Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard

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

WikiProject Christianity (Rated Project-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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

Communion and Liberation[edit]

The Communion and Liberation article is having some issues. The root of the problem appears to be a content dispute, compounded by none of the involved editors having English as a first language. The article would benefit greatly by the attention of someone who understood the English-language terminology of the Catholic Church. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


Dear editors interested in Christianity articles:

I came across this article when I was fixing some dead links. It seems well developed and carefully written. I am concerned that the reference section seems to be being used to express opinion and to promote ideas instead of just to reference sources. Perhaps someone who is familiar with this topic could take a look and see if it meets Wikipedia's neutrality standards. I know it's difficult sometimes for writers who are used to expressing their own philosophy to switch to the encyclopedic style of just writing bare facts.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


The Ascension of Jesus article written by a single user is poorly written, suffering from WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:WEASEL, and WP:ASE. I have gone through the sources and rewritten parts of the article, but would appreciate an expansion on the theology and biblical account portions. Unfortunately, back in 2016 it appears the article was in good shape but has been eroded away since. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 09:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


So, a little while ago I created q:Category:American Anglicans. But, I'm not totally sure if that's correct. Are American Anglicans by definition Episcopalians? Or is that an institutional convention only, and not a doctrinal religious thing? GMGtalk 12:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

That's correct. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Wait...which one? Should it simply be Category:Episcopalians or Category:American Anglicans? GMGtalk 14:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry that I was not clear. It's correct that they are known as Episcopalians. While they are technically American Anglicans, that is not their common name. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Definitely Episcopalians if you want to cover only the Episcopal Church and not others who might call themselves Anglicans. It's the proper name of the church. Doug Weller talk 18:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I disagree, in part.
American Anglicans are mostly Episcopalians-- that is members of the Episcopal Church (United States), but American members of the Continuing Anglican movement are also American Anglicans.
Furthermore, the Anglican Communion in Scotland is the Scottish Episcopal Church, and so these Anglicans are also be called Episcopalians. As a result, not all American Anglicans are Episcopalians, and globally, not all Episcopalians are American Anglicans. tahc chat 18:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Hmm...Well I don't think there's enough content on WQ to really get to that level of granularity (many considerable sized cities don't even have their own categories yet). So it looks like the solution is to keep American Anglicans, and then potentially split that off into sub-categories if the category becomes cluttered. GMGtalk 18:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I presumed you didn't want to include those churches that don't belong to the Anglican Communion. The Scottish Episcopalians are irrelevant as I thought the category would be American Episcopalians. We don't call members of the Old Catholic Church Catholics so far as I know. See Warren Prall Watters Franz Heinrich Reusch Gerard Shelley. So members of American Anglican churches not part of the AC shouldn't be called Anglicans, but that's solved by the category being American Episcopalians I think. Doug Weller talk 07:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Biggest problem is scale and granularity. Wikiquote is so comparatively small, that there may not actually be a single page on a member of a comparatively small sect. I've not even made a category for American Evangelicals yet, because at this point, it makes more sense to just lump them in with American protestants. I believe so far I've categorized...maybe three or four Evangelicals, having gone through and re-categorized about ~350 pages in q:Category:Americans. GMGtalk 13:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


It's been suggested that Denial of the virgin birth of Jesus should be merged with Virgin birth of Jesus. PopSci (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

"Forty" in the Bible[edit]

The number "forty" is used in a great many places in the bible. Here are some examples:

OT Forty Days

  • Gen 7.12 The first flood story says it rained for 40 days and 40 nights (J version).
  • Gen 50.3 the physicians spent 40 days embalming Jacob.
  • Ex 24.18 “Moses was on the mountain for 40 days and 40 nights.”
  • Ex 34.28 “He [Moses] was there with the Lord 40 days and 40 nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water.” (the carving of the new tablets).
  • Nu 14.34 40 days, for every day a year.
  • 1Sam 17.16 “For forty days the Philistine [Goliath] came forward and took his stand, morning and evening.”
  • Deut 25.3 “Forty lashes may be given but not more”

NT Forty Days

  • After the birth of Jesus, Luke says that Mary waited for purification according to the laws of Moses, which would make it 40 days.
  • Mark 1.13. After his baptism, “He [Jesus] was in the wilderness 40 days, tempted by Satan”
  • Matt. 4.2 “He fasted 40 days and 40 nights, and afterwards he was famished.” also Luke 4.2
  • Acts 1.3 forty days between Christ’s resurrection and ascension
  • Lent is approximately 40 days (Sundays are excluded in the count)

