Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard

---

What to do about Criticism of the Catholic Church

A user has suggested splitting Criticism of the Catholic Church; you are invited to discuss at Talk:Criticism_of_the_Catholic_Church#Revert,_damage_too_much_to_fix.Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It's too large and should be split. If the sections make sense, it will be easy to create larger sections again. Keep the existing article as a summary of the sub-articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Going off the April 12th version ::I can see separate articles being taken from the following sections. I'm putting this out here specifically to solicit your opinion:

• "Corruption" could become "Corruption in the Catholic Church"
• "Modern concerns" could become "Catholicism and the present age"
• "Recent criticisms by other religions or churches" could become "Catholicism and interfaith relations"
• "Criticisms by or of Catholic operations, organizations, or communities" could become "Controversies involving Catholic organizations"
• "Criticism of Catholic actions in history" could become "Criticism of the historical Catholic Church"--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Those titles are all too neutral-sounding for the topic (criticism of the Catholic Church). If you're going to create an article about a particular type of criticism of the Catholic Church, call it what it is. --PluniaZ (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try again

• Corruption in the Catholic Church could be "Alleged corruption in the Catholic Church"
• "Modern concerns" could be "Modern criticisms of the Catholic Church"
• "Catholicism and interfaith relations" could be "Interfaith controversies involving Catholicism" OR "Interfaith controversies involving the Catholic Church", not sure which is better.
• "Controversies involving Catholic organizations" sounds about right as it is, as does "Criticism of the historical Catholic Church".--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• "Catholic Church" should probably be not used while "Roman Catholic Church" should in the interfaith article. The others appear to be good article titles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I would do that except that one of the controversies involves Eastern Rite Catholics ignoring a commitment of the papacy not to proselytize the Eastern Orthodox. Eastern Rite Catholics are technically not completely Roman (and, more importantly, they don't self-identify as Roman) because although they are under the canonical authority of the Roman pontiff, they do not use the Roman Rite. This detail is often ignored due to their vast numerical inferiority to Roman Catholics, and as such are they are called Roman Catholics when speaking of the Catholic Church in general, but due to the distinction over Roman vs. Eastern Rites I think it would be inappropriate to label the article Roman Catholic. Granted that this solution is offensive to Old Catholics, but this is the lesser of two evils.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

There is established Wikipedia community consensus to refer to the Catholic Church as the "Catholic Church" and not the "Roman Catholic Church", as one can see just by looking at that article that is the subject of this dispute, and by the main article on the Catholic Church: Criticism of the Catholic Church, Catholic Church, Category: Catholic Church. --PluniaZ (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The five suggested articles have been published:

• Interfaith controversies involving the Catholic Church
• Controversies involving Catholic organizations
• Criticism of the historical Catholic Church
• Alleged corruption in the Catholic Church
• Modern criticism of the Catholic Church

However, there is an ongoing discussion about axing them at Talk:Criticism of the Catholic Church.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

There is not a discussion about "axing them"; please remember I was the one who suggested splitting for size. You did not split. You created six new articles by extensively transcluding text from other articles, when most of the text you transcluded has no relevance to the articles created. So, you took 15,000 words and turned it into about 30,000, with content largely unrelated to any criticism of the Catholic church, so that any reader actually seeking to find any relevant criticism will find an off-topic wall of text instead. You made the same mess that you were asked to fix from your earlier mess, only twice as large. Please remove all of the off-topic transcluded text, and I again suggest that it might be necessary for you to edit in other areas if you continue to create these kinds of cleanup problems in your enthusiasm for criticism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem there just got considerably worse, and needs more eyes. Splitting the article was fine (I believe it was my suggestion). Splitting 15,000 words into 30,000 words by transcluding huge chunks of text from other articles-- text that is unrelated to actual criticism of the Catholic church-- has created an ever larger unreadable mess from which a reader cannot glean actual criticism, since thousands of transcluded words have been added that don't include criticism. See talk page, and please have a look at the transclusions in the five new articles. I am concerned whether epiphyllumover should continue editing this suite of articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Mennonite Church USA

