Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard

---

Concerns about articles on early "Popes"

I have been reading through a few of the articles on early Bishops of Rome, and noticed some concerns. First, the fact that they are prefixed with "Pope" indicates a certain bias. Not only did the word "Pope" not come until later, but if "Pope" is to be used, it should be used as a prefix for all the early Patriarchs.

Secondly, many of the articles indicate that these early Bishops were "head of the Catholic Church", indicating even more bias towards the Roman Catholic viewpoint.

My recommendation (and will-be action if consensus is reached) is that "Pope" should be removed as a prefix from all the bishops of Rome up until the Great Schism and that "head of the Catholic Church" should be removed from articles that contain it up until the Great Schism. What is your take on this issue?

COI Notice: I am an Eastern Orthodox inquirer. Gold Standard 06:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is utterly ridiculous if you're claiming bias and proposing an action to swing the bias to some skewed anti-Roman Orthodox perspective you favour. I don't see a bias (which you're overstating) in how the articles are titled or the subjects addressed, and it's likely consensus wouldn't be reached, per WP:UCN--and on the small chance someone else sees this innocuous practice as a potential bias, per WP:POVNAME. The early bishops across the board were affectionately called "father" in Greek...so what? Current English usage reserves the name pope for the Bishop of Rome and the Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria or List of Greek Orthodox Patriarchs of Alexandria which Wikipedia covers rather consistently--and without favouritism to the Catholics, the Coptics, or the Greeks--and addresses other leaders as Patriarch where appropriate in a rather consistent and unbiased fashion. I sincerely and strongly doubt we'll get into the Russian tradition where every village priest assumes the affectionate title of "pop" or "papa". Other less primal figures are appropriately described as bishops or with their relevant titles. Pope leads to the Catholic office simply by virtue of satisfying all the criteria per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC...guess Francis and his predecessors win out on that one since he leads roughly 60% of the world's Christians. Thanks for declaring your COI...FYI, I'm an Anglican...the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• COI Notice: I am Eastern Orthodox.

No, ColonelHenry, it's not "ridiculous", bias is not "potential", and not all is "innocuous" here. On the other hand, I agree that the reaction is overstated, and the recommendation too heavy. And I distinguish fairly sharply the impact of "Pope" from that of "head of the Catholic Church".

That Russian tradition of "pop" or "papa" for the village priest is thoroughly Orthodox, very ancient, and didn't originate in Russia. As you mentioned, early bishops, Greek- or Latin- speaking, were often referred to (informally) in affectionate terms by a diminutive of "father", for which "papa" serves as a good English approximation. The Latin-language form of this address led to the word we know as "pope" today. I frankly don't know just when use of "pope" narrowed in the west to mean just the Patriarch of Rome, but I'd wager it was a gradual thing led by common usage from below, and wouldn't be at all surprised if it was pretty much accomplished before the schism. So it's hard for me to see any bias in the title "Pope" at all. There is certainly POV in RC dogma regarding the authority the Pope might hold, but that POV is not inherent in the title, however much the common reader may associate the title with Rome. As an Orthodox, I don't accept those RC claims of authority; neither do I accept any restriction on the application of "Pope" to other bishops or clergy. I also don't think that the RCs set out to restrict usage; it just became a common perception in the west, where many have not heard of the Orthodox AND Coptic Patriarchs of Alexandria or their use of the title. I don't think this is a matter for contention, and see no harm even in RCs applying "Pope" to the earliest Patriarchs of Rome, even before the practice was widespread historically. And that is because the nature of the (informal) title does not distort the history of those early times. It was always informal then, and today it supports an historical continuity that is readily recognizable. And the affection inherent in "pope" represents a fundamentally orthodox attitude. I think appeals to WP:UCN or WP:POVNAME are really mostly unneeded here; I don't see where WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies in any case. It's all just too heavy.

Ooh, but "head of the Catholic Church" is problematic in so many ways. I would suggest that "head of the Roman Catholic Church" might serve as a more accurate and less unambiguous substitute in times after the schism. Why should the reader be left guessing about the application of "Catholic", when conflicts and controversies just love to inflict themselves upon its use? Let's undermine such nonsense through specificity (if you really need the phrase at all). Before the schism, the bishops in Rome can be considered Orthodox Patriarchs; that is, the Orthodox consider them to be so. For Orthodox, "head" will never do; the head of the church anywhere is Jesus Christ. Any side one takes on that statement is POV, and hence "head" is bias. But "head" is not an official title, it doesn't affect article names or the popes; it can be readily avoided by using a more neutral word, or by avoiding the phrase entirely. "Roman Catholic Pope John XXIII" doesn't need to be identified by such a phrase; neither does "Pope Gregory I of Rome". I doubt you can find anyone who really does. Why not just reword and remove the offending phrase as a bit of cleanup? There's no justification for using problematic language when easy neutral alternatives are available.

