Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard

WikiProject Christianity Articles Categories Deletion Guide Newsletter Portal Projects Main pageShowcaseAssessmentPlanMembersNoticeboard Peer review Requests

---

I need help - Draft:Seventh Day Baptist World Federation

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

Need for followthrough for earlier move

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

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

Input needed at Talk:List of patriarchs of the East

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

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

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

Hagia Sophia

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

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

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

Syro-Malabar Church - when current hierarchy was established

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

Requested move at Talk:Saint Timothy#Requested move 13 April 2022

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

Review

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

Request for comment at Shroud of Turin

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

Heresy in Christianity in the modern era - AfD?

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

The start date seems arbitrary. What constitutes the modern era?

If a concept is reliably sourced as having gone through a heresy trial, then it seems reasonable to include, but there are only 18 references, so the list seems a bit large. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

After taking a quick look, many of these cases are not sourced. That is a problem in and of itself. However, a related issue is how is heresy being defined. The section "Walter Kenyon (Presbyterian, United States, 1974)" is about a man barred from ordination in a Presbyterian church because he refused to ordain women. I'm not sure I would describe that as "heresy". I'm also not sure if reliable sources would either, but we don't know because the entire section is unsourced. Ltwin (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

In addition, if some of these people are still alive, wouldn't we need to adhere to WP: BLP? Ltwin (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Tony Campolo went through "an informal heresy hearing" and that is sourced four times over in both his bio and this but his claim was not found to be heretical. So is that heresy or not? Why is it even listed in this article? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea, the article seem like an arbitrary list made with arbitrary criteria (was notability of individuals among those?). Also, I fail to see where the classification of "modern" and "non-modern" treatment of heretics among the whole Christendom is done (what changed in 1893? who made this classification?).

The two answers I get tell me I was right: this article should be AfDed. Veverve (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ltwin and Walter Görlitz: see the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heresy in Christianity in the modern era. Veverve (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Apostolic Constitutions and Apostolic constitution

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

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

Homoeroticism article

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

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

Establishing a patristics and exegesis standard

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

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

I would characterize the Immaculate Conception as a topic proper to Catholic Theology.

It's my belief that, within topics-or-interpretations proper to Catholic theology, . . .

• Primary Sources should be . . .
  • Scripture, and
  • The Church Fathers (as the earliest evidence for oral Sacred Tradition),
  . . . because of their acknowledgment by Catholic Magesterium, as being the 2 co-equal parts of the Deposit of the Faith.
  • Devotional Mysticism - Also a primary source, for purposes of Theology, but not Dogma.
• Secondary Sources should be . . .
  • The Magesterium itself because of . . .
    • its non-source but 2ndary, after-the-fact character; and
    • its systematicness, namely, as a centuries-old, ongoing academic-level consensus by the leading --not so much churchmen, per se, as-- scholars in the field of Catholic Theology.
    Indeed, the Magesterium explicitly claims to be such a research program, limited to its particular primary-source-material (Scripture & the Fathers), as seen in its frequent citation of St. Vincent of Lerins' famous quote, on the Development of Dogma.
  • Theologians' writings, including Augustine and Aquinas, and any others which display a systematic, academic character.

Octavius2 (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Octavius2: I would characterize the Immaculate Conception as a topic proper to Catholic Theology. But it isn't—at least on this encyclopedia. If there are reliable sources dealing with the Immaculate Conception from the perspective of Protestant or Hindu or Muslim or [insert religion here] then those should receive due weight on Wikipedia.

Secondary Sources should be . . whatever is sources are considered reliable sources per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Some of these maybe Catholic sources, but many will not be.

Theologians' writings, including Augustine and Aquinas, and any others which display a systematic, academic character. No. These are primary sources. When Augustine writes something, that writing must be interpreted. The interpretation is now a secondary source. If what Augustine wrote on a topic is important to a WP article, then what we need is a secondary source on Augustine to provide a reliable published interpretation of that theologian's writings. Ltwin (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Octavius2: You cannot speak of academic character before the 18th century (at least), and certainly not for people who have lived during Antiquity and the Middle Ages. You cannot quote Aquina's Catena Aurea as if it was an academic work. The claim the Magisterium is an academic source is completely ridiculous; if it was an academic source (which it is not), it would be a WP:FRINGE or a predatory one. The fact you talk about "the earliest evidence for oral Sacred Tradition" shows your heavy Catholic/EOrthodox POV. What's next, the alleged apostolic succession to prove whether or not an author is reliable? Something must be made clear: Wikipedia operates through a scientific methodology for its sources, not the tailor-made outlandish methodology used in some fields of studies. Veverve (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The Magisterium certainly isn't a WP:FRINGE, since, within a topic-or-interpretation proper to Catholic theology (like the Immaculate Conception), it is the MAIN theory, while in other Christianity-wide topics, it's a "significant-minority view," or, at worst, a completely legitimate WP:FRINGE/ALT. What you mean to say is that the Magesterium is a ✅WP:NIS Non-Independent sources, but it says there that such non-independent sources may still be used. Octavius2 (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Rebase: This sub-thread has been subsumed into the big heading below, "New Guidelines Discovered," which I posted to answer Veverve's particular objection here. Octavius2 (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, Octavius2, you have proposed as a criteria to include CFs as secondary sources academic character (i.e. systematic and rational, not mysticism-based). There are two problems. First, there is the fact something at least older than 5 century is very likely to be considered a primary source whatever its content is. Second, who gets to define what is systematic and rational, not mysticism-based in the writings (WP:OR)? By the way, who decides that those quotes support the Immaculate Conception dogma (WP:OR)?

