Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Anno Domini FAR

Anno Domini has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

The review was closed. The article is no longer a FA .. - Tinucherian (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

I removed the notice about archiving by Werdnabot and the template which was apparently intended to instruct the bot. First of all, the archiving recently has been done by User:Shadowbot3, not Werdnabot. Secondly, Shadowbot3 has been archiving the page too quickly (after 10 days instead of 14), and has not responded to questions about that. [1] Once the bot can be confirmed to work properly, it can be re-activated on this talk page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Where did they archive and if the bot does not add a link in the page being archived it should not be used. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

When the bot was in effect, the bot notice did have a link to the archive page. However, the bot was shut down because it was archiving too quickly not just on this page, but on other pages as well. And the bot's operator had left Wikipedia and was not responding to questions about it. If this page gets too long, we can archive it by hand in the future. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD on Theistic rationalism

Your comments are welcome on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theistic rationalism. See the article Theistic rationalism. It appears to be a POV-fork and WP:OR. Zenwhat (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The AFD was closed. The result of the discussion was keep. - Tinucherian (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD on Christianity and domestic violence

I'm putting it through right now. Even though it cites a number of decent sources, the article violates WP:FRINGE. The link between Chrisitanity and domestic violence doesn't seem like a mainstream position.

If I'm wrong, then a question for you all: Are there any folks here that beat your spouses in the name of Christ? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The AFD was closed. The result of the discussion was no consensus.. - Tinucherian (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Social Christianity?

I'm confused here. We have a template (and an infobox?) Template:Social Christianity, a subject that I'm interested in, but we don't have an article on Social Christianity, nor is it apparently listed as a topic at Portal:Christianity.

This template lists some articles where it is used, including Leo Tolstoy and Catholic Worker Movement.

My questions:

• (A) Is this template being used correctly?
• (B) Does Wikipedia have a central article or resource on Social Christianity? (Not simply the Social Christianity articles listed in the template.)

-- Thanks -- Writtenonsand (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk Archives?

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not seeing a link on this page for the archives of past WikiProject Christianity discussions. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added the {{archivebox}} template to this page. You should see the archive now. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity

Hi Christianity Project Moderators,

We have started a sub project to concentrate on articles from Indian Christianity and its history at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity .

Kindly guide/ help us to be part of WikiProject Christianity , to be a work force and other steps.

Thanks Tinucherian (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The following actions are completed till now :-

• Creation of Wiki Project Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity
• Addition of Indian Christianity work group Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity/Work_groups Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity/Indian_Christianity_work_group
• Modification of {{ChristianityWikiProject|indian-work-group=yes}} to add indian-work-group
• Creation of Userbox for WikiProject IndianChristianity {{User WikiProject IndianChristianity}}
• Modification of {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Religion WikiProjects}} to include this project.
  • See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Religion/Religion_WikiProjects]
• Tagging of relavant Indian Christianity related articles. Over 62 done till now. See [[Category:Indian Christianity work group articles]]

at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indian_Christianity_work_group_articles

Tinucherian (talk) 10:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there are any "moderators" per se here, but I do have two quick questions. The subprojects list you added the above named project to is only really at this point for groups named "WikiProject Christianity/... work group", which is not the name of your group. Do you intend to keep the current name or not? If you do, then there should probably be some changes due. Also, would you be aiming to include in your scope all articles in Category:Christianity in India or not? John Carter (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Hi John , Thanks for the response. We had started this project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity , initially independently ,to concentrate on articles on indian christianity. Then we observed already existing Wiki project on Christainity and decided to be affliated to it. like Wikipedia:WikiProject Kerala to Wikipedia:WikiProject India.

What are the changes you are suggesting ?

We have already redirected Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity/Indian_Christianity_work_group to Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity to avoid redundant pages.

We dont might using Category:Christianity in India instead of Category:Indian Christianity , of which the latter one, we have already started adding to articles.

