Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:52, 17 April 2012

Christianity Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Copyright concerns related to your project

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Misplaced Pages on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. Moonriddengirl 13:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to add to the template notice that several major articles concerning Christianity in Asia have already had to be blanked due to copying from books. Beyond assistance finding copyright, assistance repairing these problems would be very welcome! These articles will be listed for a week or more at WP:CP. They are identified at the CCI list as "blanked". They will need to be rewritten, I'm afraid, if they are to be retained.

Thanks for any assistance you can provide, and I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news. :( --Moonriddengirl 13:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I had never even heard of Phillip J. Is that the only user in question? By the way, there used to be a bot that checked copyvio, I forget the bot name now. Can that be invoked across a project? It does not work on Google books I guess. History2007 (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see exactly which section is being discussed. But, if anyone wants to generate a list of the relevant articles, I could try to find what I can to repair the content. John Carter (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the link is Misplaced Pages:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Phillip_J. Several articles, mostly new pages. History2007 (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's the link. He's been editing for quite some time, but not heavily, fortunately, as it seems that the bulk of his contributions have been copied from books. :/ While there are some other open CCIs that relate to your project (or related projects, like Catholicism), this is an editor-specific investigation, launched by a complaint mailed in by a copyright holder. The copyvio checking bot only works on new articles, I'm afraid. While there are some tools that can be used to check old articles, unfortunately they can't access Google books. :/

So far, the articles that need rewriting in part or in total are:

• Protestant missions in China 1807–1953
• Christianity in Taiwan
• Medieval Roman Catholic Missions in China
• History of Eastern Christianity in Asia
• Christianity in China

I think there's a pretty good chance that most of the articles to which he's added a lot of content were copied. The ones that have counterparts on the Norwegian Misplaced Pages were probably translated from that project and can be retained.

So far, I've identified four different books from which he's taken content; all of them clearly predate his contributions here. --Moonriddengirl 15:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Those article are not central to this project, so freezing them as you did was the right move. Once the issues have settled down, we can just stub those with a new paragraph. A few of them have French versions, etc. So those can be translated back (Google trans if need be) to English and referenced as a paragraph or two as a start even if one does not know the topic. Then in time they can get fixed. History2007 (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I may need some help

Over at Talk:English Standard Version. See last section; I've undertaken a rewrite and massive addition of sources, which seems to have attracted some attention, and, frankly, I'm burned out on heated Misplaced Pages arguments; it looks like this could progress in to one, depending on what the user does, or what he uses his filter to determine as a "reliable source" (see the discussion on WP:RELIGION noticeboard, the 7PP1 and following: this editor appears to be disputing the Westminster Theological Journal as an unreliable source or insinuating that one could, because he doesn't agree with it, and a multiply-sourced interpretation of "almah", with no reference to the statements of the ESV itself). I would appreciate it if an uninvolved editor could mosey over and look at the article, and judge how bad it really is, or if it's being tagged/disputed for nothing. St John Chrysostom _τω 22:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for looking over the article, guys. I've posted a question asking which sources the objector (who has not been back) would like clarified with quotations; if he's not back within a few (3-5) days I believe it's proper to remove the template, yes? St John Chrysostom _τω 10:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. – Lionel 04:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments are requested on the use of philosophers vs denominations

Comments will be appreciated in this discussion regarding the equivalence of a specific philosopher vs a denomination. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I would be interested in joining this WikiProject group - what do I have to do? You can leave a message here or on my userpage. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

QRpedia

I'd like to draw your attention to QRpedia, a Wikimedia-UK project (applicable globally) which I help to run, to make mobile-friendly versions of Misplaced Pages articles available, in the user's referred language, via QR codes. I recently made its first deployment in a church, St Paul's Church, Birmingham; you can see pictures on commons The cost of deployment was £0.40 (GBP) - about half a US dollar. It could easily be applied in other historic churches (i.e subjects of Misplaced Pages article), or those with historical connections (i.e. articles about notable people, events, etc), and similar sites. I don't watch this page, so please drop a note on my talk page if you - or the institutions you liaise with - have any questions, or need assistance, or of you deploy QRpedia yourselves.