I had proposed that you use Jurgen's compilation, with proper mention that it is Catholic apologetic from William Jurgen. If you really want to insist on adding Patristical sentences considered by some Christians as proof of the Immaculate Conception dogma, I think it is one of the the best, quickest and most effortless solutions. Veverve (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

By the way, to make a difference between systematic and rational and mysticism-based is also extremely biased: no EOrthodox would accept this distinction, especially to apply it to the CFs. Veverve (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• I think the distinction between "systematic and rational" -vs- "mysticism-based" is pretty obvious from a quick perusal of the nature of the work. You can instantly tell when someone is going verse-by-verse thru scripture, employing rational equanimity (e.g, Augustine's De Genesi ad Litteram), from when they are using inspirational flights-of-fancy (e.g, his Confessions).
• Thanks for the Jurgen Suggestion, but in those entire 3 volumes, there is only 1 single citation of anything from the Song of Songs, so it won't help me here.
• Usually, my cited quotes OBVIOUSLY support the Immaculate Conception, just by the literal signification of the words. Why is it that, while we have both Church Fathers' writings, and Roman historians' writings, from the same era, people get to cite the latter directly - Livy, Tacitus, Plutarch, & Pliny, but not the former? To claim that Aquinas doesn't constitute "Academic character," is really sad for modern academia, IMO. If a person was following all the academic conventions of their day, then, for us to reject them, and refuse to engage in conversation with them, on an equal footing, just because they're 'too old,' smacks of some sort of Historicist modern-bias -- maybe a Hegelian, or Whig dialectic-of-history. I think the secret and real reason Academia doesn't want to engage directly with past authors like Aquinas, is because they don't know Latin well enough, to be able to sight-read things before 1700 AD. But we pre-Cartesian Medievalists DO have a hammered-out, competing view of what a science should be, and it is that each "Science" has its own separate subject matter (the "Material Object Quid") and methods (the "Formal Object Quo"), and that by merely conforming to those, it constitutes a legitimate 'Science,' capable, like Philosophy or Theology, of exposing new truths within its line-of-approach, and as legitimate therefore as what we moderns mean by 'Science,' namely, Empirical Science. You can thank Descartes and the empiricist, physical-matter-minded-English for coming along and saying, "No-no-no, only what WE can reproduce before our eyes with lab-experimentation ought to be called a science." And then we got stupid things like scientific attempts at Mesmerism, LOL. Technically, Wikipedia is what you moderns call an 'Art' not "Scientific" at all.

Octavius2 (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• All the sources you used are pure OR of primay sources (be it from the Denzinger or directly the works of CFs), they are your own interpretation of the Church Fathers. No EOrthodox would accept that the CFs are sometimes 'not mystical' when talking about God (maybe @Ad Orientem: can confirm [and can of course comment on the discussion if he wants]). Besides, there is no obvious markers as to what this dichotomy is even according the Western standards.

The literal signification of the words does not mean anything on subjects where people have been debating for what those words mean centuries; their meaning(s?) is controversed. All you have given is your own interpretation.

• The History of Rome example you have given is indeed a problem: most of the use of those WP:PRIMARY sources should be replaced by secondary or tertiary sources. Primary sources can sometimes be used (WP:PRIMARYCARE), but not in those cases.
• If a person was following all the academic conventions of their day, then, for us to reject them, and refuse to engage in conversation with them, on an equal footing, just because they're 'too old,' smacks of some sort of Historicist modern-bias: are you arguing against WP:AGE MATTERS? Of course those are too old.
• I am not going to argue with you on whether defining an object makes something a science: it is not the topic and it will not change WP's methodology.

