Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard

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

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

Input requested on use of "orthodox"[edit]

At Pentecostalism, there is currently a discussion on whether it is appropriate to describe mainstream Christians/theology as "orthodox". Input would be appreciated. Ltwin (talk)


Judaizers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

is an article that really needs improvement. A new editor added some material that I reverted because it was dependent upon primary sources and was OR. They understand that but are concerned about the edits by yet a second new editor that don't seem to improve it either. I don't know if anyone here is interested, but if they are, as I said, the article needs work. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it Doug--it will give me something to do.  :-)Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Doug Weller and thank you Jenhawk777. Please do also take a second look at my contributions there. I think that there was maybe something i oroduced which could be worked with. Cheers. Judaizers (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

New discussions on Catholicism (term)[edit]

Several new discussions and proposals were initiated recently on the page Talk:Catholicism (term). Unfortunately, there was no notification here. More participation would be welcomed. Sorabino (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a serious problem. Not all uses of the word "catholic" mean "Roman Catholic", the common name in English, which is what the "Catholic Church" article is about. The discussion has become too involved. Any suggestions? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Reorganization suggestion for the "Bible and Violence" rewrite[edit]

A suggestion for reorganization has been made on the talk page of the Bible and Violence [[1]] at topic 15) Reorganization. I would like to ask anyone interested in helping this article to please take a look and make a comment--any comment will be helpful. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Great Apostasy[edit]

Hi. I'd like members to have a look at these edits and the accompanying discussion at Talk:Great Apostasy. It seems to me that they alter the Overview section in a POV way, giving undue weight to fringe Protestant views of the Catholic Church such as idol-worship, worship of Mary, and the hybrid "pagan Mother-Son worship". And not only that, but these fringe views are copied to the lead, totally skewing it. The citations are a collection of far-out Christian websites:,,,,, and a self-published 1914 pamphlet, The Practice of Idolatry, none of which come anywhere near satisfying WP:RS. Any input into the discussion is welcome. I'm copying this to other Christian WikiProjects. Scolaire (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Practical Theology vs. Practical Charismatic Theology[edit]

Since 18 August, the author of an article titled Practical Charismatic Theology has been redirecting the article Practical theology to this new Practical Charismatic Theology, which seems to be mostly original research and to have very little in common with what is described in the original Practical theology article. It caught my attention that an IP User and the author of Practical Charismatic Theology had been replacing each other's work, the one restoring the original text of Practical Theology and the other redirecting to Practical Charismatic Theology. The last time I noticed it redirected I decided to replace the redirect with the text of the last edit. Perhaps someone else should take a look at what's going on?

Thanks!Pastor rfg (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's discuss at the talk page of the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Let's also make sure all the facts are disclosed in this conversation. I have provided a detailed response on the talk page of Practical Charismatic Theology. Doctor (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorted magazine article[edit]

Can we get some eyes on Sorted magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? At the article, an IP is repeatedly removing sourced material and replacing it with unsourced material, promotional language, and spam. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The Gospel of Mary - Errors to review and correct.[edit]

In the Interpretation section it states : The dialogues are generally concerned with the idea of the Savior as reminder to human beings of their bond with God and true identity, as well as the realization of the believer that redemption consists of the return to God and liberty from matter after death. The Gospel of Mary contains two of these discourses (7.1–9.4 and 10.10–17.7) including addresses to New Testament figures (Peter, Mary, Andrew and Levi) and an explanation of sin as adultery (encouragement toward an ascetic lifestyle) which also suit a Gnostic interpretation.

The extant text of The Gospel of Mary is missing all of Chapter 6 and 7 and the Gospel ends at Chapter 9. There is not a Chapter 10. Peter is mentioned in Chapter 4:25 and again in Chapter 9:3 and 9:4. Andrew in 9:2 and Levi in 9:6 through 9:9.