Also, do you have a project newsletter in which the St Paul's case study could feature? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Shall we talk them into doing it the other way around too? I recently added a photo request here. So if someone has a mobile phone with a camera, and could just take a photo and pop it into commons automatically, that would have been nice. Once the photo has been visually checked by an editor on commons, a bot could then add the image to the article. Click, press and article has a picture. History2007 (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

He responded to me that there's already an Android app for uploading pictures directly to Commons, and perhaps one for iphone. History2007 (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Religious Affiliation at Syracuse University

One editor, Manning954 (talk · contribs), is repeatedly removing the Church affiliation from the article on Syracuse University, despite the fact that a consensus was previosuly reached on the talk page of that article. He also is removing several universities from the article on the International Association of Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities, despite the fact that they are listed on the website of the IAMSCU. The individual has already been reverted by two users (Exhibit A, Exhbit B). Any comments and intervention would be appreciated because the user continues to revert. Thanks, Anupam 20:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Ebionites and related articles

There has been a long-standing dispute on the above article relating to some proposals, particularly by Robert Eisenman in his book James the Brother of Jesus (book), and James Tabor, and his book The Jesus Dynasty, regarding whether the sources named above qualify as fringe theories as per WP:FT. I had some time ago recused myself from editing the content because of some accusations of falsifying sources which were never substantiated. However, I believe that an independent review of all the relevant articles by knowledgeable, uninvolved, editors, would be very useful. John Carter (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A-Class review and possible

I very much believe that this project would benefit from having some sort of A-Class review, similar to that of the Military History WikiProject. Some articles, like Catholic Church, seem to almost be regularly used as sandboxes. The A-Class status, in general, indicates that an article is "complete", although it might have some slight problems regarding perhaps weight, over- or under-use of images, etc. Would anyone here be interested in developing such a process, and, perhaps, assisting in reviews? John Carter (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally I would prefer if energies were used to get all the "disastrous articles" into shape. Many articles remain unsourced, incorrect and just disaster stricken, e.g. Salvation (Christianity). Even Annunciation has an unsourced tag on a section. John the Baptist is no gem either. Son of man has almost no correct Christian entry, etc. So while these serious quality problems remain, I would encourage quality improvements before making books or reviewing them. There is a long way to go towards quality here. History2007 (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be great to have A class reviews. But do we have the manpower girlpower peoplepower? You know MILHIST shutdown their internal Peer Review in favor of the community-wide PR. If we decide to move forward I'd suggest we re-task our internal PR as a A Review. – Lionel 01:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

We are seriously short of people. Alas, there will probably be religious objections to cloning existing members, not to mention the errors... kidding. But we could seriously use 10 more active editors in this project. History2007 (talk) 07:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps more Misplaced Pages:Books?

Particularly in relation to my comments above regarding some articles which are seemingly in continuous "sandbox" state, I was wondering what the rest of you might think of perhaps creating more such books, and giving more prominent mention of them. Personally, I can see at least one such book existing for every major denomination or denominational family, and think perhaps doing a better job of indicating direct child articles might be useful in some cases of regular heavy editing. John Carter (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This is another great idea. They're easy to create. But definitely the challenge is how to promote. The links are practicably invisible. It's even harder to promote books than portals. And would be be sacrificing improvement of portals, which unarguably have more pageviews than books? – Lionel 01:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This could be a task for new members. I think we're missing out on a tremendous opportunity by not following up with new members, finding out what their interests are, and then putting them to work at the Project. – Lionel 01:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the last part, not necessarily the first (books should only be done when content is high quality). New members do get frusterated. There is WP:Teahouse now which does that at a larger level, but if you want to set up a teahouse of coffee shop for this project that would certainly help. The clarification of WP:Primary etc. for new members will help them. After 3 months, things usually get easier. If a member is helped to stay for 6 months, they are likely to stay much longer theereafter. History2007 (talk) 06:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

One thing I could do, I suppose, is add some sort of parameter to the banner indicating an article is a "chapter" in a larger book, and maybe putting together a list of the extant books and the indicated relevant articles. John Carter (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

