Wikipedia talk:Christianity noticeboard

Urgent: comments requested at God -- TEST

Page: God (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Discussion: Is God male or female?

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)

Urgent: comments requested at The Exodus

Page: The Exodus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Exodus currently pushes a strong biblical minimalist POV. It claims the views of a minority of scholars are something near "consensus". I have tried to fix the problem but a couple of users (PiCo in particular) simply revert edits, and ignore sources that dispute their claims. I am not going to waste my time with it or any of these religion articles if the other editors are going to be so disrespectful and one-sided.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Quark--I noticed you posted about this before. It was around the time when we were transitioning from WT:X to WT:XNB, and maybe got lost in the shuffle. I've posted it as an Urgent issue so we can get some expert attention for this. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

PiCo has been editing extensively (and almost exclusively) the last couple weeks. Are their changes within policy and well sourced? – Lionel ^(talk) 05:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the majority of my edits have been changing the existing citations from one system to another system, without touching content. One or two might have gone further, but I think not much further. PiCo (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No the article is not well sourced. Several key points cite biblical minimalists like William Dever, while others cite dead links or articles written nearly a century ago. Some statements (i.e. "The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible") are just flat wrong. Many wrong statements in the article have no citation at all, while others use citations that say something else entirely. If you look at the second paragraph of the intro you will see this. Works by Hoffmeier and Kitchen are cited as representing the "minority" viewpoint, even though those cited books don't say that at all. The editor who added that just assumed that their viewpoint is minority without citation. Really none of the works cited make the sweeping generalizations about consensus or majority/minority viewpoints that the article does.

The problem with this article is deeper than just some bad citations. Scholarly opinion on the exodus can be broadly segmented into conservative and non-conservative opinion (in terms of sheer numbers, most scholars are conservative). Non-conservative views range from a nearly traditional interpretation to outright biblical minimalism. The entire section The_Exodus#Historicity_debate is one long argument for a skeptical or even minimalist position. It completely ignores the work of most scholars (conservatives) whose views and scholarship are more likely to support the traditionalist viewpoints. What this article needs to do is discuss both conservative and non-conservative views, and eliminate these sweeping claims of "consensus" that the sources don't support. I am more than willing to make these edits, but if I do certain editors (PiCo in particular) will simply revert my edits.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 07:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we start small and work our way up. What specific change could you propose that would improve the article and meet with little resistance from PiCo? – Lionel ^(talk) 07:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The second paragraph says: "The archaeological evidence of the largely indigenous origins of Israel is "overwhelming," and leaves "no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness."[1] A common hypothesis among biblical scholars today is that the first major comprehensive draft of the Pentateuch (the series of books containing the exodus story) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BC and later expanded into a work very like the one we have today.[2] A minority of scholars assumes that this has yet older sources that can be traced to a genuine tradition of the Bronze Age collapse of the 13th century BC.[3]"

The first sentence should be deleted outright. Its source is the biblical minimalist William Dever. According to an article PiCo accepts [1] there are only about a half-dozen productive scholars advancing minimalist arguments regularly in papers and articles. Most scholars don't agree with the Dever's claim (even most non-conservatives don't). This is a fringe opinion made to look like a common one. Instead it should be replaced with "Currently, the traditional picture of the exodus has been questioned and modified, either slightly or radically, or it has even been downright rejected." The source is "Introduction to the Old Testament" by Tremper Longman and Raymond B. Dillard. The last sentence should be changed to say that "Conservative and traditionalist scholars often argue that the exodus narratives originated close to the event itself" and the same source could be used along with Kitchen and Hoffmeire.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The author in question is William G. Dever and the source is a 2003 book which is not written from a minimalist perspective. It's a concern that Quarkgluonsoup is unaware of this - he certainly shouldn't be reverting material without understanding it. See "Giving the sense: understanding and using Old Testament historical texts By Michael A. Grisanti, David M. Howard" which says " William G. Dever makes similar points, and has mounted the most sustained assault on minimalist positions. He offers his own, more positive reconstructions of Israel's life and society, using both the Bible and archaeological remains.75 - the footnote reads "William G. Dcvcr, What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? What A rchae- ology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Israel (Grand Rapids: Ecrdnuns. 2001); and idem. Who were the early Israelites and where Did They Come From? (Grand Kapids: Eerdmans, 2003). Dever take^s great pains to distance himself from "fundamentalists." He states that "I am not a theist, and indeed remain a secular humanist" (What Did the Biblical Writers Know, x), but he nevertheless takes a much more positive view of the reality of ancient Israel than do minimalist scholars." talk • contribs) 16:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And surely the discussion should start at the talk page of the article? This is the sort of thing that concerned me about the 'emergency button' - it should not be used in this way. And it's hardly an emergency, the discussion has gone on for some time. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