- Veverve (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Note: I don't agree that I'm doing WP:OR of primary sources, because I just argued in [the next sub-thread] that the sources I'm using — Church Fathers, Magisterium, and Theological Compendia, — are secondary sources. Octavius2 (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Whoops, the link to that is broken, but just search for the comment below with a big black oval about Primary and Secondary sources being "RELATIVE." Octavius2 (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

No, @Veverve, there is no old-age time-limit for secondary sources, as is evident from this sentence within the primary sources page . . .

"Primary" and "secondary" should be understood as RELATIVE terms, with sources categorized according to specific historical contexts and what is being studied."

. . . as well as a similar sentence on the Secondary Sources page, which also mentions their "relative" character.

Furthermore, the How to Classify a Source page [as Primary or Secondary] describes an example of a "book written 150 years" after the event as a secondary source, in contra-distinction to a journal written only 2 years ago.

WP:AGE MATTERS says nothing to contradict this, but only encourages newer stuff, if it's better, which it isn't, as nothing modern even remotely compares to the old theological compendia such as Aquinas' Summa Theologiae, or Cornelius A Lapide's Great Commentary.

------------THEREFORE--------------

✅Magisterium counts as a secondary source.

✅Church Fathers count as a secondary source, WHEN they are commenting on something else, such as scripture, as Wikipedia acknowledges that a source may sometimes be primary, and secondary at the same time.

✅11th-19th century Theological Compendia count as legit secondary (Aquinas' Summa) or tertiary (Lapide's Commentary) sources.

[Tagging @Pbritti, & @Jdcompguy, too.] Octavius2 (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Age does matter. You can say the Gesta Danorum is a secondary source for the story of the Danish people, and that anyone writing about the emu war on their blog is a secondary source on it. This does not make the Gesta Danorum useable as a source about the story of the Danish outside of mentions such as 'In the Gesta Danorum it was once written X '.
• The magisterium is a primary source, it cannot be used to state things about the world as if they were objective (WP:ALLPRIMARY), and the magisterium is 100% WP:SPONSORED. The magisterium is the Catholic Church's content about itself. Same goes for the Denzinger which is on top of that a compilation of primary sources without any thematical organisation or comments (unlike Jurgen's books).

You have been told by three users by now that your train of thought is erroneous. "Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." (WP:PSTS). Even if you want to use technicalities to argue the CFs are secondary sources, from what I see users use them with WP:PRIMARYCARE as they consider them as being far from self-explanatory and as being prone to various contradictory interpretation (see also WP:ONUS related to this). Doing an OR interpretation of the texts of the CFs on a debated point of theological doctrine is not acceptable. Veverve (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

SLOW DOWN., @Veverve. You threw three irrelevant curve-balls, and then tried to close the deal with an ad hominem, as if I'm flouting the very 3 users whom I literally just tagged in the very post that you're responding to(!). Not so fast. . . .

• Yes, the Gesta Danorum . . . (just like the Magisterium, Church Fathers, and medieval Theological Compendia) . . . would be a secondary source, based on this WP sentence: "Generally, accounts written after the fact with the benefit (and possible distortions) of hindsight are secondary."
• No, Magisterium isn't at all  WP:SPONSORED , which is for paid advertisements. The Magisterium doesn't pay anything to put their own content, into their own Acta Sanctae Sedis, which has so many volumes as to fill a wall. Once again, in topics-or-interpretations proper to Catholic theology, the Magisterium is, by its own centuries-old definitions, THE MAIN/MAJORITY VIEW; while in general Christian topics, it's a "significant-minority view", not a  WP:FRINGE , as you earlier alleged, and not a  WP:SPONSORED .
• Even though I need not use  WP:PRIMARY CARE , which only applies to Primary sources, not secondary ones, actually I was already employing the secondary equivalent of that, because, as a matter of policy, I was including every single quote, every single time, down in the footnotes' "quote" fields.

So yes, I have a right, for the good of public knowledge, to include as secondary sources, the Magisterium, Church Fathers, and pre-20th-century Theological Compendia, whenever they are commenting on older primary sources. Octavius2 (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Correction: Actually, judging by both time-duration, and numbers of adherents, Magesterium is the ✅MAIN/MAJORITY view, even in general Christian topics. [Catholics comprise 50 percent of all Christians worldwide and 16 percent of the world's total population]. Octavius2 (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Does your silence bespeak consent, or at least unwillingness to further contest, @Veverve, @Pbritti, & @Jdcompguy? Octavius2 (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Octavius2: This isn't a contest, nor is goading a good tactic in discussion. A consensus has developed with regards to the pages you've edited in opposition to your edits, which is a frustrating experience but one I hope you understand. The lack of response is out of the recognition that at least three parties are in agreement regarding this issue, with only one dissenting. Please reach out on my talk page or those attached to the articles if you have further questions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'll continue it there on your talk page. . . . Octavius2 (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Octavius2: What you're doing is presenting your own original thought and citing the Church Fathers to back it up, which is problematic. This is different than presenting what the Church Fathers believed and citing them for it. At least for me, the issue is not the fact that you're using patristic/magisterial sources; it's how you're using them. For example, in one of your Immaculate Conception article renditions, you say: The Catholic Church has long held that Mary never submitted to a sinful temptation, and therefore never had personal sin.<ref>Thomas Aquinas citing Augustine</ref><ref>John Paul II</ref>. (I'm obviously paraphrasing your references.) This is an inappropriate use of the patristic/magisterial sources, because those sources don't directly back up your assertion that "The Catholic Church has long held..." Instead, try something like this: Augustine held that 'an abundance of grace was given her that she might be in every way the conqueror of sin.'<ref>Augustine</ref> Thomas Aquinas cited Augustine in making the same assertion.<ref>Thomas Aquinas citing Augustine</ref>. Do you see the difference? Jdcompguy (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