Btw, I'm also a former Anglican. Cheers! Evensteven (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

There is discussion of "head of the Catholic Church" above, and I support its removal up to some date in perhaps the 3rd or 4th century. "Pope" is very often needed for disambiguation, and certainly meets WP:COMMONNAME. I might support its removal for the first 4 or so - figures like Pope Linus - but then how else to disambiguate them? Of course Saint Peter is not given a Pope title. But taking either of these up to the Great Schism is way over the top. If these articles are being altered (and many have been done already in fact) the disgusting fake C19th portraits (the black and white ones as at Pope John XI) should all be replaced with any of the alternatives, which are all better. "Pope" is only normally used in English for Coptic etc prelates, not the main Patriarchs of Orthodoxy. Johnbod (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have missed that "pope" originated as an informal usage, and ancient orthodox patriarchs were sometimes addressed that way. Not in all circumstances, mind you, the social context needed to be right. Informal. If modern references may neglect that usage, there can be many reasons for it: not an informal situation, not an official title, not a documented application. That's fine, but it's also not justification for restricting the use of "pope" artificially. It is what it is; let it be. On WP, it is what WP:RS have presented publicly, which tends to be more formal. That's ok too. But it is our concern to remain neutral, and within where WP:RS will allow us to go, we have room to direct our editing choices to the least inflammatory way of stating things. WP:RS is not the master protocol either. Seeking neutral alternatives for phrasing is beneficial to WP and a desirable orientation for editors to have. So is defusing discussions.

• "Pope" may well be useful for disambiguation. That means nothing if it's not already appropriate to use the title. But I have argued that it is appropriate. Nevertheless, the need for disambiguation is an insufficient reason. But don't worry; be happy.
• St. Peter is not a pope because he was an apostle, not a bishop/patriarch. They are distinct roles in the early church.
• You do not say why you think eliminating "head of the Catholic Church" is "way over the top", while I have stated my reasons for why the phrase is problematic. I think you need to make a case for why that particular phrase is required as a description for the popes. It seems to me that the role of pope as bishop/patriarch, within Orthodoxy or within Roman Catholicism, is pretty well-defined by those churches already. Is the role not inherent for one who assumes the position of pope? Why then is the phrase not redundant? And why then can it not be removed as superfluous? And why do you mention "up to ... the 3rd or 4th century"? Just calling the idea "way over the top" tends to be inflammatory. Let's tone down and start to deal with it rationally.
• I have not made any of the changes you refer to, and do not know what they are specifically. They have not been any consideration at all in what I have written about. I for one have no interest in trying to promote an agenda in the face of opposition. But I do expect and require that all other editors listen, try to understand and to reason, and assume good faith. Take your time. Explain. And don't jump to conclusions. I'm listening. Evensteven (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Later insert and strikeout: Having had some more time to look at WP policies, I see now that invoking WP:AGF means something quite significantly different from what I thought at the time. My apologies to Johnbod for any implication of bad faith on his part. That was never intended. Evensteven (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Are you? Not very carefully it seems to me. My comments reflect the general understanding among historians of the church as to when it is appropriate to talk of a "pope" or "head of the church". Did you read the previous discussion? I'm not willing to spend very much time explaining things to you I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I second Johnbod's analysis of the need to disambiguate early Bishops of Rome as "pope" even when the expression was in greater informal currency in the early years--I would oppose the stripping of the title up to the 3rd/4th century and assert that the usage of Pope in the article names, etc., overrides (per WP:UCN, WP:POVNAME) any claim of perceived bias. The fact remains--the majority of users searching for popes, or a list of popes, are looking for articles on the holders of the See of Rome and only a much slimmer minority for its usage in other traditions. While I will acknowledge that the eastern tradition asserts that they are "Catholic" too, the numbers of parishioners (and by extrapolation, searching readers) work against them in the general understanding of the word (Protestants searching for Catholic are likely looking for Roman Catholic, Roman Catholics tend to ignore the arguments from the east). Sorry, the numbers (1.2 billion Roman Catholics, 600-800 million Protestants vs. at best 300 million Orthodox Christians...ratio about 7 to 1.) support WP:UCN leaning innocuously toward the Roman tradition. "Way over the top" entirely a reasonable description of the attempt to strip the title up to the Great Schism and for the militancy of such a biased proposal. That's just swinging the pendulum hard toward Orthodox POV-pushing, and I think irrationally, you're ignoring the fact that others disagree with you for reasonable, policy-based reasons. I still don't see a bias that needs addressing--and I don't see a need to change a reasonable, policy-based structure that is adequate and most appropriate for readers. Quite frankly, I am not going to waste my time petulantly fighting A.D. 1054 all over again, and I'd admonish the orthodox readers to improve the articles regarding their tradition instead of bitching about insignificant semantics or thinking that dimming the West's candle makes the East's grow brighter. Namaste. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• So because there are fewer Orthodox than Protestants or Catholics, we have to make the articles palatable to Catholicism? That does not seem to be an attitude of NPOV, it seems to be an attitude of "giving users what they're searching for, and not an article of least bias". Additionally, I find it funny that you think this is a biased proposal, when the articles in and of themselves are obviously biased towards Roman Catholicism in declaring the bishop of Rome to be "head of the Catholic Church". If the term "Pope" is not going to be removed, then that phrase certainly should be because it is clear bias. It is not insignificant or semantical; in fact, it is something that Roman Catholics only, not Orthodox or Protestant, believe to be true. For that reason, all occurrences of the phrase "head of the Catholic Church" should be replaced with "according to the Roman Catholic Church, head of the Catholic Church" or something to that effect. Gold Standard 17:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• That's why we have WP:POVNAME and other relevant policies...we can accept a small, harmless bias from time to time because it's the least offensive and least inaccurate of many (often worse) options. What you're asking is that we trade a small, harmless, mostly unnoticeable bias for larger, more noticeable, less accurate bias (an anti-Rome, pro-Eastern Orthodox position across the board weakens the accuracy of the Roman Church's related article and might make them harder to find for interested readers). Sorry, this isn't a alternative battleground to perpetuate your ongoing anti-Rome fight still brewing since 1054 (actually since Chalcedon in 451). Sorry, but I don't see it your way--no matter how many times you bitch POV POV POV while pushing your own POV. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I am not here to WP:BATTLE. I am here to make the articles have a neutral POV, not my own. WP:NPOV makes it clear that we are to "Avoid stating opinions as facts" and "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts". If I was indeed pushing my own POV, I would be advocating that the articles say that the bishop of Rome was never the "head of the Catholic Church", but that would make the articles biased towards my own POV. Instead, I am advocating for a truly neutral article that indicates who believes what, specifically that it is only the Roman Catholic Church that holds that the Popes were head of the Catholic Church. Sure, the Roman Catholics are a majority, but it is far from consensus that the early Popes were head of the Catholic Church, and therefore we must indicate in the article that it is the RCC that holds to this position if we want the article to be NPOV. This is not inserting a "pro-EO" position, as the pro-EO position is that the bishop of Rome was never the head of the Catholic Church.

