Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard

WikiProject Christianity Articles Categories Deletion Guide Newsletter Portal Projects Main pageShowcaseAssessmentPlanMembersNoticeboard Peer review Requests

---

Requested move at Talk:Philippine Senate hearing on the Kingdom of Jesus Christ#Requested move 25 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Philippine Senate hearing on the Kingdom of Jesus Christ#Requested move 25 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. HueMan1 (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

John Dowling (pastor)

Article probably needs some substantial copyediting for encyclopedic tone and more modern sources if anyone has access to any. The subject, a 19th century Baptist minister, is almost certainly notable if for no other reason due to his authorship of one of the more widely read and quoted polemically anti-Catholic works from that era. However much of the sourcing is dated, and in at least one instance of doubtful reliability. The language sounds like it was taken directly from one or more of those old sources and seems less than nuetral in its tone. I have tagged the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

A quick followup, we don't have an article on his principal work, The History of Romanism: from the Earliest Corruptions of Christianity to the Present Time(1), but we probably should. It was a very prominent and widely quoted book in its time and I would be surprised if it did not meet our guidelines for notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of New Testament minuscules (2001–)#Requested move 22 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of New Testament minuscules (2001–)#Requested move 22 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading of Beans 06:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Genesis creation narrative

There is currently a discussion going on at Genesis creation narrative about the inclusion of 'traditional' views in the text; additional input would be most welcome. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Kingdom of Jesus Christ compound standoff#Requested move 1 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kingdom of Jesus Christ compound standoff#Requested move 1 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. HueMan1 (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Common Era has an RfC

Common Era, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for value. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The article Anti-Christian sentiment is largely the same content as Persecution of Christians, suggest reformat to resemble other article pairs that better separate the topics

Currently the article Anti-Christian sentiment largely just a less comprehensive duplicate of the article Persecution of Christians.

The two articles would likely be improved if they were rewritten into the format used in similar article pairs such as Islamophobia and Persecution of Muslims or Antisemitism and Persecution of Jews where the former article covers concepts of discrimination against the group broadly with some discussion of example events, whilst the latter article serves as a compendium of specific historical and modern acts of discrimination.

This would allow them to be more distinct from eachother and provide better coverage of the topic. TaqPCR (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources for Summarizing Books of the Bible

Looking over some of the articles for books of the Bible, I notice that when summarizing the contents of the books, some articles cite to the passages in the books themselves, while other articles cite to secondary sources. For example, the article for the Third Epistle of John, when summarizing the books contents, cites repeatedly to The Johannine Epistles by C. H. Dodd. Whereas, the article on the Epistle to the Philippians cites only to the actual book. And the article on the Epistle to the Romans uses both.

My question is, which is the preferred source for summarizing the books on Wikipedia? The Bible, or Bible commentaries? SCOTUS Operandi (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Catholic theology has an RfC

Catholic theology, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for value. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 03:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Civilian Public Service

Civilian Public Service has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Deletion Discussion of the Robert Heisner Article

Article Deletion Discussion - Robert Heisner Article

An article deletion discussion is ongoing about Robert Heisner, a Chrisitan minister who was also a martial arts expert who developed a new karate style.

If you are interested in this deletion discussion, you can find it here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Heisner#Robert_Heisner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bushido77 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Arian controversy needs attention

Strong viewpoint pushing from a self-proclaimed expert. Mangoe (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I second this request! Not just that article, but a vast number of articles related to Trinitarian theology, Arianism, and Early Church History have been rewritten in an argumentative/polemical style by AndriesvN, an Arian apologist who often copies/cites from their personal blog revelationbyjesuschrist.com in edits. There's currently an ANI open on them recommending a topic ban: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AndriesvN_and_Christian_theology_articles

Given how prolific the user in question has been, it's going to be a huge task going through it all and bringing it up to Wikipedia standards (see user's contributions). All help is appreciated! HieronymusNatalis (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

UPDATE: AndriesvN has been indef blocked as of today for being WP:NOTHERE. However, their numerous edits remain in serious need of review. See Special:Contributions/AndriesvN for a sense of what pages need work. It's a pretty hefty task. Thanks for any help! -HieronymusNatalis (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Depending on how many other editors have added positive content that is not just a modification of content added by AndriesvN, you might consider opening a discussion on whether it would be easier to roll the article all the way back to a point before they started editing. It might be easier to reinstate the good edits by other editors since that time, than to undo all the bad edits by AndriesvN. This would require discussion and consensus by editors, but is definitely an option; I was involved in reverting about 800 edits by someone doing the same thing to one of the Indian art history articles, I forget which one. We had strong consensus, and the rollback was successfully carried out, with a minimum of stress or strife. The key is take your time, and gain a strong consensus for it. I would not jump straight to Rfc; a discussion section may be sufficient. Mathglot (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Repair worksheet