So support from (1) the greatest Catholic theologian in history, who has been endorsed by 10 popes, (2) while quoting the 2nd greatest Catholic theologian in history, + (3) the most widely used modern Catechism . . . all of that . . . DOESN'T prove that the Catholic Church "has long held" said belief? . . . Please. That kind of captiousness isn't required on normal Roman history articles, which often appear with a single footnote, for some generic general source. And I don't even understand why you would raise this as some sort of significant theological bone-of-contention, since you yourself already said that her Sinlessness is a "subset" of her Immaculatness, which means that all those Church Fathers . . . (Theodotus of Ancyra, Epiphanius, Ephrem, Justus of Urgell, Augustine, Ambrose, Maximus of Turin, Pseudo-Athanasius) . . . in my giant 6-row chart, who professed her immaculateness, can also be used to demonstrate her sinlessness. Besides, I could add even more evidence:

• The 630 AD epistle "Scripta fraternitatis vestrae"

The 675 AD Council of Toledo

Indeed, I'm happy to keep on adding to ANY FOOTNOTE that you find lacking, but, in general, I don't find this behavior here of mine in the slightest bit "inappropriate." So what OTHER footnotes would you like me to embellish? Octavius2 (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Octavius2: The answer to your first question is yes, because your sources do not even make the claim, much less prove the claim, that the Catholic Church has long held the belief. Where do they say that? They don't. That's what you are saying. If you want to make that claim on Wikipedia, you need to find a source that says it, which shouldn't be that hard! There are lots of sources that say that, so find one and use it!! I'm not sure what you mean by "theological bone of contention." I'm not saying your theology is bad; I'm saying that you're not putting in the work to find the types of sources that you need to contribute to Wikipedia. There's a place for patristic, magisterial, and academic sources on Wikipedia, but you're not matching up assertions and sources correctly. I've been trying to give you pointers on how to do this. In the one example that I gave, Augustine professed her sinlessness, not her immaculate conception. Because belief in her sinlessness is a subset of belief in her immaculate conception (as I already said), assertion of the former does not necessarily imply assertion of the latter. I'm not asking you to embellish footnotes; I'm asking you to stop embellishing footnotes with wording that goes beyond what they claim. Instead, find a reliable source that actually says what you're trying to say. Jdcompguy (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

My sources "do not even make the claim"? . . . What?? . . . When Aquinas cites a Church Father in his famous "On the contrary," he is implicitly making that very claim. You sound like you never studied St. Thomas Aquinas. HAVE YOU EVER STUDIED THEOLOGY AT ALL? (I have a B.A. in Theology, and a B.A. in Classics--Greek & Latin--with a minor in Classical Philosophy). I sight-read Aquinas in the Latin. I know very well EXACTLY what he means to imply, at all times.

As usual, you too are falling into the hole of wrongly thinking Aquinas is a Primary Source, as if I need some other secondary source to clarify what he said. Noooo. He is a secondary source, by the guidelines here. Let him speak for himself. He has a LOT more to say, than modern books or papers can cover.