I would like to add that I am not "perpetuating my anti-Rome fight". I have never set foot in an EO Church and have no connection to the East. I am merely considering conversion. Gold Standard 18:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Folks, I'm asking again that you assume good faith. Please take a peek at a couple of recent discussions I have contributed to. Does it appear that I am not being constructive there, or that I am pushing an agenda? I don't think I have; I have had no intention of doing so. If you prefer, we can take that matter to my user talk page. But I really would appreciate some feedback on this point, because I'm definitely not here to WP:BATTLE either. That kind of attitude can destroy Wikipedia, but it destroys the participants too.

Johnbod, yes, I'm listening. Carefully. I'd be happy to read your discussion "above" if I could find it. I've looked through the titles (over 1000 of them) in all the archives and could see nothing suggestive. Would you be willing to give me a closer hint? I might have just looked by it without seeing. I have a related frailty that I have no control over. I do confess I am cautious about accepting phrases like "general understanding among historians of the church", since I have seen other instances (where none here was involved) in which there was a POV hidden behind it. (I have at least been on WP long enough to have had that experience.) I haven't dealt with you before, and you just haven't given any clear indication of where you're coming from. Stating your opinion does not constitute an answer to a question. Let's have a concrete pointer to two before misunderstandings develop. I know very well that communication is work, and I'll try not to be a distraction. On the other hand, I still feel free to contribute as I can, and I can't be limited by your available free time either.

ColonelHenry, for "petulantly fighting A.D. 1054 all over again", "bitching about insignificant semantics", and "bitch POV POV POV while pushing your own POV", shame on you! You are able to phrase those thoughts in a respectful tone, but have chosen not to do so. Put a rein on the rhetoric. For "I'd admonish the orthodox readers to improve the articles regarding their tradition", it's not up to you to say where anyone's contributions ought to be. Don't overstep your rights as an editor. Nevertheless, a significant portion of my own work has been done there, as might be natural. Implied criticisms rejected. For "thinking that dimming the West's candle makes the East's grow brighter", mind-reading another editor is not respectful either, and certainly not conducive to discussion. I recently had a thought in a comical vein, that perhaps I will mention here in a serious one: there is no "cussing" in "discussing"; that's why it's called dis-cussing. It can sometimes be work to remove ("dis") the cussing from an interaction. But there will be no true discussion possible without it. Dis-cussing is WP policy too.

I for one would love to see Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy mend some fences, wherever possible. Let's try applying the same attitude here. I have seen fragments of a few past verbal wars on WP among editors of one view or another, some between western Christians and Orthodox, that make my blood curdle - not with anger, but with sheer pain. No good can come of it. If anyone distrusts me just because I am Eastern Orthodox, I am sorry that it is so; but I am not responsible for the actions of others, nor do I necessarily condone them. If they are Orthodox, then I would rebuke them the more sternly. But rebukes are reserved for serious infraction and delivered infrequently, lest they turn into occasion for war. The idea is to give an opportunity for someone to respond freely in a constructive way. Will you all please take a step with me in this direction?

About WP policy and bias, we probably have some conflicts in ways of thinking. I don't think there is any WP policy that supports bias. But WP policy is pragmatic enough to recognize that it needs to bend to practicalities. I think it is better to recognize bending for what it is: an imperfect solution, but implemented for the sake of being able to accomplish something useful. What it is not is an excuse to take bias lightly. Neither is it an excuse for belittling a bias against a group one does not belong to. Neither is it an excuse for perpetuating a bias when a reasonable alternate solution presents itself. To be constructive, we will need to decide how and to what degree those abstract statements apply to our current troubles.

Let's back away from "head of the Catholic church" for a bit until the climate can cool down, and just deal with "Pope". I think there's hope there. I have already described how the use of "pope" is not an issue for Eastern Orthodoxy. Many pre-schism orthodox popes are still celebrated as saints in the east. I have heard them called "pope" in Orthodox services (I am thinking especially of Pope Gregory I of Rome, the "Dialogist"), never as "patriarch". If you understand the place of the worship services within eastern Holy Tradition, you will realize how significant that is. There is no way that Orthodoxy has any trouble with "Pope", or it could not be there in the services. Everything I have said about "Pope" was designed to convey that it is not a bias issue for the Orthodox. Nothing I said was designed to be a recommendation of where it should or should not be applied on Wikipedia. I am happy to go along with western reliable sources, Roman Catholic or not, as to what they see as appropriate usage. And I stand behind application of that usage per WP policy. If changes to "Pope" as a title have been made counter to those reliable sources, I think those changes should be reverted. Even though I'm delighted that this outcome is convenient for handling disambiguation, that's still not the right basis on which to have settled the outcome.