OT Forty Years

  • Moses led his people through the wilderness for 40 years Num 14.33 Deut 2.7 Deut 29.5
  • Several judges have terms of 40 years Judg 3.11, 5.31, 8.28, 1Sam 4.18
  • 1King 4.11 David reigns for 40 years
  • 1King 11.42 Solomon reigns for 40 years
  • Jud 13.1 “The Israelites again did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord gave them into the hand of the Philistines 40 years.”

What is the source of this common number, 40?
What is its significance?

Thanks for any answers. Dahill3973 (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

This page is for discussing how to improve the project, not as a forum. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
As Walter says. If you are interested try reading 40 (number) and its talk page which deals with the number and its significance. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Numbering of Patriarchs of the Assyrian Church of the East[edit]

There is a strange leap in Wikipedia's numbering of the Shimun line of patriarchs of the Assyrian Church of the East that is surely a mistake. The succession indicated includes Shimun XVII Abraham (1820–1861), Shimun XVIII Rubil (1861–1903), then the surely mistaken numbering, perhaps due to a mistyping of XIX as XXI, by which the immediate successor of Shimun XVIII is given as Shimun XXI: Shimun XXI Benyamin (1903–1918), Shimun XXII Paulos (1918–1920), Shimun XXIII Eshai (1920–1975).

I have mentioned this anomaly also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Bealtainemí (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Since a week has gone by with no comments from others, I will correct the numbering if, after a few more days, there are still no comments. Bealtainemí (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Time for a formal agreement[edit]

An editor has decided to remove "Roman" from "Roman Catholic" links. A discussion was started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Catholic Church, but since it is larger than just the one denomination, it should be had here. I propose that in all topics related to the denomination whose leader is The Pope, that the term "Catholic" is unambiguous and should be used. In all other articles, whether demographic, national, economic, or BLP or otherwise, the term "Roman Catholic" be used. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