- Tinucherian (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I know that the various "subprojects" of India are all independently named "WikiProject" something, so there's no objection to the name. And, regarding the category I mentioned, that is the existing parent category that the articles relating to Christianity in India have been placed into. I was mentioning it as a possible parent category that would help define the "scope" of the project, or which articles it deals with. Kind of like Category:Christianity defines the scope of the main Christianity project. John Carter (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Thank you John , We are happy working with you all in this project. We happily accept your suggestion to use Category:Christianity in India for the articles in our scope .

We welcome your suggestions and comments in helping to grow our subproject.

Tinucherian (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

One thing that could be done would be to have a bot tag every article in that category with the Project banner, with your work group tag, so that you would have a better idea what extant articles you have to work with. Would you want to have such a bot tagging of the articles in that category? John Carter (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Since I am unfamiliar how to do that , can you help us ?? - Tinucherian (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to place the bot request now. With any luck, within a few days, the articles should all appear in the statistics box the next time the bot updates it. That'll give both of our projects a better idea what sort of content we have in those categories. John Carter (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ! - Tinucherian (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of tags from non-important indian chirstians to the Wikiproject Indian Christianity

With automatic tagging , Lots of entries were populated into Category:Indian Christianity work group articles . There are articles about lot of people ( Christians ) from India which were also included automatically. But they have no contributions to Indian christianity except they are Indian Christians.

eg : Talk:A._K._Antony , Talk:Abraham_George , Talk:Abey Kuruvilla .. etc

How do we deal with such articles ? Shall I remove the tagging christianity project from those articles ?

- Tinucherian 04:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Opinion Needed - Tinucherian (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Basically, that's your call, I'm afraid. Your group is going to be the one working on those articles, so it would fairly be your decision to make. I'm going through and assessing all those articles tagged, so they appear in the statistics chart. You can then feel free to remove the tags from whichever articles you see fit. John Carter (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions - Tinucherian (talk) 05:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I know this old, but really don't want to tag somebody just because they are Christian. They need to have done something notable for the Christian religion in India. -- SECisek (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. The only question which arises would be in "borderline" cases. For instance, in a different country, Lebanon, the president by the constitution is required to be a Maronite Christian. Would you think that individuals who might be involved in Christian activities in India as a politician would be notable enough on that basis to be tagged, and, if yes, any idea where one would try to "draw the line"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Carter (talk • contribs) 19:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We can take each one on a case by case basis. Just being an Indian Christian doesnt make the article about the person within the coverage of Indian Christianity or even Christianity as a whole.Let us use our fair discretion to decide whether the article is within the scope of the prjt or not. For articles we need a second thought ,we can open for discussion if needed. - Tinucherian (talk)

Huldrych Zwingli

I am trying to take Huldrych Zwingli to FA status. It is now in peer review and it desparately needs comments. Please add your comments here. I found from my previous experience while working on John Knox that articles on Reformation characters (other than Luther and Calvin) do not stir up much interest in the Wikipedia community, so your feedback would be very welcome. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Introducing Myself

Hi everyone. I've just joined the WikiProject Christianity and would like to introduce myself and offer my services. I'm a Bible student who has noticed that some of the Christianity related articles on Wikipedia could use some work. I have lots of great scholarly books on my bookshelf and would like to put myself out there to help out where I can. I have a special interest in apologetics, and the biographies of apologists, theologians and philosophers. My first attempt at wiki editing has been on the Ravi Zacharias article. Let me know what I can do to help. Kristamaranatha (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just about anything you want to. You're right in thinking that a lot of the content regarding Christian thinkers is unexceptional. The only caveat I would add is that there are serious reservations according to guidelines to contributing to articles based on Biblical chapters, Mark 1 and the like, as the chapter breaks can often be rather random, and we're trying to break the "stories" of the Bible up into the stories themselves primarily, rather than by the chapter breaks. If you ever have any questions though, please feel free to send me a message or leave a message on this page, which I and several others have watchlisted. It's great to have a new knowledgable editor on the subject, and I am very grateful to you for joining. John Carter (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Anti Christian Movement (China) needs attention

Please see Anti Christian Movement (China). Thanks. Ra2007 (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

naming convention for churches?

