Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

WikiProject Christianity (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia.
 Project  Quality: rating not applicable

Urgent: comments requested at Matthew 5:9[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Page: Matthew 5:9 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion: Talk:Matthew_5:9

Hi I am new to being a member of Wikipedia, saw that the page on Matthew 5:9 has a reference that the gospel says in no place "Our Father" but it does. Matthew 6:9. Paul the Apostle in his epistles explicitly refers to God as our Father(eg Romans 8:15)as I mentioned I am new to Wikipedia and want to contribute in the correct manner and not just change something on that page. Please help with in put on what is the correct manner to correct something. Thank you. 16:27, 15 June 2013 (South Africa)

Are you saying we're misquoting Schweizer and Clarke, or are you saying Schweizer and Clarke have made a mistake? In the latter case there's not much we can do about that; we just summarize what reliable sources say. Paul isn't part of the Gospels, so that doesn't invalidate the article's claim. Anyway, this should probably be discussed at Talk:Matthew 5:9. Huon (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
The claim by Schwiezer and Clarke is probably more nuanced than a straight denial: the article states: 'However, the Gospels never have him referring to God as "Our Father," asserting that the nature of the fatherhood was different for Jesus and the masses.' That is they discard a particular understanding of the phrase. I don't have either text available so cannot check. Jpacobb (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Either way, in Matthew 6:9 (NIV) Jesus tells his disciples to pray "Our Father,..." which rather waters down Schwiezer and Clark's interpretation stated interpretation and should be mentioned included it. In any case, is Schwiezer and Clark's view not WP:FRINGE? --Bermicourt (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Urgent: comments requested at WP:NPOVN[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Page: All Pope pages, especially pre-schism
Discussion: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Early_Popes_of_Rome_as_head_of_the_Catholic_Church_-_opinion_versus_fact

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. Gold Standard 01:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Urgent: comments requested at Persecution of Traditional African Religion[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Page: Persecution of Traditional African Religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion: [[]]

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. – Lionel (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is the outline of the Gospel of Luke presented on the page for the Gospel of Matthew?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Urgent: comments requested at Episcopal polity[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Page: Oriental Orthodox Churches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion: Talk:Episcopal polity

The article on Episcopal polity says that Greek and Orthodox Churches both trace their apostolic succession back to the Apostle Mark. That's in section five titled "Oriental Orthodox Churches." Having studied the bible and various scholars I have never before heard of the Apostle Mark and I would have thought that such an apostle is not generally known to Christianity. Of course the reference must be about the Evangelist Mark of the Gospel of Mark right? What other Mark would be so much of a big deal huh? Do those churches count him as an apostle for sure? Patriot1423 (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Polish Old Catholic Church[edit]

== Urgent: comments requested at [[]] == International Old Catholic Bishops Conference

Ambox warning pn.svg

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

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. – Lionel (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid the wiki shows the Polish Old Catholic Church as being outside the Union of Utrecht. The Poles in Europe are members. It is the Polish National Catholic Church of the USA who resigned in 2004. Can this be corrected? (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Alan W

I have corrected it. (The UofU website confirms that the Polish Catholic Church is a member of the Union). Diakonias (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Old Catholic Confederation and Old Catholic Church in the United States[edit]


I am trying to populate information on these two Old Catholic jurisdictions but I am having a great deal of trouble getting started. I keep getting hit with COI accusations that is making my progress...frustrating to say the least. I would appreciate any help you can give me. My apologies in advance if this is an inappropriate forum for such a request. TITUSIIX (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Old Catholic Confederation Old Catholic Church in the United States

You "keep getting hit with COI accusations" because there is very good reason to believe that this is what you are blatantly engaged in whilst denying it and then seeking anywhere on Wikipedia where you can try to circumvent any restrictions on your editing of these articles by making complaints about me and canvassing the support of other editors. It is all very suspicious behaviour on your part and does not enhance your credibility. Anglicanus (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
It is generally permitted for even individuals who have close connections to a subject to add information to it, but it is also generally a good idea for them to propose such changes on the talk page first, with the references to support the changes in text, and receive consensus from others before making the changes. I have the pages on my watchlist now, and I encourage others who see this to add them to their watchlists as well. Please feel free to discuss your proposed changes and solicit support for them. John Carter (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Good Article nomination: Presbyterian Church in the USA[edit]

I've nominated Presbyterian Church in the United States of America for Good Article status. Please check it out if you might be interested in reviewing. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Mass CFD for churches/church buildings[edit]

Feek free to participate in the new CFD discussion I've just initiated - Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 1#Churches/Church buildings, over whether all the categtories related to churches/church buildings should be called "churches" or "church buildings". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Move help[edit]

I need to change the title of the article about our Christian college and Seminary. The "move" function is not showing on the article page even though I am an approved editor on Wikipedia and am logged in. Our schools name changed from Luther Rice University to Luther Rice College & Seminary. This can be confirmed on our website The page is located here: [[1]] Can anyone that monitors this portal please help me with this title name change? ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsorrow (talkcontribs) 13:16, 5 May 2015‎