3000 Bible Illustrations available in Commons

Greetings. I've just uploaded about three thousand Bible Illustrations on Commons. Please use them in the articles. Bennylin (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me offer my apologies first, then be upfront with you. I only speak for myself, of course, but there are many images by the likes of Rembrandt, Caravaggio and Raphael about similar items on commons. And again, speaking for myself only, I would hesitate to use these types of images because they look somewhat amateur and makes Misplaced Pages look like an amateur item. In fact the very large James Tissot watercolor collection donated by the Brooklyn Museum recently has most biblical scenes, and Tissot spent many years in the middle east researching issues before painting that collection. And of course artistic images are also available for immediate download from www.wga.hu as well. As an example see Tissot or de Boulogne or guercino vs this item for a comparison. Which will make Misplaced Pages look more "professional"? There is no doubt that the works by the masters will make Misplaced Pages look more professional. So again, please do accept my apologies, but at least this user will keep to the more established artistic masters for images for they will make Misplaced Pages look better.

And I do have a personal theory that the look of Misplaced Pages will affect donations in the long term. If the encyclopedia "looks professional", it makes a better impression, and that prompts people to fund its continued existence. History2007 (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Bennylin, unfortunately I'm afraid History is probably right, however, good of you to make those available and I'm sure some people will be happy to use those images for other purposes, and some of them may fill gaps where more "encyclopaedic-looking" artwork isn't available. In the meantime... anyone have an appropriate image for court of the women (needs expanding), passover sacrifice, Burnt offering (Judaism)? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Temple, there is a category and one of those may just have to do, with some text explaining it. There is also Passover in art as a category. History2007 (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Bennylin (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

For passover sacrifice, the Samaritans do still sacrifice a lamb/s on top of Mount Gerizim, & we have images of the ceremony at Commons, though none show it very clearly. Rather typically, there is no mention of this in the article! Careful how you go on this one. Or you might add the Xtian image here, which should do for burnt offering. Note the lamb being carried up. There may be other images around. Johnbod (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

April newsletter?

Anyone have any specific ideas as to what they might like to see included in the April newsletter, if there is one? It might be a good idea to have it ready for Monday, maybe. John Carter (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, here's a first draft of a newsletter, anyway.

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/April 2012

Opinions? John Carter (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you have done really well with it - and overall the whole idea of the newsletter it is progressing pretty well.

• I think the issue of putting the noticeboard on their watch list was good to point out, and I would probably make it a little more obvious.

• The mascot part was funny and well written, and that type of humor makes the newsletter more readable than a discussion of eschatology.

• Regarding Christianity in other wikis, I should say that Wikisource has turned out to be a great system now. It has many ancient texts that can be directly linked to and that makes Misplaced Pages more reliable, in that users can just check things. And Wikisource can be linked to for New Testament passages and should Biblegateway go off line tomorrow, there will be no WP:Linkrot. I suggest that in the next newsletter we recommend the use of Wikisource for Bible links because it is a Wiki-managed item and will be long lasting. Who knows what Biblegateway will do next.

• On that note, take a look at user Jbribeiro1's edits. He must have translated over 30 articles to Portuguese. So this project is making an impact on what people read in Brazil, etc. And the articles he translated are the "building block" articles such as the biblical pericopes (parables/miracles/etc.) That may make a good item for the next newsletter. Those articles are generally in good shape, and other Wikis such as Italian/French/etc. are now in worse shape than Portuguese. In many cases, the French Misplaced Pages is surprisingly sparse, while the German is doing well.

Anyway, overall I think you did great. History2007 (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Before my specific comments on John's great work, I'd like to make a point. Do you know how many pageviews the Jan issue received? A jaw-dropping 645. There is no full version: 645 editors actually clicked on the small footprint posted to their talk. How do we keep those 645 readers coming back for more Ichthus? We need to have at least 1 irresistable story per issue. Think DYK hook. Once the reader goes to the issue, they can read the regular WP:X stuff about FAs and contests and mascots. What kinds of stories might lure readers?