Let's also continue to assume good faith on Gold Standard's part in his/her advocacy, too. As stated earlier, Gold Standard is not yet Orthodox, but only considering conversion. To me, the view is highly understandable, given the facts of east/west history, and the inflated way that old hurts sometimes continue to be aired. If his/her knowledge of Orthodoxy is not as yet advanced enough to have understood "Pope" is not an issue for the Orthodox, that is also highly understandable, and there is no shame in that. Some of what I wrote was with Gold Standard in mind, to fill in what was unknown.

So far, so good? Evensteven (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this, I did already back off of my recommendation to remove "Pope" from the article titles. My main concern is now that the Roman Catholic view of the Pope as head of the Catholic Church is being presented as fact, rather than the opinion of the RCC (as is discouraged in WP:NPOV). Gold Standard 22:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, sorry. I'm not reading all that repetitive crap, Evensteven. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I strongly suggest you read WP:CIV. Gold Standard 23:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Every time you respond and repeat the same tired argument, it evinces that you don't and your tag-team partner are not too concerned what anyone else says. We're not going to agree, you're not going to see it anyone else's way. and quite frankly, I don't have the time for that nonsense. And rather than read 1,500 words of repetitive sanctimonious bullshit, I'll say "no thanks."--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps a reason to repeat the argument is that you haven't addressed how stating the RCC's opinion as fact isn't a violation of NPOV. We are concerned as to what you have to say in response to this, we're just waiting for evidence that the RCC's opinion can be stated as fact and not violate NPOV. And again, civility please. Gold Standard 00:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Already addressed that with discussion of WP:POVNAME, etc. Apparently, you didn't read that or worse refuse to acknowledge that. Forumshopping is further proof of that. And trading one harmless, slight POV (the lesser of several evils) for your "way over the top" swing to the Eastern Orthodox POV is not acceptable as an alternative. No matter how many times you repeat your pitch, I'm still going to say "nope, not buying it."--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• POVNAME is utterly irrelevant to the insertion of a phrase that is a descriptor used only by the RCC. A "way over the top" swing would be to specifically specify that the Pope is not the head of the Catholic Church, which is not what I am advocating. Gold Standard 00:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggesting that this dialogue be moved to WP:NPOVN. Gold Standard 00:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think we've got a resolution on "Pope". Excellent.

ColonelHenry, did I hear an apology in there somewhere? Your transmission came through garbled. But it's gladly accepted. Evensteven (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion section at WP:NPOVN has been created and participating users have been notified. Gold Standard 00:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• The previous discussion was actually at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism/Archive_2013, sections 27, 35 and [late addition] 48, which is the proper place really. A search on ""head of the Catholic church" POV" found it easily enough. I hadn't really followed it & agree more with those at S35. There may well be other sections that are relevant. This discussion should be notified there, Gold Standard. Johnbod (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you, I didn't know about these. It seems as though #35 is the one that is relevant to the current discussion, as #27 addresses my previous point which I have already ceased to argue for. Gold Standard 01:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Thanks, Johnbod. I've been working on another article today too, and have about reached my day's termination point, so I'll have to get to it tomorrow. I'll likely join the other dialogue as I am able also. Evensteven (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• In fact, after a series of edits I did in September, & a couple more just now, Pope Pontian who succeeeded in 230 is now the first described at the start as "head of the Catholic church". I've discussed terminology at the other place, but "head" should probably go for the next ones as well - I'd be inclined to say all to Pope Sylvester I (r. 314-335) though cases might be made for other points. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The POV questions that arose in this discussion have been resolved with consensus. The discussion at NPOVN has been closed and archived. The consensus there returns the basic formulation of the lead sentence to "Pope" instead of "head of the Catholic Church", but does not cut off the possibility of changes in formula for the earliest Popes' articles, as was suggested both here and there. Discussion at NPOVN seemed to favor "Bishop of Rome" in place of "Pope" until Nicea, as Johnbod suggests just above here. I plan on making required changes to the articles soon, and propose to use "Bishop of Rome" pre-Nicea unless there are objections to the latter. The basic idea for that change is to reflect history better. Evensteven (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Cannabis in the Bible

Can someone please supply reliable sources for Wikipedia's claim that cannabis was used in Holy anointing oil? Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• @In ictu oculi: Quick search gives me this: BBC: [1], Guardian: [2]--ColonelHenry (talk) 08:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• Also: [3], [4], [5]--ColonelHenry (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Two news items about the same thing: an article published in the drugs magazine "High Times" by Chris Bennett. Plus three items that declare it a possibility but by no means a certainty. Strike the first two as POV. The three are insufficient to make the characterization "was used in". Evensteven (talk) 08:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, these pretty well confirm my impression that there's no evidence and the content of the article (as it has recently been edited) is getting fringey. But as the Talk page shows there are some real enthusiasts for boosting the cannabis content in the article. More eyes/hands on are needed. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Those were more respectable looking sources with a quick google search before going to bed last night. None of them would pass my RS test. the first two just seem to be reporting--repeating--a claim made from teh fringe. If we say "Bennett said this" and the rest of the sources all look like they say "Bennett said this" but with a hesitancy to cite Bennett or give him credit, and we use those sources to support Bennett, it would effectively be a feedback loop. So, it's best to just present it as "one person, with a COI as a pot-smoker, said this". --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I also would certainly limit exposure to that much at a maximum. But with a single COI as the basis, is it not WP:UNDUE to mention it at all? Evensteven (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Evensteven - I would agree. I think the only decent and accurate mention of it would be to say (1) one writer commented that the term ought to be translated as cannabis, adding immediately after (2) a serious RS-based mitigation/refutation of that claim. The second part being important so that we don't give the cannabis claim a life of its own under the auspices of "Wikipedia says it"--thereby spawning a bunch of magazine mention that the potsmoking crowd would attempt to come back to incorporate as reliable sources to bolster the original fringe view.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I like that even better; in fact, much better. Evensteven (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Evensteven, ColonelHenry - thank you for this sensible input. Could I presume further to ask that someone acts on this in the article. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