Is there a naming convention for churches (buildings, rather than denominations)? Or even, more specifically, for UK (anglican) (parish) churches? I can see nothing in [[WP:NAME]. Looking at Category:United Kingdom church stubs (OK, so it's stubs rather than established articles, but shows a wider range than other cats I could find) shows a nightmare. "Church of" or not? "St" or "St."? "St Name" or "St Name's"? "St Name Town" or "St Name, Town"? The "DEFSORT"s for those churches must be a wide variety too, seeing how it sorts. I can't find a naming convention, but it seems unlikely that this hasn't been thrashed out somewhere. Any ideas? PamD (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any specific naming conventions for buildings or structures, which would include churches. On that basis, I guess the practice to follow right now would be the standard naming convention, which in this case would pretty much be to use the name by which the church most commonly refers to itself, in bulletins, correspondence, and the like. If it is an unusually common name like "St. Paul's Church" for instance, then it might make sense to add the town name after a comma later, like you indicated above, like perhaps "St. Paul's Church, Cambridge", for example. If that still isn't enough to clearly differentiate the structure, maybe add the denomination or country after the city name, like "St. Paul's Church, Cambridge (Massachusetts)" or "St. Paul's Church, Cambridge (Old Catholic)", for example. But it defintely would be a good idea to establish a convention for use in such an instance. I know I could be wrong, and very likely am, about some of the above, but think that might be enough until we establish a real convention. I'd welcome input form any others, though. John Carter (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Superficial review

Someone put "Jesus" as the founder of one denomination article. (No, I don't want to say which one! I don't think it will last!) Anyway, I checked around somewhat superficially to see what other denominations had. Russian Orthodox had the Apostle Andrew, which is according to their tradition, the Church of England, Henry VIII, contrary to my expectations! That was about it for that type of box in my rapid overview.
While none of us wants the articles to "look allke," it seemed to me that the articles could resemble one another. Some religions. Lutheran, I think, had so many nav boxes that the intro was squeezed out. Lots of potential for portrait nav boxes. When I tried to look up "Episcopal Church" I could find no reference to Anglican or Church of England at all. I suppose there's some historic reason for this. Be it far from me to interfere, but there did not appear to be a collective "Orthodox" article.
Some of these observations may belong in the WikiProject Religion article, but didn't want to take it there quite yet. Anyway, just a quick and dirty assessment by a near-outsider. Student7 (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Toward Peer Review

Gospel of Mark could use some help tracking down missing citations to get ready for peer review. Thanks in advance. Ovadyah (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability for denominations

There is, to my knowledge, no general guideline for notability when it comes to denominations. We have haggled some with recommendations for congregational guidelines (which did not gain consensus), but has there ever been a consensus about denominations? A current AfD discussion has me wondering where the line is for denominations. Any thoughts? Pastordavid (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Carl Linnaeus

Talk:Carl Linnaeus, got tagged by a bot a while ago as being part of WikiProject Christianity. I don't see how the two are related. Was this tagging a mistake? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming it was done on the basis of the subject being included in the Category:Christian people. The article's inclusion in that category would seem to indicate that someone saw his Christianity as being particularly relevant, and as such it makes a degree of sense for the bot to tag that article. I don't know enough about the subject to say one way or another, but it might be beneficial to ask on the talk page whether the category is an appropriate one. John Carter (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Naming Convention

What is the naming convention for church leaders? I was thinking it was "(Post, ie archbishop) (name) of (see)". is that the correct way?Grk1011 (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western clergy)#Christianity. It's hard to give a specific answer, because there are individual variations depending on individuals and positions, but you should find your answer there. John Carter (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

{{Infobox church2}}

Just wanted to bring to the attention of project members the template "{{Infobox church2}}" which may be used in articles about churches. The infobox is intended to provide general information about churches; for articles dealing with the architecture of church buildings, "{{Infobox religious building}}" should be used instead.

