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 24.23.29.50 (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: [[]] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Old_Catholic_Bishops%27_Conference

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? 2.29.192.152 (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)

Proposal to merge Template:Infobox hymn with Template:Infobox musical composition[edit]

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 22, and please add your !vote. Softlavender (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to rename Category:Pentecostal pastors and related categories[edit]

Category:Pentecostal pastors, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ltwin (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for input: "Historic Baptist" teaching on Spirit baptism[edit]

Could editors knowledgeable about historical Baptist teachings on the baptism with the Holy Spirit please contribute to the relevant section of that article. An editor recently created this section but its sources seem to be drawn primarily from Landmark Baptist points of view. It would be great if we could have information from good, reliable sources representing the full range of non-charismatic Baptist churches for this section. Ltwin (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles about chapters of the books of the canonical New Testament[edit]

Recently an editor started creating articles about chapters of the books of the canonical New Testament of the Christian Bible (see, e.g., 1 Corinthians 4, Category:1 Corinthians chapters). In terms of style, the articles do not conform to Wikipedia standards. Could someone take a look at this editor's latest contributions and comment on their appropriateness? --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

A brief survey of various of these articles indicates to me that there is a consistency of style and approach that is not particularly encyclopedic, but more along the line of a Bible commentary in itself. The main sources are widely shared, and indications are that the editor is a devotee of the King James version, and that that is the orientation of the sources as well. It's not that such an orientation is a bad thing in itself. It's just that it makes all the articles I looked at potentially one-sided and derivative of one type of Protestant outlook only. I did not see any egregious examples of POV pushing, but there is potential for theological conflict, and the entire set would need checking. What I am less convinced about is the need for such a highly detailed set of articles. They contain little material not readily covered in a more general way in the book articles. And they all mention authorship of the book from only one point of view, a matter much better reserved for the book articles themselves. Evensteven (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm comfortable with the idea of an article on every chapter (but not every verse) in the NT. I agree, however, that we could do without the copy and pasting from Gill. StAnselm (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Page move proposal: "Five solas" to "Three solas"[edit]

Contributions would be appreciated at the Five solae Talk page, in the context of a proposal to rename (move) to "Three" rather than "Five" (the current "solae" may also be changed to "solas" but that is a minor side point).Thomask0 (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

International Christian Church[edit]

The above article on a comparatively new denomination has some serious problems. Any input on improving it would be welcome. John Carter (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Jesus in India hypotheses subsection in Christianity in India[edit]

Hi, I am writing here to request help with a situation in the article Christianity in India. There is a section called 'Jesus in India hypotheses' in the article as a subsection of 'Early Christianity in India'.

My first issue with this section is that these hypotheses don't really have anything to do with Christianity in India. No Christians believe in this, rather, this is an Ahmadiyya belief, and as such, it is more suitable in an article on Ahmadiyyas. My second issue is that it is placed in a part of the section dealing with the history of Christianity in India, and gives an impression that this is a part of the history of Christianity in India, when it isn't.

Instead of removing it completely, I tried to introduce the counterview that Jesus was crucified and died, but was reverted. There is a discussion on the talk page and I am not sure how to proceed now, so I request your views on the talk page. The Discoverer (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)