Talk:Christianity/Archive 44

message: "Christianity began as an offshoot of Judaism,[5] and includes the Hebrew Bible, known to Christians as the Old Testament, within its canon"  Most christians/churhes use the new testament and not the old one any more, this whould be noted!--203.87.127.18 07:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Catholicism is the single largest Christian denomination with well over one billion members, and it still uses the Hebrew Bible.  All protestant denominations combined may actually come close to that number, and a great many of them too, use the Hebrew bible. So no, I do no believe your statement has any validity, nevermind the vaguery with which it is written. Guldenat 04:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Hello.
I have problem with enter to this site via GPRS.
Please, help me.
Thanks!
Best regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.122.19.61 (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  problem with enter to site 

message: The discussion of this topic isn't related to the editing of this article so I'm moving it to User talk:Lolahothot.
--Richard 16:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The number one cause of atheism 

message: I find that map to be extremely incorrect, Sweden over 90 % Christians? And I'm Adolf Hitler reincarnated, no, I swear, It's true! Seriously. Everyone born before 2000 are members of the church but just around 20 % belive that there is a God, alot of those 20 % are immigrant Muslims.
Just read the Sweden article and check it up, that map is highly incorrect.
I disagree. ALOT. Around 15%+ are atheist and the rest believe in a creator of some sort. Show me the stats.Philip Auguste 19:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The map

message: This page is supposed to be semi-protected (hence the little silver padlock in the upper right corner). So how did this edit by an anon user with only one other edit get through? --SigPig |SEND - OVER 07:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody may of forgotten to remove the padlock when unprotecting. Homestarmy 16:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. I thought that protecting the article made the little padlock appear. Now I see 'tis a little template thingy. Tks. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 23:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: that image is horribly inaccurate. it should be removed or updated immediately.
For instance, according to Wikipedia's Norway article, 92.5% of Norweigans identify as Christian. On the map, Norway is colored Orange. 
--Danreitz 21:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the image 

message: I just came across :Category:Christian holy days, :Category:Christian festivals and :Category:Liturgical calendar.  For an article like Advent , All Souls' Day or All Saints (that's just the A's), you will find all 3 categories on the article. So what is the difference between these three categories? What is the difference between a festival and a holy day? There is a lot of overlap and redundancy. It seems to me that, assuming there is a difference between a festival and a holy day, that they both should be subcats of liturgical calendar, and that all the articles should go into either one or the other (and the few articles that are neither holy days nor festivals could be thrown in the parent cat of liturgical calendar.) If there isn't a difference, then perhaps all 3 categories should be merged together. Anyway, does anyone understand the current categorization scheme? Could someone please explain it to me? If not, what do others think about categorizing things of this sort? Thanks for your input.-Andrew c 01:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess would be that not all festivals might necessarily fall on a holy day and vice verse, and not all events on the liturgical calendar would necessarily be both or either a festival or holy day per se. Homestarmy 02:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well my concern is that there is way too much overlap between these categories, and no defining factor that differentiates a festival from a holy day. I'll see if anyone can help me on wikiprojects, before I do anything BOLD (I'm thinking a merger, or removing categories that are not explained in the article for example if Advent doesn't use the word "festival", remove that cat). Thanks, Homestarmy, for your input.-Andrew c 19:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with category inquiry 

message: I would propose that a section on Spiritual Exercises be added under Worship and Practices.
The impact that certain spiritual exercises have upon a person's health is relative in today's world where the health of people in America is a major concern.  As a person grows in their Christian faith, they have an opportunity to impact their health in a positive way.
See article on Christian Spiritual Exercises.  I would appreciate any comments at this email.
Dale Fletcher 19:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ....That looks like 100 percent original reaserch, with no discernable notability. Homestarmy 19:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted it as blatant advertising. Original research indeed, and furthermore WP:NOT a soapbox. Fram 09:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of Spiritual Exercises to Practices Area 

message: I think the author needs to add the 40-50 million killed during the Soviet period in Russia.  It has been well documented by writers such as Alexander Solzhenitsyn.  The murderers of this period also need to be named from Leon Trotsky to Beria.  A good source is Stalin: Court of the Red Tsar.
:You cite nothing and do not sign. Highly suspect. Also the Soviet Union never exercised organized, government level persecutions of Christians for being Christians. The Soviet Union was athiestic by doctrine but as long as the people kept their faith seperated from their role in the communist society then they didn't have to worry about such persecution. Go find a source saying there were structured and organized persecutions against Christians in the Soviet Union. Also, 40-50 million seems rather high don't you think... even for the roughly 70+ years of the USSR. John 21:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a source is necessary, but "The Soviet Union never exercised organised, government-level persecution of Christians for being Christians" is simply untrue. Stalin's repression of the Russian Orthodox Church was brutal. Slac speak up! 22:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that was the Russian Orthodox Church in particular, and it was for political reasons. Jersey John 05:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um yes? That's still enough to disprove your statement above.  To reiterate: Christians were not free to practice their religion in Soviet Russia under Stalin; the converse is in fact true. There was a high degree of deliberate state interference in worship.  Of course the Orthodox were the main recipients of this, seeing as how the vast majority of Soviet Christians were of an Orthodox persuasion. Slac speak up! 22:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On that note, you might also want to mention Stalin's use of the Russian Orthodox Church during World War II to inspire morale and solidarity. 146.201.133.144 17:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persecution of Christians 

