Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard

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




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

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

Ambox warning pn.svg

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


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

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

Urgent: comments requested at WP:NPOVN[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

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


Comments are urgently requested at the afore mentioned page. We have a discussion which requires informed comments from those familiar with the topic of this discussion. Your help at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. Gold Standard 01:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Ambox warning pn.svg

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


Comments are urgently requested at the afore mentioned page. We have a discussion which requires informed comments from those familiar with the topic of this discussion. Your help at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. – Lionel (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is the outline of the Gospel of Luke presented on the page for the Gospel of Matthew?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.29.50 (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Urgent: comments requested at Episcopal polity[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

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

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

Polish Old Catholic Church[edit]

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

Ambox warning pn.svg

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
Discussion: [[]] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Old_Catholic_Bishops%27_Conference

Comments are urgently requested at the afore mentioned page. We have a discussion which requires informed comments from those familiar with the topic of this discussion. Your help at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. – Lionel (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid the wiki shows the Polish Old Catholic Church as being outside the Union of Utrecht. The Poles in Europe are members. It is the Polish National Catholic Church of the USA who resigned in 2004. Can this be corrected? 2.29.192.152 (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Alan W

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

Urgent: comments requested at Gender-neutral Bible and New International Version[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Page: Gender-neutral Bible (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion: talk: Gender-neutral Bible and talk: New International Version

Please join us at these two pages for a lively discussion on gender-neutral language in Bible translation. As many editors already know, this has become an important issue in the Christian community. We really need well read editors to look into these issues and give their thoughts. Please read up on the topic and join us asap.

Traditional Position: http://cbmw.org/uncategorized/the-translation-of-gender-terminology-in-the-niv-2011/

Modernist Position: http://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/gender-accuracy-bible-translation

Happy reading!

Comments are urgently requested at the afore mentioned page. We have a discussion which requires informed comments from those familiar with the topic of this discussion. Your help at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. Toverton28 (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


Wiki Loves Pride![edit]

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

  • What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
  • When? June 2015
  • How can you help?
    1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
    2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
    3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.


Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

"Saint Pancras"[edit]

The usage and primary topic of Saint Pancras is under discussion, see talk:Pancras of Rome -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

How to address a C15th Irish bishop?[edit]

Thomás Bairéad, Bishop of Annaghdown in the fifteenth century, has an unsurprisingly sparse article relieved by a small infobox. Which helpfully explains that his reference style is "The Right Reverend", likewise for other forms of address. Is this, given the intervening half millennium, accurate? Should we use such boilerplates in the infobox for a figure so long ago? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you asking whether the term was used at the time, or whether the usage might have been made standard later, or whether the particular infobox belongs in the article? Personally, I would myself possibly integrate the terms of address into a separate infobox for Anglican clerics in general? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.108.112.211 (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Let's remember that there was no "Anglican" at the time. The Church in Ireland was Catholic then. It was before the Reformation, to say nothing about English/Irish relations. Evensteven (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I think we're likely to have {{Infobox bishop styles}} for most articles on bishops. However I'm surprised to see that the contents have apparently remained the same for so long. Is this really the case? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Getting together an idea for a possible new WF entity, wikialmanac[edit]

Some time ago, I looked in the phone book and saw we still locally have a "dial-a-saint" recorded information line. It inspired me to start a discussion about, maybe, trying to set up something around here which could serve the same sort of purpose, particularly to those individuals with cell phones, but also include options for non-Catholic listeners, because all the ones I've ever seen are Catholic, and, maybe, for other sort of "today in history" type messages as well. I even started a discussion on the topic a few days ago, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year#Early discussion about possible new WF entity, wikialmanac, in an attempt to get together a fairly solid proposal to submit to the foundation at Meta. I know that there are a lot of details involved, and if possible I would like to have some decent responses to questions about them before making a more formal proposal.

Basically, I guess I'm seeing the possible result I want to see better than the details of how to get to there. So, for Christianity, I can imagine a main portal-like page which might include a section for each separate group which might have a liturgical calendar with roughly daily commemorations. So, it might include single "article" sections for Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran calendars, with links to more focused "portals" for those more focused subjects. Those more focused "portals" might have one or two regularly displayed sections for "calendar event of the day," or other items, or, possibly, if required, some sort of "flip the page" option which might allow them to review all the relevant commemorations on that day in a single portal component, allowing all 10 or so EO commemorations which might be held on a single day to be seen in one box, for instance. For saints type portal contents, something like about two or three minutes of spoken text and a prayer might be the content. There might also, maybe, be links to wikipedia articles on the topic, if available, and, maybe, to wikisource or other sites with the full text of works by or about them. And, maybe, depending on the topic, a link to various artistic representations of the subject or places named in their honor.