You seem to have found the Move button now. – Fayenatic London 16:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I cannot seem to figure out how to upload our logo/seal on the infobox. Can you help me with that? Rsorrow (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Conversions from Islam Article[edit]

Hey, there's currently a major attempt by one user, who apparently strongly objects to the content on unclear grounds, to (repeatedly) remove tremendous amounts of info from List of converts to Christianity from Islam article, there has been an unresolved dispute over his edits and removal of said information on the talk page, can anyone else help address this please? KarenAddie (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Help needed with a draft at AFC[edit]

Please help the author of Draft:Tolerance and intolerance in the history of protestantism to either get the article into acceptable shape, if it can be done. By the way, I see this project's Assessment system is not yet handling Draft pages (the Class=Draft parameter in the project banner). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this WikiProject dead? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The Gray Matrix[edit]

Draft:The Gray Matrix has been submitted at Articles for Creation, apparently by its developer Frank Gray. I am uncertain about accepting it because I am not certain whether the references supplied are sufficiently independent ... or in some cases reliable ... to establish notability. Please could you take a look and let me know what you think? The Draft author has provided some additional thoughts here on my talk page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Catholicity and Catholicism[edit]

In March 2015, the page Catholicity (disambiguation) was moved to Catholic (disambiguation), and "Catholicity" is now a redirect to Catholicism, both reflecting a similar perspective on the meaning of "Catholicism".

Please be assured that I mean to make no great divisive issue over POV here, but I do think there may be a distinct (and understandable) difference in outlook and word meaning when the term "Catholicism" is used from within the RC church, and when it is used from inside other branches of Christianity. It strikes me that the current state of the pages mentioned above reflect the meaning that would be particularly familiar to RCs. "Catholicity"'s intent to refer to universality in the church must naturally coincide with and mutually support RC doctrine regarding the one true church. It would (I suppose) become natural to come to identify pretty much everything RC as "catholic", a part of "catholicism" and a reflection of the universality implied by "catholicity". That outlook would become invested in RC writings, and being so very prominent, would highly influence the English language itself. Influence, I say, but not override.

Growing up Anglican, the outlook I learned and used and shared from within Protestantism was not so neatly meshed. In fact, it was carefully separated. "Catholicism" always meant "in reference to the RC church", whereas "catholicity" meant "universality in the church". And indeed it is so also within Orthodoxy, at least with respect to catholicity (Catholicism is not much used there formally).

I think you all must know that the RC and Orthodox churches share pretty much the same idea and doctrine about what "universality in the church" is; the difference lies in where (in what church) the catholicity is placed. I think Anglican doctrines to be somewhat different regarding universality, but it also differs with respect to the placement of catholicity.

Within the whole span of articles on Christianity, it is critically useful to remain not just NPOV, but to express the articles' wording in clear language. We must be able to be precise in order to present (or discuss) that which is distinct (or shared) among the various branches, and to do so without violating the general sense of English words. It is therefore incumbent on us to weigh how we apply common word meanings, sometimes setting aside wider meanings in some contexts, in order to make good use of narrower meanings that give us the precision we need. My main point here is that "catholicity" and "Catholicism" generally need to remain distinct, and especially so when discussing the universality of the church or the one true church. It is my contention that the pages mentioned above need some tweaking in order to give a clearer picture of this also-common distinction in our language, and that doing so will serve the whole Christianity project. I submit as example the long-term proliferation of attacks on the Eastern Orthodox Church page by some Orthodox that the church is not catholic, precisely because they maintain the word means RC and nothing else. That is, of course, contrary to both etymology and Orthodox church teaching, but it does signal the kinds of confusion we may raise in our readers, especially if they are inclined to take one POV or another to a greater extreme.

Are there any initial objections or concerns regarding making a few changes? Evensteven (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


Interested editors please see recent edits on article Sabbath in seventh-day churches and discussion at Talk:Sabbath in seventh-day churches#Orthodoxy for an overview of issues related to Orthodoxy and western Christianity as relates to the Sabbath and the Lord's Day. Thanks. Evensteven (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


good day,

We could do with some technical help over at WP:RFD#Hvítakristr, the Hvítakristr currently redirects to Jesus, but another good editor there has pointed out we have no List of names of Jesus in other languages (that other editor didn't quite suggest that exact name of the list, but that is not important), the point is do we have a list or set article on what Jesus is generally known by in other languages? Otherwise this one will probably be deleted.

God bless you all.

I am not sure this even means Jesus C. because the "ktristr" at the end is a bit of a giveaway. But the point remains, do we have a list of names of Jesus in other languages?

S. Si Trew (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

May I add an inquiry? Do we have a list of names for Jesus in English? Consider: Christ, Messiah, the Holy One, Emmanuel, the Way, the Truth, the Life, Alpha and Omega, Pascal Lamb, Pascha - surely that list is not complete. We even have an article for Son of God, although some would use that for others than Jesus as well. Evensteven (talk) 04:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
The article is Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament. StAnselm (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Serpent (Bible) listed at Requested moves[edit]


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Serpent (Bible) to be moved to Serpents in the Bible. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)