Discourses that may have a Gnostic interpretation take place in 4:21 - 4:31. Then again at 5:10-5:11, at this point pages 11 - 14 are missing from the manuscript, containing the remainder of Chapter 5, all of Chapter 6 and 7 and up to the last word ( of Chapter 8:9. The rest of Chapter 8, starting with verse 10 through 8:24 continue discourse.

Please, correct these errors.

It should also be mentioned that The Gospel of Mary is not mentioned in the DECRETUM GELASIANUM. ( This is unusual, that is was either unknown or not mentioned in section V : Likewise a list of apocryphal books in the DECRETUM GELASIANUM, considering 3 copies of The Gospel of Mary have been found. In a radio interview with Karen King ( she concludes that having found 3 partly preserved copies of the gospel means it was at least moderately well circulated.

Thank you for review of these matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnosis1776 (talkcontribs) 11:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Irish churches[edit]

Hello all! Just wanted to let you know that I have been adding a number of Irish churches as red links to a number of church disambiguation pages such as St. Mary's Church. All of these churches are notable, as they have been listed by the Irish National Inventory of Architectural Heritage. So I'm not spamming with an Irish bias ;) Thanks! Smirkybec (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Smirkybec, please read MOS:DABRL. Do not add non-existent articles to disambiguation pages, even if you personally think the item is notable. If the item is notable, then WP:WTAF. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Religious institutions parameter for Infobox_Christian_leader?[edit]

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Template talk:Infobox Christian leader#Propose new parameter. In the process of evaluating a {{Edit template-protected}} request, I have some concerns about the specifics of the proposed change, and am not 100% certain that the Christianity biography editors are actually going to want some version of this parameter, though I think they might. Further input requested.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Systematic Bias in new article "Revelation 12 Sign"[edit]

I've just added a template and a final paragraph for now but if anyone has time the article needs attention. Many people are scared the world will end tomorrow and I'm getting inundated by pm's from them which means I won't have time to give it attention by then.

It's notable as there are many articles about it, including debunked by the Washington Post and some Christian online journals too - and astronomers - and the only ones supporting this interpretation are a nobody (in the sense of no accreditation Christian or astronomical) with pen name "David Meade" who wrote a book that's been promoted all summer by the Daily Express a sensationalist red top tabloid in the UK.

For any who don't know, it claims that the Woman of the Apocalypse is the constellation Virgo and that an unknown planet Nibiru is about to fly past Earth and that it caused the recent earthquakes and hurricanes and that this is what the book of Revelation is all about, not just that passage but the whole thing, and that this is going to lead to the rapture of Christians lifted into the clouds by Jesus.

I.e. basically just nuts, not even evangelical Christian, but many people have fallen for it including some ordinary folk who are Christian and evangelical who have been lookign forward to the rapture. But not by the more educated Christians even in evangelical churches. And it is making many people suicidal which is why I felt it was urgent to at least add a template and I've added a final para to the lede about the usual interpretation of Rev 12 and saying that Virgo is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

I don't think it can be deleted as it is notable. But if anyone has a bit more time than me to get it in shape do please help. It's here Revelation 12 Sign.

Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal of List of Christian denominations by number of members into List of Christian denominations[edit]

For details, please see Talk:List of Christian_denominations#Proposal to let List of Christian denominations by number of members merge with this list. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support It makes sense to include the numbers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: Please note that the discussion is located at: Talk:List of Christian_denominations. Thank you! Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Berdyaev and the Russian Orthodox Church[edit]

My very best wishes and I have been reverting back and forth about how to characterize Nikolai Berdyaev's relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church. I am reluctant to continue reverting without hearing opinions of other editors. Please review the page history and weigh in at Talk:Nikolai Berdyaev#Church. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, it's good that you are not going to continue reverting. Note that my latest edit on the page [2] was not a revert. It was you who reverted. My very best wishes (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Catholic Church naming conventions RfC[edit]

There is currently an RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Catholic_Church)#RfC:_should_this_page_be_made_a_naming_convention asking if the proposed naming convention for the Catholic Church should be made an official naming convention. All are welcomed to comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Expert attention[edit]