It might be possible for those more specified portals to themselves have further subportals. So, for instance, a Catholic saints portal might have related portals on commemorations in the US, or the UK, or by the Dominican, Benedictine, Jesuit, or Franciscan communities, for example. And the Anglican portal could have links to more focused portals for individual churches in the Anglican Communion.

For the most part, these church calendars are kind of recognized authorities on their subjects. It might also be possible to expand the range of pages to various other subjects by contacting the most directly relevant museum(s) or similar entities and perhaps partnering with them through the GLAM project in such a way that they develop the calendar which we would then use to fill in the various boxes. For topics beyond liturgical calendars, the portals might have more than one box, perhaps a "today in history event" box for an occurrence of some sort and a "born on this day" box for people relevant to that topic who were born on that day.

These might be even more useful if we could, somehow, get people to read the material aloud somewhere, making the more traditional audio versions more readily available for individuals and organizations that might want to link to the "portal."

Anyway, any ideas? John Carter (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, John, there already is the Eastern Orthodox liturgical calendar article, which points to individual calendar day pages listing such contents, and containing links to relevant articles. But the factor most likely to complicate your project is that certain major commemorations are tied to the date of Pascha, and hence vary year to year in irregular ways. In addition, the Orthodox calendar commemorates events as well as saints, and some of the other churches do as well: (Nativity/Christmas Dec 25, Theophany/Epiphany Jan 6, Annunciation Mar 25, the Dormition/Assumption Aug 15, Elevation of the Holy Cross Sep 14, Lazarus Saturday day before Palm Sunday, Nativity of the Theotokos/Virgin Mary Sep 8), and a host of others, and the Orthodox dates do not always match the RC. Further, the Orthodox Church always commemorates on the exact day, no matter what day of the week. Many churches in the west tend to move dates to the nearest Sunday, or something like. Anglicans always celebrate the Ascension (Pascha + 40 days) on Sunday any more, not on Thursday. And the Orthodox date for that one is tied to Pascha, which only coincides with western Easter occasionally, so there's often a shift of one, four, or five weeks as well. Then you have the Orthodox that observe all dates according to the Julian calendar, while others use the modified Julian, which names dates in the same way as the Gregorian. So some Orthodox observe Christmas on Dec 25 Gregorian, like the west, and others on Dec 25 Julian, which works out to Jan 7 Gregorian (for this century anyway).
I think you'll agree it all gets messy, and Orthodox would not have much use for something that included only the saints. In fact, I wonder how much the other churches would seek out information along this path, as some would surely look for timings just within their own tradition. This would be more a comparative tool, and I can't say what the degree of interest might be in that. I guess my bottom line input would be that it looks problematic enough to implement that it may not be practical. Sorry to rain on your well-intentioned idea. Evensteven (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The issue of movable feasts is a fairly common one, as some parts of the world use different calendars in public as well as religious senses. I have a felling that wikidata as it now exists might well be able to address them. And, I guess, I should have specified that I was considering all liturgical celebrations, not just feasts of saints, although those are generally the numerically biggest percentage of them. Some feasts in multiple churches are listed as being "the [first] [day] after [some other day]," and similar, and it probably wouldn't be hard to get those built into some sort of program to automatically affix them. Once that is done, all that would necessarily be required would be, maybe, having one person enter in the date of the "anchor" feasts once a year and an indication of the first day the first day of the year falls on (Monday, Tuesday, etc.), for most of them to fall into place. The fact that the dates of feasts don't match between churches, or, sometimes, even within the same church, can be met by having the "entry" either transcluded for each body separately for their relevant date in which it should be included. That would take a fair amount of time, admittedly, but lots of things here do. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, my comments above are certainly not an indicator of absolute obstacles by any means. And if you're going to run calendrical calculations for sorting out complexities, I would suggest you do just that for the general case, rather than depending on the entering of new starting points each year. Pascha, Easter, and the day of the week are all readily calculable, and perhaps the most reliable reference for providing their details can be found in Calendrical Calculations, 3rd edition (2008), Dershowitz, Nachum and Reingold, Edward M., Cambridge Univ Press, ISBN 978-0-521-70238-6 (paperback). (I don't think there's a newer edition out - may not ever be, as Reingold is retired.) Days of the week are quite easy: calculate "days since Monday, 1 Jan AD 1", plus the right offset, then take the result modulo 7 and interpret with Sunday = 0. The book has a wealth of material on all sorts of common calendars, so if you need to convert say, from the Julian or Hebrew calendars, or even the Islamic, it's all there. In Orthodoxy, there's only the one "anchor" feast, Pascha. All the variable celebrations are keyed around it, this or that many days before or after. Evensteven (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Jewishencyclopedia.com (the Jewish Encyclopedia) and newadvent.org WP:Reliable sources?[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Are jewishencyclopedia.com (the Jewish Encyclopedia) and newadvent.org WP:Reliable sources?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)