Comments are welcome on the template's talk page on how it may be improved. (Also, in case you're wondering, there is a proposal to have "{{Infobox church}}", which is redundant, deleted so that "{{Infobox church2}}" can be given that name.) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 00:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The templates {{Infobox Church}} and {{Infobox church}} have been nominated for deletion as redundant – the former is is replaceable by {{Infobox religious building}} while the latter by {{Infobox church2}}. If the nomination succeeds, {{Infobox church2}} can be renamed {{Infobox church}}, and {{Infobox Church}} can redirect to {{Infobox church}}. You're welcome to give your views on the matter at "Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 13". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 01:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Do note that following a successful TfD, the template has now been renamed "{{Infobox church}}". Suggestions to improve it are welcome on the template talk page. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 01:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done {{Infobox church2}} was removed and {{Infobox church}} should be used from now - Tinucherian (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Poem of the Man God

Currently, there is one article for the Poem of the Man God by Maria Valtorta and one article for her. However, most of the body of the biography describes the work. I feel the pages should be combined because edits on one page do not transfer to the other. (Or the biography page should not include so much about the work and reactions to it.) There is a controversy as to the Catholic Church's historical and current acceptance of the work, and I feel changes made should be reflected whether a reader searched for the author or the work itself. I defer to your expertise while I continue to research the topic. Thank you. Carinamc (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right that the "biographical part" and the publication controversy have overlaps in the pages and should probably be merged - something I was planning on doing anyway. But the overview of the book itself probably deserves a page for the book. I was/am going to add more about the book chapters, so those can not easily go into the "author's page". So I think both pages are needed, but the amount of the overlap should be reduced - and I will get to that soon I hope. As for the Church position, I think their position is "very clear" in that they decided to remain unclear on the topic while Pope John Paul II was in office. However, according to a new editorial in the London Times [2] the new Pope Benedict seems to have started to keep the wordprocessors at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith busy by issuing letters about apparitions. So we shall wait and see what develops in the next 6 to 12 months as Cardinal William Levada types away new letters. He already typed a letter against Vassula Ryden, reversing a previous letter, if you look at that page. But he seems to be going after the living first, so we will just have to wait and see what he will do next. History2007 (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Judaeo-Christian Web sites

I am giving you all a list of the Judaeo - Christian Web sites that I have collected over the years. Please feel free to disperse them where you feel they will do the most good. However, I strongly caution against using those sites to promote antichristian and or anti-Catholic bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.237 (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Help needed re an editor propounding a theory that Noah was Ziusudra

Does somebody on this project know anything about a theological theory that Noah is the Sumerian hero Ziusudra and that he was the king of Shuruppak in 2900 BC when a river flood occurred?

An editor has been propounding this on the Ancient Near East pages, referencing the book Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic. (A website on this book is at noah's-ark-flood.com for more information.)

The problem is that this editor has to bend archaeological facts to make his theories work, and he has used the Ziusudra page to make his case. Where I came in: I created an article on the Eridu Genesis tablet, which contains the Ziusudra Flood myth, and proposed splitting all material relating to the tablet from the Ziusudra article. But after a discussion (Material relating to the Sumerian tablet) with this user, it appeared to me that we have only three mentions of Ziusudra, and that the entire topic can be covered in one section of the Eridu Genesis article[3]. The Ziusudra article itself diverges considerably from the topic of Ziusudra and delves into synopses of other Flood stories and to textual comparisons between them, and there are sections of it that are clearly original research. The page is little more than a vehicle to make a case for various aspects of the Noah=Ziusudra theory, so I opened a proposal to simply merge the Ziusudra article into the Eridu Genesis article by turning it into a redirect (Proposal to merge Ziusudra into Eridu Genesis).

I am running into some difficulty here because an administrator stepped in after my discussion with this editor, and he has seemingly not read the article, is running the proposal around in circles and getting off-topic. This same administrator has reverted my removal of similar material from the Ubara-Tutu page.