• "Is WP biased? A Christian and an Atheist Square Off"
• "Prolific Sockpuppet Master attacking Jesus articles"
• "Confessions of a Banned User"
• "Edit Warrior or Christian Soldier--when Faith Becomes Disruptive"
• something with "free" or "sex" in it

Re: April 2012, great work, John. My thoughts... perhaps trim From the Editor. Also, the black background around the egg is a little stark. Re: Other Wikis, maybe we should create a reference page at WP:X listing all of the resources on the other wikis so we have someplace to direct people for more info. Re: Spotlight, over half of the 10 or so spam complaints from the Jan issue were from WP:LDS members. (Only 10 complaints is not bad considering the list has over 1K usernames.) I strongly recommend we spotlight WP:LDS so they feel included.– Lionel 08:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I am more than happy to square off with some brand of non-theist or anti-theist for the "Is Misplaced Pages biased?" issue. Debate! St John Chrysostom _τω 15:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

But the debates will take energy that could go into removing all the glaring errors that persist. And you are not ging to convince them by debate, you need to use sources. The amazing thing about Misplaced Pages is that in most cases those with better sources will win in the end - and the debates will be forgotten. And look at what we have to do everyday: remove mass schedules for specific churches! Or this one again today. No one watches these pages. We are seriously short of people who will maintain the integrity of the content we already have, let alone spend time elsewhere. History2007 (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

In response to St John C, I seem to remember that in the Misplaced Pages Signpost we occasionally had debates between someone taking the scientism/naturalism position and someone taking a perspective allowing for the "supernatural" to exist, and arguing in favor of supernatural interpretations of some events. Maybe, at some point in the future, we might be able to talk an agnostic or atheist (or two) into a civilized discussion/debate on the issue - I do think that might be useful to both projects. Maybe, just maybe, we might be able to hold some sort of debate between atheists and believers, or maybe between believers of different faiths, in the future, maybe in accord with an attempt to develop the most directly relevant articles. It might help develop that content to the point that some such disputes are resolved. Maybe. I might myself hold of on that for at least a few months, though. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do count me out on the debate front. With all these articles that have so many errors, I would not want to spend time in debate that will be forgotten in 6 months. History2007 (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Personally, I tend to agree that the debates might not be particularly useful in themselves, unless they were clearly tied to improvement of articles directly relating to the debate, either articles on the debate itself or new developments which would impact the debate. John Carter (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey User:John Carter! When are you planning on sending the newsletter out? I haven't received it yet! I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam 01:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I have made three requests so far to have the April newsletter delivered, including one at the bot requests noticeboard and two at the user talk pages of individual operators of bots that do such things. So far, no response. Maybe soon? John Carter (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

New bot which will help our project

I've built a bot to help out with odd jobs around the project. Check it out here: LioneltBot. (When you see its capabilities you'll see why it's probably best that we don't tell the anti-Christianity editors about this.) – Lionel 23:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Article outside scope of the project

Secular religion is in this wikiproject but it appears to be outside the scope of the project. Does anyone disagree with my removal of it? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right, given that sports and "free markets" are considered examples of that. I think these days the "love of iPad" is about to become a secular religion too. Apple has always had that type of appeal.... History2007 (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Edits that need attention

These series of edits may need attention. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

May newsletter

I think it might be a good idea to have a basic draft of the next month's newsletter early, in the event anyone thinks of things to add early this month. I in particular like History2007's proposal above about maybe putting in something about WikiSource. So, on that basis, I have copied the current newsletter (hoping to see it changed) at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/May 2012. Everyone should feel free to maybe add some draft material, with the understanding that it might be edited prior to release. John Carter (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The key item about any newsletter is: "will people come back to read it again, after the fact?" If it is worth reading again, it has been done right. In fact if you follow the Misplaced Pages main page philosophy it is easy to do. The DYK is an obvious example, but it needs to tie into other items. I suggest:

• Church of the month: Feature a nice church every month. In May try File:Salt Lake Temple, Utah - Sept 2004-2.jpg and that will relate to the LDS project. You can rotate and show a church different denomination every month.

• Art for the month: Feature a different image/art every month, and let is be different from the church denomination.

• DYK: As usual. But this time, it can tie into the art piece. E.g. for the feast of the Transfiguration I would suggest: "Did you know that in earlier times, every Eastern Orthodox monk who took up iconogrophy had to start his craft by painting the icon of the Transfiguration..." Then as the art you can use File:Preobrazhenie.jpeg to relate it. After 6 months you can use File:Mtchoirandorchestra ConferenceCenter (cropped).jpg and say "Did you know that they won a Grammy and an Emmy..." etc. You can even leave messages at Wikiproject Calvinism, Lutheranism, etc. asking them for suggestions for a DYK. Another example would be "Did you know that Johann Sebastian Bach wrote the initials "SDG" ( Soli Deo gloria) at the beginning and end of all his church compositions..." and relate that to the Five solas. That may also help get the Five solas article get references, for now it has none - surprisingly. So you could get the Lutheran guys to add references there so it can be a DYK here, etc.

