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

Changes for two re-directs[edit]

What's the preferred procedure for proposing/accomplishing a change in re-directs? Seems like a community issue to me, but I wouldn't mind learning the mechanics myself.

We currently have two of them related to the Sabbath and changes I have made recently in that area. "Christian Sabbath" and "First-day Sabbatarianism" both redirect to the article "Sabbath in Christianity". That article is mischaracterized by these re-directs, since they are not equivalent topics, and the re-directs may not get the reader to the place s/he's looking for. I would suggest that the right thing to do is to send them to disambiguation, since so many interpretations of either redirected term are possible, and the place to go for that is Sabbatarian, itself a redirect of "Sabbatarianism", but also the current clearinghouse for direction issues related to many Sabbath topics. And that may bring up another point: why not rename "Sabbatarian"? Make it a clearing house for all the Sabbath-related topics, including Sabbatarians, and redirect "Sabbatarian" to the new name. I think resolving any issues around this one may also give us a direction for merging materials and simplifying the vast array of content forks under Sabbath topics.

Comments? Thoughts? Thanks! Evensteven (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively, "Christian Sabbath" could redirect to Non-Sabbatarianism, which explains it in the lead. Evensteven (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, maybe this section is overkill on communications. I do this out of a sense of courtesy, and of providing clues in a documented record that later editors can find if they need. But I sometimes forget that it's not always liked at the time: too much verbiage. If you're one: sorry. I'm just going to go ahead and make changes as suggested above. It's easy enough for anyone to speak up if they think there's better. Evensteven (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed page move[edit]

Interested eyes please at Non-Sabbatarianism talk page. Evensteven (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Proceeding with the move in a day or two if there is no objection. Evensteven (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission[edit]

Please have a look at Draft:William Thom. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

God and Satan?[edit]

See discussion Talk:God and Satan (song): should God and Satan be a dab page with Book of Job etc as options, or should something else be done? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

JC's Girls[edit]

I have started an FAC for the article about JC's Girls, a Christian organization. The reviewers who have contributed to the FAC so far seem sharply divided. Any constructive contributions would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

"Dominicans"[edit]

The usage and primary topic of Dominicans is under discussion, see talk:People of the Dominican Republic -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)