If you could look over the discussion [4] and add your comments to it, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks Sumerophile (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't so much a "theological" theory as a mythological one. I have read, about 20 years ago I think, comments that the character "Utnaphishtim" in the Epic of Gilgamesh is considered by some to have been the prototype of the later character of Noah, as presented in the Bible. If, as is indicated, that character is himself based on Ziusudra, then the connection might be a valid one. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

These theories seem to be used for making theological arguments about Noah and Genesis, so I assume editors on this page have come across this before. It seems to be some kind of fringe version of young earth creationism.

And yes, all the Ancient Near East Flood stories share many of the same themes and are apparently related. But this editor then connected these Flood stories to a historic flood mentioned in the Sumerian king list in order to make Noah's Flood historic. I'm sure this and related theories have been "officially" debunked a number of times.

One problem I'm having is that there seem to be very few editors on the Ancient Near East pages, and I'm finding my self alone with this administrator.

Sumerophile (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible additional work groups?

Several of the major christian denominations do not yet have, so far as I can tell, projects or work groups which focus on them, leaving that content comparatively unattended. These include the Methodists, Congregationalists, Pietist/Holiness churches, and Brethren, among others. Would there be sufficient interest in these groups to found separate work groups for them or not? John Carter (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

The article Roman Catholic Church is is currently up for Featured Article status. Several editors on that page have expressed concerns about potential POV violations, the reliability of certain sources, and the inclusion/exclusion of certain information. Discussion are ongoing on the talk page of the article about potential improvements to the text. It would be nice to get more eyes to look at the article so as to reach broader community consensus. Karanacs (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Bethlehem's biblical history

Does anyone have a source to back the passage segment (bottom) from the Bethlehem article? It was tagged recently and it could degrade the article's GA status.

Bethlehem, located in the "hill country" of Judah, was originally called Ephrath (Gen. 35:16, 19; 48:7; Ruth 4:11), which means "fertile." The name may have derived originally from Lachma, the Mesopotamian god of vegetation and fertility known from the creation story Enuma Elish.

Thanks and Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems there aren't sources to support it. My annotated Bible (an Eastern Orthodox version) talks about Ephrath, but not about Lachma. A ggling for: "Enuma Elish" Lachma gives only 3 results (the 4th is WP), while the text of the Enuma Elich says Apsu is the god of fresh water and thus male fertility. Or Apsu sounds very far from Lachma, and ggling for Apsu Lachma returns only 2 garbage results. adriatikus | 01:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So remove it? --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I support removing this sentence: "The name may have derived originally from Lachma, the Mesopotamian god of vegetation and fertility known from the creation story Enuma Elish." The Ephrath thing appears in the Bible as mentioned. adriatikus | 01:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And also on Bethlehem municipality site. adriatikus | 01:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox churches and cathedrals

Template:Infobox churches and cathedrals has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 00:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In connection with this, {{Infobox UK church}} has also been nominated for deletion as it is not used in any articles and is replaceable by {{Infobox church}} or {{Parish church}}. Comments are still welcome at "Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox churches and cathedrals" on whether {{Infobox churches and cathedrals}} should be deleted. There is a current proposal for that template to be merged together with {{Infobox church}} and {{Parish church}}. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Bold changes to article structuring, etc

A user, ZZcon (talk · contribs), has made some bold changes to the categorization of various Christian related articles and categories. I have found some of the changes to be POV or simply wrong, but I don't have time to go through all the contributions. Does anyone want to give the contribution history a gander? -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The most recent edits of the editor seem to have been basically adding the "National churches" category or other categories. Are those the changes you're speaking of? John Carter (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The edits I caught where adding "Fomer Anglican denominations" to "Episcopal Church in the United States of America" related articles/categories and adding "Christian denominations founded in the United States" to "Restorationism" and so on. It seems like the most recent changes have been helpful, but I haven't had time to go through them all. If no one else has found any of the edits unproductive, I apologize for over-reacting. Thanks for looking into this while I was offline.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I do note that the editor in question has created most recently a Category:Former Anglican churches. Evidently he forgot the exact phrasing he had used earlier. I personally do not pretend to be knowledgeable about the subject enough to have an opinion, but if there is any basis for such a category, even those early edits might have been reasonable. But I personally don't know one way or another whether it would be indicated to add the pages so marked to the new category, though. John Carter (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've recently come to the conclusion that ZZcon is also 217.44.56.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and that lead me to believe that this user is none other than User:212.158.244.124/User:Bad as a child/User:Pionier. So my opinion on the matter has become biased.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If that is true, then you would probably want to file a statement at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets regarding the matter. Certainly, the one account being blocked is problematic. John Carter (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There is another user that has been doing weird things to categories as well, Tvarkytojas (talk · contribs). Anyone care to look through the contribs? I may also file a SSP.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath

The article Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath is important in the sense that he is a well known writer in Kerala. His literary works are appreciated by the wider public including hindus and muslims. And one of his articles was selected for the pre-degree syllabus of the University of Kerala in 1998. At the same time Fr. Kuzhinapurath has contributed to Theology and Canon Law in an Indian context. Moreover the article Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath gives an account of the pastoral life of a catholic priest in India and of the academic and spiritual formation in Indian seminaries.Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 05:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Hi Simon , May be Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath is famous and notable . But I just wanted to say Simon Cheakkanal has very few edits outside this topic [5] which may appear as a sock puppet created for this purpose. Besides I understand the author of that article and the subject appear to be one person! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fr._Thomas_Kuzhinapurath&action=history User:Kuzhinapurath http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Kuzhinapurath , which doesnt look good. If the notability is proved better and without these kind of unfair actions , we may support to keep the article on its AFD discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath - Tinucherian (talk) 06:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The AFD was closed. The result of the discussion was to keep.. - Tinucherian (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Indian Christianity Launched

We are happy to announce the launch of Portal:Indian Christianity by Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity , a work force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity and Wikipedia:WikiProject India. Please share your comments and suggestions. - Tinucherian (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Having Big comments on the Members page

Recently it was noticed that new joinees are adding lots of comments about themselves and their beliefs in the Members page . See 165/167. I dont feel it is a very good practice as the no of members are going. It introduces lot of clutter in the main page where it is also linked. Many of the comments can be moved to either talk page or a new page for introduction by members. What maximum should be considered on the memmbers page will a very short interest area , say Anglicanism or Roman Catholicism or Indian Christianity etc.What is everybody's opinion on this ? - Tinucherian (talk) 07:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, lengthy introductions can be placed here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Members. I will update and move lengthy comments there. -- SECisek (talk) 05:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for moving them to another page. Do we need to place a note that new members may give an introduction on the talk page ? - Tinucherian (talk) 07:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We should...-- SECisek (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Done - Tinucherian (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

St. Paul A.M.E. Church

I created the article this morning. Not sure if you want it in your project, but I tagged it for now. Cheers. (Irony = me creating an article about a church) AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

All christianity related articles falls under this prjt, including churches. I have assessed with Stub class.. I see tht you have already put Start class for all other prjts. I am not sure whether it really fits to Start class ...- Tinucherian (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone changed it to start, so I guess that's ok for now. It's not really a stub, at least not like some 'stubby' article I've come across. I'll be adding more to it later today. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Good. It is on a border line. I guess you can improve the article a bitmore - Tinucherian (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It is start class. Review here:Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Assessment. -- Secisek (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wesleyism

Someone created a nonsense article at Wesleyism. To discourage its re-creation, I would like to make it a redirect. Online dictionaries equate "wesleyism" to the whole of "protestantism". What is the better redirect: protestantism or Methodism? (Don't tell me here - just go and create it!) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Secisek (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible changes to Project banner?