No, I do not embellish footnotes with wording that goes beyond what they claim. I include just the literal quote. Jbritti even praised the accuracy of my translations. Octavius2 (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Octavius2: Just because Aquinas quotes Augustine does not mean that "the Catholic Church has long held the belief." Even if the latter is true, it does not follow logically from your sources. If your education makes you so capable of interpreting Aquinas, try getting your thought published in a peer-reviewed theological journal; then you can cite it here on Wikipedia. Jdcompguy (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Aquinas is so highly praised by so many popes, that I think it does establish it, in the absence of any contradiction. When the church holds ecumenical councils, between East and West, they each argue from their libraries of Church Fathers' writings, which shows that Church Fathers effectively function in the same way that English Common Law, or American Constitutional Law does: As precedent. Aquinas was using that precedent (from Augustine), and that cements it even more. Octavius2 (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I still oppose you proposal and the CFs, the magisterium, etc. being used the way you proposed. I think nothing substantial can be added to this discussion; we all made our positions and arguments in this discussion. I have asked Ad Orientem and Achar Sva if they could comment; if they come here, maybe their comments will be of any help. Veverve (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Well of course you would, @Veverve but you still have given no answer to my ample demonstration above that citing the CFs, Magesterium, Theological Compendia, etc. as Secondary Sources is completely consistent with the spirit of WP, so I intend to do just that. Octavius2 (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Octavius2: you intend to force your changes by violating both WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS (and also WP:QUO)? This would be WP:DISRUPTIVE and worthy of sanctions or, more likely in your case, of a formal warning. I do not wish to go to that extend, but reluctantly will if needed.

On the one hand, I see some problems in your way of thinking in general as I have already mentioned. To those problems I noted, I add your defence of holding, on Wikipedia-level, Aquina with the same authority he once had in some exalted apologetic books of the 19th century (in your 19:16, 4 May 2022 message); Wikipedia - at leat this WProject as you can see - does not operate by the standards you use.

On the other hand, I see you could add a lot to Wikipedia on the field of Christianity, if you were to work using WP's standards. Veverve (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

❌No Consensus❌, @Veverve on whether CFs, Magesterium, Theological Compendia, etc. count as Secondary Sources. 4 times now (here, here, here, and right here), I have pointed out to you that this is the original issue you cited for removing my 80,000 bytes, and the central issue, and not a single 1 of you 3 editors ever responded to my contention that you completely violated the instructions for Identifying Primary [and secondary] sources. YOU CANNOT CLAIM CONSENSUS IF YOU NEVER RESPOND TO YOUR OPPONENT'S CENTRAL ARGUMENT.

Also, ❌you violated WP:BRD❌, not me, because you completely reverted all 80,000 bytes of my edit, twice, without incorporating even a a single byte of it, something that @Pbritti at least honestly attempted.

Now ✅I've shown good faith engagement✅, by

• promising to take into account your legitimate concerns over term-overlapping, which I did, by adding a whole Theological Implications section, to handle that;

Showing willingness to alter footnotes as needed;

Not contesting 13 minor edits of my content by @Pbritti.

You have done NOTHING, but just insisted over and over that everything I ever posted here must go. I have no more faith in your genuine openness to anything. All you ever do is accuse. Therefore, I'll be seeking outside opinions on whether you violated WP policy in reverting my post. Octavius2 (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve, @Pbritti, and @Jdcompguy, I've opened up a dispute here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Immaculate_Conception Octavius2 (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

For the record, Octavius2, the fundamental issue for me is not the distinction between primary/secondary sources (although other editors may disagree); as far as I'm concerned, the issue is your mismatching of assertions and sources. The fact that editors find multiple issues with your edits, and not just one issue, only makes for more consensus, not less! Issues notwithstanding, your contributions are usable if you're willing to do the work to make your sources match your content. Jdcompguy (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, I just responded to that. Regardless of what your issue is, the issue with Veverve, who pulled down all 7 sections of my entire 80,000 byte contribution, and reintegrated none of it was . . .

Veverve: "No, I disagree. This table is purely OR from the user. Church Fathers are a primary source, the same way Herodotus, Ernoul or Abu'l-Fath are.")

Veverve: Stop pushing your OR;

I deny that CFs are a primary source, and think that is OR-charge is based upon that error. Octavius2 (talk) 06:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jdcompguy: while you are here, could you give your thought on this? Veverve (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Three thoughts: (1) Belief in Mary's sinlessness is a subset of belief in her Immaculate Conception. Catholic/Orthodox traditions believe John the Baptist, for example, to be sinless, but not immaculately conceived. (2) Discussion of patristic belief in Mary's sinlessness is certainly relevant for a page on the Immaculate Conception, but patristic quotes should not be shoehorned into later terminology. (3) I think it's ridiculous to debate whether patristic sources can be used by themselves in this context, because literal volumes have been written on the patristic background of Mary's Immaculate Conception and perpetual virginity. There is no way that a legitimate application of a patristic quote on these topics has not already been done in an academic source. @Octavius2: My recommendation to you would be to: (1) if a Church father is asserting "sinlessness," don't present this as a synonym for "immaculate conception," even though the former is obviously a part of the latter; (2) look for secondary sources to back up your use of patristic sources. Jdcompguy (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the 2 suggestions; @Jdcompguy!   But, yes, I DID present 'sinlessness' as a subset, and not a synonym for 'Immaculately Conceived.'   In fact, I had added an entire "Theological Implications" section, in order to expicitly categorize all these partially overlapping subset-terms. The only reason you missed it was because Veverve undid all my changes, but if you look again, now, it should be there. Octavius2 (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Part 2

New Guidelines Discovered - @Veverve, @Pbritti, @Jdcompguy

• On your side - Your proposed 18th-century-or-so old-age-cut-off-date for Secondary Sources, is admittedly in the spirit of acceptable practices within the field of General History, as you can see at WP:HSC and (the next paragraph after it) WP:HISTRH.