The article on Mennonite Church USA has received what appears to be substantial deletions due to purported copyright violations. It made me suspicious, but this sort of stuff is above my pay grade. Is there an administrator who would be willing to investigate? Thanks --Jsniessen (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Why not start with the deleting admin: @Diannaa:? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyright content was added on May 3 and discovered by a bot. Here's a copy of the bot report. The person who added it cited the source https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Statement_on_Abortion_(Mennonite_Church_USA,_2003), which is not released under a compatible licence. Also, that's not a reliable source, because it's a wiki. While cleaning that up, I noticed an older violation of the copyright policy, material which appeared at several places online, including http://www.mennonitechurch.ca/files/events/calgary2010/2010AssemblyReportBook-GeneralBoard.pdf, so I removed that as well. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. @Diannaa: That response is somewhat satisfactory. The content was deleted back to 2011-02-10T01:17:42‎ not May 3. It's not clear what was removed, and the content between the two sections may have been based on publicly available documents. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The content from https://anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Statement_on_Abortion_(Mennonite_Church_USA,_2003) was added on May 3, and a bot report was created shortly afterwards. While checking the bot report on May 4, I noticed other material that appeared to me to be another violation of the copyright policy. Investigating, I discovered that identical material appeared in this annual report dated 2010 as well as at other locations online. The material was added to Wikipedia at 01:17, February 10, 2011‎, so I have to assume that it was copied from there (or from elsewhere). "Publicly available" and "public domain" are not the same thing; under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. What was removed? The material from AnabaptistWiki was the eight-point stance on abortion, and the material from the Annual Report was Vision statement (from page 13), Purpose (from page 13), and Priorities (also from page 13. The bullet points under "missional church vision") — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Jerusalem for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Jerusalem is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jerusalem until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Faith and Philosophy goes open access

Faith and Philosophy, one of the top theological journals (12th in SCImago Journal Rank for religious studies), goes open access. You can find all issues on their website. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: FA nomination for Almost There (album)

Just a reminder to anyone interested: the article for Almost There (album) is up for featured article status. As a high-importance article in the sister Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian Music and one of the best-selling Christian records of all time so, any and all project members are invited to comment on or review the nomination and help see if it fits the featured article criteria. The nomination is starting to lose attention and might be archived soon, so any comments are appreciated! Toa Nidhiki05 16:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Reliability of LifeSiteNews

A discussion is currently taking place at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_LifeSiteNews regarding the reliability of LifeSiteNews as a source for Wikipedia articles. --PluniaZ (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Five fundamentals

I've just retargeted Five fundamentals to Fundamentalist–Modernist controversy#The Doctrinal Deliverance of 1910 (The Five Fundamentals) (it previously pointed to Christian Fundamentalism (disambiguation) as the result of a move and "fixed" double redirect, which was obviously not very useful to anybody). I know nothing about the topic though, so I'm not sure if this is the right target – perhaps The Fundamentals or Christian fundamentalism#The Fundamentals and modernism would be preferable? As such I'd appreciate any input from anyone more knowledgeable on the topic. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Christian music for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Christian music is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Christian music until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move of "Mary, mother of Jesus" to "Virgin Mary"

You are invited to join the discussion concerning the requested move of "Mary, mother of Jesus" to "Virgin Mary", which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

John Stott and annihilationism

There is a two-sentence section, John Stott#Annihilationism. Stott was not an annihilationist, he simply argued that it can be supported when reading scripture. An editor has been trying to fan the flames and add content that makes it seem as though he was an annihilationist and supported the position. Could we please get some input in the article's talk page? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Help needed to source William Lane Craig

Help is needed to add secondary sources to the William Lane Craig article. Some editors have proposed to WP:TNT the article, essentially due to lack of inline citations to secondary sources (there are WP:GENREFs but the challenges have been quite extensive). I suspect the Apologetics section could be very adequately sourced from book reviews and other works in the fields of academic theology and philosophy. I suspect many of the best sources may be chiefly available on paper or through research websites that are difficult for nonspecialists to access. If there are any specialists in those fields here, their help would be greatly appreciated. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Featured article nomination for Almost There (album)

I’ve renominated Almost There (album), a mid-importance article in this project, for Wikipedia:Featured article. Any editors are welcome to add to the discussion at the nomination page. Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore)

Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore) is an unusually long article and somewhat hard to follow, at least in my opinion. However, I realize that some may disagree about that.

Nevertheless, there is a passage at Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore)#Fundamentalist, Evangelical or In-Between? which seems to be editorializing in favor of a particular point of view in a non-neutral way. Specifically, it states:

With credibility dented and God evidently not blessing them in their failed lawsuits after claiming that the blessing of God on the church for the past 52 years (1950-2002) was a reason for their wanting to take the old godly path, have they since reflected that what they did and thought to be the old path could be mistaken or wrong since they did not receive the blessing of God which they had expected when they commenced their lawsuit in September 2008 and had invoked His name in their daily prayer meetings for the duration of the court proceedings to help them annihilate FEBC?