This is a notice about Category:Christian theology articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. There might be as few as one page in the category, or zero if someone has removed the expert request tag from the page.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Ark of the Covenant[edit]

If I could change the entire Wikipedia entry for 'Ark of the Covenant', I would. Nearly everything currently in this entry is straight out of the Bible, and written as if all were fact. If I wanted to familiarize myself with Jewish and Christian mythology, I would read the Bible. Where are the scholars, the scientists or archaeologists contributions? For instance, what is the tradition in the ancient middle east for such arks and such covenants? Considering that the story of Moses is considered myth, and in all probability is, then what is the probable origin for this story of the ark and covenant? We know the medieval Crusaders excavated under the Temple mount for artifacts such as the ark. What did they find? Why wouldn't the scribes of the Old testament mention the ark? Did they themselves even know the story, or was it a later creation of later scribes? Or perhaps the ark was actually of little importance to them and only achieved mythological greatness later. What do scholars know of these things? I came for scientific theory and got mythology straight out of the Bible. I guess I'll have to do my own research and return. --1937Tigers (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

An offline app for Christianity-related content[edit]

Hello everyone,

The Kiwix people are working on an offline version of several Wikipedia subsets (based on this Foundation report). It basically would be like the Wikimed App (see here for the Android light version; iOS is in beta, DM me if interested), and the readership would likely be in the Global South (if Wikimed is any indication): people with little to no access to a decent internet connexion but who still would greatly benefit from our content.

What we do is take a snapshot at day D of all articles tagged by the project (we'll also add texts from Wikisource) and package it into a compressed zim file that people can access anytime locally (ie once downloaded, no refresh needed). We also do a specific landing page that is more mobile-friendly, and that's when I need your quick input:

  1. Would it be okay for you if it were hosted as a subpage of the Wikiproject (e.g. WikiProject Christianity/Offline)? Not that anyone should notice or care, but I'd rather notify & ask
  2. Any breakdown of very top-level topics that you'd recommend? (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Open_Textbook_of_Medicine2 for what we're looking at in terms of simplicity) Usually people use the search function anyway, but a totally empty landing page isn't too useful either. Alternatively, if you guys use the Book: sorting, that can be helpful.

Thanks for your feedback! Stephane (Kiwix) (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Rhema (doctrine)[edit]

This seems to need a good rinse. It doesn't seem to use sources that would normally meet WP:RS although such sources exist and I've added them to the talk page. Many of these mention Kenneth E. Hagin and having developed the doctrine although he isn't mentioned in the article. Doug Weller talk 12:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Move Request: Lutheran-Catholic dialogue to Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue[edit]

There is a discussion taking place at Talk:Catholic–Lutheran dialogue#Requested move 22 October 2017 that members of this Wikiproject might be interested in. All are invited to participate. –Zfish118talk 13:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

"Branch Theory" on Template:Christian denomination tree[edit]

Christianity Branches without text.svg
Schism (1552)
(16th century)
(11th century)

Not all aspects of Christianity are illustrated.

The widely-used template Template:Christian denomination tree (above) currently has text, added in January by User:Chicbyaccident, saying it is "according to branch theory". I'd suggest this isn't accurate or helpful; I've started a debate over at Template_talk:Christian_denomination_tree#.22Branch_Theory.22. TSP (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not helpful and not true. Delete it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
What part is not true? It's a generalisation so not all nodes can be displayed. Simplifications must be made to aid understanding. I don't think that any one branch above is obviously untrue. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The use of the term "according to branch theory" is not true. The chart itself is fine. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Religion Flow Chart: Christianity". Faiths and Freedoms: Religious Diversity in New York City. Macaulay Honors College at CUNY. Retrieved 31 March 2015. 
  2. ^ "Branches of Chrisitianity". Waupun, WI: Waupun Area School District. Retrieved 27 March 2015. 

