Talk:Christianity/Archive 30

message: ===Christianity (43 votes, stays until October 14)===
:Nominated July 29, 2006; needs at least 44 votes by October 14, 2006
; Support:
# Chrisrivers 19:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:AID votes 

message: :Nominated July 29, 2006; needs at least 44 votes by October 14, 2006
; Support:
# Chrisrivers 19:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Christianity]] (43 votes, stays until [[October 14]])

message: If this article is written exclusively by Christians, there will be a tendency for bias. Also, only the good points about Christianity will be mentioned. The many factual and philosophical flaws with the religion will be ignored. Would it, therefore, be a good idea to have someone with a rational point of view keep an eye on the article to make sure it is not too one-sided.
Would it not also be a good idea to state what different groups' opinions are of Christianity?
:No.  A.J.A. 18:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The mere fact that an atheist considers himself to have "a rational point of view" as opposed to Christians shows him too biased to be a good moderator.  Goldfritha 18:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know it was written exclusively by Christians. I'm not, and I just edited the article, as I have also edited Sunni Islam, Buddhism and many others. Art LaPella 13:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this article be moderated by an atheist? 

message: Someone with access to a Catholic Catechism should tell us how much of the second paragraph of Christianity#Interpretation is a quote. The paragraph has 7 quote marks, so there's no way to pair them up. Art LaPella 13:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They should pair up now, let me know if they do not. Lostcaesar 14:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced quote marks 

message: The source,  specifically says that the missionaries have almost doubled in 20 years. It says nothing about the actual population statistics of religious practitioners in the middle east. Therefore, I think it is misleading to say that the source supports the previous wording in the article so I have removed it. (a side note, the source also says that the evangelical Christian population has gone up 20% in Latin America, but it doesn't say that there were more Christians than before, I guess Catholics could be converting, etc). --Andrew c 02:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a real difficuty in quoting growth.  Adherants.com cites many comments why it does not give that statistic.  Basiccally, everyone wants to be growing, and it is possible to bend the numbers too easily.  So I say leave it out. Lostcaesar 09:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle east growth 

message: AJ brought up an interesting point concerning references.  I think this is a sign of a greater problem.  We could use to have a standardized references system with this article.  What many articles have been working towards is to have a full bibliography of all sources used at the bottom, with specific references being notes with brief information that can be easily linked to the main bibliography, in imitation of the standard system used in published books.  Considering the recent attention the article has been given, especially its references, I think this would be a good goal of standardization.Lostcaesar 10:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Currently, the line reads: 
:"Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and others with a combined membership of more than 300 million baptized members."
I have a source here which gives the membership of this Church at 100,000.  First, is that large enough to be mentioned here?  If we mentioned every protestant group with 100,000 plus members it would go on forever.  Second, the 300 million members seems to be 99% GO and OO, but this is not obvious from the passage.  If we want to keep the Church listen then that is ok with me, but we will have to add it in the numbers to it specifically, I think, which I can do.  Also, would there be an objection to putting "Nestorian" in parentheses next to it, if we leave it in.  I know that I was really confused by Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Church of the East when I first read the article, and if it had just said Monophysite and Nestorian I would have known exactly when they were, as that is what history books use to name them.  I have been told that Monophysite is insulting to OO, but is Nestorian a problem for Assyrian Church of the East?  So, anyway, the questions are: (1)leave this group in or not, and (2) if yes to 1, add membership numbers or not, and (3) if yes to 1, add "Nestorians" as parenthetical information, or not. Lostcaesar 07:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assyrian Church of the East