However, on my side is the paragraph on Examples of Reliable Sources in Religion, which explicitly states my position:

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

That guideline was posted in 2008. If you want to see the discussion that led to its formulation, it's here over at that standard's talk page. However, in light of this, I'd ask you either to either cease contesting the admissibility of CFs, Aquinas, and Theological Compendia, as secondary sources, or tag me that you're contesting this very issue somewhere else, such as over there.

Octavius2 (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

They are both essays, not guidelines (by the way I disagree with Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Religious source to consider Aquina a RS, but I admit it can technically sometimes be a secondary source). WP:CONSENSUS trumps essays by far. Veverve (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

And yes I contest @Octavius2:. For the same reasons I have already given. Again, the discussion as ran its (long) course and I do not see what can be added. Again, the use of those sources should be discussed on a case-by-case basis; using those sources the way you did is not acceptable as I and others have already explained. Veverve (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Octavius2: I'm not advocating for a "proposed 18th-century-or-so old-age-cut-off-date for Secondary Sources" so please stop referring to that as my position. I've told you repeatedly that I consider the primary/secondary distinction to be largely irrelevant here. My issue is with your original research and your mismatching of assertions and sources, an issue which you haven't addressed. Jdcompguy (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

That's not your position, @Jdcompguy, but it is @Veverve's. But since he's kind of the 'main spokesmen' among you 3, for opposition to my posts, I sometimes speak of his arguments as if they belong to you all; sorry, I'll try not to. Octavius2 (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I haven't read the whole thing, but wouldn't an objection to using the Church Fathers as a secondary source be that often people disagree on how the Church Fathers' writings should be interpreted in the first place? It's not Wikipedia's job to interpret historical documents. We publish what reliable sources say about those historical documents. Ltwin (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I second what Ltwin and Veverve say: consensus says that this is not an exception, and the reason it is not an exception to ancient source usage is because it is the interpretation of the sources that are being inserted, not just the sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, @Ltwin, but what would you think of St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae (1250 A.D.), or Cornelius A Lapide's 26-volume Great Commentary on Sacred Scripture (1640 A.D.)? . . . Just based on "Citation Counts" (See WP:SCHOLARSHIP), these have 1000s of mentions on major academic websites like Academia.edu. Should these count as Secondary sources? Should they count as Reliable sources? Or, as they say, are only modern books-&-journals secondary and/or reliable? I contend that the people here want to just totally disregard these 2 essays below, thereby deprecating our entire Christian Patrimony, the authentic voices of the past, into a dusty coffin of academic inferiority & antiquatedness.

• WP:IDENTIFYPRIMARY
• WP:RSE

Octavius2 (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I responded to this above (I finally read the whole discussion) but it may have been overlooked. These are primary sources in regards to their own beliefs. When Aquinas writes something, that writing must be interpreted. The interpretation is now a secondary source. If what Aquinas wrote on a topic is important to a WP article, then what we need is a secondary source on Aquinas to provide a reliable published interpretation of that theologian's writings. Yes, lots of people cite Church Fathers and important theologians to interpret them or bolster their own arguments. That is original research, and we don’t do that here on Wikipedia. What we do is this: “According to scholar [insert name], Aquinas believed . . .” That is how we typically handle content like this. We allow reliable, published sources to do the interpretation. Ltwin (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, fine, @Ltwin, but then you just contradicted these sentences from those 2 essays:

• "The book [written 150 years later] and the journal article [written only 2 years ago] are secondary sources."
• "For example, the works of Thomas Aquinas are secondary sources for a Roman Catholic perspective on many topics, but are primary sources for Thomas Aquinas or Summa Theologica."
Octavius2 (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Those are essays, not policies. Whether they are primary or secondary, the important point is this: are you adequately representing what they say or are you offering original research interpretation? your interpretation of a source can be contested and in that case will still need a reliable source to support your assertions. As it stands, several editors have objected to the way you are using sources that seems to push a particular viewpoint. I would humbly suggest that you take some time to thoughtfully reflect on the feedback you are getting and reevaluate how you may constructively contribute to the project. Ltwin (talk) 05:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

"major academic websites like Academia.edu" : Academia.edu, like arXive, also hosts purely WP:SPS; those were my 2 cents on this details. Veverve (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ltwin: the first link given is a policy. Then again, as I said, using technicalities and definitions cannot trump consensus in this case. Veverve (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources is not policy. It’s an essay. Ltwin (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ltwin: ah yes, you are right, I did not read the banner properly, my bad. Veverve (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

So what, @Ltwin, if Aquinas himself writes, "Augustine believed . . ."?