Following are some of the edits by AndriesvN that may need attention:

1. Acacians: these 31 edits
2. Arian creeds: these 38 and these 15
3. Arius: these 28 and these 26
4. Council of Constantinople (360): these 2  Attended
5. Council of Serdica: these 23
6. Councils of Sirmium: these 6  Done Mathglot (talk)
7. Edict of Thessalonica: these 11  Done Mathglot (talk)
8. First Council of Nicaea: these 14 and these 6
9. Homoiousian: these 30
10. Hypostasis (philosophy and religion): these 5 and these 6
11. John 1:1: these 16
12. Logos (Christianity): these 9 and these 3
13. Meletius of Antioch: these 7
14. Melitians: these 11
15. Prophecy of Seventy Weeks: these 2  Done (previously; by: tgeorgescu)
16. Sabellius: these 3 Done -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t°
17. Subordinationism: these 43
18. Synods of Antioch: these 3  Done Mathglot (talk)
19. The Beast (Revelation): these 7

Given the extent of the potential damage, this may need assistance from additional editors. If you can help, please mark ones you have repaired with {{done}} in the list above (I waive WP:TPO) and your 3-tilde sig (~~~). If a link appears broken or does not represent a run of edits by AndriesvN, please add a comment below and I will fix it. Hopefully adding @Mangoe, HieronymusNatalis, Girth Summit, Hemiauchenia, ActivelyDisinterested, and Folly Mox:. Mathglot (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with Christian theology to really know what's worth keeping/discarding in AndriesvN's edits, but if there's consensus to essentially completely rollback their edits to the relevant articles I'm very happy to implement that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Is that even possible? Some of the edits are not recent; John 1:1 and a couple others are from 2022, for example. Mathglot (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Equally unfamiliar with the subject, but the one I checked added content based on their website that was in turn referencing Wikipedia for some of the information (it was circular). It could be worthwhile to view all the edits with suspicion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

(responding to ping) Mildly involved: removed WP:EL violations during the course of the ANI thread. Third disclosure: zero knowledge of early Christian theology.

Rollback of edits long since buried under more recent diffs is not possible in the usual easy sense, but contributions can be manually undone by reviewing the old edits and removing them from the current revision if their undoing is considered an improvement. It's a time consumer!

If any of AndriesvN's edits are reasonable to retain, a good first step would be to track down alternate, reputably published copies of the sources they hosted on their blog.

If we're going with the "manual nuke" approach, I should be able to help out, although not right now, and I'm also immediately minded of a French Historiography project I told Mathglot I'd try to help with a few weeks back, before as always becoming busy, tired, and forgetful. If we're doing a casewise assessment, evaluating the value – I guess lexically tautologically? – of the contributions, I definitely lack the expertise to assist. Folly Mox (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Mathglot! I'm out of commission at the moment, but as soon as the academic term ends (mid-December), I'll start working on these. -HieronymusNatalis (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Smirmium done. Mathglot (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England

Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Naming conventions for churches

Is there any form of standardisation for naming conventions for churches? I've seen both name of church, location; name of church + church, location; and name of church + denomination + church, location: e.g. St John's, London; St John's Church, London; or St John's Anglican Church, London. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle: There is WP:CHURCH, which essentially advocates WP:COMMONNAME. Then there is MOS:PARTSAINT, which implies that "{Church building} of Saint {X}" is the standard, though I don't think that's really borne out by usage on Wikipedia. In my experience "St John's Church, London" is the usual WP naming convention for Anglican churches in England or Wales, and I see that you've proposed the same style for an Anglican church in New Zealand here.

This has been discussed before at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2023 August 3 § Naming conventions for church buildings; pinging KJP1 who started that discussion. The focus there was again quite British, and it was initially concerned with whether there should be different conventions for Anglican and (Roman) Catholic churches. I don't think either of those denominations should be named, mainly because of WP:CONCISE – though there are the unusual cases of St Mary's Cathedral, Edinburgh (Catholic) and St Mary's Cathedral, Edinburgh (Episcopal), where the denominations' names are necessary for disambiguation. It's a bit different with some other denominations; Chingford United Reformed Church is an example that was brought up in that discussion.

I'm not very fond of the "St John's, London" or "St John, London" constructions, which could read ambiguously like something other than churches – suburbs of London, for instance. However, I noted in the 2023 discussion that omitting "Church" often works for Catholic churches with lengthy dedications, e.g., "Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception and St John, London".

More past discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (architecture) § Places of worship (2009 and 2015), Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 137 § Articles about churches; titles of the format St. X ('s Church), Somewhere (2017), Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (architecture) § Churches (2024; entirely about churches in non–English-speaking countries). All these discussions tend to peter out before they can be fully resolved, but with this much discussion behind us I think resolution should be easier. Ham II (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)