Council of Chalcedon[edit]

I'm hoping someone can come by and solve a content dispute between myself and Laurel Lodged on the Council of Chalcedon article. I inserted a brief explanation of what the Council did into the lead. Laurel Lodged reverted it, calling it a "simplification." I revised it somewhat with a direct quote from the Chalcedonian Definition, which is what came out of the Council. I was reverted again.

I subsequently went to the talk page, where I argued that the edit should not be reverted simply because it does not cover all the details that this editor thinks belong in the lead. Instead, the text should be expanded. The main problem, I said, was the fact that there was no explanation of the lead of the dogma that came out of the Council. Laurel Lodged responded by saying that it was unnecessary to "re-state the entire Definition in the lead," adding that this would undermine the purpose of the separate Chalcedonian Definition article.

I replied that this was a simple matter of following the MOS style for leads. Leads should contain an appropriate summary of the article, and failing to include even a few words or sentences on what the Chalcedonian Definition was seems to me like an obvious violation of this policy. Laurel Lodged responded that the Definition should be quoted "in its entirety" or not at all. To me, this is ridiculous, because the Definition is two paragraphs long. What I picked was the main part.

At this point, I figured we would not likely be getting anywhere soon, and that it was best to ask for intervention. I appreciate the willingness of any editor to look into this issue and determine a resolution. Display name 99 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Reply In the Greek, an iota made a huge difference. Learn from this. Not even the article on the Definition quotes the definition in the lead, so why would Chalcedon do so? It needs a full exposition for all nuances to be teased out. Partial quoting leads to error. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
This isn't a debate, it's a discussion, so I modified your response format. If you want to revert that, feel free to, but you should follow correct MOS:LISTGAP formatting.
This also isn't Greek. It isn't even the post-Constantinian church, and the a simplified statement encapsulating what the Chalcedonian Definition is would be appropriate. You could even lift it directly from the start of the second paragraph of the article on the Chalcedonian Definition: "that Christ is 'acknowledged in two natures', which 'come together into one person and one hypostasis'."
And for the record, there is more extraneous information on what and where Chalcedon is than there is defining the Chalcedonian Definition. The council's location is not why people come to the article, the nature of the discussion and its outcome are. My advice is fix it and if an editor offers an improvement, attempt to make it better rather than simply reverting. I can only see reverting if it were completely wrong. In other words, if an editor wrote "the Chalcedonian Definition adopted the city Nicaean Creed as official Church doctrine", it would be acceptable to revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Walter Görlitz, thank you for your response. I added a quote from the Definition into the lead. Display name 99 (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
That is a vast over-simplification of the Definition. What oyu are attempting is a merger with the Definition article. If that's what you want, then make the proper case. This is not the way to do it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
You don't understand what the purpose of the lead is or what the most important point of Council of Chalcedon is, for that matter. The Chalcedonian Definition was a crucial part of the Council and it should therefore receive some coverage in the lead, and more deeply down below and in a separate article, if there is one. That's basic MOS stuff. The Chalcedonian Definition's lead section should discuss almost nothing but what is in the Definition, per the title. I am simply astonished by your groundless accusation that a single sentence fragment on what the Council of Chalcedon actually decreed somehow constitutes a merger with a different article. As Walter Görlitz said, that's the main reason people come to the article. The charge that it's a "vast over-simplification" has yet to be backed up with solid evidence. Display name 99 (talk) 02:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Requests for comment on Joseph[edit]

  • No, there is no need to limit the RFC only on the result of a past discussion-- since people would not do that anyway. We encourage people to discuss directly if Joseph is a core topic in Christianity at RFC on Joseph. tahc chat 21:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Deuterocanonical books[edit]

For those interested, please join this discussion about categorisation of the Deuterocanonical books. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

How do I join?[edit]

I shall be interested in joining this Wikiproject Group, so I shall ask here how one joins. Thank you in advance for co-operation. Vorbee (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)