  • No, we use it on a case-by-case basis in part taking into account the geography of the article. For example, in the UK and Eastern Europe, Roman is almost always appropriate due to the existence of Anglo-Catholics and other sui iuris particular churches where the use of Roman as a disambiguator is needed [Edit after reply: when referring to the Latin Church]. In the Americas, this is less the case and whether or not Roman should be used is a matter of style should be left up to the individual author and it should be maintained unless there is a valid reason to change it (such as a page move away from Roman).
    This is the longest running naming dispute in Wikipedia's history, and I really don't think we're going to come up with a solution right now. The case-by-case approach has worked for a while, and reopening it at this point is much more likely to result in a year or more of followup RfCs with little to show for. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
What about when it reads "Roman Catholic" and an editor removes it without discussion? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
My rule of thumb here is that the article should generally be consistent in usage of the term and should stay with the first stable usage. Geography also plays a roll: in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and South Asia, unless it is known which sui iuris particular church is being referred to the Roman term should likely be avoided, but it should be used when the sourcing says it because it would add extra clarity to readers (ex. in India, there are three sui iuris churches in communion with the Holy See, all of which are Catholic but only one of which is Roman.) I hope this clarifies my bit about geography above, which I recognized was ambiguous. In these situations I would remove if the term caused confusion, and open a talk page discussion if there was objections. If it aided in understanding, which it often can, I would keep it.
Basically, the complexities of the situation here with the Catholic naming dispute are deep enough that no amount of talking by random people on a website are going to be able to find the perfect answer in every case. Usage within an article should be stable and consistent and should not be changed without good reason. In regions where the historical development of Christianity makes the Roman term complex, use it when it aids in clarity and sourcing justifies it, but otherwise avoid it.
Sorry for the long answers, but the situation has a lot of nuance and I find it easiest to use examples. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
That's a great rule of thumb. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Not so great, unless perhaps rewritten: "in India, there are three sui iuris churches in communion with the Holy See, all of which are Catholic but only one of which is Roman" Latin. Do you need Indian (or other) sources to prove this? Bealtainemí (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
And is that an article that was changed? What's the common name in India? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm surprised that it was thought necessary. Is this enough? Bealtainemí (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Both are used in reliable sourcing. The bishops conference appears to use Latin, but that’s also not particularly relevant as we follow standard English usage, where Roman Catholic is a completely valid synonym for Latin Catholic and is used as such in sourcing (and in all honesty, is more natural English.)
Beltainemí is also proving my point here: I picked a random region with multiple sui iuris churches where I know through past discussion on this dispute that Roman is used to mean Latin in some sourcing, and a 254 edit account with 5 total edits to any project page decides to aggressively come in insisting that their understanding of the Roman question in a certain region is the only understanding and that anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong, and I wasn’t even advocating doing anything particular with those articles, just noting an area where the adjective can be tricky. There is literally no way a discussion for a uniform guideline will produce any usable result as these issues are very emotional at all levels. In these cases, case-by-case following the rule of thumb I mentioned above is best. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm glad I chose not to answer TonyBallioni's first response here, but I now find he wishes to continue the discussion by adding further comment here and also on my Talk page. First of all, I am very sorry that my first comment here (or was it my second?) seemed aggressive. I have not objected to TonyBallioni's rule of thumb. I have only recommended avoidance on Wikipedia of the imprecise use of "Roman Catholic" to refer to the sui iuris Latin Church instead of the Catholic Church. I don't think that is standard English usage. I don't think that "'Roman Catholic' is a completely valid synonym for 'Latin Catholic'". It is certainly not standard English usage even among Anglican and Evangelical writers about the divisions among Christians in India: English Scottish Stephen Neill and American (?) Prema A. Kurien are examples of writers who do not merely "appear to use 'Latin'" for what Wikipedia calls Latin Church. I do not think it is standard English anywhere: careful writers, on the whole, may say "Roman Catholic" to distinguish from "Protestant", "Anglican", "Mormon", "Orthodox", etc., but not to distinguish from "Byzantine Catholic" and the like. Yes, there may be some (very few, I think) exceptions. Yes, TonyBallioni certainly thinks otherwise. I am not out to "convert" him. Bealtainemí (talk) 09:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────It is impercise but it is standard English in some areas and is used in reliable sources. No one is contesting that Latin is more precise: of course it is. That’s not the point. The point is that Roman Catholic is a fairly widely used way of distinguishing Latin and Eastern Catholics both within Catholic and secular sourcing (and annecdotally, is almost universally used by Eastern Catholic diaspora in conversational English in some regions, but you can’t cite that.) This adds an additional layer of complexity to an already complex situation. My point being: creating a hard and fast rule for when to use the Roman modifier isn’t that simple and it’s better handled in the context of each specific article looking at both the sourcing and form of English used in the region. In most areas, RC == C, and they can be used in prose to mean the same thing, so they shouldn’t be changed once a stable form exists in an article. In others, there might be a reason to change because of the geography. That’s okay: we handle it as it comes along and looking at the context of a specific article. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Precision is not the issue. Common use is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
The question raised here was about changing "Catholic" to "Roman Catholic" (or vice versa) in Wikipedia. TonyBallioni's rule of thumb is that the article should generally be consistent in usage of the term and should stay with the first stable usage. Isn't that enough? Isn't it obvious that those who don't want to see the unqualified term "Catholic" reserved for those who look to the Pope as head (excluding Old Catholics, "Independent" Catholics, Anglicans, etc.) use "Roman Catholic" for that purpose? In spite of unsourced declarations that have been made, it is not obvious that in publications of the level desired for Wikipedia "Roman Catholic" is generally used to mean exclusively "Latin Catholic". Even if it is so used, declaring it in this context is an altogether unnecessary precision-making that is irrelevant for the question raised here, which was: "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic"; not "Roman Catholic" or "Latin Catholic". What is the point of discussing it and trying to make converts? Have I misunderstood the question? Bealtainemí (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I have no clue why you think I'm trying to convert people to uses: I was saying there are contexts where the usage of Roman can mean Latin and in these cases, extreme care should be used on the RC vs. C issue to the point where having a uniform guideline would be very difficult, and that the existing status quo of not changing the stable version and discussing changes when there is a reason to change is best.
An example where Walter Görlitz original proposal of Roman Catholic being used in BLPs would be someone from Ukraine who was Ukrainian Greek Catholic, but the sourcing just says Catholic. Classifying that person as Roman Catholic without sourcing saying it in this context would be giving a false impression on a BLP. In this case, even if the individual was not a cleric, Catholic would be the more cautious option to take. You can find many examples of this in areas where Eastern Catholicism and the Latin Church co-exist in large numbers, and in these circumstances, a lot of thought needs to be given whether or not Roman should be used. On the flip side: in the UK, Roman should almost always be used because of the existence of Anglo-Catholics, making Catholic ambiguous. These terms are loaded with a lot of geographic and cultural baggage, and that needs to be taken into account when making a choice for an article. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for narrowing down to matters such as the mention of an individual's religion the context that you have in mind. You are not really suggesting that "Roman Catholic" should be used to mean "Latin Catholic", the idea that I mistakenly thought you were trying to convert me to, when, to my surprise, you insisted on the correctness of the phrase "in India, there are three sui iuris churches in communion with the Holy See, all of which are Catholic but only one of which is Roman". You were saying that, where possible, the precise sui iuris church of a Catholic should be specified, as "Ruthenian Catholic" in the case of Andy Warhol. You were not insisting, I now think, that, when the Latin sui iuris church is distinguished from the other sui iuris churches that together with it compose the (Roman) Catholic Church, it is properly called the Roman Church. That is the idea I thought you were trying to convert me to. Since you weren't, I see nothing to discuss between us, still less to quarrel about. Bealtainemí (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it’s a valid usage that reputable sources, including government and academic ones, use, but I have no interest in forcing that over Latin on anyone. My point was that in regions where there are multiple sui iuris particular churches the use of Roman Catholic to generically refer to all groups in communion with the Holy See can be problematic and confusing, so efforts should be taken to avoid it unless sourcing specifies the Latin Church, which goes to my larger point that when a change is made in the prose of an article, it needs to be discussed in the specific context, not in generalities like we are here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@Bealtainemí: If someone were to ask, "do you know any Roman Catholics?", would you answer in the affirmative or with a negative? I have never had anyone ask me if I know of anyone who follows the Latin rite or declare that they are a Latin Catholic. So, in an article on the various time-frames of history of England, or a general article on the nation, I would not expect a discussion of what is generally a technical term, when there is a common term. If you think India needs an exception, that's fine. Focus on the rule and agree to that before you start adding exceptions hoping to make them the rule. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Right, and in England adding Roman to mean “in communion with the Holy See” is very much useful given the history of Christianty’s development in that country. In others, it would be less useful (i.e. Pietro Campori, Roman adds no extra value, and not having it doesn’t hurt anything, so people should just let it be.) TonyBallioni (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Walter, in response to your ping: Yes, I know many Roman Catholics, and a few of them are not of Latin Rite. When living elsewhere I knew many more of the latter type. I have even been where they are the majority.
Tony, I agree. Non-Latin Catholics, too, are in communion with the Holy See, but of course they may like a mention of the distinctive character of their being in communion. Bealtainemí (talk) 06:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
The lack of response gives me confidence to believe that the fuss was due to a misunderstanding. Was it imagined that I had denied that individuals can be described as Roman Catholics? Of course I did not. That would be nonsense. Individuals can be and are rightly described as Roman Catholics. All I said was that the sui iuris particular church that is on the same level as the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church as one of the three with a significant presence in India is the Latin Church. It is not the "Roman Church". Each of the other two is part of the (Roman) Catholic Church just as much as are the Latin Church and the dozen or so other sui iuris particular churches "in which and from which the one and only Catholic Church exists". Bealtainemí (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
You've gone straight to the nub of the problem. Lets first look at the definition in the lead to sui iuris where it states that "the autonomy of these churches is relative in the sense that it is under the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff". If nothing else this justifies the "Roman" tag. Moving on now to your final sentence: Each of the other two is part of the (Roman) Catholic Church just as much as are the Latin Church and the dozen or so other sui iuris particular churches "in which and from which the one and only Catholic Church exists". The problem is that all churches who use the AD 381 version of the Nicene Creed consider themselves part of "one holy catholic and apostolic Church". In a very literal sense not just Anglo-Catholics, but also all Anglicans, Methodists and so forth are part of the "catholic church". Relying on the significance of a "C" versus a "c" in a general encyclopaedia is liable to confuse readers, indeed how does one explain Catholics burning Protestants (and vice versa) when both claim to be catholic churches? Possibly a poor example, but in an encyclopaedia history is included.
Just as Wiki insists on a house style of "US" for the "USA" so I feel that in the spirit of WP:RF "Roman Catholic" should always be used for the churches headed ultimately by the Pope unless there is a very specific and obvious need to WP:IAR. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
That is a ridiculous amount of synthesis. Our question is not what is the right answer here: the question is if there are reasons in certain circumstances to omit Roman, and the answer there is decidedly yes: they range from the fact that we strive to follow common usage (outside of academic theology circles and those interested in it, Catholic Church and Catholic are generally understood in conversation to be referring to the institution headed by the Pope. This is why our article is at that title.) to the sui iuris issue where Roman can be used to mean Latin (examples from RS using it that way: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). This can cause extreme confusion as in some areas (particularly North America) when used in the context of Eastern Catholic churches, people will understand Roman to mean Latin because it is used this way. Whether or not it logically should doesn’t matter one bit: what matters is actual usage, and both exist.
All this to get back to my point: the case by case method has been working for years and we only have issues when someone who isn’t familiar with the dispute decides to go on a rampage to enforce their POV one way or another. This appears to have stopped for now, so we should focus our energies elsewhere rather than trying to solve a naming dispute that goes back centuries. People should be free to use either in articles they are writing, taking into account the entire context, and we shouldn’t change the stable choice without good reason: essentially the ENGVAR principle. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to revert all of the changes of "Roman Catholic" to simply "Catholic" because you're missing the point entirely. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, do that. I’d support it. My point is that a uniform guideline here isn’t ideal and was responding to the idea that we should enforce Roman: we shouldn’t, but we also shouldn’t change it when it is stable, nor should we add it where it doesn’t exist: both pro and anti Roman POV pushing is disruptive. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I didn't want to get involved in this. All I wanted to do was to correct the misuse here of "Roman" in relation not to the (Roman) Catholic Church as a whole, but instead with regard to that portion that is the sui iuris particular church known only as the Latin Church. Someone misinterpreted this and attacked me harshly. So I wish to state unmistakably that I think: both names, "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church", are permissible and neither should be enforced here (if you ask for directions to a town's Catholic church or a town's Roman Catholic church, you will be sent to the same building); nobody should embark on a campaign of "correcting" in either direction to suit that person's taste, and if someone does, there are good grounds for reverting every step of the campaign. It is usually unnecessary to specify which sui iuris particular church someone belongs to, but sometimes it can be useful or perhaps even necessary, as when it is stated that a Latin-Church bishop has been put in charge of an Eastern-Catholic=Church eparchy or vice versa (as has happened). Please continue without me. Bealtainemí (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
We differ at the point where you claim that both names, "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church", are permissible. Only one is used in common parlance. That should be determined on a per-domain basis. Intentionally changing "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic" without opening a discussion and achieving consensus on the change is provocative at best. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
As is changing “Catholic” to “Roman Catholic”. Both are equally disruptive, and the claim that only one is used in common parlance is wrong: in the overwhelming majority of cases the two terms are synonyms in common parlance (see where Roman Catholic Church redirects to.) The case against “Catholic” has always been an NPOV one, not a common use one, and I think the NPOV claims are pretty weak since what we’re looking at here is a style issue mainly and there we follow common usage, which generally does not have a preference. Either term may be used, but it should be consistent within an article, and should not be changed once established. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Reverting a series of disruptive edits is not disruptive. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
And when the editor claims there's a manual of style that supports it, but doesn't link to it as one does not exist, that's a bigger problem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
No, of course it isn’t disruptive to revert mass edits pushing one style preference. I have been clear that I support that. I was responding to your comment above where you said that both were not permissible: they both quite clearly are as reliable sourcing uses them as synonyms even within the same news articles ([7], [8], [9]) and attempting to enforce either a pro or anti-Roman POV would be disruptive. On Wikipedia, our house style tends to prefer consistency within articles if only to avoid fights like the RC vs. C one, but except in very specialized circumstances, the choice of term really is up to whomever gets there first.
I don’t oppose dealing with the disruption you’ve pointed out. I do oppose pretending there is a right choice of diction. Common usage in reliable sourcing simply doesn’t support that. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
No. Changing back to an established style is not disruptive. Common usage goes beyond cherry-picked sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I’ve supported reverting these changes at every instance: the stable form should be preserved and should not be changed without consensus.