• This month N years ago: As in the Wiki-frontpage you can say: in May 1421 (or whenever) some specific even took place - and use a different denomination again.

Given that the feasts span the year, you will have a good 12 month cycle that way anyway. For April I do suggest a Saint George reference for sure. May is a Marian month so you can try that as a theme, and it is a Fatima month etc. And if you feature a LDS church in May it will balance it out. Then June another feast and another denomination, etc. But Saint George and April should certainly be tried now given that he is recognized by multiple denominations. History2007 (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Good ideas all. And maybe some sort of short piece about a specific denomination or belief per month as well, maybe along the lines of "Why I Believe." I note that there are a lot of notable Christian groups which have rather remarkably divergent beliefs, as well as non-Christian beliefs, and often articles that don't get a lot of attention, and such a section might help increase the awareness and tolerance of such beliefs, and, maybe, help bring more attention to the related content. John Carter (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added some of the proposals above into the "draft" of the May newsletter at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/May 2012. If anyone would like to add specific material to any of those sections a bit early, I think we could possibly live with it. And if there is a known adherent to a little known, or very controversial, notable Christian group, either in terms of denominations or controversial beliefs, who would want to add material to "I believe," I can't see any objections to asking them to add a little. We could always have the editorial team edit it down if required. Maybe Mormons, or Jehovah's Witnesses, or some other group frequently subject to contentious discussion might be a good choice for the first month. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Passing of User:Slrubenstein

I just noticed that the above editor who was a member of the Christianity project and an invaluable editor in social anthropology and religion has recently been indicated to have passed on. It is my sincerest hope that perhaps those of us who remain might maybe work to get an article he found important up to some sort of level of recognized quality in his memory. Those who have worked with him in the past are leaving notes of their feelings on his talk page, and I would encourage anyone so inclined to do so as well. I hope to post any word I might receive about any efforts for a memorial article here as I get them. John Carter (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

An article has been started at Steven Rubenstein. I think any assistance with it, or perhaps some possible related articles as per the article talk page, would be very much appreciated. John Carter (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

List of pages that need watching

Should we have a list of pages that need watching. I have done 3 reverts today on Jesus in Christianity and can do no more. Can we have a list of pages that people think need watching, just to remove the "This is not true" type vandalisms? History2007 (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

We certainly could, if the material seems to be from multiple people, maybe in a short section at the top of the page about "Current problem articles"? Requesting short term page locks is another option, if such vandalism seems to be ongoing. John Carter (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

No, short term page blocks will not work - there are too many pages, and the changes are "all over the place". The pending changes RFC may help, however. As I said above people keep adding mass schedules (hello!) and directions from specific train stations to church pages, etc. We are just short handed, and need help, or stronger pending changes measures. History2007 (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Edits that need attention

These series of edits may also need attention, in case they spread to other pages. History2007 (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible debate on JWs in May newsletter regarding Jehovah's Witnesses?

I think most of us would recognize that the Jehovah's Witnesses are one of the more controversial major movements in modern Christianity. Many of us are aware of a few editors who have been engaged in some heated discussion there. I wonder what the rest of you might think of maybe having a moderated debate for the next newsletter between AuthorityTam and BlackCab regarding the JWs, with perhaps Jeffro serving as the moderator. John Carter (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

So this was not enough? I have not read it, but happened to notice it. History2007 (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I read it. I wish I hadn't. Please enough JW-vs-JWbasher for 2012 already. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I really do not know why these groups are angry with each other (and their issues are not relevant to me), but as you said, it is probably better not to know and not be in the cross fire anyway. The encyclopedia should have a content improvement agenda, and nothing else. History2007 (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking of a debate relating to the JWs as both insiders and outsiders see them, and also, possibly, including some material as to the question of possible POV regarding people who have left a religious movement. If there were to be a Wikibook on the JWs, I would think that such content might be useful there as well. But, maybe you're right. John Carter (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I am capable of objectively serving as a moderator for such a topic. However, because AuthorityTam has accused me of various things, I do not believe that my serving as a moderator would be perceived as neutral.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

In ictu oculi's crude reference to "JW-vs-JWbasher" is undeserved and inaccurate. In fact both AuthorityTam and I have stated repeatedly that our highest priority is improvement of JW articles. There has been frequent disagreement between us, however, over what should and should not be included in articles, what should and should not be accepted as RS, and also the interpretation of certain Watch Tower Society statements.

