing Wikipedia for some of the information (it was circular). It could be worthwhile to view all the edits with suspicion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{Rtp}} Mildly involved: removed WP:EL violations during the course of the ANI thread. Third disclosure: zero knowledge of early Christian theology.{{pb}}Rollback of edits long since buried under more recent diffs is not possible in the usual easy sense, but contributions can be manually undone by reviewing the old edits and removing them from the current revision if their undoing is considered an improvement. It's a time consumer!{{pb}}If any of AndriesvN's edits are reasonable to retain, a good first step would be to track down alternate, reputably published copies of the sources {{they|User:AndrievN}} hosted on their blog.{{pb}}If we're going with the "manual nuke" approach, I should be able to help out, although not right now, and I'm also immediately minded of a French Historiography project I told {{u|Mathglot}} I'd try to help with a few weeks back, before as always becoming busy, tired, and forgetful. If we're doing a casewise assessment, evaluating the value – I guess lexically tautologically? – of the contributions, I definitely lack the expertise to assist. Folly Mox (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks @Mathglot! I'm out of commission at the moment, but as soon as the academic term ends (mid-December), I'll start working on these. -HieronymusNatalis (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

: Smirmium done. Mathglot (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there any form of standardisation for naming conventions for churches? I've seen both name of church, location; name of church + church, location; and name of church + denomination + church, location: e.g. St John's, London; St John's Church, London; or St John's Anglican Church, London. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{re|Traumnovelle}} There is WP:CHURCH, which essentially advocates WP:COMMONNAME. Then there is MOS:PARTSAINT, which implies that "{{xt|{Church building} of Saint {X}}}" is the standard, though I don't think that's really borne out by usage on Wikipedia. In my experience "{{xt|St John's Church, London}}" is the usual WP naming convention for Anglican churches in England or Wales, and I see that you've proposed the same style for an Anglican church in New Zealand here.

:This has been discussed before at {{section link|Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2023 August 3#Naming conventions for church buildings}}; pinging {{u|KJP1}} who started that discussion. The focus there was again quite British, and it was initially concerned with whether there should be different conventions for Anglican and (Roman) Catholic churches. I don't think either of those denominations should be named, mainly because of WP:CONCISE – though there are the unusual cases of St Mary's Cathedral, Edinburgh (Catholic) and St Mary's Cathedral, Edinburgh (Episcopal), where the denominations' names are necessary for disambiguation. It's a bit different with some other denominations; Chingford United Reformed Church is an example that was brought up in that discussion.

:I'm not very fond of the "{{xt|St John's, London}}" or "{{xt|St John, London}}" constructions, which could read ambiguously like something other than churches – suburbs of London, for instance. However, I noted in the 2023 discussion that omitting "Church" often works for Catholic churches with lengthy dedications, e.g., "{{xt|Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception and St John, London}}".

:More past discussion is at {{section link|Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (architecture)#Places of worship}} (2009 and 2015), {{section link|Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_137#Articles_about_churches;_titles_of_the_format_St._X_('s_Church),_Somewhere}} (2017), {{section link|Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (architecture)#Churches}} (2024; entirely about churches in non–English-speaking countries). All these discussions tend to peter out before they can be fully resolved, but with this much discussion behind us I think resolution should be easier. Ham II (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

::Thank you, that was incredibly helpful. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

:::However, one of WP's basic principles for ambiguous terms is that when there is a primary topic it gets named with the term, undisambiguated, regardless of the fact that it will read ambiguously like something else. E.g. "London" is the name of many places and when a reader sees a "London" link, they can only presume (absent other info) it is for the primary London (which it is) and not for London, Ontario, or one of the many other Londons. So if there was a church called "{{xt|St John's, London}}" and that was the primary topic, isn't that what we should call it, according to the Disambiguation guideline? Nurg (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Heaven Is for Real#Requested move 10 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 02:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Edwin of Northumbria has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Since participation is lacking, I thought I'd publish the AfD here. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Symphony_of_Heaven Graywalls (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Saints Cosmas and Damian#Requested move 9 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Please join this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

You are all invited to help working on Frankfurt silver inscription, about the newly discovered oldest evidence of Christianity north of the alps. Renerpho (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Henry VIII has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Project members may wish to assist this article on a Christian hymn composer in passing a draft review (it failed). [https://biography.wales/article/s-OWEN-WIL-1813#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&manifest=https%3A%2F%2Fdamsssl.llgc.org.uk%2Fiiif%2F2.0%2F4670429%2Fmanifest.json&xywh=-437%2C-217%2C2681%2C2164 Here] is the subject's entry in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography so the subject is clearly notable. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Alfred North Whitehead has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

An RfC on a topic that concerns this WikiProject has been opened at: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Request for comments: in cases of a large numbers of religious celebrations in a religious calendar (e.g., feast day of saints), can they all be listed in a non-list WP article? Veverve (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I have raised a question at Template talk:Infobox ecumenical council#What about non-ecumenical councils?. Please come discuss the issue there. Veverve (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)