My sources weren’t cherry picked: they were the first three non-local sources that Google News turned up for “Roman Catholic” when I ran that search. Here are the first results of a site search from major international news organizations: The Daily Telegraph: [10], The Washington Post: [11], The Guardian: [12], the BBC: [13]. These are all purely secular sources that use both Roman Catholic and Catholic within the same article, sometimes even the same paragraph (US sources tend to use Catholic more, while U.K. tend to use Roman more. I suspect US sourcing has to deal with AP Style as I couldn’t find anything in the NYT that used “Roman” outside of comment sections on blogs.) These are all highly reliable and respected international publications that use the terms interchangeably within the same article. All the first google hit. Sourcing does not bare out that common usage is only one term: sourcing clearly shows they are used as synonyms. In these cases, it is completely up to editorial discretion what to use. The most important thing is that people don’t go around changing it to their preferred version in existing articles without consensus. That is disruptive and should be reverted, regardless of what direction the change was in. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

In spite of TonyBallioni's personal attack on me, I agree that he is right on common parlance. It's rubbish to say that "Catholic" is not common parlance, as asking the way to the Catholic church will show. In an episode of a British TV series, the police inspector asks his assistant, "Are you Catholic?"; the reply is: "No. I'm just ... normal"! :) Bealtainemí (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

