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 (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: [[]]

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? (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:

Modernist Position:

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)

Urgent: comments requested at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_10#Lamb_of_Tishri[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
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)

Hi there, sorry if I should put this in "Urgent" were it better to be in "General" but this is about something at Redirects for Discussion and generally they last seven days. Our urgency may be greater than God's, he has all eternity :)
Over at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_10#Lamb_of_Tishri the redirect Lamb of Tishri has come up. Now we have worked out presumably that Tishri refers to what I believe many biblical scholars believe to be the month of his birth, Tishrei in the Jewish calendar. However we can find no concordance in the Bible or other source that actually calls Him by that name. The article Jesus does not say so, nor that he was born in that month, and separate article Lamb of God does not say so.

I hope you might contribute to that discussion, perhaps there is a good place we can retarget this. As it stands, it is likely to go WP:RFD#D2 "confusing" (that is not a threat, just my own opinion) because that is what we tend to do when there's no information at the target, and I can't find that there is.

It's probably best to add your comments into the redirect discussion rather than here.

God speed, Si Trew (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Aryan nation[edit]

Urgent: comments requested at [[]][edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
Discussion: [[]]

i need to know of an Oklahoma White supremacist Christianity group or organization.

Christian Magazines Page[edit]


The Christian Magazines page is incomplete. I could not find:

Today's Christian Woman magazine | Love God. Live ... From Christianity Today, a magazine and website for the Christian woman who wants to love God more deeply and live fearlessly for his kingdom.

Modern views of Sola Fide in Protestant denominations[edit]

Historically the doctrine that seperated Protestants from other Christians was their belief in Sola Fide - Justification by Faith alone. As someone who has ties with the Episcopal Church (United States) and the United Methodist Church, I don't believe it reflects the views of most Protestants and Anglicans today. According to poll results from the Pew Forum, 92% of Episcopalians and 85% of American United Methodists believe that non-Christian religions can lead to eternal life. Given that Sola Fide is the belief that faith in Christ alone is the path to salvation, I think the Pew results show that the vast majority of mainliners no longer believe in Sola Fide, and I strongly think that the article on sola Fide should make a note of this fact.

Sbrianhicks (talk)

Use of "heresiology" as a countable noun rreferring to a work of heresiology?[edit]

Our article Gospel of the Ebionites currently includes the text

extant only as seven brief quotations in a heresiology known as the Panarion,

but is this normal? Neither our article on the Panarion itself nor our heresiology article use the word in this sense, nor does Wiktionary's entry thereon list such a usage. My copy of the OED doesn't include the word, although the two paper dictionaries I do have on hand (English-Japanese bilingual dictionaries that are not always the best sources for correct English usage) imply that it can be used in this sense. Clearly it has been used like this on Wikipedia at least once, but how do others feel about it? (I admit I once got in a big fight over whether the word "mythologies" was acceptable, with me being in favour of it, but in that case the OED was on my side.) Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Paragraph on consistency of Church teaching on sexuality[edit]

This edit has been proposed to be added across nine disparate articles, mostly under the purview of this Wikiproject. @Ulrich von Metz: did the adding, and sees no problem with the paragraph as it stands. Neither does @Tgeorgescu: even after I pointed out that it is a glaring violation of WP:NPOV, in that it presents a minority scholarly opinion as fact in Wikipedia's voice. At first I repaired the NPOV problem when I found this edit on the Eastern Orthodox Church article. I was inclined to let it stand. But when I found that it had been steadily spammed into NINE articles, my opinion shifted to removal and I therefore deleted it from all affected articles. Ulrich quickly reverted me, and along with Tgeorgescu proceeded directly to WP:ANI without discussion, where an incipient investigation has been closed prematurely. Therefore I am taking the centralized discussion here, since it is about a mass change in article content and not suitable for my user talk page, or an isolated and underwatched talk page of one of those affected articles.