So that's why they called him the High Priest...PiCo (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Pentecostal pastors

I did not realize that a discussion to rename Category:Pentecostal clergy to Category:Pentecostal pastors and similar categories (such as Category:Assemblies of God clergy to Category:Assemblies of God pastors) was underway at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January_16#Category:Pentecostal clergy, but I believe it was a horrible idea. Many of the names on this category aren't even pastors but evangelists. A pastor is a shepherd of a congregation, not a catch-all term for all Pentecostal clergy. And besides the pastor/evangelist distinction, there are ordained ministers who do not work as pastors or evangelists but as teachers, working in academic institutions. For example, Gordon Fee, an ordained minister with the Assemblies of God, is now listed in the category of Assemblies of God pastors even though he is not a pastor. Contrary to what has been represented in the discussion, not every ordained minister within Pentecostal churches is called "pastor." Am I the only one who sees this as a problem? Ltwin (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I know little about Pentecostals, but more about English. I agree that "clergy" does not have the same meaning as "pastor" anywhere, and that this name change therefore implies a real change of category. Evensteven (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Ltwin, this change was intentional. This group of categories is part of the Religious leaders hierarchy. Gordon Fee is notable as an academic rather than as a leader of a congregation, so being a Pentecostal minister is not WP:DEFINING for him. Being a Pentecostal Christian is defining, so I will re-categorise him accordingly. – Fayenatic London 07:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

But that's the point. This decision to change the clergy category to simply pastor was a bad decision. Whether Fee is a pastor or not, he is still an ordained minister of the AG which means he is automatically part of the AG's religious hierarchy. The AG does not give pastoral credentials out anyway. They ordain ministers. Some of these ministers pastor churches. Some of them don't. Not all Pentecostal church leaders lead congregations. Some are evangelists, who aren't called "pastor." And many figures who were at one time pastors are not notable for being pastors but instead for being evangelists. Ltwin (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

All Ltwin's points also follow as normal consequences of plain English, and can (and do) apply in the same ways in many places. "Pastor" is a specific role, an office, whereas "clergy" is foundational, grants certain authority, and permits people to assume various roles over time. To put it crudely (and somewhat inaccurately) "pastor" is more like a job, where "clergy" is more like a career. It seems unwise to categorize people on the basis of only one role. That's seldom the most notable aspect, and tends to be a moving target as well. Evensteven (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Even if for some reason one thought that "clergy" was objectionable in a Pentecostal context (even though it isn't), there are other options than just making the category "pastors only" as if pastors are the only type of ministerial office Pentecostals recognize. You could have changed the category name to Pentecostal ministers, Assemblies of God ministers, etc. "Pastor" is just too limiting. Ltwin (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, limiting, both by definition of role, and also over time, as roles change. Evensteven (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Mediation notice

Initial mediation discussion that became WP:WALLOFTEXT huge.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