@Doug--this is a novel feature which exists nowhere else and we'll have to figure out how to make it work... Just a reminder: this wasn't my idea (although I think it's a good idea). – Lionel ^(talk) 07:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Lionel, see what I mean? PiCo and Doug have been the source of the problem over there. I made the edit and Doug simply reverted it.[2] Notice that he reverted the entire edit, not just the part he objects to above. Will you take a look at the edit he just reverted and tell me if you find anything objectionable?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a good issue for this urgent noticeboard, since the issue stems from just a couple of editors. It needs the attention of more editors, and this is the place for that.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

So no comment on the actual question of Dever, just an attack on me? In the last 12 months I've edited the article I think 11 times. Mainly reverting IPs and/or original research, using self-published books, etc. You have just ignored WP:BRD I see. this time removing it with a different reason. You're probably still upset because everyone agreed that the Bronze age stuff didn't belong. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I like how you don't bother to address the question about your reversion above. Dever's quote is already in the article so it is irrelevant in the intro.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see a question. Your latest edit isn't relevant directly to BRD (which would apply if you removed the material I restored), what you've done is remove all mention of archaeology from the lead. Are you going to argue that the lead shouldn't mention the lack of archaeological evidence? Do you now agree that your minimalist comment in regards to the source is incorrect? Dougweller (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The Dever quote says nothing about the archaeological evidence of the exodus, but of Dever's own view of "the largely indigenous origins of Israel" (which is certainly a minority viewpoint) and irrelevant here. You want a discussion of the archaeology of the exodus? Fine, but the discussion has to discuss all scholarly views, not just one.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

My original request was simply for a "specific change" that would not be controversial. Once Quark had made the identification I was going to go to the article--not deliberate here. So much for that, lol.– Lionel ^(talk) 07:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Not the appropriate place for this discussion

Quarkgluonsoup has just posted to Talk:The Exodus to say that the discussion will continue here. That's clearly another inappropriate use of this subpage. Dougweller (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No this is exactly the right place. Your antagonism over a little edit is a perfect example of why. Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dougweller - editors watching this noticeboard have been informed of the discussion at Talk:The Exodus and can easily join it there. But the place to resolve a content dispute on a single article is by default that article's talk page. In particular, keeping the discussion there instead of here will make it much easier to find if we later have a similar discussion again. Huon (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And the editors there can come here. We need more editors to help, and prior efforts to bring them over from this board have failed to do so, so we will discuss this here.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with Dougweller and Huon. Discussion about an article's content should take place on that article's talk page, and not in some dark corner of a project page. If you have questions about sources or policies, you can ask at WP:RSN, WP:POVN, WP:NORN, WP:FTN, or file and RfC. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for issues like the current one.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No. It's for notifying interested users about discussions, not for holding these discussions. That's why it's called a noticeboard, not a discussion forum. Huon (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And yet Lionel opened this discussion here (not there) and I concur with that decision.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes this noticeboard is for announcing issues to interested editors. That said editors can discuss whatever they want whereever they want. It happens all of the time. However editors must be aware that this noticeboard can generate no consensus whatsoever regarding content at a particular article. What I'm saying is that this discussion here carries no weight at Exodus. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Kony Wiki Article

Urgent: comments requested at Joseph Kony

Page: Joseph Kony (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Discussion: Pseudo-Christianity

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. – USGrant7 ^(talk) 11:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Urgent: comments requested at List of scandals involving evangelical Christians

Page: List of scandals involving evangelical Christians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Discussion: Talk:List_of_scandals_involving_evangelical_Christians#Issues_with_the_Jason_Russell_Section

I'm slightly uncomfortable with a page named as such, but besides that there seems to be an article on the guy behind the Kony 2012. The section on Jason Russell. Has quite a few issues, which I've brought up in the discussion. I would love your opinion on that. Since I feel the section on this in the present article is grossly erroneous. Since this is under the purview of wikiproject christianity I would love your poinions on that.

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. Sanju87 (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

---

F. C. D. Wyneken

Friends, I noticed that much material here was deleted because it substantially copied my article, "Wyneken as Missionary." I give my permission to copy from my article as much as is needed to tell his story, or from my other works for that matter. It has been a long time since I have edited here, so I cannot figure out how to restore it. Would someone do so or, even better, expand the article based on it? It is really busy here as we approach the end of an academic year. Thanks! --CTSWyneken^(talk)

Template Christianity

Comments about this will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of polemical categories from two book articles

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Removal of polemical categories from two book articles. Several "Books critical of ..." categories were recently removed from Another Gospel (see here) and Cults: Faith, Healing and Coercion (see here). The reason given was that these polemical categories are not the main focus or notability of each book. I'm not at all convinced by this reasoning; indeed, it seems to me that criticism of such groups as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Scientology, and the Unification Church is central to the purpose of each of these books. I would favour putting the categories in question back — and possibly adding other, similar categories, since I know lots of other groups are criticized at length in Another Gospel (and I suspect in the other book as well). Comments? — Richwales 01:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion should be kept at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Removal of polemical categories from two book articles. It's beyond the scope of this WikiProject anyway when it discusses Scientology or New Age religions. Huon (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk page