I have developed a new version of the project banner which is enabled to provide separate assessments for each of the Christianity projects. It can be found at User:John Carter/Christianity banner with a display of what the banner looks like in practice for each of the relevant projects on that talk page. Would anyone have any reservations about substituting that banner for the current one? John Carter (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

John, I oppose this proposal. This seems to essentialy turn all the subprojects into work groups of Christianity. Is there something I am missing? How could we create a work group of a subproject if this goes through? There would THOUSANDS of banners to convert - correct? I have only ever seen one editor who complains about "Bannercruft" and he can often be silenced by nesting the projects. Are you sure this is a good idea? --SECisek (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't really the intention to replace the banners, although in the past, if that is requested, soft redirects have been made to the existing banner, but rather a way to ensure that the parent project, in this case Christianity, receive assessments for all the other projects, which actually isn't done yet. Also, the proposed template actually already has a few subprojects, like the Christian music projects, set up in such a way that both Christianity (and this case) and their proximate parent project, receive assessments for them. And, just because it's set up for them all doesn't necessarily mean that it will be, or should be, used for them all. Clearly, it would probably be required if the specific projects agreed to using the template. But with something like the new template that is at least possible. So far, the Church of the Brethren project has agreed to its usage, and it might also be useful for the Christian music project, which doesn't yet have a banner. A few members of Anglicanism agreed as well. Right now, however, those would be the only projects which would even necessarily be considered to have the template used. Also, should any ever go inactive, it would be possible for them to more formally be converted to task forces. But just having the banner available for usage doesn't necessarily mean that it will be used for all the projects. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea for projects with little to no activity, like we did with Syraic Christianity. I don't think it wise for projects with active assesment departments like Anglicanism. If the idea is to have subproject's article come under the banner of Christiainity, I don't think that is a good idea, either. Articles should be left to the care of subprojects unless they have unless they generate pan-Christian interest. So while archbishop of Canterbury might have both the Anglican and the Christianity tag, bishop of Sodor and Man would only have the Anglican tag. If not, the work load of Christianity, already ungainly, would become unmanagable - like the Biography Project. Another editor and I were talking about starting a Pre-Reformation work group within Anglicanism. How would this effect that? I trust your instincts, but I need to be sold on this still. It just doesn't seem like a good idea all around.

A few responses. The first would be that while I'm not sure what you mean by a Pre-Reformation mobvement within Anglicanism, I do think a group working on the Reformation from all sides is probably a very good idea. Secondly, it wouldn't necessarily affect "subprojects" at all. The various extant subprojects of the Christian music project would all be assessed for Christian music as well with this banner, and the same could be done for other groups. Thirdly, unfortunately, several of the smaller projects in effect have their content "ghettoized" by having their banner placed there, wihtout the parent Christianity banner. I grant however that it might be possible to adjust some of those banners to automatically assess for Christianity, though. Your final point about the comparison to the Biography project is probably a valid one. However, to really reach a level where that would be a concern, the various Christianity projects would probably require at least a third of a million articles, and I don't think we're really even anywhere near that point yet. So, although placement of the banner might sometime in the future create an unmanagable load, right now I think all it would do would be to reduce the number of banners on some articles like Talk:Martin Luther, Talk:Bible, and several of the other articles which have been tagged by multiple Christianity projects, and, possibly, help ensure management of some of the "sub" articles. So, in effect, there would be greater coordination between the various projects on their separate articles on the sacraments, for instance, because all sides would be aware of all the articles. John Carter (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the purpose of the sub-projects to relieve the work load from the Main project? More over, in terms of coordination, what projects are really working right now? This one, Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism, Indian Christianity, and maybe the Baptist group. I have tried to fire some life into Oreiental Orthodoxy without much success other than my efforts - ditto Calivinism. Eastern Ordthodoxy does not appear to actively be improving articles - the Eastern Christianity Portal has seen one real update since 2006. I don't know about the other projects but I am still worried this will, in effect, demote the functioning projects to work groups of Christiainty and increase the scope of the parent project to unmanagable proportions. If a project cannot get a working assessment department going, perhaps they should be made a work group of Christianity. I think the more mature projects that stand on their should continue to use their own banner. Your thoughts? -- SECisek (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Generally, they were created so far as I can tell separately to provide specific focus on the church of their choice, and develop articles on those specific churches, without any real thought regarding the "parent" project at all. Their creation could be seen as having the function of reducing the "pressure" on the parent project, but I'm not sure that was really thought about much at the time the projects were created. So, maybe it wasn't the case that they were created to alleviate any burden, but rather as a way to develop their own content? John Carter (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Would there be any serious objections to substituting in the new proposed banner, and maybe indicating on the instructions that it is only to be used for the specific projects which have indicated that they would want it to be used and/or on those pages which are already tagged by, for instance, 6 or more of the Christianity projects, in that case to help reduce banner clutter? John Carter (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Only those projects that have agreed to replace this banner should be added. Btw how is the effort going to be to replace the existing banners ( of different wikiprojects) and neatly take care of the assessment already done ? - Tinucherian (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If I got you right, replacement of existing banners with the new Christianity banner is actually a fairly simple function, and is something I've done before elsewhere. The existing Christianity banner will be replaced automatically as soon as the new version is installed on that page, and the duplicate banners can be removed by hand. It'll take a while, but is fairly simple. John Carter (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Q If I understand correctly , There will be only a single assessment for quality for the article. But does the importance assessment tag need to be added for each project manually for all the articles again ?? I am just curious ! thtz all. I support if there is not much rework has to be done by different project members- Tinucherian (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That would depend on what prior banner was being used. If the coding is in the extant Christianity banner, like it is for WikiProject Indian Christianity, then there would be no changes. However, if for instance Wikipedia:WikiProject Charismatic Christianity were to start using the banner, then it would probably be a good idea to add the separate general Christianity and Charismatic Christianity importance ratings, if such are desired. John Carter (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I support the change of banner. I guess work group projects like Indian Christianity will not have a problem/issue. We will add all the projects that wants to affliate to the WP:Christianity , either in terms of banner/assessment tasks or being as a work group prjt.