A request for Formal Mediation re Matthew's Hebrew Gospel will be filed today. Please see the talk page of User:PiCo Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the notification, Ret.Prof, but I'll steer clear of that one for now. It looks like a dispute that would eventually end up at ArbCom just like the Ebionites matter. I'll watch. Anyone who touches that, I'd fear, is just asking to get a "topic ban, broadly construed".--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC) I sincerely hope that RetProf doesn't get a topic ban or even go to ArbCom. I hope the mediation process can resolve this without further action, and I'll do my best to see it does. PiCo (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC) I tend to agree with User:ColonelHenry, - since mediation will be probably done by editors not familiar with New Testament criticism sources, and since the idea of a "Hebrew Matthew" has broad popular appeal the likely result will be punishment of editors reverting WP:FRINGE. It's probably better to stay out of it and simply deal with edit problems at the article level. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Well it is now at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. Has got off to a bad start already with Ret Prof framing the question "To what extent, if at all, should Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew as described by Papias be represented in the Gospel of Matthew article?" which seeing as nothing direct from Papias survives and Eusebius specifically says logia not gospel is already less accurate than our existing sourced content Gospel_of_Matthew#Composition_and_setting. How is "mediation" going to make up the expertise in sources needed to judge this? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Question: how does your statement here square with PiCo's request that you review the problem statement and have input into wording it correctly? You left a note on his talk page saying everything was fine. Btw, the statement was crafted by PiCo. Ret.Prof simply filed the request for mediation. Ignocrates (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC) The statement that I crafted isn't the one that ended up on the mediation request - my suggested wording was "To what extent, if at all, should the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis be represented in the Gospel of Matthew article?" But I think things are still manageable. PiCo (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC) I see your point, and I was mistaken in assuming it was your version. For the sake of clarity, here are the two versions together: Ret.Prof - "To what extent, if at all, should Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew as described by Papias be represented in the Gospel of Matthew article?" PiCo      - "To what extent, if at all, should the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis be represented in the Gospel of Matthew article?" I don't understand the purpose of Ret.Prof's statement, since Papias is already mentioned in the article. Still, I agree this is not a deal-breaker. MedCom has accepted mediation, btw. Ignocrates (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Ignocrates as above when I said I agreed with PiCo's statement I agreed with PiCo's statement: "To what extent, if at all, should the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis be represented in the Gospel of Matthew article?" This is an accurate summary of the problem. I did not agree with Ret Prof's statement of the problem, and as I said do not think that is a good start since Ret Prof's statement which is (a) not what PiCo drafted, (b) factually incorrect since Papias (in fact Eusebius) never said "Hebrew Gospel", and (c) Papias is already reliably sourced and handled in the article - and isn't the problem. The problem is wider than Eusebius' comment about Papias as the incident which led to ANI - proposing a 8th Century Arabic footnote as found in all (Greek) Gospel mss. If mediation is to proceed it should relate to all the variations on the "Hebrew Gospel" them which have been asserted and found lacking in modern academic support over the last 4 years. Bits of the Celticist Edward Byron Nicholson, James R. Edwards etc etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC) I understand your concerns, and I think it's not surprising there has been difficulty in drafting a statement of the problem. If communication between the parties was good we wouldn't need a mediator to facilitate the process. Despite the initial difficulties, I think these differences will be resolved once a mediator is appointed and we start laying out arguments and evidence. Please give the mediation process a chance to work. Ignocrates (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC) You can count on this going to arbitration if mediation fails or is rejected by the involved parties. Ignocrates (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Question: I don't know much about mediation. I am not a party to this mediation, but what happens if I disagree with the changes to the article that result from the mediation? Do changes still need talk page consensus? StAnselm (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC) The results of mediation aren't binding, but they would have a certain clout - "we went to mediation and we agreed to this." It's not too late to become a party if you wish - as a party you'd be asked to state your views and able to join in discussions. Let me know on my talk page. PiCo (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC) The most straightforward way to proceed would be to add yourself as a party to the mediation. We had to make a list of likely participants, but we didn't intentionally exclude you. The worst possible outcome would be for editors to sit on the sidelines and disavow the mediation process before there is even a chance to reach an agreement. Ignocrates (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC) The worst possible outcome would be for this to continue to ArbCom and just for arguing for a reliable-sources/scholarly treatment of it, get "topic ban, broadly construed" and getting indefinitely blocked for reverting an edit on a remotely connected Christianity article. This has all the potential of a third-rail, and before I consider adding any insight or argument, I would need to be beyond assured that ending up at ArbCom isn't the fate preordained by the stars. As I indicated above, this is a quagmire waiting to happen...just like the Ebionites mess.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Speaking as an involved party in the "Ebionite mess", I think the arbitration process in this case will be more difficult. This is a complex multiparty dispute and the locus of this long-running dispute cuts across many articles. It won't be pretty. Formal mediation is the last, best chance to avoid this outcome. Ignocrates (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Mediation and Dispute Resolution don't ever seem to work, so my money's on a final decision at ArbCom. I'll keep an eye on the mediation process but because of my concerns (i.e. the expectation of topic bans all-around and swiftly-executed AE), I'll prefer to stay out of the fray on this one. If it does get to ArbCom, I'll add my two cents there impartially on possible solutions which would likely emerge more clearly in the course of the mediation discussion. I am certain you can understand my rationale. To say it abruptly: I wouldn't fuck this hooker with a stolen dick.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Me neither, but I'm in it, like it or not. See you on the other side of mediation. :0) Ignocrates (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Response to the comments above: Such personal attacks are not acceptable at mediation! It is true that the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is gaining in popularity but this will not result in punishment on the group of editors called "Editors reverting WP:FRINGE." The wrongful actions of the Anti-Fringe POV Railroad are not the subject of mediation. The name change was the right decision! 24 minutes before the agreed upon deadline User:PiCo came to me with the following concern: "You need, somehow, to head off the argument that the HGH is already covered in the article of Hebrew Gospel hypothesis - this, and not fringyness, is what your opponents will be arguing (if they do argue fringe it'll be easy to shoot down). I don't know how you'll argue that, in fact I don't think it can be done, but please be ready to do it, both in your filing and later in the course of the debate" Therefore (2 minutes before the agreed upon filing deadline) I changed the topic name from Hebrew Gospel hypothesis to the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. It was the right decision for when I did a google book search no reliable sources use the term "Hebrew Gospel hypothesis" while substantial sources could be found in support of "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew". As for the fact that the Papias quote was preserved by Eusebius, I will respond to that during the mediation process. Ignocrates states "You can count on this going to arbitration if mediation fails" I agree. I personally will bring the whole Anti-Fringe POV Railroad to arbitration if this mediation fails! See ANI Closed If mediation is going to work then we need to assume good faith. PiCo has set the standard for all of us to follow. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC) If PiCo has set the standard for all of us to follow would you please amend your statement of the problem to the statement as drafted by PiCo. You could ask all 8 who have agreed if they object. I doubt any will. As far as spokespersons I would be confident with PiCo. Are User:Tgeorgescu, User:Eusebeus, User:Atethnekos User:StAnselm willing to be spokespersons? I apologise that I cannot remember User:Evensteven, and User:Bermicourt's edits in this area. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC) I doubt that any of the named editors would accept me as a spokesperson, nor would I want to be one on their behalf. Please choose someone else, assuming we can even agree on spokespersons. Ignocrates (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC) I haven't been involved in editing this particular article, but I am interested in, and have some knowledge of, the subject and want to understand how mediation works as I've not come across it before. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC) That's about it for me too. Is it required that I have prior edits in this discussion? I want to track it in any case, but I wasn't sure about mediation policy, and wanted to have a voice if I found something useful to say. Evensteven (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC) User:Evensteven, and User:Bermicourt, thanks - as this has been going on for 3-4 years I cannot remember who has edited, and [it appears] it isn't required, and no I don't know about mediation either, so welcome to you both, and welcome to StAnselm of course. I also think Gospel of Matthew is fine at is, so if spokespersons are really required, it is a spokesperson for that position I would like. But it may be better if everyone just says less. Thankyou all 3 for turning up. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC) The More the Merrier: A lot of those who have now joined the mediation I have no recollection of being part of the debate? Of course being an old guy, who is getting forgetful, that does not mean much. Who knows, they may provide new insight...maybe even a way out of our deadlock. The new scholarship re the Hebrew Gospel will have to be dealt with sooner or later and since it has now becoming a "popular topic" we have to expect interest! Welcome aboard. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC) My position, roughly speaking, is that the relevant section of the Gospel of Matthew article is fine the way it is. If people want me to be a spokesperson for that position, that's fine my be. StAnselm (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC) It should be easy to lay out the opening arguments then. One group of editors thinks the GoM article is fine as written (StAnselm, In ictu oculi, others?). Other parties that don't think it is fine can give specifics as to what they would change and provide scholarly sources to support their suggested changes. There is no need to include the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis article, which has its own set of issues that can be addressed in another venue. Ignocrates (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Content discussion and argumentation that belongs on the article talk page or at mediation discussion, not here, PART 3--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Definition of terms: Gospel of Matthew. One of the four gospels in the New Testament. Hebrew Gospel. A gospel referred to by various Church Fathers in the first 500 years of Christianity as held in high esteem by Jewish Christians. Some uncertainty as to whether this is one gospel or many. See Hebrew Gospel hypothesis. Gospel of the Hebrews. A gospel used by the Jewish Christians (the "Hebrews") of Egypt in that period; possibly the "Hebrew Gospel" referred to by the Church Fathers. Gospel of the Nazarenes and Gospel of the Ebionites. Two further Jewish Christian gospels, also possible candidates for the Church Fathers' "Hebrew Gospel". Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. A translation of the Gospel of Matthew into Hebrew made in 16th century in order to convert the Jews of Europe to Christianity (and there is an earlier similar translation made by Jews in Spain in order to point out the errors of the Christians). We have articles for all of these except the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, which is clearly not relevant to the mediation. That is, however, the title RetProf has given to this mediation. I think it would be a good idea to change it. PiCo (talk) 07:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC) As per PiCo, I would prefer the broader and more accurate statement of the issue. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Note, while we're at it, Ret.Prof I'd just like to make a comment on your use of Jerome's "fountain head" to mean "lost Hebrew Gospel". I realize that this is how the book you have read by James R. Edwards understands the term in the letter to Pope Damasus (and Edwards appears to be alone in this misreading) but that term "fountain head" otherwise in Jerome's writings (since he, unusually for this period, wrote in Latin not Greek) means the Greek fountain head as opposed to his Latin translation, not a lost Hebrew fountain head as opposed to the Greek: LETTER LXXXV TO PAULINUS "... and to keep to this rule that I should neither add nor subtract but should preserve in Latin in its integrity the true sense of the Greek... neither should you, who can drink from the fountain head, turn to the muddy streamlets supplied by my poor wits." (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second Series, Volume VI Jerome Philip Schaff) as above. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Great stuff. I am sure I will be forced to go to the library many times. I am optimistic. People have been showing interest and good will. One concern was regarding my title. I doubt a title will have much affect one way or the other. It is the way Edwards most other scholars refer to our topic. (It is true that some people felt they had found a copy of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, but upon closer examination most now feel this old document is a "poor" translation of the Gospel of Matthew into Hebrew made in 16th century in order to convert the Jews of Europe to Christianity. However some still believe it to be the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew written by the Apostle himself) Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC) PS I just did a Google Book search re those authors who support your position and they also use the term Hebrew Gospel of Matthew!