Posting Talk:Resurrection of the dead here per this request for posting it. History2007 (talk) 08:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Knights of Columbus GA

The preeminent lay organization has been nominated by yours truly for Good Article. If you would like to review Knights of Columbus click here--it's only #201 in the queue! Arrrgggghhh!!!! – Lionel ^(talk) 03:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Mass deletion of links

The important template {{Religion topics}} has suffered a mass deletion of Christianity links. The editor responsible for this has avoided the talk page and they appear to be edit warring. I have started a discussion here Template_talk:Religion topics#Deletion of links. – Lionel ^(talk) 21:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Albertus Soegijapranata

I was wondering if anyone here could take a look at the article and ensure I used the terms correctly (such as Holy See vs. Vatican, apostolic vicariate, novitiate, etc.) . I'm not very well-versed at writing articles about Catholicism, let alone bishops. Thanks beforehand! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Devil's pitchfork

Is the Devil's pitchfork a significant item in religious art and iconography? Or is it a popular culture topic? -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 WikiGrail Contest

It gives me great pleasure to announce that the winner of the 2012 WikiGrail Contest is Toa Nidhiki05. Toa's contribution to Christianity-related articles was impressive:

• 17 Good Articles
• 1 Featured List
• 9 DYKs

He represented WikiProject Christian music in the competition. Congratulations, Toa. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Related RfC

Please comment at Template talk:Religion topics#RfC on what articles to be included in this template. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Pope Pius xii, Eugenio Pacelli

HI I was curious if anyone was in Eugenio Pacelli's ( Pope Pius XII) family was interested in getting in touch with me? Thanks very much, and may God bless you. Kristy , my e-mail is mice11111@hotmail.com if you'd like to e-mail me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.223.32 (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the material in this section is irrelevant and should be deleted. Jpacobb (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Krista Branch

From the Krista Branch article:

While Branch and her husband were living in Colorado Springs, their baby daughter, Kenna, nearly drowned in their bathtub. Branch and her husband attributed their child's survival to the power of prayer, having been inspired after seeing The Passion of the Christ a few days earlier.

Isn't that a beautiful story? Listen people: this article is up for GA. It's been listed for over 3 months! Can someone please click here and get this article reviewed. Thanks! – Lionel ^(talk) 07:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Started Talk:Krista Branch/GA1 with a few suggestions and a provisional no vote. Hope my suggestions help.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the GA lists get kinda long at times, and articles get picked on a first-come, first served basis by the generally overworked group of GA reviewers. Sometimes, there can be a rather significant delay in processing. John Carter (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I am a bit surprised by it too. Before my hiatus several years ago (different account), I was often involved in GA. When I took another look at things a few weeks ago, I was a little shocked at how backlogged GA was (and that it was flooded with candidates that definitely weren't GA ready). But that seems to be the majority of projects around here...the corps of copyeditors is backlogged to May 2011.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if another editor would provide an additional opinion on this nomination, preferably with more detailed suggestions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Seeking opinion(s) on Angelus Silesius

I have spent the last few days doing a massive revision of Angelus Silesius (17th Century German mystic and poet) and am almost finished with it. I have one section left to write (interpretations of his work) and will likely have the two or three paragraphs I plan to add completed by tonight (15 July 2012). I am asking for another set of eyes (or several sets) to give the article a quick look, copy-edit, and suggestions for improvements. My goal is to recommend it for GA in the next few days. Thanks in advance for your help. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Help needed at Talk:Judas Iscariot

I reverted a new editor's addition to the article for various reason - OR,NPOV and what I think is copyvio. If anyone has the Lutheran Study Bible they may be able to help with the copyvio issue. The discussion starts at Talk:Judas Iscariot#Copied from my talk page about material I deleted yesterday. Thanks. (I don't think I ever added any sources to this article, the new editor has that wrong). Dougweller (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reason to think that the Lutheran Study Bible is not a reliable source?ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source for the notion that the lutheran study bible is "The best-informed explanation for this apparent contradiction"? I have no doubt that an in-universe treatment allows all ambiguities and contradictions in a religious text to be waved away easily, but we should rely on independent sources wherever possible. And then there's a cherry-picked Augustine quote which sets us up for the no true scotsman fallacy; if any reader sees a contradiction in the text, they simply haven't understood the text as well as Augustine did. Facepalm bobrayner (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I note John Carter has commented at the talk page about the Lutheran study Bible, suggesting that maybe it isn't the best source in any case. Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of good practice, shouldn't everything but the request for help be on the appropriate talk page rather than here? Jpacobb (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Julie Pennington-Russell