(Because that's what's usually going on, here: Aquinas never just states something, but always cites his main source for saying it, which is usually a verse of Scripture, or a Church Father (CF).) Octavius2 (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@Octavius2:, if it's very straightforward and any reasonable person could see that then you could write, "According to Aquinas, Augustine believed . . ." However, judging by your chart, you are not making plain, straightforward claims. You are making more complex claims that are straight up original research unless you provide a reliable source that explicitly states the interpretation in question.

For example, the first row of your chart states:

Verses cited by Church Fathers that Support Mary's Immaculate Conception

Verse	Text	Church Father attestation
Songs of Songs 4:4	Your neck is like the tower of David, built for an arsenal, whereon hang a thousand bucklers, all of them shields of warriors..	Anne Catherine Emmerich

You are claiming that Emmerich is citing Songs of Songs 4:4 to support the immaculate conception. And your footnote is a qoutation from her which does not actually prove anything. Maybe she is saying something about the immaculate conception, but I can't figure it out. There is nothing straightforward or clear about this at all to a lay reader. This needs a citation from a published expert that can offer an interpretation that is not original research. At this point, that is all this is — original research. Ltwin (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Besides, Anne Catherine Emmerich is not a CF. Only EOrthodox have Church Fathers after the 8th century (e.g. sometimes Justin Popović), and it is their POV; and Emmerich is not a Church Father in the eyes of any denomination. Veverve (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, @Ltwin, that table-row, which is my least supported sentence anywhere, may well be WP:OR, but is this line: okay?

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

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

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

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

Octavius2 (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

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

References

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

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

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

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

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

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

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

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

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

Palmarian Christian Church - in need of a good rework

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

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings,

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

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

• Draft:Intellectual discourse over re-mosqueing of Hagia Sophia
• Draft:Irrational beliefs
• Draft:Superstitions in Christian societies

Thanks and warm regards

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

FAR notice

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

Continuing church - does this expression exist?

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

I've heard the phrase, mainly in regards to Episcopal schisms. However, I want to say that I've also seen it used for other mainline Protestant church schisms. However, I have no sources. Ltwin (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me just normal English, rather than some special term. I don't know if it deserves an article. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I have now checked the reference given: it is about the Continuing Anglican movement and not a general phenomenon. Veverve (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod, Ltwin, and Pbritti: does any of you oppose turning Continuing church into a redirect targetting Continuing Anglican movement? It seems to be there has been a quiproquo, in that the creator likely either a) thought "continuing church" was a common and universal name, or b) was not aware the page Continuing Anglican movement already existed. Veverve (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it might be better just to delete it. I'd associate more with the "continuing" post-Henrician CofE for example. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Haven't heard it used in any context except Continuing Anglicans or in comparing the new Global Methodists to Continuing Anglicans. A search yielded no other mentions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ltwin, Johnbod, and Pbritti: the AfD is here. Feel free to come and give your opinion there. Veverve (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Survey on Seraphim Rose page

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

The Society of Mercy nominated for AfD

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

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

The dysfunctional family of Jesus

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

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

One time early in Jesus' ministry, he was preaching and his mother and brothers came and wanted to take him home because they feared he was crazy - that is, they did not believe in what he was saying. Whether the term "brothers" means full brothers (sons of Mary and Joseph), or half brothers (sons of Joseph by another wife), or just cousins is a matter of debate. The answer to that question affects the analysis of why Jesus told John to take care of Mary. If Jesus had no full brothers, then it could just be that his half brothers or cousins would not feel a specific need to take care of his mother. In any event, it's clear that these "brothers" did not believe in him at the time of his crucifixion, although at least one, James, did come to faith, ostensibly writing the Epistle of James. I would think that commentaries aimed at pastors and theologians would have something on all this. Indyguy (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia say any of this? I certainly never thought the "brother" had to be told to take care of Mary. Although knowing who would was a possible problem.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: While not necessarily a Wikipedia matter, my catechesis always drew a line between John being called "beloved" and his charge with tending to Mary in the time following the Crucifixion. With Jesus's rejection in His hometown and the impending martyrdom of all the other apostles over the next few decades, perhaps Jesus sought someone who was faithful that would be able to live long enough to care to His mother. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I see this as important enough to mention somewhere. Also, the pastor said Jesus had to say this because no one could be bothered to take the responsibility.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: I have a handful of rather intensive Gospel commentaries; I'll see what I dig up and ping you if I end up adding anything. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

AfD of Catholic Life Church for lack of notability

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

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

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

Inexistance of Hell POV pushing

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

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

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

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

I'd suggest new articles for these new dicasteries. Just neater overall. Rutsq (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Second the new article route with obvious linking in predecessor org ledes. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with the new article route as well.