Fountainhead

Content discussion and argumentation that belongs on the article talk page or at mediation discussion, not here, PART 1--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Fountainhead No letter from the early Church has been as hotly contested as the following: Jerome's letter addressed to Pope Damasus in 383 "I will now speak of the New Testament, which was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the Apostle Matthew, who was the first in Judea to produce a Gospel of Christ in Hebrew script. We must confess that as we have it in our language, it is marked by discrepancies, and now that the stream is distributed into different channels we must go back to the fountainhead." >>>>>>>>>>> Jerome, Preface to the Four Gospels, Addressed to Pope Damasus in 383 Roland H. Worth, Bible translations: a history through source documents, McFarland & Co., 1992. p 28 James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 286 Up to this time most people believed the Gospel of Matthew to be a Greek translation of Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. Modern scholars have since vindicated Jerome and it is generally accepted that the Gospel of Matthew found in the Bible could not have been tranlated from the Hebrew Gospel. Henry Wace & Philip Schaff, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: St. Jerome: Letters and select works, Christian literature Company, 1893. Vol 6, p 488) I suspect it will be an important part of our mediation debate - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Ret.Prof, you keep quoting the same primary sources over and over as though we are ignorant and need to be schooled by you. The critical evaluation is not what you think about Jerome's writings; it is about what reputable modern scholars think about Jerome's writings. For example, see, Helmut Köster (2000), Introduction to the New Testament 2, p. 207, This hypothesis has survived into the modern period; but several critical studies have shown that it is untenable. First of all, the Gospel of Matthew is not a translation from Aramaic but was written in Greek on the basis of two Greek documents (Mark and the Sayings Gospel Q). Moreover, Jerome's claim that he himself saw a gospel in Aramaic that contained all the fragments that he assigned to it is not credible, nor is it believable that he translated the respective passages from Aramaic into Greek (and Latin), as he claims several times. ...It can be demonstrated that some of these quotations could never have existed in a Semitic language. See also, Andrew Gregory (2008), The Non-Canonical Gospels, p. 55, The reasons for believing that Matthew was composed in Greek are so compelling that the quest for a Hebrew original is best regarded as a dead end, no matter how romantic its pursuit might seem. Btw, you said this mediation is about Papias in your opening statement. Why has the subject suddenly changed and now it is about Jerome? Ignocrates (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Good point! I should be arguing how Jerome supports Papias at the Mediation! I will also be challenging your position re primary sources. Now I am having fun. Thanks to everyone for all the good will and shifting the focus to the reliable sources. Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The New Scholarship