As you see from the comments below, the ony way such a proposal seems to have any chance is strictly limiting it to "Catholic" for things pertaining to "Catholic Church". In fact, such a proposal would not only be normative but actually also descriptive of the preexisting status throughout Catholic Church-pertainging articles and categories, if you look around (except 1) Latin Church-entries, and 2) a few unmaintained articles from old days). Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I moved your comment to the bottom because that's how we are to discuss things.
As you can see from what's written above, we have come to a moderate agreement, and in fact, "Catholic" is not the common name in most cases and so it will not be used and "Roman Catholic" will be. Consensus may change over time, as I have seen usage change over time. The NGram doesn't include "catholic" alone since it would catch both of the earlier terms as well as the other denominations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
What are you talking about? There is no such agreement here. Catholic and Roman Catholic are equally common and either can be used. If you wanted to go by numbers, it’d be 3-2 against what you just said: that’s hardly consensus, but claiming there is an agreement when it was split even before Chicbyaccident commented and now that position is in the minority is just false, and the “use either” side actually has sourcing to back it up. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I would agree with TonyBallioni right down the line here. I think that consistency within a given article is all that we need enforce, and that we should not try to resolve this issue in general but allow that there are reasons for diversity. I prefer leaving out the "Roman" but would not countenance changing articles to meet this preference. Jzsj (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for joining the conversation. Please read MOS:TALK
TonyBallioni, you wrote, "we use it on a case-by-case basis in part taking into account the geography of the article". I agreed to that that, and is what I reiterated. If I'm mistaken, feel free to show me where.
As it stands, there is also no consensus to change "Roman Catholic" in non-Catholic articles to "Catholic" nor changing "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church". Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Agreed on that statement. I was responding to in fact, "Catholic" is not the common name in most cases and so it will not be used and "Roman Catholic" will be. which isn’t true. Both are common, and we evaluate in each case which is best to use. I typically prefer “Catholic” while others typically prefer “Roman Catholic”. Usually either is fine. We shouldn’t change that initial choice in an article without consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. That what I was writing, or at least that's what I was trying to write, above. I clearly failed. If the article has evolved with one usage, it should remain using that unless there is a local consensus to change, or a topic-wide consensus to change. Here the topic may be "African history" or "demographics of Scotland". I doubt we will reach consensus for use at this level. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Thanks for clarifying. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Will someone please review the recent edits at Temptation of Christ?[edit]

I'm not too happy with them but I think someone with more knowledge of the subject should look at them. There seems to be quite a bit of original research based on biblical passages, and I'm not sure that the deletions are warranted. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Doug, if you are referring to the two edits on 3 October by Citizen Canine, they appear perfectly in order to me. Repeating the page title in headings is inadvisable, one can assume the reader knows the page is about the temptations of Christ. Other changes (" and view) are technical and correct. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Question on template "infobox church"[edit]