One good thing I found in the new banner is the seperate importance tags for the different workrgroup/projects . The present banner doesnt show even the only importance stats on its workgroup pages for some unknown reason. The second problem with the old banner is that it doesnt show the unaccessed articles stats for the workrgoups.I guess these issues will be fixed in the new banner. and the ability to show both the subprjt/workgroup importance stats on the workgroup pages. If so, Go ahead with the new banner - Tinucherian (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If groups want to use it, there is no reason why those groups should not use it - I still fail to see how it helps a mature group like Anglicansim, where the assements are largely done, are current, and include a host of articles that would be of no inrest whatsoever to any other Christian group. I am still missing this: if the idea is to assess every sub-project's articles for the Christianity project, than why have the seperate projects at all? It seems to make all the projects into work groups. I still do not understand what we are trying to do here. -- SECisek (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Methodist work group

There is now a proposal for a WikiProject group, possibly initially a subproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity, to deal with articles relating to the Methodist churches at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Methodism. Anyone interested in taking part in such a group should indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If there is support, I'll help maintain the project. --SECisek (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Though I have limited knowledge in this area , I will also help in the project maintaince. - Tinucherian (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Methodism work group is kickstarted Tinucherian (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Recent Changes" list very limited

As I commented on its talk page, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity/Articles lists only a few dozen of our 5760 articles, which is why Recent Christianity-related changes is so limited. Is there any way to automatically fill the list? TrickyApron (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes . Ask User:SQLBot at User talk:SQL .Like we did for Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity. The bot populates the page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity/Articles , based on {{ChristianityWikiProject|indian-work-group=yes}} . The watch of the page is done on Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity/Articles. Very simple. - Tinucherian (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Great! I left a message at User talk:SQL. TrickyApron (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest including all articles which lies in the interest of the prjt. Not to exlcude any work group articles , as suggested by you. - Tinucherian (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done - See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity/Watchlist - Tinucherian (talk) 08:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

St. Paul A.M.E. Church

This article was a DYK today. Not sure if your project recognizes DYKs or not, but thought I'd mention it. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Added to Main project page >> Recognized content >> Did you knows (DYKs) >> - Tinucherian (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Pullen Memorial Baptist Church

new article tagged with your project. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done -Primary assessment for the article done - Tinucherian (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The artcile was a DYK today. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Added to DYK section of prjt page - Tinucherian (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)