Even if NPOV problems are fixed and the paragraph is deemed suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, I would still oppose its inclusion on many of those mentioned articles, because it is only tangentially related to the subject matter. It is WP:UNDUE coverage of a minority, almost WP:FRINGE, scholars' opinion, and is really only directly relevant to Fornication and Religious views on masturbation. Elizium23 (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any WP:NPOV violation. Remember that WP:RNPOV says that we should render both theological and secular scholarly views upon religion. I fail to see how rendering Bible scholarship by a Harvard professor would violate WP:NPOV. The question if that information is appropriate to each of those articles has to be decided separately for each article. E.g. the information is definitely germane to Religious views on masturbation, so it should not be removed from there. It is germane to the topic of theological inerrancy/infallibility, so I believe that should not be deleted from an article addressing theological inerrancy/infallibility. It is also germane to church history: Catholic/Eastern Orthodox theology did not arise perfect as Athena from the head of Zeus, but it was a historical process among multiple players, some of whom were originally considered orthodox but later condemned as heretic, some who are still considered orthodox. Anyway, there were debates among different views for what should be accepted as orthodox by those churches (originally these were one and the same church). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
We mustn't render a controversial opinion in Wikipedia's voice, we must render it as the opinion of the scholars cited. What do you think of this edit? Elizium23 (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't know very much about the development of the theology of sexuality, but I have read these books: Michael Coogan, God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says and Jennifer Wright Knust, Unprotected Texts: The Bible's Surprising Contradictions About Sex and Desire. Their conclusion is that the Bible is often at odds with itself on matters of sexuality. So, it is not a big leap of faith to: church theology was at the beginning at odds with itself. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

New article: Evangelical Anglicanism[edit]

I created the Evangelical Anglicanism article, which used to be a redirect to the Church of England article. Any and all contributions would be appreciated! Ltwin (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Demonizer Zilch[edit]

copied and pasted discussion

Understand that these projects are for biblical/theological studies, for example, Supernatural (U.S. TV series) references biblical names, places etc. and visually does representations of actually occult sigils but is not taken is a series matter because the ideal of the show is just a show. Unless there is some sort of news worthy information that's making academics get excited and speculate on the particular manga/anime, the subject is irrelevant to the project. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@JudeccaXIII: The entire series is about demons, deals with a fictional Christian organization, and drops references left and right. These things exist in fiction as well and expanding project coverage is a good thing not a bad one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I also want to add that the main character Zilch is possessed by Alastor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I referenced Supernatural (U.S. TV series) as an example why it isn't on either Wikiproject, but for more clarity, it's not educational. Constantine (film), Constantine (TV series), and Supernatural (U.S. TV series), all of these media content mention satan, angels, demons, demon possession, sigils etc. but there not on Wikiprojsects Occult on Christianity because it's not educational, it's just media entertainment. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any policy/guideline related arguments in your reasoning so this is nothing more than a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT discussion. As for education, by whose definition are we going by? If someone sees a mention of Alastor wouldn't the person who is interested look up or want to look up this info? It isn't confined to anime or manga entertainment. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
If someone wanted to look up Alastor, he/she would simply click the BLUE LINK or go to the search bar. This is common sense. If you don't know what a Wikiproject is, see WP:PROJGUIDE. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I didn't read anything there regarding this situation, education in this case is subjective. If you want to start an RfC or amend a project's scope then feel free. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The article: Demonizer Zilch, a Manga/Anime which mentions biblical names and its art work references occult symbols as Knowledgekid87 mentions...Does the article meet the scope of this Wikiproject. I have copied and pasted a discussion I had with the editor, and he/she has suggested I get input to resolve this matter. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity has 22,300 start class articles, going through them can you define which ones are "educational", and which ones aren't? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
What makes you think this cartoon has any relevant information to this project? Nothing historical or academically important. BTW, I'm not interested in looking at 22, 300 articles, just this one. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)