Hi, I've just created an article about this lady, who is a notable female baptist pastor. There's plenty more that could be done, including in-line cites, categories, infobox, etc. If you have a moment to spare, please take a look and improve it if you can. Thanks. Sidefall (talk) 11:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles on English Translations of the Bible

While looking for translations that might be legally quotable on Wikipedia rather than referenced by external linking, I took a detailed look at a large number of the articles on English Translations of the Bible. It seems to me that there are problems of notability in that many of them come over as little more than detailed publishers' blurbs and heavily dependent on this particular class of source. While these may be adequate to supply details once notability has been established, they do not demonstrate it in the first instance. What does? I can think of three criteria which, while not definitive by themselves, could well be applied (there must be more).

1. Specific recognition by a major denomination or Church for liturgical use.
   
2. Sponsored by a major inter-denominational Council such as the British Council of Churches.
   
3. Quoted or referenced frequently and regularly by recognised academics in the course of their work or used as a standard text for courses.

Consideration should also be given to bringing into a single article the newer revisions of a translation; for example, the the notability of Revised English Bible might be questioned but it has an unquestionable place in the article on its parent, the New English Bible. An intelligent use of redirects seems to be called for. I suspect that the notability of many of the updates to the King James Version is little more than an inherited one and a strict application of WP:Notability could produce a rash of AfD's.

I don't see this as a sufficient priority for me at the moment, but I am prepared to make helpful comments if someone takes this on. The navbox is given below and I am posting an "news flash" about this topic on the Bible Project Talk-page Jpacobb (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This is actually a very good question. To me, the first thing that comes to mind is whether a given translation meets WP:BK. So, for instance, I would assume as per point 4 there that if a given denomination or group of denominations uses a given translation as their primary version or one of their primary versions and that group/those groups operate several universities which have religious programs where that translation would be used, that might qualify a translation for meeting notability. So most of the major denominations' preferred versions would qualify, probably to no one's real surprise. This however does not deal with some of the literary translations, like Walter Wangerin's version. My own gut feeling, and that's all it is, is that most of the translations whose publication has received significant attention would have included in that attention some indication of textual variations between the individual text and others, some indication regarding who did the translation and under what circumstances, the beliefs of the translators, etc. If there is sufficient reliably sourced material on such basic topics to constitute a fair-sized article, then I think it would make sense to keep. At a rough guesstimate, I would figure, maybe, any revision which has sufficient encyclopedic material for over five paragraphs of material that meets the consensus of "encyclopedic material", without duplication, could maybe be counted as the minimum threshold for spun out, although I would prefer if it only regularly happened at, say, ten paragraphs or more of such material. Regarding the Revised English Bible you mention above, I don't know that one well enough to offer an opinion, but I would welcome any comments regarding this topic from anyone else, and everyone else, as well. John Carter (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Saints Sergius and Bacchus

An editor has expanded a fringe theory to the point where the Saints Sergius and Bacchus article has become completely overwhelmed (WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV). See Talk:Saints_Sergius_and_Bacchus#Recent_edit_to_lead– Lionel ^(talk) 02:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Revelation (Third Day album) FAC

Revelation, an album by Christian rock band Third Day, is up for a second FA nomination. The article is high-importance at WikiProject Christian music, a subproject of this WikiProject, and is ranked as high-importance in that project. If passed, this would be the first CCM-related article to pass FAC and would make an excellent addition to the already-impressive list of Christianity-related FA articles. If you would like to comment or !vote, you can do so here. Thanks! Toa Nidhiki05 19:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Seven princes of hell

hi~, so i was reading about the seven princes of hell and noticed that Satan, Lucifer, and Beelzebub appear as different demons, while I always believed those were all names for the Devil. Can someone explain this to me clearly? Are they all the same? Are they different demons? Are they different sides of the devil? Otherwise, what are they?

Sorry if this wasn't the right place to put this, but i'm not sure.

Techically, the reference desk would be the right place for such questions. Whether Satan, Lucifer and Beelzebub are different demons or not depends on the demonology you look at. The Bible metions all three in different parts, Satan as an accuser before God, Lucifer as the "son of dawn fallen from heaven" and Beelzebub as a Philistine god. Since they all are (more or less - Satan less than the others) adversaries or rivals of God, in mainstream Christianity they are usually identified (as "the Devil"), though the Bible itself mentions them separately. During the Renaissance people invented several intricate classification systems for demons, including the "seven princes of Hell" which include all three as distinct entities. I don't know whether these seven princes were supposed to be subordinate to yet another chief Devil, but their correspondence to the seven Archangels of Heaven, the top servants of God, makes that likely - I wouldn't be surprised if different demonologists have different opinions on this question, though. Huon (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)