Here's some background. I was on the way out of the religion when I discovered the range of JW-related articles on Misplaced Pages. I was unimpressed with many of them because they were cheery, unbalanced pieces of propaganda. I began removing some of the excesses and injecting some critical comment that very clearly met the rules of WP:RS and WP:V. Some of my early edits probably suffered from a certain acidity because of my resentment at having been deceived by a high-control religion for more than two decades. But my goal, as I endeavoured to explain on my userpage, was aimed at presenting the public with a broader picture of the religion that is normally available to converts or prospective converts through official Watch Tower Society literature. The way I see it, people should have sufficient information to reach an informed decision. This approach is almost guaranteed to meet stiff resistance. JWs are unused to reading criticism of their religion. They are trained to treat criticism as the work of "apostates" and the devil. My self-identification as a former Witness – and one prepared to criticise the religion – marked me as an "apostate", which means I am regarded by JWs as entirely untrustworthy and devious. This is how they are trained, through Orwellian-like repetition, to view defectors. This alone sparks an almost instinctive revulsion of them towards me; the same revulsion has been expressed in talk pages about former JWs James Penton and Raymond Franz, the latter being the most important defector the religion has ever had.

My edits have tended to focus on critical material, though I have never blocked or removed favourable material if it meets normal WP standards of inclusion. I wrote the Watch Tower Society presidency dispute (1917) article, covering events that are still treated in a very one-sided and distorted fashion by WTS publications. I also substantially rewrote and expanded the Joseph Franklin Rutherford article, dealing with arguably the most significant figure in the religion's history. The fact that it has received only minor editing since then is testament to my ability to write fairly and accurately, and my reliance on reliable sources.

As others have done, I am more than happy to acknowledge the improvements AuthorityTam has made to JW articles. He has a great deal of intimate and probably high-level inside knowledge of the religion. I have always been ready to defend my edits and now attempt always to deal strictly with content on talk pages. My complaint is that he fails to do the same thing and seems more intent on picking at old scabs, accentuating divisions and inciting anger than addressing content in a reasoned way. I still want to improve articles, and I accept that he does as well. They have reached a level of stability for now, I think, though for how long I don't know. I certainly don't want to engage in any more wars.

I'm unsure of the nature of the "debate" John Carter suggests or what it hopes to achieve. I agree that Jeffro would not be the best candidate as a moderator. He is intelligent, articulate and well informed, but he has also been targeted by AuthorityTam. As the endless "can we wrap this up" skirmish showed, neither is prepared to let the other have the last word. As I have said several times at the ANI, all I want is for AuthorityTam's inflammatory behaviour to cease. That would be enough to settle things down. BlackCab (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this could be quite valuable, if the purpose of the "debate" was to illustrate how differences in perception of a topic can be resolved through applying policy. This could include: how to avoid injecting personal experience, and instead stick to what references say; how sources self-published by a group may be used in an article; the necessity, when differing opinions from references are included, to have the article reflect the weight given each position; how policy deals with fringe views/sources; etc. I don't think John Carter is suggesting a simple rehashing of an old debate, but rather to turn it into something instructive. • Astynax 20:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Astynax and I take your point. Thinking more about this, I think there is room to discuss the issues that do cause conflict. I am compiling a short list of the main challenges encountered on JW article pages (as opposed to talk pages) and I think there could be some benefit from airing them. I'll return with that list in a dot-point form. BlackCab (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