It sounds as though this article is editorializing about a certain church not being blessed by God. In any event, it is inappropriate for Wikipedia to take a stand on that kind of issue.

If anyone would be willing to improve the article, I think that would be very helpful. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Will the article be better off being split into multiple articles for each church? Based on the section headings, there are details on 2 churches, which might be better off with their own articles. This article can be a stand along overview with information about the churches and their disputes. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Pontius Pilate rewrite

I've drafted out a complete rewrite of the article on Pontius Pilate using reliable sources - there is very little in the current article that I think can be salvaged, as large portions of the article are unsourced, and what is sourced relies almost entirely on websites (which are often used to support claims not found there) and primary sources. The draft is currently in my sandbox (User:Ermenrich/sandbox), where I will continue working on it until I think it's ready to replace the current article (perhaps leaving the long list of places where Pilate appears in literature/film/music, as I have no idea how to fix that). I'd appreciate any input anyone here might have, particularly regarding Pilate in the Apocrypha and the historicity of the crucifixion/Jesus' trial before Pilate.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Ermenrich, I'll take a look at the "pop-cult" section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I've found some sources to make something decent about art and literature in a non-list format I think.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Theodore Edgar McCarrick RfC

Hello. There is an RfC taking place at Talk:Theodore Edgar McCarrick regarding the possible restoration of three removed paragraphs if anyone is interested in participating. Display name 99 (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Bizarre merge discussion at Talk:Holy See

Look I think need some eyes at Talk:Holy See, who are proposing the merger of Diocese of Rome and Holy See. I find arguments made such as the two are the same thing, so it does not make sense for the two to have separate articles clearly wrong. Also one editor is currently blocked, and another made their first edit there (User:Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite). All said I find it a bit bizarre and suspicious. If anyone like to have a look it would be appreciated. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

List of churches in London

Comments invited as to how best to divide up Wikipedia's 9th biggest article, at 445k bytes. Please comment here. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: With some merging by Onetwothreeip and splitting of the City section, the size is now down to 365k bytes. JohnThorne (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Which obviously is still waaaaay too large! It would have been nice to get some agreement before starting this. Johnbod (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Trinity Ordinal use

As the Sign of the cross convention holds, father is the first person in the trinity, the son is the second person, and the Holy Spirit is the third person. The question is does the ordering matter. Could not the Father just as well be the second or third person and that goes for the son and the Holy Spirit as well. In my opinion, First, Second, Third are ordinal numbers that confuse readers on the prominence of one person over the other. I propose that if Ordinal numbers are used to describe the persons in the trinity, especially in the lede, that it is the ordering in the Sign of the Cross where the convention arises. Thoughts? Dislosure- I made this edit - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God_the_Son&oldid=906734921.Manabimasu (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

You're forgetting about the order of the Nicene Creed and Apostles Creed. Not to mention standard prayer formulas like "glory to the father and to the son and to the holy ghost." It's standard language when talking about the trinity and should be left as is.--Ermenrich (talk)

WP:Verifiability Any sources that claim that explain or use Ordinal numbers to describe the Trinity? your interpretation is WP:OR. I need sources for the use of Ordinal numbers. If not, I would put it off. The reasoning of the use of ordinal numbers should be explained with a source as well.Manabimasu (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Ermenrich (talk · contribs) I will WP:DROPTHESTICK.

This order does not imply inequality,

but rather it signifies the place that the Son and Spirit occupy in the formulations of liturgical prayer, in the doxology, and in the confession of faith: the Son is recognized at the second “place” and the

Spirit at the third “rank.”

— Gilles Emery, The Trinity: An Introduction to Catholic Doctrine on the Triune God

Manabimasu (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

[edit conflict] See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, this apologetic website, this Evangelical Website, this article on the Orthodox doctrine of the trinity. I challenge you to find any source that describes the persons of the trinity in any other way.

EDIT: So I take it you accept that this is the correct usage now?--Ermenrich (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I will add this to sources that mention ordinate numbers and would help if you garnered more sources to add to support as well. All in a days burden to verify claims.Manabimasu (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Despite over Pontius Pilate rewrite over historicity of Jesus

Paul Seibert is threatening to undo the extensive rewrite I have just performed of Pontius Pilate, entirely based on reliable sources, because "Otherwise, we have to admit Gospels are historical documents, and Jesus was a real person, not a Christian mythology character." See here Talk:Pontius Pilate#Recent changes. I would appreciate any support in preventing this from happening.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)