message: I think most of the links in this article need to go.  Most of them should be farmed off to daughter articles (such as the LDS link, the bible link, and so forth).  The further reading section is also a bit dubious, and feels like a disorganized hodge-podge.  In my opinion, it too needs to go.  Which links should stay? Silly rabbit 18:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not none.  A.J.A. 18:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I have cleaned up many of the links.  As per the Wikipedia policy on external links (see WP:EL), blogs and other such dubious sources are not proper external links.  I notice that some other editors may not agree with my characterization of the links as blogs.  I may have gotten it wrong, but the onus is on the editor inserting the link to indicate why the source is reliable and encyclopedic.  One of the links deleted, and then reinstated, was http://www.newadvent.org/.  As far as I can tell, this is a blog run by webmaster Kevin Knight.  Similarly, http://www.monergism.com is a blog run by webmaster John W. Hendryx.  Other removed links clearly belong to daughter articles rather than to the main Christianity article, or failed to establish relevance or suitable context.  Silly rabbit 20:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your failure to know the definition of "blog" is irrelevant here. So, too, is your apparent belief that if something is available somewhere -- anywhere -- else on Wikipedia readers should be compelled to go looking for it, regardless of how relevant to this article it may be and regardless of the fact they may not have been aware of it otherwise. Also you don't know what "insert" means; those links have been there for a long time. As the person making changes to a longstanding section, you should offer some explaination other than your risible claim that all links are cruft or mislabeling a site.  A.J.A. 21:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have deleted links in accordance with WP:EL policy.  We must still be able to attribute a site to a particular source of information, hence the moratorium on blogs and personal websites except in cases where the author is notable or the subject of the page.  You are free, of course, to re-insert the links.  But they need to be justified.  For example, who is Kevin Knight?  Who is John Hendryx?  Why are they significant sources of information about Christianity?  From the state of the external links section, it was clear to me that no one had taken a good look at any of them in a long time.  Silly rabbit 21:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More like no one wants to put their hand in that hornet's nest.  Sophia 21:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I see things are now finally moving in a more productive direction.  Hopefully no one will be "stung" too badly by this little dispute. ;-) Silly rabbit 21:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Please name a good-faith reason you would claim that a collection of resources including the Summa Theologica depends on John Knight for its credibility.  A.J.A. 21:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Summa and Catholic Encyclopedia are both linked (twice) from the body of the article.  Silly rabbit 21:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, one section of it is cited (once).  A.J.A. 21:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't really have a horse in this race, but I generally go with what is good for the goose is good for the gander. In this situation, you either open the door to all christian churches and their respective websites or resources or you close the door on all of them. To approve just a specific denominations resource page or even just "mainstream" links is POV. I will support either way you want to go, but you can not go halfway with either path; it is either all or nothing. Does that make sense? --Storm Rider (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Total sense - watch them squeak!  Sophia 21:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: (e/c) Yes, this is my feeling too.  And there is such a superabundance of material out there on Christianity that the litmus test for inclusion should be very strict.  Hence my initial reaction was to eliminate the links altogether.  None of them are of an exceptional quality, and they look rather silly next to the vast and well-organized list of references.  I know that sometimes lists like this can accrue during the normal editorial process as references that didn't quite make it into the article.  Silly rabbit 21:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is exactly what happens and I support your drive to include quality links as you are right that there are plenty to choose from.  Sophia 21:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The NPOV policy itself says otherwise. But you knew that.  A.J.A. 21:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You're already backpedaling, from "all" to "all major". Not that you'd ever admit I was right in the first place.  A.J.A. 22:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think A.J.A. is mixing up NPOV and undue weight.  Sophia 22:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem. WP:NPOV#Undue_weight.  A.J.A. 22:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what I mean then - NPOV does not mean excluding all non mainstream links but making sure that they are balanced with other views in a way that does not give undue weight.  Sophia 22:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They can't be "mixed up" if undue weight is a subset of the NPOV policy, now can they?  A.J.A. 22:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes I did add a clarifier, my objective was to clarify that not all 32,000 Christian churches needed to add a website. Some qualificatoin is warranted. Your complaint was the Catholic resource and another mainstream resource was acceptable; however, you were quite comfortable stating that an LDS site, (which I support did not need to be listed) was deleted that was acceptable. In fact,  you stated that all of them could be deleted. It is not a question about you personally being "right" and "wrong", if fact, it has nothing to do with you. We are talking about the article and links. If you care to just answer the question about how it is not NPOV, your answer to that question would be appreciated. Sometimes interacting with you is like interacting with porcupine; it is as if you seek an opportunity to be offended; it is tiresome. --Storm Rider (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't state anything about the Mormon link, let alone anything about "all of them" -- there was only one in the first place. But I suppose objecting to your fabulism at my expense is seeking out opportunities to be offended.  A.J.A. 22:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This is (or should be) adequately covered in the linked articles such as Jesus of Nazareth. rossnixon 01:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: The image :Image:Christianity percentage by country.PNG has been modified and now it is a mess. Please see the talk page of that image. --Mocu 15:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image