In response to BlackCab, would there be any individuals whom both he and AuthorityTam would perceive as neutral and as unbiased as realistically possible? I do assume that if there were any such debate, the moderator might initially store the debate in his own userspace, and then perform any editors for space concerns, stray comments, and other matters as required by the format, but would try to leave the substance of the relevant content in place. John Carter (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that such a "debate" would be ill advised at best and a fast track to another ANI in all probability. Misplaced Pages should encourage working together in an attempt to make the articles more accurate and not make an attempt to elicit a controversial "debate" from two editors who have been engaged in heated discussion already. Willietell (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Not a good idea. Blackcab has expressly asked several times just to be given the peace to edit, I think he deserves that. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the last two comments, I have begun a dot-point list of the main causes of conflict with content of JW pages. The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Christianity_noticeboard/JW_discussion. It's just a quick start and I'll return to tidy it up and perhaps get it on to a more formal basis when I get a moment. All comments welcome. BlackCab (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

John 20:13

Looks like pure OR. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

go ahead, zap it :) In ictu oculi (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem notable as a distinct topic. I've prodded it. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion (or more) at Criswell College

Hello,

I recently ran across an edit war at Criswell College. I'm pretty much clueless when it comes to the subject matter of the underlying dispute. Could a neutral editor or two take a look and comment on Talk:Criswell College? I think they could use an outside opinion. It evidently concerns whether or not the college is dispensationalist. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I am one of the Editors of the Criswell College page and just to clarify a bit: the point of dispute is not if the school is solely dispensational, as it is not (both parties would agree in this issue). The issue is weither it should be listed as Premillenial and Dispensational or just Premillenial. Just Premillennial, I believe adds to the confusion, since there is Historic Premillennialism and Dispensationalism Premillennialism both. The School requires that faculty adhere to either position, but does not accept Amillennial or Postmillennial positions. It is thus my position that it is of historic and practical note to express this on the schools page. I welcome any assistance in this issue as well as cleanup for the article (of which I have been the primary contributor for about 5 years.) More information is available upon request. Hungus (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed manual of style for religion articles

Please make any comments you deem appropriate at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said there, those seemed like policy-exemptions dressed up as MOS, but that is another story. Yet, I think it would make sense to have a MOS for Wikiproject Christianity that actually talks about style rather than other issues. I will discuss that below. History2007 (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Manual of style for WikiProject Christianity

At the moment there is no MOS for this project. I think one is needed. Example items include:

• Bible references: At the moment these have multiple chaotic forms and refer to various Bible versions on various external sites without any uniformity. And should some of those sites shut down tomorrow, chaos will ensue.

• Naming conventions: Terms such as Mormons, Latter day Saints, Moonies, Unification Church etc. are used all over the place and some type of naming convention is needed.

• Self-published sites to avoid: This has come up again and again, and at the moment many articles refer to self-published websites that are far from WP:RS. A list of the no-no self-published sites will be essential, and will help avoid debate. a list of self-publishers e.g. Xulon Press will also help. It is used all over the place now.

John, given that you know this project so well, would you like to draw up a rough draft? Your help will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I tend to think that Christianity probably wouldn't have any particularly different MOS requirements than religion in general. And Biblical references are probably more in the range of Religion rather than Chrstianity as well. John Carter (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then should these get added to the religion MOS item, so it will actually be an MOS rather than a policy exemption ticket? History2007 (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Article request

Is anyone interested in writing an article on the Paradox of the Cross, an important theological concept in Christianity? I am surprised to find that no such article exists as of now. With regards, Anupam 06:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

At some future point, yes. That would be a good topic. But right now, an article such as Messiah is in need of an ambulance really and Salvation (Christianity) has tags all over it. So I see a greater need for cleaning up all the existing problems first. We are seriously shorthanded. History2007 (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone here familiar with Oneness Pentecostalism?