Content discussion and argumentation that belongs on the article talk page or at mediation discussion, not here, PART 2--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Things have radically changed in the last 5 years! Mid 20th spurious intellectual arguments have now been replaced with the historical method. Edwards, Ehrman, Casey and Dunn all agree. For example: Issue: Did Matthew compose an early Gospel in Hebrew? Multiple Attestation Historians prefer lots of written sources, the "closer in temporal proximity, the better". Ehrman 2010 p 41. In addition to Papias modern scholars have found at least eight early written attestations that state there was indeed a Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew in circulation during the formative years of Christianity: Irenaeus: Matthew composed a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the Church. Hippolytus: Matthew, having composed a Gospel in Hebrew script, published it in Jerusalem, and slept in Hierae of Parthia. The heretic Origen: The first Gospel was composed by Matthew, who was once a tax collector, but afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in Hebrew script. Ephem the Syrian: Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew script. Eusebius: They (the Apostles) were led to write only under the pressure of necessity. Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other nations, committed the Gospel according to himself to writing in his native dialect. Therefore he supplied the written word to make up for the lack of his own presence to those from whom he was sent. Epiphanius: Matthew composed his gospel in Hebrew script. Chrysostom: Of Matthew, it is reported, that the Jews who believed came to him. They asked him to leave in writing those same things, which he had preached to them orally. Therefore Matthew composed the Gospel in Hebrew script. Jerome: Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek (though by what author uncertain). Now this Hebrew original is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which Pamphilus the Martyr so diligently collated. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it. This historical evidence is then evaluated with other with other criteria to determine which are the most reliable and which are the least. At the mediation we will have an intense debate based upon the reliable sources - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Mediation

RetProf. I have indented to try and keep 13.1,2,3 Mediation from filling multiple sections on this Noticeboard. The above diff, yet again, should probably be collapsed. (and duplicated at Talk:Gospel of Matthew). In ictu oculi (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

paging User:Dougweller as someone I have seen use the collapse text box before. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Doug, you have my permission to refactor my comments as you see fit. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, please refactor and collapse this shit. Ret.Prof, please: here isn't the venue for debate about content. This is a noticeboard to advise potentially interested participants of debates going on ELSEWHERE. This isn't an alternative battleground or a place for pontification, and it isn't a place to browbeat people with WP:WALLOFTEXT tedium. Take the content dispute to the article's talk page and to the mediation debate. Damn it. Speaking for myself, my patience is exhausted by your tactics.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

"Shit" "Damn" etc. is not appropriate scholarly response at Wikipedia. As to putting it into a box, as I said, I have no problem. Please watch your mouth in future. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Take your content dispute to the appropriate venue. You've provided notice to interested users already, your "notifying" others of the debate is now over. Take the content debate elsewhere. I could care less whatever other arguments you have to offer right here or right now, this isn't an alternate battleground, and if you or another user take it to arbcom I would gladly argue in support of whomever decides that you be topic banned. You are tedious in that noisome WP:RANDY sort of way.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• By the way I agree that here isn't the venue for debate about content. I only joined in after it was underway. The right place for the debate is mediation! Please refactor LETTER LXXXV TO PAULINUS etc. "Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Request: Please end the content debate. Please move to talk Gospel of Matthew. Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks! - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Just to say that I did look at this when I saw I'd been pinged and it seemed that the issue about collapsing had been settled. I didn't comment at that time because I was in a rush to do something in real life. Sorry. Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Parable of the Wedding Feast and Parable of the great banquet

Something is very wrong with these two, which both make it sound as if the main story of each is the man in Matthew who came in the wrong clothes. They need disentangling, or merging, or something. And consistent capitalizing in their titles. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking at Category:Parables of Jesus, most have lots of caps. StAnselm (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Chances are, given how the MOS reads, things like the parables probably should be in title case, per MOS:CT.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Evensteven (talk) 07:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I think all these points have been addressed now. – Fayenatic London 21:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Photinus of Thessalonica. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Disentangling Diocese from [Prince-]Bishopric

There is a relevant discussion at Talk:Bishopric which impacts the Diocese article and, potentially, a host of "Diocese of Foo" articles too. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Kent Hovind peer review

I have submitted the article Kent Hovind for peer review. He is an American evangelist and creationist. If you have time please give your thoughts on the article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Christian Cultural Center

Christian Cultural Center (Brooklyn) is being renamed to Christian Cultural Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It occurs to me that there should be many such centres in the world, and that a generic topic article might also exist. Are there any other notable centres, or a generic topic article on such centres? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)