Please see the discussion at Template talk:Coord#"display=inline". Can this be regarded as an error in "Infobox church", considering the different result obtained using "venue" and "building"? (I posted this on the "infobox church" talk page and got no reply. The Help Desk suggested I post it here.) Jmar67 (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Banned user[edit]

I have remarked that Bible scholarship articles are trolled by an editor who:

  • in all his Wikipedic incarnations claims that he is a complete newbie;
  • he says that despite being a newbie, he has detailed knowledge of WP:PAGs, which he studied in advance (oh, yes, sometimes he quoted essays even I did not know they are there—I have registered my account in 2002);
  • he badly misinterprets the WP:PAGs he cites;
  • he accuses respected editors of pushing POVs and violating WP:NPOV and other WP:RULES, which they would fail to understand despite having edited successfully for a long time;
  • he has a marked preference for WP:PRIMARY religious sources, upon which he performs WP:OR which ends supporting a fundamentalist POV;
  • when he does not engage in WP:OR or WP:SYNTH he quotes lots of WP:SPS sources written by fundamentalist Christians (their authors often hiding behind anonymity), such sources are often in defense of biblical inerrancy, NT Gospels written by eyewitnesses, KJV/TR being supreme or some WP:FRINGE historical hypothesis;
  • despite that, he claims that he would be an unbeliever (or perhaps a very liberal Christian);
  • he claims that he is a scholar;
  • he claims that Wikipedia articles upon Bible scholarship are in an appalling state (e.g. very biased, though he can never make quite clear to others how WP:RNPOV has been violated);
  • all his Wikipedic incarnations are short-lived, edits come in bursts and they either end with a topic ban, being indeffed or he simply quits editing.

Possible matches:

I guess these leave out:

... since it is rather unlikely that he would pretend to be an unbeliever, he is unapologetically fundamentalist, although he is rather shy of saying what precisely he believes in. But it could be this one:

The use Dr. Ryan E. fits that profile.PiCo (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Wow. I don't know, but I've responded to your Talks, which have produced nothing. PiCo, your edits are honestly unfounded and you still fail to come up with a reason why Origen in Gospel should not have added information. I neither claim to be a believer or not, or claim to be a newbie. I will state that the article is in an appalling state, because it is. Misquoting academics does not improve the article and is in fact biased. Misquoting academics and not assuming WP:Good Faith is a problem. I have been WP:CIVIL you have not, almost having set out on a witchhunt against me by evidence of posting my name here, and constantly reverting my edits without trying to improve them Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
As told on your talk page:

Conflicting Wikiprojects - Talk pages[edit]

Greetings, Today I updated 10 Christianity WP pages, removing "bible" from the christianity WP because the talk page already contains WP Bible line. The duplication is causing issues with daily assessment WP 1.0 bot.

Going forward, whenever this type of conflict is discovered in other articles, please update to remove the conflict. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Extra Eyes Needed at Moscow–Constantinople schism (2018)[edit]

There has been some contentious and possibly POV editing going on. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red November 2018[edit]

In November 2018, Women in Red is focusing on Religion.--Ipigott (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Law of Jealousies[edit]

Hello to all. I posted a question about trying to post an article about the law of jealousies. I gladly stated my faith and that God had showed me this.

I received two very helpful comments in "teahouse" I think it was. But it seems that any interpretation even if it uses bible is not something Wikipedia deals with. Yet when I searched internet, the meaning of law of jealousies is nowhere I saw. So obviously wanted to share what God has shown me.

If anyone think might be able to post it with more quotes let me know. Obviously it is more important to use bible verses as reference so that's what I quoted. But the commmentors recommended other sources but obviously that would actually lessen the page as bible stands on its own. If can't post it then I encourage anyone who is interested to check it out before Wikipedia cleans out draft. The law of jealousies in Numbers 5. Thanks everyone! God bless you! Michael A. Christian (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC).

Well, there are detailed summaries of various Jewish views on that chapter – ancient, medieval, and modern – in the article Naso (parsha).
You might be interested to look at the article Strange Woman (Book of Proverbs), which is currently being discussed at Articles for deletion. It is not a particularly good article, but it and the one above do show how Wikipedia content must be based on secondary and tertiary sources, not just on bible verses or personal views (which we call WP:Original research). So, for sharing your own insights, please use a blog or social media, not Wikipedia. – Fayenatic London 22:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC[edit]

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)