My only hesitation is that I suspect people and sources will carry over the nickname "Prop/Propaganda Fide" to the new "Dicastery for Evangelization." The current Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples page contains the history for the even earlier iteration from which the nickname is derived. Not sure how redirects/disambiguation will work if this is the case. Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples could redirect to the new instance, while the content of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples article could be moved to Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples (1622-2022).

The thing is, the whole "established since 1622", the continuity of the different iterations for both the Dicastery for Evangelization and the Dicastery for Culture, bothers me a bit. The crux is: is it really the very same department (institution) which has existed since 400 years or whatever under different names, or is it historiography? Veverve (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with a new article for these two new dicasteries. In the case of Evangelization, it is split into two "sections" - one with its roots in the former Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples and the other section based on the much newer Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization. So the new article could refer to the two preceding entities in the text describing those. Dcheney (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The Dicastery for Culture and Education has been created. And I have personally created Dicastery for Evangelization since the opinion here was unanimous. Veverve (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I state this here for the records. Another user, Norm1979, supported this decision and explained their train of thought at the discussion held at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Praedicate Evangelium - what to do with merging dicasteries?. Veverve (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I missed my name being pinged (but thank you for doing so Veverve), and it looks like a decision has been made, but I would have renamed Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples (CEP) to Dicastery for Evangelization (DE), and retained Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization (PCPNE) as a historical article. I do not understand the "merger" to be a joining of two equal departments, but rather, as the subsuming of PCPNE into the centuries-old Propaganda Fidei/CEP, which now bears the name "Dicastery for Evangelization." Dcheney asserted above that the DE has two sections—one for the CEP and one for the PCPNE—but based on my cursory understanding, this doesn't seem to be an accurate description. One section is for "evangelization in general" (much broader than "new evangelization") and the other is "first evangelization" (which is, in fact, the opposite concept of new evangelization: "first evangelization" refers to Christianizing new territory, whereas "new evangelization" refers to re-Christianizing old territory). Both of these sections seem to be angles of CEP's former work. In other words, the PCPNE seems to have been "merged out of existence," with its work being taken over as a subset of the DE's first section. It seems clear to me that DE is the new name for the CEP/Propaganda Fidei, so I would have moved the CEP article to DE accordingly. As for the second issue: because Dicastery for Culture and Education has two sections that, on the other hand, neatly correspond to its two merged dicasteries—with the merger therefore being treated as a joining of "equals"—creating a new article makes sense. Jdcompguy (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT for churches - by location, or not?

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

Praedicate evangelium and Holy See departments categories

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

I'd rename the category - the elements in the list still apply. (For those of us familiar with the matter, it will be hard to break the "CDF" nickname that we've all used for so many years!) Dcheney (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that renaming the category is the best route. But also add a little explanatory text st the top of the category page, following the text that says "The main article for this category is..." Rutsq (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

How to remove myself from automatically recieving the newsletter?

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

Have you received a newsletter recently? As far as I know, we haven't published a new one since 2020. Ltwin (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

But to answer your question, if you Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/Newsletter and scroll to the bottom there is an option for you to unsubscribe. Ltwin (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ltwin: Thank you. No, I haven't recieved a newsletter. Thanks for clarifying though, I missed the tiny unsubscribe button near the bottom. It doesn't seem like I'm on the list to begin with so it seems like there's no point in worrying about any of this. Clovermoss (talk) 04:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Merge discussion Orthodox Anglican Church ––> Orthodox Anglican Communion

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

#ChurchToo

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

I'll take a look. Do not have time for article creation right now, but will most certainly ping back if I can find enough reliable sources for a more-than-stub article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't have time either. I was thinking about creating a stub if I could so we would have something, but there are higher expectations.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

It looks like it's notable enough. I think we could dovetail it into other articles, but the concept seems to span both mainline and other Protestant denoms (not seeing much about it in relation to Catholic abuse). I'll make the stub tonight (U.S. time). Working towards autopatrolled status, anyway. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I started User:Vchimpanzee/ChurchToo but all that really does is show how the term originated. The second article I used as a source has several examples of pastors or men telling women to just "submit to their husbands" or otherwise follow what they believe the Bible says. The first source shows it's far more than that, and it's not just women.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Infobox church

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

RfC on sorting churches

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

AfD for Southern Episcopal Church

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

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

AfD for Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church

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

Ascension article request

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