The article God the Father had a few unsourced tags and I posted on the Hinduism and LDS project pages and people came in and helped. I am not really familiar with Oneness Pentecostalism, but they seem to have many denominations, and I am not sure how to represent their views, given that they have no central teaching authority. There is a discussion there on Talk:God the Father and suggestions will be appreciated. That article is a key building block article and the Christianity section in it (including the subsections) really needs to get cleaned up. So suggestions will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The original term for the Oneness teaching is Modalism or Sabellianism it was rejected as a trinitarian heresy in or around the 3rd century, but continues to come back periodically. Hungus (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Hungus, this is wrong opinion which is repeatedly claimed by unfamiliar theologians from mainstream churches. Oneness Pentecostalism is not the same as Arianism. Modalism and Sabellianism are teachings which were rejected by the Roman Catholic Church (Western Rite). And thus, it is only opinion (aka Roman Catholic's POV). Should I be burned at stake? Go to hell with me? In any case, Oneness Pentecostalism' view differ from other Nontrinitarians (Not Arians) in their view on Jesus, which they call as the Supreme God himself. Their view in this specific is very similar to the Swedenborgian's New Jerusalem Church. Problem of Oneness Pentecostal churches is that there are thousands of denominations inside the Pentecostals movement and they have usually also different believe as History2007 mentioned. --FaktneviM (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

User:FaktneviM I said nothing about Arianism. As for Modalism and Sabellianism being rejected only by "Western rite" churches that is patently false. There was no division of east and west at the time and the 'Orthodox' churches reject both of those heresies the same as the western churches. You might want to go back and read the church fathers again. If you cannot sign off on the nicene creed, I know of no christian denomination that will accept you as a christian, but that is neither here nor there. Monarchism/Modalism/sabellianism is an old heresy. Hungus (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Hungus, I am sure that God himself is only one who could say if he is the trinity or not. The Bible is the key on this matter. Are you ever think about that there is no single verse in which God said ... "I am the Triune" and later he added "Worship me as the Triune God" ... And. There is not even at least single verse of such kind. But think about. Only God can say what he wants from us. Men are not allowed to reveal their own philosophical theories about him. Trinitarian doctrine was established some 300 years after death and resurrection of the Christ. Trinity doctrine started in 4th Century and firmly established in hearts of people in about 12th Century after Christ. Do you really thinks that it was by God's will? (I am not Oneness Pentecostal, I find that only Jehovah's witnesses teach the truth what 1st Century apostles believed). Ask them for free Bible study. I only write this because you already ask for that. My knowledge of other Nontrinitarian churches is limited to the core doctrines from which could be found true or false. Have a nice day in any case. --FaktneviM (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be the case that a) they have many denominations and b) they are growing rapidly. In fact as new denominations appear, I am not sure how their teachings are similar or different from each other on specific points. The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements does have information about the movement at the top level and many denominations may adhere to those but I am not sure if there is a formal requirement for that. Most denominations seem to hand out literature, tapes etc. They are clearly non-Trinatarian, and the roots go back to a 1913 gathering, but as they grow, I am not sure if there is total uniformity in the teachings. History2007 (talk) 08:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I am also lost in bush of their large number of denominations. Perhaps some literature up-to-date is needed. Many of them I realized that they worship Jesus and they view him as God, what is in fact very similar to Trinity or Binitarianism, while in the same time, they believe that only one person exist as manifestations of those two. In article "God the Father" they have place as one 'major group' inside 'Oneness Pentecostalism movement' which is also part of much larger belief system called 'Pentecostalism'. --FaktneviM (talk) 08:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I am actually not happy with the presentations on several subsections (not just this one) on the God the Father page, but have not had time to work on them immediately. I posted on the LDS page and people came out and helped on that, but various other sections need help yet. But the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholicism subsections etc. have been quickly thrown together, are still fluid and far less than adequate or representative. And Anglicans, etc. are not even present. That is a key building block page for this project and should be in far better shape. History2007 (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a problem with all of the 'Folk Theologies' they do not have originating creeds or documents and it makes it very difficult to trace their theological genetics. Hungus (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the many denomination issue, yes, but the presentations in Misplaced Pages articles should somehow make a note of that issue. E.g. that the statements made are from in books written by one specific denomination, etc. and not necessarily representative of all teachings. Regarding the overall quality of that article, even sections such as Eastern Orthodox and Catholic have problems, and those teachings are well documented. And there are empty sections there. History2007 (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Request for Comment: Removing "Handling of sexual abuse cases" from critic section

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Request for Comment: Removing "Handling of sexual abuse cases" from critic section. Somebody familiar with the topic may please give opinion/suggestion. Fazilfazil (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48

• Project-Class Christianity pages
• NA-importance Christianity pages
• WikiProject Christianity articles